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.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:
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.”
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.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 5/02/2006
24 comments
24 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Lane read the above comment, he'd laugh his ass off. Absolutely bizarre and over the top.
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.
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.
Hey Youngdem503,
"Defiantly" has a future? Is that as opposed to "Compliantly" or "Amicably" has a future?
Was that Freudian or a typo?
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.
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?
Well Huntooner, where does your boss stan d on the proposed Hog Plant.
Anon 16:39
If the name was Phil McCracken, then I'd be suspicious.
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.
maybesomeday,
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.
Havinfun:
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.
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.
yOUNGDEM,
i HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU. BUT KENNEDY WAS NOT A WILD EYED-LIBERAL. HE WAS A CONSERVATIVE DEM, AS IS SULLIVAN. WHAT DEM TODAY WOULD INVADE CUBA?
COME ON KID, READ YOUR HISTORY BOOK. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT PHIL TELLS YOU, HE'S WRONG ON THIS ONE!
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.
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.
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.
"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
<< Home