Updated August 31, 2004 at 9:55 pm, revised Sep. 1 at 12:45 pm

Leadership, Rodney King and Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley, who seems to be saying, "Why can’t we all just get along, i.e., can’t we just make a deal. For example, let's have the City essentially impose a union contract on Wal-Mart, but not on its competitors." Wal-Mart's response? It says it might take its bat and ball and look for another diamond. Ah, competition, the patron saint of the consumer.

The Mayor’s dad, Mayor Richard J. Daley, once said, “Let us go on to higher and higher platitudes." Commenting on the City Council’s proposed Big Box ordinance, which is likely to have the unintended consequence of keeping Big Box stores [like Wal-Mart] and their jobs out of the City, the current Chicago Mayor leads the City Council by talking about the “bad PR for Wal-Mart,” which Da Mayor thinks would result from Wal-Mart’s decision to drop its development plans in Chicago due to the proposed ordinance. The current Mayor Daley needs to start thinking more about a friendly job environment for the City of Chicago and less about PR, or he might just face some credible opposition in 2007.

Bruce Dold [Chicago Tribune Editorial Page Editor]: The City [Chicago City Council ] is going to vote tomorrow whether if you are a certain type of store, in this case if you employ a lot of people, because this would only apply to very large stores [Big Box stores], you are going to only do business in Chicago if you meet “our rules,” which means you have to pay far more than the [Illinois] minimum wage [which exceeds the federal minimum wage], you have to pay a certain benefits package, and under one of these ordinances, you have to have a certain amount of your product made in the United States, and Wal-Mart is looking-- I think looking and saying-- we can go to Skokie; we can go to Hickory Hills; we can go to Berwyn, [to] Cicero; we can go down south and Chicagoans will follow us, they already do. A lot of Chicago people go out [of the City] to get the lower prices, so Wal-Mart said today we are not so sure we are going to do the Southside [of Chicago] project that we want to do.
*******************************
Phil Ponce [WTTW]: …Speaking of public relations, Mayor Daley weighed in on the Wal-Mart story and here is what he had to say: “Well, it is kind of sad, I mean then it is bad PR for Wal-Mart. I mean, how much bad PR can they take. I mean, they are making millions of dollars, the executives, all of them, I mean, let’s understand, there’s always two sides to an issue and let’s be able to discuss it.”
WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, August 31, 2004, which will air again tonight at midnight, and also early Wednesday morning at 1:30 am and 4:30 am.
*********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**************************************

Updated August 31, 2004 at 8:30 pm;

Alan Keyes on what he calls a “hostile job environment created by Democrats, liberals and socialists.”
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …In 1992, Bill Clinton, running for President, said “it’s the Economy, stupid.” We are 12 years later. Is it still, "it’s the Economy stupid," in terms of the major national or U. S. Senate issue?

Alan Keyes: Well, actually no. That wouldn’t be true. I think even some of the polls I have seen indicate that yes, the economy is a very important issue, but it is often coming No. 2 behind National Security. I think most Americans remember that we are still in a War, that thousands of Americans died fresh in our memory and that we’d better protect ourselves. But, I think behind that concern and in part, too, as part of it-- is the concern with the economy and especially in Illinois because for reasons we might want to get into, Illinois has lagged behind even the other states in the region, in terms of, especially, jobs, from the recovery the rest of the country has been experiencing.

Berkowitz: Is that a tax issue? [Governor] Rod Blagojevich has gone out of his way not to raise the income tax, not to raise the general sales tax [in Illinois], but he has raised business taxes, taxes specifically [imposed] on business. Are you saying that that has made for a less friendly business environment and therefore retarded job growth in Illinois?

Keyes: It is not the only thing, but I think it is an element because one of the fallacies, I am afraid, of Democrats, liberals, socialists in general is that they always talk about jobs, but they are then people who will adopt policies that kill the businesses that offer the jobs; it is totally self-contradictory. And, I think Blagojevich is in that category of somebody who talks a good game, says he cares about people and wants people to have jobs, but then creates an environment that is hostile to jobs not only because of taxes but there are a lot of other problems, educational problems, medical access problems and finally, I think in Illinois the problem of the corruption tax that is deeply discouraging to businesses coming to locate [in Illinois] and that I think is also discouraging to their remaining in Illinois.
******************************************
Alan Keyes, Republican U. S. Senate Candidate, interviewed on August 21, 2004, and as is being cablecast this week [Week of Aug. 30] in the suburban edition of "Public Affairs," and as will be cablecast through-out the City of Chicago on Public Affairs this coming Monday night, Labor Day, Sep. 6 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See blog entry, immediately below, for detailed suburban airing schedule.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz,Host and Producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*********************************************

Updated Aug. 31 at 6:45 pm

Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes on "Public Affairs" TV in the suburbs this week.

This Week’s [week of Aug. 30] suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes debating and discussing with show host Jeff Berkowitz Senate Candidates Alan Keyes’ and Barack Obama’s contrasting views on tax cuts; state government actions that may have retarded job growth in Illinois; the War against Terrorism and the “Front,” in Iraq; education, school choice and school vouchers; abortion; same sex marriage and much, much more. This show will also air through-out the City of Chicago on Labor Day, Monday, Sep. 6, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.

The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.

Updated August 30, 2004 at 1:00 am

Melissa Bean, a lunch bucket Democrat? The Crane-Bean Congressional race heats up. Senate Candidate Keyes factors into the race, too? Milton Friedman, Mike Noonan, Tom Roeser, Bill from Wheaton, a pregnant AG Lisa Madigan, Greenberg Traurig and Frank Penn. All of those folks in this blog and Bean on “Public Affairs.”

TANSTAAFL, taught to us by University of Chicago Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics Milton Friedman, stands for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Is Melissa Bean arguing Uncle Milty is wrong.” Does she have a free lunch for voters. Can she beat Cong. Crane? We discuss, you decide.

Tonight’s [Monday, Aug. 30] City edition of the “Public Affairs,” show features 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Melissa Bean [D- Barrington], appearing in the show’s regular time slot at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] through-out the City of Chicago.

Bean is running hard to try to upset 35 year incumbent Cong. Phil Crane [R- Wauconda]. Conservative Tom Roeser, on his Sunday night WLS radio show, “Political Shoot-out,” in response to a question from caller Bill in Wheaton, said, “I think she [Bean] stands, unfortunately from my viewpoint, a pretty good chance [of winning].”

Mike Noonan, formerly a campaign manager for AG Lisa Madigan and currently a government relations and lobbying Director working from the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, said on the Roeser show that “…the Keyes campaign gives her [Bean] a terrific chance to win.” Frank Penn [AKA Larry from the South Side], appearing by phone on the Roeser show as a last minute fill in guest to represent the Keyes Senate Campaign, countered by asking Noonan if he thought that, “the voters of Illinois were afraid that Alan Keyes might make some moves that might allow them to keep 100% of their…income as take home pay.”

Don't have cable? Don’t live in the city. Try a city bar tonight with cable and make them turn on "Public Affairs," at 8:30 pm [Cable Ch. 21]. If the bar refuses to turn on the show, please complain to the Mayor, the mob and me. After all, it is a Democratic town. What are the folks at the bar going to be doing? Watching the Republican Convention?

Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes is featured on the City edition of "Public Affairs," next Monday night at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21 and on the suburban edition of the show this week:

A partial transcript of the Melissa Bean show, including a previously unpublished segment regarding whether there is such a thing as a free lunch, and is it called a college loan, is included, directly below, as a part of this blog entry. That segment is followed by transcript segments that have been published on this blog previously, over the course of the last week.
**************************************************
Melissa Bean: …I would not support a federally unfunded mandate. So, Leave No Child Left Behind, for instance--

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think that is a federally unfunded mandate?

Bean: Well, it wasn’t intended to be. At the time it was voted on, the funds were supposed to follow, but then they didn’t.

Berkowitz: But… federal aid to education has gone up dramatically if …you take the long haul, [if you] look at the last 20 years.

Bean: Um, uh

Berkowitz: If you look at the last four years of the Bush Administration, it [federal education spending] has also gone up significantly, right?

Bean: Um, uh

Berkowitz: So, do you really suggest that federal aid to education should go up at an even higher rate?

Bean: No, absolutely not. I think it should be handled at the state level. As it is.

Berkowitz: So, you would not have put out [imposed] some mandates from the federal government?

Bean: Absolutely. I think the state control is where it should be and leave it to the local school boards to run the schools.

Berkowitz: So, on the whole, would you have voted yes or no on “No Child Left Behind.”

Bean: At the time

Berkowitz: At the time you were voting.

Bean: where there was accountability standards and it looked like there would be some funding on that, I was inclined to have supported that and again, I wasn’t there so it is a rhetorical question. In retrospect, if the dollars aren’t going to be there, then you say no, you are not going to support that.

Berkowitz: Okay, but voting at the time you—

Bean: One of the things I wouldn’t have done is vote to cut college loan funding. Because, that is not really federal funding, that is just making those loans available so we have a broader access to college. [Cong. Phil] Crane did vote against college loan funding.

Berkowitz: It depends on what [interest] rate at which you lend that money, or the [rate] at which the Federal Government does—

Bean: He [Crane] voted against locking in an [interest] rate so that kids could better plan. He also voted against making the loans available.

Berkowitz: Where does that subsidy come from?

Bean: Well, it is not a subsidy. Remember, it gets paid back. It is an investment in our children’s future.

Berkowitz: Well, is it a below market [interest rate] loan? Or, is it a market rate loan?

Bean: I would have to go back and look at it. But I think it was just to lock in a rate.

Berkowitz: If it is a market rate loan, then why is the government doing it? The free market can handle that. So, I am presuming the argument would be—no, we should have less than market rates from the government.

Bean: Well, my understanding is what the college loan funding does—is by providing some guarantee and back up—it just has broader access to loans for those who may not have the credit to get college loans.

Berkowitz: Well, it lowers, if the government guarantees and even if it is funneled through, as it sometimes has been, the private market—that [the guarantee] lowers the risk, that essentially is the same thing as a subsidized interest rate? Right? You are in business. You understand that.

Bean: Well, it gets paid back.

Berkowitz: Some times. Some of those loans don’t get paid back. Right?

Bean: Um um.

Berkowitz: …School choice, does that come up much? School choice, school vouchers, as you go around the district, people talk about it?

Bean: No, college loan funding and the cost of college loans going up and people are concerned right now as some are unemployed, some are not finding new jobs at the same income that they had and they are seeing college prices going up. I think that is a big issue and actually, access to the college loans is a big issue that I hear from people. But, we have a lot of colleges in the district, too.

Berkowitz: So, you think that, on the federal level, you as a congressman would do more than Cong. Phil Crane has to have the federal government try to lower what the financing cost of education for colleges was, right? Did I get that right?

Bean: Yeah, I think making loans available is a good thing.

Berkowitz: Yes, but you realize it has to come from somewhere- when you say making it available?

Bean: Yes.

Berkowitz: And, so who are you taxing to pay for this?

Bean: We are not taxing. It is a loan. It is not a give-away program.

Berkowitz: But, we come back to- if it is not going to require a subsidy, why isn’t it being done simply in the free market?

Bean: Well, it did get done. It happened, even though [Cong.] Crane voted against it. The funding is still there. But, he just didn’t support it.
***************************************
More Partial Transcripts of the Melissa bean show, below:
**************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Tax cuts were a big deal. Big issue. [Your opponent, incumbent Cong.] Phil Crane has been known as a big tax cutter. Right?

Melissa Bean: Well, he claims to be a big tax cutter.

Berkowitz: Well, he has supported unequivocally President Bush’s program to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003. That’s correct, right?

Bean: Correct.

Berkowitz: Now, a good portion of that [program] was cuts across the board on marginal rates of taxation, right?

Bean: Hm, um.

Berkowitz: Now, how would you have voted on that? Would you have voted for either of those [tax cut] packages, if you had been the... Congressman from the 8th Cong. Dist. If you were the Cong. From the 8th Cong. Dist., if you were that person in 2001 and 2003, would you have voted yes or no on those tax cut proposals.

Bean: I liked a lot of the tax cut proposals.

Berkowitz: But, you have to vote yes or no.

Bean: My challenges with Crane have not been on the tax cuts but on the tax code, in general.
***************************************************
Berkowitz: Don’t you, at the end of the Day, when you are a congressman- you have to vote yes or no on what is being proposed, right?

Bean: Hm, um.

Berkowitz: The tax cut legislation that passed came before the Congress. If you were there, would you have supported it. Would you have been a yes or no on that vote?

Bean: I’d have to go back and look at it. I wasn’t there. It is a rhetorical question. I don’t have the documents in front of me.
**********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The national Democratic Party’s platform, I believe, supports the Patriot Act.

Melissa Bean: Um- Hmm.

Berkowitz: A lot of Democrats don’t realize that. No.1, Are you aware of that and No. 2, do you agree with that position?

Bean: The Patriot Act, I think, was a reasonable response to the events of 9/11.

Berkowitz: So, you would have voted to support it?

Bean: And, we absolutely need to do some of that. There was some merit in the border control issues; in shared intelligence between different agencies. But, I think, wisely, Congress chose to put a sunset provision in it so we could go back and really evaluate what was working—where maybe we overstretched--so that we can balance civil liberties

Berkowitz: Are there things specifically that you would change-- that you know now that you would want changed before you [would] vote to continue [to keep] it [the Patriot Act].

Bean: Well, certainly I think people are a little uncomfortable with their library records, you know, being investigated for no purpose.

Berkowitz: Are they? We are going to interrupt just to say that we are going to continue to speak as the credits roll but I very much want to thank Melissa Bean—she is the Democratic candidate in the 8th Cong. District. She is challenging Cong. Phil Crane, this is his 35th year.

Berkowitz: I should say to our viewers that we have invited Cong. Crane [to come] on this show. We told his press person a month ago—let us know dates that he can do it and we will try to accommodate him. That was in July. I thought there would be some day between then and November 2 [that Cong. Crane could tape our show, “Public Affairs,” and we were told there were no days. So, I say that although we don’t endorse candidates; we do endorse the notion that everybody should do what Melissa Bean is doing --- in coming here and subjecting herself to some tough questions. And, being a good sport about that—but seriously, in educating the viewers and her voters.

Bean: It is important.

Berkowitz: And, [Cong.] Phil Crane should do it. He has done it before [he has taped our show twice in the last few years] but we are having trouble getting him on now and he should come on with Melissa Bean—I have extended that invitation to Cong. Crane’s staff [for Cong. Crane to appear for more of a real debate on my show; they said they would get back to me, but have not yet done so]. You would be happy to appear with Cong. Crane?

Bean: I would be happy to come out and [appear on the program with him]. We have been trying to get Phil Crane to come out for three years.

Berkowitz: There are debates [candidate forums] coming up. Those things should be videotaped [and televised]. We understand there has been some concern [objection expressed by the Crane campaign to video-taping of these forums by non-media members] but I have been told by the Crane campaign that it has no objection to the press coming and videotaping [these candidate forums]. There is a debate [candidate forum] this Wednesday [Aug. 18]. Right?

Bean: And, we are hoping he is going to be there, in Round Lake…

Bean: Right. And, you can go to www.melissabean.com and we will get you some information.

Jeff Berkowitz: Social issues, very quickly. You are 1000% pro-choice, right? in terms of abortion?

Melissa Bean: I don’t know exactly what that means.

Berkowitz: Well, would you oppose a ban on partial birth abortion?

Bean: I support the laws as they exist as defined by Roe v. Wade, which limits any late term abortion or at least allows the states—

Berkowitz: There was a proposal to ban partial birth abortion. Would you have opposed that proposal?

Bean: Because it did not take into account the woman’s life and health, I would have opposed it.

Berkowitz: If it took [into account] a woman’s life and health, you would have supported it?

Bean: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: Parental notice. I know that is a state issue, but do you oppose parental notice.

Bean: That is a state issue and I would support how the state has handled it.

Berkowitz: Which is not to require parental notice [of an upcoming abortion by a minor female]

Bean: Not yet, but I know they are working on trying to find some kind of-

Berkowitz: What is your position on the Assault Weapon ban? [show ends].
*******************************************
Melissa Bean, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate [D- Barrington], interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on August 14, 2003, in a show that is being cablecast tonight [Monday, Aug. 30] through-out the City of Chicago, at its usual time slot in the City, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************************************

Updated August 27, 2004 at 1:25 pm

Play nice?

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune columnist and perhaps one of the founding fathers of the blogger movement [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook] takes Bill Pascoe, Keyes’ Campaign manager, to task for spinning the Republican Convention’s treatment of Alan Keyes:

“What seems more likely is that Keyes recognized the Monday afternoon speaking slot he was offered as a measly bone – a brief, C-SPAN-only opportunity to yammer in a nearly empty hall --- and that he turned it down in order to discourage comparisons to Democrat Barack Obama's star turn in Boston last month.

The contrasting images would have shown the nation (and any state voters who hadn't noticed it yet) the respective parties' enthusiasm about their respective candidates in Illinois.

Pascoe, the toxicity of whose rhetoric puts even the poisonous Keyes to shame, added that the Democrats gave Obama such prominence because he ‘needed to be pumped up.’"

Certainly, Pascoe, a former Communications Director for the Jack Ryan Senate Campaign, is doing some spinning. But, as Chris Matthews is fond of saying when he closes his Sunday morning show, “Tell me something I don’t know.” In terms of spinning, the Keyes campaign is certainly not the only sinner in the congregation. Perhaps it is time for Eric Zorn to broaden his targets.

More importantly, as Zorn himself notes in a August 25, 2004 blog entry of his, “This election season looks like it's going to be brutal on my cordial relations with conservatives and Republicans...some of the nastiness in these exchanges has been my fault, I admit...I've been rising to the bait more easily than in the past. But the amount and quantity of that bait seems greater than ever...perhaps because Keyes is so far down in the polls he and his supporters feel they must set the rhetoric phasers to stun. They seem to be willing to say anything it takes and trash anyone's good name in order to whip up enthusiasm among their core supporters...Anyway, I suspect I won't be the only one to suffer possibly permanent strained relationships in the next 69 days.”

Although I believe Zorn and the Keyes Campaign seem to have a grudging respect for each other[perhaps more than either knows], it does appear that the two forces have become the equivalent of “enemy combatants,” and there seems to be plenty of toxicity on both sides. Perhaps both sides need to reflect how they got there and what to do about it. Neither lacks for smarts and finesse, when they want to put both to good use.
***********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated August 27, 2004 at 1:00 am; revised slightly on Aug. 27 at 12:50 pm.

Can the Republican Party right itself? U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes declines brief speaking role at Republican Convention. Will Racicot, Bush-Cheney Chairman, reverse course, accept the Rev. Jackson challenge and make Alan Keyes truly a part of the Republican program. Rev. Jackson may have lurched and stumbled accidentally into the truth. Will it make the Republican Party free?

Lynn Sweet tells us that she, “asked Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, if Illinois GOP Senate candidate Alan Keyes should get a speaking slot at the convention. Wanting to sidestep the matter, he said, ‘I haven't made a recommendation yet.’ Obama keynoted the Democratic Convention in Boston last month.” Chicago Sun-Times, August, 26, 2004 [as referenced in www.archpundit.com]

Sweet tells us that putting Keyes on the dance card means bringing up at the GOP convention the sad situation Republicans face in Illinois, hardly a story line that helps President Bush.

Perhaps, Lynn, but if Keyes were to agree to restrain himself a bit and be a part of the program, as did virtually all of the speakers, including no doubt Barack Obama [notwithstanding the Obama campaign’s denial of same] and excluding perhaps Mr. Bill, at the Democratic Convention, Keyes could help add some moral toughness, passion and principle, not to mention color, to the Convention.

Also, it would give Keyes a much-needed boost in Illinois and perhaps be a way of telling the so-called State GOP leaders Edgar, Thompson and Topinka [sounds like a Loop law firm] to get with the program and get behind Alan Keyes.

So far, the national Republican Party, which seldom misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, has stayed true to that history in their handling of the Keyes Convention role. According to Dan Proft, Deputy Campaign Manager of the Keyes for Senate Campaign and President of the Illinois Leader, the Republican Party offered Keyes a very brief and off-prime time speaking slot on Tuesday afternoon at the Convention, along with other Republican U. S. Senate candidates for open seats. Similar comments were made by Dan Allen, spokesman for the Republican National Senatorial Committee. See, Liam Ford's Chicago Tribune, August 26, 2004, Metro section, p.3 article.

Of course, such a non-prime time speaking opportunity would not do much for media exposure, for either Keyes or the Party, and Keyes has declined the offer. Going through the hoops dictated by that Convention TV appearance would take more time away from important networking and fundraising events by Keyes than it would benefit him, contended both Proft and Keyes' Campaign Manager [and former Jack Ryan Communications Director] Bill Pascoe. See, Liam Ford's Chicago Tribune, August 26, 2004, Metro Section, p.3 article. Indeed, both Keyes and Pascoe were already out in New York yesterday, working the Convention and will be doing so through next Thursday.

Remember, in a somewhat similar story to the treatment of Keyes, the Democrats almost screwed up by trying to toss Hillary in with a number of other female U. S. Senators, limiting her speaking role to that collective event at the Convention. A nice try by VP Candidate John Edwards, through his boss, Presidential Candidate John Kerry, to keep Hillary from the limelight just in case Kerry loses, resulting in Edwards and Hillary vying for the top Democrat spot in 2008.

In any case, the point is that the Democrats saw the error of their ways, especially in light of the offense to Hillary and her all important constituency, and presto, almost at the last minute, a more significant speaking role was created for Hillary--the opportunity to introduce the still and always Leader of the Democratic Party, her hubby-- President Clinton.

Now, obviously, by no means is Alan Keyes as important to the Republican Convention as Hillary was to the Democratic Convention. But, perception is to some extent reality and the treatment of Alan Keyes, as seen by the television audience, matters. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. said on last Sunday’s WBBM’s AM 780 “At Issue,” program, “ he [President Bush] has a guy running for [the U. S.] Senate. Will he [Bush] support his Senate Candidate, will the Republican Party- were they just being cynical or sinister or were they adding to the bizarreness of it all, or are they serious about—for Mr. Keyes to take the risk he has taken and the heat he has taken, he deserves the support of his party.”

Well, Rev. Jackson has thrown down the gauntlet to President Bush and Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Are President Bush and Marc Racicot going to let Rev.Jackson’s challenge just hang there in the air and sail, ultimately over the plate, for strike three. Or, will they let Keyes knock it out of the park.

It doesn’t matter that Rev.Jackson was, himself, likely being insincere. The question remains--Will the Republicans concede that Rev. Jackson’s cynicism about the Keyes Senate effort is justified? Or, will Raciot reconsider and start building a true Republican Party in Illinois and a truly integrated National Republican Party?

Remember Mark, as Judge Easterbrook, a Reagan appointee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals keeps reminding us, wisdom come lately is better than wisdom not come at all.

And, Alan Keyes has shown he can tone it down, without dumbing it down. He did so last week at the City Club of Chicago. He did so last Saturday when he taped my show, “Public Affairs,” which will air next week in the suburbs. Giving Alan Keyes not 15 seconds of fame, but five minutes to make a balanced, thoughtful statement of core Republican Platform positions on national TV in prime time would not only help Keyes’ Senate race. It, of course, helps President Bush by keeping Barack Obama in Illinois, where he can do less damage to Bush’s position in the battleground states.

Decision time for Raciot and Bush. Cynical or Sincere? What kind of a message does President Bush want to send to Illinois and America? Illinois and the whole country, if not the whole world, are watching.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*************************************

Updated August 26, 2004 at 5:30 pm; 8th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate Melissa Bean on “Public Affairs.”
*****************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Social issues very quickly. You are 1000% pro-choice, right? in terms of abortion?

Melissa Bean: I don’t know exactly what that means.

Berkowitz: Well, would you oppose a ban on partial birth abortion?

Bean: I support the laws as they exist as defined by Roe v. Wade, which limits any late term abortion or at least allows the states—

Berkowitz: There was a proposal to ban partial birth abortion. Would you have opposed that proposal?

Bean: Because it did not take into account the woman’s life and health, I would have opposed it.

Berkowitz: If it took [into account] a woman’s life and health, you would have supported it?

Bean: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: Parental notice. I know that is a state issue, but do you oppose parental notice.

Bean: That is a state issue and I would support how the state has handled it.

Berkowitz: Which is not to require parental notice [of an upcoming abortion by a minor female]

Bean: Not yet, but I know they are working on trying to find some kind of---
*******************************************
Melissa Bean, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate [D- Barrington], interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on August 14, 2003, in a show that is being cablecast in many Northwest and North Shore Cook County and Lake County suburbs this week [the Week of August 23, 2004, for a suburban airing schedule, including some special airings this weekend, see blog entry, immediately below ].

The show with Democratic 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Melissa Bean will also air through-out the City of Chicago, at its usual time slot in the City, this coming Monday night, August 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]

Additional partial transcripts of the show are included in the blog entry, two entries below this one.
**********************************************

Updated August 26,2004 at 4:00pm; Special and regular airings of "Public Affairs."

Special and regular airings of the “Public Affairs,” shows with Democratic 8th Cong. District Candidate Melissa Bean [D- Barrington][See blog entry immediately, below, for a partial transcript of the show with Bean] and Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes.

Special airings this weekend in 24 Chicago suburbs of "Public Affairs," with 8th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate Melissa Bean (D- Barrington): This Saturday, Aug. 28 at 8:00 pm and this Sunday, Aug. 29 at 7:30 pm in the following suburbs on the indicated Comcast Cable Channels: Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.

This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Melissa Bean [D- Barrington] debating and discussing with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz tax cuts, free trade, NAFTA, jobs, healthcare policy, prescription drug benefits, re-importation of prescription drugs, the Iraq War, partial birth abortion, education, No Child Left Behind, government backed college student loans and school vouchers/school choice. This show will air, as well, through-out the City of Chicago on this coming Monday night, Aug. 30, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.

Next Week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes debating and discussing with show host Jeff Berkowitz Senate Candidates Alan Keyes’ and Barack Obama’s contrasting views on tax cuts; state government actions that may have retarded job growth in Illinois; the War against Terrorism and the “Front,” in Iraq; education, school choice and school vouchers; abortion; same sex marriage and much, much more. This show will also air through-out the City of Chicago on Labor Day, Monday, Sep. 6, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.

The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.

Updated August 24, 2004 at 1:30 pm

Melissa Bean, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate (D- Barrington), is taking on 35 year incumbent Cong. Phil Crane (R- Wauconda). Candidate Bean is our guest on the suburban edition of this week's “Public Affairs,” [See the show’s suburban airing schedule, below, which includes much of the 8th Cong. Dist.].

Republican Cong. Crane, although having appeared on our show twice in prior years, has been unable to “find a date that he is free to do the show during this campaign season.” Crane apparently plans to do only two non-televised forums with his opponent, and his staff has not responded to our offer to moderate an informal debate/discussion of the issues between Bean and Crane on our TV show. Candidate Melissa Bean has accepted our offer to do such a televised debate with Cong. Crane.

This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Democratic 8th Cong. District Candidate Melissa Bean (D- Barrington) debating and discussing with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz , taxes, free trade, healthcare policy, the Iraq War, abortion, education and school vouchers/school choice. A partial transcript of the show is included, below:
**************************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Tax cuts were a big deal. Big issue. [Your opponent, incumbent Cong.] Phil Crane has been known as a big tax cutter. Right?

Melissa Bean: Well, he claims to be a big tax cutter.

Berkowitz: Well, he has supported unequivocally President Bush’s program to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003. That’s correct, right?

Bean: Correct.

Berkowitz: Now, a good portion of that [program] was cuts across the board on marginal rates of taxation, right?

Bean: Hm, um.

Berkowitz: Now, how would you have voted on that? Would you have voted for either of those [tax cut] packages, if you had been the... Congressman from the 8th Cong. Dist. If you were the Cong. From the 8th Cong. Dist., if you were that person in 2001 and 2003, would you have voted yes or no on those tax cut proposals.

Bean: I liked a lot of the tax cut proposals.

Berkowitz: But, you have to vote yes or no.

Bean: My challenges with Crane have not been on the tax cuts but on the tax code, in general
***************************************************************************
Berkowitz: Don’t you, at the end of the Day, when you are a congressman- you have to vote yes or no on what is being proposed, right?

Bean: Hm, um.

Berkowitz: The tax cut legislation that passed came before the Congress. If you were there, would you have supported it. Would you have been a yes or not on that vote?

Bean: I’d have to go back and look at it. I wasn’t there. It is a rhetorical question. I don’t have the documents in front of me.
**********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The national Democratic Party’s platform, I believe, supports the Patriot Act.

Melissa Bean: Um- Hmm.

Berkowitz: A lot of Democrats don’t realize that. No.1, Are you aware of that and No. 2, do you agree with that position?

Bean: The Patriot Act, I think, was a reasonable response to the events of 9/11.

Berkowitz: So, you would have voted to support it?

Bean: And, we absolutely need to do some of that. There was some merit in the border control issues; in shared intelligence between different agencies. But, I think, wisely, Congress chose to put a sunset provision in it so we could go back and really evaluate what was working—where maybe we overstretched--so that we can balance civil liberties

Berkowitz: Are there things specifically that you would change-- that you know now that you would want changed before you [would] vote to continue [to keep] it [the Patriot Act].

Bean: Well, certainly I think people are a little uncomfortable with their library records, you know, being investigated for no purpose.

Berkowitz: Are they? We are going to interrupt just to say that we are going to continue to speak as the credits roll but I very much want to thank Melissa Bean—she is the Democratic candidate in the 8th Cong. District. She is challenging Cong. Phil Crane, this is his 35th year.

Berkowitz: I should say to our viewers that we have invited Cong. Crane [to come] on this show. We told his press person a month ago—let us know dates that he can do it and we will try to accommodate him. That was in July. I thought there would be some day between then and November 2 [that Cong. Crane could tape our show, “Public Affairs,” and we were told there were no days. So, I say that although we don’t endorse candidates; we do endorse the notion that everybody should do what Melissa Bean is doing --- in coming here and subjecting herself to some tough questions. And, being a good sport about that—but seriously, in educating the viewers and her voters.

Bean: It is important.

Berkowitz: And, [Cong.] Phil Crane should do it. He has done it before [he has taped our show twice in the last few years] but we are having trouble getting him on now and he should come on with Melissa Bean—I have extended that invitation to Cong. Crane’s staff [for Cong. Crane to appear for more of a real debate on my show; they said they would get back to me, but have not yet done so]. You would be happy to appear with Cong. Crane?

Bean: I would be happy to come out and [appear on the program with him]. We have been trying to get Phil Crane to come out for three years.

Berkowitz: There are debates [candidate forums] coming up. Those things should be videotaped [and televised]. We understand there has been some concern [objection expressed by the Crane campaign to video-taping of these forums by non-media members] but I have been told by the Crane campaign that it has no objection to the press coming and videotaping [these candidate forums]. There is a debate [candidate forum] this Wednesday [Aug. 18]. Right?

Bean: And, we are hoping he is going to be there, in Round Lake…

Bean: Right. And, you can go to www.melissabean.com and we will get you some information.
*********************************
Melissa Bean, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate [D- Barrington], interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on August 14, 2003, in a show that is being cablecast in many Northwest and North Shore Cook County and Lake County suburbs this week [the Week of August 23, 2004].

The show with Democratic 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Melissa Bean will also air through-out the City of Chicago, at its usual time slot in the City, this coming Monday night, August 30 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]

Additional partial transcripts of the show will be placed on this Public Affairs blog during the next week.
************************************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.

Updated August 23, 2004 at 7:30 pm

The Reagan Revolution that missed the Illinois Republican Party: There really aren't any liberal [moderate] Republicans, anymore- claims Peggy Noonan.

Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” is titled, “Ronald Reagan,” In Memoriam. The program airs at its usual time slot, Monday, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] and it airs through-out the City of Chicago.

The program features a brief discussion of Ronald Reagan’s legacy and an interview with Reagan speechwriter and biographer Peggy Noonan. The interview took place on November 28, 2001 and it focuses, in part, on Peggy Noonan’s book, “When Character was King, a story of Ronald Reagan.” [Partial transcript of the show interview, below].

The program, a bit gushy, is one of my “youthful indiscretions,” at least as a show host. Notwithstanding that, Peggy Noonan is always worth watching and listening to. The discussion covers a variety of topics, including Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, the fall of the Soviet Union, the change in the United States military preparedness during the 80s, Reagan’s role in the Screen Actor’s Guild, Reagan as Governor of California, the “Speech,” Barry Goldwater, whether Ronald Reagan was “out to lunch,” on a number of matters, as Hardball Host Chris Matthews once asserted, Reagan's contribution to winning the Cold War and much, much more.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Tell our audience about the difference between Republicans and Conservatives.

Peggy Noonan: …I tell a story at the expense of Republicans. I say that when I was writing my first book, I was very proud. I had left the Reagan White House and I was at home and it was the 1980s and people would say to me when I met them at parties—What are you doing now? And I would say, oh, I am writing a book. I would say that with a real expectation that they would say, “oh- that is fabulous.” But, instead, they would say- oh, but, what else are you doing? What are you really doing-as if writing a book wasn’t enough. And, I said to a friend of mine. Why do they do that? And, he said because they are Republicans. He said, Democrats care about ideas- so they love books. Conservatives care about ideas—so they love books. Republicans are more interested in money. He said, the next time you see those people and they say what are you doing, say, “I got a huge advance for a book and they’ll say, oh, fabulous.” So, I did it and it turned out he was right.

Berkowitz: But, has that changed now? Have the conservatives, in a sense, and I mean this in a healthy way-- taken over the Republican Party [nationally, not in Illinois] and now, Republicans are indeed people of ideas, not people of money.

Noonan: Indeed, I think that is true—and it has happened in the past twenty years and it is Ronald Reagan who did it. The Republican Party itself used to be split in two between moderates and liberals and conservatives. This guy [Ronald Reagan] through the success of his programs and his Presidency changed all of that and the Republican Party became the Conservative Party of the United States of America. There really aren’t any liberal Republicans anymore.
***************************************
Peggy Noonan, as is being Cablecast tonight on “Public Affairs,” through-out the City of Chicago on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] at 8:30 pm. [Recorded on November 28, 2001].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated August 23 at 4:30 pm

Retraction of erroneous statement made by this blog about the Chicago Tribune:

In this blog's entry dated August 23, 1:00 am [immediately below], I quoted from Tom Roeser’s statement [made this Sunday night on his radio show] about the Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the City Club of Chicago speech given by Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes on Aug. 18:

Tom Roeser:...At the City Club of Chicago where he [Alan Keyes] gave… a very passionate and very excellent speech [on Wednesday]…he [Keyes] came in surrounded by press, which is very good for a Republican candidate. Now, it is not all good; it is not all bad. But, you know a thing that bothered me about the [Chicago] Tribune: the [Chicago] Sun-times [Scott Fornek] had a very fair article about this; The Tribune had not one single line about his [Keyes’] first major speech in the City of Chicago or anywhere as a candidate…

I also criticized the Tribune for “its decision to selectively ignore certain political candidates.” Obviously, I was referring to what I thought was the Tribune’s treatment of Keyes’ City Club speech.

I learned this afternoon that Mr. Roeser’s statement was erroneous and my criticism, to the extent it was based on Roeser’s statement, was also wrong. In a follow-up conversation I initiated with Peter Kendall, Deputy Metro Editor for the Tribune, today, he referred me to the August 19, 2004 Chicago Tribune Metro section article by Ray Long and Christi Parsons that reports, in large part, on the Democratic or Governor’s Day at the State Fair. The article runs about 700 words, in total, and 20%, or so, of same is devoted to a report on Keyes’ City Club speech. The discussion of Keyes is located in the middle of the article.

I apologize to the Chicago Tribune and its political reporters for my erroneous statement that it had not covered the Keyes speech and to my gentle readers, as well. I also acknowledge Mr. Kendall’s gracious style when he advised me of my error.

Obviously, some of my statements and criticisms of the Tribune were based on a broader analysis than the existence or absence of the Tribune’s coverage of Keyes’ City Club of Chicago speech and that will be discussed separately. However, I do not want to muddy up this apology and retraction with that discussion.

Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated on August 23 at 1:00 am, revised at 12:25 pm.

[Before reading this blog entry, See retraction made in above blog entry about some of the erroneous statements made in the blog entry, below].

The Talk of the Town [a brewing scandal at the Chicago Tribune]:

The Chicago Tribune, a Combine unto its own, continued its drift toward the left, this week- both in the way it reports and in its decision to selectively ignore certain political candidates. How far left can Editor Ann Marie take the paper? As far left as the boardroom would like her to go. But, will the reporters march with Ann Marie or will they march to the tune of a different drummer?

With good reason, conservatives and Republicans, in general, are starting to refer to the Chicago Tribune, with some regularity, as the Libune.

As indicated, below, in the partial transcript of Sunday night’s Tom Roeser’s WLS-AM radio show, the Tribune, having editorialized sharply against the Illinois Republican Party’s choice of Alan Keyes [See Tribune August 6 editorial] as its Senate Candidate, seems Hell bent on doing whatever it can to make sure Keyes does as poorly on Nov. 2 as the Tribune predicted he would.

Hard to know whether the Tribune’s actions reflect arrogance, ignorance or simply an attempt to ingratiate itself with a new, but significant, political power—as the Tribune looks for ways both to oppose and to go along with Mayor Daley. And, you thought the Chicago Tribune was focused on journalism. Think again. Just ask Deep Throat—and follow the money.

BTW, Berkowitz, of course, has a tape of the Keyes speech and responses to questions at the City Club of Chicago in case Pearson, Mendell, Ford, Chase, Long, Parsons, Secter, Yates, et al would like to borrow it to write the story that the Tribune should have written last week [See, below]. As Judge Easterbrook’s aphorism says, “Wisdom come lately is better than Wisdom not come at all.” Boy, I sure get a lot of mileage out of that Easterbrook quip.
**************************************
Tom Roeser:...At the City Club of Chicago where he [Alan Keyes] gave… a very passionate and very excellent speech [on Wednesday]—Jill [Zwick] was there, as a matter of fact [she is] a City Club of Chicago member—he [Keyes] came in surrounded by press, which is very good for a Republican candidate. Now, it is not all good; it is not all bad. But, you know a thing that bothered me about the [Chicago] Tribune: the [Chicago] Sun-times [Scott Fornek] had a very fair article about this; The Tribune had not one single line about his [Keyes’] first major speech in the City of Chicago or anywhere as a candidate...also there are several other things. At the State Fair, the Sun-times headlines said, “Conservatives rally behind Keyes at State Fair.” The Tribune [said], “GOP tepid toward Keyes during [Republican] Party’s day at Fair.” I got a feeling the Tribune doesn’t want this guy anywhere around.

Bill Pascoe: ...This is silly. I think you are absolutely right. The notion that he [Keyes] could give his first major address at the City Club and not have it reported at all in the largest newspaper in the City, the largest newspaper in the state [the Chicago Tribune] is just scandalous, frankly.

Tom Roeser: It really is and also the fact that they [the Chicago Tribune] fly their flag in behalf of what they call “moderates,” but I think it influences the news media just the same way as it did on the “right side,” when the old Colonel was alive.
**************************************
Dialogue on Tom Roeser’s “Political Shoot-out,” WLS- 890 AM Radio show on Sunday night. Roeser is also a Chicago Sun-Times columnist and Chairman of the City Club of Chicago. Guests on the show included Bill Pascoe, Campaign Manager for Alan Keyes’ Illinois Senate campaign and Communications Director for the Jack Ryan campaign before it imploded on June 25, 2004 [with quite a bit of help from the Chicago Tribune’s lawsuit to unseal the Jack Ryan child custody records, a fact which the Tribune almost always omits, when "reporting," on the Jack Ryan implosion]; and Jill Zwick, former state legislator and described by Tom Roeser as an "independent strategist [who] has worked for Democratic and Republican candidates."
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************************

Updated August 20, 2004 at 1:30 pm.

Zell Miller has the last laugh over Larry Handlin, and perhaps the last drink.

When a Bush is not a Bush: Zell Miller gets it right, after all. Perhaps it is Archpundit [www.archpundit.com] who, while bright and entertaining, is misguided.

Larry Handlin, wearing his usual disguise as an archpundit [www.archpundit.com], has a little “Fun with [Democratic Senator] Zell Miller” by apparently quoting from Zell Miller's 1992 Keynote address.

Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia), of course, has now endorsed Republican President George W. Bush in W’s quest for re-election. Democratic Senator Miller makes the argument, among others, that his beloved Democratic Party has abandoned it’s historic principles [as reflected perhaps in the old Scoop Jackson- Pat Moynihan wing of the Democratic party]-- especially by nominating Zell’s Democratic colleague, Senator John Forbes Kerry, for President. Senator Miller argues that Senator’s Kerry’s long time voting record is extremely weak on national defense and national security and for those reasons, and others, Zell, is endorsing George Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, for re-election and Democratic Senator Zell Miller will speak on W’s behalf at the upcoming Republican National Convention.

Archpundit quotes Senator Zell Miller as saying in 1992,

"I am a Democrat because we are the party of hope. For 12 dark years the Republicans have dealt in cynicism and skepticism...”

"Americans have seen plants closed down, jobs shipped overseas... And George Bush does not get it!"

"Let's face facts: George Bush just doesn't get it. He doesn't see it..."

This seems like a good drinking game in need of some rules, suggests Larry Handlin [www.Archpundit.com].

Yep, and the first rule, Larry, is to remind people, although it should be obvious, that Zell Miller, above, was referring, of course to George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President, not W, the 43rd President. Moreover, many Republicans would agree, then and now, with Zell Miller that George Herbert Walker Bush, the father, was clueless and did not get it, especially when he broke his vows and raised taxes [something, of course, that his son, W, has not come close to doing], which, of course, slowed down the recovery and, perhaps appropriately, was one of the factors leading to George Herbert Walker Bush’s defeat by Mr. Bill in 1992.

As to Zell Miller’s inartful and not well supported implicit and summary criticisms that Zell made in 1992 of the eight years of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, I think Senator Zell Miller might borrow one of 7th Circuit Federal Appellate Judge and adjunct professor at the University of Chicago Law School Frank Easterbrook’s favorite aphorisms, to describe Zell’s change of heart, “Wisdom come lately is better than wisdom not come at all.”
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*****************************************

Updated August 19, 2004 at 11:15 pm

Chairman Topinka sticks the shiv in Jack Ryan one more time, just to make sure everyone knows he was pushed- he didn’t jump and he better not dare come back, at least not while Judy is running the show.

Chairman Topinka’s Little Red Book: The “Ick” Factor, she calls it. Fudging of the truth, she calls it. First, she played the accordion. Now, she plays with words. So, who was playing with the truth? Judy Baar? Jack Ryan? Rod McCulloch? General Borling? All of the above? Some of the above? We discuss, you decide.

State GOP Chairman Judy Baar Topinka said today [Interviewed on Chicago Tonight] yeah, the Senate Candidate selection process was a tough slog, but it was that “Icky,” old Jack Ryan who made it impossible for Judy Baar to do her job and recruit all of those primo senate candidates who just couldn’t want to be Judy’s boy or Judy’s girl.

And, somehow, when we weren’t looking, Judy Baar, or somebody, must have held a Jack Ryan- Jeri Lynn Ryan divorce“trial,” with half of the statements under “Oath,” [as Chairman Topinka puts it] and found Jack guilty of “trying to force his wife to have sex in front of other people.” Not really, that is-- there never was a trial with sworn testimony under oath, or anything like that, in the Jack Ryan- Jeri Lynn Ryan divorce. There never was a summary judgment. There never was a verdict.

All that the public, including Judy Baar, had to judge Jack Ryan was a bunch of contested allegations and a lot of rumor and innuendo. But, gee, you would never know this from listening to Chairman Topinka. Essentially, Judy adjudicated Jack Ryan as guilty of “trying to force his wife to have sex in front of other people.” Where, when and how did she do this? That type of information we did not find out from tonight’s Bob Sirott show, aka WTTW’s Chicago Tonight. Indeed, if Chairman Topinka uses that same deliberating style if she becomes Governor, we might have some summary executions.

Hmmm. Where have I heard that phrase before? The “force his wife,” stuff. The Divorce-child custody dispute allegations? Nope, not even in the allegations. Rod McCulloch’s [General Borling’s former campaign manager] statement, uses the word, “force,” but that portion of the McCulloch statement, along with most of the remainder of the McCulloch statement, was discredited by the child custody records that the California state lower court required to be released to the Chicago Tribune and WLS, other media and the public, as a result of the Tribune/WLS lawsuit.

Is the false assertion that Jack’s ex-wife alleged, “force,” also in the McCulloch Affidavit that the Chicago Tribune requested and obtained from its source Rod McCulloch? Perhaps, but it hard to know as both the Chicago Tribune and its source, Rod McCulloch, have declined to release the affidavit to this blogger.

So, in short, the allegation of Jack Ryan’s ex-wife, which remains a contested, unproven allegation, is not even reported correctly by Chairman Topinka, below. Although Judy couldn't seem to mirror Jeri Lynn Ryan's allegations, the Chairman did seem able to mirror the allegations of Rod McCulloch, which have been shown to be inaccurate. And, yet, Topinka is lecturing others on deception? And telling us the party of Family Values couldn’t tolerate Jack? Since when has Chairman Topinka referred to her Party as the Party of Family Values?

What would Topinka mean by Family Values? We don’t know. WTTW and Elizabeth Brackett didn’t challenge Topinka on any of the above, or the below. Brackett seemed to take this as the gospel according to Topinka. Now, if I were doing the questioning, I think I would have asked Chairman Topinka about this stuff. Isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do? Be skeptical. Challenge, Challenge and more Challenge.

No wonder I can’t “persuade” [or should I say force] Chairman Topinka to do my show. I have “asked,” but perhaps I should “insist.” Ask, persuade, insist, force—what’s the difference? Apparently not much, if you are speaking with Chairman Topinka.
***********************************************
Chairman Judy Baar Topinka: …He [Jack Ryan] said he was going to go. We weren’t even sure he wasn’t going to stay on and run, even at the end of the line.

Elizabeth Brackett: Did that discussion ever come up with him, that he really wanted to stay on the ballot.

Topinka: No, but there was some concern and there was a little fudging of the truth in the past—just because he said he was getting off the ticket, we did not have it confirmed that he really was. So, it is very difficult to try to get another candidate, get another candidate up and running—all the legalities, of which there are many—put together, ready to go and then possibly have Jack Ryan still there… it was really difficult.

Brackett: At some point, when you look back at the whole situation, do you think the party might have been better off had Jack Ryan just stayed on the ticket?

Topinka: No, I don’t think there is any way that a party that runs on Family Values could have had Jack Ryan and his experiences and even—and I know what happens in custody battles—but even if his wife said half of what she said under Oath—there was just no way you could sell him as a candidate, no way, I mean he [Jack Ryan] did not pass what I would call the “Ick,” factor, and that was very important.

Brackett: Had you been deceived by Jack Ryan about what was in those divorce records?

Topinka: Well, that was pretty heavy stuff. And, I mean I did ask him. I know that Jim Edgar did. We all asked him. We were told there was nothing there, even to the night before they were released. That there was nothing there that would be embarrassing. Now, frankly. Most gentlemen, most husbands do not try to force their wives to have sex in front of other people in a public place with shackles and whips and mattresses on the floor, I mean that is just not going to play. Now if both of them wanted to do it—sex, between a married couple, is their business, but it is obvious that this woman [Jack Ryan’s ex-wife, Jeri Lynn Ryan] did not want to have anything to do with it—she was very public about it, there was no way that this was going to play.
************************************
Chicago Tonight, with Elizabeth Brackett interviewing Illinois GOP Chairman Judy Baar Topinka, who was at the State Fair for [Icky?] Republican Day, August 19, 2004. The show, Chicago Tonight, repeats again early Friday morning at 1:30 am and 4:30 am on WTTW, ch. 11.
************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**************************************************

Updated on August 19, 2004 at 2:30 pm

Outing, Gays, Marriage, Sin and Redemption: Michael Bauer meets Alan Keyes

Michael Bauer: Mr. Keyes, Michael Bauer, I am a long time City Club member and a small business owner. One of the reactions to the Federal Marriage amendment [on Capitol Hill] is that [gay rights] activists have begun “outing,” Republican staffers and Republican members, including the campaign manager for Bush Cheney, the executive director of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee; what is your reaction to staffers and members being outed and do you think there is a role, and if so, what is the role for gay men and lesbians in the Republican Party?

Alan Keyes: Step No. 1, I find it to be a kind of extraordinary contradiction that folks who are out there using the language of rights, claiming that they are doing so because they have such consideration for individuals, would then heartlessly adopt a cruel tactic that obviously is aimed at sacrificing people’s lives for the sake of their political and ideological agenda. This seems to me to show the contradiction at the heart of what they do. That’s step No. 1. Step No. 2, issues like gay marriage and such are not issues that are about and I know people like to pretend this is about how you feel about this or that individual who is gay—that’s not true. The gay marriage issue is about marriage and about whether or not we should accept a re-definition of marriage that entirely eliminates, in principle, its connection with procreation. I believe that to do so will destroy in principle the meaning and significance of the marriage institution, and we must reject this, not because we are against homosexuality but because we are for a marriage institution that must remain the foundation of strong families without which our society cannot endure. Finally, is there somebody in here who is not a sinner...which one of us wants there to be a heartless rejection of our other abilities, of our other virtues, of our other qualities because we have sometimes stumbled and made a mistake...there is no contradiction between defending the institution of marriage and understanding that even when you look at somebody and know that they are in sin, you can still remember that they are children of God because God remembers and you treat them as such and respect them for those things that He would always value in them and that is why Christ spent so much time with sinners- he didn’t just see their sin; he saw the possibility of their salvation and so should we.
***************************************************
Exchange at City Club of Chicago lunch program on August 18, 2004.
**************************************************

Updated August 18, 2004 at 5:40 pm

The Talk of the Town: making sense of Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes- Power to the People? The emergence of a kinder, gentler Alan Keyes? Abortion, the Patriot Act, Corruption, Business and Individual Morality, Gay Marriage/Procreation, Reparations, taxes, enterprise zones, Oprah and much, much more.

Speaking to a full crowd of 315 members and guests at a City Club of Chicago lunch program, Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes seemed to “tone it down,” a bit today. Of course, a “toned down,” Alan Keyes is still an extremely dynamic, articulate and provocative speaker.

If Keyes is to have a chance of winning, or even climbing into the 40 % vote range, [A much more mainstream, but less dynamic and very underfunded Republican Senate Candidate Jim Durkin, got 38% of the vote in 2002 against senior U. S. Senator Dick Durbin], he will need to do many more such speeches and engage in many more such conversations that adopt today’s style. Some of Keyes financial supporters, such as conservative Family Tax Network leader Jack Roeser, have been trying to persuade Senate Candidate Alan Keyes to focus a bit more on selling, and perhaps even a bit of a softer-sell. We’ll see if Ambassador Keyes wants to do that and if he can adopt a more diplomatic style.

The 315 attendance number is significant because Republican speakers don’t draw nearly as well at the City Club of Chicago as the Democrats, so 315 people in attendance may demonstrate that Keyes is in fact energizing the Republican base, even in the Democrat dominated City of Chicago. For example, I believe the Senator Dick Durbin, not known for his dynamic speaking style, drew the City Club max- 340. Keyes, with only six days notice to City Club members and others, came pretty close to matching Senator Durbin, closing with 60 voicemail reservations last night and this morning. As Keyes’ mentor and former boss, President Reagan, said in a different context, “Not bad, not bad, not bad at all.”

While the crowd was certainly filled with more supporters than detractors, the City Club of Chicago members and program attendees are known for tilting heavily Democratic and Left and a good number of such were also present, including such notables as former Democratic Gubernatorial candidate and icon Dawn Clark Netsch, who was seated at the same table as Democratic activist Michael Bauer. Although Keyes’ talk drew a number of grimaces from the Grand Dame Dawn, he also seemed to get a few smiles.

Former long-time Democratic State Senator and pol Art Berman, another Democratic icon, was also in attendance and challenged Keyes on his argument to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution and put the vote for U. S. Senators back in the hands of the likes of Art Berman, i.e., the state legislatures. Needless to say, Alan Keyes was not lacking for a sharp response to senator Berman.

Among various journalists and many cameras in attendance were Chicago Sun-Times columnists Laura Washington and Scott Fornek, two of the more knowledgeable and balanced political journalists in town.

On the Republican side, I didn’t see former Governors and so-called State GOP party elders Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar at the lunch program [no doubt they had previous engagements]. I did see conservative Family-Pac Executive Director Paul Caprio in the room and, surprisingly, this room, if not the conservative wing of the Republican Party, was large enough to accommodate Paul Caprio and Jack Roeser, who seem to have been feuding since anyone can remember.

The program was moderated by Mr. Conservative in Illinois-- the City Club of Chicago’s Chairman, Chicago Sun-Times columnist and WLS-AM Radio “Political Shoot-out,” host Tom Roeser. Jay Doherty, Haymarket Group Partner, Democratic Honcho and City Club President was unable to be there, meaning the audience missed out on the famous Doherty City Club introductions of the notables in attendance. Paul Green, the extremely amiable and intelligent City Club of Chicago program chair, Roosevelt University Professor and often the moderator of these lunch and breakfast programs, was there but played the unusual role, for him, of a silent partner.

Keyes spoke for about 35 minutes and answered questions from the audience for another 40 minutes, or so. A frustrated NBC- 5 Dick Kay mentioned after a press conference earlier this week that Keyes gave him no sound-bites. That is, Kay implied that Keyes spoke in verbose paragraphs, as opposed to succinct phrases suitable for 10 second TV shots. Well, Keyes obliged the media today.

Some key Alan Keyes sound-bites [perhaps more details, later]

…I want to make it crystal clear, because it is on the record crystal clear that I am not necessarily a kind of mindless fan of the Patriot Act… [What? Keyes to the left of Democratic 8th Cong. District candidate Melissa Bean? Bean said, on my show, that the Patriot Act was a reasonable response to 9/11]

…On what grounds do we say that that babe in the womb is unequal to me or you in terms of respect for its life? It makes no sense…

…There are two ways in which you can approach what you do with a political machine and the “bosses.” One is that you challenge that machine on behalf of the people, that you mean to see an end to the mentality that subordinates the interests of the people to the power interests of any politicians...[we need to] put the people of this state back in charge...but sadly, the way my opponent [Barack Obama] is acting gives rise to the suspicion that, yeah, he is challenging the leadership and challenging the machine and challenging the bosses but he is challenging them not because he wants to put the people in their place but because he wants to take their place…
***********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
************************************

Updated August 17, 2004, 3:00 pm

Obama-Keyes/ Crane-Bean: A Tale of Two Election Contests-- a Fair and Balanced Criticism of Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama and Republican 8th Cong. Dist. Incumbent and candidate for re-election Phil Crane.

Kudos to challengers Alan Keyes(R)and Melissa Bean(D) for pressing their opponents hard to hold numerous and vigorous debates and forums.

8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Forum tomorrow morning, see below for details.

As I have been saying in the context of the Obama-Keyes debate about debates, the press needs to hold all candidates’ feet to the fire, not just Obama-Keyes and push the candidates to debate each other in frequent, substantive encounters. In June, then Senate Candidate Jack Ryan challenged Senate Candidate Barack Obama to ten televised Lincoln-Douglas debates. Obama countered by offering to do six debates.

Two months later, Obama has reneged and now offers three “events,” to his opponent, Alan Keyes: One event is a September radio discussion with the two candidates. We will have to learn the ground rules, but I doubt that the format will be a Lincoln Douglas debate. [See discussion in blog entry, immediately below].

Obama has accepted two “televised events,” for late October. One, the ABC-7, League of Women Voters (“LWV”), as discussed in the blog entry below, if tradition continues, will surely not be a debate and may barely qualify as a forum. The other, a WTTW event, if history is a predictor of the future, will be a rigorous discussion at which the candidates will be pressed, as they should be, and the event might even be turned into a Lincoln Douglas debate.

In short, Obama is doing politics as usual, and converting his offer to do six televised Lincoln Douglas debates to what is at best one such debate.

Of course, this has nothing to do with who is a Republican or a Democrat. As we can see-- when we turn to the 8th Cong. Dist. Race, where Melissa Bean [D- Barrington] is challenging, for the second straight election cycle, 35 year incumbent Cong. Phil Crane [R- Wauconda]. [Last time around, Crane won 57-43]. Following in the rich tradition of political doubletalk that Obama has now fallen into, we have Cong. Crane’s campaign staff ducking and dodging [see below] a solo appearance on my program and candidate forums, let alone real televised debates.

Crane and Bean have held one joint forum, which apparently followed the LWV model, of two candidates constrained to standing up, side by side, and answering the same questions, as opposed to “debating each other.”

An apparently similarly formatted forum is scheduled for tomorrow in Round Lake for Bean and Crane [The event is an 8th Cong. District Candidates Forum, to be held on Wednesday, August 18th from 8:00 am to 9:00 am at the Round Lake Village Hall, 1937 North Municipal Way, Round Lake Beach, IL 60073. Hosted by: Lake County Economic Development Corporation, moderated by Hal Coxon]

Crane’s press person, Tami Stough, has told me the Crane campaign may agree to do more forums or to do my show, but more likely they are going to use their time to meet people directly, as they think that is the best way to get their candidate in front of the voters.

Balderdash. The Cong. Phil Crane line is the same kind of political doubletalk that we are hearing from Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Obama as to why he can’t/won’t do the six televised Lincoln Douglas debates that he initially challenged his then opponent to do.

Melissa Bean, on the other hand, has taped my show and is rearing to face Cong. Crane in televised debates, forums, whatever. Bean wants to make the 8th Cong. Dist. Campaign what it should be—a vigorous discussion by the candidates with each other, on as much TV as possible, of the public policy issues that the voters should have the opportunity to see and hear discussed.

Instead, Cong. Crane offers two stiff forums for the 8th Cong. District race.

Alan Keyes wants six rigorous, face to face, Lincoln Douglas televised debates to help voters decide the U. S. Senate election

Instead, Barack Obama offers the voters one real, televised vigorous discussion of the issues by the two senate candidates, which may or may not be a debate, let alone a Lincoln- Douglas debate.

Melissa Bean, meet Alan Keyes.

Barack Obama, meet Phil Crane.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.

Me, I will just keep blogging and flogging and I am very curious to see when the mainstream media, including the editorial boards, e.g., the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times will join me in highlighting this issue. But, I won’t hold my breath.

Of course, Obama and Crane are certainly not the only-- or even the worst sinners in the Congregation, but they are as good a place as any to start.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at
JBCG@aol.com
************************************

From Next Week’s Suburban edition of Public Affairs, which features Melissa Bean, the Democratic 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate from Barrington, IL, who is challenging Republican 35 year incumbent Phil Crane (Wauconda).
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The national Democratic Party’s platform, I believe, supports the Patriot Act.

Melissa Bean: Um- Hmm.

Berkowitz: A lot of Democrats don’t realize that. No.1, Are you aware of that and No. 2, do you agree with that position?

Bean: The Patriot Act, I think, was a reasonable response to the events of 9/11.

Berkowitz: So, you would have voted to support it?

Bean: And, we absolutely need to do some of that. There was some merit in the border control issues; in shared intelligence between different agencies. But, I think, wisely, Congress chose to put a sunset provision in it so we could go back and really evaluate what was working—where maybe we overstretched--so that we can balance civil liberties

Berkowitz: Are there things specifically that you would change-- that you know now that you would want changed before you [would] vote to continue [to keep] it [the Patriot Act].

Bean: Well, certainly I think people are a little uncomfortable with their library records, you know, being investigated for no purpose.

Berkowitz: Are they? We are going to interrupt just to say that we are going to continue to speak as the credits roll but I very much want to thank Melissa Bean—she is the Democratic candidate in the 8th Cong. District. She is challenging Cong. Phil Crane, this is his 35th year.

Berkowitz: I should say to our viewers that we have invited Cong. Crane [to come] on this show. We told his press person a month ago—let us know dates that he can do it and we will try to accommodate him. That was in July. I thought there would be some day between then and November 2 [that Cong. Crane could tape our show, “Public Affairs,” and we were told there were no days. So, I say that although we don’t endorse candidates; we do endorse the notion that everybody should do what Melissa Bean is doing --- in coming here and subjecting herself to some tough questions. And, being a good sport about that—but seriously, in educating the viewers and her voters.

Bean: It is important.

Berkowitz: And, [Cong.] Phil Crane should do it. He has done it before [he has taped our show twice in the last few years] but we are having trouble getting him on now and he should come on with Melissa Bean—I have extended that invitation to Cong. Crane’s staff [to appear for more of a real debate on my show; they said they would get back to me, but have not yet done so]. You would be happy to appear with Cong. Crane?

Bean: I would be happy to come out and [appear on the program with him]. We have been trying to get Phil Crane to come out for three years.

Berkowitz: There are debates [candidate forums] coming up. Those things should be videotaped [and televised]. We understand there has been some concern [objection expressed by the Crane campaign to video-taping of these forums by non-media members] but I have been told by the Crane campaign that it has no objection to the press coming and videotaping [these candidate forums]. There is a debate [candidate forum] this Wednesday [Aug. 18]. Right?

Bean: And, we are hoping he is going to be there, in Round Lake.

Berkowitz: When is that?

Bean: 8:00 [am]

Berkowitz: 8:00 in the morning

Bean: Right. And, you can go to www.melissabean.com and we will get you some information. [The event is an 8th Cong. District Candidates Forum, to be held on Wednesday, August 18th from 8:00 am to 9:00 am at the Round Lake Village Hall, 1937 North Municipal Way, Round Lake Beach, IL 60073. Hosted by: Lake County Economic Development Corporation, moderated by Hal Coxon]
*********************************
Melissa Bean, 8th Cong. Dist. Candidate [D- Barrington], interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on August 14, 2003, in a show that will be cablecast in many NW Chicago Cook County and Lake County suburbs the week of August 23, 2004 and in the City of Chicago on Monday, August 30, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

Updated August 15, 2004 at 1:00 am

Pascoe and Proft disseminating to Fred Barnes and other friendly conservatives in the National Media the written offer by Obama to hold six debates ?

Why Keyes was chosen as the Republican nominee for the Illinois Senate Seat. He is the Designated Debater. Even Juan seems to agree with that.
****************************************
Juan Williams [Of the liberal NPR]: … [the Republicans] couldn’t find a Black Guy in Chicago so they went into Maryland and got Alan Keyes. I just think it is the case that the Republican bench in Illinois must be pretty thin if they have got to go get Alan Keyes.

Fred Barnes [Of the conservative Weekly Standard] : … look, the Republican Party in Illinois is in pretty pathetic shape, for sure- uh, look—Why did Alan Keyes-- who said he was against Hillary Clinton moving to New York where she hadn’t lived to become a candidate there for the Senate-- Why is he [Keyes] doing this—similarly [to Hillary] in Illinois? Because Barack Obama has proposed a half dozen or so big time Lincoln Douglas debates. Alan Keyes is a great debater and wants to be and these debates will be watched nationally. You know, two important Black leaders debating issues—it won’t just be, uh-- these will be issues of importance to everybody. But [laughter], it does show, you are right-- the poor party of Republicans in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln’s State, are [sic] in pretty sad shape.

Juan Williams: The Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, he even had an alibi. He said he was out of town when the decision was made. He wasn’t taking responsibility for that one. The debates should be to Keyes advantage. Keyes is terrific on the stump.

Fred Barnes: He is great, yeah.
*****************************************
Fox’s “Beltway Boys,” [Juan Williams sitting in for Morton Kondracke, August 14, 2004].
******************************************

As I have discussed in the blog entry, below [Aug. 13, 1:45 pm], contrary to the above, it looks like Obama’s campaign has withdrawn his offer of 6 Lincoln Douglas debates that Fred Barnes was looking forward to, with Barnes indicating that the debates would be “watched nationally.”

Indeed, Barack does seem to be giving Keyes a debater’s imitation of Muhammad Ali’s “Rope a Dope.”

Almost a week ago, at a press conference, Obama said, “we will have a debate in September; we have already committed to do two debates in October, and I think that that will be sufficient…” Obama Press Conference, August 10, 2004. The debate in September apparently refers to a radio debate. The debates in October apparently refer to a WLS, ch. 7-League of Women Voters’ sponsored TV debate on Oct. 21 and a WTTW sponsored TV debate on Oct. 26.

As I have argued in the blog entry, below [Aug. 13, 1:45 pm], the radio debate does not have the prominence to qualify as a Lincoln Douglas debate. If the Ch. 7 debate follows that station’s tradition and adheres to the LWV’s format, it would be more of a Snoozer1 v. Snoozer 2 than a Lincoln Douglas debate.

So, the Obama media meisters [as former AG Jim Ryan might label them] can say they are doing three debates, but everybody will know, and soon Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, George Stephanopoulos, Tim Russert and the rest of the national media will find out, too, that Barack Obama is trying to renege, gracefully, on his offer of six Lincoln Douglas TV debates, proposing, instead, at best, one real, TV debate in late October, and perhaps with not even that one debate being in the promised Lincoln Douglas style.

Barack Obama, heralded as the next Democratic Superstar and as someone who transcends race and politics, is instead doing what most pols with a lead do- engaging in double talk, staying in his Rose Garden and doing the Rope a Dope instead of the six debates he spoke of. That is perhaps Okay, if the 53% of the Democratic Primary voters who went with Barack, and the other Democratic, Independent and Republican voters who might be thinking of voting for Barack, are looking for another version of Dan Hynes. But, me, I thought they had something else in mind.

As I said to Obama’s flak catchers, they would do well to borrow a page from Ronald Reagan and let Barack be Barack.

Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated August 13, 2004: 7:10 pm

On the Left, with WTTW’s [Ch. 11] Chicago Week in Review: Your pledge dollars at work, supporting the left side of the political spectrum.

Chicago Week in Review, tonight's line-up— Host Joel Weisman and panelists Cliff Kelly, John McCarron, and sports news person Jill Carlson. Tell me when I get to someone who is not on the left. Even Jill seems there. Oh yes, panelist Tom Skilling, the weatherman, might not be on the left—actually, so far, 10 minutes into the show-- Skilling seems to be the most thoughtful and centrist on political issues.

Yep, WTTW, the whole spectrum of political thought? I don’t think so. On its better days, the show starts in the Center and moves to the Far Left. The program likes to fill its panel, including the host, with lefties of varying degrees. Yes, on occasion, the show puts on a conservative, but usually the split is 3-1 liberal, not counting the sports person, if not 4-0, liberal. WTTW's idea of balance.

The show repeats, early Saturday morning, at 1:00 am and 4:30 am

Updated August 13, 2004 at 1:45 pm

Democratic Senate Candidate Barack Obama, with all of that political talent, is unwilling to agree to more than one TV debate with his opponent, Republican Senate Candidate Alan Keyes. Who would have thunk it?

Writing two days after the Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Primary in Illinos, I wrote, in this blog, about Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama:

Barack Obama is an unbelievably talented human being. He so overwhelms you with his articulateness that you fail to see his charm. Or, he so overwhelms you with his quick grasp of the crowd and its tone that you fail to see his substance. Or, he so overwhelms you with his substance that you fail to see his ability to connect. On and on it goes. Just when you think you know the breadth and depth of the guy, he pulls out something new.
*****************************************
Of course, none of this has to do with whether I agree or disagree with Barack’s philosophy, ideology, proposals or programs to make this a better society. But, it has everything to do with whether voters in the Democratic Party agree with Barack on these items, and more importantly, whether they like the fact that their nominee for the U. S. Senate is fluent in the world of ideas.

“Public Affairs,” blog archives, March 18, 2004. ** *************************************************
Fast Forward to this week’s debate on debates. Apparently, Obama is going to “tough it out,” and play the debate about debates just like any other pol would. Forget the stuff above about talents, charm, fluency in ideas, etc. Forget the stuff about Barack being a different kind of politician-- about transcending politics. Barack is opting for following Mayor Daley's guy, David Axelrod, and being a pol.

That is, Barack will assume the press will drop the issue of his intellectual slight of hand when Barack argues that 6 debates was an offer to Jack Ryan in June. He can’t possibly do six televised debates in 12 weeks with Alan Keyes—How could Obama find the time, Obama argues—and the media are supposed to believe and report that, with hardly any tough questioning about it. Barack will follow his handlers’ advice and play it safe, just like any other pol.

WTTW’s Elizabeth Brackett reported last night, on Chicago Tonight, that Obama wants three debates and Alan Keyes wants six. Well, not quite, Elizabeth. Alan Keyes wants six TV debates and Barack Obama wants one TV debate.

Barack is fudging even more than Elizabeth Brackett suggests. Brackett tells us that one of the three Obama accepted debates is a radio debate on WBBM- AM radio. I assume such a debate would be moderated by Craig Dellimore of WBBM’s “At Issue” and CBS-2’s Political Editor Mike Flannery, both of whom are very fair political journalists who know the issues extremely well. And, I would love to hear that debate—but radio is not TV—not nearly the visibility and reach, so to speak. The WBBM radio debate and other radio debates, e.g., WBEZ, Chicago Public Radio, with 848's Steve Edwards moderating and Carlos Hernandez Gomez joining Edwards in the questioning, should supplement the TV debates, not substitute for them. So, now Barack is down to two TV debates?

Well, not quite. Brackett reported that one of the two TV debates will be handled by her public television station--WTTW. Well, no problem there. When the producers, handlers, or whatever you call those folks at WTTW who think they know more about public policy than Phil Ponce will leave Phil Ponce alone, as they apparently did at the Blagojevich- Jim Ryan gubernatorial debate, or at the U. S. Senate candidate primary debates, Ponce is very good—and I assume the WTTW handlers will let Phil Ponce do his thing with Obama-Keyes. So, that is one TV debate for Obama-Keyes.

However, Brackett reported that the other TV debate that the Obama campaign had accepted was from ABC-7 in Chicago. Traditionally, ABC-7 teams up with the League of Women Voters to put forward the worse possible format for a debate. The candidates stand side by side, like stiffs, and take turns answering the same question, with perhaps a canned opening and closing statement. The questions put forth are the worst.

ABC-7 has a smart, talented, informed political correspondent Andy Shaw. Shaw, based on what I have seen in the short spots he is given for political reporting, would be very fair and appears to have the ability to moderate such a debate, ask tough questions and guide an interactive discussion between Keyes-Obama. But, for inexplicable reasons, ABC-7 turns elsewhere.

In the Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Primary Ch. 7 “Debate,” held earlier this year in March, the League/ABC apparently decided that most of the questions should come from audience members who represent ethnic voting blocks, e.g., an Asian group, an Hispanic group, etc. Not exactly the way to get the fairest and most challenging questions about public policy. As I wrote in March, “the Democratic Senate candidates were invited to a so-called Ch. 7, League of Women Voters Debate. Knowing as we all did that the format was designed to cure anyone suffering from insomnia…”

It is hard to know what to call the ABC-7 get together, but surely it is not a debate. So, there you have it, Democratic Senate Candidate Barack Obama, the multi-faceted political talent who stepped onto the national stage a few weeks ago to such applause is unwilling to do more than one televised debate with his Republican Senate Candidate opponent, Alan Keyes. And, the mainstream media, having raised it with Obama once or twice, will now give him a pass.

Of course, when the topic was sex clubs-- with Jack Ryan, the media couldn’t get enough of that issue and would not let Ryan change the topic. But, when it is truly about-- as the Chicago Tribune put it in a far different context “The Public’s Right to Know,” the media say—“Okay, one editorial, a few questions, we tried-- time to move on.” Now, Barack, you were saying about that big news endorsement from the Chicago police…

Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated August 12, 2004 at 2:00 pm
*************************************
Barack Obama/Alan Keyes/JFK/Oddly, good public policy makes good politics/Mark Kirk/Lauren Beth Gash/ Six debates it is.

Now four year Cong. Mark Steven Kirk (R- Deerfield) and then eight year State Rep. Lauren Beth Gash (D- Highland Park) appeared with each other in 33 forums in 2000 [a number of which were taped and aired on TV subsequently], when they were running for the open 10th Cong. Dist. Seat on the North Shore and beyond. And, I have not included in my count of 33 joint forums the show I did with the two appearing jointly on my “Public Affairs,” TV program. [Yes, they had 7 ½ months in contrast to the 3 months Alan Keyes/Barack Obama have; so fine, Obama/Keyes could still do 12 or so forums, including the six televised debates]

In light of that and in light of the excerpts from the Kass, Richards and Brown columns, this blog, the Chicago Tribune editorial and the exchanges between Berkowitz, Fornek, Shaw and Obama, below—it seems pretty clear that the good government imperative for Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama is to agree to at least 6 debates. Only Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn in his Aug. 12 blog entry [Chicagotribune.com/notebook], excerpted below, dissents from that view.

However, more important than Obama maintaining his well developed image of a goo-goo, that is, a good government candidate, is the style he has developed over the last eight years as a state senator. Articulate and bright are the two words that show up most frequently when objective journalists describe Barack Obama.

But, of perhaps greater importance for Obama’s national goals-- including the U. S. Senate and beyond-- is his charm and the ease with which he handles a broad range of print and electronic media. Indeed, the Democratic politician star he most resembles, in style if not in substance, is JFK—President Kennedy, that is, not Presidential Candidate Kerry.

The press loved JFK in good part because of the charm, style and ease with which he handled them at press conferences and also for the same charm and graceful style he displayed in the famous 1960 debates. Everybody knows that Nixon won those debates if you were scoring it as you would in a debate tournament. But, Kennedy won the debates where it counted, in the media and in the hearts and minds of voters.

So, it is not just in the voters’ interest, as the Tribune argues, but it is in Barack Obama’s interest to go forward with the six debate challenge, which Obama proposed last June [in response to the anticipated challenge of Jack Ryan to ten debates]. That is, Obama should do the six debates if he wants to continue to be known for his charm, graceful style and integrity—the kind of attributes that would continue to separate him from the large field nationally and place him in that small group of contenders for VP and, ultimately, for POTUS [President of the United States].

****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz [“Public Affairs” show host]: Barack, excuse me, you have twelve weeks left. His [Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes] point is, six debates, that is- [one] every other week. That is a reasonable pace, isn’t it?

Obama: [Laughter]

Scott Fornek [Chicago Sun-Times]: He [Keyes] is ready to debate today. He said, you walk in the room, the microphone’s there. You [can] put these together on a moment’s notice, he says.

Andy Shaw [ABC- 7 News]: Any time. Any place. What are you afraid of? He [Keyes] is saying.

Obama: Look [Laughter], as I said before. The guy has been here two days…we will have a debate in September; we have already committed to do two debates in October, and I think that that will be sufficient…
*****************************************
Press Conference held by Democratic U. S. Senate candidate Barack Obama, August 10, 2004, Harold Washington Library, Chicago, IL
***************************************
-Contrary to Obama's stated scheduling concerns, 12 weeks is sufficient time to hold six debates…Nothing gets more boring in a hurry than a debate about debates and, in all honesty, three debates would probably have been plenty if Obama hadn't offered six. Mark Brown, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist, Aug. 11

-That is why Obama should live up to his earlier promise to engage in six debates with his general election opponent. Cindy Richards, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist, Aug. 11

-I was hoping for something more from Obama. I hoped he was as interested in ideas as he'd led us to believe. He has plenty of time to stand for six debates … If politics is theater, then Obama can play the cautious politician. Or he can play the man of ideas. But he can't play both. John Kass, Chicago Tribune Columnist, Aug. 11

-If Obama were smart about this, he’d say, “Sure I’ll debate you six times, and let’s start next week,” before Keyes gets a grip on Illinois issues…Voters have never been harmed by having more information about candidates [and]…their speaking styles…Chicago Tribune Editorial, Aug. 12

-In 1998, Eric Zorn proposed a new law: The top two candidates along with any other candidates winning more than 10 percent support in the polls must agree to four, one-hour, debate-style joint public appearances on four different days. And, Zorn now indicates that he is still fine with four debates. See www.chicagotribune.com/notebook, Aug. 12 blog entry.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************************************