BY DAVE PARRO
It's always fun to watch the political maneuvering candidates do long before an election in an attempt to craft their public images and head off criticism.
Take Rick Lawrence for example. The Aurora alderman who has feuded with Mayor Tom Weisner for the past three years now says he'll run a clean and respectful mayoral campaign that focuses on the positive.
That's convenient because Lawrence has supporters who will do his dirty work for him.
Alderman Stephanie Kifowit, who also is planning to run for mayor, has also been a vocal critic of Weisner in the past. But she has made a point since starting her second term last year of distancing herself from the controversial Lawrence. While the two political contrarians certainly have their supporters, it's going to be tough for either of them to shed their reputations as dissidents.
That's especially true for Lawrence. If he honestly wants to stay positive, he can't claim to take the high road while allowing his supporters to be petty and vindictive. While he has been trying to distance himself from such negativity, it's not enough to just look the other way. He must condemn it and publicly state that some of the dialogue taking place in the community and online is destructive.
Here's an excerpt of an editorial running in Friday's Beacon News:
Lawrence has been particularly critical of the mayor, but he launched his bid with comments that didn't even directly mention his political nemesis. In fact, to his credit, he made a point of saying he will run a respectful, positive campaign.
But Lawrence can't easily get away from his rabble-rousing past. He will be judged not only on how he conducts his campaign, but also on how he acts as alderman. That has often included feuding with the mayor and other aldermen. And unfortunately, some of his supporters have encouraged a dialogue in the community that has been divisive and sometimes cruel.
Both Lawrence and Kifowit need to look no further than the City Council to find an example of a mayoral campaign gone wrong. When Alderman Richard Irvin ran against Weisner in 2005, Irvin's campaign was hijacked by overzealous supporters. It likely played a role in his loss.
Many of those same people are now rooting for Lawrence. If he's serious about being Aurora's next mayor, the alderman has to convince voters that his campaign isn't just a continuation of his feud with the mayor.
I haven't seen anything negative from either Mr. Lawrence or Ms. Kifowit. This blog post is much more of an attack and offensive than anything I've seen from anyone. Seems Dave Parro is being petty and vindictive for some strange reason and I'd like to see Dave Parro condemn Dave Parro for obviously trying to create an issue out of thin air.
What on earth is Dave Parro talking about? Has Parro been to city council meetings? If so, he would have seen the mayor be extremely rude and misbehaved toward Mr. Lawrence and Ms. Kifowit and the public.
I agree it seems Parro is the one being petty and vindictive and cruel without any basis.
Stop trying to make this into a feud or attacking supporters of any candidate. Everyone is free to have their opinion from how they support someone to if they want to "throw the bum out" but Parro's personal attacks are irresponsible.
Dave, your post almost makes it sounds as if it's a cardinal sin to disagree with the mayor.
You know, it wasn't too long ago that Karen McConnaughay was considered a dissident and rabble-rouser as leader of STOP. Now she's Kane County Board Chairman and cruising to her re-election.
I think you're trying to say that there's a right way and wrong way to disagree with the mayor. Please provide specific examples of how Lawrence and Kifowit have gone about it the wrong way. Merely saying that they were vocal critics doesn't cut it.
RESPONSE FROM DAVE PARRO:
I'm not saying Lawrence doesn't have a right to disagree with the mayor, and I'm not saying his criticisms at times have not been warranted. Nor am I saying that Weisner hasn't played a role in this feud. But let's not pretend that there isn't a personal feud going on between the two and that it didn't play a role in Lawrence's decision to run for mayor.
What I am saying is that it's disingenuous for Lawrence after three years of fighting with the mayor, casting the lone dissenting vote time after time and contributing to a blog that constantly accuses the mayor of being a crook without evidence to all of a sudden pretend his campaign has nothing to do with Weisner. He can't have it both ways.
Dave, I have to agree with the others and say that it's you who are being petty and making trouble for no apparent reason, going as far as to attack the "supporters" of candidates in a cruel way.
If you are going to print an editorial that attacks people like that, you should start writing an apology now or you are no different than what you seem to be criticizing.
As for Alderman Lawrence, you obviously are being misled or misinformed. He's doing this for the future of his children, not because of Tom Weisner. If I vote for Rick Lawrence, it will be because I think he can do a better job and I can trust him.
I would strongly encourage you and your readers to listen to this audio clip from the recent WBIG Radio Interview of Mr. Lawrence:
Audio Clip Link
I may not have provided that previous audio clip correctly, so here it is again.
Audio Clip Link
I do not call what Alderman Lawerence has done in the past 3 years fighting with the mayor. I call it standing up for us, the taxpayers. This is what I expect from someone who is or might be representing me, not just going ahead and doing what he wants, whenever he wants. If you are reading the other blog, which apparently you are, you would have noticed that Alderman Lawerence has not posted in a very long time, as he always used his name in his postings. The other blog has the right to state what they feel, just like what is going on here. Did it ever occur to you that many of us might have felt the same way about the mayor without reading that other blog?
An excerpt from the Daily Herald. By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald Staff Published: 2/29/2008 4:18 PM | Updated: 2/29/2008 10:06 PM
Lawrence bashed Kifowit's primary platform initiative to hire a city manager to run the city's day-to-day business.
"That's the first time I've ever heard someone run for an office or apply for a job by saying they're not qualified to do it and want to hand it off to someone else," he said.
Kifowit disregarded the comment, saying she's poised for Lawrence to "run a slanderous race."
"I'm in my second term as an alderman and I have a master's in public administration that makes me more than qualified," she said.
Weisner was unavailable for comment Friday and has not said whether he will seek re-election.
Dave,
Your post finally confirms what I have only spectulated in my mind for some time about you and the Beacon News. You are way off base with your comments. To attack the supporters of any campaign is not only unacceptable, but I would go as far to say almost childish. This is the same culture that Tom Weisner has created in the City government. You owe an apology to all the people who have a fundamental right to support whoever they wish to for this City's next mayor. We have men and women fighting for this right and yet you feel the need to slander those who have this freedom. An apology is due and this request should not only be coming from your Editor-in-chief but the people who read this paper. Perhaps maybe you should not be writing the opinions page while this campaign is waged since you clearly are biased and unable to seperate fact from fiction.
MATT Z
Stating obvious facts is not bashing. I contend Lawrence is the only alderman with the guts to stand up consistently for the taxpayer. The others cower in fear to the mayor and his special interest cronies.
We need more like him. Kifowit occasionally acts in the best interest of the taxpayer as does Irvin but they cower and make political calculations on their 'opinions'
Lawrence tells it like it is period all the time consistently.
RESPONSE FROM DAVE PARRO:
Anonymous,
Everyone certainly has a right to support the candidate of their choice. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their tactics for expressing that support.
Also, my job as opinions editor is to have opinions. I appreciate your right to disagree. That's one of the reasons we offer this forum.
Dear Dave,
What is up at the you? With the Beacon? First this blog post and then today the editors "Our View" piece. I know many in my own social circles are asking why so much animosity towards Rick Lawrence? He's the only "stand-up guy" on the council in my humble opinion.
I've been to many City Council meetings and have been quite impressed with his knowledge of the many issues at hand and his fiscally conservative ways....many others that sit on that council look less than interested and are merrily "puppets" to the mayor. At least with Rick we get someone with accountability who actually challenges the mayor on behalf of his constituents and the Aurora Tax Payers!!
You're bias is quite evident.......and shameful reporting to scandalize a man who gives honorable service to this city!
So Mr Parro, what are the "tactics" that have been used by Alderman Rick Lawrence's supporters. Please enlighten us to what you know and why you have stereotyped all of them into a singe category. Please give concrete examples and then let us know how those of Weisner and Kifowit differ.
It is really obvious that the powers that be at the Beacon do not care much for Rick's style. Here is a guy that asks the tough questions, that is a rock solid fiscal conservative, that challenges the status quo, and is not a kiss up to the Mayor. Sounds to me that Rick is just what Aurora needs.
Funny when you find out who your readership is made up of, huh? I only have one idea as to where to look for these "supporters" of Mr. Lawrence you refer to. That is the openline blog. From what I can see, and trust me, I've looked, there are three sources for news in this city that I can tell. The Beacon News, The Daily Herald and Openlineblog. Only one of these sources consistently publishes controversial comments and that happens to be Openline.
I cannot say that there is a "feud" going on between this blog and that blog since I have never seen Openline mentioned anywhere in the Beacon, but there is certainly some animosity coming from one side. Seeing as you felt the need to criticize Lawrence's "supporters" and only one location clearly has comments from them, it is clear you are at least aware of the other blog and likely that their is some animosity coming from your side as well. In fact, it appears that you wrote this blog entry and editorial in response to and in criticism of that other blog.
I will be the first to admit that some of the comments that have been posted on that other blog have been inappropriate and even offensive at times. Not to mention horrific to try to wade through. (Oh yes, please have someone proofread your posts before they make it on the blog, "tough to for either" - tough for either, "such negatively" - such negativity. Did I mention this is coming from an engineer? Not exactly our strong suit.)
Let's allow the mayoral race to take shape and see how the candidates respond to one another. It appears as though the mudslinging has begun from a rather inappropriate place: the editorial board of Aurora's hometown newspaper. The election isn't for another year. Isn't it a little early endorse a candidate who has not yet announced his intention to run? I know, you didn't "endorse" him, but to refer to the two candidates who have announced their intentions to run as political contrarians who have a history as dissidents is to announce your disdain for them.
Let's let the candidates question each other a bit and let the city hear what they have to say before we make up our minds. It is not good for power to go unchecked. It is always a good thing to have people who will speak up for those who have no voice.
Rick Lawrence is my alderman, and I think he is on the side of angels regarding Planned Parenthood. I read the Open Line Blog, but I find it disturbing that those who run that blog and support Lawrence do so under the cover of anonymity. They called my dad a crooked croney and suggested that the controversial Bob Vaughan hiring was nothing but a payback for my dad's support of Mayor Weisner. The Mayor wanted Bob as his chief of staff, but it would have hurt his pension if he was a City employee. They made a plan that allowed an experienced public servant to serve the City by being a Hipp Temporary employee. Was it a loophole in the pension law? Maybe. But does it mean my dad's a crook who was part of a pay to play scheme? If you believe that, you don't know my dad.
But if you believe that, you should put your name on your opinion. That's why I use my name over there. Anonymous posting is poisonous (I've been guilty of that poison but won't do it again). I think Rick Lawrence should say whether he approves of his supporters attacking members of this community anonymously. Alderman Lawrence knows who runs that blog, he enjoys their support, and that fact calls into question Rick's ability to govern in a manner that isn't filled with bile. If he lets that poison serve as his vanguard for his run at Mayor, why should anyone believe that he would serve this community without an anonymous posse who will bad mouth those who disagree with him?
Must say I come down on the side of Dave Parro on this one. Lawrence is far from the 'savior or Aurora' and champion of the masses, IMO.
I find him pompous, a bit arrogant, self serving and with a rather over inflated ego. Grand standing, tossing out vague inferences or allegations without proof or facts re: corruption ,etc are hardly the hallmarks of a worthy candidate, let along public servant or leader.
I've seen this before w.r.t. Lauzen, Oberweis and their camp respective followers. Sometimes seems similar to the genuflecting followers of Ron Paul...one of him and his camp of robo-worshippers is far more than enough, thank you very much.
Climbing down from the Vox Populi Podium
Amen, 14th Dist Voter. Also, thanks to Dave for opening up this conversation.
I haven't seen OpenlineBlog call Weisner a crook. They have presented facts and shown all the coincidences that seem to magically happen with Weisner, letting us all connect the dots for ourselves.
When a contractor like Cordogan Clark gives tens of thousands and ends up being "hidden" in the most expensive city contract (police station) in history, getting millions in our tax dollars, then Weisner's son gets a job with them, I do see something crooked but all OpenlineBlog has done is give us the dots to connect.
As to Mr. Hipp, you might be overreacting. I don't remember them calling your Dad a crook either. I think they call those who donate to Weisner who gets some benefit cronies. Did your Dad donate to Weisner and then receive any taxpayer funds as part of this arrangement on Vaughan? If so, then it makes sense to question that. Wouldn't you if it wasn't your Dad?
That pension scheme was very offensive to many people in Aurora. It says for certain people, we bend the rules and find loopholes depending on who it is, not what is right, the policy or rules. Bob Vaughan is Weisner's campaign guy and they did that specially for him and then it cost $15,000 extra per year on top of his salary, if I recall. I'm not saying your father's firm did anything unlawful or wrong, but I am saying it looks bad. All city employees and staff should have the same standards applied.
OpenlineBlog isn't fluffy about Weisner. They hit the issues head-on and force people to think about what is going on.
They forced the facts out in the open about the drive-in theater, they have caught the Weisner administration in various mistakes and or lies and I think they've forced the Beacon to report on things that would not have been known if not for OpenlineBlog.
As to being anonymous, I don't blame them at all. Aurora is a small town atmosphere where people are very vindictive and go after people personally. If they put their names out there, that would lead to attacks on them instead of discussing the issues. I see stories in the Beacon often written by "staff" with no name, too. I've never seen anything in OpenlineBlog written by them that hasn't turned out to be true. I think they do a great job and I wish the Beacon and OpenlineBlog would find a way to work together.
About Rick Lawrence, I think Parro was unfair to attack him and call him "disingenuous." He's the most honest elected official I've seen in years. He's too honest to really be called a politician. I will vote for Rick Lawrence because I can trust him to do the right thing with our money and putting this city on track.
Jack, this was the statement that I was referring to (and you're right the word "crook" is not in there so I'm sorry for that):
http://tinyurl.com/25ce95
"Maybe the rest of Weisner's other cronies like Wally Mundy, Wegman Construction, John Cordogan, Dicky Hawks, Bob Vaughan, David Hipp and many others can visit HomeTown and they can have a Parade of Cronies."
I think if you are going to say things like that, you should be in the open.
In the few brief encounters I've had with Alderman Lawrence my perception of him is also that he is very self serving. His continual inferences of allegations without proof or facts is very underhanded. He has on many an occasion inferred how the rest of the City Council does not have the ability to think on their own. That they are mere pawns of Mayor Weisner. What power our Mayor has. I have gone to Openlineblog and was shocked that Alderman Lawrence has actively participated there. Openlineblog is a hate site. It's very obvious that its sole purpose is to discredit Mayor Weisner and the City Council by any means possible. Even the people who run the site must be ashamed of it as they will not state out in open who they are. I did support Alderman Lawrence with my vote in 2005. The lack of character that Alderman Lawrence has displayed in his three years in office has certainly made me sorry that I voted for him. I am hoping Mayor Weisner will run again as I feel he has done more to move our city forward than any previous mayors since I have lived here.
Mr. Parro,
To me, that includes the Aurora Beacon. Do you think that people consider the Beacon unbiased? Does unbiased journalism and truely "news" reporting even still exist? For all the Beacon's posturing, your true colors are there to see.
In the past week, the Beacon ran it's opinion article that questions the future of Lawrence's political campaign. You also ran a "fluff piece" on Mayor Weisner about his bout with cancer and his loving wife.
Hmm, let's see. Whom will the Beacon endorse in the future? Will they be fair?
Perhaps as fair as they where with the decision to endorse Foster over Oberweis. Who's opinion matters the most anyway on this, the editor, the readers or the owner of the Beacon?
I recall the news story when Oberweis announced that he was running. His announcement, referrenced at the top of the front page as a teaser, was off-set by the front page story. It was a news story, dug up from somewhere and printed on that day, about a Batavia man having some trouble with his ice cream business. The headline was Freezing out the Ice Cream Man.
How telling.
You say of Lawrence's supporters:
Well, that's convenient because Weisner has supporters - the Aurora Beacon - who will do his dirty work for him and make him look good!
RESPONSE FROM DAVE PARRO:
Roger,
Considering the fact that the Sun-Times endorsed Oberweis and we endorsed Foster, I think it's pretty clear that the editors here made that decision without corporate influence.
Dave,
Thanks for your response. Then it looks like that the endorsement of Foster was the decision and opinion of the Beacon's editors. There are three people who are the editors? Or are there more?
This does not negate the fact that the Beacon News has it's own political spin on these stories, and has a difficult time reporting news objectively.
This all in my opinion, but I don't think I'm along.
RESPONSE FROM DAVE PARRO:
Roger,
The editorial board is made up of the seven editors listed on the Viewpoint page every day, including me and Mike Cetera, who also contributes to this blog.
I disagree that our endorsements influence our coverage. The reporters work their beats and write the stories on their own, and an endorsement decision is not made until late in a race. The decision to endorse Foster, for example, was not made until about 10 days before Election Day. Thus, it couldn't have influenced the news stories because the reporters had no idea who we would endorse.
Dave,
Do you assume the seven editors do not have their own political views?
RESPONSE FROM DAVE PARRO:
Of course everyone has their own political views. But the fact that there are seven people with different views means we have to come to a concensus on an endorsement rather than relying on the same political view to make a decision every time.
Openline has never called Weisner a crook? Well, let's see what Google has to say....
Weisner is a crook and no one should be surprised by his unethical behavior. 7/7/05 2:46 PM; Anonymous said... I'm curious. How much are Meg Gorecki and ...
openline.blogspot.com/2005/06/mystery-of-meg-gorecki.html
Don't forget, Weisner himself goes outside Aurora to do his shopping and avoid Aurora's high sales taxes. ... This guy is a bigger Crook that Dick Daley! ...
openline.blogspot.com/2006/06/letter-to-fishwrap-weisner-forces.html
In fairness, Clark Kent, those are the commenters (again annonymous) calling Weisner a crook. Instead, the people running Open Line says that Weisner has cronies who particpate in pay to play and that Pat Fitzgerald is likely looking into this and that indictments could be coming, etc.. http://openline.blogspot.com/2008/03/weisner-corruption-its-all-just.html
Of course, that's the moral equivalent of calling him a crook, but by stopping short, they can get defensive and say that they haven't actually called him a crook.
To the Beacon and Dave and Jeffy Ward and all of the editorial hacks, give it up, you will lose. Your bias has been so apparent that you have become somewhat of a joke in the truly informed circles. Small minds, small world view, that is all you offer. Piss off.
Stephen Klaske
Dave,
Why do you continue to work for an organization that is obviously bias and just plain wrong? Your paper continues to attack Oberweis for an offensive campaign while giving Foster a complete pass. We all know that Foster played the same game yet you and your guest commentators from the Sun (like Jeffy Ward today and Carol ‘Whacko’ Marin on the 13th.) continue to call Oberweis a wacko or unelectable. By doing this you show your fear that Foster just happened into his position and is not what this 14th district wants. Us, who are in the know, look at your paper as a gage for what the progressive democrats want. And, as we all know, another name for progressive democrats is Communist. Wake up and get yourself a clue Dave, Jeffy, Carol, and the editorial board of the Beacon, we are not fooled. You are a joke.
Steve Klaske
Aurora, Illinois
The Beacon's credibility has really gone from bad to worse, but their attacks on everyone from Alderman Lawrence to Jim Oberweis to OpenlineBlog are all examples of hypocrisy.
I found it interesting 2 days after slamming Rick Lawrence for being positive, they wrote a fluff piece on Weisner and what appears to be an exploitation of cancer for sympathy. Weisner is the same person who used a picture of his son in a wheelchair on a fundraising envelope. And he solicited contractors that do business with the city for a $5,000 per table wedding anniversary fundraiser.
Weisner's pay-to-play is serious and it's obvious. If anyone thinks these conributions from companies are just for fun, they are fools. This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to a federal prison.
Andrea,
I agree with your post; a fluff piece should be in the Voice section and not necessarily front page news. Where was the news in that story? If the Mayor wants to exploit free publicity for the purpose of staging a re-election campaign on the basis of his health; I am seriously concerned.
Furthermore, I am just concerned with the Mayor's view. He is in remission; and cancer can come back. It has happened in my family. Just because you are cancer-free today; does not mean it is forever gone.
Mr. Klaske,
Seems you are rather misinformed for one who espouses to be among the select few of 'those in the know'. Quite the diatribe of rhetorical vitriol in only a few select lines. Somehow I doubt Wm. F. Buckley would be favorably impressed with your grasp of conservatism or linguistic style in the discourse of debate.
Perchance you were just having an 'Arthur Jensen' moment...given the recent turn of events in past election cycles and changing demographics. But then again, there are always a few throwbacks who cannot seem to evolve nor change to meet contemporary times and issues facing our society.
As to your rhetorical straw man postulations concerning 'progressive democrats':
Perhaps a brief refresher on the history and tenets of the Progressive Movements in this country would be in order:
Shocking! Clearly nothing but a cadre (or in more contemporary parlance, sleeper cells) of 'card carrying fellow travelers' out to destroy and overthrow the principals and heritage of our Republic.
You may wish to practice your Sen. John Yerkes Iselin impersonations, am rather sure it may come in handy as we approach
the November elections
I believe you summed up your positions rather tellingly:
Small minds, small world view, that is all you offer.