May 2, 2006

Evans officially out of race, former Evans politicial director Posedel endorses Sullivan

Lane Evans officially withdrew from the 17th District congressional race yesterday by sending a letter to the State Board of Elections. From the QC Times:
When the letter is received in Springfield today, it will pave the way for Democrats in the 17th District to finalize the race for a replacement candidate.

Don Johnston, the 17th District state central committeeman, said a nomination meeting will be held in Galesburg about one week after Evans’ official withdrawal. That meeting will be exclusively for the purpose of nominating and seconding candidates, with the actual voting by precinct committeemen done through a mail ballot sent out shortly after the meeting.

Only elected precinct committeemen will be allowed to participate in the nominating procedure and voting, Johnston said, despite protests from some county chairmen.

Johnston said he is hopeful the decision to bar appointed precinct committeemen from voting will not be challenged.

“There could always be such a thing, but we have to get this thing rolling and we believe we’re on sound ground with the rules,” he added.

After receiving the mailed ballots, precinct committeemen will have 15 days to return them, he said. Then, he and co-chair Mary Boland, along with the county clerks of Rock Island, Mercer, Henry, Macoupin and Macon counties, will count the ballots.

Johnston said the counting will be done in a public building and open to the candidates, supporters and the news media.

“It will be open. We’re not trying to hide anything,” he said.

Evans’ political director, Teresa Kurtenbach, said the congressman hopes to return to Washington before the end of his term.

“I saw him today and he said that he’s looking forward to going back,” she said. “The important thing is for his body to get back to speed.”
Meanwhile, former Evans aide Jerimiah Posedel has come forward and endorsed Sen. John Sullivan for Evans' spot. Ed Tibbetts of the Times got the story:
Jeremiah Posedel, who also was the downstate director for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s 2004 campaign, said Sullivan would best represent the 17th Congressional District, which includes all or parts of 23 counties.

“I’ve been to every single county in that district. I just thought John Sullivan was the best fit,” he said Monday. Posedel said that Sullivan, like Evans and Obama, is “above a lot of the political fray.”

Posedel, 27, was Evans’ political director from 2001-04, and is now a law student at the University of Illinois at Champaign. He sent an e-mail over the weekend making the endorsement. The Sullivan campaign is expected to announce it later this week, he said.

During a primary, the endorsement of an ex-aide might have limited reach. However, the people deciding whom to put on the ballot are precinct committeemen, the most active of political junkies, and most probably know Posedel through his affiliation with Evans or Obama. The endorsement also is striking in that it bypasses a former colleague, Evans’ district director, Phil Hare, who also is seeking the nomination.


At 5/02/2006 2:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeremiah Posedel a disgruntled ex-employee that doesn't live in the distric should pull a lot of weight. Hare had to let him go so now it is payback. I am sure that a job would come with the endorsement. Jeremiah Posedel will have to be run over by the machine along with the anti-womans right to choose Sullivan. Here comes the Machine and Phily Hare at the wheele to run over the top of these Anti-women shucksters.

At 5/02/2006 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed Tibbetts got taken to the cleaners! Since when is a 27-year-old U of I student worthy of a stand-alone article? Simply amazing.

At 5/02/2006 2:53 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

That's just because you didn't want that to be out in public, which is understandable.

But it's not Tibbett's fault or his getting "taken to the cleaners" at all.

Tibbetts himself explains well why it's noteworthy.

Posedel isn't just some college kid as you try to denigrate him as. He was a top aide to Evans for 3 years and worked for Obama as well.

It's certainly worth noting when someone's former aide endorses a candidate other than the one annointed by his former boss.

It's a story as well due to the fact that Posedel, if anyone, should certainly be intimately familiar with Phil Hare, and the fact that he feels Hare isn't the best pick is worth reporting.

There may be sour grapes involved of course, though it's hard to prove, and that too should be taken into consideration as a possibility.

It sounds like there's some sour grapes in the opposite direction as well.

But any paper and any reporter would certainly consider it worth a story, no matter what the case.

Even if it's something you'd rather not have out in print.

I'm all but certain this will lead to many comments smearing and bashing Posedel to come.

At 5/02/2006 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I would like to smear and bash Posedel for his anti-social behavior. We have the most celebrated politition in our local history and for this guy to hit Lane Evans when he is down is an insult. Lane was good enough for Posedel when he was collecting a paycheck from him. Now to turn his back in Lane Evans time of need is a travisty. Lane and Phil are the reason that Posedel was even able to go to school. I am ashamed of Posedel. Phil Hare'staff will stay by his side and you won't see any more of this stepping out of line.

At 5/02/2006 4:02 PM, Blogger Carl Nyberg said...

Are you saying that failing to "toe the line" on Hare is an insult to Lane Evans? If this is Hare's case for being appointed, he sorta sounds like a whiner.

At 5/02/2006 4:08 PM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

Jeremiah is talented guy and defiantly has a future to look out for. My guess is that Republican Sullivan offered him a nice cushy job when he gets out of law school maybe as a chief of staff or district director then the seat when Sullivan runs for Governor. I don't think it's a personal knock against Phil Hare but just a political move. Once again this is my guess and probably isn't too far from the truth.

At 5/02/2006 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeremiha is a nice kid, but his endorsement doesn't carry any weight. In the end, the endorsement reveals more about Posedale than it does John Sullivan.

At 5/02/2006 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You people just don't get it. Hare is Evans guy. Like a brother. It is an insult to Lane and to Hare. Lane is making a recovery but this is the kind of thing that hurts his recovery. For Posedel to do this is a kick in the ribs of Evans. Posedel is also turning his back on all of his old work buddies. These people would be devastated. I twould hurt them not just Phil and Lane. This is a dirty trick at best.

At 5/02/2006 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Lane read the above comment, he'd laugh his ass off. Absolutely bizarre and over the top.

At 5/02/2006 6:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, an "endorsement" from a former campaign worker and campaign manager doesn't merit a stand alone article. Maybe it that came from a state rep or mayor or county board chairman.
Tibbetts got played like a violin on this one.

and "youngdem503" may be right; posedel may have a career somewhere as an attorney, but just not in the 17th district anymore.

At 5/02/2006 6:42 PM, Blogger Huntooner said...

Sullivan sure doesn't represent my Democratic ideals, and I am personally shocked that Jeremiah would endorse a candidate who is Pro-Life and conservative in so many ways Lane is not.

I guess Jeremiah was just collecting a paycheck while in the employ of Evans, because this endorsement shows (at least to me) that he apparently doesn't share many of Lane's ideals when it comes to the issues.

At 5/02/2006 7:33 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

No, Mr. Huntoon: This endorsement speaks volumes because it shows that Jeremiah KNOWS Phil Hare only TOO WELL. Many of us know it, and now Jeremiah confirms it.

Get off this pro-abortion thing. This is not the North Shore. This is the 17th district and it is "middle of the road" and it is a district that depends on agriculture. Lane did not care to become well versed in agricultural issues and that is why he left the ag committee after one term.

Sullivan is more "Farm Bureau" material. And if he is pro-gun, that is even better yet! Is Sullivan electable? Probably moreso than the others. I used to live in Macomb -Anybody who can beat Laura Kent Donahue has something going for him.

In the end, the 17th was so badly gerrymandered, no matter who gets it, the other 2/3 of the district will feel alienated and sit on their hands come November.

At 5/02/2006 8:36 PM, Anonymous barnabus said...

Shocking that the 'life' issue is such a big thing (as nicodemus states). The fact is that indeed this is the midwest and most people are not pro-abortion. Secondly, it is an issue that a Congressman has little effect on the issue - it is a Supreme Court issue, and of they overturn Roe vs. Wade, it becomes a State issue.

Sullivan beats Zinga by a wider margin than any other of the candidates, as he will carry RI County, Adams, Hancock, McDonough - well, actually, every county. A RICO Dem will allow Zinga to carry (at least) Adams and Hancock, maybe McDonough and a few of the smaller counties. Any Dem beats Zinga, but Sullivan will win with the same Evans numbers of 2004, maybe more because of Adams, Hancock and McDonough.

At 5/02/2006 9:37 PM, Blogger Dissenter said...

While I would certainly not describe it as Ed Tibbetts being "taken to the cleaners," I do share the observation that Jeremiah's e-mail does not merit a significant news story. I like Jeremiah and I respect his opinion, and I suppose I acknowledge the significance of his endorsement of Sullivan notwithstanding his prior work with Hare. But I remain somewhat surprised that this e-mail "endorsement" merits that much ink.

At 5/03/2006 10:27 AM, Blogger the underground said...

you stated; "A RICO Dem will allow Zinga to carry (at least) Adams and Hancock, maybe McDonough and a few of the smaller counties"

How right this statement is! With all due respect to Lane Evans, he only recieved 37% (on average) in Adams County. Sullivan has won Adams county and would do so again. Hare on the other hand does not have Lanes credentials and would be lucky to reach 30% in adams county.

On the Posedel situation. He has traveled and worked campaigns in much of this area of the district. It is a smart political move to endorse the most electable candidate for all counties involved.

If you guys keep banging the abortion issue, it may get Hare in trouble in this portion of the district. People take their guns pretty seriously in this portion of the district. Where is Hare on that issue?

At 5/03/2006 11:55 AM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Hey Youngdem503,

"Defiantly" has a future? Is that as opposed to "Compliantly" or "Amicably" has a future?

Was that Freudian or a typo?

At 5/03/2006 12:17 PM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

First off agriculture is hardly a first rate topic. To say that the Democrats need the agriculture vote is a joke, the farmers are going to vote Republican no matter what. As for the "were in the mid-west, were against choice" BS last time I checked 60% of the American public supports a women’s right to choose. Democrats need to start running as Democrats, the two people that are running like Democrats are Phil Hare and Mike Boland. Both stand up for the working man and hold progressive views, not just on the right to choose but others as well.

At 5/03/2006 2:07 PM, Anonymous Phil Crenshaw said...

This isn't about pro-life or pro-choice to me. I'm from the southern part of the 17th, and this is about ethics.

I've met Jeremiah, worked with him, and thought he was a cool guy with a future. He did one thing that really rankled me, though. While on Cong. Evans' payroll, he approached Mike Boland about a legislative scholarship to law school--and got it. And this while the Evans campaign agreed to continue paying him full-time while he went to law school as long as he continued to help.

I've heard two or three versions of the story, and each mentioned Lane going absolutely ballistic when he heard about it. Hare, as the local AA, appropriately got to deal with the situation, and that explains perfectly well the endorsement from Jeremiah to Sullivan. I may be naive, but the part that got me was a congressman's aide approaching a state legislator--someone who could benefit from the congressman's help--and asking for a personal favor like that. At the very least, that's way tacky, and borders on a real ethical breach.

Jeremiah was such a good kid, with a lot going for him. It's really disheartening to see him pulling this sort of, well, crap.

At 5/03/2006 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil Crenshaw, or is it Phil Hare??

I know how Phil Hare campaigns and this is pretty typical -- spreading around a nugget of information that he thinks will make people mad. Usually, he uses college dems to take the word to the street. It's exactly what he did when he asked us to talk about Zinga's poor voting record last election.

In this instance, he's taking the Posedal incident of asking for a legislative scholarship, making it sound criminal, then spreading it around. It's already on some other blogs. Actually, this blog business will make Phil Hare lazy: instead of actually talking to people and getting them to spread these little "nuggets" -- he just puts them on a blog. Let's see how it works for him.

Am I the only one who thinks Phil Crenshaw is long for Phil Hare?

At 5/03/2006 7:37 PM, Blogger Huntooner said...

nicodemus - Perhaps you misunderstood my comment if you felt it was in support of Phil Hare, Phil's not my "horse" in this race for sure.

I believe there is a candidate who is pro-choice and pro-agriculture, who also combines a strong track record of advocacy for Veterans and groups like volunteer firefighters as well. Like Sullivan he's been elected in a majority Republican district. His resume is longer and more impressive than Sullivan’s, and his name recognition district wide is higher as well.

Mike Boland is my candidate in this race, make no mistake! He’s the best choice to beat Zinga and represent all the people of the 17th district.

At 5/03/2006 8:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Huntooner, where does your boss stan d on the proposed Hog Plant.

At 5/03/2006 8:59 PM, Blogger Huntooner said...

For the record - I can personally confirm that Jeremiah approached Mike Boland about a legislative scholarship to law school--and got one.

I'm not sure I understand why the Evan's people would have problems with that, because we gave J.Posedal the scholarship based on his own merits, and with no strings attached.

If Phil disciplined Jeremiah over that action, that's more than unfortunate, and I feel sorry in that case for Mr Posedal.

At 5/03/2006 9:06 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 16:39

If the name was Phil McCracken, then I'd be suspicious.

At 5/03/2006 9:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so you give a white kid from a private high school in Chicago Ill. a scholarship, but you revoke a scholarship from a black girl from below the hill in East Moline. Last time I looked UTHS was in the 71st, and Niles H.S., well is in Cook County? or is it DuPage?(or was the revocation of this scholarship before your time with Squish? Call the Atwaters, tell them about the scholarhip for J Posedahl people don't forget this kind of thing.

At 5/03/2006 9:29 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Yes, Huntooner I know that you have to support your boss. I know Boland and he has been in politics a lot longer than Phil Hare. Boland has a long history. He was a delegate for Carter. Boland ran for State Senate twice and State Rep once before he made it and he made it on his own, without any machine backing. He used his own meager school teacher's salary. People can say what they want but Boland always perservered. He once told me that his high school football coach complimented him that for a short guy, he kept coming at'em and hitting hard.
Another thing is that Boland was willing to stick his neck out. Can't say that about Phil Hare. He and Evans wouldn't sneeze without asking Jacobs if it's okay.
Boland supported the old Cutback amendment and the Township Petition which no other politicians would touch with a 10-foot pole. Issues like these were the RIGHT for taxpayers, but not always politically popular. Boland always told me how some of these so-called "progressives" are a spineless bunch indeed. And he was right.
I just wish Boland would have stayed "pro-life" like he used to be before he got elected.
So yes, Huntooner. I know your "horse" and even with his faults, he would be a stronger candidate than Hare. You better ride your horse all the way to the finish line....because if the machine gets their way, you might have a rougher ride down the road.

At 5/04/2006 7:33 AM, Blogger Huntooner said...

Nicodemus :)

Thanks for the intelligent return comments.

I'm pretty realistic about what's going on around me, having "cut my teeth" as a local director for Citizen Action. I started with that organization back in the late '80's, so I knew Mike Boland as an activist before I knew him as a candidate.

My joy is helping the senior citizens who come to our office for help, there's hundreds of them who depend on Mike Boland for assistance with state programs like the Circuit Breaker. I'd guess our office does as much "casework" for seniors as any in the state.

So, if and/or when my employment is finished with Boland, I wont be looking in the political arena for employment, instead I'll move to my real love - the social services sector for a job.

I'm with Boland because he really is there for the common man. He's fought hard for senior citizens and for Veterans, and no matter what the nay sayers wish to say, no one will ever take what we've done for people away from Mike Boland or myself.

Even if things get rough on down the road, I can sleep well at night knowing that! :)

At 5/04/2006 1:16 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Having met Sullivan personally last month and then having asked him about his issues and thoughts,and hearing his response---- I told Sullivan perhaps he and the people would be best served if he really wanted to run for Congress -- that Sullivan should pull out papers as a Republican candidate for Congress in the 18th District against LaHood where he resides.

He didn't have a good answer to that suggestion.....

Guess Sullivan is not really sure what he is-- except he is prolife, progun, probusiness, and barely able to relate to any labor issues -- and aginst national healthcare because after all he has everything HE needs in life except the big title he covets.


At 5/04/2006 2:03 PM, Anonymous havinfun said...


Isn't pro-business and pro-labor the same thing? Antis-business seems to be anti-labor. When IH, Maytag, etc., etc. (business) is not profitable, it seems as though labor is the first to get hurt?

Why do we insist on taking sides on a labor-business issue - they are on the same side!

Please correct me if I am wrong.

At 5/04/2006 3:16 PM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...


I think the pro-business is pro-labor argument works well ONLY when there's an "honest-broker" balance between the business and its workers (which isn't usually the case). Labor unions fight for better working conditions and wages that are commensurate with the success of the business. How all that happens is very much a balancing act. On one end of the spectrum are Chinese laborers in sweatshops and migrant farmworkers in California. On the other end are airline pilots and auto workers.

Look at IH. If I remember right (and I was much younger then), IH was basically forced out because the unions wanted too high an hourly wage. The company was forthright enough to say and show that if they paid $24/hr (in ealry 80's dollars) they'd fail, but they could survive at $21/hr. The unions forced the issue, the company gave in, and as predicted, they closed a 1 million sq ft plant in Rock Island. Where'd the jobs go? Overseas? Immaterial really, because the jobs vanished from the QC.

Airline pilots enjoyed the good life for many years. Very few folks are qualified and current to fly the big jets so the talent pool was smaller than the demand. Every few years, they'd up the ante. Salaries and pensions got bigger. 9/11 and current fuel prices have driven United and Delta to Chapter 11 (reorganization). So within Chapter 11, the companies have basically erased the pensions that 30-year retired airline captains expected to have for life. Their entire retirement plans vanished.

Even at both ends, there is a need for unions. There's also a need to understand when the unions are asking for too much. There is a balance. So to make a hard "pro-union" stand or "pro-business" stand is not realistic, but it makes for good politics.

By the way, in the airline case mentioned, I'd proposed that Congress pass a law making it illegal to wipe out pensions in under Chapter 11 and force companies to file for Chapter 7 (liquidation) for relief from pensions. That's for everyone (GM, IBM, etc.) across the board.

At 5/04/2006 3:48 PM, Blogger diehard said...

Im correcting. You are wrong! In the America of yesteryear of lets say-- John Deere. When he prospered his employees prospered.
Henry Ford, we he prospered his employees prospered.
To George Bushes and Bill Clintons free traders, when the corperations prosper no one prospers!!!
More money for the wealthy jack-sh-t for the working man!

At 5/04/2006 4:01 PM, Blogger the underground said...


"and barely able to relate to any labor issues"

Is this why I recieved an endorsement in the mail today from the boilermakers? Seems Sullivan was the first one to come to their aide in the lockout in Meredosia.

At 5/04/2006 4:10 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Huntooner: If you are interested in social services, have Mike introduce you to a gentleman by the name of Vince Thomas, the retired director of Project NOW. He has a heart of gold and can can teach you everything you want to know about non-profits and social services.
Citizen Action, you mean IPAC? We can agree that was a scam. (Look where Bob Creamer's at now!)
So you knew Boland before he was a rep? Hmmm. That's odd, he never mentioned you once. But hey, welcome aboard!
Tell me something, Mike, when Madigan made Boland bury the hatchet with Jacobs (or appear to), why didn't they promise him something in return? He should have expected to be slated for this office or something else. Mike is shrewder than that.

At 5/04/2006 9:00 PM, Blogger Huntooner said...

Nicodemus :)

I didn’t sit in on the private meeting between the Speaker and Mike Boland, but I was there for the public meeting where he and Mike Jacobs agreed not to oppose each other, so I can’t comment on anything besides what’s already known by others on that account.

I know Vince Thomas very well, I hold him in quite high regard and consider him to be a personal friend. Vince and I go way back since he was on our board of directors at Citizen Action, and his daughter Rachel once worked for me there. I’ve already learned more than a little from Vince.

It’s a small world huh! ;)

When speaking about Citizen Action's past, we shouldn't forget that Congressman Lane Evans was a board member, Phil Hare was once a board member, heck I think Doug House was even on their board for a time. In fact, Phil's wife Becky was the receptionist at the Rock Island Citizen Action office when I started there. ;) The ideals of the organization were right, even if Bob’s leadership was questionable when it came to finances.

We’re getting pretty far off topic, but I’d go so far as to say that Bob Creamer probably got what he deserved. On the other hand, his wife’s a highly respected member of Congress and many of my former work partners from Citizen Action are still hard at work trying to make Illinois a bit better place to live. It was an interesting experience, and I met lots of folks there including my favorite politician Paul Wellstone, and I also met my wife there, so in the end there are no real regrets. :)

And finally, I didn't say I was a close personal friend of Mike Boland's before he was elected, but I'd met him and knew him and respected him. My direct involvement with Mike Boland began when my door-to-door canvassers passed out literature for him back in '96. Sorry for any misunderstanding, I tend to type my blog entries in quickly and from the heart, so I suppose I could work on being a bit more precise in my language to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

At 5/05/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Sullivan and Schwiebert both have the makings and platform to be excellent REPUBLICAN candidates.

Neither one belong on the list of Democrats to choose in this office.

NEither one of them has shown that they help other Democrats or vote to support the causes we Democrats find important. In fact, they are both pretty arrogant and full of themselves. Again, good for the Republican primary ballot - NOT the Democrat ballot.

Sorry fellas, you can't have it both ways. Just go be what you are and join in the party you belong -- the RED state Republican party!!

Jeremiah Posedel should just follow them right along. What a huge dissapointment he is to me... and I thought I knew him well. Does he think he is south of the Mason Dixon line now or what??

At 5/05/2006 11:07 PM, Anonymous Tacky said...

For the record. I recently ran into a friend in Chicago. He is a former Rock Island resident. When I informed him that Mark Schweibert was a candidate for Lane's seat, he was astounded. " How can he do that! Mark's a Republican isn't he?"
I told him he was not. He still seemed flabbergasted. " He was a member of the same civic club as me. I never would have guessed."
Sue Golden, his campaign manager, had to write a letter to the Editor, because she got the same response from several commiteemen she called." Mark a Democrat?"
She says she has to laugh when she hears that. She recalled how as a kid he swept the steps of a Democrat office.

At 5/05/2006 11:52 PM, Blogger the underground said...

"NEither one of them has shown that they help other Democrats"

Sullivan has helped Democrats all over his district. Where do you come up with such a notion? If you are going to make statements at least be accurate. You look foolish for slandering a person who's reputation and values are beyond question.

At 5/06/2006 10:45 AM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

Reputation as a Republican, because that's all I've heard about Sullivan yeah he'll show up to Democratic fundraisers, you have to make money some how. Sullivan is not a conservative Democrat he is a conservative Republican I wish people would start voting on the issues not on the guys folksy charm. The one thing that irritates the crap out of me is when people say that Sullivan is "Kennedy like" no he's not Kennedy's have good Democratic values and ideas (and addictions). Sullivan is nothing close to Kennedy like.

At 5/06/2006 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...




At 5/06/2006 2:52 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

The CAPS LOCK key is over on the left of your keyboard (above the Shift key) Try to keep it off.

ALL CAPS are annoying and the internet equivelent of yelling. That's usually not too cool.

You get a pass this time, but usually, ALL CAPS earns a ticket to the discard pile.

At 5/08/2006 7:25 AM, Anonymous havinfun said...

Schweibert is every bit as 'left' as Lane Evans. As a Republican, and someone who has heard his long-winded comments, I can attest to this. He will be a tax-and-spend liberal that will make Lane Evans proud.

Personally, other than his willingness to appreciate the need for development in the District, he scares me.

At 5/08/2006 11:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I have been telling people for months, Mark Schwiebert is a very liberal Democrat. As liberal or more liberal than Lane Evans. No doubt about it.

At 5/09/2006 12:54 AM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

"other than his willingness to appreciate the need for development in the District, he scares me." -havinfun

Two good reasons to vote for Mark. Schwiebert gets my vote.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home