Updated November 30, 2004 at 4:00 pm
*************************************************
State Senator Rutherford on "Public Affairs," this week in the Suburbs:

Jeff Berkowitz: …Well, if you were running for Governor and they were running for Lt. Gov., could you support that [pro-choice] person?

State Sen. Dan Rutherford: I would want to know more about their position on other issues, but yes. Sure, because we as a Republican party have to go beyond. Our message has to go beyond guns and gays and abortion…Other issues are important to people. Security, good education, we need to look at the whole idea of jobs, job security, job growth, taxes, size of government- I mean those are as important—
*************************************
The first cattle call for Governor and other Statewide offices for the March, 2006 Illinois Republican Primary. State Senator Dan Rutherford (R- Pontiac, 53rd District) is featured in this week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," debating and discussing public policy issues and politics with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz. A partial transcript of that show is included, below. See the conclusion of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule. The show airs in the City of Chicago this coming Monday night, December 6 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV].
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Does he [Gov. Rod Blagojevich] have a trust problem. That is, the [Illinois] legislature does not trust, in large part, Gov. Rod Blagojevich?

State Senator Dan Rutherford: Well, let’s just put it in perspective. After this spring session, when we went into the overtime, well into June and July, before things were finally passed …the General Assembly required the Governor to sign 50 memorandums of understanding, so it wasn’t just a law passed, but it also was an absolutely separate document that they had him [Gov. Blagojevich] sign to say this is the understanding of the agreement we have put together. First time I have ever seen that in my years of watching the process in Springfield.

Berkowitz: No precedent [for that] that you know of.

Rutherford: No precedent that I know of so let me just suggest that maybe there are those who would like to make sure they have anything in writing when they have an agreement with Rod Blagojevich.

Berkowitz: You feel that way, too?

Rutherford: I signed one of those memos.

Berkowitz: You, yourself, have some aspirations for higher office, right?

Rutherford: I think it is fair to say that we are definitely looking at some other opportunities, perhaps in 2006.

Berkowitz: Statewide, right?

Rutherford: Very likely.

Berkowitz: Could be Governor?

Rutherford: At the moment, we are not precluding any office…

Berkowitz: But, you have an on-going campaign organization taking a look at this, right?

Rutherford: Oh we do.

Berkowitz: You have a fundraiser, right?

Rutherford: We have a full time fundraiser, staff person in place for that. We have a political person that helps us with regard to field operations, and so forth.

Berkowitz: And, you have been out there speaking at the- what do we call them—the [rubber] chicken and mashed potato dinners.

Rutherford: [laughter], some places in Illinois we have a lot of pork chops, too. We have a good pork industry in Illinois.
************************************
Berkowitz: …what do you think, is Jesse White vulnerable if he stays and runs for re-election as Secretary of State?

Rutherford: I think anyone in office is vulnerable. I think there are too many unknowns that one has when we are two years away from an election. There are too many things that can happen…

Berkowitz: …On the Governor’s side…let’s start with Judy Baar Topinka, is Judy running for Governor, do you think she would do that?

Rutherford: I think she needs to consider it…

Berkowitz: …If you were to label somebody as a 1, as a moderate or a liberal in the Republican Party, 10 as a conservative- where would you put Judy Baar Topinka on that philosophical spectrum.

Rutherford: I think I would put her more toward the moderate side…

Berkowitz: Is that a problem running in the Republican Primary?...People point to Jim Edgar as a moderate [who] won, but the last time he won an election was 10 years ago. They point to Jim Thompson [as a moderate]; somebody who you worked with or worked for, but the last time he won an election was 18 years ago.

Rutherford: Sure. Sure.

Berkowitz: So, has the Republican Party become more conservative, especially for the activists in terms of the Primary-- so can a moderate come out of the Republican Primary successfully- statewide [in Illinois].

Rutherford: You are talking specifically about the office of Governor?

Berkowitz: Yes, where issues matter. You know, for Treasurer, she [Topinka] has been there now three terms, or she will have been at that time, but people don’t deal a lot with social issues when you are running for Treasurer- they don’t think about your stance on abortion, on guns- even on spending, taxes, so forth- so to some extent she is somewhat of an unknown- you label her as a moderate and people aren’t sure as to how moderate—

Rutherford: Well, I think what we need to be doing—

Berkowitz: I should say that she is not completely unknown—she [Topinka] is known as being a supporter of gay rights, I think [she is] a supporter of gun control; … she has some limitations, but [she is] a supporter of a woman’s right to choose with respect to abortion, so, as you say, pretty moderate stances for a Republican.

Rutherford: I would say moderate stances…I think we need to be sure that we don’t just have the social issues being the only thing that is discussed out there. I mean the office of Governor, with all respect, does have a good deal of matters to deal with…on the social issues, but there is a tremendous amount that has to be dealt with-- with regard to the economic issues, with regard to taxation, with regard to the size and growth and development of government.
*************************************
Berkowitz: Back to the Governor’s race, so we have Judy Baar Topinka as a possible entry.

Rutherford: I think she is a possible entry.

Berkowitz: State Senator Rauschenberger, right?

Rutherford: Senator Rauschenberger is one that has been discussing it and I know Steve is a quality individual that could well have a chance—

Berkowitz: Ran in the Senate primary—

Rutherford: U. S. Senate Primary

Berkowitz: came in third with 21 % of the vote…Pat O’Malley, former State Senator, former candidate in the Republican Primary for Governor.

Rutherford: I have heard his name.

Berkowitz: Bob Schillerstrom.

Rutherford: DuPage County Board Chairman.

Berkowitz: Might be there.

Rutherford: I have heard his name.

Berkowitz: Jim Durkin, who …ran against Senator Dick Durbin [in 2002]. He might come back, right?

Rutherford: I have heard his name.

Berkowitz: Bill Brady. From Bloomington. State Senator. Do you hear his name?

Rutherford: …I have heard his name.

Berkowitz: And you, of course. Dan Rutherford.

Rutherford: I have heard his name.

Berkowitz: Jim Oberweis…, might come back?

Rutherford: Sure, Sure.

Berkowitz: Corinne Wood, former Lt. Gov.

Rutherford: Could.

Berkowitz: Christine Radogno, state senator, she might do something statewide, if not Governor.

Rutherford: Sure.

Berkowitz: Kirk Dillard, might be, right?

Rutherford: State Senator from DuPage County.

Berkowitz: Dave Syverson?

Rutherford: State Senator from the Rockford area, could be.

Berkowitz: Chris Lauzen.

Rutherford: Senator Lauzen, could be.

Berkowitz: Beth Coulson, state rep. Do you think she might?

Rutherford: In my heart of hearts, no. But, she could be- she is a definite talent…

Berkowitz: …I say that…because there is some idea of balance in gender, there aren’t many females on that list I just read for statewide office. State senator Christine Radogno, Judy Baar Topinka and Corinne Wood, those would be the only three I think I mentioned who are females [and Coulson]. Is that important? For statewide? As you look at a slate, is that important to have a female on that ticket?

Rutherford: I think it is important to look at it. I don’t think that should be the only criteria…I would hope that we do look at somewhat of a gender and geographic balance in putting our ticket together, unlike the Democratic Party who put their entire slate together from the City of Chicago.

Berkowitz: Like a seven mile radius, right?

Rutherford: Everything. Everything is from the City of Chicago.

Berkowitz: Half of those people are in State Rep. John Fritchey’s district. He was on [this show] recently and we talked about that.

Rutherford: [Laughter] Well, John is a talent.

Berkowitz: He has some powerful people in his District.

Rutherford: John [Fritchey] is a great talent on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Berkowitz: He [Fritchey] may be running himself [for statewide office]. For Attorney General. Or Treasurer, we don’t know what.

Rutherford: John Fritchey is a great talent. I just think we as a state need to look at a balance of geographic, as well as…
***************************
Berkowitz: …Schism within the Republican Primary, is there a schism between social moderates and social conservatives or is there a different kind of schism?

Rutherford: You know, I think that there is to some extent, but what I am starting to learn more about is that it is more about personalities. I think there are certain personalities that are fueling some of this… What we need to do as a Republican Party- we don’t need to give up our positions in regard to the social issues and [we can] stand proud and rightfully so on the moral side of those issues- but I think we need to broaden our message…to include and make it more known where we do stand in regard to the economic side of issues, where we do stand in regards to job creation and job growth and development—I think we have gotten our Party into this whole rabid attitude of the social issues being it and our message [is lost] that we are beyond and have broader depth of appreciation for the people of Illinois than just that.

Berkowitz: You, yourself, are Pro-Life?

Rutherford: I am Pro-Life.

Berkowitz: Would you allow any exceptions for a woman to have a right to have an abortion?

Rutherford: Rape and Incest.

Berkowitz: And, the life of the mother, of course.

Rutherford: Right, life of the mother.

Berkowitz: Those would be the only instances in which, if you had your way, a woman would be able to have an abortion?

Rutherford: That is correct.

Berkowitz: But, …you would seek and accept and work with others in the Party who differ with you on that, is that right?

Rutherford: I think we have to. I mean, if you let abortion be the issue onto which you see yourself working together as a Republican, that’s wrong.

Berkowitz: So, you could support somebody who is pro-choice, right?

Rutherford: In what?

Berkowitz: In abortion.

Rutherford: Support them for what?

Berkowitz: …Well, if you were running for Governor and they were running for Lt. Gov., could you support that [pro-choice] person?

Rutherford: I would want to know more about their position on other issues, but yes. Sure, because we as a Republican party have to go beyond. Our message has to go beyond guns and gays and abortion…Other issues are important to people. Security, good education, we need to look at the whole idea of jobs, job security, job growth, taxes, size of government- I mean those are as important—
*********************************************
State Senator Dan Rutherford [R- Pontiac, 53rd District], in a program that was recorded on November 20, 2004, is featured in this week’s suburban edition and next Monday night’s [Dec. 6] City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs [8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21].
*************************************
This week’s suburban edition and next Monday night’s City of Chicago edition [Dec. 6, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” spotlights State Senator Dan Rutherford [R- Pontiac, 53rd District; www.danrutherford.com].
****************************************************
Senator Rutherford debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the veto session, casinos, Republican Candidates for Statewide office, Rutherford's own plans to run for statewide office, Governor Rod Blagojevich, Secretary of State Jesse White, jobs, taxes, the size of government, social issues and schisms in the Republican Party, abortion, gay rights and the Illinois Supreme Court contest between Maag and Karmeier and the issue of medical malpractice reform.
*******************************************************
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 Rutherford will air throughout the City of Chicago next Monday, Dec. 6, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated November 29, 2004 at 1:20 pm
*************************************************
Giangreco blames it all on non-college women and an elitist candidate.
*************************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” airing at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV], throughout the City of Chicago, features Pete Giangreco discussing with host Jeff Berkowitz why Senator Kerry lost, or if you prefer, why President Bush won, with the Democrats, saying, once again, “Houston, we got a problem.”
*************************************************
Pete Giangreco: …it came down to these non-college women who looked at the thing, who broke at the end and decided that they were going to vote on security rather than the economy and that was the difference in the election.

Jeff Berkowitz: Leading some people to say that the Democratic Coalition is made up of high school drop-outs and Ph.Ds. The non-college women- there are also college [women] graduates who apparently went Republican, as well. You are talking about the swing vote, but seriously, it is a curious base [for Democrats]-- Ph.Ds and [high school] drop-outs-- basically making up the coalition for Democrats.
*******************************************
Berkowitz: Bush won 31 states, Kerry won 19 and DC- and of those that Bush won… (10% or 11% or less [of a margin of victory in a state]-- if that is the margin, the state is competitive), 21 of those [31 Bush] states are states in which Kerry-Edwards were not competitive.

Giangreco: Right.

Berkowitz: So, you have a great many states in which it is not that it is not close, it is that it is not even to the point where you could think that the Democrats could win—we are talking about the South and the Southwest.

Giangreco: But, you have a lot more people who live in the non-competitive Blue [Democrat] states…and that is one of the reasons why I think the Electoral College gives an unfair advantage to the Republicans—

Berkowitz: But, it is not going to change… [and] of the 19 states that Kerry-Edwards won, only six of those are states for which Bush-Cheney were not competitive, so I mean-- is there a structural problem here [for the Democrats]?
***********************************************
Giangreco: …the key thing is- we can no longer, as a party, we never really could—this fallacy that the Democrats can win [the Presidency] and lose every single Southern state, it makes the- your numbers are exactly right- you have to thread the needle, you have to win like almost every state in the mid-west and the north.

Berkowitz: Your view is-- to get back to the south-- they need a southern candidate. Is that right?

Giangreco: Yeah, I mean-

Berkowitz: So, you are running for ’08 and your candidate is John Edwards?

Giangreco: I think somebody like John Edwards or Bill Clinton, somebody who not only comes from the south, but more importantly doesn’t come from-- isn’t perceived to be one of these coastal, you know, California/New York elitists, who talk down to people and I think that is key- John Edwards all along had this message about the two Americas…and I think that is really the key message…
****************************************
Pete Giangreco debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz why John Kerry and the Democrats lost the presidential election; which alternative Democratic Presidential candidate might have won; the impact, if any, of the Veep candidates; which substantive issues were most important to the voters; strategic or structural issues that may need to be addressed by the Democrats to win the Presidency in the future; and the key 2004 U. S. Senate races.

Pete Giangreco is a Democratic Campaign Consultant and partner at the Strategy Group (www.strategygroup.com). Among many other campaigns (including that of U. S. Senator-Elect Barack Obama and Governor Blagojevich), Pete Giangreco has been involved in the last six Presidential elections on behalf of Democratic Candidates.
************************************************
Pete Giangreco: I was the last man ever hired by [presidential primary candidate] Gary Hart in 1988- I guess they will put that on my tombstone.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, then he [Hart] ran into the “Monkey Business,” problem
***********************************************
Berkowitz: …Why did the Democrats lose the Presidency again?

Giangreco: Well, I think we continue to nominate candidates of limited appeal. I mean, I think John Kerry had a very elite quality about him. You know, sort of boarding school, Yale, Northeast Massachusetts Senator. We ran into the same kind of cultural problems with Al Gore, who came from a very similar background- although he was born in the south. He was essentially raised in Washington, D.C., again boarding schools [the elite St. Albans prep school in D.C., which also counts Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. among its alums] and Ivy League. When we nominate people who culturally can’t connect in places like the South, we lose. And when we do, we win—Bill Clinton [92, 96], Jimmy Carter [76, but lost his re-election bid in ’80 to Ronald Reagan] and Lyndon Johnson [Helped John F. Kennedy win the Presidency (by stealing Texas ?) in 1960; became President in 1963 after the Kennedy Assassination and was elected in 64, but, of course, due to the Vietnam War and Senator Gene McCarthy's near victory in the New Hampshire Primary over Lyndon Johnson, Lyndon Johnson became shell shocked and was scared away from seeking re-election in ‘68]- all candidates who won southern states and won the Presidency. Gore, Kerry, Dukakis: none of them carried a southern state. And, it is not just candidates who live in the South because there are people who culturally have the same affinity as people in the South- they live in southern Ohio, they live in upstate Michigan, they live in downstate Illinois.
Berkowitz: So, you are saying [with Kerry], you lose those votes in Ohio; you lose those votes in Michigan. You actually won the state in Michigan, but one of the reasons why the Democrats lost in Ohio may have been the performance in southern Ohio.

Giangreco: It is clearly… southern Ohio, double-digit unemployment- a lot of these counties, the coal mines are shut down, and a lot of their jobs have been outsourced…

Berkowitz: …your point is that based on the job issue, Kerry should have won that state [Ohio], and he should have won in that particular area.

Giangreco: And, if you look at the exit polls, Kerry won 80% of the people who said jobs and the economy were the No. 1 issue. The problem is that for a lot of regions of the country and for some specific demographic groups- particularly women without a college degree, security and the war on terrorism actually ended up being more of an important issue to them than the economy and that’s why Bush won- because he was able to scare a lot of people—

Berkowitz: Women without a college degree?

Giangreco: they were the key

Berkowitz: But, married women-

Giangreco: Not so much married women, I mean married women traditionally tend to vote Republican- white, married women tend to vote Republican.

Berkowitz: Well, there were a lot of soccer moms a few years ago that people thought were starting to vote Democratic.

Giangreco: Right, that was some of the trend…but the real key here was that white women- folks without a college degree, you know more middle class, working class, white women who economically identify more with the Democrats, voted for Bush because of War and Security. I mean I think they did a very good job of presenting Bush as strong and Cheney running around the country saying John Kerry- if he gets elected we are going to get attacked again, which was one of the great lies of the campaign, but they lied very well.

Berkowitz: You are sort of treating the voters as if they are stupid.

Giangreco: No, not at all. I am treating the Bush campaign as if they are very smart. The other failure of the Kerry Campaign—

Berkowitz: But, you are putting it all on advertising. It is the John Kenneth Galbraith view-- only now [applied to] politics. In economics, Galbraith used to talk about consumers being kind of dumb and they had too many choices and they were easily fooled by advertising agencies.

Giangreco: No, what I am saying is that the Bush campaign did a much better job than the Kerry campaign. Of making security an issue, No. 1 and No. 2, I think playing what I think is a false claim, but a winning claim, that somehow Kerry would make us less safe…

Berkowitz: But, that was a trap that John Kerry set for himself. He, at the Convention…said “John Kerry, reporting for duty.”

Giangreco: I don’t disagree. They may have overplayed that hand.

Berkowitz: He was the one- John Kerry said this issue [National Security], in a sense, is about Vietnam…

Giangreco: To a lot of people, particularly older voters, there was a culture war in the 60s, and to their view, John Kerry was on the wrong side of the culture war. And, I think that was a legitimate criticism. And, I think it goes to the fact that I said earlier. When we nominate elitists or people who sound like they talk down to people- because I think your point is very well taken about Democrats, you know, treating people like they are not so smart- I think that is why John Edwards would have been a better candidate, by the way.

Berkowitz: There is one Democrat who doesn’t do that and that’s Hillary Clinton. If you heard her analysis, she has said, “We are ignoring certain voters. We are in a sense disrespecting those voters.”

Giangreco: She is right about that. Hillary Clinton could tomorrow become a NASCAR driver and join the NRA but despite the fact that she has spent her whole life fighting for people who don’t usually get a fair shake- folks in the middle class, people who are single mothers, working families…she culturally—there is a barrier between her and I think those voters and it is the same barrier that Al Gore had—

Berkowitz: You think she has a cultural problem, as well?

Giangreco: I do. I believe there is a perception about her—

Berkowitz: She doesn’t become a southerner by marriage? She was married to a southerner, but it doesn’t count? That’s what you are saying?

Giangreco: Yeah—

Berkowitz: She lived in Arkansas, but that doesn’t count.

Giangreco: You can’t fake it. I mean, voters are smart. You can’t fake it just by going hunting and bringing some cameras along…

Berkowitz: So, your view is that had your candidate…had he won the nomination, then your view is that the Democrats would have the presidency this time because John Edwards has a cultural fit, more in tune [with the voters than Kerry], am I getting that right?

Giangreco: That would be my general assertion. Now, I have to say, honestly, that the security and terrorism issues—Edwards still would have to deal with those—Bush probably still would have had an advantage on that despite the fact that Edwards spent almost six years on the Senate Intelligence committee—you would probably still give Bush the advantage.

Berkowitz. [as to the six years on the Senate Intelligence Committee], for the last two or three years he [Edwards] was running for President, wasn’t he?
*********************************************************
Pete Giangreco, Democratic campaign consultant and partner, Strategy Group [www.strategygroup.com], recorded on November 14, 2004, featured on tonight’s City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs [Nov. 29, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21].
**************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************************

Updated November 28 at 12:55 am /Kerry/ Edwards/ Bush/ Gore/ Giangreco/ Barnes/ Kondracke/ Carole King.
****************************************
When you're down and troubled
And you need some loving care
And nothing, nothing is going right…

You just call out my name…
Winter, spring, summer or fall
All you have to do is call
And I'll be there
You've got a friend

Carole King, “You’ve Got a Friend,” 1971 [The same year, coincidentally, that John Kerry testified to Congress about U. S. soldiers in Vietnam being "more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions... [and engaging in] the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam." John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement, April 23, 1971.]
**********************************
John Kerry could justifiably be “down and troubled,” but he is not. Instead, he is “Up” and “He’s got a friend.” And, oddly enough, it is conservative pundit Fred Barnes and not Democratic campaign consultant and Kerry-Edwards stalwart Pete Giangreco. The initial discussion, below, from Fox’s Beltway Boys, is followed by Giangreco, who is featured in this week' City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” airing this coming Monday night [Nov. 29] at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 and a partial transcript of that show is included, below.
******************************************
Fred Barnes [Weekly Standard Executive Editor and Fox Contributor, discussing those who are up and those who are down]: Up, John Kerry, he returned to work in the Senate this week and unlike other Presidential also-rans, Kerry is taking his election day loss like a man- rolling up his sleeves and not looking back. Watch.

Video Clip of John Kerry saying, “This race was a solid effort and no one’s ever beaten a President in time of war. So, the fact that I came 50,000 votes short of that, I don’t find, you know- am I disappointed? Yeah, [I] would have rather won. But, do I find that somehow- some mark of failure or distress? The answer is no.”

Barnes: You know, losing a Presidential race has to be traumatic. And, you know he hasn’t grown a beard, he hasn’t gone off and sulked [as did Al Gore after he was declared the loser in 2000, although that declaration did require an agonizing 35 days that no doubt was fairly traumatic for the principals. Remember, after learning he lost-- Gore went off for two years, like a lost hippie, to find himself and came back, apparently, with some kind of new wisdom that directed him to be and speak like a wild eyed radical—who seemed at home with policy positions almost to the left of Fidel Castro]. He [Kerry] has come back to the Senate for the lame duck session, he is there. He was at the Clinton Library event, even. I am sorry to say, though [Barnes laughter] that he [Kerry] sent an email to his supporters- partly blaming Fox News for his defeat, that’s a little pathetic—but, all in all, I am impressed by his response.

Morton Kondracke [Roll Call and Fox Contributor]: Well, he told Geraldo Rivera he thought a big factor in that was Osama Bin Laden’s tape at the very end--that it scared people into voting for [President] Bush. In fact, I think it reminded people that they preferred Bush as somebody to take on terrorism.
*********************************************
Fox News Channel’s “Beltway Boys,” November 20, 2004 [airing every Saturday at 5:00 pm on FNC]
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Why did the Democrats lose the Presidency again?

Pete Giangreco: Well, I think we continue to nominate candidates of limited appeal. I mean, I think John Kerry had a very elite quality about him. You know, sort of boarding school, Yale, Northeast Massachusetts Senator. We ran into the same kind of cultural problems with Al Gore, who came from a very similar background- although he was born in the south. He was essentially raised in Washington, D.C., again boarding schools [the elite St. Albans prep school in D.C., which also counts Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. among its alums] and Ivy League. When we nominate people who culturally can’t connect in places like the South, we lose. And when we do, we win—Bill Clinton [92, 96], Jimmy Carter [76, but lost his re-election bid in ’80 to Ronald Reagan] and Lyndon Johnson [Helped John F. Kennedy win the Presidency (by stealing Texas ?) in 1960; became President in 1963 after the Kennedy Assassination and was elected in 64, but, of course, due to the Vietnam War and Senator Gene McCarthy's near victory in the New Hampshire Primary over LBJ, became shell shocked and was scared away from seeking re-election in ‘68]- all candidates who won southern states and won the Presidency. Gore, Kerry, Dukakis: none of them carried a southern state. And, it is not just candidates who live in the South because there are people who culturally have the same affinity as people in the South- they live in southern Ohio, they live in upstate Michigan, they live in downstate Illinois.
***************************************************
Giangreco: You can’t fake it. I mean, voters are smart. You can’t fake it just by going hunting and bringing some cameras along [as did Kerry shortly before the election]…

Berkowitz: So, your view is that had your candidate…had he won the nomination, then your view is that the Democrats would have the presidency this time because John Edwards has a cultural fit more in tune [with the voters than Kerry], am I getting that right?

Giangreco: That would be my general assertion. Now, I have to say, honestly, that the security and terrorism issues—Edwards still would have to deal with those—Bush probably still would have had an advantage on that despite the fact that Edwards spent almost six years on the Senate Intelligence committee—you would probably still give Bush the advantage.
**************************************************
Pete Giangreco, Democratic campaign consultant, in a program that was recorded on November 14, 2004, and that is airing this coming Monday night on the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs.” [Nov. 29, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21]. For more on the show with Giangreco and additional portions of the show transcript, see the blog entry, below, dated Nov. 22 at 12:30 am.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************************************

Updated November 26, 2004 at 3:30 pm
*********************************
Is U. S. Senator-Elect Barack Obama [D- Chicago] correct in his belief, stated yesterday, that Democrats are “a little more concerned [than Republicans] about people who are having a tough time in our society [See, below, for the full quotation]?”

Or, is it the case that Republicans are a little bit more likely than Democrats to try to harness the power of free markets, economic competition and an individual’s freedom to choose “to help people who are having a tough time in our society.”
*********************************
For example, a Chicago owned casino and a privately owned casino in the south Chicago suburbs were the subjects of legislation promoted and focused on extensively [albeit unsuccessfully] in the recent Illinois Legislature’s veto session by Illinois Senate President and Barack Obama Mentor Emil Jones [D- Chicago]. [In the veto session, the State Senate bid a a very fond adieu to their colleague, State Senator Obama, reminding him that should he ever need some humility, he could be sure to find it by returning to the State Senate].

In large part, Senate President Jones’ efforts on behalf of a Chicago casino reflected the desires of powerful Democrat Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Most view the Chicago Mayor as looking to a casino as a source of additional revenue for the City and patronage to buttress the political power of the Mayor, who has held that position for the last 15 years, and Daley and his father, Richard J., have held the office for 36 of the last 49 years. And, Senate President Jones’ push for a casino in the South Chicago suburbs reflects his desire to stimulate economic growth in a geographic area that is a part of his political base, as well as his desire to enhance his political and financial power in his own geographic base.

Was the effort by Democrats in Illinois to expand gambling the best way “to help people who are having a tough time in our society,” or are there better ways to do that through harnessing the power of free markets? Democrats might argue that casino revenue, net of costs, could be used to spend more on education and therefore “help those who are having a tough time in society.” Republicans, on the other hand, might argue that a City owned casino furthers the opportunities for public corruption in Chicago [See, e.g., the Hired Truck, Hired Tow programs of the Mayor in Chicago] and that such a casino diverts capital from more productive, job generating projects in the private sector.

Moreover, many Republicans would argue that a better way to “improve the education of the kids of people who are having a tough time in our society,” would be to give a fully funded school voucher ($10,000 per kid per year) to the low income parents of kids in the Chicago Public Schools, so that they could use the money that is currently being spent on their kids to send them to the school of their choice, private or public. These proposals and approaches of Republicans are hardly an “Every man for himself philosophy.” [See, below, quote of Senator-Elect Barack Obama].

So, is U. S. Senator Elect Obama correct in his belief that Democrats are “a little more concerned [than Republicans] about people who are having a tough time in our society?”

We discuss, you decide.
******************************************
Barack Obama:

“Well, obviously, historically, the Republicans and the Democrats have shifted places in all sorts of ways. You know, Abraham Lincoln (we are in the land of Lincoln), the Great Emancipator, was a Republican. And, there were a lot of wonderful advocates on behalf of civil rights who were Republicans—[Senator] Everett Dirksen, here in Illinois was a great champion of civil rights, along with [Senator] Paul Douglas, a Democrat [and an economist from the University of Chicago]. And, so I don’t think that the idea of compassion and inclusiveness is exclusive to Democrats, in fact, obviously there were Dixiecrats in the South who stood against much of that progress.”

“But, what I do think is that right now-we have a difference in the parties where I feel that that Democrats are a little more concerned about people who are having a tough time in our society and that the Republicans are more prone to adopt a, you know, every man for himself philosophy in terms of our politics.”
*************************************************
Barack Obama, U. S. Senator-Elect [D- IL], interviewed by Alan Colmes on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, November 25, 2004.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************************

Updated November 24, 2004 at 11:40 am.
**********************************************
Happy Thanksgiving to all of the friends, readers and viewers of “Public Affairs.” And, come on back, as fresh blog entries will appear later today and throughout the weekend.
********************************************
Democratic Political Consultant and Partner, Strategy Group, Pete Giangreco, is tonight’s guest on the suburban edition of Public Affairs [See blog entry, below, dated Nov. 22 at 12:30 am, for a detailed airing schedule in the suburbs] and Giangreco is this coming Monday night’s guest on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs [Nov. 29 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21].
******************************************************
Ducking and dodging with State GOP Chairman Topinka and her Communications Director/Flak Catcher, Jason Gerwig.

Some of our viewers and readers have inquired as to why we haven’t had State Republican Party Chairman Judy Baar Topinka on our show, “Public Affairs,” so she can have an opportunity to respond to some of the comments that have been made about her on our show and on this blog, such as those of former Lt. Gov., Corinne Wood [See, blog entry, immediately below this entry]. Well, like Round Robin, who ate and ate and ate-- we have tried and tried and tried and Chairman Topinka has declined and declined and declined.

State Treasurer Topinka appeared on our show twice in her role as Treasurer about four years ago. And, we have given Chairman Topinka many opportunities during the last few years to appear on “Public Affairs,” to answer tough, but fair, substantive questions regarding her State GOP leadership and state public policy issues. In addition to learning more about her role as State GOP chairman, inquiring minds want to know if Treasurer Topinka will make a run at the Governor’s nomination or another statewide office, seek re-election as Treasurer or simply fade from the political scene-- and what her positions on the issues might be. Generally her press people have responded she was busy, etc., but she would try to fit our show into her busy schedule. Inevitably, they would get back to me with a variety of explanations for her inability to do the show.

Earlier this month, her Communications Director and flak catcher, Jason Gerwig, gave us a streamlined “duck and dodge,” taking only four minutes to compose his eight word response. Our email correspondence is included, below. Our last email [Nov. 2, 2004] to Gerwig apparently did not warrant a response on his part. Of course, should Chairman Topinka/Pressman Gerwig have a change of heart, Chairman Topinka has a standing invitation to come on “Public Affairs.” What can I say, fair and balanced.
************************************************
Nov. 2, 2004, 1:50 pm

To: Jason Gerwig,

Could you please advise if GOP State Chairman Judy Baar Topinka is ready to come on our show-- now that the campaign is over and she is stepping down-- perhaps her schedule will be a little less demanding than it has been over the last two years, which is about how long we have been extending an invitation to her to be a guest on our show. How about this Sunday, Nov. 7 at 12:00 pm?

Best,

Jeff Berkowitz
Host and Producer, "Public Affairs."
***********************************
Nov. 2, 2004, 1:54: PM

To: Jeff Berkowitz

No, she won't be coming on your show.
Jason Gerwig
Communications Director
Illinois Republican Party
************************************
Nov. 2, 2004, 2:00 pm

To: Jason Gerwig

That was quick.
Now, why won't Chairman Topinka be coming on my show?

Jeff Berkowitz,
****************************************

Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing legal search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************************************

Updated November 22, 2004 at 4:40 pm
*****************************************
Corinne Wood takes a few swings and knocks a few out of the park
********************************************
Tonight’s “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago Edition features Corinne Wood, former Lt. Gov and once and perhaps future Republican Primary candidate for Governor, airing at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] through-out the City of Chicago.
************************************************
Corinne Wood: My question is, in two years and raising all of that money, what have we gotten- we continue to lose at the Presidential level…the whole Alan Keyes-Barack Obama and I have to say it was a fiasco and most people did see that coming.
*************************************************
Berkowitz: Who is to blame for that? Is Judy Baar Topinka? Does she have to share in that blame? She is the Chairman of the State GOP.

Wood: Well, if someone is the Chairman of a Party or someone is the President of the Company, and their company consistently has weak results, you can’t always blame it on someone else, can you?
****************************************************
Corinne Wood and Pat O’Malley—Does politics make strange bedfellows? Corinne and Pat seem to share a bond as GOP reformers. Who would have thunk it?
******************************************************
Wood debates and discusses tonight [8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21 in Chicago] with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the divisions and schisms in the Illinois Republican Party, Chairman Judy Baar Topinka and Minority Leaders Cross and Watson, the Nov. 2 National and Illinois election contests, Social Security Reform, Tax and Spending issues, the upcoming and past gubernatorial elections, abortion issues, social conservatives and social moderates, reform and reform resisters and much, much more.
***********************************
Jeff Berkowitz:…they [the Chicago Tribune] succeeded in [having the court unseal the child custody records of Jack Ryan] and within days it seems as if Judy Baar Topinka, Jim Edgar and perhaps Jim Thompson- certainly Edgar, Topinka and Bob Kjellander seemed to be calling for Jack Ryan to withdraw, if not publicly, at least privately, do I have that right?

Corinne Wood: I would say that is accurate and in hindsight I know an awful lot of people are saying that Jack Ryan, even with a little bit of the sex scandal with his wife going on—

Berkowitz: Sex scandal was Jack Ryan attending a so-called sex club with his wife. That would be the sex scandal?

Wood: That is the sex scandal. But the question is whether Jack Ryan would have been a more credible candidate than Alan Keyes.

Berkowitz: That is the question. What is the answer?

Wood: I have to think…that Jack Ryan would have done better.
***************************************
Berkowitz: When your pitcher throws a homerun ball and it is his first pitch and it is early in the game and you are down 1 to 0, does the manager go running out, pull this guy out and then look—

Wood: Without having a replacement.

Berkowitz: Yeah, without looking to see who is in the bullpen. If nobody is there, you might leave that young guy, the novice, in.

Wood: And, in fact, some people were questioning why some Republican leaders were so vocal in their opposition [to Jack Ryan]. And again, if Jack Ryan wasn’t forthcoming, it made it very difficult to stand by a candidate, at the same time. I kept thinking there must be some “wunderkind” in the wings, but as we all found out, unfortunately, there was no plan, there were no replacements—it was an embarrassing nearly two months.
**********************************
Wood: My question to the State Central Committee was- Jim Oberweis was the second place finisher, he had hundreds of thousands of voters, he had an organization in place- he had at least run and made the effort…obviously more people would have voted for him than Alan Keyes. State Senator Steve Rauschenberger, I believe, finished third. Again there was some discussion with him as to whether he should take on Senator Obama.

Berkowitz: He seemed to decline [the potential offer]. He seemed to say the financial support wasn’t there.

Wood: Maybe you should have him on your show to say that there is not much of an organization to support a candidate. So, unfortunately, we did not end up with a credible candidate…
*************************************
Berkowitz: Judy Baar Topinka, is she part of the old guard.

Wood: Maybe you can answer that.

Berkowitz: Well, you would know…

Wood: There are a lot of people who think that the Republican Party needs to do more than just re-build…we need to change the way we do business in Illinois.

Berkowitz: So, is this another schism?

Wood: The old way of doing business and the new way—or [as] I like to say-- the reform way. So, one- do we need to re-build? Absolutely. But, two, we need to reform.

Berkowitz: Are there people who resist reform?

Wood: Of course.

Berkowitz: So, you are a reformer? You know who else is a reformer?

Wood: The people who resist reform are the people who benefited from the system. State contracts. Lucrative special interest groups.

Berkowitz: Lobbyists?

Wood: Lobbyists, to some extent. This is a broad swath. There are a lot of very good people that are involved in government.

Berkowitz: So, you want to get principled people [in government]—People who aren’t in government to make money?

Wood: Well, don’t you think what we need are people who are focused on values since that is the buzz word in elections, now?

Berkowitz: Do we, do you agree?

Wood: I do agree.

Berkowitz: Abercrombie comes to mind.

Wood: Well, of course.

Berkowitz: You are almost a social conservative, you think?

Wood: On some issues, I am very socially conservative. But, I think when you talk about values in Illinois, we might use the buzz word-- integrity or independence. Someone who is ethical. In many ways, I think that matters more to the voters here in Illinois than a party label.
******************************
Berkowitz: …So, you are a reformer. I was about to say that Pat O’Malley says he is a reformer. And, you both ran for Governor in the Republican Primary in 2002. You have a lot in common with Pat. You got 27% of the vote. He got 29%.

Wood: If you want to say that the similarity that Pat O’Malley and I have is that we are not establishment Republicans, that would be accurate.

Berkowitz: I have talked with Pat and we will have him on separately but he has said the schism in the Republican Party is not so much Pro-Life and Pro-Choice on abortion, but the real schism, he says, is between reformers and the people who resist reform and that sounds to me like what you are saying.

Wood: And, in some ways, that is true. I keep hearing that the real schism is between social moderates and social conservatives and there is some of that there. But, primarily, I see social moderates welcoming everyone to the party- talking about the big tent, finding that common ground. Unfortunately, not everyone who is very socially conservative is quite as welcoming. And, politics is about addition, not division. And, unfortunately, Mr. Keyes believed in dividing and that is also one of the reasons why he lost….
*********************************************
Berkowitz: Who would be a better healer between Baise and McKenna [as State GOP Chairman]?

Wood: I am not sure who would be a better healer. I think the real question is who would be the better reformer? Who is going to rebuild, roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, if you will-- and clean house?

Berkowitz: So, who would be the better reformer?

Wood: I don’t have that crystal ball yet.
**********************************
Corinne Wood: My question is, in two years and raising all of that money, what have we gotten- we continue to lose at the Presidential level…the whole Alan Keyes-Barack Obama and I have to say it was a fiasco and most people did see that coming.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you blame the State Central Committee for that selection of Alan Keyes?

Wood: Well, I think the voters have made their decision as to whether or not there should be a few dozen people in a closed door room making a decision as to who should be the Republican nominee ] for the U. S. Senate. I don’t think they chose correctly. I think the voters of Illinois have also said, “He wasn’t the right choice.”

Berkowitz: Who is to blame for that? Is Judy Baar Topinka? Does she have to share in that blame? She is the Chairman of the State GOP.

Wood: Well, if someone is the Chairman of a Party or someone is the President of the Company, and their company consistently has weak results, you can’t always blame it on someone else, can you?
*************************
Corinne Wood, recorded on Nov. 7, 2004 and as is airing on “Public Affairs,” through-out the City of Chicago tonight, Monday, Nov. 22 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*****************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*********************

Updated November 22, 2004 at 12:30 am
*************************************************
Why President Bush won or why Senator Kerry lost? Guess which Democrat could have beat President Bush- or so Dem. campaign consultant Pete Giangreco claims. Gaingreco is featured in this week' suburban edition of Public Affairs and a partial transcript of that show is included, below. See, conclusion of this blog entry, for detailed airing schedule, including a special airing this Tuesday night at 7:30 pm in 10 suburbs, below.
************************************************
Pete Giangreco: I was the last man ever hired by [presidential primary candidate] Gary Hart in 1988- I guess they will put that on my tombstone.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, then he [Hart] ran into the “Monkey Business,” problem [Ed. Note, almost sounds quaint by modern day “blue dress,” standards- picture a young lady by the name of Donna Rice [no relation to Condi] sitting on Hart’s lap, with both on a boat appropriately named “Monkey Business,” after Hart had denied rumors of same to reporters and he invited them to follow him- ironically, Donna Rice was in the news in the last few years as a promoter of family values.].
***********************************************
Berkowitz: …Why did the Democrats lose the Presidency again?

Giangreco: Well, I think we continue to nominate candidates of limited appeal. I mean, I think John Kerry had a very elite quality about him. You know, sort of boarding school, Yale, Northeast Massachusetts Senator. We ran into the same kind of cultural problems with Al Gore, who came from a very similar background- although he was born in the south. He was essentially raised in Washington, D.C., again boarding schools [the elite St. Albans prep school in D.C., which also counts Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. among its alums] and Ivy League. When we nominate people who culturally can’t connect in places like the South, we lose. And when we do, we win—Bill Clinton [92, 96], Jimmy Carter [76, but lost in 80] and Lyndon Johnson [became President in 63 after Kennedy Assassination, and re-elected in 64]- all candidates who won southern states and won the Presidency. Gore, Kerry, Dukakis: none of them carried a southern state. And, it is not just candidates who live in the South because there are people who culturally have the same affinity as people in the South- they live in southern Ohio, they live in upstate Michigan, they live in downstate Illinois.

Berkowitz: So, you are saying [with Kerry], you lose those votes in Ohio, you lose those votes in Michigan. You actually won the state in Michigan, but one of the reasons why the Democrats lost in Ohio may have been the performance in southern Ohio.

Giangreco: It is clearly… southern Ohio, double-digit unemployment- a lot of these counties, the coal mines are shut down, and a lot of their jobs have been outsourced…

Berkowitz: …your point is that based on the job issue, Kerry should have won that state [Ohio], and he should have won in that particular area.

Giangreco: And, if you look at the exit polls, Kerry won 80% of the people who said jobs and the economy were the No. 1 issue. The problem is that for a lot of regions of the country and for some specific demographic groups- particularly women without a college degree, security and the war on terrorism actually ended up being more of an important issue to them than the economy and that’s why Bush won- because he was able to scare a lot of people—

Berkowitz: Women without a college degree?

Giangreco: they were the key

Berkowitz: But, married women-

Giangreco: Not so much married women, I mean married women traditionally tend to vote Republican- white, married women tend to vote Republican.

Berkowitz: Well, there were a lot of soccer moms a few years ago that people thought were starting to vote Democratic.

Giangreco: Right, that was some of the trend…but the real key here was that white women- folks without a college degree, you know more middle class, working class, white women who economically identify more with the Democrats, voted for Bush because of War and Security. I mean I think they did a very good job of presenting Bush as strong and Cheney running around the country saying John Kerry- if he gets elected we are going to get attacked again, which was one of the great lies of the campaign, but they lied very well.

Berkowitz: You are sort of treating the voters as if they are stupid.

Giangreco: No, not at all. I am treating the Bush campaign as if they are very smart. The other failure of the Kerry Campaign—

Berkowitz: But, you are putting it all on advertising. It is the John Kenneth Galbraith view-- only now [applied to] politics. In economics, Galbraith used to talk about consumers being kind of dumb and they had too many choices and they were easily fooled by advertising agencies.

Giangreco: No, what I am saying is that the Bush campaign did a much better job than the Kerry campaign. Of making security an issue, No. 1 and No. 2, I think playing what I think is a false claim, but a winning claim, that somehow Kerry would make us less safe…

Berkowitz: But, that was a trap that John Kerry set for himself. He, at the Convention…said “John Kerry, reporting for duty.”

Giangreco: I don’t disagree. They may have overplayed that hand.

Berkowitz: He was the one- John Kerry said this issue [National Security], in a sense, is about Vietnam…

Giangreco: To a lot of people, particularly older voters, there was a culture war in the 60s, and to their view, John Kerry was on the wrong side of the culture war. And, I think that was a legitimate criticism. And, I think it goes to the fact that I said earlier. When we nominate elitists or people who sound like they talk down to people- because I think your point is very well taken about Democrats, you know, treating people like they are not so smart- I think that is why John Edwards would have been a better candidate, by the way.

Berkowitz: There is one Democrat who doesn’t do that and that’s Hillary Clinton. If you heard her analysis, she has said, “We are ignoring certain voters. We are in a sense disrespecting those voters.”

Giangreco: She is right about that. Hillary Clinton could tomorrow become a NASCAR driver and join the NRA but despite the fact that she has spent her whole life fighting for people who don’t usually get a fair shake- folks in the middle class, people who are single mothers, working families…she culturally—there is a barrier between her and I think those voters and it is the same barrier that Al Gore had—

Berkowitz: You think she has a cultural problem, as well?

Giangreco: I do. I believe there is a perception about her—

Berkowitz: She doesn’t become a southerner by marriage? She was married to a southerner, but it doesn’t count? That’s what you are saying?

Giangreco: Yeah—

Berkowitz: She lived in Arkansas, but that doesn’t count.

Giangreco: You can’t fake it. I mean, voters are smart. You can’t fake it just by going hunting and bringing some cameras along…

Berkowitz: So, your view is that had your candidate…had he won the nomination, then your view is that the Democrats would have the presidency this time because John Edwards has a cultural fit, more in tune [with the voters than Kerry], am I getting that right?

Giangreco: That would be my general assertion. Now, I have to say, honestly, that the security and terrorism issues—Edwards still would have to deal with those—Bush probably still would have had an advantage on that despite the fact that Edwards spent almost six years on the Senate Intelligence committee—you would probably still give Bush the advantage.

Berkowitz. [as to the six years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for the last two or three years he [Edwards] was running for President, wasn’t he?
*********************************************************
Pete Giangreco, Democratic campaign consultant, in a program that was recorded on November 14, 2004, and who is featured in this week’s suburban edition and next Monday night’s City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs [Nov. 29, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21].
**************************************************************






This week’s suburban edition and next Monday night’s City of Chicago edition [Nov. 29, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” spotlights Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant and partner at the Strategy Group (www.strategygroup.com). Among many other campaigns, Pete Giangreco has been involved in the last 6 Presidential elections on behalf of Democratic Candidates- and that is pretty remarkable for a guy who our viewers tell me looks no older than 32.

Giangreco debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz why John Kerry and the Democrats lost the presidential election; the impact, if any, of the Veep candidates; which substantive issues were most important to the voters; strategic or structural issues that may need to be addressed by the Democrats to win the Presidency in the future; and the key 2004 U. S. Senate races. [Special airing of this show is on this Tuesday, Nov. 23 at 7:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in lieu of the regular Friday airing of the program in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka. The regular Monday and Wednesday airings in those 10 suburbs remain unchanged].

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.

Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday this Friday’s show will be pre-empted in the above referenced 10 suburbs and, because of that, there will be a special airing of the “Public Affairs,” show with Pete Giangreco in those 10 suburbs this Tuesday, Nov. 23 at 7:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19.

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 Pete Giangreco will air throughout the City of Chicago next Monday, Nov. 29, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated November 19 at 12: 15 am

How many tow trucks can a tow truck tow? Pushing, pulling or towing a Chicago casino over the line.

Casinos, Organized Crime and Mayor Don Stephens; The City of Chicago, Hired Truck, Hired Tow and Mayor Richard Daley; Conflicts, the Attorney General and the Chief Legal Officer of the State of Illinois-- Lisa Madigan.

What does Illinois AG Lisa Madigan have to say about whether Chicago should and will own a casino? “Not up to me,” she said. She is the Chief Legal Officer of the State of Illinois. She ran as the “People’s Lawyer and People’s Advocate.” She almost single-handled beat back the forces that would have placed a casino in Rosemont- yelling mob ties, mob ties and saying the Gaming Board wasn’t doing its job.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan pulled the plug on a casino deal, critiqued the Gaming Board and offered advice to legislators on how to get “a quick infusion,” of casino revenue by “de-activating a casino license” and issuing a new license. [See, below]. Now, when Mayor Daley says he wants Chicago to own a casino in his city and Governor Blagojevich straddles the issue- the “People’s eyes” all look to AG Madigan, and she says, “Not up to me.” A suddenly humble and modest AG Madigan- Not my job, she says. Somewhat curious, don’t you think?
*********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Attorney General Madigan, This is—

Attorney General Lisa Madigan: I know who you are—

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay, I am going to do what I can to sharpen up your [rhetorical] skills for your next United States Supreme Court argument.

[Madigan had thanked the media but not Berkowitz personally, during her City Club talk, for asking her tough, nasty questions at press conferences—which she said had the effect of preparing her for her recent oral argument before the United States Supreme Court].

AG Lisa Madigan: All right, good luck.

Jeff Berkowitz: As most of the people in this room know and I am sure you well remember, you spent a fair amount of time taking actions [this spring] as the State’s chief legal officer that affected the ability of Rosemont to have a casino [located there] and I am wondering as the chief legal officer of the state of Illinois whether there also might be some statutory [or constitutional] responsibility for your office to take a look at whether the City of Chicago, or other municipalities, should be able to own a casino, since that has not been the case and, as you know, Mayor Daley has asked to do that. So, could you give us your views as to whether your office ought to be weighing in on that and, secondly, is that something, if your office looks at, that you should step aside on [that is], the second question is – is there any conflict there that would cause you to step aside because of the well known relationship between the Daleys and the Madigans and Mayor Daley’s support of you in your Primary [Election over John Schmidt] and General [Election over Joe Birkett].

AG Lisa Madigan: Jeff, here is where we are right now in terms of the City of Chicago owning a casino. The legislature, in terms of a bill that they may or may not pass this week, or sometime in the future, would have to change the law to allow that. I haven’t seen any language floating around. I haven’t been in Springfield, so I don’t know if there is a draft out there and what it looks like, but no, there is no CONFLICT because I am not actually, you know-- I am not in the legislature and I would not be voting on that bill. The reason that the Office of the Attorney General is involved in the 10th casino license [proposed for Rosemont] is because that became a litigation matter and once it is a litigation matter, as the legal officer of the State [of Illinois], our office is involved. So, that is why we have ended up in the situation whatsoever. Otherwise, normally, it is the [Illinois] Gaming Board who has the authority to deal with problems in terms of casinos in Illinois.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, do you have an opinion as to the desirability of that [the City of Chicago owning a casino]?

AG Lisa Madigan [looks over to the moderator who says- “Jeff, how about letting the next person up to ask a question”] [Saved by the Ref? by the bell?]

Jeff Berkowitz: Thank you.
*******************************************
Four individuals posed questions to and received answers from Attorney General Madigan, after she had spoken to the City Club of Chicago at a lunch program on November 16, 2004. The Program, along with the Questions and Answers, will air in the City of Chicago on Saturday, November 20 at 7:00 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 and on Wednesday, November 24 at 10:00 am on CANTV, Cable Ch. 19. The name of the program is “The City Club of Chicago Presents: Inside Chicago.”
********************************************
Unidentified Reporter: Should there be a casino for Chicago?

Attorney General Lisa Madigan: Not up to me-- luckily.

Same unidentified reporter with a follow-up question: What should they do about it?

AG Lisa Madigan: Not up to me.
Press Conference after the Lunch Program at the City Club of Chicago on November 16, 2004.
********************************
********************************
Gambling expansion efforts in Illinois appeared shaky Tuesday after Governor Rod Blagojevich rejected Mayor Daley’s plan for a city owned casino and Attorney General Lisa Madigan acted to scuttle the Illinois Gaming Board’s move to allow a casino in Rosemont.
[Governor] Blagojevich had once hoped to buttress next year’s budget with a quick infusion of at least $350 million from the sale of an unused riverboat license now held by the bankrupt Emerald Casino.

But [Lisa] Madigan made it clear that she would fight the Gaming Board’s decision to award the new casino to Rosemont and that it could be years –if ever—before the State could get any money from that deal.
*********************************
[AG Lisa] Madigan said she decided to “pull the plug,” on a deal she struck earlier with Emerald because the Gaming Board had not adequately explained why it ignored staff recommendations and picked Isle of Capri over other bidders for the license. Madigan also said the board had failed to explain why it had become comfortable with Rosemont as a casino site despite questions about whether the suburb's longtime mayor, Donald Stephens, has links to organized crime. Stephens has denied those allegations.

Madigan predicted Rosemont would fight her in court, possibly tying up the license for years. If lawmakers want a quick infusion of casino revenue, she said, they may want to deactivate the Emerald license and replace it with another.

"It is very clear to us at this point that the Illinois Gaming Board members failed in making sure that bidding procedures for this license were, in fact, fair," Madigan said. "There are numerous questions that still remain to be answered that they have failed to answer…”

Chicago Tribune article, May 12, 2004, Ray Long and John Chase.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************************

Updated November 18, 2004 at 3:25 pm

A virtual three way debate: Cong. Ray LaHood v. Corinne Wood v. Jeff Berkowitz

Corinne Wood fires back at Cong. Ray LaHood: Moderate Republicans win general elections in Illinois, the former Lt. Governor- under George Ryan- argues.

Berkowitz responds to the Corinne Wood arguments.
*******************************************
To: Public Affairs
From: Corinne Wood

In response to Cong. Ray LaHood’s comments that moderates can’t win Republican primaries [Ed. Note: Actually, Cong. LaHood said it would be “difficult,” for moderates to win; See Nov. 11, 12:50 pm blog entry, below] , hasn't he forgotten about Governor Jim Thompson (14 years as Governor), Governor Jim Edgar (8 years as Governor), Judy Baar Topinka (8 years as Treasurer), Corinne Wood (4 years as Lt. Gov.) and many others? In contrast, conservatives who do win primaries have a dismal record at winning in the general election -- leaving us without Republican representation-Al Salvi, Bob Churchill, Jim Ryan, Jim Tobin, Judy Koehler and, of course, Alan Keyes! The difference? "Moderates" actually win elections!

When are we Republicans going to stop being divisive and start recognizing that standing together we can win as Republicans? How many failed election attempts do we need? Based on Cong. LaHood's comments, I guess we haven't learned yet.

Corinne Wood
************************************
Berkowitz responds:

Perhaps, but there are a few problems with the above analysis of former Lt. Gov. Wood, elegant as it appears at first blush. Many of the examples are quite dated. Thompson last won an election in 1986 and Edgar in 1994, a decade ago. Koehler’s 31 point loss takes us back to 1986 and the reference to Churchill [losing the primary for SOS to Salvi?] in this context-- I just don’t get. As to Topinka, Treasurer doesn’t count. That is not really a position for which winning pivots on social conservative or even economic conservative positions. It is, apparently, more a matter of historical deals, conflicts, backstabbing and various political antics than it is taking and articulating positions on substantive issues.

Al Salvi’s ’96 U. S. Senate loss in the general election is a little more relevant, at least as to time period—but his loss seemed to reflect ineptness more than ideology. Jim Tobin, a Libertarian candidate who had trouble getting on the ballot, is another example I don’t get, in this context.

Jim Ryan’s 2002 gubernatorial loss is relevant in time but again ideology seemed to have little to do with that, or even with Jim Ryan. A very decent guy- is Jim- but those are four of the most damning words you can mutter in politics—Kind of like when a high school kid describes a potential date for his or her friend as having a lot of personality.

In short, Jim Ryan lost his gubernatorial bid, and not by that much, because he was a terrible campaigner who seemed to hate every minute of campaigning and he had George Ryan’s scandal ridden past sitting on his shoulder every minute of the campaign. Was he a social conservative on gay rights, guns, education? If he was, it was hard to detect, especially by the average voter. Yes, he was generally Pro-Life, but by saying he would not apologize for being pro-Life, most pro-lifers thought he sounded as if he was. His handing of his Office’s investigation of the Secretary of State scandals and the constant pounding by O’Malley re same in the primary did not help Jim much, either. In short, Jim Ryan’s loss had very little to do with whether he was or was not a conservative.

And, finally, Wood refers to Alan Keyes. Yes, Keyes was a disaster. But, coming from out of state, having the State GOP Party elders and so-called leaders announce on Day 1 that he was not welcome, with the Chicago Tribune also immediately saying the equivalent of “Go back home,” and, of course, not being a true economic conservative on such key issues as free trade and agriculture, Keyes had, shall we say, a few problems unrelated to those that a “normal conservative,” candidate might have.

That, of course, is before we get to the fact that Keyes was, at best, an historically inconsistent Republican, terribly ill-suited for politics, and completely lacking in grace or charm. Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, Keyes is the ideal, but completely disingenuous, example for someone like Chairman Topinka to refer to as demonstrating that conservatives cannot win the general election in Illinois.

So, in short, while Corinne Wood may have a point that Republicans need to stand together to win, her examples that purport to demonstrate that Republican moderates currently can win general elections and that Republican conservatives cannot win general elections do not withstand critical scrutiny.

Moreover, a major problem that Corinne does not deal with is that Edgar or Thompson probably could not get out of the Republican Primary these days. And, a conservative who did win a tough primary contest against a moderate in recent times (1998)-- overcoming the establishment support for the moderate, was, of course, Senator Peter Fitzgerald. And, Peter went on beat an incumbent, albeit badly damaged, Democrat, Carol Moseley Braun, in the general election. Of course, Fitzgerald “chose,” not to run for re-election. But what that signifies is a topic for another blog entry.
*********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*********************************

Updated Nov. 17 at 1:30 pm
*************************
House-cleaning, Illinois GOP style:

"[Andy] McKenna, Jr. reportedly has agreed to keep on the current IL GOP staff if he were to become party chairman." Illinois Leader, Chicago Leader Bureau, Nov. 17
************************
One of the few times I will quote the French, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Well, that certainly sounds like a real housecleaning, a real change. First, they keep on the current IL GOP staff. Second, they look at their current "vendor," and contract lists, and they keep those the same. Third, they look at how they distribute funds and to whom, and they keep that the same. Fourth, they keep everything as bland as bland can be- make sure there is never any discussion or statement of core ideas around which the State GOP rallies. Fifth, they make sure Chairman Topinka goes to the Bush Inauguration as Chairman Topinka, because she has earned it-- "pure Hell, the last two years, boys, pure Hell." And God forbid, she would have to pay for something herself- "For God's sake, guys, I am an Illinois Republican official, get real." Sixth, Chairman Topinka gets a new position as the ad hoc, ex-officio adviser to the State GOP for life [Pro-life, after all?], with weekly status reports from Chairman McKenna. Seventh, all the IL GOP staff can stay in their current positions for the rest of their lives, receive license plates with nifty single or double digit numbers or receive a 200K severance payment, whichever they prefer and finally, Eighth, George Ryan will be pardoned by President Bush prior to trial [and then knighted by the Queen of England, whoever holds that title at that time].

As Corinne Wood said recently..."I think the real question is who would be the better reformer? Who is going to rebuild, roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, if you will-- and clean house." [Public Affairs, airing this week in the suburbs and in the City of Chicago next Monday night, See Blog entries, below, dated Nov. 17 at 12:15 am; Nov. 16 at 5:40 pm].
********************************
Some start to house cleaning! Keep everybody in place. How do you spell reform, Andy McKenna, Jr.? That's an easy one, Jeff. S-T-A-T-U-S Q-U-O.
*********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*********************************

Updated Nov. 17, 2004 at 12:15 am
***********************************
Corinne Wood and Pat O’Malley—Does politics make strange bedfellows? Corinne and Pat seem to share a bond as GOP reformers. Who would have thunk it?
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz:…which they [the Chicago Tribune] succeeded in doing [having the court unseal the child custody records of Jack Ryan] and within days it seems as if Judy Baar Topinka, Jim Edgar and perhaps Jim Thompson- certainly Edgar, Topinka and Bob Kjellander seemed to be calling for Jack Ryan to withdraw, if not publicly, at least privately, do I have that right?

Corinne Wood: I would say that is accurate and in hindsight I know an awful lot of people are saying that Jack Ryan, even with a little bit of the sex scandal with his wife going on—

Berkowitz: Sex scandal was Jack Ryan attending a so-called sex club with his wife. That would be the sex scandal?

Wood: That is the sex scandal. But the question is whether Jack Ryan would have been a more credible candidate than Alan Keyes.

Berkowitz: That is the question. What is the answer?

Wood: I have to think…that Jack Ryan would have done better.
***************************************
Berkowitz: When your pitcher throws a homerun ball and it is his first pitch and it is early in the game and you are down 1 to 0, does the manager go running out, pull this guy out and then look—

Wood: Without having a replacement.

Berkowitz: Yeah, without looking to see who is in the bullpen. If nobody is there, you might leave that young guy, the novice, in.

Wood: And, in fact, some people were questioning why were some Republican leaders so vocal in their opposition [to Jack Ryan]. And again, if Jack Ryan wasn’t forthcoming, it made it very difficult to stand by a candidate, at the same time. I kept thinking there must be some “wunderkind” in the wings, but as we all found out, unfortunately, there was no plan, there were no replacements—it was an embarrassing nearly two months.
**********************************
Wood: My question to the State Central Committee was- Jim Oberweis was the second place finisher, he had hundreds of thousands of voters, he had an organization in place- he had at least run and made the effort…obviously more people would have voted for him than Alan Keyes. State Senator Steve Rauschenberger, I believe, finished third. Again there was some discussion with him as to whether he should take on Senator Obama.

Berkowitz: He seemed to decline [the potential offer]. He seemed to say the financial support wasn’t there.

Wood: Maybe you should have him on your show to say that there is not much of an organization to support a candidate. So, unfortunately, we did not end up with a credible candidate…
*************************************
Berkowitz: Judy Baar Topinka, is she part of the old guard.

Wood: Maybe you can answer that.

Berkowitz: Well, you would know…

Wood: There are a lot of people who think that the Republican Party needs to do more than just re-build…we need to change the way we do business in Illinois.

Berkowitz: So, is this another schism?

Wood: The old way of doing business and the new way—or [as] I like to say-- the reform way. So, one- do we need to re-build? Absolutely. But, two, we need to reform.

Berkowitz: Are there people who resist reform?

Wood: Of course.

Berkowitz: So, you are a reformer? You know who else is a reformer?

Wood: The people who resist reform are the people who benefited from the system. State contracts. Lucrative special interest groups.

Berkowitz: Lobbyists?

Wood: Lobbyists, to some extent. This is a broad swath. There are a lot of very good people that are involved in government.

Berkowitz: So, you want to get principled people [in government]—People who aren’t in government to make money?

Wood: Well, don’t you think what we need are people who are focused on values since that is the buzz word in elections, now?

Berkowitz: Do we, do you agree?

Wood: I do agree.

Berkowitz: Abercrombie comes to mind.

Wood: Well, of course.

Berkowitz: You are almost a social conservative, you think?

Wood: On some issues, I am very socially conservative. But, I think when you talk about values in Illinois, we might use the buzz word-- integrity or independence. Someone who is ethical. In many ways, I think that matters more to the voters here in Illinois than a party label.
******************************
Berkowitz: …So, you are a reformer. I was about to say that Pat O’Malley says he is a reformer. And, you both ran for Governor in the Republican Primary in 2002. You have a lot in common with Pat. You got 27% of the vote. He got 29%.

Wood: If you want to say that the similarity that Pat O’Malley and I have is that we are not establishment Republicans, that would be accurate.

Berkowitz: I have talked with Pat and we will have him on separately but he has said the schism in the Republican Party is not so much Pro-Life and Pro-Choice on abortion, but the real schism, he says, is between reformers and the people who resist reform and that sounds to me like what you are saying.

Wood: And, in some ways, that is true. I keep hearing that the real schism is between social moderates and social conservatives and there is some of that there. But, primarily, I see social moderates welcoming everyone to the party- talking about the big tent, finding that common ground. Unfortunately, not everyone who is very socially conservative is quite as welcoming. And, politics is about addition, not division. And, unfortunately, Mr. Keyes believed in dividing and that is also one of the reasons why he lost….
*********************************************
Berkowitz: Who would be a better healer between Baise and McKenna [as State GOP Chairman]?

Wood: I am not sure who would be a better healer. I think the real question is who would be the better reformer? Who is going to rebuild, roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, if you will-- and clean house?

Berkowitz: So, who would be the better reformer?

Wood: I don’t have that crystal ball yet.
**********************************
Corinne Wood, recorded on Nov. 7, 2004 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. 22 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See, blog entry, two entries below, dated Nov. 16 at 5:40 pm, for a detailed description of the Suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs.”
*****************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*********************

Updated Nov. 16, 2004 at 6:25 pm

The knives come out: Corinne Wood assesses Chairman Topinka’s performance.
************************************************
Corinne Wood: My question is, in two years and raising all of that money, what have we gotten- we continue to lose at the Presidential level…the whole Alan Keyes-Barack Obama and I have to say it was a fiasco and most people did see that coming.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you blame the State Central Committee for that selection of Alan Keyes?

Wood: Well, I think the voters have made their decision as to whether or not there should be a few dozen people in a closed door room making a decision as to who should be the Republican nominee ] for the U. S. Senate. I don’t think they chose correctly. I think the voters of Illinois have also said, “He wasn’t the right choice.”

Berkowitz: Who is to blame for that? Is Judy Baar Topinka? Does she have to share in that blame? She is the Chairman of the State GOP.

Wood: Well, if someone is the Chairman of a Party or someone is the President of the Company, and their company consistently has weak results, you can’t always blame it on someone else, can you?
*************************
Corinne Wood, recorded on Nov. 7, 2004 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. 22 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See, blog entry, immediately below, for a detailed description of the Suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs.”
*****************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*****************************

Updated November 16, 2004 at 5:40 pm
*************************************************
This week’s suburban edition and this coming Monday night’s City of Chicago edition [Nov. 22, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” features Corinne Wood [R- Lake Forest], former Lt. Gov. and former Candidate for Governor in the 2002 Republican Primary.

Wood debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the divisions and schisms in the Illinois Republican Party, Chairman Judy Baar Topinka and Minority Leaders Cross and Watson, the Nov. 2 National and Illinois election contests, Social Security Reform, Tax and Spending issues, the upcoming and past gubernatorial elections, abortion issues, social conservatives and social moderates, reform and reform resisters and much, much more. [See, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs.”]

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 Corinne Wood will air throughout the City of Chicago this coming Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated Nov. 15 at 7:55 pm. (A) LaHood, Crane and Bean and (B) The Chairman Topinka Watch, Index of recent posts:

1. Nov. 15, 4:30 pm, partial transcript of interview of Cong. Ray LaHood (R- Peoria): Trade, former Cong. Crane and Cong. Bean.

2. Nov. 15, 3:30 pm, partial transcript of interview of Cong. Ray LaHood (R- Peoria): the Fitzgeralds [Patrick and Peter], Topinka, McKenna, Republican Gubernatorial candidates, the 8th CD, Rutherford, Bean and much, much more.

3. Nov. 15, 12:30 am, revised 2:30 pm. What kind of a deal does Judy Baar Topinka have in mind? The sayings of Chairman Topinka-- enough to fill a little red book, if not a red state.

4. Nov. 12, 3:45 pm, revised Nov. 14 at 9:00 am. Did State GOP Chairman Topinka promote, implicitly, a Keyes candidacy to ruin the Republican Party’s conservative wing? A virtual debate between Rich Miller of Capitol Fax and Jeff Berkowitz of “Public Affairs.”

5. Nov. 11, 12:50 pm, Chairman Topinka, evaluated by Rich Miller. Berkowitz comments on the Miller evaluation.

Updated on November 15, 2004 at 4:30 pm; Included below is a partial transcript of Tonight's City of Chicago edition of "Public Affairs," featuring Cong. Ray Lahood. The transcript supplements the transcript of the show included in the blog entry immediately below this one.
**************************************
Cong. Ray LaHood on the Fitzgeralds [Patrick and Peter], Topinka, McKenna, Crane, Republican Gubernatorial candidates, the 8th CD, trade, Rutherford, Bean and much, much more.
***************************************
Tonight’s City Edition [Nov. 15, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” features ten year Congressman Ray LaHood [R- Peoria, 18th Dist.] debating and discussing politics and public policy with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz.
******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: What is the most important thing that he [Cong. Phil Crane] has done for his district? Over the years, or more recently-- whatever comes to mind.

Cong. LaHood: I think the fact that his service on the [House] Ways and Means Committee has been extraordinarily helpful to the State of Illinois in terms of trade policy, in terms of tax policy and frankly in terms of really setting the policy for our country and in following the lead of President Bush, in particular for the last three and one-half years on tax policy, whether it is the tax cuts, whether it is trade policy, this session of Congress- we passed three major trade agreements and Phil was the leader of that. Our state is, if not the No. 1 trading state in the country, it is one of them. And, uh, one of the top ones. And, it is because of Phil Crane’s leadership.

Berkowitz: So, trade is important to the Country, you are saying.

LaHood: Trade is important to Illinois.

Berkowitz: Trade is important to your district. The 18th in Illinois?

LaHood: Caterpillar is the top exporter in Illinois and we employ a lot of people in central Illinois and around the state and they benefit mightily from these trade agreements, as well as companies like Boeing and Motorola.

Berkowitz: Are you a free trader?

Cong. LaHood: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: When you say these trade agreements, they are generally agreements in which tariffs are reduced on a mutual basis?

LaHood: Reduced or eliminated. Absolutely.

Berkowitz: You would like to continue to do more.

LaHood: Absolutely. I mean it is the lifeblood for our state. I mean, for our farmers, who produce a lot of the food and fiber for the world, for companies like Caterpillar. 50% of what they manufacture in Illinois goes somewhere else in the world. Goes to South America. Mexico. Canada. The Far East. For companies like Motorola. And, certainly for companies like Boeing.

Berkowitz: And by that what you are saying is that that opens up markets, companies like Caterpillar, companies like Abbott, Baxter and Motorola up in the 8th Cong. District or surrounding areas are all companies that do a fair amount of exporting—

LaHood: And, they provide jobs. If they can produce a product that can be exported, it means there are jobs to manufacture the products that are exported.

Berkowitz: Now, Melissa Bean, Democrat [Candidate] in the 8th Cong. District [and newly elected Congresswoman in the 8th CD], as have others, has raised the issue of off shore sourcing- that is, sending jobs overseas, that is exporting not products but exporting jobs…is that a fair criticism to somebody like yourself and Phil Crane who are free traders?

LaHood: My response to people who say to me what are you going to do about all the jobs that are leaving the country is to first of all ask people what kind of car they drive. I saw in the business section of the Tribune a list of the 10 most popular cars as purchased by Americans, and the first 8 were foreign made. And, I also ask people where do you buy your goods and services? Particularly your goods. When you go into your Wal-Mart store, which a lot of Americans do, a lot of people in Illinois do- it is pretty difficult to find anything made in America…
***************************************
Cong. Ray LaHood [R- Peoria, 18th Dist.], recorded on Oct. 30, 2004 and as is airing on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Nov. 15 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].

The “Public Affairs,” show with Cong. Ray LaHood will air throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Monday, Nov. 15, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
****************************************

Updated on November 15, 2004 at 3:30 pm
**************************************
Cong. Ray LaHood on the Fitzgeralds [Patrick and Peter], Topinka, McKenna, Crane, Republican Gubernatorial candidates, the 8th CD, trade, Rutherford, Bean and much, much more.
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: But, he [Patrick Fitzgerald] will have the opportunity to stay? He will have the opportunity to stay as the
U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois?

Cong. Ray LaHood: Well, it is up to the President and the Attorney General, but I believe they will give him the opportunity to continue his appointment.
****************************************
Berkowitz: …Do you think he [Andy McKenna, Jr.] will get it [the State GOP Chairmanship]?

LaHood: If he wants it, he will get it.
***************************************
Lahood: … I think it is difficult for a Pro-Choice Republican to win a Primary [in Illinois].
***************************************
Berkowitz: So, you are not even going to make a prediction as to who would be the strongest candidate [for Governor]. Steve Rauschenberger comes to mind. Pat O’Malley comes to mind. Bob Schillerstrom comes to mind. Any of those folks sound to you like strong candidates?

LaHood: There will be a lot of—Dan Rutherford is thinking about running statewide. He is a state senator from my area.
***************************************
Tonight’s City Edition [Nov. 15, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” features ten year Congressman Ray LaHood [R- Peoria, 18th Dist.] debating and discussing politics and public policy with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz.

Topics include Judicial and U. S. Attorney nominations in light of Illinois now having two Democrat Senators, Cong. Phil Crane’s historical importance to his District, Melissa Bean, Tax cuts, Free Trade, the Bush 2nd Term Agenda, Energy legislation, ANWR, Off shore sourcing of jobs, the impeachment of President Clinton, the viability of pro-choice statewide candidates in Illinois, job creation by trade, the Nov. 2 election and much, much more. ****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Would you project a pick up of any votes [in the House of Representatives], or will it just stay the same?

Cong. Ray LaHood: I think we [the Republicans] will pick up four or five seats, primarily in Texas.

Berkowitz: So, you will go from about a 12 vote margin to about 17 votes?

LaHood: Yes, probably 17 to 20.

Berkowitz: What about the Senate?

LaHood: It is up for grabs; there are 10 seats in play.

Berkowitz: Want to make a prediction?

LaHood: I think we [the Republicans] will pick up 2 or 3 seats.

Berkowitz: So, you predict it will be…

LaHood: No, I think it will be 53-54 to--

Berkowitz: Something like that. Do you think that will help [the Republican Party]? Will that help on Judges?

LaHood: It will help.

Berkowitz: What about on appointments? Let’s assume that Barack Obama does win and assume, as you predict, that Bush does win, so you will have a Republican President and two Democratic Senators [in Illinois]. On judicial appointments, does that go to the Speaker of the House, then—In this case, the most senior member of the [Illinois] congressional delegation, who is your good friend, Speaker Dennis Hastert—

LaHood: Well, the most senior member in our [congressional] delegation is Phil Crane, but obviously the Speaker is--, by seniority

Berkowitz: Right, Okay, we are going to continue to speak as the credits roll… our guest has been Cong. Ray LaHood, the Republican Congressman from the 18th Cong. Dist., from Peoria and central and west Illinois.

LaHood: That’s right. West, Central Illinois.

Berkowitz: Now, the re-appointment of [U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois] Patrick Fitzgerald, that very well may come up. A lot of people thought that [Speaker] Dennis Hastert was not so enthusiastic about that appointment and that it was very much argued for and forced through by Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Now, will that come up and be controlled by Speaker Hastert and George Bush- the re-appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald?

LaHood: I think that if the President wins the re-election, which I believe he will, I think those appointments [the U. S. Attorneys] will continue; those people will stay in those positions.

Berkowitz: So, you think Patrick Fitzgerald will stay—

LaHood: Unless they decide to resign.

Berkowitz: But, he [Patrick Fitzgerald] will have the opportunity to stay? He will have the opportunity to stay as the U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois?

LaHood: Well, it is up to the President and the Attorney General, but I believe they will give him the opportunity to continue his appointment.

Berkowitz: Will Pete Fitzgerald continue to have a voice in the Illinois Republican Party or-- when he is no longer a U. S. Senator, will he fade away?

LaHood: Well, that is up to him. I don’t know what kind of--
***************************************
Berkowitz: …Do you think he [Andy McKenna, Jr.] will get it [the State GOP Chairmanship]?

LaHood: If he wants it, he will get it.

Berkowitz: Does he want it?

LaHood: Well, in my discussions with him, it appears that way.

Berkowitz: He is talking to people at the State Central Committee; they make the choice, right?

LaHood: That’s right. The State Central Committee, by a weighted vote, decides who the Chairman will be.
******************************************
Berkowitz: …Many people think that a candidate for Governor in the Republican Primary in the State of Illinois who is not Pro-Life cannot win…people say that there is now a very strong conservative [Republican] base that feels very deeply about that issue, and that if Jim Edgar were running for Governor in the Primary, he couldn’t win, nor could Thompson- at this point. Has that change occurred in the Republican Party-- at least in its base?

LaHood: The truth is that Governor Edgar did have a challenge in the [1990 Republican] primary by a [Pro-Life] fellow by the name of Steven Baer—

Berkowitz: Right.

LaHood: And Steven Baer got about 32% of the vote, but he didn’t get the nomination. Governor Edgar did.

Berkowitz: But, my point is- has that changed now [14 years later]? That, right now, that base- that Pro-Life base is much stronger and it is not simply Pro-Life. I would call it a social conservative movement within the Republican Party [in Illinois].

LaHood: Our party stands for- [stands] on the principle of being Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, conservative on the social issues and conservative on the fiscal issues. Those are the issues that define our party and, frankly, I don’t disagree with those and I think it is difficult for a Pro-Choice Republican to win a Primary [in Illinois].

Berkowitz: Say that again.

LaHood: I think it is difficult.

Berkowitz: For a Pro-choice Republican to win.

LaHood: Yeah, Yeah.

Berkowitz: So, the point is- what does that do, as the party is rebuilding. Does that mean that Judy Baar Topinka is unlikely to be a gubernatorial candidate? Or is she—is she somebody who could not win in the Republican Primary for Governor?

LaHood: Well, she is the only statewide office, officer, Republican, that was left standing after the last election [2002].

Berkowitz: Right, but that was the Treasurer’s office. There weren’t many people [in that race] talking much about her views on abortion—

LaHood: I know that.

Berkowitz: Or on education, on spending, on taxes.

LaHood: I know that, yeah. Ah, the answer is-- she is very popular. Whether she could win a primary or not-- I think she is probably weighing that and will weigh that as she determines whether she is going to run for re-election for Treasurer or run for another office.
****************************************
Berkowitz: So, you are not even going to make a prediction as to who would be the strongest candidate [for Governor]. Steve Rauschenberger comes to mind. Pat O’Malley comes to mind. Bob Schillerstrom comes to mind. Any of those folks sound to you like strong candidates?

LaHood: There will be a lot of—Dan Rutherford is thinking about running statewide. He is a state senator from my area.

Berkowitz: But, not for Governor. Is he thinking about running for Governor?

LaHood: He is thinking about running statewide. I don’t think he has really said what he is going to run for.

Berkowitz: You like him. You like Rutherford? You support him?

LaHood: I think we have a lot of good candidates. And, I think it will be a very spirited primary.
***************************************
Cong. Ray LaHood [R- Peoria, 18th Dist.], recorded on Oct. 30, 2004 and as is airing on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Nov. 15 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].

The “Public Affairs,” show with Cong. Ray LaHood will air throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Monday, Nov. 15, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
****************************************