A Different View on Rauschenberger

Dan Proft writes in:

Archpundit,

You’ve completely missed the point of what Steve meant and, frankly, said because, unlike you, I was in the room for the Aurora Beacon News sit down.

He did not blame Topinka for recruiting Keyes…how silly. Everyone knows Topinka opposed Keyes even at the end when the choice was Keyes versus Barthwell.

The blame lies in throwing Jack Ryan under the bus without a plan B…you’ll recall the Hobson’s Choice of Keyes versus Barthwell came after SIX WEEKS of the ILGOP’s inability to find an acceptable candidate to replace Jack. The issue was jumping without a parachute which is not usually the example you want set by your ostensible party leader.

And since, again unilke you, I was actually at the epicenter of the draft Keyes movement, I can say your characterization of Steve’s role is inaccurate.

If the nominee had been Barthwell, that logic still holds up fairly well.

regards,

dan proft

Dan said he was having problems with posting comments–there are technical problems right now so I apologize to Dan and everyone else who is having a problem. The simple explanation is that a new build for the underlying site build is not integrating with the databases. I’ve been assured it will be fixed shortly, but don’t know the time frame.

Dan and I agree on virtually nothing, but I do appreciate his comments.

Where Dan and I begin to disagree is over what happened with Jack Ryan. Ryan wasn’t thrown under the bus–he played a game of chicken with the press bus and lost. He knew what was in the file and would give reporters little winks and nods that it wasn’t that bad. When it did hit (as was obvious it would–the Trib had a solid case), he tried to play it down with party leaders including Jim Edgar.

I argue the blame lies with Ryan and no one else (including Proft and Pascoe who I often jab). Then you had a series of party leaders who refused to get in–remember, even when Edgar declined that took a couple days. Hell, it took a couple days to figure out if Dillard was going to run.

In terms of the version of events at the Courier News, I think Dan’s primary issue is with the Courier News. I believe the context in the story leads one to believe he’s criticizing the choice of Keyes. If that’s not the case, I’ll take Dan’s word for it.

Dan indicates that the version I present of how the draft Keyes movement is incorrect–well, then the version Rich Miller and Aaron Chambers have presented is incorrect as well.

Given Manzullo is the primary source for the Chambers article, either Manzullor or Chambers is wrong.

4 thoughts on “A Different View on Rauschenberger”
  1. Democrat-leaning pundits are obsessed with Alan Keyes. The major damage to the Republican Party occurred months before Keyes came along. Keyes was an unfortunate blip on the screen. The real culprit was George Ryan and his ethical deficiencies, which knocked the GOP off the ethical high ground in Illinois. That is the way Republicans used to win elections in Illinois, because, even back then, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in this state.

  2. So the real news here is that Dan Proft is working for Rauschenburger? Why, because he’s qualified?

  3. I didn’t make myself clear in my comment and I’d like to clarify.

    I didn’t mean the unqualified bit as a dig on Rauschy, I think he’s great, and I’ll say that as a Democrat.

    I think the unqualified part is squarely on Mr. Proft’s shoulders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *