Updated on December 31, 2004 at 4:45 pm, revised at 8:45 pm
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Let me ask you this- while you were living in Tennessee, were you, were you registered to vote in Tennessee or registered to vote in Illinois?

Congressman-Elect Dan Lipinski: Hmmm. I was registered to vote in Illinois.

Berkowitz: Can you do that if you are working full time in Tennessee? Is that legal?

Lipinski: uh, you register to vote. I had not voted in a- once I moved to Tennessee, I did not vote—in Illinois.
*********************************
Berkowitz: … What do you say?… Speaker Mike [Madigan]-- his daughter, Lisa Madigan becomes the Attorney General. [Former State Senate President] Tom Hynes-- his son, Dan Hynes, becomes the State Comptroller … Richard J. Daley—has [his son] Richard M. Daley become the Mayor. … Ald. Mell has his son-in- law, Rod Blagojevich, become the Governor. Is there a problem? I mean you have some perspective on this because you have a Ph. D. in political science. If you were looking at it… objectively, you were looking at somebody else who had done this, would you say, “Oh, that is not the kind of country we want, we really don’t want that kind of nepotism.”

Lipinski: Well, it is not the case that, you know—what I would say is the case that I ran in the general election, umm, I went out there- and if I were someone who was not qualified—
***************************************
Coming Attractions on "Public Affairs":

State Senator Peter Roskam on TV throughout the City of Chicago this coming Monday night [Jan. 3, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21]; Partial transcript of the show with Roskam included in this blog, two entries below.

Congressman-Elect Dan Lipinski on TV in the suburbs this coming week [Comcast Cable, Week of Jan. 3]. Partial transcript, included below, of the show with Congressman Dan Lipinski. See the end of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.

The show with Cong. Dan Lipinski will also air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday night, Jan. 10 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Now, how did you get to be [a Congressman]? How did this work out? Now, you are sitting there. You are teaching at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, right?

Congressman-Elect Dan Lipinski: Yes.

Berkowitz: 2003, or so. And, what? The phone rings and somebody calls and says, would you like to be a Congressman?

Lipinski: Well, what happened wasn’t really until 2004. This year. I mean my father [Cong. Bill Lipinski, D- Chicago] has been in office, as you mentioned, twenty-two years.

Berkowitz: Right.

Lipinski: And, honestly, as far back as I can remember, my father was talking about retiring, moving on, doing something else.

Berkowitz: As far as you can remember, he was always talking about retiring?

Lipinski: As far as I can remember. When he first ran, back in 1982, he got in there- it was always, how long am I going to stay? You know, it was always—
********************************
Berkowitz: … when you got a call, from your dad-- is that right?… 2004?

Lipinski: 2004. What happens, the Primary is relatively early, pretty early in Illinois, in March.

Berkowitz: March, right.

Lipinski: And, my father ran in a [Democratic] primary. And, in April, the House of Representatives passed the Highway Bill, which was supposed to have been passed two years previous to that. And, this was a big thing that my father has really been working hard on. In getting the Highway Bill passed, a lot of important things—

Berkowitz: What is the name of the Committee he is on?

Lipinski: Transportation Committee or Transportation Infrastructure—

Berkowitz: [Is he] third or second ranking member of the committee?

Lipinski: He is the third ranking [member of the Transportation Committee].

Berkowitz: Third ranking, okay.

Lipinski: So, this is something that has always been of importance to him- transportation issues. And, he is at a point where he could have a significant amount of power in getting things for the [3rd Congressional] District, the City [of Chicago] and for Illinois. And, when it finally passed the House, two years late, he said “Okay, basically, my work is done, I have gotten this done.”

Berkowitz: I am going to retire?

Lipinski: Yeah, [he said] I am going to retire.

Berkowitz: So, when was that?

Lipinski: That was in April [2004].

Berkowitz: Okay, and then what happened?

Lipinski: So, my father—as I said, he has talked before about retiring—but when he called me up and said, “I have talked to some of the committeemen in the [3rd Congressional] District, Democratic Committeeman and told them –you know- I am going to retire,”-- then I knew, Okay, he is serious; this had gone on outside of just talking with the family, things like that. So, he said to me—he said, “there have been a couple of the committeemen who I have talked to who have said, you know—is your son interested in- in running?” And, my father said, “Well, let me—I will talk to him and see if he is interested.” And, so, he- you know- gave me a call and talked to me about it and I really have- I worked for a number of members of Congress. My area of study as a political scientist has been Congress. And, I have written articles. I have written a book that just came out with the University of Michigan Press-- on Congress-- something that has always interested me. And, I have watched my father and all that he has been able to do for people over the years. And, the reason that I have been teaching is that I just really value public service. And I think it sort of goes back to my St. Ignatius [High School] days, to a large extent, but also in my family. The whole idea is if you have an opportunity, if you have the talent- you should go into public service.

Berkowitz: So, you said yes, you will do it?

Lipinski: Well, the first thing I did—I talked to my wife about it.

Berkowitz: Judy?

Lipinski: I talked to Judy. We had been married less than a year at this time and I said, you know- is this something we want to do? Because, I know it is not just me. I know what politics is like. I know what kind of dedication it takes.

Berkowitz: So, you never really thought of doing this before?

Lipinski: Did I ever think about it? Maybe somewhere in the back of my mind, I had--

Berkowitz: So, Judy says OK and you are off and running. Is that basically it?

Lipinski: That was basically it.

Berkowitz: Now, the Committeemen. You mentioned the 19th Ward, Tom Hynes-- he is still a committeeman there [in the 3rd CD], right?

Lipinski: Yes.

Berkowitz: John Daley, brother of Mayor Daley [and] a Cook County Commissioner- he is a Committeeman [in the 3rd CD], right [11th Ward, Bridgeport]?

Lipinski: Yeah.

Berkowitz: [Illinois House] Speaker Mike- Mike Madigan, he is a Committeeman [in the 3rd CD], right?

Lipinski: Um, Um.

Berkowitz: What is his ward?

Lipinski: 13th Ward.

Berkowitz: So, here. I mean I understand what you have just said. But, some people would say, is there an issue of nepotism here? And, what do you say to those folks because it kind of looks like-- here, you didn’t run in a primary. Your father decided to retire. He talked to the Committeemen [in the 3rd CD]. They talked to him. Your name goes on the ballot. The Republican? Who is the Republican who was running against you?

Lipinski: Uh—

Berkowitz: Ryan--

Lipinski: Ryan Chlada.

Berkowitz: Chlada. See, we can’t even remember his name. Now, people say: he was a plant; he was really a Democrat; this was really all set up so you wouldn’t have any opposition in the general election. What do you say? Because, you know, speaker Mike [Madigan]-- his daughter, Lisa Madigan, becomes the Attorney General. [Former State Senate President and Cook County Assessor] Tom Hynes-- his son, Dan Hynes, becomes the State Comptroller. [21 year Chicago Mayor] Richard J. Daley—has [his son] Richard M. Daley become the Mayor. [33rd Ward Alderman Dick] Mell has his son in law, Blagojevich, become the Governor. Is there a problem? I mean you have some perspective on this because you have a Ph. D. in political science. If you were looking at it- I know its hard—if you were looking at it objectively, you were looking at somebody else who had done this, would you say, “Oh, that is not the kind of country we want, we really don’t want that kind of nepotism.”

Lipinski: Well, it is not the case that, you know—what I would say is the case that I ran in the general election, umm, I went out there- and if I were someone who was not qualified—

Berkowitz: No real opposition. This guy didn’t run a campaign. He didn’t do anything. I mean--

Lipinski: He was, he was—

Berkowitz: It was like [you were running as] a judge, you were running, you know—will they retain you? or not, almost.

Lipinski: Well, he was the man that the Republicans- who won the Republican Primary.

Berkowitz: Yeah.

Lipinski: And, you know, if I were not qualified; if I had been someone who, you know, did not have the background that I have—have the experience that I have, umm, not only working in Congress—studying Congress from the outside; if I wasn’t confident that I was the best candidate to step in there and that I would not be the best Congressman and best represent the people of the 3rd District, then I certainly would not have done that. But, I think I am. I went out there during the campaign, campaigned with as many people as I could; talked to them about what I wanted to do—

Berkowitz: Let me ask you this- while you were living in Tennessee, were you, were you registered to vote in Tennessee or registered to vote in Illinois?

Lipinski: Hmmm. I was registered to vote in Illinois.

Berkowitz: Can you do that if you are working full time in Tennessee? Is that legal?

Lipinski: uh, you register to vote. I had not voted in a- once I moved to Tennessee, I did not vote—in Illinois.

Berkowitz: Once you moved to Tennessee, you did not vote in Illinois but you were registered to vote in Illinois?

Lipinski: Yes.

Berkowitz: So, did you vote in Tennessee?

Lipinski: No.

Berkowitz: So, you just didn’t vote- while you were there [in Tennessee, about three years, teaching Political Science courses as an Assistant Professor].

Lipinski: I didn’t vote.

Berkowitz: Because you couldn’t vote in Illinois because even though you were registered here, you didn’t have a residence here, right?

Lipinski: Umm, the- I mean, to go through the whole- the whole process, I had my registration- because I was moving around a lot, ummm, I had, from the time that I, you know, went to college, spent a lot of time in, I decided that I wanted to get my, my Ph. D. and that required a lot of time going to school—

Berkowitz: So, you just didn’t change your registration while you were—

Lipinski: I didn’t change my registration because I always considered Chicago to be my home.

Berkowitz: Do you expect significant opposition in the Democratic Primary in 2006?

Lipinski: Well, I am sure that there will be challengers in 2006.

Berkowitz: You think? Okay.

Lipinski: I have confidence that I am going to do a good job. You know, I am going to take my record to the people in March of 2006 and the voters of the 3rd [Congressional] District will decide.
*****************************************
Congressman-Elect Dan Lipinski interviewed on "Public Affairs," as is being cablecast this coming week [Week of Jan. 3] in the suburbs on Comcast Cable, and as will be cablecast throughout the City of Chicago on Monday night, Jan. 10 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See conclusion of this blog for a detailed suburban airing schedule. The show was recorded on Dec. 19, 2004.
*******************************************
Congressman-Elect Dan Lipinski [D- Western Springs, 3rd Cong. Dist.] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz issues related to Midway, Peotone and O'Hare airports, the Iraq War, Abortion, School Vouchers, Gun Control, the Assault Weapon Ban, Trade, Protectionism, Off-Shore Out Sourcing and Dan Lipinski’s appointment by the Committeeman to replace his father, Bill Lipinski, on the ballot as the Democratic Nominee for the 3rd Cong. Dist. seat.
*******************************************
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.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated December 30, 2005 at 7:15 pm
*************************
Tomorrow [Friday] morning’s Year in Review on WBEZ should not be missed [10:00 am].
*************************
The best “Month in Review,” program of significant public policy and political news is Steve Edwards’ 848 program, which usually is heard on the last Friday of each month on WBEZ FM Radio (91.5) at 9:35 am [the usual start time for Edwards’ daily, excellent news magazine format of politics, public policy, features, culture and other good stuff, which continues until 11:00 am].

Tomorrow [Friday], news and public policy/politics junkies are in for a special year-end treat. Edwards hosts a Year-in-Review segment at 10 a.m. on WBEZ FM Radio (91.5). Based on the talented host and scheduled guests, I expect a great program that should not be missed.

Each of tomorrow’s panelists is bright, provocative, informed, insightful and entertaining, as is the host, who is one of the fairest, smartest and best prepared of the various radio/TV personalities in town who host such programs. Tomorrow’s panelists include Carlos Hernandez Gomez [WBEZ Political Editor], Lester Munson [Sports Illustrated], Laura Washington [Chicago Sun Times and DePaul], and Eric Zorn [Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger-- www.chicagotribune.com/notebook].

The only possible a priori criticism of the show is that the panelists, as is usually the case with most of the WBEZ Month in Review radio programs [as well as most of WTTW’s Chicago Week in Review television programs], span only half the political spectrum —that is, they range from center to left, of varying degrees. Where are the panelists whose views are on the right-- of varying degrees, or even can speak about that perspective? Where, indeed.
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************************

Updated December 27, 2004 at 1:00 pm, revised at 4:00 pm
***********************************
Coming Attractions on "Public Affairs":

Cong. Judy Biggert on TV in the City tonight [8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21]; State Senator Peter Roskam on TV in the suburbs this week [Comcast Cable]; Partial transcript of Biggert, below, and Roskam in the blog entry immediately below.

State Senator Peter Roskam on TV in the City next Monday night; Congressman-Elect Dan Lipinski on TV in the suburbs next week [Comcast Cable].
**********************************
Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th CD]: Well, it is just that it is the time to get those. We had so many that were—it wasn’t supposed to be—You know, we were supposed to go in, have the war, that would be over and then we would just plan for the peacekeeping—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, nobody planned for this kind of an insurgency for a year [and a half]?
******************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” [8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21, CANTV] features Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th District]. An partial transcript of the show is included, below.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Don Rumsfeld, of course you must have heard this, we are taping this on December 12 and he said, just a few days ago [when he was] out talking to the troops in Kuwait, the troops who are and will be fighting in Iraq—one of the soldiers raised an issue--it turns out prompted by a reporter [actually the soldier now has stated that he was not prompted by the reporter, Lee Pitts; that the reporter, Pitts, suggested to the soldier that he, in fact, tone the question down (as reported by Brit Hume on Fox’s Special Report, Dec. 20, 2004)], but nevertheless raised the issue of the kind of vehicles they are driving, whether they had sufficient armor, I guess, primarily to protect the soldiers from these improvised explosive devices [IEDs] which have unfortunately, very unfortunately, killed a number of our soldiers and the soldier said, “should we have better armor, should we have vehicles that are certainly safer and more protective,” and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said something to the effect that you know, “you go to war with the army you have [not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time].” What do you think of that statement?

Cong. Judy Biggert: I don’t think that was his best day. [Coincidentally, Rumsfeld and Cong. Biggert, who grew up in Wilmette, are both New Trier High School Alumni, although I think Rumsfeld preceded Cong. Biggert by a few years at the Winnetka High School].

Berkowitz: An off day for Don Rumsfeld?

Biggert: I think his comments- it was unfortunate the way that it came across and I have heard from him a lot- he comes and briefs us on a pretty good schedule and I think he is very good in what he has to say, so I think it- but that is a tough issue- something that we have heard about in Congress before. In fact, I have a company in my district that has been to see me just recently because they have developed a Humvee like vehicle that really has the capability of putting the armor on it and still having the engine to drive it. Even if they put some of the armor on some of these Humvees, then their engine, it dies, because the engine doesn’t have the capability for the armor.

Berkowitz: Is that right?

Biggert: But, that is no excuse. I think that we want to make our soldiers—our soldiers must be as safe as possible and we should be able to provide the armor, but, however, you know, I don’t think that we were as prepared as we should have been for the insurgents part of the war and that we haven’t had all of the vehicles that we needed, so they have had to go out and scrounge for vehicles. I was in Kosovo during that conflict and the military there were still taking, you know, planes or trucks that were—and cannibalizing them for equipment that they needed, so this has gone on for a long time. I mean it is not a new thing, but—

Berkowitz: Why is it happening [now]; why was it happening then?

Biggert: Well, because—Kosovo, just old equipment.

Berkowitz: Right, so does that mean that we are skimping on national defense?

Biggert: No. We have and Congress has said we will provide what the soldiers need.

Berkowitz: But, we haven’t. We didn’t in Kosovo. We apparently didn’t now. So, is it a planning issue? Or—

Biggert: Well, it is just that it is the time to get those. We had so many that were—it wasn’t suppose to be—You know, we were supposed to go in, have the war, that would be over and then we would just plan for the peacekeeping—

Berkowitz: So, nobody planned for this kind of an insurgency for a year [and a half]?

Biggert: So, they are speeding it up as far as providing that, but it is unfortunate, though and particularly with the bottom of the trucks that are being blown up.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Legacy of George Bush? He [President Bush] has been there four years. He will be there another four years. Is it too early to start talking about what his legacy will be?

Cong. Judy Biggert: Well, I think one of his legacies certainly has been “No Child Left Behind,” the education bill.
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Back to guns, Gun Control. Do you favor an assault weapon ban?

Cong. Judy Biggert: No.

Berkowitz: You don’t?

Biggert: No.

Berkowitz: You think that people—why do people need to have assault weapons?

Biggert: I don’t think they need to have them. But, I think it is less- less government. We don’t see that that has made a real difference, as far as [reducing] crime, no. I think law abiding citizens—

Berkowitz: Do you support the Brady bill? Do you support background checks?

Biggert: Background checks.

Berkowitz: Would you like to close the tradeshow loophole? Has that already been done?

Biggert: Well, I think right now we have a FOID card in Illinois.

Berkowitz: But, what about nationally? Are the problems with the tradeshows [this episode of "Public Affairs" concludes at this point.]
*******************************
Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th District], recorded on Dec. 12, 2004 and as is airing tonight on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs [Monday night, Dec. 27 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21]. *******************************
Cong. Judy Biggert debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the War in Iraq, anti-terrorism, the 911 Bill and resolution of the issues raised by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, drivers licenses for illegal aliens, social security reform, tort reform, 8th Cong. Dist. potential Republican candidates to run against Congresswoman-Elect Melissa Bean, Senator Dick Durbin’s new role as minority party Whip, No Child Left Behind and school vouchers, Chicago School Reform, abortion, gun control, North Korea and Iran
***********************************************
Cong. Biggert, who attended New Trier High School, Stanford University, Northwestern University Law School and practiced law out of her home in Hinsdale while raising four kids, spent six years in the Illinois State House and then won, in March, 1998, a tough Republican Primary in the 13th Cong. Dist. over now State Senator Peter Roskam [R- Wheaton], 45% to 40%.

Cong. Biggert is completing her sixth year in Congress, was re-elected in November to another term and her vote total in the last few elections has ranged into the upper 60s and lower 70s.
***********************************************
Coincidentally, Senator Roskam, now residing in the 6th Cong. Dist., is featured on next week’s City of Chicago edition 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 on December 25, 2004 at 6:40 pm
*******************************
Roskam/Rauschenberger/Topinka/CTA/O'Malley/Wood/Shimkus/Guns/Kirk/Hynes/Stem Cell Research/Patrick Fitzgerald and much, much more.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Rauschenberger and O’Malley [former] allies, working together, they get in and go at it against each other [in the Republican gubernatorial primary] and divide up the vote, and give it to Judy Baar Topinka?

State Senator Peter Roskam: It could happen. Stranger things have happened.
*********************************
This coming week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features State Senator Peter Roskam [See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule, including a special Holiday airing of “Public Affairs” this coming week, and more about the show with Roskam].

The show with Sen. Roskam will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on Monday night, Jan. 3 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. This coming Monday night’s Chicago edition of Public Affairs features Cong. Judy Biggert (R- Hinsdale, 13th CD) at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21
**********************************************
A partial transcript of the Roskam show is included, below.
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Cong. Mark Steven Kirk [R- Highland Park, 10th CD], do you think he might do it [run for Governor].

State Senator Peter Roskam: I don’t know. I don’t know him well enough to speculate.

Berkowitz: Giving up a safe seat in the 10th. Probably not, right?

Roskam: There are not many people in this business that want to put it all on Red 22, spin and see what happens.
******************************
Roskam: To meet Steve Rauschenberger is to like the guy. What he has to do is put the money together and demonstrate that he--

Berkowitz: Do you think he can do that?

Roskam: I think he can. I think he has got—

Berkowitz: It is a little easier to raise it, in some respects, on the state level than dealing with the federal [contribution] caps—

Roskam: Oh, tons easier. I mean the federal campaign caps—

Berkowitz: $2000 is the individual [federal] cap now, per cycle. Is that right?

Roskam: Right, that is what he was limited to. So, that is what limited him greatly in the U. S. Senate run.

Berkowitz: So, at this point, you are supporting Steve Rauschenberger for Governor?

Roskam: Well, if he runs.

Berkowitz: You will support him?

Roskam: That would be my inclination.

Berkowitz: You supported him before for U. S. Senator.

Roskam: Yeah, he is a bright guy…he has unbelievable support in the [state] Senate and in the [state] House, a real kind of cross-over guy…conservatives trust him, moderates are very comfortable with him…he is a very compelling guy.
*****************************************
Berkowitz: Judy Baar Topinka [will she run for Governor]?

Roskam: She will have the decision of a lifetime, basically. Up or out.

Berkowitz: What do you think she will do?

Roskam: I don’t know.

Berkowitz: Come on, give us your best guess.

Roskam: My best guess is that she runs, she goes forward and hopes for conservatives splitting up a vote.

Berkowitz: Will they oblige her?

Roskam: They just might.

Berkowitz: How many conservatives does she need in there to split the conservative vote?

Roskam: Well, I would say two credible candidates, at least. I mean she has got to do something more than what what—

Berkowitz: Corinne Wood had?

Roskam: Corinne Wood did…Judy’s a very different campaigner than Corinne was. I think she comes at it from a much stronger point- than Corinne did, frankly.

Berkowitz: You think?

Roskam: um, um.

Berkowitz: Okay, so you think she [Topinka] is a better campaigner [than Corinne Wood]- is that what you are saying?

Roskam: um, um.

Berkowitz: So, if Pat O’Malley got in-- you think Pat O’Malley would do it, [get in?, former] state senator Pat O’Malley?

Roskam: I think that is more likely true than not true.

Berkowitz: Really? And, if he got in, Rauschenberger--

Roskam: I mean I have not talked to him [O’Malley], but you are asking me to—

Berkowitz: Rauschenberger and O’Malley [former] allies, working together, they get in and go at it against each other and divide up the vote, and give it to Judy Baar Topinka?

Roskam: It could happen. Stranger things have happened.

Berkowitz: But, you think more than two conservatives are necessary for that to happen?

Roskam: No, I think two conservatives together could completely, ah—

Berkowitz: Destroy things?

Roskam: Yeah. From my point of view, to make it real—

Berkowitz: For you, destroy. For those people who are pulling for Judy, they could—

Roskam: Right, right, right [laughter].

Berkowitz: It all depends where you sit. Corinne Wood, we mentioned. Do you think she might get in [the Governor’s race]?

Roskam: I haven’t heard that.

Berkowitz: That would split up the moderate vote. That would give a headache to Judy Baar Topinka, right?

Roskam: Yeah, yeah. And, I don’t think there is that big of a moderate vote-
*********************************
State Senator Peter Roskam (R- Wheaton, 48th Dist.), recorded on Dec. 12, 2004 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of Dec. 27] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, Jan. 3 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See the end of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
State Senator Peter Roskam (R- Wheaton, 48th Dist.) debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the state senate’s vote and Dan Hynes’ proposed legislation on embryonic stem cell research, additional state funding for the CTA, homeowners using guns against home invaders, potential Republican statewide candidates in 2006, the vote on January 15 for State GOP chairman and the November and upcoming January 10-11, 2005 state legislature veto session.
*******************************
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 Holiday scheduling, during the Week of Dec. 27, Public Affairs will not air on Friday, but instead will have a special airing in the above referenced 10 suburbs on Tuesday, Dec. 28 at 7:30 pm.

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

Updated December 24, 2004 at 1:30 pm
***************************
Wingnuts and the Upcoming Iraqi Election: What does the election mean for regime change? Can the United States and the Coalition deliver on their promise to bring a workable democracy to Iraq?
*******************************
Zakaria/Will/Stephanopoulos/Rev. Jackson/Dean/Buchanan/Bush/Kerry/Flannery: Picking out the true Wingnuts.
*************************
As we approach the New Year and try to assess where the U. S. and the Coalition are in Iraq, what does the upcoming January 30 election in Iraq mean? Will there be a strong turnout notwithstanding the obvious risk to personal safety to those Iraqis who exercise their first taste of political freedom in Iraq—and vote? Is the Coalition/Iraqi effort on the path to success? To establishing a workably democratic regime that will be a beacon of hope to those in that part of the world who live under despotic, totalitarian regimes-- regimes that many in the Republican Party and a decent number in the Democratic Party feel are ultimately a threat to the United States’ national security, notwithstanding our government’s often overt or tacit support of such regimes.

Or is the War in Iraq a slog that eventually will wear-down even the neo-cons and their allies in the Bush Administration, causing them and the Administration to say that they tried a noble experiment and failed. That will, of course, move us closer as a country to the isolationists in both parties, e.g. Howard Dean, Pat Buchanan and Rev. Jesse Jackson [someone who will lament incessantly an Ohioan receiving the wrong directions to the geographic location of a polling place as cause to re-do the entire election in Ohio, but will give no thought to an Iraqi being kept, at gunpoint, from exercising her right to vote].

Dean, Buchanan and Jackson are viewed by the mainstream American electorate as the “wingnuts,” of the American political scene, to borrow a phrase that CBS 2 News’ Mike Flannery likes to use in a somewhat different context, but the wingnuts do have their followings [Indeed, so much so, that Dean, scream speech and all, was given serious consideration to Chair the national Democratic Party]. And, you will not hear anyone in the mainstream media call Dean, Buchanan or Rev. Jackson a “wing- nut.” That term of endearment is reserved by the media for conservative Republicans, a label that no longer fits for Buchanan, with Pat essentially having migrated to the Democrats’ side of the aisle by adopting isolationist, protectionist trade and anti-immigration views.

George Will and Fareed Zakaria, two of the more articulate voices on television, suggest the contours of a somewhat different answer to the Iraq question:

George Stephanopoulos (ABC News’ “This Week” host): Let’s look forward and take on this question of whether or not we are succeeded, succeeding in Iraq. Secretary Card said this morning that we [have] won the War; it is just a matter of getting on the road to elections right now. That is also a debatable prospect.

George Will (ABC News): I don’t think you have won the War until you can say you can stand down your troops and they are back in policing mode and we are not in policing mode- we are still trying to conquer unconquered parts of the country. George, I remember twenty some years ago on this program- there were Saturday elections in El Salvador. We had the film on a Sunday morning of people standing in lines under gunfire. The desire to vote is palpable around the world. We will see how well it can be done here. We have several thousand polling places to guard in Iraq, but we will see if the people of Iraq will do essentially what the El Salvadorans did. The question is, the premise is, and this is seen to be very optimistic, that an election means pacification. I don’t believe that.

Fareed Zakaria (ABC News): No, I think you are right, George. It won’t solve everything. But, it is an important step because it will produce a government with some greater degree of legitimacy than the current one. And, that will give that government some greater effectiveness at dealing with this insurgency. So, I think it is not a cure-all by any means and it produces problems--
****************************************
This Week with George Stephanopoulos, December 19, 2004. “This Week,” airs every Sunday morning from 9:30 am to 10:30 am on ABC, Ch. 7 [except, of course, when ABC’s local affiliate is carrying something important to your life, like golf, a fire or the Chicago Marathon, in which case you will find This Week airing at some time like 8:00 am or 2:00 am, if you can find it at all].
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com.
******************************************

Updated on December 22 at 4:30 pm., revised at 8:45 pm
*****************************************
The Daley Ryan Combine and making up for your father’s mistakes: Obama, Fawell, George Ryan and the State GOP, the unity of it all.
******************************************
While preparing to tape my show with 13th District Congresswoman Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale], airing this week and tonight in the suburbs on "Public Affairs," and on this coming Monday night's City of Chicago edition of "Public Affairs" [see the blog entry immediately below for a more detailed airing schedule], I learned that the open seat for which Congresswoman Biggert ran [and won] in 1998 was created when Cong. Harris Fawell announced his retirement in 1997 [Harris Fawell, BTW, subsequently endorsed Biggert for the Republican nomination in her tough Republican primary fight with Senator Peter Roskam and four others- some, if not all, of whose entry into the race was thought to be favorable to Biggert].

Harris Fawell is the uncle of Scott Fawell, who was the right hand man to former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan. George Ryan, also elected in 1998, did not seek re-election in 2002 [For those outside of Illinois reading this, George’s decision not to seek re-election reflected his general unpopularity due to the gross corruption that characterized his administration of the Secretary of State’s office, but also his gross unpopularity within the Republican Party, especially its conservative base, due to his forsaking all conservative/Republican principles and the public policy commitments he made prior to being elected Governor].

George Ryan was indicted by the U. S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois in late 1993 and George is awaiting trial on racketeering charges in March, 2005. Scott Fawell is serving time in prison, himself, and is now cooperating, along with his girlfriend [also indicted], with the federal authorities in the prosecution of the George Ryan indictment and should be a star witness against George, who many characterized as almost, if not, a father to Scott.

Of relevance to the above is a quotation that Illinois U. S. Senator-Elect Barack Obama got a lot of mileage out of during the recent political season, especially during Obama’s recent victory lap on the early morning and late night entertainment/happy talk shows, e.g., David Letterman. As Barack would say, he does not often quote LBJ, but when he does, like so much else that Barack does, it gets your attention.

“Every son is trying to live up to his father’s expectations or make up for his mistakes.” President Lyndon Baines Johnson. It is a quote that Barack raises in the context of discussing his own father, and both the pressure he may have felt, and continues, perhaps, to feel to meet his father’s high expectations and strong life performance and his obligation, as well, to make up for his father’s mistakes in terms of how, in some respects, he treated his family, including Barack.

But, taking the quote another step, across the aisle and across a continent, so to speak, what is its application to Scott Fawell and how he treats his father figure, George Ryan. Will Scott be failing father Ryan’s expectations when he testifies? Or, more likely, will Scott be making up for George’s mistakes, corruption and his bankrupt morality, politics and philosophy, such as they are, when Scott Fawell provides the testimony that could give George Ryan the equivalent of a life sentence.

Moreover, the Daily Herald’s Eric Krol wrote recently how George Ryan’s trial in 2005 could continue to keep Illinois Republicans on the defensive through 2005 and leading up to the 2006 elections. However, those who think about it will know that George Ryan, warts aplenty, arguably belongs more to the Democrats in Illinois than the Republicans. After all, the Daley Ryan Combine, as the Chicago Tribune's John Kass invented the concept and term, starts with Mayor Daley, not George Ryan. For his conversion and “evolution” on the issues of abortion, guns, spending, taxes, capital punishment and airports, it was the Ds, not the Rs, who lionized George and indeed, continue to do so, treating George more as a fallen saint than a corrupt pol. At the end of the Day, it was the Democrats standing by their man George Ryan and promoting him for the Nobel Peace Prize, as opposed to any Republicans of note doing so. Indeed, George Ryan was commonly referred to during his four year gubernatorial reign as the Democrats' favorite Republican- or as a Republocrat.

Will the Republicans figure this out? Will the emerging Republcan Party of reform and principle have a State GOP Chairman who can separate the Party and himself from George Ryan? And tag the Democratic Party with George? With vigor, enthusiasm, persuasiveness and charisma? Or will the Republicans buy into Eric Krol’s conventional wisdom scenario, continue to be defensive about a Governor and his cronies who were never real Republicans and continue to be ensnarled in and by the Daley Ryan Civic Elite (“DRCE”) Combine?

One clue, the State Republican Establishment/Leadership in Illinois seldom misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. You can almost make book on it, as they say, at the DRCE’s new Chicago-Daley casino to be. And, which Republican "leaders," will have blessed that Chicago owned casino before the doors open? A new State GOP chairman, for one? What an inauspicious start to the New Year that would be.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************************************

Updated December 21, 2004 at 3:40 pm [revised slightly at 6:00 pm]
***********************************
Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th CD]: Well, it is just that it is the time to get those. We had so many that were—it wasn’t supposed to be—You know, we were supposed to go in, have the war, that would be over and then we would just plan for the peacekeeping—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, nobody planned for this kind of an insurgency for a year [and a half]?
******************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Congresswoman Judy Biggert. [See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule, including some special Holiday airings of Public Affairs- the show airs on Comcast Cable in 34 Chicago Metro suburbs tonight and in 10 suburbs tomorrow night]. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on Monday night, Dec. 27 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. An additional partial transcript of the show is included, below.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: [Secretary of Defense] Don Rumsfeld, of course you must have heard this, we are taping this on December 12 and he said, just a few days ago [when he was] out talking to the troops in Kuwait, the troops who are and will be fighting in Iraq—one of the soldiers raised an issue--it turns out prompted by a reporter [actually the soldier now has stated that he was not prompted by the reporter, Lee Pitts; that the reporter, Pitts, suggested to the soldier that he, in fact, tone the question down (as reported by Brit Hume on Fox’s Special Report, Dec. 20, 2004)], but nevertheless raised the issue of the kind of vehicles they are driving, whether they had sufficient armor, I guess, primarily to protect the soldiers from these improvised explosive devices [IEDs] which have unfortunately, very unfortunately, killed a number of our soldiers and the soldier said, “should we have better armor, should we have vehicles that are certainly safer and more protective,” and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said something to the effect that you know, “you go to war with the army you have [not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time].” What do you think of that statement?

Cong. Judy Biggert: I don’t think that was his best day. [Coincidentally, Rumsfeld and Cong. Biggert, who grew up in Wilmette, are both New Trier High School Alumni, although I think Rumsfeld preceded Cong. Biggert by a few years at the Winnetka High School].

Berkowitz: An off day for Don Rumsfeld?

Biggert: I think his comments- it was unfortunate the way that it came across and I have heard from him a lot- he comes and briefs us on a pretty good schedule and I think he is very good in what he has to say, so I think it- but that is a tough issue- something that we have heard about in Congress before. In fact, I have a company in my district that has been to see me just recently because they have developed a Humvee like vehicle that really has the capability of putting the armor on it and still having the engine to drive it. Even if they put some of the armor on some of these Humvees, then their engine, it dies, because the engine doesn’t have the capability for the armor.

Berkowitz: Is that right?

Biggert: But, that is no excuse. I think that we want to make our soldiers—our soldiers must be as safe as possible and we should be able to provide the armor, but, however, you know, I don’t think that we were as prepared as we should have been for the insurgents part of the war and that we haven’t had all of the vehicles that we needed, so they have had to go out and scrounge for vehicles. I was in Kosovo during that conflict and the military there were still taking, you know, planes or trucks that were—and cannibalizing them for equipment that they needed, so this has gone on for a long time. I mean it is not a new thing, but—

Berkowitz: Why is it happening [now]; why was it happening then?

Biggert: Well, because—Kosovo, just old equipment.

Berkowitz: Right, so does that mean that we are skimping on national defense?

Biggert: No. We have and Congress has said we will provide what the soldiers need.

Berkowitz: But, we haven’t. We didn’t in Kosovo. We apparently didn’t now. So, is it a planning issue? Or—

Biggert: Well, it is just that it is the time to get those. We had so many that were—it wasn’t suppose to be—You know, we were supposed to go in, have the war, that would be over and then we would just plan for the peacekeeping—

Berkowitz: So, nobody planned for this kind of an insurgency for a year [and a half]?

Biggert: So, they are speeding it up as far as providing that, but it is unfortunate, though and particularly with the bottom of the trucks that are being blown up.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Legacy of George Bush? He [President Bush] has been there four years. He will be there another four years. Is it too early to start talking about what his legacy will be?

Cong. Judy Biggert: Well, I think one of his legacies certainly has been “No Child Left Behind,” the education bill.
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Back to guns, Gun Control. Do you favor an assault weapon ban?

Cong. Judy Biggert: No.

Berkowitz: You don’t?

Biggert: No.

Berkowitz: You think that people—why do people need to have assault weapons?

Biggert: I don’t think they need to have them. But, I think it is less- less government. We don’t see that that has made a real difference, as far as [reducing] crime, no. I think law abiding citizens—

Berkowitz: Do you support the Brady bill? Do you support background checks?

Biggert: Background checks.

Berkowitz: Would you like to close the tradeshow loophole? Has that already been done?

Biggert: Well, I think right now we have a FOID card in Illinois.

Berkowitz: But, what about nationally? Are the problems with the tradeshows [this episode of "Public Affairs" concludes at this point.]
*******************************
Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th District], recorded on Dec. 12, 2004 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of Dec. 20] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, Dec. 27 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See the end of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
Cong. Judy Biggert debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the War in Iraq, anti-terrorism, the 911 Bill and resolution of the issues raised by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, drivers licenses for illegal aliens, social security reform, tort reform, 8th Cong. Dist. potential Republican candidates to run against Congresswoman-Elect Melissa Bean, Senator Dick Durbin’s new role as minority party Whip, No Child Left Behind and school vouchers, Chicago School Reform, abortion, gun control, North Korea and Iran
***********************************************
Cong. Biggert, who attended New Trier High School, Stanford University, Northwestern University Law School and practiced law out of her home in Hinsdale while raising four kids, spent six years in the Illinois State House and then won, in March, 1998, a tough Republican Primary in the 13th Cong. Dist. over now State Senator Peter Roskam [R- Wheaton], 45% to 40%.

Cong. Biggert is completing her sixth year in Congress, was re-elected in November to another term and her vote total in the last few elections has ranged into the upper 60s and lower 70s.

Coincidentally, Senator Roskam, now residing in the 6th Cong. Dist., is featured on next week’s suburban edition 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. Due to Holiday scheduling, during the Weeks of Dec. 20 and Dec. 27, Public Affairs will not air on Friday, but instead will have special airings in the above referenced 10 suburbs on Tuesdays, Dec. 21 [tonight] and Dec. 28 at 7:30 pm.

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

Updated December 20, 2004 at 1:25 pm [revised at 3:30 pm, partial transcipt of show with Cong. Biggert added, below]
**************************************
Pete Giangreco on TV [Public Affairs] throughout the City of Chicago tonight and Cong. Judy Biggert [R-Hinsdale, 13th Dist] on TV [Public Affairs] in the suburbs this week.
**************************************
John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Edwards, Reagan, Carter, Dukakis, LBJ, Gene McCarthy and so many more make cameo appearances, so to speak.
*************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Legacy of George Bush. He [President Bush] has been there four years. He will be there another four years. Is it too early to start talking about what his legacy will be?

Cong. Judy Biggert: Well, I think one of his legacies certainly has been No Child Left Behind, the education bill.
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Back to guns, Gun Control. Do you favor an assault weapon ban?

Cong. Judy Biggert: No.

Berkowitz: You don’t?

Biggert: No.

Berkowitz: You think that people—why do people need to have assault weapons?

Biggert: I don’t think they need to have them. But, I think it is less- less government. We don’t see that that has made a real difference, as far as [reducing] crime, no. I think law abiding citizens—

Berkowitz: Do you support the Brady bill? Do you support background checks?

Biggert: Background checks.

Berkowitz: Would you like to close the tradeshow loophole? Has that already been done?

Biggert: Well, I think right now we have a FOID card in Illinois.

Berkowitz: But, what about nationally? Are the problems with the tradeshows [this episode of "Public Affairs" concludes at this point.]
*******************************
Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th District], recorded on Dec. 12, 2004 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of Dec. 20] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, Dec. 27 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You are sort of treating the voters as if they are stupid.

Pete 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. [Galbraith, a social critic who is often mistakenly characterized as an economist, is 96 and still going strong-- as is his nemisis, Milton Friedman. Friedman, who is a few years younger than JKG, is also still going strong. Milton Friedman is not only a real economist, but perhaps was the most influential economist on our society of the last century and perhaps the next, as well.]

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. [ An additional partial transcript of this show is included as a part of this blog entry, below]
*******************************************
A “Public Affairs,” classic from the “Public Affairs,” vault: Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant and Partner, Strategy Group (www.strategygroup.com), tangles and spars with Jeff Berkowitz tonight [8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21, CANTV], airing throughout the City of Chicago. See the remainder of this entry, for more details and a partial transcript of the show. Next week’s guest on the City Edition of “Public Affairs,” is Congresswoman Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th CD].
************************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Congresswoman Judy Biggert. [See the end of this blog entry for the suburban airing schedule, including some special Holiday airings of Public Affairs.]
****************************************************
Jeff 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.

Pete 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… [See blog entry, below, dated Nov. 29, 1:20 pm for an additional transcript of the show and more discussion of related topics].
****************************************
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, recorded on November 14, 2004, featured on tonight’s City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs.
[Dec. 20, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21].
***************************************
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 race outcomes.
***********************************************
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 Rod Blagojevich), Pete Giangreco has been involved in the last six Presidential elections on behalf of Democratic Candidates.
************************************************
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 Holiday scheduling, during the Weeks of Dec. 20 and Dec. 27, Public Affairs will not air on Friday, but instead will have special airings on Tuesdays, Dec. 21 and Dec. 28 at 7:30 pm.

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

Updated on December 18, 2004 at 11:00 pm.
****************************************
Berkowitz on Tom Roeser’s radio program this Sunday night/ Gary Skoien takes on frontrunners for State GOP Chair Andy McKenna, Jr. and Steve McGlynn/Cong. Biggert and Pete Giangreco appear on "Public Affairs," this week
******************************************
What do John McCain, Russ Feingold, George Soros, Moveon.org, Howard Dean, Jack Ryan, Judy Baar Topinka, Ron Gidwidz, George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, Mike Madigan, George Ryan, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Mark Kirk, the DNC, the RNC and so many, many more have in common?

They all understand that “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” And every politician is always saying, “Mama, gimme some more of that milk, please.” And, sometimes, believe it or not, they forget to say please.
********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz [Host of the television show, "Public Affairs,"] is back on Tom Roeser's radio show as a guest this Sunday night [Dec. 19] with guest John Cox, a candidate for State GOP Chairman. The show is Political Shootout, WLS-890 AM, 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm, and it is on every Sunday night. You can call during the show [312-591-8900] to fire questions at Roeser, Cox or Berkowitz. The show has a broad geographical reach. Two weeks ago, when Berkowitz was on, they had callers from as far away as North Carolina.

Berkowitz would like to hear from anyone with Political Buzzzz for him to try to work into the show discussion or onto this blog. Anything people send or tell him, in this context, is not for attribution to them unless they indicate otherwise. Please try to listen and call in to the show, and ask your friends and contacts, Ds and Rs, to do the same and everyone- please send your Political Buzz to Jeff at JBCG@aol.com
**********************************************************
As of the moment, it appears that Andy McKenna, Jr. continues to be the frontrunner in the race for State GOP chairman, with support from the Illinois Republican Party Finance Committee, or at least a number of the individuals involved in raising money for the State GOP, aka the “money interests.” It is rumored that this means that legislators on the Republican State Central Committee (“SCC”), i.e., State rep. Skip Saviano, and State Senators Peterson, Dillard and Syverson are with McKenna. He who pays the piper calls the tune, so to speak. Cook County GOP Chairman Gary Skoien, who recently threw his hat in the race for State GOP chairman, assures me that not all four legislators are committed to Andy, but Skoien will say no more on that item. If they were, those four alone would give Andy a weighted vote of about 25%.

Also, McKenna apparently has the support of Cong. Mark Kirk [R- Highland Park, 10th CD] and Cong. Ray Lahood [R- Peoria]. LaHood was an early critic of Senator Fitzgerald and supported McKenna’s 4th place finish in the Republican 2004 U. S. Senate primary. Kirk is already counted in Peterson’s 6%, or vice versa. But, LaHood adds another 8.4% by his girl [or should we say Lady], 18th District Committeewoman and SCC Vice Chair Mary Alice Erickson, so if Andy does have all four legislators, that takes him up to 33%, or so.

Steve McGlynn, who told me [and the listeners] two weeks ago on Political Shoot-out that he had enough votes to win as of that time doesn’t want to identify to me who is supporting him. However, my reliable sources and operatives tell me that SCC members [and downstaters] Bob Winchester and Regan Ramsey are likely to be in Steve’s corner. They, along, with his own votes, would give him about 15% of the weighted vote.

That leaves some heavy hitter unknowns out there Petersen (11th ,7.1%),, Wiggins (14th, 8.2%), Clarke (15th, 8.5%), Smith(6th, 8.2%) and Dam (8th, 7.9%). If they are actually uncommitted as opposed to unknown, they, as a block , could be viewed as the “front-runner,” at 40%. And, of course, there also are the light hitters- Murphy, Diekelman, Preski, Perez, Dorgan and Meyer who, taken together total to about 12%. On the other hand, SCC member Dr. Dam thinks Clarke is in the McKenna camp. If so, that could bring McKenna to 41%.

Gary Skoien, who is an aggressive and articulate campaigner, will be working the above intensely, I believe, over the next 28 days, especially the “unknown” and maybe uncommitted heavy hitter block of 40% and the light hitter block of 12%, which if he “ran the table,” would give him a majority. Moreover, I think Skoien has a shot at some of the “legislators,” which some put in McKenna’s camp, currently.

Skoien told me yesterday, “Let’s face it, there are three different credentials being brought to the table here. McGlynn brings the credential of being on the State Central Committee and kind of one of that group. I bring the credential of having run successful political operations and having been a long time [Republican] Party person and knowing a lot of people around the State and I think having a pretty good track record. And, Andy comes to the table with the money connection. And, those are three very different credentials.”

Getting down to the knitty gritty of his campaign perhaps, Skoien told me that he thinks “the credentials that Andy [McKenna, Jr.] comes to the table with is the weakest of the three" [Skoien, McGlynn and McKenna]. Gary said that he “thinks it is discouraging to the people of the [Republican] party that somebody who has sat out the first 45 years of their life in the Republican Party now for some reason has this view that he needs to run [for office]. But, my bigger concern frankly is having somebody who has not clearly ever evidenced any willingness to take on- to take on people that should be taken on. And, I don’t know that the credential of having taken on [Senator] Peter Fitzgerald because he wasn’t cozy enough with people on O’Hare [airport] and the guys downtown is necessarily the right credential at this point in time for our Party, at all. You know, Andy is a bright, intelligent guy and I like him a lot, but I think that is just absolutely the wrong thing.”

Skoien told me that former Governor Jim Edgar is supporting his candidacy for State Chairman and that he thought Edgar would be willing to make some calls on Skoien’s behalf but that Skoien had not asked him that yet. Skoien worked with Jim Edgar when Edgar was on former Governor Jim Thompson’s staff in 1979-81. Skoien said Edgar and he talk a lot and Skoien had Edgar join the Board of his company, Horizon Group Properties. Skoien reminded me that Edgar was head of the Bush Campaign in Illinois and was quite engaged, arguing that Edgar is “more willing to help the Party than others.”

Skoien did not think that Jim Nalepa, John Cox and Jim Oberweis were really contenders for the State GOP chairmanship, but I will discuss those three individuals more in the upcoming days. Indeed, some suggest that Oberweis has dropped off the list. We will talk to Jim about that, as well. And, of course, John Cox might have something to say about this tomorrow night on the Tom Roeser radio show-- see above for details of that.
************************************************************
Congresswoman Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th Dist.] is featured on the suburban edition of “Public Affairs” this week [Week of Dec. 20] and State Senator Peter Roskam [R- Wheaton, 48th Dist.] is on the following week. [Week of Dec. 27]. Sen. Roskam is very likely to run in the 6th Cong. Dist. primary if and when Cong. Henry Hyde decides not to seek re-election.

This Monday night’s City of Chicago edition [Dec. 20, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” features Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant and Partner, Strategy Group discussing why John Kerry lost, or why George Bush won, if you prefer it that way. Cong. Biggert, Sen. Roskam and Cong. Elect Dan Lipinski will be on in the following weeks, in that order.

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].
****************************************
Finally, you can read more about the show with Giangreco in this blog, below. The Giangreco discussion and a partial transcript of the show are in the entry that was updated Dec. 13 at 6:25 pm.
*********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************

Updated December 16, 2004 at 12:30 am., revised at 1:00 pm
******************************************
Fair and Balanced with: Soros/Hume/Moore/Moveon.Org/FNC/Emanuel/Gash/Lieberman/Kirk/
Chisum/Bean/Gonzalez/Crowley/Bell/Fritchey/Bush/Giangreco
******************************************

Attention: Democratic Leadership Council [DLC] types, e.g., Democratic Party Centrists-- Cong. Rahm Emanuel [D- 5th Cong. Dist., Chicago], Former Democratic Primary Presidential Candidate and current sitting Senator Joe Lieberman [D- Connecticut], Lauren Beth Gash, former four term state rep. from Highland Park, 2000 10th Cong. District Democratic Nominee-- losing to [now] Cong. Kirk by a mere 5500 votes, 10th Cong. District Democratic State Central Committeewoman and Founder and Chair of the relatively recently formed "10th Congressional District Democrats" [www.tenthdems.org]--watch out NTRO Committeeman Tolbert Chisum and the other 10th Cong. Dist. Republican Township Committeemen [BTW, Bill Crowley, NTDO Committeeman, is Vice Chair of Tenthdems], newly minted Congresswoman Melissa Bean [D- 8th CD, Barrington]- we are not sure Bean fits the mold of the DLC, but she did have heavy duty support from Gash and Cong. Emanuel is described as Bean's "mentor and main political strategist" [See CT article, referenced, below], so we threw her in for good measure [perhaps Bean's new Chief of Staff, John Gonzalez - from the office of former Democratic Cong. Chris Bell [Tom Delay's Ahab-see Rudolph Bush's article in the Metro section of today's Chicago Tribune] will have something to say about that] and last, but not least, State Rep. John Fritchey [possible Democratic statewide candidate in 2006 and described by State Senator Dan Rutherford [R- Pontiac] on "Public Affairs," as "A Great Talent."]

All of you DLC members and "Fellow Travelers,": It is 44 days into the next election cycle and do you know where the heart and soul of your Democratic Party is? Owned by Moveon.org? A problem in the making for your next Presidential candidate? A new theme of Moveon.org, the philosophical home of Michael Moore, George Soros, etc., "We broke it [the Democratic Party], we own it."

Brit Hume, reporting on Fox News Channel’s Special Report on December 13, 2004 tells us that:

Liberal activist group- Moveon.org is telling leaders of the Democratic Party that after raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Kerry campaign and the DNC this past year, “Now it is our party, we bought it, we own it and we are going to take it back.” In an email to supporters, Moveon says, “For years the party cozied up to many of the same corporate donors that fund the Republicans. The result was watered down, play it safe politics that kept the money flowing but alienated traditional Democrats." So, Moveon says, “We can’t afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers.”

WWPGS- What would Democratic Political Campaign Consultant Pete Giangreco say to that? Then gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan called Pete one of Rod Blagojevich's "media meisters." What is Moveon.org calling Pete?

So, speaking as the mainstream media is so fond of saying of the so-called “far right” of the Republican Party, [mutatis mutandis] has the “far left,” of the Democratic Party highjacked that Party? If so, should we expect Howard Dean to be the next Chairman of the Democratic Party? Alternatively, if Moveon.org is right, so to speak, shouldn’t Michael Moore or George Soros be the person at the head of the line to be the next Party Chairman for the Democrats. That should energize both bases, Rs and Ds.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************

Updated December 14, 2004 at 8:25 pm, revised slightly on Dec. 15 at 1:00 am.
***************************************
Is this story the Pitts? Rumsfeld, Zorn, Page, Limbaugh, Hume, Jacobson, Connity and Sweet, who is right? And who is left? And, who really got this story right? Certainly not the unusual pairing of Rush Limbaugh and Lynn Sweet. What were they thinking? Or, were they? Journalism, like politics, sometimes makes for strange bedfellows. Sweet v. Obama, the pursuit continues.
***************************************
Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger, www.chicagotribune.com/notebook, likes what Clarence Page had to say about Rummy’s recent response to a question from an American soldier in Iraq about the lack of appropriate protective armor for the vehicles [and more importantly for the soldiers inside the vehicles] being used in Iraq. The soldier, with some tutoring from an embedded reporter, asked the question at an event in Kuwait where reporters were not permitted to ask questions. Rummy responded, somewhat lamely, that "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

So any fair and balanced person would have to say—it was a good question and a bad answer by the Secretary of Defense. A better answer would have been: “While we didn’t anticipate the improvised explosive devices [“IEDs”] being placed along the road, we should have. Moreover, while we have stepped up the production, tremendously, of armored vehicles better equipped to deal with IEDs, it has not been enough and I will move mountains to see that the pace of production is increased to a level that corresponds better to the requirements of the situation.

Indeed, there is an open, and very important, question as to why the production rate has not gone up faster than it has for better armored vehicles. Assuming it took, say, three months after the War began for the DOD to grasp that it had a problem that had not been anticipated, shouldn’t there have been a stronger adjustment by DOD in the last year and a half? But, that is another story.

As to the propriety of the reporter’s actions, it is interesting that those journalistic judgments do not seem to be breaking down completely along liberal/conservative lines, at least based on a non-scientific, non-random sampling of journalistic opinion.

For instance, Clarence Page, whose words are quoted with apparent approval in [liberal] Eric Zorn’s blog, generally is classified as a liberal, himself. Page finds no problem with the reporter’s actions and chastises Rush Limbaugh for doing so, with Page writing:

"Yet some partisan critics, apparently unable to defend (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld, attacked (Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee) Pitts. 'He created news in order to cover it,' said conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh. '... We found out the whole thing ... is a setup.' Setup to do what? Tell the truth?"

Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief and columnist, who generally is not thought of as a right winger but instead as someone who leans left, said on the Chicago Fox Affiliate TV station, WFLD, this Sunday, that reporter Pitt’s actions were a little “dicey,” apparently because Sweet thinks the reporter was supposed to be there to cover the Secretary of Defense answering questions from the soldiers, not to make news. Fox Chicago Perspective [WFLD, 8:00-9:00 am, every Sunday] hosts, Walter Jacobson and Jack Connity, disagreed with Sweet, finding no fault with Pitts’ use of the soldier. Certainly Skippy [Walter] is to the left on the political dial and Jack seems to lean that way, as well.

But, look at Brit Hume, who may oversee a “Fair and Balanced,” show when he hosts Fox News Channel’s Special Report [every weekday evening, 5:00 pm and 11:00 pm], but in approach and outlook, Hume certainly leans to the right. Brit, on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday” [hosted by Chris Wallace], this Sunday as a panelist, saw no problems whatsoever with the journalist using a soldier to get his question out. Indeed, Brit complimented journalist Pitts for his resourcefulness in finding a way to get his question asked.

So, totaling it up, we have five liberals of varying degrees [Page, Zorn, Jacobson, Connity and Sweet] splitting 4 to 1 in favor of the propriety of the reporter “using” the soldier to get his question out. And, we have two conservatives of varying degrees [Limbaugh and Hume] splitting 1 to 1 as to the propriety of the reporter’s actions.

Lynn Sweet’s criticism of Pitts for injecting himself into the story is a little ironic in light of Lynn apparently trying to become U. S. Senator-Elect Barack Obama’s Ahab [Obama's Ahab is Eric Zorn's perfect choice of phrasing for what Sweet has been doing since Obama was elected on November 2, if not before. See Zorn blog entry, dated December 7, updated 3:16 pm] as she is fighting to demonstrate that Obama, by not placing on a publicly distributed daily schedule (a) his private meetings, e.g., a recent lunch with billionaire Warren Buffett in which Barack used campaign funds to cover the cost of a chartered jet flight to get there and (b) various fundraisers, including with such lefties as George Soros during his U. S. Senate campaign, is doing something wrong or inappropriate. Sweet makes this contention, even though Sweet concedes the law does not require such events to be placed on a daily schedule, distributed to the media and public - neither by Barack nor by any other pols.

At this point, journalists and perhaps the public seem more interested in Lynn’s dogged battle to require disclosure [that is not legally required] from Barack than they do in her subject--the non-disclosure by Barack Obama of his lunch companions. Sweet’s obsession with finding a public flaw in the political profile of Barack Obama is indeed becoming the story, as Jacobson and Connity interviewed Sweet as much if not more on that story this Sunday than they did on Barack’s penchant for “secrecy,” as Lynn Sweet would like to put it. Maybe it is Lynn Sweet and not her fellow journalist Edward Lee Pitts, who has made a “dicey” move.

Me? Well, I am tough, but fair-- when I am not being simply fair and balanced. And, I am going with Zorn, Brit, Skippy, Jack and Clarence on this one. Pitts did something wrong by helping a soldier formulate a question that was on virtually every soldier’s [who was in the room] mind? Boy, did Rush-Sweet get that wrong. What were they thinking? Or, were they?

As to why Rummy gave such a dumb answer, perhaps age and the burden of a very hard job for the last four years is taking its toll on the fearless, civilian leader of the World’s greatest military machine. It may not be just the Illinois GOP that needs a change at the top. It could be the DOD, as well.

But, one thing should be noted, and the only place I saw it noted was on the Fox News Channel. And, that is that Rumsfeld got a standing ovation from the soldiers when he concluded the Question-Answer session at the event in Kuwait with the American soldiers—many of whom are on their way to Iraq or were on their way back from Iraq. That kind of ovation for Rummy means something. But I don’t think Page, Zorn, Jacobson and Connity or Sweet, for that matter, will be writing or speaking about that anytime soon.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************

Updated December 13, 2004 at 6:25 pm
****************************************************
A “Public Affairs,” classic from the Public Affairs lockbox. Pete Giangreco tangles and spars with Berkowitz tonight [8:30 pm, Comcast Cable] and this week in the suburbs [See, below, for a detailed airing schedule]. 2002 Republican U. S. Senate nominee Jim Durkin tangles and spars with Berkowitz tonight [8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] in the City of Chicago. The man is in two places at one time. [See blog entry, below, dated Dec. 13 at 12:15 am] for more details and a partial transcript].
************************************************
This week’s suburban edition and next Monday night’s City of Chicago edition [Dec. 20 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21] of “Public Affairs,” features Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant and Partner, Strategy Group, in an encore performance by Pete.
****************************************************
Jeff 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.

Pete 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… [See blog entry, below, dated Nov. 29, 1:20 pm for an additional transcript of the show and more discussion of related topics].
****************************************
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.
************************************************
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]. Tonight’s show is with Once and perhaps future Statewide Candidate, Jim Durkin.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Updated December 13, 2004 at 11:00 am
***********************************
McKenna likely to replace Topinka as State GOP Chair; McGlynn and Skoien take their best shots. The more things change, the more they same the same. The State GOP just ain't ready for reform, yet.
************************************
After three hours of meeting on Friday afternoon in Springfield, the Republican State Central Committee decided on a procedure to select its next State GOP Chairman. Chairman Judy Baar Topinka submitted her resignation effective, January 31. Officially, she said that date would allow her to attend the Bush Inaugural events as the Illinois GOP Chairman, which she feels she has earned because, as she put it, at times her tenure has been “pure Hell.” Of course, many of her critics would agree, at least with her self-description of her reign, if not with her suggestion that she should get a free trip and continued State GOP chairman status at the National GOP festivities.

It is likely that over the next 3 to 4 weeks Topinka will size up her chances of getting the Republican gubernatorial nomination, will solidify her already strong hold on the State GOP staff and will try to get strengthened commitments from the likely person(s) to fill the Chairman slot to leave her crew in place.

As to getting the Guv nomination, a State GOP endorsement prior to the primary might help her and Steve McGlynn said last week he thought the Party leaders should try to avoid a nasty primary by giving a pre-primary endorsement, so she has a shot. Judy's [in disguise?] other prayer of getting out of the Republican Primary is to have several conservatives split that vote, with Topinka being lucky enough to be the only moderate in the Guv Primary. Some of the smart money says that O'Malley and Rauschenberger will oblige her.

By December 31, applications must be submitted to the SCC screening committee of Skip Saviano, MaryAlice Erickson and Ron Smith. However, it is likely that committee will screen out only the crazies, e.g., lederhosen people and allow all of six more or less serious, current candidacies to proceed.

The SCC will schedule a meeting to hear from the candidates and vote on them. They want this done before January 20, purportedly so that the New Chairman can join the Illinois Delegation for the Inaugural festivities. That means a likely date of January 8 or January 15 for the SCC meeting, with the location probably set for Bloomington or Springfield. The candidates will each be allowed five minutes to address those in attendance and there will be some additional times for questions and answers. That portion of the meeting will be open to the county chairmen, township committeemen and ward committeeman- so that adds another 160, or so people, as attendees. In addition, various other Republican organizations [or representatives] will be permitted to attend. There is the possibility that the meeting will be opened to guests of the SCC, media and perhaps others.

It is likely that the actual vote and SCC deliberations will be closed to all but the SCC, but there are some on the Committee, e.g., Dr. Dam, who seem to favor a completely open meeting, so there is a small probability that the entirety of the meeting would be open to the media and public. However, most SCC minds will probably be made up before the meeting, and be based on the phone calls, emails and face to face meetings that are being conducted now by the candidates with the SCC members and will continue up to the time of the meeting.

The primary three candidates for the State GOP Chairman are (1) Andy McKenna, Jr., the former U. S. Senate primary candidate who is always described as a "very decent," guy. Andy, Jr. is President of the Schwarz Paper Company started many years ago by his father with two others-- Andy, Jr.'s father and Andy, Jr. have strong ties to the Chicago business community and to the Tribune and its boardroom. Andy apparently has pledged to keep the SCC staff in place. Hey, if you want to get along, you go along. It's Chicago. (2) Steve McGlynn, State Central Committee Co-Chair, plaintiffs’ and defendants’ trial lawyer from Belleville and an articulate, hands-on downstate Republican Party leader and (3) Gary Skoien, Cook County GOP Chairman, former Thompson and Edgar guy and an articulate, tough businessman/Republican leader who knows how to play the game of politics and who has been carefully reaching out to conservatives over the last year.

McKenna, partly because the business community has committed to him, probably has the support of the SCC “legislator members”: State Senators Syverson, Peterson and Dillard; State Rep. Saviano and perhaps Jerry Clarke, who is Cong. Johnson’s Chief of Staff. SCC board member Dr. Dam stated, on Saturday, that he would guess that the five individuals referenced, above, are probably leaning toward McKenna, so those five SCC members, alone, would give McKenna about 34 % of the weighted vote. And Chairman Topinka is probably supporting McKenna as the new guy least likely to rock her boat. McGlynn, a downstater, possibly could pick-up the remaining downstate SCC members, which would give him about 31% of the vote. However, McGlynn probably does not run the table downstate, leaving McKenna with more of a margin than a few points now. That leaves less than a third of the vote which is either leaning nowhere at this moment or will go with the herd.

So, Skoien’s task is to come in and pry votes away that are leaning toward either McKenna or McGlynn. And, Skoien is pretty good at doing that kind of thing, so he has a shot. All other things equal, the State GOP would benefit from someone who could speak well to the press. Skoien and McGlynn are much better at that than McKenna, so that will be part of their pitch to the SCC over the next month. And, Skoien, in Chicago, has much better access to the major Illinois media markets than does McGlynn, so on this important item, advantage Skoien. McKenna will try to counter this either by keeping a low profile or by talking to some "friendly," press.

Jim Oberweis, who came in second in the March, 2004 U. S. Senate Primary, does not have much of a shot because Topinka is likely to be very hostile to his candidacy, as that appears to have been the case in the August, 2004 Senate nomination deliberations. Judy still has some "clout" left with the SCC.

Jim Nalepa, an executive recruiter who almost beat Cong. Lipinski back in 1994, is energetic and charismatic, but seems not to have much support on the SCC, at this point.

Cox, a lawyer, businessman, a 2000 Tenth Congressional District primary candidate, 2002 and 2004 Senate Primary Candidate, and a 2004 Cook County Recorder of Deeds general election candidate seems to have a well-thought-out conservative philosophy, but for some reason- perhaps for having lost too many contests, appears unable and unlikely to generate support among the SCC, or the conservative base, in general.

In short, the January 8 or January 15 meeting, is likely to be a coronation, as opposed to an election. If they wanted to put their new Chairman in the Spotlight with the Chicago media, they would hold the convention in Chicago. Watch for this little gala to be held downstate. As the French say, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” It could be that George Ryan and his still powerful cronies and prodigies are saying, “The State GOP, it just ain’t ready for reform, yet.”
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************