Mark Drobnick
Mark Drobnick

Wise up, Waukegan!

"Wise Up, Waukegan Voters:  You're Being Used!"


{ Gag Order:  Keep Mark Drobnick Quiet --- View from the Batter's Box }


Mark Drobnick for Waukegan City Clerk


I hear from the City Club and the Latino coalition that there's no time; there never is.  That's why I don't talk publicly (as City Clerk candidate) at their forums so far. 


Just yesterday (April 02) I was at another one, occupying upholstery so that the talking heads in front, didn't have to speak to empty seats.  We shall see, as the forum sponsors are holding out to me the carrot on a stick, whether I'll be able to talk to voters on the 6th or 7th of April, about two days before election day. 


By the way, after same event, while networking, I met Raúl, Spanish radio host, who professed to be eager to invite me to be interviewed on the air.  I gave him my card.

Then I saw a sour puss politico or two latch on to him during the same interlude, who didn't seem to share our enthusiasm.  Now, I am still waiting for that phone call from Raúl, which hasn't come yet.  Was there something they said to him to dampen his spirit?


Returning to coming weekend:  there's the impact issue, also.  Will the duration and dynamics of the venue be of a quality sufficient to make note?  Or, will it be too little, too late?  The smart money is betting on the latter.


You see, something's rotten in Denmark, as Hamlet decries.  How is it that my opponent has been talking publicly now for two months, since 9 February 2013?  How does he get the added advantage, the handicap, that they help him market himself to voters for sixty days, while I, on the other hand, only get two days? 


Is this right?  Does it make sense?  No, and,...yes.  It is very, very wrong, and it does make a lot of, mucho, mucho sense. 


They are prohibiting me from talking.  If this isn't illegal, then there's something gravely wrong with our country.  Now, listen what's afoot here.


How unfortunate for democracy!  It's a monumental injustice to candidate and voter alike. 


I ran for this position eight years ago, and, I'm still waiting for a chance to say something.  The voters have the right to hear the candidates talking, to know clearly for whom to vote, and, not be denied to them the opportunity to know the truth about everybody.   


Last time, they gave me 30 seconds or a minute in the now defunct Madison Avenue Restaurant basement, before a crowd of 50 or 60 business people and politicians.  That's what my seven and a half thousand dollars in campaign expenditures earned me, in this town where my grandparents settled 110 years ago.


So, when I saw the primary campaign postcards two months ago, with a zipper over the policeman's mouth, to keep it shut like the "Silence of the Lambs" villain, I think a useful message was being transmitted to everyone.  In this town, Waukegan these days, political discourse never cuts to the chase.  Essentially, nothing ever gets said.  At least, not when these players are involved.


What's the status quo worried about me talking, anyway?  That I might say something?  Answer:  the worry is that my talking could get me elected. 


At the first open forum some two months ago, the primary winner told the state senator to shut up.  Now he continues with the same tactics.  He has moved forward so that his associates and he now do the same to me. 


You go attend a few of the mayoral forums and they become, soon enough, a broken record, the same thing played over and over again.  So, to vary things, why not let the city clerk and treasurer candidates address the voters too?  (We'll get to this more, when you see radio, equal time addressed by me, infra.) 


As to the other executive branch members, sometimes it is these very same types who become the next mayors.  Recent examples are city clerk Bill Durkin and treasurer Dan Drew.  Getting the town to know these adjuncts too, then, is a very good idea.


Let's talk about the timing.  Even if Democrats predominate in this town, how can "independent", third parties who sponsor these forums, be blind to the de facto favoritism which comes down, in practice, when they give my opponent the opportunity to talk at the Waukegan, NAACP building on 9 February 2013, prior to the Feb. 26 primary?  I was told then:  "[N]o, these are only primary candidates for city clerk, speaking today.  You have to wait.  You'll be coming up in the general election." 


It wasn't for lack of time, since, three of the six clerk candidates were absent.  Only three talked:  the Dem primary winner, Kilkelly, and Reed.  There was plenty of allocated time left over to have easily given me the chance to talk! 


"There's no time?"  There was plenty of time!  How bogus is this!


Which means we should all be astonished when they throw this same reasoning out the window only two weeks later, at the Immaculate Conception Catholic school.  On 24 February 2013, they give two non-primary candidates (same status as me), but, the difference being, mayoral, a platform to speak to the public then, under their auspices.

Explanation?  Well, here's what's coming down in the orchestration of all these calendar logistics, maneuverings and acrobatics.  Or, should I say, shenanigans? 


The forum sponsors are orchestrating and paving the way for the Democratic primary mayoral and clerk winners, to have maximum exposure and publicity, and unfair advantage, over everyone else, including yours truly, me.  They are making it easier for them to win, and for me, not to.


My opponent has been provided forum after forum for public speaking, since 9 February 2013.  On the other hand, I will have the chance, finally, to make my first public address of note, on the Saturday or Sunday before Tuesday election day. 


This comes after mail-in and early voting have been completely finished, signifying that 25% of the electorate have already cast their vote.  This means that nearly 25% of these votes are non-alterable, even if voter has change of heart after learning more about me. 


So, basically, all these votes, one-fourth of the total votes, are cast by people who had the chance to hear, only my opponent.  He's been granted a monopolistic, unfair advantage as to public access. 


That sounds like something from the 70 years of one-political-party, monopolisitic rule extant in Mexico, until the recent, in modern times, arrival of their Presidente Vicente Fox.  These two opponents, talking about the two policeman candidates, remind me of somebody.  Is that Nixon?  I guess so!


I was ballot box judge for ten elections in Lake County, IL, not too long ago.  I am telling you how this vote casting works, based on inside knowledge and experience.  Further, the whole set-up is patently unfair and engineered to favor the predominating, political party's getting its personnel into elected office. 


The game is grievously slanted.  No way is the playing field level.


On 23 March 2013, the Northbrook, IL, Spanish, radio station interviewed the Democratic city clerk and treasurer candidates, along with all the mayoral candidates.  I only heard about it a few days later.  No one invited me.  No equal time was given me.

Apparently, Mr. Taylor was slighted, too.  Isn't this a way for the station to lose its FCC granted, broadcasting license? 


Should they care?  When are they going to have me on their program?


As for my opponent and public forums:


1.  NAACP, Waukegan, February.  He was invited & spoke.  I was invited to witness & denied access to speaking.  Speech & networking were assets he gained.


2.  Homeowners group from Gurnee, Feb.  His running mate was invited.  My opponent probably attended as guest.  I was neither informed nor invited.  Networking opportunity.


3.  Warren Township Democrats, Wildwood, March.  He was invited; I was excluded.  Speech & network opportunity.


4.  City Club primary forum, Feb.  He attended as running mate's guest.  I, wife, & daughter, were booted out, as soon as we made it inside.  Networking.


5.  City Club general election forum, Mar.  His running mate absent.  He may have attended, as another clerk candidate had made it into the previous meeting, without a pre-designated host.  Networking.


6.  Have there been other events?


So, the dynamics of how local sponsors structure their forums has already given my opponent a minimum, head start of six public functions from which I have been excluded, counting the radio interview.


I run as a political candidate, so we can have better government.  You'll never get better government abiding by how these guys manipulate the political process.  On the contrary, you're only inviting tyranny. 


The Dem mayoral candidate's daughter, the one who I talked about in "Keep Politics Out of our Schools" here, about telling the parents to put political signs in their homes, is quite confrontational and bullying.  Where did she learn that?  From her father? 


She saw me in the forum, on Tuesday, April 02, and she wanted to fight with me, about my putting in my website, what she said in school.  The question is:  If she doesn't feel good or if she is mad about what she said,  then why she said it in the first place?  Doesn't she know that was inappropriate?


Birds of a feather, flock together.  Several weeks ago, the corner neighbors were on a daily, door hammering, surveillance campaign against my household for their dislike of same, above mentioned report.  Apparently, someone at school had said something to them that made them nervous.  When the neighbors' harrassment got no response they tried another tactic.


As I was walking at end of block, they surprised me in their vehicle.  Both adults wanted to talk to me and were highly agitated and irate.  Husband got down into street from vehicle and challenged me. 


He hurled a bunch of four letter expletives at me --- where have we seen this technique before? --- and virtually assaulted me, i.e. threat of violence.  This was as his young children listened and looked on.  I turned away to avoid physical altercation and he followed me for a bit.


Next, both sides were on phone to police.  Officers were soon on scene to restore peace and interview.  Now, the family has a restraining order in place against it to stay off our property.  So, that's what their association with my opponent(s) has done for them.  

Waukegan voters:  is this what you desire?  Please make your selection carefully.  Because I guarantee, you're gonna get what you are not expecting, if you vote for candidates with fraudulent procedures.


And, to further exhaust the theme of deprivation from equal time, let's talk about the newspaper.  I have by no means followed the opponent's paid advertisements here, but, for example, here are two of them. 


Recently, what some detractors deride as "the seven dwarfs", showed the Dem mayoral candidate and six alderman lined up as like minded individuals, of sorts.  It was full page, color.  Previously, there had been another, similar as to format, in the primary season segment, promoting the exec wannabes. 


These ads cost $1,500 each.  So, at least $3,000 is spent at the newspaper, just on them.


The disservice to the public by this politician, is that he's manipulating the press.  In this economy, I don't know a lot of businesses with surplus cash laying around.  And, I imagine the local newspaper is no exception. 


He is manipulating them to the detriment of good democracy.  That's not too surprising; otherwise, good democracy might get in the way of his getting elected.

Continue reading because this is just the beginning!


So, the letters to the editor I write, about four of them recently, never make it into print.  And, the news report on the clerk race, for which I've already been interviewed, a non-ad, news story, has yet to make it into print.  [Up-date: finally, it's published, four campaign days before election Tuesday.]


This seems like an appropriate place to inject as well:  "you can run, but you can't hide".  On 13 March 2013, I challenged my opponent to a debate.  My publication of the message was to two reporters, the newspaper they work for, and, another newspaper. 

I have never had any response to this request.  Predictable also.  The game is, avoid giving publicity to Mark Drobnick.  Debating him is contrary to game plan.


Now you may ask.  If Mark Drobnick for city clerk, who appears on the general election ballot as "independent", has not been allowed to talk, then why, is Bob Sabonjian for mayor, who, similarly, is labeled "independent" and in the general, yes, allowed to talk?  (By the way, I'm all for him to be re-elected as Mayor, but that's not the point.)


I am referring to, that he gave a forum speech, during the primary segment of the election cycle calendar, 24 Feb. 2013.  Note well, that neither of us appeared on the Feb. 26 primary ballot.  So, how is this consistent?  What's going on here?


Easy!  Let truth, beauty, and light shine down here now!  Remember, here's the key.  The operative principle is, elect the Dem favorite.  And, here's how that works.


There exists, you may have noticed, a third mayoral candidate.  She is Latina.  Further, it's in the best interests of the Dem mayoral primary winner, that she get maximum exposure and publicity, for his good. 


Thus, bring her up to talk, already, in the primary segment of the election calendar.  The sooner, the better.  More votes accrue to her that way.  But, where do her votes come from?


Don't get confused here.  It is not that they want Sabonjian to talk.  Rather, it's a balancing act, where it turns out they get ahead under this arrangement. 


What is happening, is that yes, they do want her to talk.  How to achieve that without also allowing him?  No alternative.  Otherwise, the favoritism would be too obvious.  Might even occasion vociferous complaining from mayoral incumbent regarding lack of "equal time".


These local politicos are still smarting from how they lost to maverick Dem Sabonjian last time, because he ran independent.  The Latino voters put Sabonjian over the top, enabled him to win.  That's how he got in. 


This analysis was reported from New York Times, to cite one, eminent news source.  It's undoubtedly accurate.  They are right.


Now, comes Sabonjian's lady opponent, who used to work for Hyde.  And, the primary winner, also, was part of the Hyde administration.


So, if either of the mayoral incumbent's opponents were to win, it wouldn't be surprising to encounter the return of  "Hyde policy and tactics".  Of course, Latinos don't want a return to Hyde's 287(g) enforcement, with SWAT teams drawing a bead on them as they peacefully march down the Waukegan streets for their civil rights.  Nor do they want the tow truck fine augmented, which targets them, too.


But, when Waukegan's Latino vote splits in two because of "Dillinger's 'Lady in Red'", then, that's exactly what they'll end up with, anyway.  The reason is that she could take enough votes away from the incumbent so that Hyde's former city clerk would emerge with sufficient plurality to win.


Just as Dillinger's lady in red, thrusted a great career boost upon lawman Melvin Purvis who had orchestrated the sting, so Waukegan's lady in red portends to effect similarly, for the policeman who's running for mayor.  Just as with Dillinger's Lady in Red, she is appearing to be one thing at first glance.  Instead, in fact, she serves as another, to achieve the downfall of someone else.


Have you noticed that her campaign office occupies a relatively average-size building?  Its east end is her space.  The west end is plastered with the Dem primary winner's propaganda.  Curious.  I submit to you that the entire structure, serves one, unified purpose, with one common goal.  Get the Dem primary winner elected.


Mark my words now, written on 03 April 2013, pre-general election.  Let's see how prophetic they turn out to be.  Voters:  I challenge and dare you to prove me wrong!


Let's see if Waukegan voters fall for the scheme.  Many of them think they escaped from Mexico's one-political-party monopoly of the pre-Fox years.  Then now's their chance to defend their liberty.  And, for better or worse, I'll bet a lot of them still remember how the old, Mexican system works.  Now they live, vote, and campaign, here.


From opposition's playbook:  to elect Dem city clerk primary winner, "do not let Mark Drobnick talk"!  Similar objective:  to elect Dem mayoral primary winner, let "Lady in Red" talk all she wants, and, talk early in the campaign season publicly, the earlier the better.  Have her talk even before celebration of the primary election, although she's not in it, to increase her vote total even more.


Again, the complex of Dem wise guys and duped hosts achieve, that Dems' clerk favorite gets extra handicap votes, by not letting Mark Drobnick talk.  And, their mayoral favorite obtains plurality by getting the "Lady in Red" out there fast and early, so she can take more Latino votes away from incumbent mayor, who has been Latino champion over the last four years.


Take note, people.  Information trumps ignorance every time, all across the universe. 

What I've said here, I have heard in numerous conversations with various, well informed individuals, city-wide.  Maybe you're another one of them.  But, if not, then get smart.  This is my experience of what's happening.  This is how it is. 


The elections are not to be won by opponent tricks, traps, manipulation and deception of the voters.  Rather, they are to be won by candidate knowledge, respect of the citizens, and one's own merits. 


If my opponent does not want me to talk, then he must be hiding something or he's afraid he's not the best candidate.  By the way, I challenge my opponent for City Clerk, to a debate any time this week, from the 4th 'til the 7th.  If you don't answer me, I will ask the citizens to take that as signifying, you consider me the best candidate for City Clerk of Waukegan.


I urge you to wise up, Waukegan voters, while there's still time.  It's up to you.  It's in your hands.  I ask for your vote, to bring fairness to our political process.


Sabonjian for mayor;


Drobnick for city clerk;


Taylor for treasurer.


Mark Drobnick


Waukegan, Illinois  USA


Office Phone: available upon request


Or use our contact form.

Campaign News

As an active campaigner, I like to converse with my constituents in person as much as possible. Check out our news page to find a campaign stop near you. 

Get Social With Us

Print | Sitemap
© Mark Drobnick