Thursday, September 30, 2004

Updated on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 2:00 pm

Barack Obama, Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate and State Senator, interviewed on Live Birth Abortions

*************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Switching over to abortion, you have said that you would vote in support of, if you were a [U. S.] Senator the federal law that came up that passed [the U. S. Senate] 98 to 0 and that was known as the Live Birth Infant Protection Act.

Barack Obama: That is exactly right. Because there was a different bill than the one that was introduced by [then] Senator Patrick O’Malley here in Illinois and we actually offered amendments that would have provided assurance that Row. v. Wade [U. S. Supreme Court, 1973] was still respected even as we dealt with what I think actually were some very anecdotal evidence that there might have been some problems although there has never been any hard evidence that there were. Unfortunately, Mr. O’Malley wanted to make a broader point because he does not believe that a woman should exercise a right to choose in any circumstances.

Berkowitz: But, if that happened in Illinois, if there were some abortions- so called abortions that went wrong- a live fetus was born. Would you seek to have legislation that protected those fetuses?

Obama: I would if there wasn’t already legislation. Unfortunately [sic?], there is existing legislation-

Berkowitz: On the state level?

Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.
****************************************
Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama, interviewed by “Public Affairs,” show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz, after Obama spoke on September 23, 2004 at a Fairmont Chicago Hotel lunch event of “Women for Obama.”
****************************************
For an extended [and fair and balanced] discussion of the Live Birth Abortion issue, including whether the current Illinois Law is sufficient to deal with the Live Birth Abortion issue [as argued by State Senator Barack Obama, above], see the forum hosted by Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune columnist and ace blogger [at www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-abortionforum.story]. The forum can also be reached by going to www.chicagotribune.com/notebook and scrolling to the forum icon at the Sep. 23, 2004 entry, titled, “JUST WHAT IS LIVE-BIRTH ABORTION ANYWAY?”
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” and a legal recruiter at JB Consulting Group, Inc. in Chicago, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************************************

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Updated September 28, 2004 at 3:15 pm

Cong. Hyde and more troops in Iraq, Hyde's health, Jobs, Rumsfeld, Kerry, Bush, Gays, Guns, God, Abortion and much, much more-- all here on Public Affairs.

Cong. Henry Hyde [R- Addison; 6th Cong. Dist.] on TV on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs tonight and this week [See below for suburban and city airing schedules of "Public Affairs."]
*******************************************************
Berkowitz: Your health is good right now?

Hyde: Yeah, I am not getting any younger [Cong. Hyde is 80 years young]. But, I am still alert and anxious to proceed.

Berkowitz: You are guaranteeing your voters that you are there and good for another two years?

Hyde: Oh, very, very good.
**********************************************************
Berkowitz: And, of course, you were a supporter when the President asked for authorization to take military action in Iraq in the Fall of 2002, you supported that, right?

Hyde: I voted with John Kerry, that’s right. He voted for it and so did I.
**********************************************************
Berkowitz: So, do we need more troops there [in Iraq]? Would more troops, at least at this point, help provide more security- more security for the upcoming elections in Iraq, do you think we need more troops?

Hyde: I am inclined to think so.

Berkowitz: And, has the International Relations committee looked at that issue?

Hyde: We have cursorily discussed it with the Secretary of Defense and others.

Berkowitz: What does he say- Don Rumsfeld?

Hyde: It’s under consideration. We hope to develop indigenous forces. One of these answers-

Berkowitz: Hopes are one thing. Does he, Secretary Rumsfeld, think that we can develop those [indigenous] forces and keep what we have now, which I believe is 140,000 troops.

Hyde: Yes, he does. And they are training quite a few indigenous forces.

Berkowitz: Do you agree with him [Rumsfeld]?

Hyde: I’d like to see more progress, frankly. I’d like to see the insurgency taper off and disappear. Every day there is an incident where people are killed and that is a situation that can’t persist.

Berkowitz: What do you think? Would you say fifty thousand more, a hundred thousand [more U. S. troops]? What do you think would be required to provide the security over the next year or two?

Hyde: I would leave that to the generals but I would close the door and ask them to give me the truth. Tell me what we really need.

Berkowitz: Could you do that as Chairman of the International Relations Committee?

Hyde: Yes.

Berkowitz: Have you done it?

Hyde: I have done some of that. Yes.

Berkowitz: What have they told you?

Hyde: [a hearty laugh]. Well, nothing I haven’t said.
*********************************************************
Cong. Henry Hyde [6th Cong. Dist.; R- Addison], recorded on September 19, 2004 and as is being cablecast on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs this week [Week of September 27, 2004] and throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. See below, for an additional partial transcript of the “Public Affairs,” show with Cong. Hyde.
******************************************************
This week’s guest in the regularly scheduled time slot of the suburban edition of Public Affairs is Cong. Henry Hyde [R- Addison, 6th Cong. Dist.]. Cong. Hyde is currently Chairman of the House International Relations Committee and was previously Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Cong. Hyde, a Democrat until the 1950s, fought a Democratic tidal wave in the Watergate year of 1974 to win election to Congress for the first time. This was a decade after having lost in his bid for a Congressional seat against Roman Pucinski in 1962.

Hyde discusses and debates domestic and foreign policy issues with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz. The issues include the War in Iraq, Education- No Child Left Behind and School Vouchers/School Choice; the Economy and job growth; Free trade and Fair trade; Gays, Guns, Abortion and God; Term Limits; Any regrets re the impeachment of President Clinton; Cong. Hyde’s health and future plans.

Hyde is opposed in the current election by Democrat Christine Cegelis, who was also a recent guest on our show [See blog entry dated September 20, 12:30 am, below]

A partial transcript, previously published on this blog, of the show with Cong. Hyde-the last two minutes of the show discussing Gays, Guns, Abortion, Term Limits, Cong. Hyde's health and President Bush—is included directly below. “Surely all good things come to an end,” Cong. Hyde tells us [commenting on how much longer he plans to remain in Congress].
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Your views on abortion—would you say you are 1000 % pro-Life?

Cong. Henry Hyde: Yes, I would. I would. I think abortion is wrong.

Berkowitz: Is it ever appropriate?

Hyde: Only to save the life of the mother.

Berkowitz: What about the health of the mother?

Hyde: I think the trade-off is unequal. A life for a life is one thing. A life for health is another.

Berkowitz: So, no matter how difficult it might be or how risky it might be in terms of the health of the mother, you would say unless it is the life of the mother that’s at stake that abortion, if it is a function of the health of the mother, shouldn’t be allowed.

Hyde: Well, it’s a fine line. Some doctor has to decide whether the condition of health, ill health, is life threatening. If it is life threatening,

Berkowitz: then it is Okay?

Hyde: then the claim is equal.

Berkowitz: What about rape and incest? Should there be an exception for rape or incest?

Hyde: I have supported rape and incest as exceptions because frankly it is the only way that legislation will pass. But, I do not agree that a child which is created as a result of a rape should be exterminated or killed.

Berkowitz: Because that child is innocent?

Hyde: Because of—

Berkowitz: So, you are doing it simply as a matter of, somewhat, political expediency?

Hyde: Pragmatism. Because otherwise, the votes aren’t there.

Berkowitz: Same sex marriage. You would be opposed to that?

Hyde: Yes, I don’t quite understand why two people of the same sex can’t sign contracts and leave their insurance to each other and make any arrangements they want.

Berkowitz: So, in a sense, would you favor civil unions between individuals of the same sex?

Hyde: I wouldn’t support them but I wouldn’t oppose them. I think people ought to be free to contract with each other.

Berkowitz: But, you are opposed to the states—you would discourage the state of Illinois, for instance, from allowing individuals of the same sex to marry, right?

Hyde: Yes, I think marriage should remain a —

Berkowitz: You support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, right?

Hyde: Yes, if necessary.
*************************************
Berkowitz: …You oppose term limits, I take it?

Hyde: Yes, I am adamantly against them.

Berkowitz: …critics would say this, [you may] not have been as entrenched-- you may have used that power wisely, but some people will not if they are there in Congress for thirty years, are you concerned about that?

Hyde: No, if you believe in democracy, let the people decide. But, to foreclose the utility of the experience and wisdom-- there are some people I wish never left congress. Boy, could we use them today.

Berkowitz: Your health is good right now?

Hyde: Yeah, I am not getting any younger. But, I am still alert and anxious to proceed.

Berkowitz: You are guaranteeing your voters that you are there and good for another two years?

Hyde: Oh, very, very good.

Berkowitz: How long do you think you will stay [in Congress]?

Hyde: Oh, I don’t want to answer that question now but surely all good things come to an end.

Berkowitz: Getting back to another social issue, guns. You supported the ban on assault weapons?

Hyde: Right.

Berkowitz: You would support it again?

Hyde: Yup.

Berkowitz: Should the President have pushed harder to have a ban on assault weapons? To have it come up for a vote?

Hyde: I don’t know that I can blame the President but I do think our leadership should have permitted a vote [show concludes].
*************************************************
Cong. Henry Hyde [6th Cong. Dist.; R- Addison], recorded on September 19, 2004 and as is being cablecast on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs this week [Week of September 27, 2004] and throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is regularly broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
******************************************************
The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The show with Cong. Hyde will also air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
The "Public Affairs," program featuring Paul Tully [R- Riverwoods, 59th Dist.], who is running against the incumbent state representative in that district, Kathy Ryg, will air in a special time slot this coming Sunday evening, Oct. 3 at 6:30 pm on Comcast Cable in the following suburbs: on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and 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,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************************************

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Updated Saturday, September 25, 2004, revised at 9:25 pm

W stands for Women? Not according to the one thousand, or so, women, and sprinkling of men at the lunch for Obama, held at the Fairmont Hotel earlier this week.

Barack Obama on John Kerry’s [and Barack’s?] position on the Iraq War- “We now are in a terrible mess in Iraq…”

But, mess or not, does Senator Kerry have a timetable to exit Iraq and should he? Would Obama recommend a timetable to exit Iraq? Would Alan Keyes?

Perhaps a topic worth debating. A second televised Obama-Keyes debate? To supplement the already scheduled televised debate, televised forum and radio debate?
Let the debates begin.

Kerry v. Bush; Keyes v. Obama. A choice, not an Echo.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We are standing here [Fairmont Chicago Hotel] on September 23 [2004] and we are speaking with Barack Obama, the Democratic Candidate for the United States Senate. Barack just finished speaking to what, Eight hundred? One Thousand women-- Women for Obama. One of the things that just came up in the news is John Kerry-- your Presidential candidate seems to have shifted his views slightly on the [Iraq] War. One, do you understand his position on the War and [two], do you support it?

Barack Obama: Well, his position on the War is that he felt it was important to give authorization to the President to enhance his leverage in negotiating a disarmament of Iraq. He feels that the President completely abused that authority and as a consequence of extraordinary bad planning, we now are in a terrible mess in Iraq and I have no doubt that a John Kerry presidency is going to be more effective in not only reconstructing Iraq but, more importantly, helping with our overall national security in the War on Terrorism than the current mishaps of the administration have displayed so far.

Berkowitz: Has John Kerry articulated a timetable to leave Iraq- starting in the summer of 2005 and completing it in four years- and, if so, is that a mistake? To articulate that kind of timetable?

Obama: You know, what I have heard John Kerry say- and I don’t want to characterize his message- because I have been busy in my own campaign, but I think what he has essentially said is [that] he can’t anticipate what conditions are going to be on the ground when he assumes power on January 20th. What he can paint is a broad picture of the ingredients that are needed for this reconstruction process to proceed, which includes actually building a security force of Iraqis that can provide basic law and order, making sure that we are putting the money in for the reconstruction that have already been appropriated by Congress but somehow have not actually hit the ground. Internationalizing the process- even though we know we may not get German and French troops in, at least getting them to participate in the process of training and investing in the Country. So, there are a whole host of steps that I think he [Kerry] has outlined- what exactly he is going to be able to accomplish when he is sworn in as the next President of the United States? It is too early to tell because the conditions have been so volatile over there.
**********************************
Democratic U. S. Senate Candidate Barack Obama, interviewed by “Public Affairs,” show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz, after Obama spoke on September 23, 2004 at a Fairmont Chicago Hotel lunch event of “Women for Obama.”

We realize that Barack Obama was answering the above foreign policy question on the fly, and was rushing from one event to another-- when he graciously agreed to spend a few minutes answering questions. However, it does seem that he did not quite answer the questions as to whether John Kerry has a timetable in mind for the U. S. to exit Iraq and what does Barack think of Kerry’s position on that issue?

The New York Times reported on Senator Kerry’s September 6, 2004 Labor Day speech in Cleveland, stating, Mr. Kerry brand[ed] it [the Iraq War] "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and saying he [Kerry] wanted all American troops home within four years, while Mr. Bush defended the war as "right for America then and it's right for America now." New York Times, online edition, September 7, 2004.

The Wall St. Journal editorial page, in commenting on Senator Kerry’s New York University speech of Monday of this week, advises: “Mr. Kerry would be on stronger ground if his criticism of Mr. Bush’s war management included a vow to win the war, rather than a promise to leave Iraq at the earliest possible moment.”

The Journal goes on to argue that John Kerry is offering, “A minimalist conception of the war on terror, focused on Al Qaeda and a rapid exit from Iraq. Mr. Bush spoke to the United Nations yesterday again pushing his democracy-for- the-Middle-East line. No one will be able to say voters weren’t offered a clear foreign policy choice come November.” Wall St. Journal, September 22, 2004, p. 28.

It certainly sounds as if the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal think that Senator Kerry has a timetable to exit from Iraq. Of course, they apparently differ on whether such a timetable is a good idea. It also appears as if President Bush does not have a timetable to exit Iraq and if he does, he is not announcing it.

The issue of whether Senator John Kerry and President George Bush have timetables for the U. S. to exit Iraq, and whether that would be good public policy, will most likely be addressed in the Presidential Debate this coming Thursday night. But, when will it be addressed by Senate candidates Alan Keyes and Barack Obama? In one of their two scheduled televised debate/forums in late October? And, how will they address it? Shouldn't we have that discussion in a televised debate a little sooner than that?

Indeed, it was Democrat Barack Obama who proposed, in June, a series of six "statewide Lincoln-Douglas-style debates in the race for the United States Senate." And, now with 37 days left in the campaign, Obama apparently is holding to his position that he will agree only to one televised debate [WTTW] and a Leaque of Women Voters/Ch. 7 "candidate forum," both of which will be in Chicago. In addition, Obama has agreed only to one radio debate [Illinois Radio Network] in Springfield.

Shouldn't we go back to the six televised debates proposal of Barack Obama. Indeed, why not get Keyes and Obama in a room, say next week, and ask them the question about Iraq timetables and a few additional questions. We would ask the candidates to discuss their respective answers, with follow-ups by each other and the moderator, on television. I am happy to offer them the “Public Affairs,” studio and our television production staff, and, of course, myself, as the moderator.

Sounds like an offer they can't refuse.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” and a legal recruiter, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
************************************

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Updated September 23, 2004 at 4:00 pm

Barack Obama overshadowed by Michelle Obama?

Speaking to what was billed as 1000 Women for Obama at a FAIRMONT CHICAGO Hotel lunch in the Loop today, Barack Obama continues to stay on message, talking about the government helping people reach their potential in education and jobs, and helping out with their health care. The tone and approach, let alone substantive philosophy, could not be more different, when contrasted with that of an Alan Keyes event.

Democratic U. S. Senate candidate Obama charmed the crowd, as usual, but perhaps not as much as his wife, Michelle, who was essentially the moderator of the event and introduced her husband. Barack joked that Michelle Obama was the one candidate he most feared running against, as the Republicans searched earlier this summer for a Jack Ryan replacement.

As Barack said, it is lucky for him that his wife is a Democrat. Very seriously, Michelle Obama will be a major league campaigner and political asset for Barack, in the years to come. The interesting academic question is why she did seem to play a more prominent role in Barack's primary campaign. Or, perhaps she did-- and somehow she escaped the watchful eye of "Public Affairs." Another interesting question, does she have an interest in running for political office on her own?
Hillary II?

Former Texas Governor Ann Richards was in town to do some serious Bush bashing, and she did not disappoint the crowd-- although humor was in the mix as well.

There will be more about today's Obama luncheon and partial transcripts, perhaps, of a short videotaped interview we did with the Democratic Senate Candidate on www.jeffberkowitz.blogspot.com over the course of the next few days.
Updated Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 11:00 am

Heard on the Street (Madison and Wacker) in the Loop

Democratic activist and donor criticizes Kerry’s recent move to the left on the War

Clint Krislov, who had serious discussions with Illinois Democratic Party leaders last Fall about running for Mark Kirk’s 10th Congressional District seat and who also made some efforts to run in the Democratic Primary for the U. S. Senate a few years back, is speaking out again. Clint, heard on the Street this morning, chastised Presidential candidate John Kerry—stating that Senator Kerry is disingenuous when he suggests that President Bush should have done more to internationalize the Iraq military effort, especially with respect to Germany and France. Krislov argued, “If you are going to be a beacon [for liberty], you can’t wait around for others- you have to lead.” Needless to say, Clint didn’t see the French jumping in—no way, no how--to oust Saddam—at least not this decade.

Clint’s views, above, also contrast sharply with the current, dovish, 10th Congressional District Democratic Candidate, Lee Goodman:

Goodman, taping an episode of Public Affairs on August, 8, 2004 took the line on Iraq that Presidential Candidate John Kerry seems to have gravitated towards. John Kerry, a follower of Lee Goodman? Who would have thunk it?
*****************************
Berkowitz: And, right now, John Kerry says, if elected, he would not bring the troops out of Iraq. He would not withdraw. You agree with him on that?

Goodman: No, I don’t.

Berkowitz: So, you would withdraw immediately? Is that right?

Goodman: That is not what I said, either.

Berkowitz: Well, what would you do? If you don’t agree with him on that, tell us your view.

Goodman: What we need to do is to recognize that we went in under false premises, that our staying there at this point is accomplishing little or nothing and that the reconstruction and the things that have to be done in Iraq will not happen until we have made it clear to the world that we are getting out…We cannot run that country. It is not supposed to be a colony of the United States.
******************************************
Lee Goodman, 10th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate, recorded on August 8, 2004, and as was cablecast throughout the City of Chicago and the suburbs earlier this month. For more of the Berkowitz-Goodman dialogue, see the blog entry, below, updated Sep. 12 at 11:30 pm.
******************************
Clint Krislov, a class action, consumer deceptive practices, whistleblower, trial lawyer heads his own law firm in the Loop-- Krislov and Associates. As Clint might put it, there is an almost inexhaustible supply of fraud out there, on and off the street-- which is a downside for society but an upside for Clint’s legal practice. Krislov is one of the elite group of Trial Lawyers who the Kennedys [and other big time Democrats], in and out of town, look for to pony up some big bucks when they come to Chicago to raise money for John Kerry and others.

So, the question is-- how many other Democratic Party donors and operatives may be de-energized by Kerry’s latest flip-flop on the War. A number of Democrats who I speak with on the street and on the phone think that Kerry has lost this election and now the battle, in the next 40 days, is for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Of course, Clint will not be leading a Democrats for Bush effort anytime soon. When it comes to domestic policy, Krislov is critical of things like the Bush dividend tax cuts, claiming that jobs have not been stimulated by such tax cuts, and what we need is Government spending that “primes the pump,” or something like that.

But, on foreign policy, is Clint Krislov- whistleblower, blowing his whistle on behalf of a large Class of Democrats when he criticizes Senator John Kerry’s foreign policy shifts to the left. Or, is Clint whistling a solo? That is, did Howard Dean and the Deaniacs lose the Democratic nomination, but win over John Kerry, at least on the War?

One thing is for sure, the Deaniacs and the Kerryiacs have not won over Clint Krislov, at least not on Iraq.
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************************


Monday, September 20, 2004

Updated September 20, 2004 at 9:45 pm

Paul Tully, Republican Candidate for State Rep. in the 59th District is featured on the suburban edition of "Public Affairs" this week. Tully [R- Riverwoods], is an intellectual property lawyer in a 70 attorney loop law firm and he has a Ph.D. from Northwestern University in synthetic organic chemistry. Paul Tully is running against two-year incumbent Kathy Ryg [D-Vernon Hills], who won the seat in 2002 with the benefit of new district boundaries, drawn by the Democrats. Ryg,notwithstanding the favorable redistricting, won by the narrow margin of 107 votes in 2002.

Ryg is perceived by most knowledgeable political participants in the area as a tier one target and she is viewed as vulnerable, despite the fact that various supporters should enable her to outspend her challenger[the usual incumbent's advantage]. State Rep. Ryg has been invited to come on "Public Affairs," a number of times during the last two years as a State Rep. and more recently, as a candidate for re-election, but she has declined each time. Rep. Ryg also has been invited to come on the "Public Affairs," show jointly with her challenger, Paul Tully, and she has shown little interest in doing that either.

Most recently [on Friday, Sep. 17], we spoke with Rep. Ryg’s campaign manager and asked her some questions relating to Rep. Ryg’s position on Mr. Tully’s proposal of September 4, 2004 [both sent by mail on that day to Rep. Ryg and discussed that day on the Public Affairs taping of the show that will air this week], for voluntary campaign spending caps, as well as whether Rep. Ryg would be willing to appear on Public Affairs to engage in an informal discussion of the issues with her challenger, Paul Tully.

As to the Tully proposal for voluntary campaign limits, the Rep. Ryg campaign manager said she did not know if Rep. Ryg had seen the proposal because she thought it might have been sent to the Ryg district office, and if so, it would have been returned to the Tully campaign with a note that it would have to be resent to the Ryg campaign office.

The Ryg Campaign Manager said she would respond to me by phone, after checking with Rep. Ryg, as to (1) Rep. Ryg's position on Paul Tully's proposal for voluntary caps on campaign spending by both candidates and (2) Rep. Ryg's willingness to appear jointly on "Public Affairs," with Paul Tully. To this date, no one from the Ryg. Campaign office has given “Public Affairs,” a response, even though I requested a response ASAP.

The Tully proposal was intended to place a ceiling on spending by each candidate from Sep. 15, 2004 to the day of the election of $100,000.

This week’s [week of Sep. 20] suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Paul Tully, 59th District Republican Candidate, debating and discussing with show host Jeff Berkowitz various state legislative and public policy issues, including real estate tax assessment caps, state taxes on business and jobs, education, abortion, jobs, how to promote an environment conducive to job growth in Illinois, medical malpractice reform, doctors leaving the state and other important public policy issues.

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

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

The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The show with Paul Tully will also air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Sep. 27, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************
Updated on September 20, 2004 at 12:45 am

A two minute end of show drill with Cong. Henry Hyde [6th Cong. Dist., R- Addison] on Gays, Guns, Abortion, Term Limits, Cong. Hyde's health and President Bush. “Surely all good things come to an end,” Cong. Hyde [challenged by Democrat Christine Cegelis] tells us.

Coincidentally, the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs, airing tonight [Monday, Sep. 20], at 8:30 pm throughout the City of Chicago, features Cong. Hyde’s opponent-- Candidate Cegelis, See blog entry, immediately following the partial transcript, below, of the show with Cong. Hyde.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Your views on abortion—would you say you are 1000 % pro-Life?

Cong. Henry Hyde: Yes, I would. I would. I think abortion is wrong.

Berkowitz: Is it ever appropriate?

Hyde: Only to save the life of the mother.

Berkowitz: What about the health of the mother?

Hyde: I think the trade-off is unequal. A life for a life is one thing. A life for health is another.

Berkowitz: So, no matter how difficult it might be or how risky it might be in terms of the health of the mother, you would say unless it is the life of the mother that’s at stake that abortion, if it is a function of the health of the mother, shouldn’t be allowed.

Hyde: Well, it’s a fine line. Some doctor has to decide whether the condition of health, ill health, is life threatening. If it is life threatening,

Berkowitz: then it is Okay?

Hyde: then the claim is equal.

Berkowitz: What about rape and incest? Should there be an exception for rape or incest?

Hyde: I have supported rape and incest as exceptions because frankly it is the only way that legislation will pass. But, I do not agree that a child which is created as a result of a rape should be exterminated or killed.

Berkowitz: Because that child is innocent?

Hyde: Because of—

Berkowitz: So, you are doing it simply as a matter of, somewhat, political expediency?

Hyde: Pragmatism. Because otherwise, the votes aren’t there.

Berkowitz: Same sex marriage. You would be opposed to that?

Hyde: Yes, I don’t quite understand why two people of the same sex can’t sign contracts and leave their insurance to each other and make any arrangements they want.

Berkowitz: So, in a sense, would you favor civil unions between individuals of the same sex?

Hyde: I wouldn’t support them but I wouldn’t oppose them. I think people ought to be free to contract with each other.

Berkowitz: But, you are opposed to the states—you would discourage the state of Illinois, for instance, from allowing individuals of the same sex to marry, right?

Hyde: Yes, I think marriage should remain a —

Berkowitz: You support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, right?

Hyde: Yes, if necessary.
*************************************
Berkowitz: …You oppose term limits, I take it?

Hyde: Yes, I am adamantly against them.

Berkowitz: …critics would say this, [you may] not have been as entrenched-- you may have used that power wisely, but some people will not if they are there in Congress for thirty years, are you concerned about that?

Hyde: No, if you believe in democracy, let the people decide. But, to foreclose the utility of the experience and wisdom. There are some people I wish never left congress. Boy, could we use them today.

Berkowitz: Your health is good right now?

Hyde: Yeah, I am not getting any younger. But, I am still alert and anxious to proceed.

Berkowitz: You are guaranteeing your voters that you are there and good for another two years?

Hyde: Oh, very, very good.

Berkowitz: How long do you think you will stay [in Congress]?

Hyde: Oh, I don’t want to answer that question now but surely all good things come to an end.

Berkowitz: Getting back to another social issue, guns. You supported the ban on assault weapons?

Hyde: Right.

Berkowitz: You would support it again?

Hyde: Yup.

Berkowitz: Should the President have pushed harder to have a ban on assault weapons? To have it come up for a vote?

Hyde: I don’t know that I can blame the President but I do think our leadership should have permitted a vote [show concludes].
*************************************************
Cong. Henry Hyde [6th Cong. Dist.; R- Addison], recorded on September 19, 2004 and as will be cablecast on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs during the week of September 27, 2004 and throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************

Updated September 20, 2004 at 12: 30 am

Christine Cegelis, 6th Cong. District Democratic Candidate, is featured on the City of Chicago edition of "Public Affairs" tonight, Monday night at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago. Cegelis [D-Rolling Meadows] is running against 30-year incumbent Cong. Henry Hyde [R-Addison]

A portion of the transcript of the show, not previously published on this blog, is included, below.
******************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Abortion, I would imagine you and Cong. Henry Hyde differ significantly on that issue, right?

Christine Cegelis: Yes.

Berkowitz: He has been described and he probably would say he is Pro-Life, right?

Cegelis: Yes. That is one way to describe him, yes.

Berkowitz: Probably 1000 % Pro-Life, right?

Cegelis: Yes.

Berkowitz: That would be fair?

Cegelis: That would be fair.

Berkowitz: Would it fair to say you are 1000% Pro-Choice, with respect to reproductive rights for women?

Cegelis: Yes.

Berkowitz: Are there any restraints, at all, that you would support on a woman’s right to have an abortion at any time in any place?

Cegelis: No, I don’t think so.

Berkowitz: Okay

Cegelis: I think that is just between-
*********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, a government run health care system would be preferred to you to a privately run health care system?

Christine Cegelis: I think something based along the lines of Medicare would definitely be more—

Berkowitz: So, you would like to expand Medicare to everybody?

Cegelis: I think so, yes. I think that makes much more sense. We can’t do it immediately and we can’t get there right away, but yes, I think looking in the long term, that makes sense.
*************************************************************
Berkowitz: …would you encourage the state legislature in Illinois to pass laws to make sure individuals of the same sex could marry?

Cegelis: I think that it is something that I wouldn’t be opposed to. Let’s put it that way.

Berkowitz: God. Should God be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Cegelis: The Supreme Court seemed to feel that it should be and so—

Berkowitz: You are Okay with it?

Cegelis: I am Okay with that.

Berkowitz: … O’Hare expansion. You favor O’Hare expansion.

Cegelis: I do.

Berkowitz: You favor Peotone- an airport on the south side?

Cegelis: I favor [show concludes]
******************************************************
A portion of the transcript of the show previously published on this blog is included, below.
**************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: ...Hypothetically, if you were there...the legislation as it came before you, if you were the …congresswoman...would you have supported No Child Left Behind, at that time?

Christine Cegelis: I’d say I would not have because even at the time [the legislation passed] as I was reading about the legislation, I understood how the use of standardized testing could cause schools to be marked as failing-- especially the 95% rule where they have to be, 95 % of the students have to be there the day of standardized testing, that in and of itself causes a problem—

Berkowitz: So, you are not a fan of No Child Left Behind?

Cegelis: I am not a fan, no.

Berkowitz: Not just the implementation, but actually the theoretical construct?

Cegelis: Right.

Berkowitz: You know, it does bring an annual testing that is required by the federal government. Are you opposed to that concept?

Cegelis: I am not opposed to annual testing. It is just that it has to be specific testing and there has to be some guidance on it because standardized tests don’t necessarily give us a true picture so there has to be other types of testing as well.
*******************************************************
Berkowitz: If you had been in Congress in the fall of 2002, if you had been a congresswoman, would you have voted against the authorization of the President to take military action in Iraq?

Cegelis: I absolutely would have.

Berkowitz: And so you differ with Cong. Henry Hyde on that?

Cegelis: Absolutely.
**************************************************
Berkowitz: Is Iraq a better country now without Saddam Hussein?

Cegelis: I don’t think it is a safer country now.

Berkowitz: You don’t? So, you think—If you had to choose, let me give you a stark choice: If you could have Iraq as it was before a few years ago, with Saddam Hussein or the Iraq that exists now, without Saddam Hussein, on its way perhaps to a democratic government, which would you choose?

Cegelis: That’s where I don’t agree. I don’t think they are on their way to a democratic government.

Berkowitz: Okay, strike that clause. You have to choose between having two years ago Saddam Hussein there or whatever we have in Iraq [now] however you want to describe it, whatever we have. Which would you choose, the current situation or back two years ago with Saddam Hussein?

Cegelis: I will tell you for the safety of the United States, I would pick the two years back. Now what for the people of the Iraq, I don’t know.

Berkowitz: Do you think the people of the 6th Cong. Dist. agree with you on that?

Cegelis: I think they do.

Berkowitz: You are hearing from them.

Cegelis: Oh, definitely.

Berkowitz: They want to go back to Saddam Hussein of two years ago?

Cegelis: Nobody wants Saddam Hussein back. That’s a very bad way to put it. What we want is a more stable government where there are not threats of terrorist growth-- that is happening in Iraq now, that were not happening two years ago.

*********************************************
Christine Cegelis, 6th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate, recorded on September 4, 2004, and as is being cablecast on “Public Affairs throughout the City of Chicago on “Public Affairs,” tonight, Monday night, September 20, at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21
*************************************************

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Updated September 14, 2004 at 12:15 am

Christine Cegelis, 6th Cong. District Democratic Candidate, is on the suburban edition of "Public Affairs" tonight and this week. Cegelis [D-Rolling Meadows] is running against 30-year incumbent Cong. Henry Hyde [R-Addison]

Jeff Berkowitz: ...Hypothetically, if you were there...the legislation as it came before you, if you were the …congresswoman...would you have supported No Child Left Behind, at that time?

Christine Cegelis: I’d say I would not have because even at the time [the legislation passed] as I was reading about the legislation, I understood how the use of standardized testing could cause schools to be marked as failing-- especially the 95% rule where they have to be, 95 % of the students have to be there the day of standardized testing, that is and of itself causes a problem—

Berkowitz: So, you are not a fan of No Child Left Behind?

Cegelis: I am not a fan, no.

Berkowitz: Not just the implementation, but actually the theoretical construct?

Cegelis: Right.

Berkowitz: You know, it does bring an annual testing that is required by the federal government. Are you opposed to that concept?

Cegelis: I am not opposed to annual testing. It is just that it has to be specific testing and there has to be some guidance on it because standardized tests don’t necessarily give us a true picture so there has to be other types of testing as well.
**********************************************
The above is a portion of a partial transcript of this week’s show, and more of that transcript is included, below, in this blog entry.
**********************************************
This week’s [week of Sep. 13] suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Christine Cegelis, 6th Cong. District Democratic Candidate, debating and discussing with show host Jeff Berkowitz various domestic and foreign policy issues, including visas and jobs, education, abortion, same sex marriage, prescription drug benefits, health care, gun control, tax cuts, the Economy, “off shore sourcing,” trade and the War in Iraq.

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

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

The City edition of Public Affairs airs throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The show with Christine Cegelis will also air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday, Sep. 20, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
Berkowitz: If you had been in Congress in the fall of 2002, if you had been a congresswoman, would you have voted against the authorization of the President to take military action in Iraq?

Cegelis: I absolutely would have.

Berkowitz: And so you differ with Cong. Henry Hyde on that?

Cegelis: Absolutely.
**************************************************
Berkowitz: Is Iraq a better country now without Saddam Hussein?

Cegelis: I don’t think it is a safer country now.

Berkowitz: You don’t? So, you think—If you had to choose, let me give you a stark choice: If you could have Iraq as it was before a few years ago, with Saddam Hussein or the Iraq that exists now, without Saddam Hussein, on its way perhaps to a democratic government, which would you choose?

Cegelis: That’s where I don’t agree. I don’t think they are on their way to a democratic government.

Berkowitz: Okay, strike that clause. You have to choose between having two years ago Saddam Hussein there or whatever we have in Iraq [now] however you want to describe it, whatever we have. Which would you choose, the current situation or back two years ago with Saddam Hussein?

Cegelis: I will tell you for the safety of the United States, I would pick the two years back. Now what for the people of the Iraq, I don’t know.

Berkowitz: Do you think the people of the 6th Cong. Dist. agree with you on that?

Cegelis: I think they do.

Berkowitz: You are hearing from them.

Cegelis: Oh, definitely.

Berkowitz: They want to go back to Saddam Hussein of two years ago?

Cegelis: Nobody wants Saddam Hussein back. That’s a very bad way to put it. What we want is a more stable government where there are not threats of terrorist growth-- that is happening in Iraq now, that were not happening two years ago.

*********************************************
Christine Cegelis, 6th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate, recorded on September 4, 2004, and as is being cablecast on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs tonight and this week, and as will be cablecast throughout the City of Chicago on “Public Affairs,” this coming Monday night, September 20, at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21
************************************************

Sunday, September 12, 2004

Updated September 12 at 11:30 pm.

On Monday night, September 13, the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features 10th Congressional Dist. Democratic Candidate, Lee Goodman (D-Northbrook). The program airs in its regular time slot, Monday night, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] throughout the city of Chicago. Goodman debates and discusses with show host Jeff Berkowitz various domestic and foreign policy shows, including abortion, same sex marriage, prescription drug benefits, health care, gun control, education, Israel’s wall, tax cuts, the Economy and the War in Iraq. Goodman’s opponent in the race is four year incumbent, Cong. Mark Kirk (R- Deerfield).
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You want to take that program that is Medicare and extend it to the entire population in the United States?

Lee Goodman: Correct, right.

Berkowitz: So, that means that you would favor a single payer, Hillary Clinton style health care system.

Goodman: No, that is two entirely different things. Hillary Clinton was looking at an adjustment of the private health care system as we have it. I am saying you take Medicare, which is doing a very good job, not perfect, but a very good job of covering seniors, and you just open up the age limits. You still allow people to choose their own physicians, their own pharmacy; you just say that it is not going to have to run through the failed private insurance program. The Medicare program is much more efficient-

Berkowitz: Doesn’t government become the single payer, though? So, you would agree it is a single payer program, you just didn’t--

Goodman: But, you want to be careful about the words.

Berkowitz: You just didn’t like the adjective- Hillary Clinton style health care?

Goodman: And, when you say single payer, people think that means one thing. I am saying Medicare for everyone.

Berkowitz: But, it is a single payer, isn’t it?

Goodman: We can sit here all day. You call it single payer. I say it is Medicare. What it is talking about is a funding mechanism—

Berkowitz: Who pays for the entire thing?

Goodman: The government funding mechanism through Medicare-

Berkowitz: The government is the only payer, right?

Goodman: Okay.

Berkowitz: They are a single payer. I don’t know why you are quibbling with that word.

Goodman: We can do this— because I am not sure why you want me to say single payer.

Berkowitz: It is because it is a phrase that people use often. It is a term of art.

Goodman: Jeff, would it make you happy if I said single payer.

Berkowitz: If that’s what it is, I think you should say it.

Goodman: I want you to be happy.

Berkowitz: So, it is a single payer system that you—

Goodman: Go ahead.
*******************************************
Berkowitz: This is kind of the public school analogy…people can go to private schools now, but they give up a free education [if they do so]. You are saying under your model people could opt out and pay for health care [private insurance] separately or they could get it free from the government and I think you are suggesting why would anyone opt to a private system when they could get it free from the government?

Goodman: I think probably you would do better to look at it as a fire department analogy rather than private schools because I know you have trouble with the idea of public schools.

Berkowitz: Me, I am fair and balanced. I don’t have trouble with anything.

Goodman: Anyone right now could opt to pay for private fire protection, but since it is already provided by the government, no one does. And it would be the same way with medical care, I believe.

[Ed. Note. Goodman's reference to a fire department in his discussion of health care suggests an important distinction to make, one for which there was not time during the show. Health care and health care insurance are both more like education than a fire department. That is, in the jargon of economics, a fire department is more like a pure “public good,” than are either health care or education. A public good is a good for which an individual’s consumption of it does not take away from another’s consumption of it. The traditional example of a pure public good is a lighthouse. It doesn’t matter to any user whether one ship or fifty ships use the lighthouse; The number of ships using the lighthouse does not affect the ability of any one ship to use it. National defense is another “public good.” For example, your consumption of a missile shield in Chicago does not take away from my consumption of it in Cleveland. A fire department is also much closer to a public good than a private good. It may not matter whether a fire department covers one block or twenty. However, at some point, as you add geographic fire protection coverage or even population density to the same area, you will require more trucks, people, etc. The same may be true, but to a much lesser extent, with lighthouses and national defense. However, health care, insurance and education are surely not public goods, in the economics sense discussed above. User A, by attending a school, takes away from the ability of User B and User C to attend the school. So, education and health care are both more like an ice cream, a private good, than a lighthouse, a public good]

Berkowitz: One reason that I do say “single payer,” is important- a better way of putting it is single buyer…when we look at economics, it informs us about certain things… a monopoly, a single seller. Generally, this country frowns on monopolies. We have …the Sherman Antitrust Act, a whole body of law that tries to prevent monopolies—

Goodman: Let’s take a look at it.

Berkowitz: You are not in favor of monopolies, are you?
**********************************************************
Berkowitz: …We don’t want people who are single sellers, a monopoly. We certainly have laws that try to prevent that.

Goodman: But, what you fail to recognize—

Berkowitz: So, there is an analogy to a single buyer. It is called a monopsony…It is also viewed as resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources. We don’t like monopsonies so much. They are also illegal. The Sherman [antitrust] Act applies to that [monopsony] as well. And, here you are suggesting that we [should] have a single buyer [a monopsony] in the form of the government.

Goodman: What I am suggesting is that we take a look at what is important. What is important is that people in this country don’t have access to health care and in virtually every other industrialized country they do and it is a disgrace that we are not guaranteeing people access to health care…
****************************************
The transcripts, below, have been previously published on this blog.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were before Saddam Hussein was overthrown?

Lee Goodman [D- Northbrook]: [A] very difficult question to answer. But, a more important question, or an equally important question is what kind of a position is the United States in right now as compared to before we started this war.

Berkowitz: You think the United States is less safe now?

Goodman: We are much less safe. We are in much worse shape.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You don’t think there should be a law prohibiting same sex marriage?

Lee Goodman: Oh, my goodness, no.

Berkowitz: Currently, the law does, in many states, require a marriage to be between a man and a woman. Right? You would try to change that, so that the law would allow two men [or] two women, to marry. Right?

Goodman: Of course.
*********************************************
Berkowitz: Abortion, you are 1000% pro-choice. Now, Mark Kirk seems fairly pro-choice, too, and yet you have been critical of him on that issue. How do you differentiate Mark Kirk from yourself on the issue of abortion?

Goodman: When there was a vote in Congress [on a partial birth ban] he skipped the vote, he ducked it. Just like he is hiding from the debates. That’s where I criticize someone. If someone is in favor of a woman’s right to choose, he should be there to vote when there is a critical vote.
**************************************************
Berkowitz: You don’t have an opinion as a potential U. S. Congressman as to whether it was appropriate for Israel to build that fence [or wall].

Goodman: My opinion is that if we are going to help, we have to have a role there that will promote peace. And, simply my saying as a potential congressman-- or any other congressman saying Israel was right or Israel was wrong accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting peace.
**************************************************
Berkowitz: You were adamantly opposed to going into Iraq, right?

Goodman: Correct.

Berkowitz: In the fall of 2002, if you had been there [in Congress], you would have opposed…giving President Bush the authorization to take military action in Iraq?

Goodman: Correct.

Berkowitz: You would have voted differently from Senator John Kerry, now running for President. You would have voted differently form Senator John Edwards, now running for Vice- President. You differed from your Democratic colleagues on that issue, right?

Goodman: Yeah.

Berkowitz: And, right now, John Kerry says, if elected, he would not bring the troops out of Iraq. He would not withdraw. You agree with him on that?

Goodman: No, I don’t.

Berkowitz: So, you would withdraw immediately? Is that right?

Goodman: That is not what I said, either.

Berkowitz: Well, what would you do? If you don’t agree with him on that, tell us your view.

Goodman: What we need to do is to recognize that we went in under false premises, that our staying there at this point is accomplishing little or nothing and that the reconstruction and the things that have to be done in Iraq will not happen until we have made it clear to the world that we are getting out…We cannot run that country. It is not supposed to be a colony of the United States.
******************************************
Lee Goodman, 10th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate, recorded on August 8, 2004, and as is being cablecast throughout the City of Chicago this Monday night, September 13, at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21
**************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*****************************************************
Updated September 12, 2004 at 12:00 am

Not exactly a shocker. Barnes and Kondracke declare Obama the winner.
******************************************
Fred Barnes: Illinois, an open [senate] seat. Democrat Barack Obama, who gave that speech at the Democratic convention, versus Republican Alan Keyes- who is not from Illinois, he is from Maryland.

Morton Kondracke: That was over before it started. It’s Obama.

Fred Barnes: Obama, I agree with that.
******************************************
Fox’s Beltway Boys: September 11, 2004
**************************************

Saturday, September 11, 2004

Updated on Sep. 11, 2004 at 7:00 pm

Not so Fair and Balanced with Bill Moyers on PBS and WTTW: your pledge dollars at work? For whom?

Ronald Reagan- a lackey of Business and the rich, as seen by Bill Moyers’ NOW.
*************************************************

Speaking to and receiving an award from the Take Back America Conference of Democratic liberal activists on June 4, 2003, Bill Moyers told the cheering partisans that the Bush Administration and its allies are “right wing wrecking crews,” and they are “part of an unholy alliance between Government and wealth” that is “engaged in the deliberate intentional destruction of the United States of America.” Moyers was listed at the Conference as a journalist, educator and citizen.

Moyers, who previously toiled in the LBJ [President Lyndon Johnson] administration as a Special Assistant to LBJ and his “Great Society,” for four years, has had his own television production company since 1986 and he has appeared in a variety of formats on PBS over the years.

Moyers’ current television show, NOW, which skews heavily to the left in it analysis and discussion of public policy issues, airs every Sunday at noon in the Chicago metropolitan area on public television station WTTW [Ch. 11, 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm and repeated on Monday morning, 4:00 am to 5:00 am]. The show is a slick, well produced, well presented program that is mostly by, of and for the Left.

In large part, NOW consists of hard left, partisan journalists such as Moyers, interviewing other hard left or simply left public policy analysts and personalities. Every once in a while they have a lefty interviewing a righty, someone in the center or what they really like, someone on the pseudo-right, but those non-left guests are the exception, not the rule.

Moyers is, as he advertises, in the education business, providing his wisdom for say, high school teachers, who need help with lesson plans. For example, in explaining conservatism, the NOW portion of the www.PBS.org web site quotes from The Oxford Companion to American History: “[Ronald] Reagan combined important strands of American conservatism in a significant new way, employing populist rhetoric while working in the interests of corporate America and the wealthier classes.”

In the slanted view of Moyer’s NOW discussion, housed on the PBS site, tax cuts across the board to broaden individuals’ incentives to work, save and invest constitute “working in the interests of Corporate America and the ‘wealthier classes.’” Given that leftist partisans like Bill Moyers are out there guiding school teachers on the impact of Ronald Reagan on America, it is no wonder our educational system suffers from imbalance.

Putting the hostility of teachers’ unions [and their fully owned subsidiary, on the issue of school vouchers-- the Democratic Party] to school choice/ school vouchers aside, the above makes clear why liberals are so terrified by school choice/school vouchers. Most parental consumers would like their children to become well educated and informed by the full spectrum of viewpoints, not fed pabulum representing one segment of the political spectrum.

How long could biased presentations, such as those put forth from Bill Moyers’ pre-packaged lesson plans, persist in schools if parents had the right to take the money that is being spent on their child in a public school and transfer it to private schools that (1) perform the teaching function well in terms of teaching kids how to read, write and perform mathematical computations and analysis and (2) provide balanced presentations and discussions, while challenging students to explore all sides, not simply one side, of the political spectrum? Not long. That has to be a major reason why the vast majority of liberals are so opposed to school vouchers and in favor of maintaining a public school monopoly.

It perhaps seems impolite to ask of our friends at PBS and WTTW, but we will do so anyway: is there a television program on PBS or WTTW that skews as heavily to the right as NOW does to the left, making PBS and WTTW what one might call “fair and balanced.” Alternatively, is there a program, airing weekly on PBS or WTTW that has a host who might be characterized as having and expressing opinions as far to the right as Moyers does to the left?

If so, gentle readers and viewers, please advise me. Because, I surely have not been able to identify such a program or such a host on PBS or WTTW.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of “Public Affairs,” can be reached at JBCG@aol.com



Thursday, September 09, 2004

Updated September 9, 2004 at 9:40 pm, revised 10:10 am
Team Obama, a cagey, manipulative campaign, asserts Lynn Sweet. And, please don’t call them. They’ll call you.

I tried about a month ago to get some information about Barack Obama’s out of state fundraising activities from his communications staff. Although I got some information initially, it was like pulling teeth. And follow-up inquiries were ignored, as if to say, “why are you bothering us, we are Team Obama, the good guys, donchyouknow?”

Indeed, the same attitude has spread over to inquiries about Obama’s positions on public policy issues. “We’ll get back to you,” they said and then they never did with respect to how Barack Obama would have voted on the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed the U. S. Senate 98-0.

However, they did send over a one line response to Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, who posted it on his blog [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook] along with Zorn’s extensive discussion and dialogue with the Illinois Leader’s Jill Stanek on the general subject: Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's communication director Robert Gibbs released a statement shortly before 11 a.m. today [Aug. 26, 2004] reading, "Barack Obama would have voted for H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act [“BAIPA”] that passed the (U.S.) Senate." See www.chicagotribune.com/notebook, August 26, 2004 blog entry, which includes the above.

And, see the same above-referenced site for Zorn’s criticism of Senate Candidate Alan Keyes, for failing to understand the differences between the Federal and State BAIPA legislative wording and also for inappropriately projecting Obama’s likely position on the federal statute, based on State Senator Obama’s votes on the proposed state legislation.

Back to Team Obama, do those few words on BAIPA sent to Zorn and quoted above exhaust what Barack Obama has to say on BAIPA? Apparently so.
Perhaps you can find a few additional words from Obama on the subject here and there. But, even if so, why not put them in one place and send them over to the guy who asked. The Obama folks seem to be saying-- after all, we are Team Obama—the good guys. One sentence should suffice. Who can question us?

Well, putting aside Eric Zorn, who does a pretty good job of questioning everybody, and Dennis Byrne, who has asked some tough questions of Obama, not the Tribune, that is for sure.

The Tribune, which played a major role in causing the Jack Ryan campaign to implode [a fact the Tribune never seems to discuss when telling its readers how we got to Keyes-Obama], is not about to start challenging Barack Obama now. Although claiming the Public’s Right to know about sealed child custody records, the Tribune’s motivation seemed to be less altruistic. Feeling their oats, the Tribune Masters of the Universe essentially endorsed Barack Obama two days before Alan Keyes accepted the State Central’s Committee’s offer to be its Republican Senate Candidate nominee [As Yogi said, it’s a fact, you can look it up.]

Now that the Tribune has ingratiated itself with the candidate that it thinks will be the next junior U. S. Senator from Illinois, who really thinks the Chicago Tribune would do anything that might damage or even question Barack Obama? The Tribune seems to view liberal Barack Obama as the next best thing to the Tribune’s sought after “pragmatic moderate conservative,” apparently embodied in the Tribune’s eyes by GOP State Chairman Judy Baar Topinka.

Now, of course, in addition to Eric Zorn and Dennis Byrne, there are talented, questioning and sincere journalists at the Chicago Tribune. However, taken as a whole, for whatever reason, the newspaper seems to be engaging in very uncritical coverage of the Obama campaign.

But, wait, there is this other major paper in the Chicago Loop— owned by Hollinger, Int., Black and Radler’s very own piggy bank [which piggy bank was supposed to be under the watchful eye of the Tribune’s other pragmatic moderate conservative, Big Jim Thompson- the GOP Party Elder]. The Chicago Sun-Times, although not quite as imposing as that questionable icon of journalistic standards, i.e., the Tribune, has at least two political writers [Fornek and Sweet] who seem to take their job to question everybody, including Obama, quite seriously. This time it is tough and scrappy Lynn Sweet, a combination columnist/reporter, whose observations imply my Obama dental metaphor, above, may not be wide of the mark.

Sweet comments [and sweet they are], “Obama's campaign does not believe that information about fund-raisers should be volunteered because the event is not, in the eyes of the campaign, a public event. Hold on; I'm not talking about getting a call when Obama goes to the dentist.” [Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times column, September 9, 2004].

Sweet pounds some more, “Obama's campaign is hiding practically all of Obama's out-of-state treks…Obama's manipulative, cagey campaign does not want you to know the whole picture.” [Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times column, September 9, 2004].

For example, Sweet notes,”A few weeks ago, Obama was the keynote speaker at a national conference of an organization called America Coming Together in Cleveland. ACT is one of the newly spawned [Section] 527 [of the tax code] groups, a Democratic outfit working to elect John Kerry to the White House.” [Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times column, September 9, 2004].

But, Sweet tells us she could not squeeze any information about the ACT event, or Obama’s role in same, out of the Obama campaign staff, until she dug up a press release put out by ACT about the event.

I met with similar stonewalling when I sought information about far-left George Soros’ New York fundraiser for Barack Obama. Because of a special provision in the campaign finance laws triggered when a candidate is facing another candidate who self-contributes to his own campaign amounts in excess of one million dollars, the Soroses were able to give a collective $60,000 to Obama during his March, 2004 primary contest. See CNSnews.com, June 27, 2004.

Robert Bluey writes, "Obama, however, is different from most Democrats because of his willingness to embrace the controversial Soros. Shortly after Soros equated the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Obama joined him for a New York fund-raiser [on] June 7, 2004." See CNSnews.com, June 27, 2004

Meanwhile, Barack Obama seeks to stay above the fray and to stay on message--Health care, education, jobs and tolerance-- That is what all Americans want, he says. And, that may be all you will learn about what is going on with Team Obama, until, of course, Team Obama wants you to know more. And, please, please don’t call them. They’ll call you. They are the good guys, donchyouknow.

Jeff Berkowitz, host and producer of "Public Affairs," can be reached at JBCG@aol.com


Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Updated September 7, 2004 at 7:00 pm

Lee Goodman, 10th Cong. District Democratic Candidate, is on "Public Affairs" TV in the suburbs tonight and this week.
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were before Saddam Hussein was overthrown?

Lee Goodman [D- Northbrook]: [A] very difficult question to answer. But, a more important question, or an equally important question is what kind of a position is the United States in right now as compared to before we started this war.

Berkowitz: You think the United States is less safe now?

Goodman: We are much less safe. We are in much worse shape.
**********************************************
Above is a portion of a partial transcript of this week’s show, and more of that transcript is included, below, in this blog entry.
**********************************************
This week’s [week of Sep. 6] suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Lee Goodman, 10th Cong. District Democratic Candidate, debating and discussing with show host Jeff Berkowitz various domestic and foreign policy shows, including abortion, same sex marriage, prescription drug benefits, health care, gun control, education, Israel’s wall, tax cuts, the Economy and the War in Iraq.

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 through-out the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

The show with Lee Goodman will also air through-out the City of Chicago on Monday, Sep. 13, 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You don’t think there should be a law prohibiting same sex marriage?

Lee Goodman: Oh, my goodness, no.

Berkowitz: Currently, the law does, in many states, require a marriage to be between a man and a woman. Right? You would try to change that, so that the law would allow two men [or] two women, to marry. Right?

Goodman: Of course.
*********************************************
Berkowitz: Abortion, you are 1000% pro-choice. Now, Mark Kirk seems fairly pro-choice, too, and yet you have been critical of him on that issue. How do you differentiate Mark Kirk from yourself on the issue of abortion?

Goodman: When there was a vote in Congress [on a partial birth ban] he skipped the vote, he ducked it. Just like he is hiding from the debates. That’s where I criticize someone. If someone is in favor of a woman’s right to choose, he should be there to vote when there is a critical vote.
**************************************************
Berkowitz: You don’t have an opinion as a potential U. S. Congressman as to whether it was appropriate for Israel to build that fence [or wall].

Goodman: My opinion is that if we are going to help, we have to have a role there that will promote peace. And, simply my saying as a potential congressman-- or any other congressman saying Israel was right or Israel was wrong accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting peace.
**************************************************
Berkowitz: You were adamantly opposed to going into Iraq, right?

Goodman: Correct.

Berkowitz: In the fall of 2002, if you had been there [in Congress], you would have opposed…giving President Bush the authorization to take military action in Iraq?

Goodman: Correct.

Berkowitz: You would have voted differently from Senator John Kerry, now running for President. You would have voted differently form Senator John Edwards, now running for Vice- President. You differed from your Democratic colleagues on that issue, right?

Goodman: Yeah.

Berkowitz: And, right now, John Kerry says, if elected, he would not bring the troops out of Iraq. He would not withdraw. You agree with him on that?

Goodman: No, I don’t.

Berkowitz: So, you would withdraw immediately? Is that right?

Goodman: That is not what I said, either.

Berkowitz: Well, what would you do? If you don’t agree with him on that, tell us your view.

Goodman: What we need to do is to recognize that we went in under false premises, that our staying there at this point is accomplishing little or nothing and that the reconstruction and the things that have to be done in Iraq will not happen until we have made it clear to the world that we are getting out…We cannot run that country. It is not supposed to be a colony of the United States.
******************************************
Berkowitz: Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were before Saddam Hussein was overthrown?

Goodman: [A] very difficult question to answer. But, a more important question, or an equally important question is what kind of a position is the United States in right now as compared to before we started this war.

Berkowitz: You think the United States is less safe now?

Goodman: We are much less safe. We are in much worse shape.
**************************************************
Lee Goodman, 10th Cong. Dist. Democratic Candidate, interviewed on August 8, 2004 on “Public Affairs,” and as is being cablecast in the suburbs tonight and this week, and as will be cablecast throughout the City of Chicago this coming Monday night, May 13, at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21
************************************************
Updated September 7, 2004 at 1:45 pm

Topinka, Dillard, Thompson, Edgar, Keyes, Obama, Daley and Axelrod. The bush league Rs take on the major league Ds in Illinois. As everybody knows, it is not a contest. Kind of like a high school football team playing the pros, it is not pretty.

The only thing major league about the Illinois Republican Party is the internal division that its “leaders,” continue to promote.

Are GOP State Chairman Judy Baar Topinka and Republican DuPage County Chairman Kirk Dillard, two future GOP Gubernatorial Wannabees, helping the Republican Party? Are the so-called Party Elders, Thompson and Edgar, helping the Party? Very, very doubtful.

Grabbing some media time on the 10:00 pm ABC-7 Chicago local news segment last night about Alan Keyes marching in the Labor Day parade in Naperville was Judy Baar. ABC-7 News’ Evelyn Holmes commented that Judy Baar said the public could be the real loser come election time, and then Judy Baar popped up in the flesh, so to speak, saying, “Nobody is really bothering to watch what Barack Obama is doing because everybody is so interested in Jack Ryan’s sex life and Alan Keyes’ outrageous statements.”

Of course, Judy Baar apparently had nothing herself to say about what Barack Obama is doing. Why should she? She is just the industrial size plumber and carpenter, as she describes her role as State GOP Party Chair.

Also, isn't the State GOP chair responsible for making sure local GOP organizations are sufficiently strong to field candidates. If so, then does Judy take a hit of her own for the Republicans not being able to find an opponent for appointed State Senator Deanna Damuzio (D-Carlinville) by the recent deadline, as reported by Rich Miller in today's Capitol Fax. As Rich points out, the "Rs need to pick up four seats, but they are only competing in four districts at the moment, if that." Looks like Senate President Emil Jones can continue to relax and take it easy in his golden years.

Back to the havoc Judy Baar is wreaking. Over the last week, Chairman Topinka has been firing with her assault weapon at both the former Republican Senate Candidate, Jack Ryan [against whom Judy worked hard to shove off the ticket], for, as she puts it, “the mess Jack created, and his long good-bye” and at the current Republican Candidate Alan Keyes, [who, in Judy's own way, she helped bring on the ticket] for everything Keyes says, does and stands for. Lucky for Judy, the assault weapon ban will not be renewed and she will soon be able to fire even more freely; perhaps she likes the Second Amendment and machine guns, after all.

Stoic State Senator Kirk Dillard, also in the Labor Day parade with Alan Keyes, took a few shots of his own at Keyes, telling the ABC-7 local news, “Alan Keyes wasn’t the perfect choice but he is what I have to work with as a Republican leader at home and I will do the best I can. More important is George W. Bush who heads the ticket.” Dillard, who is a major player on the State Central Committee that chose Keyes, now claims Keyes was not his candidate, but the public did not hear a lot of that at the time Keyes was chosen.

All together, the Chicago ABC- 7 10:00 pm news segment devoted almost two minutes to the Senate race. Democratic Senate Candidate Barack Obama only got about 30 seconds, but that was all he needed to stay on the message of “health care, education, jobs and tolerance,” which, as he puts it, is “what all Americans want.” The remainder of the segment was consumed in large part with the Republican leaders bashing their senate candidate.

Of course, during the preceding week, state party elders Jim Thompson, who hasn’t won an election for 18 years and Jim Edgar, who has not won an election for 10 years and left office under the cloud of the MSI corruption investigation, took their own shots at Keyes.

Thompson told the public he would not vote for Keyes, perhaps not a great shock given his closeness, fundraising, and transition team participation with our Hot Rod Democratic governor [Blagojevich], and his apparent indifference to establishment Republican Jim Ryan’s 2002 Gubernatorial run against Hot Rod.

As Dennis Byrne reminded his Chicago Tribune readers yesterday, Thompson might not have standing, at this moment, to be judging others. Thompson, as head of the audit committee at Hollinger International, seems not to have noticed when a variety of “insider” improprieties seem to have robbed that company of about 400 million dollars in seven years. As Bryne notes, an independent investigation described Thompson's audit committee as "inert and ineffective." Thompson’s defense last week, “I never socialized with him [Hollinger CEO Conrad Black]...We didn’t play golf together,” seems a little weak for a former U. S. Attorney, but not out of sync with how country club Republicans view the world. As the country club Rs see things, it is not what goes on in the Boardroom or even in public forums that counts. No, it is at the country club where things either get done, or don't, as the case may be. So, Thompson seems to be suggesting, "How could I do anything wrong with Black, we didn't even play golf together." How, indeed.

Former Governor Jim Edgar, for his part, reminded everyone that the real test of the Republican Party in Illinois will come in 2006—perhaps an odd statement, coming from the Bush-Cheney 2004 State Chairman.

The camera didn’t show it, but I am sure Obama’s media message guru, David Axelrod, had a big smile on his face, late last night. And, Axelrod’s more long term boss, Mayor Daley, is a happy camper, too.

You have to admire that Daley-Ryan Combine. Players come and go, but like Old Man River, that Old Combine--it just keeps rolling along.

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



Monday, September 06, 2004

Updated September 6, 2004, at 2:00 am. Revised at 1:00 pm.

Keyes explains why he thinks Democratic Senate Candidate Barack Obama is a "socialist" and a "liar."

Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes on "Public Affairs" TV tonight in the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. New and previously published partial transcripts of the show are included, below.

Is Alan Keyes listening to conservative supporters and can they persuade him to try to win? See discussion, below.

In a recent comment and link to a posting of a partial transcript of my show with Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Keyes, Larry Handlin [www.archpundit.com], noted that Keyes had referred to Democrats, liberals, socialists in general, but had not identified any such individuals who were socialists. That omission was remedied in another portion of the show, where Keyes made it clear who he was identifying as a socialist, and the transcript of that portion of the show is included, below.

In general, notwithstanding calling Senate Candidate Obama a socialist and a liar, Keyes interview on "Public Affairs" is a good illustration of how Alan Keyes could still run a much more broad-based, less inflammatory and winnable campaign, without impairing his integrity, if he wants to.

One major difference in such a campaign strategy would be to spread his speaking time among a greater assortment of domestic, foreign and social policy issues and to broaden the issues he is emphasizing in his Senate campaign to include foreign policy and domestic policy issues, in addition to social policy issues. Of course, a candidate does not need a Ph. D. in government from Harvard University, which Keyes has, to know that.

But, Keyes would have to believe that trying to win, on the one hand, and being moral and intellectually honest, on the other hand, are not mutually exclusive principles. Having watched his campaign unfold over the last four weeks and with only eight weeks to go, it appears, at least to this objective observer, that that is not the case for Senate Candidate Keyes. And, conservative leaders and Keyes supporters, e.g. State Senator and State Central Committee member Dave Syverson, have made similar observations. The question is-- is Alan Keyes listening to such supporters and can they persuade Keyes?
******************************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features Republican U. S. Senate Candidate Alan Keyes debating and discussing with show host Jeff Berkowitz Senate Candidates' Alan Keyes’ and Barack Obama’s contrasting views on tax cuts; state government actions that may have retarded job growth in Illinois; the War against Terrorism and the “Front,” in Iraq; education, school choice and school vouchers; abortion; same sex marriage and much, much more. The show airs through-out the City of Chicago, tonight, Labor Day, Monday, Sep. 6 at 2004 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
******************************************************
Look for more partial transcripts of the show with Keyes to be blogged on this site over the next few days.
*******************************************************

[PARENTAL CHOICE OF SCHOOLS]

Jeff Berkowitz: Switching over to education, you, as I understand it, favor school vouchers and school choice, in general, right?

Alan Keyes: Yes, I do.

Berkowitz: And would you favor a fully funded school voucher in the sense that in the City of Chicago—similar to Washington, DC and many other inner cities, we spend, on average, about $10,000 to $11, 000 per year per kid? So, would you favor taking that $10,000 to $11,000, as I often do on this show, putting it in a backpack, strapping that backpack on the kid, and letting the parents choose—do they want to keep that $10,000- $11,000 in a public school or do they want to send it [with their kid] to the school of their choice, a private school. Would you favor that kind of choice.

Keyes: What I would favor is the principle that the money that we spend on education ought to follow the choice of the parents. The assumption that the parents will make a choice that requires that $11,000 is, when you actually look at the private choices available, a false assumption. Because a lot of times, the private choices that are available—parochial schools, faith based schools-- are achieving results better than what we get in our public school system for less money. So, I am not going to go out and tell a parent that you must go out and spend $11,000, but I will say that up to whatever is being spent in the public school—

Berkowitz: you would give them that choice—

Keyes: you can have access to those dollars. I think we would end up finding that they would actually make, in the existing array of things, a more economical choice in that, and you end up saving money in many cases.

Berkowitz: Now, many people say that they are concerned about the schools in the inner-cities, that they are not performing well. But, a number of those folks also say that public schools are performing well in suburban areas. So, would you focus on a school voucher or school choice program for the inner city? As opposed to the suburbs? Or would you favor school vouchers/ school choice for everywhere?

Alan Keyes: I think, over-all, the principle of education ought to be school choice. Given that we have, in the immediate term, limited resources, I would certainly think you would want to first target the areas of greatest need to free parents who don’t presently have the opportunity [of choice] from the burden of being forced into an education system that is failing them, so I do believe that it would be right to give priority to those who are not in a situation right now to make that choice for themselves.

[OBAMA ON PARENTAL SCHOOL CHOICE]

Jeff Berkowitz: Now, your opponent, Barack Obama, has said on this program he favors charter schools and school choice perhaps within a public school context, but he doesn’t favor school choice that would allow the kind of choice that you and I have just been discussing. He says, he thinks that would result in a “tiered education,” that is some kids would go at a high tier, and others at a low tier—

[KEYES RESPONDS TO OBAMA]

Keyes: What does he think we have [now]. I think right now what we have is an educational system where people who can afford it, including some people who end up being double taxed, going out to work a second job—I was talking to a fellow just the other day near where I live in Cal City [Calumet]. He was at a restaurant, he works for Ford Motor Company and he was telling me just this- that he had taken his daughter out of public schools, put her in private schools—that it had cost him over the course of her education some $20, 000. He had had to work a second job and he felt it was unfair because he was paying taxes and he had to pay for her education. So, I think that right now we have a tiered educational system that forces people to do that and that deprives people who don’t have the opportunity to make the extra income or who are not in an income bracket where they can afford it. They have no “choice.” They are stuck with schools that are failing their kids, including one- that one of the folks I talked to said, you have situations where the kids don’t even have books to take home to do their homework. One book per desk and the classes revolve in and out of the classroom and the kids leave the book with the desk. And, one is sitting there asking- How do they get their homework done? How do they get their studying done, under a situation like that? So, I think we are in a situation where the system is tiered and the poor get the short end of the stick because they have no choice.

Berkowitz: Now, is this issue, school choice, school vouchers, which we were just talking about—do you think you will be making that a major issue in this campaign as you seek votes in the inner city of Chicago as well as troubled [education] areas throughout the state of Illinois, not just Chicago.

[KEYES ASSERTS PARENTAL SCHOOL CHOICE AND JOBS ARE CONNECTED- ASSERTS OBAMA IS WITHIN A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE "LYING TO US"]

Keyes: This is one of those things that I think involves what you were talking about earlier [apparently Keyes is referring to a comment I made to the viewers at the beginning of the show that perhaps they would see, by the end of the show, how Keyes’ views on domestic policy issues, foreign policy issues and social policy issues are interwoven] because the idea that this is an issue separate from jobs and from economic prospects is false. One of the reasons why you have a hard time getting and holding businesses, and please remember that businesses provide jobs. People who mouth on about jobs and then do stuff that kills businesses are lying to us. That’s Bar-ack Obama. They lie to us. They say jobs, jobs, jobs and then they do everything in their power to kill the businesses that provide the jobs. But one of the things that attracts and holds businesses is where are we going to send our kids to school if our business is located in Illinois, if our business is located here, and if they don’t have a good answer to that, we are going to lose that business to a state that does have a good answer. And, that’s where I think quality education [and jobs] are connected.

Berkowitz: So you think quality education is important to keep jobs because to keep businesses—

Keyes: Quality education is important to keep jobs. Access to proper medical care is important to keep jobs. We have to look at the whole picture and not just act as if we magically create jobs by doing what? throwing money at some government bureaucracy?

[OBAMA'S LIKELY RESPONSE]

Berkowitz: Let me, let me play devil’s advocate here because I think Barack [Obama, Democratic U. S. Senate candidate] has been on this show [over the years] about eight times, so I think I know reasonably well what he thinks, and he would say he cares about, certainly, improving the quality of education; he cares about jobs, and he understands that it is important-- that it is important to have a quality education in order to have jobs here in Illinois. In that, he would say he agrees with you. He differs with you on the methods to maintain jobs.

[KEYES CALLS OBAMA A SOCIALIST]

Keyes: So, I am sure that he [Barack Obama] can easily mouth the words. Cuz, that’s what—

Berkowitz: But, you called him a socialist. Do you stand behind—

Keyes: He is a socialist.

Berkowitz: You, you—

Keyes: Folks like this, even the issue we are talking about—

Berkowitz: [But], he has said on this show that--

Keyes: Even the issue we are talking about. If you look at his stand, his stand says the only way we can get education is with government run, government dominated schools. That is socialism. I say, let’s have schools in which you give parents the choice, which then allows them to both go into a sector where the schools are going to be faith based, parochial schools that are started by private individuals--[or] where they might even be able to get together in their community and start schools for themselves, rather than do it under government domination. That’s the difference between a socialist and someone who really believes not only in free enterprise but in self-government in the community.

Berkowitz: Let’s switch over to foreign policy, the War in Iraq. A lot of people thought, before you came in [to the senate race] and started talking about and articulating your position as you have the last two weeks, that based on what they knew about Alan Keyes, they thought you perhaps were opposed to the War in Iraq, because they saw...that you had said that you were opposed to the United States invading other countries...
***********************************
The below is taken and repeated, for the readers’ convenience, from a previously published blog entry of a partial transcript of our show with Alan Keyes. Keyes discusses what he calls, essentially, a “hostile job environment created by Democrats, liberals and socialists.”
*********************************************

[KEYES STATES POLLS INDICATE NATIONAL SECURITY IS MORE IMPORTANT NATIONAL ISSUE THAN THE ECONOMY, BUT HE EXPLAINS WHY ILLINOIS' RECOVERY IS LAGGING OTHER STATES]

Jeff Berkowitz: …In 1992, Bill Clinton, running for President, said “it’s the Economy, stupid.” We are 12 years later. Is it still, "it’s the Economy stupid," in terms of the major national or U. S. Senate issue?

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

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

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