Updated October 28 at 12:30 am, revised significantly at 1:00 pm
***********************
Bean- the Great Equivocator, snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory? Crane is AWOL? Can he run and hide? Wouldn't you think that with all the money Crane and Bean are spending that they could get some good advice? You would think that, but you would be wrong. Okay, I will help them both out. Free advice, which perhaps they should value at cost.

What do Bromberg and Bean have in common? Yes, they are both Ds but you will have to do better than that?
************************
Phil Crane [R] is AWOL in the 8th Cong. Dist. race and his Opponent, Melissa Bean [D], at least is “showing up,” but then she ducks and dodges on the Bush Tax Cuts.
Cong. Phil Crane (R- Wauconda; 8th Cong. Dist.) came on Public Affairs in June 2003. However, he declined to come on “Public Affairs,” for the last four months. Additionally, it was reported that Crane has declined, recently, to appear on WBBM’s “At Issue,” and WTTW’s Chicago Tonight. Moreover, he seems to have ducked and dodged similar programs as well as virtually all opportunities to make joint television or radio appearances with his opponent, Melissa Bean [D- Barrington].

I have criticized, on the air, Crane’s avoidance of such appearances and I have been complimentary of Bean’s willingness to do such appearances and to subject herself to tough questions from other journalists and me. Further, in light of the above, as a show host, one doesn’t want to penalize the candidate [Melissa Bean, in this instance] who is willing to appear on the show by being too tough on her and thus rewarding the candidate who ran for cover.

On the other hand, you can’t do what Ponce did last night [see, below], that is, simply give Bean a pass on the issue of how she would have voted on the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. About ten days ago, on Craig Dellimore’s At Issue, Bean said she probably would not have voted for the Bush Tax Cuts because she preferred other options. That, of course, makes no sense. We can't have 535 U.S. Representatives and Senators telling us they each support their own tax cut plan and therefore they are tax cutters, even though they would not have voted for the primary tax bill that was up for a vote.

Bean also said her answer was a “Probably,” as opposed to a less equivocal answer because she was not in Congress at the time and she “did not have all the specifics.” On my show, she said, in August 2004, that she didn’t know how she would have voted because she “wasn’t there,” and she “didn’t have the facts in front of her.” [See, below]. Of course, it is not just Bean who likes to use such dodges.

Democrat Michele Bromberg [running in the 17th Dist. for state representative against incumbent Republican Beth Coulson largely on the platform that Michele is a D and Beth is an R] was fond of saying on my show that she did not know how she would vote on such well known and controversial bills as the Affordable Housing Act "cuz she was not there." Which handlers are telling candidates that it helps them to argue they couldn't possibly know how they would have voted on significant and widely discussed legislation "cuz they were not there." Whoever is paying for such handlers should probably ask for their money back. I would.

Put aside the issue of whether the above statements of Bean imply she is likely to support repeal of the Bush tax cuts. And, I do not know whether she made any explicit statements indicating same. However, what is clear is that Bean is equivocating on the tax issue. Bean is ducking and dodging by saying, as she has said, “I can’t answer that question,” because (1) it is rhetorical, which it clearly is not, (2) it is hypothetical—to which we would say, so what? As Dellimore said to her, that would be true as to most, if not all, questions put to her or any other non-incumbent, (3) Bean was not in Congress then, so she can’t be expected to give an answer—oh, please and (4), Bean does not “have all the facts in front of her.” Oh, please.

I don’t endorse candidates, but I do give gratuitous advice to Rs and Ds. And, I would argue that giving answers like the above seems calculated to help Bean snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. She is almost inviting Crane to run an ad, if he has not already, labeling Bean as the "great equivocator." Of course, Bean could steal a page from Maria Pappas' U. S. Senate primary campaign and run an ad showing Crane as an empty suit running away from a debate opportunity.

On the other hand, the Crane campaign seems so inept and scared to put Crane “out there” that it may not matter what Bean says on taxes, or on anything else.

And, can you imagine, the above notwithstanding, that the Bean-Crane race is the only competitive congressional race in Illinois, and perhaps the closest high-level race in the state of Illinois, vying for that title with the race for an Illinois Supreme Court seat [Justice Maag (D) and Judge Karmeier (R)]. In addition to the above two referenced races, there are maybe fifteen competitive state legislative races out of almost 140 such races.

Look what gerrymandering has brought us-- a sad day for democracy. Of course, we still have a relatively large proportion of competitive U. S. Senate races-- because no one has yet figured out how to gerrymander a state. But, in Illinois, gerrymandering the state was not necessary for the U. S. Senate race to become lopsided. The Republicans figured out how to lose that race, by a big margin, all on their own- with an assist, though, from that so-called Republican Paper, the Chicago Trib-Daley Combine-- who decided that "Combining" Decency, Good Public Policy and the American Way required there be full disclosure of any candidate’s predilections for sex clubs, even if it meant that the Trib would become a "Player," by spending big bucks to pry open sealed child custody records, an act, oddly enough, it doesn't seem to have much of a stomach for elsewhere. You have to wonder why the Trib-Daley Combine was so hot to pry open Jack's records, but nobody else's, don't you? Stay tuned.
***********************
Phil Ponce: In one of the ads that your opponent is running, he says that you plan to raise taxes to the tune of one trillion dollars. Those are a lot of taxes. Is that what you plan to do?

Melissa Bean: I have never said that. Phil Crane knows better. He is confirming our charge that he has lost touch and that he really has no significant legislative accomplishments to run on and so he is throwing out baseless, unfounded attacks instead of talking about his record and one would think after thirty five years he would have more to talk about.

Ponce: Well…what is your position on taxes? Which ones do you support? Which ones are you against? Generally speaking.

Bean: Well, as the Tribune said, who endorsed me…the Tribune, who is particularly conservative on taxes, has said that I have a very sound fiscal policy and I am very proud of that.
*******************************************
Bean: …And, I do want to go back and answer your question on taxes. I want to make clear that I do support tax cuts. I always have and I have been consistent in that but where I have been critical is that our tax code is so weighted to the large lobbying interests that families of the small business community are carrying their unfair share of the tax burden and so I would like to see more credits targeted to the small business community. For instance, the 2003 [tax] cuts only included 3% targeted to that community while roughly 75% of the job growth has come from there.
*********************************************
Melissa Bean, Interviewed on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, October 27, 2004
*************************************
Craig Dellimore: Now, would you have supported or would you have voted for the Bush tax cuts, as they were, had you been in Congress?

Melissa Bean: Well, it’s a rhetorical question and there were multiple bills proposed. At the time, I probably wouldn’t have because there were other proposals that would have provided more stimulus to the small and medium size business community. But I have not said I would focus on repealing those cuts that are in place, which my opponent is trying to create as an attack. And, I don’t know where he has gotten that from.

Dellimore: But, but, you would not have voted for the package that eventually became the law.

Bean: I wasn’t in Congress. I don’t have all the specifics of it but from what I know of it-- probably no.
****************************************
Melissa Bean, WBBM- AM 780 Radio’s AT ISSUE with host Craig Dellimore, aired on October 17, 2004
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Phil Crane has been known as a big tax cutter, right? He has supported unequivocally—

Melissa Bean: No, he claims to be a big tax cutter.

Berkowitz: 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 was tax cuts across the board on marginal rates of taxation, right?

Bean: Um-um.

Berkowitz: Now, how would you have voted on that? Would you have voted for either of those packages [Bush 2001 or 2003 tax cuts]? If you had been the …Congressman from the 8th Cong. Dist. …if you had been that person… [Congressman] 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 just the tax code in general because on your point about accountability, he tends to provide in the tax code always relief for those largest lobbying interests.

Berkowitz: All right, we will have to find out [about that]. But, back to taxes, if you had to vote in 2001 or 2003 for the Bush Tax [Cut] program, would it have been a yes or no?

Bean: Well, there were a couple of different options…

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 voted 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.

Berkowitz: So, you are not going to answer it.

Bean: I don’t have the facts in front of me, no.
*************************************************
8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Melissa Bean [D-Barrington] recorded on August 14, 2004, and as is airing this week on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs and as will be airing throughout the City of Chicago on "Public Affairs," on Monday, Nov. 1 at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*************************************************

Updated October 26, 2004 at 4:55 pm
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The [tax cut] legislation that passed came before the congress. If you were there, would you have supported it, would you have voted yes or no on that vote?

Melissa Bean: I’d have to go back and look at it. I wasn’t there. It is a rhetorical question.

Berkowitz: So, you are not going to answer it.

Bean: I don’t have the facts in front of me, no.
***********************************************
Berkowitz: All right. Assault weapons, you don’t support the ban on assault weapons?

Crane: No.

Berkowitz: Why would individuals-- private individuals—need to have an assault weapon?

Crane: Whatever melts their butter in terms of going out to the rifle range and target practicing and so forth. I don’t do that myself and it is not something that excites me but it does some people.
*******************************************************
A virtual debate between Cong. Phil Crane (R- Wauconda) and his challenger, Melissa Bean (D- Barrington).
*******************************************************
Tonight [Oct. 26], at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable on Ch. 19 or Ch. 35 in 24 suburbs [See, below airing schedule], after watching the Obama-Keyes debate, watch the two contestants [Crane and Bean] in the only major competitive race in the state of Illinois on “Public Affairs.” Or, watch “Public Affairs,” at the same time Monday, Wednesday or Friday on Ch. 19 in 10 additional suburbs. The airing schedule for the show, by specific suburb, is included at the end of the partial transcript of the show, below. The show will also air through-out the City of Chicago on Monday, Nov. 1 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
*****************************************
Cong. Phil Crane [R] and challenger Melissa Bean [D] in the 8th Cong. Dist. [ Northwest Cook County, McHenry and Lake Counties], debate and discuss with “Public Affairs,” show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz tax cuts, trade, prescription drug benefits, medicare, job losses, deficits, national security, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Teachers’ unions, special interests, Roe v. Wade, Partial birth abortion bans, gun control, melting butter, rifle ranges and much, much more.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Phil Crane has been known as a big tax cutter, right? He has supported unequivocally—

Melissa Bean: No, he claims to be a big tax cutter.

Berkowitz: 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 was tax cuts across the board on marginal rates of taxation, right?

Bean: Um-um.

Berkowitz: Now, how would you have voted on that? Would you have voted for either of those packages [Bush 2001 or 2003 tax cuts]? If you had been the …Congressman from the 8th Cong. Dist. …if you had been that person… [Congressman] 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 just the tax code in general because on your point about accountability, he tends to provide in the tax code always relief for those largest lobbying interests.

Berkowitz: All right, we will have to find out [about that]. But, back to taxes, if you had to vote in 2001 or 2003 for the Bush Tax [Cut] program, would it have been a yes or no?

Bean: Well, there were a couple of different options…

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 voted 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.

Berkowitz: So, you are not going to answer it.

Bean: I don’t have the facts in front of me, no.
**********************************************
Melissa Bean: I believe you, along with Phil Crane, are very much about being a free trader. It is kind of interesting—

Jeff Berkowitz: I am a free trader? Are you a free trader? More important than my views are your views, are you a free trader?

Bean: I do believe in trade. I do believe in trade.

Berkowitz: So, you are a free trader? But, are you—

Bean: But, when you are talking about—

Berkowitz: Excuse me. But, are you a free trader? Because you said Phil Crane is a free trader.

Bean: I wouldn’t say I am a knee jerk free trader like Phil Crane is.

Berkowitz: He is a knee jerk [free trader]?

Bean: I have never seen anything related to trade that he doesn’t—

Berkowitz: But, do you support NAFTA, for instance?

Bean: At the time, I think I would have supported NAFTA, absolutely. I think there are some things that could be amended now—

Berkowitz: okay

Bean: to just try to create more of a level playing field, but there are definitely benefits to trade-- but when you get into issues like the drug bill, we suddenly get into a protectionist mode. So, there is an inconsistency, in a sense.
****************************************************
8th Cong. Dist. Candidate Melissa Bean [D-Barrington], recorded on August 14, 2004, and as is airing this week on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs and as will be airing through-out the City of Chicago on "Public Affairs," on Monday, Nov. 1 at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*******************************************************
Berkowitz: Is it going to be in 2004 when the Presidential election occurs, …”it’s the economy stupid”? Or is going to be, “it’s National Security, stupid.”

Crane: I think National Security will be an issue, but I still think the economy is—uh, I have always felt that taxes are [the] No. 1 concern to voters and to provide tax relief and economic growth initiatives is [the] No. 1 priority.
*****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Gun Control. Do you support gun control? You’re opposed to gun control?

Cong. Phil Crane: I am totally supportive of the Second Amendment. My right to keep and bear arms.

Berkowitz: Okay, but in addition to being supportive of the Second Amendment, would you support any federal gun control legislation?

Crane: No, I don’t believe in federal gun control legislation.

Berkowitz: So it should all be on the state level?

Crane: Except, if you violate the law, and then we’ll control you and your guns.

Berkowitz: You oppose the Brady Bill?

Crane: Oppose it?

Berkowitz: The concept of the federal government requiring background checks. You oppose that?

Crane: Oh, Yeah. No, I don’t think background checks are required.

Berkowitz: You don’t think so?

Crane: No.

Berkowitz: So, if felons want to get a gun, that’s Okay?

Crane: Well, a felon goes to the store—

Berkowitz: Ex-felons, or

Crane: Yeah, and buys it, and he is a law abiding citizen

Berkowitz: It’s okay.

Crane: So long as he is a law abiding citizen.

Berkowitz: All right. Assault weapons, you don’t support the ban on assault weapons?

Crane: No.

Berkowitz: Why would individuals-- private individuals—need to have an assault weapon?

Crane: Whatever melts their butter in terms of going out to the rifle range and target practicing and so forth. I don’t do that myself and it is not something that excites me but it does some people.
*************************************************************
Cong. Phil Crane, [R- Wauconda, 8th Cong. Dist.], recorded on June 30, 2003 and as is airing on “Public Affairs,” this week in the suburbs and as will be airing through-out the City of Chicago on Monday, Nov. 1 at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*******************************************************
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.
******************************************
The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The “Public Affairs,” show with Cong. Phil Crane and Candidate Melissa Bean will air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Nov. 1, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
8th Cong. District Democrat Candidate Melissa Bean’s internal poll of a week ago indicated that the race is currently a statistical tie. The Cong. Crane camp argued the poll should be ignored, asserting that it was a “Push Poll.” In 2002, Crane, who is now in his 35th year in Congress, beat Bean by a 57% to 43% margin. But, this time, Bean has more money and more name recognition, and, two week-ends ago, the Obama troops came to the District to help her. Cong. Lahood is planning to send another busload to the 8th the weekend before the election. So, things are heating up in the 8th, which looks to be the only competitive congressional race in the State. Watch for the issues of tax cuts, trade, the War and abortion [helps Crane] and loss of jobs off shore, gun control, Crane's detachment from District and age [helps Bean] to be significant, if not decisive, as we head toward the home stretch.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated October 21, 2004 at 3:30 pm
*********************************
Liberals supporting Liberals, that’s blogworthy? Kerry-Edwards and Mary Cheney, just one more time.
***********************************
More from Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Eric Zorn on Kerry-Edwards and Lesbians in yesterday’s blog of his [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook], with a response. Eric Zorn states,

“The real exploitation here is all the phony outrage and hand-wringing and fingerpointing from the same folks in the GOP who've remained silent as gays and Mary Cheney herself have been actually, pointedly denigrated by their partisans.

They decided to jump up and down and wave their arms about this remark--a remark that would have passed as virtually unnoticed as John Edwards' remark in the veep debate passed if they'd let it – and turn Mary Cheney into Little Nell.

They saw an opening, a chance to use the Mary Cheney issue to score points against Kerry, and they took it. Their partisans hammered on it for days and days after the debate, assuring that "Mary Cheney…lesbian" was uttered 1,000 times more often than it needed to be.

And readers of this blog, anyway, recognize that.

Asked to vote yesterday and today on the question, "Which side is cynically exploiting the Mary Cheney issue for political gain?" 78 percent of more than 1,100 respondents said it was the Bush/Cheney campaign.

Poll results not scientific, but strangely gratifying nonetheless.”

Taking Eric Zorn’s points in reverse order, why are the poll results gratifying? Zorn is one of the fairest columnists I know, with the pro-con arguments that he hosts on his site [rhubarb patch] and that he often includes in his columns. I am not exactly a card carrying liberal and yet I almost never miss a Zorn column or blog entry, which are always gracefully written and almost always try to employ logic. That having been said, Zorn is a proud liberal [albeit not always towing the party line] and his column/blog attracts, no doubt, disproportionately liberals. I am the exception that proves the rule. So, 78% polling for Kerry-Edwards on this issue means liberals support liberals. Another dog bites man story. Gratifying? I can’t imagine why.

And, Zorn tells us what brutes Republicans are for pouncing on Kerry to take political advantage of Kerry stepping needlessly on Mary Cheney. My, my, complaining about pols for trying to manipulate things for votes is like complaining about dogs for barking. That is what they do. Both Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards would do anything, say anything, for a vote. Well, almost anything. Perhaps one team a little more so than the other, but a difference in degree, not in kind.

Finally, as to the substance of the discussion, it does seem odd that John Edwards and John Kerry, both apparently very big on gay rights, don’t seem to know any gay people, except for one- the Veep’s daughter. When they want to make a point about gays, they don’t go to Gephardt’s lesbian daughter. And, they don’t go to a lesbian who is almost a true house-hold word or name, e.g., Melissa Ethridge, who has told us to label records, not people. My God, if somebody who is not so hip, like me, knows Melissa, so would everybody. And they don’t go to Ellen DeGeneris, whose life is almost a gay TV sit com. And they don’t go to Will and Grace, which, I am told, is a gay TV sit com.

Oddly, very oddly, the only gay person who Kerry-Edwards can think of to make their gay points is Mary Cheney? And within minutes of the Kerry-Bush debate concluding, there is little Miss Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry-Edwards Campaign manager, explaining in her grandmotherly way to Chris Wallace on Fox that of course, it was Okay to bring up Mary Cheney, with Cahill saying, “it is fair game.” Apparently, the “it” is Mary Cheney.

Zorn says, of course, this is all happening because, “the toe-hold for all these harangues is the idea that it's bad to be gay and therefore Kerry was waving around the Cheney family's dirty laundry. If it's exploitation to remind voters that he [Kerry] doesn't see it as dirty laundry, then so be it.”

No, no Eric, this is not happening primarily because evangelicals and others think it is bad to be gay. Yes, a bunch of those folks are important potential Bush-Cheney voters. But, this is happening because Kerry-Edwards, knowing 70 million voters are watching the debates, wanted to take that opportunity to remind those who think it is bad to be gay that the Cheneys have a lesbian daughter and the Cheneys aren’t necessarily calling her a sinner or a selfish hedonist.

So, implicitly, Kerry and Edwards are saying to their newfound voters in need of information, say “Do you really want to vote for a guy with a lesbian daughter. And, the dad is not even complaining. Of course, since I think that is Okay, you are not voting for me. But, perhaps you would like to skip your presidential vote for Bush-Cheney.” And the fact that Mary Cheney is “out,” doesn’t mean that all of those 70 million viewers know that, and especially not those more rural people who think gay is bad and who are in the swing state areas of rural Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, etc.

And, of course, the act of Kerry-Edwards bringing up Mary Cheney may also have been, as Bill Kristol said, a shot across the bow. That is, Kerry-Edwards were saying to Bush-Cheney, “don’t you guys start hammering on the gay marriage thing to pull in your votes in say, Ohio, or we will keep throwing the Mary Cheney thing all over the place, diluting any effort for you to energize those social conservatives who think traditional marriage needs to be “protected.”

So, surprise, surprise, this is happening because Kerry-Edwards were out hunting for voters, or more precisely, to keep some potential Bush-Cheney voters home and using the gay issue, to do so. Just as, Bush-Cheney have been using the issue to hunt for votes, or to keep some of the Kerry-Edwards voters home.

So, just one request, Eric. Don’t tell me any of these pols are pure. They wouldn’t be where they are if they were. You know that. I know that. And, so do all of our gentle readers.
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************************************

Oct. 19, 2004 at 6:30 pm
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: There really are no restraints on a woman’s right to have an abortion at any time, any place that you would agree to, right?

State Senator Susan Garrett [D- Lake Forest]: Right.
*******************************************
Berkowitz: …so the question is…should that school district be allowed to discriminate based on that person’s sexual orientation if we define sexual orientation to include the right to be a cross-dresser.

Garrett: I think that’s up to the school district at this point and I don’t want to comment on how schools should employ teachers—
********************************************
Berkowitz: The Illinois Chamber of Commerce is supporting you over [your opponent, Republican] Dan Bryant?

Garrett: Yes, they are supporting me. That’s what I can say, right now. Yeah…
***************************************
State Senate Susan Garrett (D- Lake Forest; 29th District), candidate for re-election, is the featured guest on this week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs.”

Next week’s show features a virtual debate between Cong. Phil Crane (R- Wauconda, 8th Cong. Dist) and challenger Melissa Bean (D- Barrington).
***************************************
If you live on the North Shore, North or Northwest suburbs, you can watch, weekly, the suburban edition of "Public Affairs." (And, if you live in Chicago, you can watch the City edition of Public Affairs every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21- The show with Senator Garrett airs in the City this coming Monday, Oct. 25)

Tonight [Oct. 19], at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable on Ch. 19 or Ch. 35 in 24 suburbs [See, below airing schedule], take a break from Hannity, King and Norville [a law firm?] or sitcoms on broadcast TV, and watch “Public Affairs.” Or, watch “Public Affairs,” at the same time Monday, Wednesday or Friday on Ch. 19 in 10 additional suburbs. The airing schedule for the show, by specific suburb, is included at the end of the partial transcript of the show, below.
*****************************************
State Senator Garrett debates and discusses with “Public Affairs,” show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the state’s Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeal Act, Tax Swaps- Lowering property taxes and raising income taxes, Capping individual home owner Real Estate Assessments, Increasing state income taxes, Increases in taxes and fees on business, the increase in Illinois’ Minimum Wage, the business climate in Illinois, Abortion, Same Sex marriage, Gay Rights legislation and Tort Reform.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you oppose any attempt to regulate so called Live Birth Abortions?

State Senator Susan Garrett: Yes.

Berkowitz: And, you oppose parental notice?

Garrett: Yes, we talked about this maybe a couple of years ago.

Berkowitz: There really are no restraints on a woman’s right to have an abortion at any time, any place that you would agree to, right?

Garrett: Right.

Berkowitz: All right. Same Sex Marriage. Gay rights. Senate Bill 101. You supported Senate Bill 101?

Garrett: I did.

Berkowitz: And, that would have banned discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation.

Garrett: Right. It’s a civil rights issue.

Berkowitz: And, that would have protected gays, lesbians, transgenders, cross-dressers? Would all of those individuals been protected?

Garrett: Well, I don’t know how far reaching you want to go—

Berkowitz: Well, you drafted, you voted on the legislation, right?

Garrett: In the House, it never came up for a vote in the Senate, but I do--

Berkowitz: You supported it in the House.

Garrett: Yes.

Berkowitz: You would support it if it came up in the Senate. Would you support legislation that protected gays, lesbians, transgenders and cross-dressers? All of those four groups?

Garrett: Well, I don’t know if the legislation has cross-dressers.

Berkowitz: But, I am asking, should it? Should it? Would you like it, too?

Garrett: shoulda, woulda, coulda—I think what we are talking about—

Berkowitz: Should it protect all four groups?

Garrett: It should protect people who are being discriminated against because of-- they happen to believe that two men or two women living together, it’s Okay. And, that’s their relationship. They could have civil unions.

Berkowitz: I am talking about a real world example. Somebody applies and wants to teach at a school and that person is a cross dresser. It is a man and he would like to come [to school dressed] as a woman.

Garrett: This is housing. We are talking about housing. The legislation--

Berkowitz: And employment. Sorry, but it [the legislation] included employment, so the question is—you have to face these issues—in the hypothetical I gave you, should that school district be allowed to discriminate based on that person’s sexual orientation if we define sexual orientation to include the right to be a cross-dresser.

Garrett: I think that’s up to the school district at this point and I don’t want to comment on how schools should employ teachers—

Berkowitz: So, you wouldn’t want legislation that precluded that kind of discrimination by the school district.

Garrett: Yes, like I said, it comes down to local control and I—

Berkowitz: Same sex marriage. Would you think that the State of Illinois should allow individuals of the same sex to marry?

Garrett: I believe in civil unions.

Berkowitz: Not same sex marriage?

Garrett: Right.

Berkowitz: Why, why civil unions and not same sex marriage?

Garrett: Why civil union?

Berkowitz: And not same sex marriage. Why shouldn’t they--You just said two individuals [of same sex] should not be discriminated against—

Garrett: What we can do as a state—we are not talking about, at the federal level, changing the Constitution.

Berkowitz: I am talking about Illinois. Illinois decides who can grant and get a license to marry. Now, why shouldn’t two gays or two lesbians be allowed to marry?

Garrett: Well, they might be allowed to marry in other areas. But, I am supporting the civil union right now.

Berkowitz: So you are not, Okay, but on that issue—you are not going to give a reason why?

Garrett: Well, I think that is the values that I have and I think that represents the values of our state and of our district and--

Berkowitz: Tort Reform.

Garrett: Yeah.

Berkowitz: Do you support medical malpractice tort reform?
*********************************
Berkowitz: The Illinois Chamber of Commerce is supporting you over [your opponent, Republican] Dan Bryant?

Garrett: Yes, they are supporting me. That’s what I can say, right now. Yes…
*********************************
State Senator Susan Garrett (D- Lake Forest; 29th District), candidate for re-election, running against Republican state senate candidate Dan Bryant, in a show that was recorded on October 3, 2004 and is airing in the suburbs this week [Week of Oct. 18] and will air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Oct. 25, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
********************************
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.
******************************************
The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The “Public Affairs,” show with State Senator Susan Garrett will air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Oct. 25, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
8th Cong. District Democrat Candidate Melissa Bean’s internal poll indicates that the race is currently a statistical tie. The Cong. Crane camp argues the poll should be ignored, asserting that it was a “Push Poll.” In 2002, Crane, who is now in his 35th year in Congress, beat Bean by a 57% to 43% margin. But, this time, Bean has more money and more name recognition, and, last weekend, the Obama troops came to the District to help her. Cong. LaHood [R- Peoria] sent up a busload of troops, last weekend, from downstate to help Cong. Crane. And, Cong. Lahood is planning to send another busload to the 8th the weekend before the election. So, things are heating up in the 8th, which looks to be the only competitive congressional race in the State. Watch for the issues of tax cuts, trade, the War and abortion [helps Crane] and loss of jobs off shore, gun control, Crane's detachment from District and age [helps Bean] to be significant, if not decisive, as we head toward the home stretch.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

October 18 at 12:15 pm - Index of recent posts on “Public Affairs," Blog:

1. Oct. 18, 12:30 am— Obama; Bromberg- 8:30 pm Tonight, Cable Ch. 21

Political Buzz: When is hardball too hard? Speaker Mike, Barack Obama and Backlash. A Team Obama mistake- participating in a misleading Bromberg mailer?

Monday Night Politics, better than Monday Night Football. Tonight, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21, State Rep. Candidate Michele Bromberg joins host Jeff Berkowitz. Includes partial transcript of show.
*********************************************
2. Oct. 16, 6:10 pm—Crane- O’Sullivan- LaHood- Bean- Trib Combine- Irony of Ironies.

With apologies to Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, who is Dennis O’Sullivan and what has he done with Congressman Phil Crane?

It still looks like it is Crane’s to lose, which he could do. The confused world of Cong. Phil Crane [A humble man?], Cong. Ray Lahood [star quality and frank?], Democratic Candidate Melissa Bean [level the playing field?] and the Chicago Tribune[free trade is for kids?]/Combine[Daley and ?]
***********************************************
3. Oct. 13, 1:00 am—Keyes- Obama Debate.

The first Keyes- Obama Senate Debate. No fireworks. Just good, serious, thoughtful discussion. A technical tie. Can Keyes sustain that tone for 21 days? Does it matter?
***********************************************
4. Oct. 11, 3:30 pm— State Rep. Julie Hamos v. Challenger Julianne Curtis, A choice, not an echo.

Transcript of Hamos/Curtis debating the new Illinois Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeals Act. Which view represents yours?
***********************************************
5. Oct. 11, 12:30 am: The Obamas, Coulson, Bromberg and Schakowsky.

What’s wrong with this picture? Who doesn’t belong in it? Did you know that Bromberg started to run against Cong. Jan Schakowsky in the Dem. Primary in 2002? Cong. Schakowsky, a forgiving soul?
***********************************************
6. Oct. 9, 7:15 pm: Madigan/Cross/Tully/Ryg/Marin/Keyes

Speaker Mike/Minority Leader Cross/Paul Tully/Kathy Ryg/Archpundit/Rich Miller/Capitolfax/cross on a Cross/Alan Keyes/Time on a Cross/crossed by Cross/Carol Marin on Judy and Tom as the silent Republican Majority?
**************************************************
7. Oct. 8, 3:35 pm: Virtual Keyes-Obama Debate

Transcript of Obama and Keyes discussing Foreign policy issues. U. S. Senate Candidates Obama and Keyes in a “virtual debate.” Morality, Ideology, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russian roulette, abortion and homosexuality. Who makes you feel safer?
********************************************

Updated Oct. 18, 2004 at 12:30 am
**********************************************
Political Buzz: When is hardball too hard? Speaker Mike, Barack Obama and Backlash.
The first Team Obama mistake?

Monday Night Politics, better than Monday Night Football. Tonight, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21, State Rep. Candidate Michele Bromberg joins host Jeff Berkowitz on "Public Affairs." Bromberg v. Coulson, the closest State Rep. race in the State of Illinois- Minority Leader Cross takes on Speaker Madigan.

Did the Speaker's team go over the line in the Bromberg mailers? Democrats in the area worry about a backlash vote for State Rep. Beth Coulson, due to misleading mailers from Bromberg. Has Speaker Mike snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Is Bromberg responsible? Where is the Ethics Committee of the State Legislature? Did Team Obama make a mistake? Does Barack Obama really think Beth Coulson is not 100% Pro-Choice? Is Barack Obama? Well, at least they don't have to worry about Alan Keyes raising that with them.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: But, as you know, when you vote in the state legislature, ultimately you have to vote yes or no. If you had been in the state legislature this year, when it was passed, would you have voted yes to support the Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeal Act?

Michele Bromberg: Jeff, I wasn’t there, so I really can’t give you that answer but I do know in the future when votes like that do come up, I want to sit down with the entire group of people and really get an understanding of what their concerns are. [See, below, for more of the transcript of the "Public Affairs," show with Michele Bromberg]
****************************************
Michele Bromberg (D- Skokie), candidate for State Rep in the 17th Dist., declines, on the “Public Affairs,” TV show, to take a position on the Affordable Housing Act, Tax Swaps- Lowering property taxes and raising income taxes, Capping Individual Home Owner Real Estate Assessments and Increasing state income taxes (See transcript, below).

Bromberg does take a position on abortion; Bromberg also discusses Special Interests, Trial Lawyers and what Bromberg thinks differentiates her from eight year incumbent State Rep. Elizabeth Coulson (R- Glenview, 17th District) (See transcript, below).

All of the above is part of the debate and dialogue that Michele Bromberg has with “Public Affairs,” show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz.
****************************************
If you live in Chicago, you can watch the City edition of Public Affairs every Monday night at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21- The show with Bromberg is on in the City, tonight, Monday, October 18th at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

After watching some Monday Night Football, take a break from football and watch a more interesting spectator sport, politics and public policy on “Public Affairs,” at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. A partial transcript of the show is included, below. *****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Affordable Housing has become somewhat of an issue, and your district includes West Wilmette, right?

Michele Bromberg: Um, um.

Berkowitz: And Wilmette is an area that was designated by the State as not having sufficient affordable housing and [state] legislation was passed called the Affordable Housing, Planning and …Appeals Act. Is that legislation you are familiar with and do you support it?

Bromberg: I feel that no group of people should be discriminated against whatsoever but also in communities that are well established, I would like to sit down with the local village boards, the constituencies of business owners and again, I’m a nurse- I look at things holistically—get this group together and see what’s best for their community.

Berkowitz: But, as you know, when you vote in the state legislature, ultimately you have to vote yes or no. If you had been in the state legislature this year, when it was passed, would you have voted yes to support the Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeal Act?

Bromberg: Jeff, I wasn’t there, so I really can’t give you that answer but I do know in the future when votes like that do come up, I want to sit down with the entire group of people and really get an understanding of what their concerns are.

Berkowitz: Well, I understand you weren’t there, but you will be there if you are successful in this campaign and I guess the voters would like to know if you had been there, how would you have voted at that time- they understand that you are not there, you weren’t there- but you would like to be there-

Bromberg: Right.

Berkowitz: and if you were, you know what the legislation is, would you have supported it? Would you have voted yes or no?

Bromberg: I would have to look at the local government and I feel that there has to be some local control over what happens in the different villages because the local village government really knows what’s best?

Berkowitz: Does that mean that you would have voted no on that?

Bromberg: [Pause]. I would have had to have looked it over.

Berkowitz: So, you are not sure?

Bromberg: Right, cause I wasn’t there.
***************************
Bromberg: …but one thing that we have to work on how schools are funded and we have to do something about the inequality of funding throughout the state and we have to work with the local school boards and the local governments.

Berkowitz: Do you want to change that [school] funding- you know, some people have proposed a tax swap, that we lower property taxes and raise the income tax.

Bromberg: Right.

Berkowitz: Would you support that?

Bromberg: I want to see if that is really going to work. I want to see hard facts and evidence that that is really going to work before I would decide that would be a way that we would fund it, but I know one thing- we have to stop taxing people out of their homes…

Berkowitz: So, you are concerned about high property taxes?

Bromberg: High property taxes—

Berkowitz: But does that mean that if you are concerned about that- then I suppose you would have supported the legislation that capped real estate assessments at 7% per year, is that right?

Bromberg: I would have to look into that further.

Berkowitz: You are not sure if you would support that?

Bromberg: I would have to look into that further and really sit down with the people and talk to the school districts and see how it affects them…the concern is for the school districts and we have to make sure that the schools are heavily funded.
*********************************************
Berkowitz: …in general, would you oppose or support an increase in the state income tax?

Bromberg: Again, that is something that I really have to study. Again, I look at things holistically. I would have to study that over and see how that is really going to help or not help the State of Illinois.

Berkowitz: But, you are not going to take a pledge not to do it [raise state income taxes]. You are just saying you are undecided at this point.

Bromberg: I would have to look it over and see what the benefit would be.
**************************************
BROMBERG ON ABORTION
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You would be, would you say, 100% pro-choice?

Michele Bromberg: 100% Pro-choice.

Berkowitz: You would have opposed the ban on partial birth abortion in the state legislature that would ban that [procedure] except for the life of the mother [being at issue]. Would you oppose that ban?

Bromberg: Like I said, I am 100% pro-choice. I have been in situations where women have had difficult, difficult choices—all these things are very difficult choices and I support pro-choice 100%.

Berkowitz: Does that mean that you would oppose the ban on partial birth abortion that I just described?

Bromberg: Like I said, 100% pro-choice.

Berkowitz: There was proposed legislation [in the state legislature] to deal with what was called live birth abortions. The Live Birth Infant Protection Act. Would you have similarly opposed that legislation? It didn’t pass in Illinois.

Bromberg: Like I said Jeff, women must be able to make decisions for themselves on their health care.

Berkowitz: Okay, well, you know the live birth abortion issue deals with the point that allegedly was made that some abortions go wrong [so to speak], the fetus is born alive and the allegation was made that in some hospitals that fetus is taken away to another area [of the hospital] and allowed to die…

Bromberg: Jeff, I worked in a hospital. I have seen women in bad, bad situations. Like I said, 100 % pro-choice. I am not going to cut hairs with you on that issue. [Ed. Note- Cut hairs? Must be a nursing term]

Berkowitz: So that fetus, though—if that is going on, that is something you would allow to happen? That is, a fetus is allowed to die?

Bromberg: Like I said, umm, maybe we need to move on. [Ed. Note- A Public Affairs first-- 7 years of doing my show and nobody-- not even Barack, not even Keyes-- not even the Senior Senator, Dick Durbin-- ever told me to “move on.”]

Berkowitz: Parental notice, you would oppose parental notice.

Bromberg: I think we need to move on. Like I said, women need—

Berkowitz: No, I just want an answer. What’s your view? Do you oppose parental notice?

Bromberg: I think women need to make a decision. They are to be 100% able to make that decision.
***************************************
BROMBERG ON SPECIAL INTERESTS, TRIAL LAWYERS AND WHAT BROMBERG THINKS DIFFERENTIATES BROMBERG FROM COULSON
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We are going to continue to speak as the credits roll, but I very much want to thank [for coming here to “Public Affairs”] Michele Bromberg, who of course is the Democratic candidate, running in the 17th District for State Representative. She is running against Beth Coulson, who is a Republican and sometimes says she is an Independent, is that right?

Michele Bromberg: Yes.

Berkowitz: Now, what do you think about that? Is Beth Coulson an independent?

Bromberg: Beth Coulson is not an independent. She takes money from the Republican Party. She gives money to the Republican Party. She also is ummm- she does not stand up for OUR values.

Berkowitz: Who is OUR values? What do you mean OUR values? Who is OUR values? Who is OUR?

Bromberg: The Democratic values. [She is] very tied into the Republican—

Berkowitz: She is a Republican.

Bromberg: She is a Republican. She is part of the Republican Party—

Berkowitz: You are a Democrat.

Bromberg: I am a Democrat and proud of it.

Berkowitz: People have a choice between a Democrat and a Republican? She says she is—

Bromberg: She takes money from—

Berkowitz: She says she is an independent, but you are not so sure.

Bromberg: No, she definitely says she is an independent. She takes money from drug companies. She takes money from—

Berkowitz: Would you take money from drug companies?

Bromberg: Absolutely not.

Berkowitz: Would you take money from teachers’ unions?

Bromberg: I believe in the teachers’ values.

Berkowitz: Are they a special interest? Because you talk about not taking money from “special interests.”

Bromberg: They are not a special interest. They are- They are educating the future of [the] State of Illinois.

Berkowitz: Trial Lawyers. Are Trial Lawyers a special interest?

Bromberg: They are trying to work through different things with the doctors—

Berkowitz: Do you take money from Trial Lawyers?

Bromberg: Ummmm, a few who are very close friends of mine.

Berkowitz: A few? If they are very close friends, you take it. But, if there was a Trial Lawyers Association that wanted to donate to your campaign, would you take money from them?

Bromberg: I, uh, I- it hasn’t come up yet. I don’t know. Again, I, uh, have to- think about that further.

Berkowitz: What is the biggest difference, as you talk to the voters, as you see it, between you and Beth Coulson?

Bromberg: Beth Coulson is a Republican and I’m a Democrat.
*********************************
Michele Bromberg, Democratic Candidate [from Skokie] for State Rep. in the 17th District, running against eight year incumbent, Elizabeth [Beth] Coulson [R- Glenview, 17th Dist.]. Bromberg was interviewed on “Public Affairs,” in a show that was recorded on October 3, 2004 and is airing throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Monday, Oct. 18, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
********************************
This week's suburban edition of Public Affairs features State Senator Susan Garrett (D- Lake Forest; 29th District)
********************************
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.
******************************************
The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

6:10 pm, revised slightly at 8:10 pm
**************************************
With apologies to Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, who is Dennis O’Sullivan and what has he done with Congressman Phil Crane?

It still looks like it is Crane’s to lose, which he still could do.

The confusing world of Cong. Phil Crane [A humble man?], Cong. Ray Lahood [star quality and frank?], Democratic Candidate Melissa Bean [level the playing field?] and the Chicago Tribune [free trade is for kids?]/Combine [Daley and ?]
*******************************************
As the Chicago Tribune’s David Mendell and Rudolph Bush reminded us in yesterday’s paper, it was last June that Cong. LaHood , speaking with candor, as the Tribune might put it, told the Hill, a DC daily publication, “The problem is that he [Cong. Crane] just has not really worked [his 8th Cong. District] that well, and he hasn’t paid attention to it.”

Ray LaHood, of course, is the congressman that Senator Fitzgerald likes to refer to as “Ray who?” But the Chicago Tribune, not a big booster of Senator Fitzgerald [who has dared to differ with the Tribune and its Combine business associates and friends on O’Hare Expansion], lauded Cong. LaHood just four days ago when the Tribune endorsed LaHood as one of the “stars in the Illinois Republican Party,” describing the Congressman as “frank,” and noting that LaHood has gained considerable influence in Congress, in part because of the “strong support he has received from [House Speaker] Dennis Hastert.”

Rounding it out, LaHood’s mentor was and still is the former Congressman from LaHood’s downstate 18th District, former Minority Leader Bob Michael-- who many criticized as having gotten too comfortable in his long time role as House Minority Leader, instead of trying to transform the Republican minority in the House into a Republican majority, as former Speaker Newt Gingrich finally did in 1994.

And, just the day before it endorsed LaHood with accolades galore, the Tribune slammed Cong. Crane for using his seat as a “cozy sinecure,” noting that “Republican leaders privately acknowledge that Crane has gotten lazy and is out of touch with his constituents.” Well, apparently, some were not so private in their comments, including the Tribune’s star quality congressman, Ray LaHood [see, above].

After slamming Crane, the Tribune went on to endorse Melissa Bean as an “energetic pragmatic Democrat,” who the Tribune noted was “not quite the ardent free-trader that Crane is,” but she would do, at least for the Tribune. The Tribune lowered its free trade requirements, at least for Bean, to be simply one of “understand[ing] that free trade creates opportunities for U. S firms and that foreign competition ultimately strengthens U. S. markets.”

The Tribune seems to have left out of the “free trade,” equation a few important elements: comparative advantage, the benefits to the consumer of free trade and how trade helps developing countries [trade, not aid], just to name a few. The core benefits of free trade are something that Cong. Crane to his credit has mastered. It is good to know that the Tribune has "admired and supported Crane's strong advocacy of free trade," but we wonder if the Tribune knows what it is getting with a Melissa Bean trade package.

Candidate Bean talks about amending NAFTA and wanting to “level the playing field.” This seems to be the position of the Democratic Party, which has become the party of protectionism. In the U. S. Senate race, it seems to be the position of both Obama and Keyes. Would the Tribune like to level the playing field, too?

Does that mean requiring trading partners with the United States to raise their wage structure, environmental standards and labor standards to that of the United States before we reduce barriers to trade with such countries. If so, what happens to the notion of comparative advantage. If not, what does “level the playing field, as promoted by Bean, other Democrats and a few Republicans [Andy McKenna, Jr., perhaps soon to be the new State GOP chair], mean? As is the case with many recent errant Tribune editorial endorsements, such issues of logic and carrying ideas to their logical conclusion are left for the reader to deal with, or for the student to prove, as the old calculus texts used to say. Welcome to the new ecumenical spirit of the Chicago Tribune, as it embarks on a re-write of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

And, there was that word that the Tribune likes so much—pragmatic. Remember, when Alan Keyes came on the scene in early August, the Tribune took the opportunity to castigate Keyes before he had accepted the Republican Senate nomination and to articulate its vision for the New Republican Party—a vision of pragmatic moderate conservatives, giving Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and GOP state chairman Judy Baar Topinka as examples of same. We have to wonder if the Tribune might have been tempted to bestow the label of pragmatic moderate conservative on Melissa Bean, but pulled back at the last minute, going only with energetic and pragmatic. But, why? In what way is Topinka deserving of that label, and not Bean? Or did the Tribune make another mistake and perhaps that label works for neither.

Of course, the Melissa Bean campaign can read [the Tribune noted Bean had sound views on education reform], so they took Ray LaHood’s pithy comments about Crane and stuck them in a flyer. As David Mendell and Rudolph Bush reported yesterday, Cong. LaHood saw that and cried foul, sending a letter to the Bean Campaign, saying they should stop using his quote, arguing that such use of his words incorrectly implied LaHood’s support for the Bean candidacy [not fair use?].

When Public Affairs interviewed Dennis O’Sullivan, Crane’s campaign manager and Campaign Communication Director, by phone, yesterday and asked about LaHood’s comments of last June as to Cong. Crane’s problems and the use of that statement by the Bean campaign in a mailer, O’Sullivan responded that the mailer is just another attempt by Melissa to “dupe the voters of the 8th Cong. Dist.”

O’Sullivan then launched into a tirade that Bean has attempted to misrepresent her views on taxes. O’Sullivan contended that Bean stated last fall that she would have voted against the Bush tax cuts; she later stated that she couldn’t say which ones she opposed and O’Sullivan contended further that in August, 2004, in a debate before a Schaumburg business association, the Daily Herald’s Eric Krol said to Bean that she had been critical of tax cuts and she responded that she has not been critical of Bush’s tax cuts. We will come back to this topic of Bean, Crane and Tax Cuts in a future blog entry. But, clearly, the “soft on tax cuts,” and “flip flopping,” issues are emerging as Crane campaign themes for his TV ads and mailers in the last 16 days of the Campaign.

By the way, “Public Affairs,” would prefer to speak with candidate Crane more than his campaign manager. We have had Cong. Crane on our show twice previously, but we have been unable to get close to him for an interview during this campaign season. When Tami Stough was still handling his television appearances in July, she told me that the Congressman did not have one day between then and Nov. 2 open to tape a show.

When we were allowed to attend a fund raiser for Crane in Barrington earlier this summer, Speaker Hastert graciously gave us a short, videotaped interview, but we were told Cong. Crane, on whose behalf the Speaker was there, had no time to do so. Yes, nothing like establishing credibility with the press. Cong. Crane appears to be under wraps, especially with respect to any press person who might be known for asking a tough, challenging question, or two.

We might add, to her credit, that Candidate Melissa Bean, appeared on our show in August, 2004, showing no fear of subjecting herself to questions on a broad range of substantive issues, for which we applaud her. We don’t endorse candidates but we do endorse the proposition that all candidates, including 35 year incumbents like Cong. Crane, ought to be able and willing to do what Melissa Bean did.

I asked O’Sullivan to return to the topic at hand, i.e., LaHood’s comment in June of this year that, “The problem is that he [Cong. Crane] just has not really worked [his 8th Cong. District] that well, and he hasn’t paid attention to it.” O’Sullivan, who is on leave from his role as Crane’s District Office Manager to focus on the campaign, said, “Cong. Crane is a “humble man and he doesn’t talk enough about the money he got for his district, and he needs to do a better job of telling the voters about that.” O’Sullivan also said that Crane had a conversation with LaHood, after LaHood’s June comments about Crane. Apparently, the conversation was congressman to congressman, or maybe even man to man, if not mano a mano.

Crane Campaign Czar O’Sullivan said LaHood now realizes that Crane is in good shape and working hard. O’Sullivan seemed to imply that LaHood has repudiated his comments, but O’Sullivan would not respond to my direct question to that effect.

When I asked O’Sullivan about the Tribune’s comments that, “Crane had used his seat as a cozy sinecure,” O’Sullivan said that Cong, Crane had “been voted in based on his accomplishments.” As to the Tribune’s criticism of Cong. Crane for taking more than $109,000 in trips around the world in the last four years, financed by lobbyists and other private interests, O’Sullivan argued that Crane, as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade subcommittee, met with groups abroad to bring jobs, trade and money back to Illinois and to the 8th Congressional District. Of course, if such trips were related to Crane’s role as Subcommittee Chairman, wouldn’t they be paid for by House funds?

As to the so-called Republican Chicago Tribune endorsing Democrat Bean over long time Republican icon Phil Crane, O’Sullivan said he believed that the Tribune has endorsed Democrats before over Cong. Crane, but he couldn’t name any. O’Sullivan acknowledged to me that the Tribune had endorsed Cong. Crane over Bean in 2002.

I asked O’Sullivan about the recent poll [Oct. 6-7] done by the Democratic Washington, DC polling firm of Bennett, Petts and Blumenthal for the Bean Campaign, which indicated that Bean had closed the Crane 14 point June lead to a statistical tie.

O’Sullivan said the poll was meaningless because it was a “push poll.” He claims that the Crane Campaign was informed by people who were called by the polling firm that, when called, the pollsters first asked such questions, as, “Did you know that Crane “was too old for Congress,” and “was not working for the district.”

Brian Herman, Bean Communications Director, in a telephone conversation I had with him on Friday, denied that the Bennett, Petts poll was a push poll.

Herman said the pollsters asked only three questions: Rating of Crane’s job performance, rating of whether Crane was viewed in a positive or negative light and if the election were held today, would the person vote for Republican Crane or Democrat Bean for Congress. Herman said the pollsters used no push questions or statements before it asked the three above-referenced questions. However, although Herman did send me a Bennett, Petts summary of the poll results, he did not send me the scripted questions which the pollsters used.

As to what O’Sullivan thought of the news that Barack Obama was redeploying his troops from a planned weekend in Wisconsin to campaign for John Kerry and Senate Candidate Feingold to campaign, instead, for Bean, O’Sullivan retreated to the same phrasing he had given to the Chicago Tribune's Mendell and Bush, this was simply a case of "a liberal Democrat [Obama] helping another liberal Democrat [Bean]." O’Sullivan added that suburban voters will not take well to a liberal Democrat trying to influence voters out in the suburbs.

With Barack Obama and Melissa Bean obviously endorsing each other, is Cong. Crane endorsing U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes? O’Sullivan said that Cong. Crane thought Obama- Keyes was a lively debate [IRN, WBBM-AM 780 Radio, Oct. 12, 2004], and that Keyes did a good job in the debate. Yes, that is nice, but is Cong. Crane endorsing Republican Senate Candidate Alan Keyes? O’Sullivan ducked and dodged again, saying that Crane is interested in hearing more from the candidates during the debates.

O'Sullivan said that Keyes will do a good job of pointing out the liberal record of Barack Obama. Well then, how about President Bush? Is Crane endorsing President Bush? O’Sullivan responded enthusiastically—Absolutely. But, O’Sullivan declined again to respond as to whether Crane was endorsing Keyes or not endorsing him. Finally, O’Sullivan was off the line, leaving anyone within earshot the clear impression that O'Sullivan would prefer a root canal to talking about Cong. Crane's endorsement or non-endorsement of Ambassador Alan Keyes. How diplomatic.
***********************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of Public Affairs, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Updated Oct. 13, 2004 at 1:00 am, revised slightly at 12:15 pm.
***************************************************
The Keyes- Obama Senate Debate. No fireworks. Just good, serious, thoughtful discussion. A technical tie. Can Keyes sustain that tone for 21 days? Does it matter?
****************************************************
The mainstream media, at least CBS-2 [Flannery, who was both a panelist and 10:00 pm local news commentator], ABC-7 [Shaw], and WGN- 9 in Chicago and Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn on his blog [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook] were all quite surprised at the conduct of the U. S. Senate Candidate debate, and, in particular, at the lack of provocative and incendiary comments and questions by Republican Senate Candidate Alan Keyes.

Contrary to the media expectations, it was a serious, thoughtful, intelligent and respectful discussion by both Barack Obama and Alan Keyes of many of the important foreign, domestic and social policy issues of the day. The issues ranged across Iraq, Iran, North Korea, federal government support for infrastructure and agriculture, health care and prescription drugs, medical savings accounts, airports, revitalization of the coal industry, ethanol, the wonder of family farms, off-shore sourcing of jobs, trade, tariffs and multilateral trade agreements.

It was only at the end of the debate that panelist/moderator Craig Dellimore of WBBM-780 AM Radio raised the Keyes morality/abortion theme by asking Keyes about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, live birth abortions and infanticide, with Keyes responding and then using Obama's response to segue into his one minute closing statement-- a homily that it all comes down to promoting the moral culture and moral values that underly the family structure-- and families will then solve society's ills, including education, housing, etc.

With a very different emphasis but some similarity in his conclusion that took the listener to "families," Obama told us in his one minute close that he didn't just talk the talk but he "walked the walk," when he worked as a community organizer, worked as a civil rights lawyer and worked in the state legislature during the last eight years to help "ordinary, working families." Moreover, Obama emphasized that "government can't solve all of our problems, but it can help in terms of dealing with the crushing burdens that many of our middle class families are experiencing."

Again, surprisingly to the untutored, there were large areas of agreement between the two candidates on federal government assistance to agriculture and infrastructure improvement, trade and jobs [both Obama and Keyes are hostile to free trade and both incorrectly blame bad trade agreements for loss of American jobs, with Obama being more subtle and diplomatic than Keyes when stating his opposition to free trade].

That left a few areas for disagreement: Iraq, health care and drugs, airports, tax and spending policy, abortion and same sex marriage- which Keyes slipped in on his closing statement.

The Iraq, global terrorism differences very much tracked the Kerry-Bush differences, although, of course, Keyes was much more articulate and intelligent in his statements than his counterpart [Bush]—as was Obama, although to a lesser extent because Kerry is a little harder to top than Bush—at least when it comes to speaking ability and style. In short, Keyes sees a global terrorism threat with many connections and therefore talks of opening up fronts, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama sees virtually no connections and cites, somewhat mistakenly, Bremer, Rumsfeld and Powell as supporting his position. This would be a good political issue for Keyes to take to the Illinois electorate. Which of the two positions by the Senate Candidates makes Illinois residents feel safer?

On health care, Obama tried the old Clinton/Gore/Edwards trick—let me tell you about a guy in Galesburg, IL [home of a Maytag plant, the closing of which was announced at the end of 2002, and plant production ceased about a month ago- resulting in a total loss of about 1600 plant jobs in the area; the plant shut-down was discussed a lot by Obama and others during the Democratic Senate primary] who lost his job and health insurance [due to a bad trade agreement, no doubt--and indeed, it was Keyes who said this, using the point to take the discussion from health care to trade and jobs], and whose son had a liver transplant and now must pay $50,000 a year, or so, in prescription drug costs. To which Keyes said, essentially--hard cases make bad law and bad policy.

Obama also said that the government should use its vast purchasing market power on behalf of drugs for seniors, as Obama thinks Wal-Mart uses its power to get discounts, in general. Keyes should have pointed out that the Federal government, unlike Wal-Mart, would have monopsony [single buyer] market power if it bought drugs on behalf of the 43 million seniors covered by Medicare. That would mean that the government discounts would be too great, and the drug prices would be forced below the level to remunerate research and development costs, meaning that new drug development would dry up. Unfortunately, Keyes knows very little economics, perhaps as little as Obama, so Keyes did not say this. [They both passed through the Harvard gates, and it shows, at least with respect to economics]

However, Keyes did point out that we have to make sure that drug companies and the government get remunerated for their Research and Development costs, or there will be no new drugs in the future, which, of course, is true.

On abortion, Obama pointed out that the live birth abortion state statute was not needed because "Existing Illinois law mandates that any infant that has a chance for survival is provided life saving treatment." Obama also emphasized, as his campaign office has said previously, that he would have voted for the federal Live Birth Infant Protection Act, which had wording, Obama said, that was quite different from the state statute and took care not to "encroach," on Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, there was no time for a panelist to seek a response from Keyes-- as panelist/moderator Jim Anderson of IRN explained it was time to go to closing statements.

So, you are asking, why was Keyes so reasonable and restrained in his style at the debate? And, more importantly, why didn’t Keyes adopt this demeanor two months ago when he entered the race? He probably would not be ahead, but he would have been a lot closer to Obama than is currently the case.

Indeed, Archpundit [www.archpundit.com] reminded me in the context of his recent blog discussion of the Jack Roeser/Keyes Campaign coordination issue what I had written on August 18th in this blog:

“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 [August 18th]. 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." Jeff Berkowitz, Public Affairs blog, August 18, 2004.

Moreover, when I taped my half hour show [Public Affairs] with Keyes three days after his City Club appearance, it was also, for the most part, a serious discussion of foreign and domestic policy issues, without a great deal of discussion of morality, except for the last few minutes on abortion and same sex marriage, which I had intentionally back-ended so as not to have those topics dominate the show.

So, clearly, Alan can behave himself if not baited by the press and if he wants to. Clearly, at the Debate, the panelists, to their credit, didn't bait him, and Keyes chose to present himself as Mr. Reasonable. Keyes chose not to tie every issue to morality, notwithstanding that he believes and will tell you quite freely that morality guides all of his views, even when he doesn’t tell you that every other minute.

But, clearly, many times, during the last two months, Keyes not only took the bait—but he made the provocative comments without being baited. Obviously, he thought that was a way to get free press coverage and he enjoys making those comments.

Perhaps being asked by the press during the last few weeks about the blogosphere rumors of his daughter being a lesbian has taught him a certain sensitivity he was lacking before and perhaps it has taught him the political benefits and wisdom of self control.

Indeed, some talk among the staffers on the Keyes campaign suggests that the Mary Cheney incident was, as Alan likes to say, a teaching moment, except on that one, Keyes was the student.

I don’t think the above is a great explanation of Keyes' change in style, but, for now, it is going to have to do.

Oh yes, I would agree with Zorn [www.ChicagoTribune.com/notebook]. The debate, if you are scoring it technically, as if you were a relatively impartial listener without a great ideological bent, was a draw. Of course, all things considered, that makes it a win for Keyes. That is, this debate, at least for an evening, puts Keyes on the same level with Obama, who the polls have 50 points ahead of Keyes.

Indeed, as they say, just putting Keyes on the same stage as Obama, tends to help Keyes. That, of course, is one of the reasons why Obama reneged on his offer to do six televised debates.

Will the debate matter? Doubtful. Sadly, the radio audience, compared to TV, is pretty thin.

On the other hand, if the media give the debate big play, and if the media give a favorable treatment of Keyes new demeanor to their readers and viewers, or even a neutral treatment, that could have an impact. But, those are a few big ifs.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of Public Affairs, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com

Updated Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004 at 2:30 pm
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: But, as you know, when you vote in the state legislature, ultimately you have to vote yes or no. If you had been in the state legislature this year, when it was passed, would you have voted yes to support the Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeal Act?

Michele Bromberg: Jeff, I wasn’t there, so I really can’t give you that answer but I do know in the future when votes like that do come up, I want to sit down with the entire group of people and really get an understanding of what their concerns are. [See, below, for more of the transcript of the "Public Affairs,"show with Michele Bromberg]
****************************************
Michele Bromberg (D- Skokie), candidate for State Rep in the 17th Dist., declines, on the “Public Affairs,” TV show, to take a position on the Affordable Housing Act, Tax Swaps- Lowering property taxes and raising income taxes, Capping Individual Home Owner Real Estate Assessments and Increasing state income taxes (See transcript, below).

Bromberg does take a position on abortion; Bromberg also discusses Special Interests, Trial Lawyers and what Bromberg thinks differentiates her from eight year incumbent State Rep. Elizabeth Coulson (R- Glenview, 17th District) (See transcript, below).

All of the above is part of the debate and dialogue that Michele Bromberg has with “Public Affairs,” show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz.
****************************************
If you live on the North Shore, North or Northwest suburbs, you can watch, weekly, the suburban edition of "Public Affairs." This week’s show features Michele Bromberg, Democratic Candidate in the hotly contested 17th District race. (And, if you live in Chicago, you can watch the City edition of Public Affairs every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21- The show with Bromberg is on in the City on Monday, the 18th)

After listening to the Keyes/Obama U. S. Senate candidate radio debate tonight [Tueday] at 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm [Illinois Radio Network] on WBBM- 780 AM Radio in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, take a break from politics and then watch “Public Affairs,” at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable on Ch. 19 or Ch. 35 in 24 suburbs. Or, watch it at the same time Wednesday or Friday on Ch. 19 in 10 additional suburbs. A partial transcript of the show is included, below. The airing schedule for the show, by specific suburb, is included at the end of the transcript.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Affordable Housing has become somewhat of an issue, and your district includes West Wilmette, right?

Michele Bromberg: Um, um.

Berkowitz: And Wilmette is an area that was designated by the State as not having sufficient affordable housing and [state] legislation was passed called the Affordable Housing, Planning and …Appeals Act. Is that legislation you are familiar with and do you support it?

Bromberg: I feel that no group of people should be discriminated against whatsoever but also in communities that are well established, I would like to sit down with the local village boards, the constituencies of business owners and again, I’m a nurse- I look at things holistically—get this group together and see what’s best for their community.

Berkowitz: But, as you know, when you vote in the state legislature, ultimately you have to vote yes or no. If you had been in the state legislature this year, when it was passed, would you have voted yes to support the Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeal Act?

Bromberg: Jeff, I wasn’t there, so I really can’t give you that answer but I do know in the future when votes like that do come up, I want to sit down with the entire group of people and really get an understanding of what their concerns are.

Berkowitz: Well, I understand you weren’t there, but you will be there if you are successful in this campaign and I guess the voters would like to know if you had been there, how would you have voted at that time- they understand that you are not there, you weren’t there- but you would like to be there-

Bromberg: Right.

Berkowitz: and if you were, you know what the legislation is, would you have supported it? Would you have voted yes or no?

Bromberg: I would have to look at the local government and I feel that there has to be some local control over what happens in the different villages because the local village government really knows what’s best?

Berkowitz: Does that mean that you would have voted no on that?

Bromberg: [Pause]. I would have had to have looked it over.

Berkowitz: So, you are not sure?

Bromberg: Right, cause I wasn’t there.
***************************
Bromberg: …but one thing that we have to work on how schools are funded and we have to do something about the inequality of funding throughout the state and we have to work with the local school boards and the local governments.

Berkowitz: Do you want to change that [school] funding- you know, some people have proposed a tax swap, that we lower property taxes and raise the income tax.

Bromberg: Right.

Berkowitz: Would you support that?

Bromberg: I want to see if that is really going to work. I want to see hard facts and evidence that that is really going to work before I would decide that would be a way that we would fund it, but I know one thing- we have to stop taxing people out of their homes…

Berkowitz: So, you are concerned about high property taxes?

Bromberg: High property taxes—

Berkowitz: But does that mean that if you are concerned about that- then I suppose you would have supported the legislation that capped real estate assessments at 7% per year, is that right?

Bromberg: I would have to look into that further.

Berkowitz: You are not sure if you would support that?

Bromberg: I would have to look into that further and really sit down with the people and talk to the school districts and see how it affects them…the concern is for the school districts and we have to make sure that the schools are heavily funded.
*********************************************
Berkowitz: …in general, would you oppose or support an increase in the state income tax?

Bromberg: Again, that is something that I really have to study. Again, I look at things holistically. I would have to study that over and see how that is really going to help or not help the State of Illinois.

Berkowitz: But, you are not going to take a pledge not to do it [raise state income taxes]. You are just saying you are undecided at this point.

Bromberg: I would have to look it over and see what the benefit would be.
**************************************
BROMBERG ON ABORTION
Jeff Berkowitz: You would be, would you say, 100% pro-choice?

Michele Bromberg: 100% Pro-choice.

Berkowitz: You would have opposed the ban on partial birth abortion in the state legislature that would ban that [procedure] except for the life of the mother [being at issue]. Would you oppose that ban?

Bromberg: Like I said, I am 100% pro-choice. I have been in situations where women have had difficult, difficult choices—all these things are very difficult choices and I support pro-choice 100%.

Berkowitz: Does that mean that you would oppose the ban on partial birth abortion that I just described?

Bromberg: Like I said, 100% pro-choice.

Berkowitz: There was proposed legislation [in the state legislature] to deal with what was called live birth abortions. The Live Birth Infant Protection Act. Would you have similarly opposed that legislation? It didn’t pass in Illinois.

Bromberg: Like I said Jeff, women must be able to make decisions for themselves on their health care.

Berkowitz: Okay, well, you know the live birth abortion issue deals with the point that allegedly was made that some abortions go wrong [so to speak], the fetus is born alive and the allegation was made that in some hospitals that fetus is taken away to another area [of the hospital] and allowed to die…

Bromberg: Jeff, I worked in a hospital. I have seen women in bad, bad situations. Like I said, 100 % pro-choice. I am not going to cut hairs with you on that issue. [Ed. Note- Cut hairs? Must be a nursing term]

Berkowitz: So that fetus, though—if that is going on, that is something you would allow to happen? That is, a fetus is allowed to die?

Bromberg: Like I said, umm, maybe we need to move on. [Ed. Note- A Public Affairs first-- 7 years of doing my show and nobody-- not even Barack, not even Keyes-- not even the Senior Senator, Dick Durbin-- ever told me to “move on.”]

Berkowitz: Parental notice, you would oppose parental notice.

Bromberg: I think we need to move on. Like I said, women need—

Berkowitz: No, I just want an answer. What’s your view? Do you oppose parental notice?

Bromberg: I think women need to make a decision. They are to be 100% able to make that decision.
***************************************
BROMBERG ON SPECIAL INTERESTS, TRIAL LAWYERS AND WHAT BROMBERG THINKS DIFFERENTIATES BROMBERG FROM COULSON
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We are going to continue to speak as the credits roll, but I very much want to thank [for coming here to “Public Affairs”] Michele Bromberg, who of course is the Democratic candidate, running in the 17th District for State Representative. She is running against Beth Coulson, who is a Republican and sometimes says she is an Independent, is that right?

Michele Bromberg: Yes.

Berkowitz: Now, what do you think about that? Is Beth Coulson an independent?

Bromberg: Beth Coulson is not an independent. She takes money from the Republican Party. She gives money to the Republican Party. She also is ummm- she does not stand up for OUR values.

Berkowitz: Who is OUR values? What do you mean OUR values? Who is OUR values? Who is OUR?

Bromberg: The Democratic values. [She is] very tied into the Republican—

Berkowitz: She is a Republican.

Bromberg: She is a Republican. She is part of the Republican Party—

Berkowitz: You are a Democrat.

Bromberg: I am a Democrat and proud of it.

Berkowitz: People have a choice between a Democrat and a Republican? She says she is—

Bromberg: She takes money from—

Berkowitz: She says she is an independent, but you are not so sure.

Bromberg: No, she definitely says she is an independent. She takes money from drug companies. She takes money from—

Berkowitz: Would you take money from drug companies?

Bromberg: Absolutely not.

Berkowitz: Would you take money from teachers’ unions?

Bromberg: I believe in the teachers’ values.

Berkowitz: Are they a special interest? Because you talk about not taking money from “special interests.”

Bromberg: They are not a special interest. They are- They are educating the future of [the] State of Illinois.

Berkowitz: Trial Lawyers. Are Trial Lawyers a special interest?

Bromberg: They are trying to work through different things with the doctors—

Berkowitz: Do you take money from Trial Lawyers?

Bromberg: Ummmm, a few who are very close friends of mine.

Berkowitz: A few? If they are very close friends, you take it. But, if there was a Trial Lawyers Association that wanted to donate to your campaign, would you take money from them?

Bromberg: I, uh, I- it hasn’t come up yet. I don’t know. Again, I, uh, have to- think about that further.

Berkowitz: What is the biggest difference, as you talk to the voters, as you see it, between you and Beth Coulson?

Bromberg: Beth Coulson is a Republican and I’m a Democrat.
*********************************
Michele Bromberg, Democratic Candidate [from Skokie] for State Rep. in the 17th District, running against eight year incumbent, Elizabeth [Beth] Coulson [R- Glenview, 17th Dist.]. Bromberg was interviewed on “Public Affairs,” in a show that was recorded on October 3, 2004 and is airing in the suburbs this week [Week of Oct. 11] and will air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Oct. 18, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
********************************
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.
******************************************
The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The “Public Affairs,” show with State Rep. Candidate Bromberg will air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Oct. 18, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated Monday, Oct. 12 at 12:30 pm. Index of recent posts on this blog:

1. Post includes transcript of Hamos/Curtis debating the new Illinois Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeals Act. Which view represents yours?

Updated Monday, Oct. 11, 2004 at 3:30 pm. Tonight's City of Chicago Edition of "Public Affairs," [8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] features two strong, articulate 18th District candidates on the North Shore in a verbal sparring match: State Rep. Julie Hamos [D- Evanston] and her opponent, State Rep. Candidate Julianne Curtis [R- Wilmette].

2. Post includes transcript of 17th Dist. state rep. Candidate Michele Bromberg's views on abortion and abortion legislation. Is Michele Bromberg an articulate spokesperson for the Pro-Choice position? Does that matter to many 17th District voters?

Updated October 11, 2004 at 12:30 am: The Obamas, Coulson, Bromberg and Schakowsky. What’s wrong with this picture? Who doesn’t belong in it?

3. Post includes transcript of Bromberg's views on Special Interests, Trial Lawyers and what differentiates Bromberg from Coulson. Who is a Special Interest? What is a Special Interest?

Updated October 9, 7:15 pm: This week's [week of Oct.11] suburban TV edition of "Public Affairs," features: State Rep. Candidate Michele Bromberg [D- Skokie, 17th Dist.], who is taking on incumbent State Rep. Beth Coulson. Posting also includes discussion of Speaker Mike Madigan/Minority Leader Tom Cross/Paul Tully/Kathy Ryg/Archpundit/Rich Miller/Capitolfax/cross on a Cross/Alan Keyes/Time on a Cross/crossed by Cross/Carol Marin on Judy and Tom as the silent Republican Majority?

4. Post includes transcript of Obama and Keyes discussing Foreign policy issues. Who makes you feel safer?

Updated October 8, 3:35 pm: U. S. Senate Candidates Obama and Keyes in a “virtual debate.” Morality, Ideology, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russian roulette, abortion and homosexuality.
********************************************

Updated Monday, October 11, 2004 at 3:30 pm
***************************************
Rep. Julie Hamos: I mean, I think that this is a deliberate misrepresentation and a deception and is really fearmongering. This has nothing to do with Section 8 Public Housing. This has to do with housing that is 80% of area median income, $57,000 for a family of four. Section 8 is, I don’t know—
******************************************
Candidate Julianne Curtis: …in the law- the way it is described and if you get into the letter of the law, it says that the median income, the income limits are defined by 50% of the median income to 80% of the median income, as described by HUD Section 8… it is very clear that it [Section 8 Public Housing] is for somebody earning half the median income according to HUD.
**********************************************
A heated, no holds barred, election contest in 18th Dist. on the North Shore.

The City edition of “Public Affairs,” with Rep. Hamos and her opponent, Julianne Curtis airs tonight throughout the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

Hamos v. Curtis- A Choice, not an Echo.

A tough and heated, but intelligent, exchange, between two strong, articulate 18th District candidates on the North Shore. State Rep. Julie Hamos [D- Evanston] and her opponent, State Rep. Candidate Julianne Curtis [R- Wilmette], spar verbally and show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz referees.

Topics discussed are various state legislative and public policy issues, including the Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeals Act, real estate tax assessment caps, state taxes on business and jobs, education, job growth, guns, gays, abortion and God, the minimum wage in Illinois and how to promote an environment conducive to job growth in Illinois.
***********************************
The Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeals Act- An appropriate correction of a “market failure,” or an “inappropriate usurpation,” of local zoning power by the state of Illinois? Hamos and Curtis debate and discuss, you decide.
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Let’s go over to …a topic that has been in the news a bit and that’s the Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeals Act which, well, let me ask Julie Hamos to summarize that, what does it do— give us a 30 second overview of what that Affordable Housing Act does.

State Rep. Julie Hamos [D]: The new law says that municipalities with less than 10% affordable housing as defined in law should create a plan, a housing plan that will increase their moderately priced housing for people in certain middle income categories, so I think of this very much as a law to increase housing opportunities for middle income seniors, young families, the work force. That’s really what it is. So, we are talking about $57,000 for a family of four, that’s the income category that this law is aimed at.

Berkowitz: Aimed at creating new housing, apartment and housing opportunities-

Hamos: over time

Berkowitz: for people who have a family income of $57,000?

Hamos: Right, correct.

Berkowitz: And, it affects something like 90 different villages and suburbs across the state?

Hamos: We thought it affected over 100—

Berkowitz: Right.

Hamos: But, it turns out it only affects 49.

Berkowitz: 49 [villages and suburbs], is that it?

Hamos: That’s right.

Berkowitz: But, it would affect about one half of your District, the 18th, right?

Hamos: It does affect some communities up here, yes.

Berkowitz: It would affect Kenilworth; It would affect Glencoe; [It would affect] Winnetka; [It would affect Wilmette], so virtually the whole [18th]] district with the exception of Evanston and Rogers Park [is being affected].

Hamos: It turns out it does. Yes.

Berkowitz: Okay, and Julianne Curtis, what do you think of this [Affordable Housing] Act? Is this a good idea?

State Rep. Candidate Julianne Curtis [R]: I think we could discuss the merits of affordable housing. Most of this program—I, myself, have lived in mixed income housing in Europe. I think that what is interesting about this law is that it was put on the House floor, House Bill 625-- As a chief co-sponsor, Miss Hamos, here, House Bill, she did chiefly co-sponsor it with Representative Currie and there was no—

Berkowitz: That is Barbara Flynn Currie, the [Democratic State House] Majority Leader.

Curtis: Yes, and there was no discussion of this in local city forums, in the press- there was no debate about this law or about the details of the law—the income limits, the requirements of the law until this passed—

Berkowitz: Okay, we only have a certain amount [of time]. That’s procedure. Do you object to the legislation? Would you have voted against it and why?

Curtis: I would have voted against it for two reasons. I don’t think the state should be mandating Section 8 Public Housing in a community without local consent. I think the way that the State Housing Appeals Board has been described—it has the right to overrule local property rights. The other thing that I object to and I think that what slowly I am hearing from the public is that the details and the facts of this law are not clearly articulated right now. This does have to do with Section 8 Public Housing according to the housing income limits described annually according to the Housing Act of 1937.

Berkowitz: In a nutshell-

Hamos: I have no idea what that means.

Berkowitz: Let’s give Julie Hamos—

Hamos: I mean, I think that this is a deliberate misrepresentation and a deception and is really fearmongering. This has nothing to do with Section 8 Public Housing. This has to do with housing that is 80% of area median income, $57,000 for a family of four. Section 8 is, I don’t know—

Curtis: Well, Section 8--

Hamos: Miss Curtis, I think, was in Europe for the past 15 years, she doesn’t realize this but Section 8 is a totally different law and it is for very, very low income people. This has nothing to do with that.

Curtis: Well, right now—

Berkowitz: Let’s give her a chance. Tell us how Section 8—

Curtis: Because in the law- the way it is described and if you get into the letter of the law, it says that the median income, the income limits are defined by 50% of the median income to 80% of the median income, as described by HUD Section 8, Housing Act of 1937. So, if you go to over Section 8, Housing Act of 1937 and you look at the income limits, it says—applicable for Section 8 Public Housing. You can see on the HUD website and it is very clear that it [Section 8 Public Housing] is for somebody earning half the median income according to HUD.

Berkowitz: So, in a nutshell because we are going to change topics quickly, what do you think is the greatest problem with this Act?

Curtis: I think that the greatest problem is that this [Affordable Housing, Planning and Appeals Act] was foisted on our communities without local consent and it will override local zoning in favor of giving incentives, tax breaks, and various fee waivers to public housing developers and does not involve the local community and right now the local community is having to make plans in reaction to a state mandate which I think people also object to.

Hamos: I think there is a really good thing going on right now which is that finally these communities and 49 communities around the state are having conversations about their own residents, their own workforce-- how to provide for moderately priced housing for their people. And, that’s a good thing. Because, I think we have found-- we have had many hearings on this issue around the state and also here locally and what we have found is that there really are severe housing shortages for middle income people, so this is about that category. This has nothing to do with public housing; there is a deliberate deception here going on and I am sorry to say that it is raising a lot of fears that don’t need to be raised.

Berkowitz: But, let me just say, too, so people will know—our audience, includes a number of suburbs outside your District, some--many of which might be affected [by this Affordable Housing Act]. Do you know [for example] is Arlington Heights affected?

Hamos: I don’t know.

Berkowitz: Mt. Prospect? Lincolnshire? Bannockburn? So, a variety of fairly affluent districts that may not have what the law says is required for affordable housing, then this law would kick in if they did not adopt an [Affordable Housing] plan.

Hamos: And, 1200 other municipalities already provide moderately priced housing for their constituents and that’s why they are not impacted.

Berkowitz: We have to go on. We have to get on to some other topics. A related topic, very quickly, real estate assessment caps. That passed in the state legislature…
************************************
State Rep. Julie Hamos (D- Evanston) and Challenger Julianne Curtis (R- Wilmette) discuss and debate the issues of the 18th District on “Public Affairs,” with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz. The program was recorded on September 21, 2004 and is being cablecast tonight [October 11, 2004] throughout the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**************************************
The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************