Home » Featured, Headline

Roeser Recommends Brady, Kirk, Rutherford, Enriquez, Fox, Kim

Thomas F. Roeser 26 October 2010 19 Comments

FOR U. S. SENATOR—Mark Kirk (R). I swore I’d never vote for Kirk whose principles are on a swivel and whose beliefs if he ever had any are indistinguishable from his personal expediency. Imagine a guy who votes for Cap and Trade in the House because it suits the political temperament of the Libs in his North Shore district but who promises to vote against it if it comes up again in the Senate and he’s there (which it probably won’t since it’s all but interred).

What did Edmund Burke write to his constituents in his Letter to My Bristol Electors? I will vote not as you want me to…but from my conscience. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to defeat me at the next election. Kirk is a nominal Republican, not conservative, not libertarian. He is a political survivor—as constant as fluid mercury in a glass. He once told me: I know you disagree with me on social issues, Roeser—but you must agree with me on national security issues. I said I understood.

Then the public tide turned against the Surge in Iraq and Kirk formed a House caucus to oppose the Surge. When the Surge proved out, it seems Kirk is on board again.

During the primary campaign I contributed $1,000 to Kirk’s Republican opponent who lost. In the general campaign it was discovered that Kirk who has a very laudable military resume in the Naval Reserve, exaggerated his exploits. He said he was a manager of the Situation Room in the White House but in reality he was far down the pecking order of staffers—maybe the guy the Joint Chiefs sent out for coffee. Why the hell will I vote for him then?

Because his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias, was a certifiable banker to the Mob—a proven case. The choice then has become voting for a chronic exaggerator and resume-puffer or a mob banker. Why won’t I vote for a third party candidate? Because he has absolutely no chance of winning. Originally I said I would not vote for Kirk which meant I’d vote Libertarian—but that was before Giannoulias was nominated and before we knew about Giannoulias’ horrific record. Voting for a third party candidate who can’t win would be a vote that would redound infinitesimally to help Giannoulias go to the Senate. Also there is a chance Republicans will control the Senate and if they fell short by one Senate vote or a handful of them as appears likely, I could never forgive myself.

This is a case which Aquinas would call the principle of double effect illustrated in his defense of homicide to spare other lives…such as killing a berserk mass murderer before he kills more. Voting for Kirk would reward duplicity but might also support goodness since a change in public temperament and voting habits would cause Kirk, a wind-sock, to vote right. And I conclude not voting for him and ipso facto helping Giannoulias get in would be irredeemably worse. Moral: Voting is far more than not deviating from the perfect; it is summoning up the responsibility to make an imperfect choice. Voting Libertarian in this instance would be bailing out and dodging the responsibility to the nation by summoning up the guts to make an imperfect choice.

For Governor of Illinois—Bill Brady (R). I supported to the limit of my ability Kirk Dillard for the nomination. Dillard has not just the philosophical credentials but also the experience to have been a first-rate governor. But a late entry of an elderly cancer-victim, a former state Attorney General, with a popular name who gleaned justifiable sympathy by enduring a life of personal familial tragedies complicated the mix. The former AG is a board member in good standing of a public policy committee known for knee-jerk espousal of higher taxes, the Council for Tax and Budget Accountability. His latter years as AG were marked by his moving Leftward on gay rights. I suspect without being conspiratorial that his entry was a ploy by Republicans and some Dems to defeat Dillard. What happened is that whoever “they” are, they outsmarted themselves and got a real social conservative, Bill Brady, nominated. Now Brady may very well become governor showing that in politics maneuvering can be too cute. Hence I am happy to vote for Brady and his lawn sign is in my yard.

FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL—STEVE KIM (R). Of South Korean birth and extraction, Kim is woefully short of money in opposing Lisa Madigan but he is an inestimably better lawyer, a former senior vice president of Time-Warner Cable and a special assistant to Gov. Jim Edgar. His support of basic constitutional principles of law and experience in business make him highly if not superbly qualified.

FOR SECRETARY OF STATE—ROBERT ENRIQUEZ (R). He was born in Honduras and graduated from the U. S. Marine command school, Enriquez is far better than the aging, slipping Jesse White who has been cashing in on the Tumblers too long.

FOR CONTROLLER—JULIE FOX (Libertarian Party). She’s a very bright CPA without a partisan axe to grind who passionately believes in latch-key abstemious government leading to a consolidation for efficiency of Treasurer and Controller. Far preferable to the Republican candidate, Judy Baar Topinka, an old warhorse longtime pro-abort Catholic who is a regular rider in the Gay Pride parades blowing wet kisses to the crowds…who has been on the public payroll since 1980, having served with maximum pragmatism in the state House, state Senate, State Treasurer and now…because she can’t stand to miss a payday from the taxpayers, board member of the RTA.

Topinka is noted for refusing as State Republican Chairman to support Sen. Peter Fitzgerald when he was determining whether or not to run for a second term—her failure to do so being a stunning departure from tradition and clear notice that she was opposed to his signal efforts to make the party responsible by bringing in reform U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation).

FOR TREASURER—DAN RUTHERFORD (R). Excellent legislator with a superb business background, articulate and forceful with encyclopedic knowledge of state government.


Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer.  The recommendations and endorsements are Tom’s alone, and do not reflect any endorsement of the Chicago Daily Observer, which does not endorse candidates.


  • Windy City Commentary said:

    I’m not surprised that the old has been, has gone ahead and endorsed Kirk. You think you are so practical, Tom. Hope you enjoy watching Kirk on future “Meet the Press” episodes knocking everything you supposedly stand for. I’m sure he will soon become a regular guest on your boring Sunday night show.

  • Fred said:

    This makes me sick. Mark Kirk is horrible. The guy is anti-liberty, he has voted over and over to ban guns so much so that he has been endorsed over Gianoulias be anti-gun groups. The guy voted for thought crime legislation, he supports abortion with no restrictions, he voted for Cap and Trade and the worst to come out of the Bush administration. He even says he just wants to “fix” Obamacare, and opposes the right of states to enforce immigration law. What do you gain? You must like digging the hole you will be buried in or paying for the club that will be used to beat you. Voting for Liberal Republicans never gets us anything but called extreme as they are used to marginalize us. I support Mike Labno %100 he is a working man, a father, and a patriot. He really believes in liberty and the constitution and God knows that Kirk has proven he does not. Do what you like but I’m tired of feeling dirty voting for crap establishment Republicans who hide their way to election day.

    I hope all real conservatives and liberty minded people visit Mike Labno’s facebook page.


  • Windy City Commentary said:

    Meanwhile, Tom will go back to bashing Cardinal George for any compromising the Cardinal may do, yet we are supposed to take Tom seriously when he endorses Kirk. Tom, you could have secretly voted for Kirk, and not endorsed anyone. Your endorsement on this seldom read blog, means nothing in terms of swaying votes, it only reinforces that you are part of an aging combine media. You and Dumont. On Sunday, Dumont lent credence to the lie that many people oppose Obama simply because they are racist, and then you brought up Clarence Thomas’ wife completely out of left field. What, do you think you’re John McLaughlin?

    Maybe if you would have used your radio show last year before the primary, to yell from the rooftops what a fraud Kirk is, we wouldn’t be in this position. Alas, you probably planned a show or two around the latest opinions from Eric Zorn. What a joke.

  • Vote Labno for US Senate said:

    Good pick on Julie Fox for Comptrollerhttp://www.foxforcomptroller.com/, maybe she can be on Political Shootout on Sunday. She ran in 2002 and got 4.5% of the vote, most by any Libertarian Party in Illinois ever. Hopefully she can beat that by quite a bit. She’s an accountant, which is what the Comptrollers office needs. Not another career politician seeking her 5th different office they have run to be elected.

    For US Senate it’s not even a contest for anyone Center or Right, Mike Labno is the best candidate. He’s right on most issues of Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, property rights, repealing nationalized health care, no bailouts, sound money economics.

    Kirk, Gianoullias, and Jones are none of these things and Kirk’s record is supporting Hate Crimes, receiving Brady Handgun Conrol, NARAL 100%, Cap and Tax, bailouts, prescription drug, the list goes on and on. Alexi is a mob banker and has the same views and hasn’t seen one program that has created a 1.5 Trillion budget deficit.

    For Treasurer I’m going to stick with Dan Rutherford, his race will be closer and he’s been reliably Pro-Life and Pro-Gun.

    Unfortunately for Sec of State and Attorney General those races have been decided, so go with Josh Hanson http://joshhanson2010.com/ for Secretary of State and Bill Milanhttp://www.bill4ag.org/

  • Mike Buck said:

    Yes, Mark Kirk is “horrible” but “you gotta do what you gotta do” and Tom Roeser’s “Thomistic” argument in support of Kirk is correct. Getting a Republican majority in the Senate, even a tenuous majority, would deal a stunning psychological blow to the Left, and Mr. Labno, however virtuous, ain’t gonna win nohow.
    Besides, a few minutes ago I received a robo-call from another “old has been,” Pat Boone, addressing me by my first name, no less, urging me to vote for Mark Kirk. How can one reject that kind of blandishment?
    Ladies and gentleman of the Right,loosen up a little bit. As the late Paul Powell once said in a different context, “I can smell the meat a cookin.'” The latest polling indicates that the undecided voters are beginning to break to the Right in a big way, here and nationally. No victory should be assumed, but if this election is shaping up to be the massive rejection of the Democratic Left that I think it is, it should be a hell of a lot of fun to watch the bolshie’s squirm and slither their ways back home. And plenty of non-establishment, liberty loving candidates will be assuming office in Washington and the States as a consequence of this election. There will be plenty of time and opportunity in the coming months to support thme and hold the Rino’s feet to the fire.

  • Windy City Commentary said:

    That’s the problem Buck. You think that the left is going to suffer some psychological blow because Kirk wins. Only weak kneed conservatives seem to be suffering the psychological blows these days. The Dems won 30+ seats in ’06 and the GOP stepped into a padded cell, and they still think Obama is going to moderate. Fat chance. Meanwhile, Rahm Emmanuel will run unopposed for mayor, while guys like you an old Tom take your afternoon naps and say nary a word about it. Tom will fall in line when it comes to Rahm too. “Makes for good radio on Sunday night”, he’ll say.

    Kirk will be the Dems Republican buddy for 6 years, if he wins. Make no mistake about it. Some psychological blow.

  • John Powers said:

    Hmmm WC…I don’t know how this newspaper could be more outstanding in it’s opposition to Rahm Emanuel, with TR at the helm.

    Emanuel is a vile, insider trader who has been a disaster as Chief of Staff and would be a disaster as mayor.


  • Disgusted said:

    So you’ve flipped and are now supporting Kirk who is pro-partial birth abortion. Unbelievable. No, actually I do believe it.

    Do what you want, just please don’t embarrass yourself by calling yourself a conservative anymore. And get off your high horse about being some kind of super Catholic.

    I’m done with this blog and all things Tom Roeser. I’m sick of the sellouts and flipflops. It’s no wonder the “conservative movement” has continued to move backwards for 30 years in this state.

  • Nancy Weber said:

    I am so disheartened to read your endorsement of Mark Kirk, the baby killer, for Senate. What would St. Paul say to you?

    Certainly you deliberately left out the part about Kirk being a supporter of partial birth abortion to sway the people. I also believe this omission of ‘murder’ in a political endorsement, implicates you in the murders of the innocents once he is elected. I am no lawyer, theologian or Pharisee, I’m sure you can spin it any way you want, but in my book, you are an accessory to murder just as a Cardinal who denies Canon 915. I am begging you to retract this endorsement as an act of retribution and to seek absolution.

    Even the National Right to Life, an organization dedicated solely to the protection of the unborn, can see that Mark Kirk would be more of a detriment to our nation than an asset. Choose life Mr. Roeser, plant the mustard seed, have a little faith in God! God told us to Choose Life, not the lesser of two evils, not the party that will give us the majority in the senate. Choose life so that you and your descendants will live.

    How is it that we have lowered ourselves to trust a person who can vote for the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion and say, AMEN, that this is the person who I want to govern me? How does one think of the child, fighting for his life, only to be stabbed in the head, brains sucked out, and give your ‘AMEN’ to it? What have we become? This is pure godlessness, can we sink any lower?

    How does one say, as a Catholic, I believe in God, the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in the same breath, but, the Catholic, pro-life politician does not have a chance so there fore, I will vote to the baby killer because he is more articulate? Kirk was against the surge, then for the surge, Barabbas, Christ, do we want someone who has his wet figure in the air, seeing what way the wind blows to make our laws? Where is the heroic faith in God that the men of this country used to have? What a country of wimps!!! Where is the fight for what is right? What has the USCCB done to us? We’ve become blinded by sin I’m afraid that we can’t even see that voting for a killer is suicide.

    No, Mike Labno didn’t have the millions of dollars that the Republican GOP does to run a worldly campaign. No, he was counting on people doing the right thing. You know, once you sell yourself to a political party, Mr. Roeser, who are they going to give you to choose from next time around? Is there any difference between Adolf and Kirk? Is there anything worse than a pro-abort, pro-homosexual Kirk? We just have to look at history to see what happens to a nation that caves in on principles and lifts people who have no qualms KILLING THE INNOCENT!

    Look at the pro-abortion republican Judy Biggert. They can’t get rid of her either! She’s like a bad rash. Mark Kirk would be the same thing. You’re not choosing the lesser evil, you’re making a deal with the devil! We A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for homosexuality and child sacrifice. Kirk is not even a fiscal conservative, voting for cap and trade! I even heard him say that he would not even try to overturn Obama Care!

    This election is bigger than just the candidates. We are electing candidates who represent us, a God fearing people. Mark Kirk is NO representative of any of my Catholic values. This is a battle to the end. The battle of principalities and powers. I once had great faith in you Mr. Roeser, a Quaker Oats veteran like my grandfather was for over 50 years. I thought you shared that same philosophy and faith. Life was more that just their cereal at Quaker Oats, it was their motto. We have nothing without it. John 10:10

  • Matt said:

    Who will you vote for if not Kirk? Sounds like either way you’ll have proabort, progay stooge. If this means a one seat majority for the GOP with Kirk, that’s our only choice.

  • Bill Baar said:

    @John Powers One thing about Emanuel is he’s the one guy who could really spark a Chicago Tea Party / GOP revival.

  • Windy City Commentary said:


    How many people read this site or listen to Roeser’s show? Probably a very small number. Judging by the number of comments on this website (I think we may have broken a record with 11) Roeser has very little influence for the conservative movement in Illinois. Is it because their are very few conservatives in Illinois. Nope. It is because guys like Roeser back down and take an action such as endorsing Kirk. WLS is heard throughout the entire state. Are their effective conservatives on this station for the LOCAL programming (excluding Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc.)? Let’s see, Cisco Kodo (wimp), Roeser (hot and cold), Don Wade (ratings addict).

    I don’t see a whole lot of anti-Rahm on this site or on Tom’s show. It may show up once in a while but it’s not like how Obama is covered on Rush. One day Tom will write something about Rahm, and then get stuck on some other niche for the next month. Meahwhile he will give a voice to many lefty Chicago media types on his radio show, choosing to have a political shootout, where Tom serves as the old wise moderator with the status quo continuing on as each show ends.

  • John Powers said:

    As you like WCC.

    Aside from forming the nucleus of Blagojevich’s impeachment and being the first thing John Kass (and Todd Stroger)reads every morning, I suppose CDOBs has very little influence.

    Whatever you say…


  • Nick said:

    Tom Roeser, You have told as that you believe both Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias would not make a good U.S. Senator. I completely agree with that. But why, then, would you choose to vote for one of them anyway? No one should ever vote for someone that they don’t want in office. There are two other candidates: Mike Lambno and LeAlan M. Jones. You should choose one of them that you want in office and support them. True, the odds are against both of them, but with the support of people like you they could win, or at least gain more support in future elections. Never vote for the lesser of the two evils.

  • Dan Kelley said:

    Any political movement endorsed by WCC ought to be named “the Party of One.” No one else could pass his ideological purity test.

    While I agree that various nominees are less than perfect these are the candidates that are on the ballot. With all of his flaws, Kirk is a better choice than Giannoulias. There is not other viable alternative.

    I do not believe that Illinois has elected a third party candidate to any state office in decades, possibly a century (dating back to the Progressive Party when a few state representatives were elected), so that proposal is little better than throwing away your vote.

  • Windy City Commentary said:

    Sure Dan, I am so radical to be voting against a Republican who voted for cap and trade and supports partial birth abortion. Just me, myself, and I in that category. Kirk’s movement is the party of 1. I am voting for Bill Brady; he passed my “strict” purity test.

  • John Powers said:


    Wouldn’t that vote have been better spent in the primary? It was pretty open this year, and Pat Hughes was a good candidate…and Pat Hughes has now strongly endorsed Mark Kirk.


  • Kyle said:

    I voted for Hughes is the primary. If he wants to go ahead and play the game and endorse Kirk, he can. I put signs up for Hughes back in February up until the last hour. So, I tried; but just because Hughes lost, doesn’t mean I’m going to endorse Kirk. Kirk winning the primary, doesn’t make him any differnt, he is still a big government liberal. I have thought about the Kirk conundrum for a good month now,(whether to vote for him or not, and how bad will it be with Alexi) and I am convinced that the country and definitely the Republican party would be better off without him.

    I am telling you. If he wins, he will be the go to guy for the national media to prop up liberal Republicans and compromise with Obama and other Democrats. Although for Kirk, it wouldn’t really be compromising, because he agrees with them on most details of all issues. Kirk will try to marginalize conservativism. I guarantee, you and Tom will want him out of the Senate in a year or two, but unfortunately, he gets to sit and grow in wealth and corruption for six years, building a huge campaign war chest, before the voters ever have another say.

  • Joshua Zambrano said:

    It’s not just Kirk’s dishonesty, but also his use of the same voting tactics to knock off 3rd party challenger Randy Stufflebeam from the ballot that Obama used in 1996. He’s like another Obama, just a Republican, and as pro-choice as they come.

    I for one will write in Stufflebeam’s name and vote for the best candidate, so I can know afterwards I voted for the right choice, not the allegedly lesser of 2 evils – how we got both Bush and Obama.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.