Dated January 31, 2005 at 7:00 pm
**********************************
Chris Matthews on “Public Affairs,” tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago.
*****************************
Did Chris Matthews call Democrats socialists? Well, not quite, but very close. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, as a U. S. Senate candidate last year, minced no words and got skewered for it.
*********************************************
Chris Matthews: That was a spontaneous moment of leadership- and it separated him [President George W. Bush] from all the rest of us and it made him our Leader.
***************************************
Berkowitz: They would agree that they [Democrats] are not the party of economic freedom?

Matthews: They [Democrats] would agree that they are the party of more socialized economic activism, which limits people’s freedom…
****************************************
Matthews: Generally, the Democratic Party always goes for a public solution over a private solution. Sure, that’s a fact.
******************************************
Tonight's "Public Affairs," show features Chris Matthews speaking at the Union League Club of Chicago to the Authors’ Group about "W" and Gore and then Matthews faces 12 minutes of grilling from Berkowitz on Social Security, which political party is the Freedom Party, Abortion, Vouchers, the Clintons and much, much more. The shows airs at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago. It was taped on Nov. 8, 2001, just 7 weeks “after planes into NYC buildings.” In terms of Matthews' attitude toward Bush, what a difference a War makes.

A partial transcript of our show with Matthews is included directly below. For more on tonight's show, including another partial transcript, see the blog entry, below, dated January 21 at 12:30 am.
**************************************
Chris Matthews: [Al] Gore thought that if you did your homework, the teacher would like you. And, your fellow students would like you even more. Where he got that idea, I don’t know. He’s the kid with his hand in the face of the teacher, over all the other kids’—he always has the right answer… The third debate is what he [Gore] called his Goldilocks debate because he said it was just right. Well, my attitude is—I knew Goldilocks, I grew up with Goldilocks and you’re no Goldilocks…

I think it is interesting that a man who couldn’t win legitimacy from the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision last year …received legitimacy in the most sacramental way on September 14th, the Friday after [September 11, 2001] when he want to New York [at the 9/11 site] and stood with that older fireman and put his arm around him and somebody yelled, “I can’t hear you,” and he said, “Well, I can hear you, and soon the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from all of us.” That was a spontaneous moment of leadership- and it separated him from all the rest of us and it made him our Leader. And so, George Bush, who didn’t have a mission- he was down at the ranch hanging out sometime in August [2001], looking for something to do…ride around in his jeep or check the fence …now he had a mission…
******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Chris Matthews, you grew up a Republican and you became a Democrat—you worked for [Speaker] Tip O’Neill, you worked for [President] Jimmy Carter, you worked for Lincolnesque [Senator] Ed Muskie—

Chris Matthews: What did you call him?

Berkowitz: Lincolnesque Ed Muskie,

Matthews: That’s right.

Berkowitz: I meant no disrespect, that’s how he was known by many.

Matthews: Sure, sure
*****************************************
Berkowitz: …Is the Republican Party the Freedom Party

Matthews: Well, on the issue of guns, you would say the Republican Party is. On the issue of abortion, you would say the Democratic Party is. On the issue of national health [care], you would say the Republican Party is. So, it varies. ..

Berkowitz: …Many Republicans say they believe in less spending, less taxes, less intrusion [into lives of individuals], putting abortion aside—

Matthews: Well, you can’t put abortion aside.

Berkowitz: You can’t?

Matthews: Well, women can’t.

Berkowitz: But, you grew up as a Catholic, right?

Matthews: Yeah.

Berkowitz: So, how does that influence your view on abortion?

Matthews: Well, I think it should be avoided.

Berkowitz: But, you are not ready to say it is something that—

Matthews: Well, you can’t use the law unless you are going to criminalize it. And, I don’t know of anyone who would put a woman in jail for ten minutes for having an abortion. So, what are we talking about? If we are not talking about the law, about criminal law—what are we talking about? How do you outlaw something without criminalizing it? Nobody I know wants to criminalize it, so what are we talking about?

Berkowitz: Could we criminalize it for the doctor?

Matthews: That would be the most contorted view of the law… you would be saying criminalize the agency role but don’t criminalize the perpetrator. No doctor goes to the door and says, “I’d like to perform an abortion here.” The woman goes to the doctor.

Berkowitz: I know you don’t want to put it [abortion] aside, but let’s put it aside just for a moment and let’s talk about spending, taxes and working—

Matthews: On economic issues, the Republicans are more libertarian.

Berkowitz: Which makes them the freedom party on those issues.

Matthews: On economic issues. Well, clearly that is the case—the Democrats would admit that.

Berkowitz: Well—

Matthews: I don’t know a single Democrat who wouldn’t say that their party is for more activist government, would you?

Berkowitz: But, they certainly wouldn’t say that they are not the party of freedom, right?

Matthews: Economic. Economic.

Berkowitz: They would agree that they [Democrats] are not the party of economic freedom?

Matthews: They would agree that they are the party of more socialized economic activism, which limits people’s freedom. Of course. Of course. The Democratic Party believes in all kinds of regulation…all kinds of regulation of business practices—minimum wage—of all kinds of practice for clean water, clean air, clean food, airline safety. The Democrats now want to have a federalized work force to inspect our luggage. Generally, the Democratic Party always goes for a public solution over a private solution. Sure, that’s a fact.

Berkowitz: What do you think? Should we federalize all those employees who scan our luggage?

Matthews: I think we should Americanize them. Only hire Americans. Start with that…
******************************************
"Hardball," Host Chris Matthews, as it will be cablecast on "Public Affairs," tonight, January 31, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 throughout the City of Chicago. The show was recorded on November 8, 2001.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Dated January 31, 2005 at 12:30 am, revised at 12:00 pm
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: But, if somebody asked for it, you could give them the written back-up to show that you did a national search?

County Board President John Stroger: No, I wouldn’t give them that. No.
***********************************
The Fire Next Time: A Godsend or God-Son Contracts, Global Searches and the ubiquitous Robert Wislow and U. S. Equities
******************************
The Chicago Tribune, in its editorial of January 27, 2005 stated that County Board President Stroger promised nine months ago to conduct a global search for a consultant who would advise what to do with the old County Hospital. However, based on what President Stroger said to me in the course of an interview on the afternoon of January 27, transcribed below, it doesn’t sound like a true national search, let alone a global search, was conducted.
******************************************
Indeed, I do true national legal searches for clients. I know the techniques of national searches; I know the characteristics of national searches; I know the feel of national searches; and trust me, this was no national search, let alone a global search.
********************************************
And then there is the sub-contract of the contract referenced above, in which the sub-contract is to go to a God-son of President Stroger, as reported in the Chicago Tribune’s Jan. 28, 2005 Metro Section.
***************************
And Robert Wislow is the head of U. S. Equities, which got the contract, referenced above. Wislow, as reported in the Janauary 28 Chicago Tribune, was co-owner of 69 West Washington Management, a firm that the Tribune indicates was sharply criticized for failing to have proper evacuation and other emergency procedures in place when the October, 2003 fire killed six.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Is it okay to deal with friends when you are in county government--or city government?

Cook County Board President John Stroger: No, there is nothing wrong

Berkowitz: That’s okay?
*******************************************************
Stroger: If they are doing their work. But, in this case he [Commissioner Claypool] is saying we are bringing people in just for patronage sake and that is not true.

Berkowitz: Well, what about U. S. Equities? That is in the news today.

Stroger: U. S. Equities, one of the largest companies of its kind and what we are asking them to do is to analyze the needs of the health care delivery system of Cook County and [in] particular, look into wards and new buildings we need to erect to take care of the thousands and thousands of the people that we need to treat…

Berkowitz: But, you are thinking of retaining U. S. Equities as a consultant to advise you on what to do with the old [Cook] County Hospital building, right?

Stroger: That’s not primary, but the general purpose is to let him develop a program around the needs that’s been outlined by the people from the [new Cook County, aka John Stroger] Hospital.

Berkowitz: Who do you—

Stroger: Dr. Winship and other people who are on the staff [of the new Cook County Hospital], the planning program and so forth.

Berkowitz: But one of the owners of U. S. Equities is Bob Wislow, right? [A Chicago Tribune editorial of January 27 identifies Wislow as the head of U. S. Equities and also having a record of political contributions to local Democrats, including Cook County Board President Stroger and Mayor Daley.]

Stroger: Yeah, but Bob Wislow does this all over the world. So, what is wrong with Bob Wislow working with us?

Berkowitz: Well, I am just pointing out that you talked about Forrest [Commissioner Claypool], you said that he had some friends who he hired [when he was head of Chicago’s Park District].

Stroger: It’s not only that. He went to work with some of those same people he hired.

Berkowitz: The Tribune is writing about this [the use of the Old County Hospital] today and they said you folks [i.e., President Stroger] were to do a national search, and you came up with somebody who is right in your backyard [Chicago Tribune editorial, January 27, 2005; more precisely, the Tribune reported that Cook County Board President Stroger said previously that he would conduct a global search for someone to advise what to do with the old hospital].

Stroger: Yeah, but a national search could lead to your backyard, if that’s the way you want to put it.

Berkowitz: So, you don’t think there is anything suspicious about that?

Stroger: I don’t think I should go to New York to get somebody who has the expertise to do a job in Chicago and who would know not only his profession, which nobody can doubt that about U. S. Equities, but also a person who is one of the people who live within the County.

Berkowitz: Did you do a national search? Did the Cook County government do a national search for this consultant?

Stroger: I am the person who, I told them right off that I would talk with a lot of people and see—and I have had people coming in, writing—but, when I finally made the conclusion, I concluded that a company, whether it was Bob, or some other company—that was located in Cook County would be best to help us develop this program. And, I don’t regret it at all.

Berkowitz: How many other vendors did you consider when you did the search?

Stroger: I don’t know the numbers but I wasn’t going all over the world looking for-

Berkowitz: Do you have documentation of the other vendors?

Stroger: No. Written? To give you right now? No, but I have talked with other people.

Berkowitz: But, if somebody asked for it, you could give them the written back-up to show that you did a national search?

Stroger: No, I wouldn’t give them that—no.

Berkowitz: You don’t think the government—citizens should see that?

Stroger: No, I think that I have done the very best possible thing. These individuals who are talking and you called [them] the gang of 4 [Cook County Commissioners Quigley, Claypool, Suffredin and Peraica] or 8 [In addition to the gang of 4, Commissioners Gorman, Goslin, Hansen and Silvestri]—have already cost us eight million dollars because they refused to allow the Old Building to be demolished when every engineering firm that’s been out there, with the exception of a few who want a landmark status situation is saying that it would cost us more money to rehabilitate than building any of this—

Berkowitz: Isn’t that one of the things that U. S. Equities is supposed to advise on—they are supposed to consider whether—so they may, would you say it is a foregone conclusion that they”ll tell you to demolish it?

Stroger: But, these other groups never had any data to support their positions.

Berkowitz: Do you think possibly it is the case that that building [the old County Hospital] should not be demolished and should be used?

Stroger: Well, I know, based on, and I have been on this Board for 34 years that that building, nearly 50 years ago had out, uh, was no longer useful in modern day delivery of healthcare.

Berkowitz: So, you think it should be demolished?

Stroger: Yes, I do. I do.
*************************************
County Board President John Stroger, in a "Public Affairs," show to air in the suburbs during the Week of February 7 and as will be cablecast on "Public Affairs," on Monday, February 14, 2005 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 throughout the City of Chicago. The show was recorded on Janaury 27, 2005. See the January 25, 2005, 2:30 pm blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule (Days, locations and times on Comcast Cable) of "Public Affairs."
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Dated January 29, 2005 at 3:20 pm

The Left-Wing Bias and Death of Public TV at WTTW, coming to a television near you.
***********************************
WTTW's mess that is called public affairs programming: (1)"Chicago Left in Review" and (2) "Chicago Tonight Lite-- Bringing commercial local news features to Public TV."
************************************
WTTW continues to cover what it perceives as the full political spectrum: From the far left to the center to sports. What’s missing in that picture? If you don’t know, you appear to be qualified to work at WTTW. If you do, perhaps you would be happier somewhere else.
******************************
WTTW's Chicago Week in Review, aka a Center-Left Perspective on Chicago, or to keep it short, Chicago Left in Review. Either label would be a much more accurate description of the show, as it currently airs and has been airing for the last 25 years.
********************************
Please keep those pledge dollars coming to WTTW. There is only so much that George Soros can do.
*******************************
Chicago Tonight continues its long, deep descent from a public policy show to sports, gadgets, health features, arts features, movie reviews, food features, play reviews, plant features, nut features and happy talk at its worst. “Anything, Dear God, but that drab public policy stuff” seems to be its new motto. Watch for the name change: "Sirott, friends and family"-- Bringing commercial local news features to public TV."
*********************************
During Chicago Left in Review’s episode a week before the Republican State Central Committee (“SCC”) election of a new Republican State GOP Chairman in Springfield on January 15, 2005 and during its shows that followed over the last two weeks after the election—the host and his panel chose to ignore the event. Not a mention-- nothing, nada, zero, zip. The event attracted about 500 Republican activists, operatives, party functionaries, office holders and wannabees-- including more than 150 County, Ward and Township Committeemen; State GOP Chairman candidates Andy McKenna, Jr., Steve McGlynn, Jim Oberweis, John Cox and Jim Nalepa.

Andy McKenna, Jr., who is known for his father's and perhaps his own fundraising prowess and business contacts and who ran in the Republican U. S. Senate Primary in 2004, garnering 14% and a 4th out of 7 candidates finish, won the State GOP chairmanship vote, primarily because of the backing of the Illinois Republican Party Finance Committee, i.e., in large part the Chicago Metropolitan Republican Business Interests and Donors. McGlynn, who had campaigned vigorously for the position, withdrew prior to the vote when he saw he could not get a majority of the SCC weighted vote. Nalepa, who drew acclaim and cheers from the assembled for his stirring speech, came in a very distant second to McKenna-- who, in addition to the aforementioned money interests, had the New Republican Establishment behind him-- Lahood-Kirk, for sure, and most likely Cross. Of course, the New Republican Establishment and money interests go together like ham and cheese.

LaHood, of course, is Ray LaHood [R- Peoria; 18th Cong. Dist.], who has now formed an exploratory committee to decide whether to run for Governor. Ray LaHood, although he is pretty socially conservative, is not a modern economic conservative, and over-all, not a conservative’s conservative. He worries much more about deficits than keeping taxes and spending low and was one of only three Republicans to vote against the document that led the successful Republican Revolution in the U. S. House of Representatives in 1994, the Contract with America.

Indeed, LaHood was elected in 1994 to replace his then and current mentor, the retiring Congressman Bob Michel, the former minority leader who probably would have lost the Speaker position to Newt Gingrich. Many in the Republican Party thought Minority Leader Michel had grown too comfortable as the leader of a minority, as opposed to someone who was working to create a majority. The Michel-LaHood historical relationship may tell us something about where LaHood is coming from and how he would lead the Republican Party in Illinois, if he becomes the Republican gubernatorial nominee.

Kirk, of course, is Congressman Mark Steven Kirk, who has tried, during his first four years as the North Shore’s 10th Cong. Dist. U. S. Representative, to wear the economic conservative/social liberal label that worked so well for former Cong. John Porter in the preceding 21 years. Kirk also adds a strong military preparedness and national security emphasis to the John Porter model.

However, the emerging core of Cong. Kirk’s current efforts is his attempt to become the leader of so-called Republican “moderates,” in the House, having recently formed a weekly Tuesday morning gathering of thirty-five or so U. S. Representatives who label themselves as such. Although his predecessor, Cong. Porter, faced a number of primary challenges from the right, including a strong one, or two or three, by Pro-Lifer Kathleen Sullivan,Kirk appears to be confident that he has little to fear from the conservative wing of the Republican Party in the 10th.

Longer term, Kirk will expect to have a larger role in both the state and national Party leadership. His leadership among moderates in the national Republican Party, combined with his willingness to play ball, to a large extent, with the economic conservatives, to cooperate on issues and legislation of importance to the Party leaders and to cooperate and support Speaker Hastert should help him achieve those goals.

Cross is, of course, state representative Tom Cross, the moderate Republican Leader of the Illinois Statehouse. Of course, the old fashioned among us would call Cross the Minority Leader in the statehouse. Cross worked hard and got a net gain of one state representative for the Republicans in the Statehouse in 2004 and it would have been two, but for a “Democratic plant,” beating a Republican in a Cicero district. Betty and Ed’s spirit lives on? In any case, Cross is a power because he is perceived as someone who has the smarts, intensity and finesse to become the Speaker of the Statehouse, some day. Indeed, his mentor is someone who knows something about becoming speaker—Illinois’ very own Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

The above LaHood-Kirk-Cross-McKenna schematic, which is borrowed in large part from Joe Morris' recent column in the Illinois Leader, has also gone unnoticed by the Chicago Left in Review. Even when the Left in Review deigns to have, as a panelist, an articulate conservative on the show, such as Chicago Sun-Times Business Editor Dan Miller or a balanced political editor and analyst such as CBS-2 News' Mike Flannery or ABC-7 News' Andy Shaw, they don’t and can’t do much to correct the left skew of Chicago Week in Review. That is set by the show’s host for the last twenty-five years—center/left [at best] Joel Weisman who apparently selects the topics and guests. Weisman, like most at WTTW involved in public affairs programming, seems unaware of the people and events that dominate the portion of the political spectrum that starts in the center and goes to the right.

In the world of the center lefties at WTTW, it must not be important as to who is the State GOP chairman. It isn't important to them that the schism in the State GOP represented in the tussle as to a new State GOP chairman was in large part not about pro-life and pro-choice, but much more about reformers and non-reformers. The WTTW center lefties missed the SCC vote, missed the candidates for State GOP Chairman, missed the election of Andy McKenna, missed the resurgence of a new GOP establishment, missed the battle between reformers and non-reformers. In short, they don’t seem to know much about Republicans and the Republican Party, and they couldn't care less about what those folks do.

Moreover, to the extent the host or panelists bring up the Republican Party on Chicago Left in Review, it appears mostly to enable them to put "Good Guy" Hats on moderate Republicans. So, State Treasurer and GOP State Chair [until Tuesday] Judy Baar Topinka, Ron Gidwitz and now Ray LaHood [who the moderates will accept as one of their own to advance their collective power] will get some kind words and attention from Chicago Left in Review. Not as much attention, of course, as Chicago Left in Review’s Democratic heroes and heroines, but attention nevertheless.

Illinois Republican conservatives, e.g., Jim Oberweis, Pat O’Malley, State Senator Peter Roskam, Cong. Henry Hyde, State Senator Rauschenberger, Joe Morris, Jack Roeser and John Cox will hardly ever be mentioned on Chicago Left in Review. And when they are, such as this week’s mention of Rauschenberger as a potential gubernatorial candidate, the show’s panelists will vie with each other to characterize a Rauschenberger as “an also ran” and unable to raise money—neither of which is accurate—but what the Hell, it’s WTTW, who said anything about being fair and balanced?

Across the set from Chicago Left in Review, WTTW's Chicago Tonight, which used to be the jewel of public affairs programming in Chicago, reached a new low this week when it led with a discussion of the Chicago Bulls and University of Illinois basketball. When Chicago Tonight changed its leadership team a year or two ago from John Callaway to Bob Sirott, Sirott cut the old public policy portion of the new one hour Chicago Tonight from 30 minutes to about 18 minutes or less, but at least CT made public policy the lead every night. Now that that precedent has been broken, watch for Chicago Tonight to achieve new lows in its coverage of public policy issues.

Apparently, a new mission statement has taken over at WTTW and Chicago Tonight. That mission, an odd one for public TV, seems to be to try to fill the gap of insufficient sports coverage by private, commercial TV. You hadn't noticed that the private media markets were lacking in coverage of sports? At least on one night this week, Chicago Tonight not only did not lead with Public Policy, it just did not have any “Public Policy discussion” anywhere in the show.

Week in Review may not have time for Chairman McKenna, or any of the other issues relating to the Republican Party, discussed above, but come Hell or high water, it has its 4 to 5 minutes of sports every week as a part of its 28 minute show. And, often, Chicago Left in Review is followed by Sirott's interview with a sports guy (last night it was Cubs’ icon Ernie Banks) or almost anybody who will keep the discussion light and fluffy, like a soft pillow to go to sleep with.

And don't get me wrong, Ernie Banks is fine. I just didn't think Newton Minow, who is still an icon at WTTW, had that in mind as the Public TV fix to what he labeled as the Vast Wasteland that characterized commercial TV more than 40 years ago. And now, WTTW is bringing the Vast Wasteland to a TV near you, with a lefty twist to it, of course.

And now, back to you, Bob. No, back to you Joel. No, back to you, Bob. From center to left to center to left, we have come full circle: One, intellectual dilution of Chicago Tonight to an emphasis on sports, gadgets, health, food reviews, plant reviews, movie reviews, theater reviews and nut reviews. Two, the Left bias of Chicago Week in Review gets worse, over time, not better. Three, new shows that are brought on and promoted intensely on WTTW would be a new look at public policy? No, not unless you count “Check, Please” and food reviews as public policy. Yes, there is Tucker Carlson, Unfiltered. But, that show is surely not the answer [as PBS' President tried to argue recently] to Bill Moyers, or what has become Moyer's sidekick's show

So, this is where Minow’s effort and financial support took public TV? He must be sad. I know I am.

Well, yes, Chicago Tonight, although dumbed down in large part, still does have some good segments. But, you don’t need a weathervane or a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing at WTTW's Channel 11 in the Chicago metropolitan area.

Good night, Bob. Good night, John. Good night, Randy. Good night, Dan. Goodnight to WTTW and all of its friends on the center/left. And folks, please keep those pledge dollars coming. There is only so much that George Soros can do.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Dated January 27, 2005 at 11:45 am
***************************************
Newt Gingrich Shocks Tavis Smiley by Complementing Senator Hillary Clinton. But, why the surprise? Smart Republicans concede Hillary, like Mr. Bill, is a smart pol.
*****************************************
Newt Gingrich: If they [the Democrats] think they can spend four years being negative and build a majority, they just totally misunderstand this country.

Tavis Smiley: Right.

Newt Gingrich: It was interesting to me that the smartest Democratic politician in the Senate, Senator Hillary Clinton, voted yes [on the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State; the vote was 85-13 to confirm]. She understands having cabinets; her husband had eight years of cabinets. She understands the role of the Senate and I think it was interesting that she [Hillary] thought the best position was to be statesmanlike and to vote for Condoleezza Rice because the President deserves to have the Secretary of State that he is requesting. I think a number of the other Democrats look petty and small, and nasty in a way that is just not productive. I am all for fighting, but this kind of petty nastiness, I think, is just counterproductive to the side that’s doing it.

Tavis Smiley: Before I jump to this book, did I hear you say that you think that Hillary Clinton is the smartest Democrat in the Senate?

Newt Gingrich: Absolutely, and as a politician, she’s easily the most effective politician on the Democratic side.
*************************************
Former Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, speaking on the Tavis Smiley Show on January 26, 2005. The Tavis Smiley Show airs throughout the country on PBS and airs in the Chicago metropolitan area on WTTW, Ch. 11, daily during the week at 11:30 pm.
**************************************
One of the more notable, but perhaps predictable, of the 13 U. S. Democratic Senators [I count Senator Jeffords as a Democrat] voting against Condoleezza Rice was Senator and 2008 Presidential candidate hopeful John Kerry. One of the more surprising of the Senate votes cast against Rice was that of the usually moderate U. S. Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, a darkhorse 2008 Presidential candidate.
******************************************
Also interesting was the split between Illinois’ two senators. Illinois’ senior senator, Dick Durbin, who is not thought to be running for President in 2008, voted no on Rice. Illinois’ much acclaimed and very junior senator, Barack Obama, who Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Eric Zorn [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook] thinks is running for President in 2008, voted yes on Rice.
***************************************
The individual confirmation votes on Rice, discussed above, serve to demonstrate, once again, that Newt Gingrich does understand politics.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Dated January 26, 2005 at 1:30 pm
****************************************
Why Cong. Dan Lipinski opposed the War.
***************************************
Watch Cong. Dan Lipinski [D-Western Springs; 3rd Cong. Dist.] on “Public Affairs,” tonight at 10:00 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV], throughout the City of Chicago, debate and discuss the issues with show host Jeff Berkowitz. A partial transcript of the show is included below. For more about the show, the Congressman and the 3rd Cong. Dist., including additional partial transcripts of the show, see the blog entries below this one
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …On the War, if you had been there in the fall of 2002, would you have voted to authorize the President to take military action in Iraq?

Cong. Dan Lipinski: No, I would not have.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You would not have voted for that because why?

Cong. Dan Lipinski: I didn’t think the Bush Administration had made the case for the War at that time. I think we see subsequently that we weren’t ready to go ahead and do this job. Now, should Saddam Hussein have been, you know—is it a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Yes. Would I say that at no time would I have authorized War against Iraq? No. If I believed that the Administration made a good case in showing—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you didn’t think that they made a case for weapons of mass destruction at the time in 2002?

Cong. Dan Lipinski: I thought that the evidence was still shaky.

Jeff Berkowitz: If it was stronger, would you have then voted to support that—stronger evidence of weapons of mass destruction?

Cong. Dan Lipinski: If there were stronger evidence of weapons of mass destruction and I was convinced that they had a real plan for post war Iraq—those are the two keys.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, were you convinced at the time that they didn’t have a real plan?

Cong. Dan Lipinski: I was—

Jeff Berkowitz: In the Fall of 2002, before we knew what we know now.

Cong. Dan Lipinski: Honestly, I was hoping that they did.

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay.

Cong. Dan Lipinski: I heard very little from them about it.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Do you support Peotone or not support Peotone, that is, an airport at the south suburban site?

Cong. Dan Lipinski: Yeah, a third airport. It all comes down to-- if there is going to be a major airline—either a commercial passenger airline or a, you know-- someone who moves cargo—if they are going to come in, and they want, they are committed to this airport, then I think we should go ahead and build that airport…
*************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

Dated January 26 at 12:40 pm
****************************
More about Cong. Dan Lipinski and our show with the Congressman
******************************
Tonight's special edition of "Public Affairs," in the City of Chicago with Cong. Dan Lipinski [D- Western Springs, 3rd Cong. Dist.], airs at 10:00 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. In addition to the partial transcript of the Lipinski show in the blog entry, below, dated Jan. 10, 12:30 am [and which was mentioned in the blog entry immediately below], you can find supplemental partial transcripts and other information related to Cong. Dan Lipinski and the show in the blog entries, below, dated January 10, 12:30 8:10 pm and January 10, 1:00 am [the latter is inexplicably located below the Jan. 10, 12:30 am blog].
*****************************

Dated January 26, 2005 at 12:30 am
********************************************
Cong. Dan Lipinski on TV tonight in Chicago. Does this Lipinski have the Right Stuff to beat back likely stiff primary opposition in March, 2006 and perhaps a credible Republican opponent in November, 2006?
**********************************************
A special airing of “Public Affairs,” tonight features Cong. Dan Lipinski [R- Western Spring, 3rd Cong. Dist]. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago at 10:00 pm on Cable Ch. 21. The show aired a few weeks ago in the City of Chicago and is being brought back by popular demand. A partial transcript of the show with Congressman Lipinski is included in the blog entry, below, dated January 10 at 12:30 am.
***********************************************
Congressman Dan Lipinski [D- Western Springs, 3rd Cong. Dist.] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz issues related to Midway, Peotone and O'Hare airports, the Iraq War, Abortion, School Vouchers, Gun Control, the Assault Weapon Ban, Trade, Protectionism, Off-Shore Out Sourcing and Dan Lipinski’s appointment by the Committeemen to replace his father, Bill Lipinski, on the ballot as the Democratic Nominee for the 3rd Cong. Dist. seat.
*****************************************
Cong. Dan Lipinski is likely to face multiple primary challengers in March, 2006, and reliable sources state that challenges could even come from within the Royal Families of the Daleys, Madigans and Hyneses—all of whom are within the 3rd Cong. Dist. and all of whom played a role in “swapping Dan Lipinski into the seat held by Cong. Bill Lipinski” [which is the way State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger put it on "Public Affairs."]. And, by within the Royal Families, I mean a relative or close family friend.

Another often mentioned challenger to Cong. Lipinski is City Clerk Jim Laski, who would have a free shot, as his office is not up for re-election until 2007. Instead of a plant, the Republicans may also come up with a real candidate to oppose Cong. Dan Lipinski this time for the general election, although the District is now decidedly Democrat. Looks like the candidate will not be Cook County Board Member Tony Peraica, who lives in the district but who seems to be gunning for Cook County Board President.
************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

*******************************
Dated January 25, 2005 at 2:30 pm
***************************************
Likely Republican Gubernatorial Primary Candidate State Senator Rauschenberger declines to take the tax pledge, but states that he doesn’t expect to raise taxes.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Would you take a pledge not to raise taxes? Would you take a pledge, if you were Governor, not to raise the [state] general sales tax, not to raise the state income tax?

State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: No, I think that is a terrible mistake.
*******************************************
Berkowitz: But you will not take a [tax] pledge. You are saying that you may decide to come in [and] to raise the income tax or to raise the sales tax? You won’t take that [tax] pledge tonight?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I think those kind of pledges are counterproductive. The extraordinary circumstances that we went through in this last compression. The Governor—and the fact that this Governor has made the pledges he’s made, I think is deleterious to what he does. I don’t think you need to raise taxes, I wouldn’t expect to raise taxes.
*********************************************
State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger [R- Elgin]: I think a lot of legislators, including myself, would support a casino complex in Chicago under the right set of conditions and understanding how the resources were going to be used.
*****************************************
In a show that first aired in the suburbs two weeks ago, State Senator Steve Rauschenberger is featured again on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs tonight and this week [Comcast Cable, Week of Jan. 24]. See the conclusion of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
****************************************************
State Senator Rauschenberger debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the “Illinois First,” spending program, spending and taxes in Illinois in recent and current years and under former Governor George Ryan, State budgets, tax pledges, school vouchers/school choice, Governor Blagojevich’s performance, Gun Control, the Assault Weapon Ban, state subsidies to the CTA and publicly financed embryonic stem cell research.
********************************************
A partial, previously unpublished, transcript of the show with Senator Rauschenberger is included, below.
*******************************************
Additional partial transcripts and more information about tonight’s “Public Affairs,” TV show in the City are included in the blog entries dated Jan. 17 at 5:20 pm and 1:40 pm, below.
*******************************************
Coming Attractions: Cong. Dan Lipinski is featured tomorrow night [Wednesday] in a special edition of "Public Affairs," airing at 10:00 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] Through-out the City of Chicago. This is an encore performance of a show that first aired a few weeks ago.
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Would you take a pledge not to raise taxes? Would you take a pledge, if you were Governor, not to raise the [state] general sales tax, not to raise the state income tax?

State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: No, I think that is a terrible mistake.

Berkowitz: You won’t take a pledge?

Sen. Rauschenberger: No, I will not take a pledge.

Berkowitz: Wow, your conservative credentials may be questioned tonight.

Sen. Rauschenberger: Well, I hope not. Because if thirteen years of service in the General Assembly—

Berkowitz: Does Jack Roeser support you?

Sen. Rauschenberger: If a recorded thirteen year record in the General Assembly with real votes and real issues, not a puffy novice coming in here telling you, I mean if thirteen years record in the General Assembly doesn’t persuade people that I am a serious candidate, that I am serious about taxes, or serious about being conservative—But, I think pledges are the kind of things that are big mistakes.

Berkowitz: You do?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I mean, George Ryan—

Berkowitz: Are you an NSC?

Sen. Rauschenberger: NSC?

Berkowitz: NSC. You told me [before the show] what an NSC was, right?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I am a Non-Scary Conservative.

Berkowitz: Isn’t that an NSC?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Well, yes--
***************************************
Sen. Rauschenberger: I don’t think I am a scary conservative. I think I am a serious candidate—

Berkowitz: But you will not take a [tax] pledge. You are saying that you may decide to come in [and] to raise the income tax or to raise the sales tax? You won’t take that [tax] pledge tonight?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I think those kind of pledges are counterproductive. The extraordinary circumstances that we went through in this last compression. The Governor—and the fact that this Governor has made the pledges he’s made, I think is deleterious to what he does. I don’t think you need to raise taxes, I wouldn’t expect to raise taxes.

Berkowitz: Does Jack Roeser support you, you know Jack Roeser?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I know Jack Roeser.

Berkowitz: What’s his organization called?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Family Taxpayers Network.

Berkowitz: Right. Do they want people to take pledges not to raise the income tax or the sales tax?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I don’t know.

Berkowitz: But he supports you, right? Did he support you for—

Sen. Rauschenberger:I don’t know. I don’t have that commitment, yet.

Berkowitz: You are working on it?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Well, yeah. I’d like him to. I like Jack.
**********************************************************
State Senator Rauschenberger interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast this week [Week of Jan. 24] in the suburbs on Comcast Cable. See the text, directly below, for a detailed "Public Affairs," suburban airing schedule. This show was recorded on January 4, 2004.
*******************************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Dated January 25, 2005 at 12:30 am.
***********************************
Cong. Schakowsky calls for [in the words of General John Borling] the U. S. to "cut and run."
*************************************
Cong. [and a House Minority Chief Deputy Whip] Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston, IL, 9th Cong. Dist.] calls for the withdrawal of U. S. Troops to begin now and to be completed “soon within this year.”
*********************************
7th year Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston]:
"The time has come for the United States to withdraw our troops from the battlefield of a war that should never have been waged. There was no real justification for sending our brave young men and women to fight in Iraq, and there is even less reason to keep them there now to die in ever increasing numbers."
***********************************
"A political process has begun, admittedly fragile, and it is time for the United States to leave. Once the January 30 [2005] elections are concluded, the new Iraqi government takes responsibility for forging its own path toward stability and democracy. The U.S. should provide financial and material assistance for that effort and encourage the international community to help…All of us care deeply about our brave soldiers who are doing the very best they can under near impossible conditions. It is time to bring them home."
***************************************
"…Withdrawal should begin now…150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq make it even more difficult for that very little beginning of democracy to flourish, in my view."
********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Are you suggesting a timetable? That is, withdrawal of the troops by a certain date and over a certain interval? Or, are you suggesting they [the Bush Administration] try to take them [the U. S. military] out of there now?

Cong. Schakowsky: I am suggesting—I think it may take some time, but I think that we are not talking about-- As Soon As Possible-- or some unspecified date. I think we certainly should be-- be talking over the next several months-- that we see a dramatic withdrawal of our troops there and hopefully soon within this year we see all of our troops gone.
*********************************
Berkowitz: If those people who are elected in the next week in Iraq—at least as the interim governing council—if those individuals, those Iraqis, differed with you and made an express statement that they wished the United States [Military] to stay in the country until they [the Iraqis] felt secure, would that cause you to change your mind?

Cong. Schakowsky: No, I think that the United States now has to be making decisions. I think that they, that the United States should be able to offer in terms of support [f]or their nascent democracy—other kinds of help and assistance. But, I don’t believe that we any longer are playing a constructive role by having 150,000 young men and women in harm’s way—getting killed daily in Iraq.
************************************************
Cong. Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist. and one of eight Chief Deputy Whips for the Democrats in the U. S. House of Representatives], speaking and answering questions at a Press Conference held at the East Bank Club in Chicago during the afternoon on Monday, January 24, 2005.
************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
************************************************

Dated January 24 at 4:30 pm-- The Gang of Eight says No to Stroger on More Taxes
********************************
Commissioner Forrest Claypool on TV tonight. Cable Ch. 21 in Chicago, 8:30 pm. Be there or Be square: Taking on President John Stroger, in spirit, if not in person.
***************************
Is Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool [and the rest of his gang of eight] doing to President John Stroger what Senator Gene McCarthy [D-Minnesota] did to President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1968?
***************************
Who said, “I just think it is common sense—when you tax something a lot, you get less of it"? Conservative Supply Side economist Art Laffer, Democratic Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool or Democratic U. S. Senator Barack Obama?
*************************
Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool [D- Ravenswood] is featured on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Jan. 24 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21]. A partial transcript of the show with County Commissioner Claypool is included, below. A supplemental partial transcript along with additional information about tonight’s show is included in the blog entry immediately below this one, dated January 24 at 12:30 am.
**************************
What does Forrest Claypool think of Mayor Daley and Gov. Blagojevich and what do they think of Claypool? Stroger says Claypool is just anti-everything. Is Stroger right? Or, is Claypool just against wasteful spending?
************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Is there a revolution going on at the Cook County Board?

Forrest Claypool: I don’t think it is a revolution, I think what it is—is people standing up to a practice that has been going on for a lot of years of just excessive spending and taxes. When you raise taxes by 600 million bucks in 10 years [raising the Cook County Budget from 2.4 billion dollars to more than 3 billion dollars] that gets the public’s attention. And, in fact, it did get the public’s attention in the last election: five commissioners got thrown out, including the guy I beat [Long Term incumbent and Mayor Daley supported Ted Lechowicz].
********************************
Berkowitz: Your old boss, Mayor Daley, says he supports the tax increase, right?

Claypool: He was in the paper saying he has concerns about it because of the convention and tourism industry and the restaurant industry.

Berkowitz: Did his concerns extend to him saying that people should oppose it?

Claypool: I did not hear him say that, no.

Berkowitz: He just has same concerns.

Claypool: I guess so; you’d have to ask him. 125,000 people, at a minimum, are employed in these industries. And, there a lot of people who do business with these industries, hundred of thousands of additional jobs in these industries. Oftentimes, they are the entry level jobs-- the first rung on the economic ladder, the people who are trying to get a piece of the American dream, immigrants-- you know, working mothers with children.

Berkowitz: Taxes here cut out jobs?

Claypool: People here who are affected—

Berkowitz: They destroy jobs—

Claypool: They destroy jobs as well as add burdens to people that they don’t need to have.

Berkowitz: To some extent, you are a supply sider? Republicans would say that raising taxes cuts, you cut out jobs and—

Claypool: I just think it is common sense—when you tax something a lot, you get less of it.
***********************************
Berkowitz: You are keynoting for David Wilhelm [Former DNC chairman and previously an adviser and perhaps still a confidant of Governor Blagojevich]. You support David Wilhelm-- Do you support Rod Blagojevich?

Claypool: It depends on the issue.

Berkowitz: Wilhelm supports Blagojevich. Is [Governor Rod] Blagojevich doing a good job?

Claypool: I think on some things. And, on others, not. Again, it is issue by issue, I don’t have a—

Berkowitz: In the contest between Speaker Mike [Madigan] and Blago[jevich], who do you favor?

Claypool: It depends on the issue.
**************************************
Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool (D- Chicago, 12th Dist.), interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on January 9, 2005 and as will be cablecast tonight [January 24, 2004] on “Public Affairs,” in the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21]
***********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*********************************

Updated January 24, 2005 at 12:30 am
************************************
Coming tonight to a TV near you.

Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool [D- Ravenswood] is featured on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Jan. 24 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21].
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you think somebody will step up to challenge [Congressman] Dan Lipinski [D- 3rd Cong. Dist]? In the Democratic Primary?

Forrest Claypool: I have no idea, but I think people oughta be guaranteed an election every two years, not just an appointment.
*******************************************
Berkowitz: But, you might get Commissioner Joan Murphy? You might win this [opposition to a tax increase] by more than one vote.

Claypool: It is quite possible. It is possible.

Berkowitz: So, why does Stroger [keep doing this]. He can count noses. Why does he keep doing this?

Claypool: I don’t understand. I mean, you would think he would count noses.
***************************************
Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool [D- Ravenswood] is featured on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Jan. 24 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21]. A partial transcript of the show with County Commissioner Claypool is included, below. ***************************************
Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool [D- Ravenswood] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz school vouchers and tax credits, Cook County Board budget, spending and tax issues, including proposed increases in taxes by President Stroger, Cook County structural deficits, step wage increases for county employees, Cook County collective bargaining, across the board spending cuts, hotel and restaurant taxes, possible candidates for President of the Cook County Board and Cong. Dan Lipinski’s replacement on the ballot of Cong. Bill Lipinski.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz:… You want to give them [parents] a $10,000 tax credit [for attending private schools]? Is that what you want to do?

Forrest Claypool: I would make the tax credit so that if you are a poor child in the inner city in a failing school system, the tuition tax credit, by being refundable would give that parent an option to look around and see if there is a better private school for their kid, and would have the means to do it by virtue of that credit, but the difference [from the school choice/school voucher backpack program you propose] is that the money would come from the state. We would not be cannibalizing local resources from the local school through a voucher—we would be getting the money from the state, through a refundable tuition tax credit, just like an earned income tax credit.

Berkowitz: Does it take an increase in taxes then [under your school choice refundable tax credit program], because if you are not going to cut it, if you are going to allow kids to stay there [in public schools] with the complete portion from the local level, the kids who stay will have more to spend on [their education] than the kids who leave [to go to a private school] unless you raise taxes. Do you want to do that? You want to raise taxes?

Claypool: Of course not.

Berkowitz: Of course not. In fact, that is a good segue to what you are doing now. So, the proposal now from President John Stroger to the Cook County Board is to raise county taxes, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: What are the taxes he wants to raise?

Claypool: He wants to raise taxes on food, including fast food. He wants to add a tax on amusements. And, also raise property taxes for the forest preserves- by 13.5 %.

Berkowitz: And, what is the percentage increase on the restaurant tax?

Claypool: 2% on top of the existing 15.5%

Berkowitz: On the hotels?

Claypool: On the hotels.

Berkowitz: So, that raises it [tax on hotel customers] to 17.5%. That would be the highest in the country, right?

Claypool: Right. Exactly.

Berkowitz: And on restaurants, he is going to raise it 2% to 10%, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: Also, pretty high. You oppose it, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: And, you have some support. [Commissioner] Mike Quigley, is opposed to it right. [Commissioner] Larry Suffredin, right? Two other Democrats. Tony Peraica, a Republican, opposes the tax increases, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: You can probably expect [Republican Commissioners] Liz Gorman, Greg Goslin, Pete Silvestri and Carl Hansen [to join you]. Five Republicans on the Board [will likely oppose the tax increase]; Three Democrats we just mentioned [will likely oppose the tax increase] and last time [all of] you opposed Stroger on a tax increase and you beat him back. He didn’t get his tax increase. He wanted an increase in the sales tax; he wanted an increase in the lease tax.

Claypool: By one vote [we won].

Berkowitz: By one vote, you got Commissioner Earlean Collins to join you, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: This time, already, you expect Commissioner Maldonado [to join you]. Commissioner Maldonado says that he opposes this [tax increase], right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: Okay, so you have that vote.

Claypool: He has indicated that he may be open to some other approach. I think his objection was to the fast food portion of the tax. We will wait and see.

Berkowitz: But, you might get Commissioner Joan Murphy? You might win this by more than one vote.

Claypool: It is quite possible. It is possible.

Berkowitz: So, why does [President] Stroger [keep doing this]. He can count noses. Why does he keep doing this?

Claypool: I don’t understand. I mean, you would think he would count noses.

Berkowitz: He basically says there is a structural deficit here. He says they need the revenue; the people want the services. And, there is no place to cut-- he says, “we have cut as much as we can.”

Claypool: Well, there is a structural deficit only because he is not willing to make the hard choices necessary to streamline the government.

Berkowitz: Hard choices? One would be a 2 % across the board cut in each department, right?

Claypool: That is what we proposed last year.

Berkowitz: State’s Attorney office, the County Treasurer’s office, the County Assessor’s office, the whole thing, right? Is that what you mean?

Claypool: That is what we proposed last year.

Berkowitz: How much would you save if you did that this time?

Claypool: More than the tax increase. But, this is not--

Berkowitz: The tax increase is-- would generate 73 million dollars?

Claypool: This year and 140 [million dollars] next year.
*********************************************
Claypool: The bottom line is that President Stroger is simply not willing to reduce expenditures by removing a bloated payroll and also by removing these huge…step increases or pay raises on top of cost of living increases [for Cook County employees]. You and I might get a cost of living increase but these employees will get not only a cost of living increase, but another 5, 6, 7, or 8 % increase on top of that.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: What about the 3rd Cong. District? You know there were some shenanigans that went on there. Would you agree with that?

Forrest Claypool: What shenanigans?

Berkowitz: Well, [22 year] Cong. Bill Lipinski ran in the primary- his name got on the [general election] ballot and [Cong. Bill] said he was going to run and sometime after, he decided he wouldn’t. He met with the Committeemen in that District: Speaker Mike Madigan [13th Ward], John Daley [11th Ward]- you know John Daley, [Tom] Hynes [19th Ward] and they chose [Cong.] Bill Lipinski’s [23rd Ward] son- Dan Lipinski [to replace Bill Lipinski on the general election ballot]. Does that sound like the way in which you want to do things?

Claypool: No. I think there oughta be a law that there is always an election, regardless. There oughta be an election, period. There shouldn’t be an appointment after the fact.

Berkowitz: So, you think somebody will step up to challenge Dan Lipinski? In the Democratic Primary.

Claypool: I have no idea, but I think people oughta be guaranteed an election every two years, not just an appointment.
***************************************
Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool (D- Chicago, 12th Dist.), interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on January 9, 2005 and as will be cablecast tonight [January 24, 2004] on “Public Affairs,” in the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Ch. 21]
***********************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Updated on January 21, 2005 at 12:30 am., revised at 2:20 pm
Back to the Future with the Clintons, Matthews, Obama and Zorn.
**********************************
Chris Matthews, back in '01, was harsh on the Clintons, bullish on W and doubtful Hillary would run in '04 or '08. Now Zorn, arguing Hillary will be perceived as poisonous in '07, bets Obama will make the run. But Zorn's prediction is wide of the mark about Senator Obama, as are his fellow bloggers, with their instant replay and instant analysis. The answer is "blogging in the wind," and can be found in tomorrow's blog.
********************************
Chris Matthews: If we have the worst economic times since the 30s, she [Senator Clinton] might have a [Presidential] run, but I think she will definitely lose.
************************************
Eric Zorn: …when primary season rolls around, Democrats will see her [Senator Clinton] as a poisonously polarizing figure who will build a bridge back to the 20th Century and those dreadful Clinton Wars.”
***************************************
Back to the Future with the Clintons, Senator Obama, Chris Matthews and Eric Zorn.
Will Senator Obama run for President in ’08? The audacity of Hope or the Hubris of a two-year U. S. Senator? Zorn says Obama will run. The chalk says no. More to follow on this topic on this blog over the course of the next few days.
**********************************
Coming Attractions on “Public Affairs”: Special Guest Chris Matthews, from the Public Affairs vault, appears on Monday, January 31, 2005, in a show taped eight weeks after September 11, 2001. What a difference a War makes. At that time [November 8, 2001], Matthews was fawning all over “W.” [and smacking the Clintons around like a boxer hitting a punching bag]. Now, not so much, at least as to being an adoring fan of “W.”
*********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You don’t like Clinton, you don’t like—

Chris Matthews: No, not dislike Clinton—I don’t have a big strong opinion, he’s not my kind of guy, but I voted for him twice.

Berkowitz: Yeah, but you said just a half hour ago [speaking to the Authors’ Club at the Union League Club of Chicago] you were purging yourself—

Matthews: No, I said the country needed a purgative.

Berkowitz: But you did, you voted for “W” right?

Matthews: That’s right.

Berkowitz: And, were you in a sense purging yourself of that guilt of having voted for [Bill] Clinton twice?

Matthews: …Every voter makes corrections, mid-course corrections and I voted for [moderate Republican] Arlen Specter when he ran for Mayor of Philadelphia; I voted for Joe Clark, a Democrat. Throughout my voting—except I had been consistently voting Democrat for President until this time [2000], that’s what changed.

Berkowitz: Well, what is your main problem with the Clintons? It’s not just with Bill Clinton, is it?

Matthews: I think the problem that Clinton has, intrinsically, is basic dishonesty. I think that’s it—he is unusually dishonest.

Berkowitz: It was [then Senator] Bob Kerrey who said he is an unusually good liar, right?

Matthews: And he is unusually good at it. That is the scary part. I think when Clinton would say things like, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” he was more credible saying that, which is really scary, than some of these things that he said that were true. So, I think he is—I think he could pass a lie detector test. He is pretty amazing. A smart guy.

Berkowitz: You think the same thing about Hillary, right? You don’t like Hillary, right?

Matthews: I think she is more—well, she is equally dishonest, I think, but she’s- she at least has some ideology. She had a lot of guts to run for the Senate from New York. That took a lot of guts. She could have taken a big fall, if she had lost that one. That says something good about her.

Berkowitz: Does she have a shot at becoming president?

Matthews: If we have the worst economic times since the 30s.

Berkowitz: Would it be in 2004 or would it be 2008?

Matthews: If we have the worst economic times since the 30s, she might have a run, but I think she will definitely lose.
********************************
Chris Matthews, interviewed on “Public Affairs,” in a show taped on November 8, 2001. The show will air throughout the City of Chicago on Monday night, January 31, 2005 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21; airing in the “Public Affairs,” usual time slot.
*********************************
“The Democratic Field appears weak.
Hillary Clinton has come out on top of every survey I’ve seen in which pollsters ask Democrats whom they’d like to see atop the ticket in 2008. But I suspect this is the name recognition factor at work, and that when primary season rolls around, Democrats will see her as a poisonously polarizing figure who will build a bridge back to the 20th Century and those dreadful Clinton Wars.”

Eric Zorn, writing in his Chicago Tribune column of January 20, 2005, gives various reasons, including what he calls the weak 2008 Democratic Presidential field, in support of his prediction that U. S. Senator Barack will run for President in 2008. [Zorn’s column along with multiple links to blogs supporting and attacking his prediction can be found at Eric Zorn’s blog entry dated January 20, 2005 at 8:10 pm and titled “Why Predict,” and “Zorn blows it.” [See www.chicagotribune.com/notebook for a veritable feast of Obamamania and blogmania or simply, obamablogmania.
********************************
Under Zorn’s theory, Senator Obama would apparently start to campaign for President after only two years in the Senate, eclipsing John Edwards’ recent bold entry into the Presidential primary after serving only three years in the U. S. Senate. Would such an entry by Senator Obama into the 2008 Presidential mix be welcomed by the pundits as appropriate confidence or inappropriate arrogance? JFK was four years younger, at 43, when he was elected President in 1960 than a President Obama would be in 2008, but President Kennedy did have seven years as a [somewhat lackluster] U. S. Senator from Massachusetts and six years [as a lackluster U. S. Representative] under his belt when he started running for President in late 1959 [The Presidential primary campaigns were not nearly as long in the olden days- and the country was better off as a result].

Of course, unlike Edwards and somewhat similar to JFK, Senator Obama’s supporters may argue he brought eight years of elective office, albeit as a state senator—with no foreign policy responsibilities, to his U. S. Senate seat. This whole argument should remind us a bit of what Senator Obama’s old state senate foe, State Senator Ricky Hendon [D- Chicago], argued to me during Obama’s run in the Democratic U. S. Senate Primary—“the problem with Barack is that he’s always running for something.” Not quite true, but as is often the case with Senator Hendon, a catchy phrase. Of course, at the end of the day, the charge did not quite stick.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Updated January 18, 2005 at 5:45 pm
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you think somebody will step up to challenge [Congressman] Dan Lipinski [D- 3rd Cong. Dist]? In the Democratic Primary?

Forrest Claypool: I have no idea, but I think people oughta be guaranteed an election every two years, not just an appointment.
*******************************************
Berkowitz: But, you might get Commissioner Joan Murphy? You might win this [opposition to a tax increase] by more than one vote.

Claypool: It is quite possible. It is possible.

Berkowitz: So, why does Stroger [keep doing this]. He can count noses. Why does he keep doing this?

Claypool: I don’t understand. I mean, you would think he would count noses.
***************************************
Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool [D- Ravenswood] is featured on “Public Affairs,” in the suburbs tonight and this week [Comcast Cable, Week of Jan. 17]. A partial transcript of the show with County Commissioner Claypool is included, below. See the conclusion of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule [including a special airing on Jan. 18 in the suburbs]. The show also airs throughout the City of Chicago this coming Monday night [Jan. 24 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21].
***************************************
Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool [D- Ravenswood] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz school vouchers and tax credits, Cook County Board budget, spending and tax issues, including proposed increases in taxes by President Stroger, Cook County structural deficits, step wage increases for county employees, Cook County collective bargaining, across the board spending cuts, hotel and restaurant taxes, possible candidates for President of the Cook County Board and Cong. Dan Lipinski’s replacement on the ballot of Cong. Bill Lipinski.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz:… You want to give them [parents] a $10,000 tax credit [for attending private schools]? Is that what you want to do?

Forrest Claypool: I would make the tax credit so that if you are a poor child in the inner city in a failing school system, the tuition tax credit, by being refundable would give that parent an option to look around and see if there is a better private school for their kid, and would have the means to do it by virtue of that credit, but the difference [from the school choice/school voucher backpack program you propose] is that the money would come from the state. We would not be cannibalizing local resources from the local school through a voucher—we would be getting the money from the state, through a refundable tuition tax credit, just like an earned income tax credit.

Berkowitz: Does it take an increase in taxes then [under your school choice refundable tax credit program], because if you are not going to cut it, if you are going to allow kids to stay there [in public schools] with the complete portion from the local level, the kids who stay will have more to spend on [their education] than the kids who leave [to go to a private school] unless you raise taxes. Do you want to do that? You want to raise taxes?

Claypool: Of course not.

Berkowitz: Of course not. In fact, that is a good segue to what you are doing now. So, the proposal now from President John Stroger to the Cook County Board is to raise county taxes, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: What are the taxes he wants to raise?

Claypool: He wants to raise taxes on food, including fast food. He wants to add a tax on amusements. And, also raise property taxes for the forest preserves- by 13.5 %.

Berkowitz: And, what is the percentage increase on the restaurant tax?

Claypool: 2% on top of the existing 15.5%

Berkowitz: On the hotels?

Claypool: On the hotels.

Berkowitz: So, that raises it [tax on hotel customers] to 17.5%. That would be the highest in the country, right?

Claypool: Right. Exactly.

Berkowitz: And on restaurants, he is going to raise it 2% to 10%, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: Also, pretty high. You oppose it, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: And, you have some support. [Commissioner] Mike Quigley, is opposed to it right. [Commissioner] Larry Suffredin, right? Two other Democrats. Tony Peraica, a Republican, opposes the tax increases, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: You can probably expect [Republican Commissioners] Liz Gorman, Greg Goslin, Pete Silvestri and Carl Hansen [to join you]. Five Republicans on the Board [will likely oppose the tax increase]; Three Democrats we just mentioned [will likely oppose the tax increase] and last time [all of] you opposed Stroger on a tax increase and you beat him back. He didn’t get his tax increase. He wanted an increase in the sales tax; he wanted an increase in the lease tax.

Claypool: By one vote [we won].

Berkowitz: By one vote, you got Commissioner Earlean Collins to join you, right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: This time, already, you expect Commissioner Maldonado [to join you]. Commissioner Maldonado says that he opposes this [tax increase], right?

Claypool: Correct.

Berkowitz: Okay, so you have that vote.

Claypool: He has indicated that he may be open to some other approach. I think his objection was to the fast food portion of the tax. We will wait and see.

Berkowitz: But, you might get Commissioner Joan Murphy? You might win this by more than one vote.

Claypool: It is quite possible. It is possible.

Berkowitz: So, why does [President] Stroger [keep doing this]. He can count noses. Why does he keep doing this?

Claypool: I don’t understand. I mean, you would think he would count noses.

Berkowitz: He basically says there is a structural deficit here. He says they need the revenue; the people want the services. And, there is no place to cut-- he says, “we have cut as much as we can.”

Claypool: Well, there is a structural deficit only because he is not willing to make the hard choices necessary to streamline the government.

Berkowitz: Hard choices? One would be a 2 % across the board cut in each department, right?

Claypool: That is what we proposed last year.

Berkowitz: State’s Attorney office, the County Treasurer’s office, the County Assessor’s office, the whole thing, right? Is that what you mean?

Claypool: That is what we proposed last year.

Berkowitz: How much would you save if you did that this time?

Claypool: More than the tax increase. But, this is not--

Berkowitz: The tax increase is-- would generate 73 million dollars?

Claypool: This year and 140 [million dollars] next year.
*********************************************
Claypool: The bottom line is that President Stroger is simply not willing to reduce expenditures by removing a bloated payroll and also by removing these huge…step increases or pay raises on top of cost of living increases [for Cook County employees]. You and I might get a cost of living increase but these employees will get not only a cost of living increase, but another 5, 6, 7, or 8 % increase on top of that.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: What about the 3rd Cong. District? You know there were some shenanigans that went on there. Would you agree with that?

Forrest Claypool: What shenanigans?

Berkowitz: Well, [22 year] Cong. Bill Lipinski ran in the primary- his name got on the [general election] ballot and [Cong. Bill] said he was going to run and sometime after, he decided he wouldn’t. He met with the Committeemen in that District: Speaker Mike Madigan [13th Ward], John Daley [11th Ward]- you know John Daley, [Tom] Hynes [19th Ward] and they chose [Cong.] Bill Lipinski’s [23rd Ward] son- Dan Lipinski [to replace Bill Lipinski on the general election ballot]. Does that sound like the way in which you want to do things?

Claypool: No. I think there oughta be a law that there is always an election, regardless. There oughta be an election, period. There shouldn’t be an appointment after the fact.

Berkowitz: So, you think somebody will step up to challenge Dan Lipinski? In the Democratic Primary.

Claypool: I have no idea, but I think people oughta be guaranteed an election every two years, not just an appointment.
***************************************
Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool (D- Chicago, 12th Dist.), interviewed on “Public Affairs,” recorded on January 9, 2005 and as will be cablecast in the suburbs during the week of January 17 and in the City of Chicago on January 24, 2004.
***********************************

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 show also airs in a special suburban airing in 10 suburbs tonight [Jan. 18, 2004] at 7:30 pm on Ch. 19 on Comcast Cable. The lucky suburbanites are those residing, or perhaps visiting their favorite bars, lounges or fitness clubs with Comcast Cable access in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka. For example, I hear the Bannockburn Fitness Club regularly tunes to “Public Affairs.” If you are in such a facility, please just let them know we have a special airing tonight at 7:30 pm on Ch. 19 and we think they will tune us in for you.
********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Updated January 17 at 5:20 pm;
***********************************
State Senator and likely Republican Primary gubernatorial candidate Steve Rauschenberger [R- Elgin] on TV tonight, 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21, throughout the City of Chicago.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: He’s come to Springfield. He doesn’t live in the mansion, but he’s come to Springfield.

State Senator Steve Rauschenberger: I have been to Springfield, too. There have been tourists who have been to Springfield more than Rod Blagojevich has. And, I think people are a little frustrated with that.
***********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: What about the Total Budget [for the State of Illinois]. The total budget went up about 12 to 14 billion dollars [during the George Ryan years], didn’t it?

State Senator Steve Rauschenberger: But, that’s re-appropriations. It doesn’t matter. It’s not part of the—

Berkowitz: It doesn’t matter?

Rauschenberger: No, [it] doesn’t matter.
************************************
State Senator Steve Rauschenberger is featured on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Jan. 17 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21]. A partial transcript of the show with Senator Rauschenberger is included directly below.
**********************************************
An additional partial transcript and more information about tonight’s “Public Affairs,” TV show in the City is included in the blog entry dated Jan. 17 at 1:40 pm and located immediately below this blog entry.
********************************************
Next Monday night’s “Public Affairs,” show in the City of Chicago features Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool (D- Chicago), aka one of the four horsemen in President Stroger’s Apocalypse Now. The other three horsemen, of course, are Commissioners Quigley (D-Chicago), Suffredin (D- Evanston) and last, but certainly not least, Peraica (R- Riverside).
*******************************************
State Senator Steve Rauschenberger: …My point is that the Republican Party is ready for change. I mean I think we are sick and tired of a Mayor’s administration in Chicago whose answer to every problem is to raise taxes.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, one thing you said that we can’t let go [unchallenged] is—you said that the Governor of the State of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, doesn’t care- what did you say? He doesn’t care about the people? He doesn’t care about the state?

Rauschenberger: He doesn’t care about his job. He doesn’t come to Springfield. He doesn’t occupy the mansion.

Berkowitz: He’s come to Springfield. He doesn’t live in the mansion, but he’s come to Springfield.

Rauschenberger: I have been to Springfield, too. There have been tourists who have been to Springfield more than Rod Blagojevich has. And, I think people are a little frustrated with that.

Berkowitz: Has spending gone up dramatically in the two years that he has been Governor?

Rauschenberger: Yes.

Berkowitz: How much has it gone up?

Rauschenberger: A 1. 7 Billion dollar increase in spending in the most difficult financial period that the state has had—

Berkowitz: And how much did it go up in the preceding four year period from 1998 to 2002 when a Republican Governor, George Ryan, occupied the Mansion?

Rauschenberger: in the entire four years of the George Ryan administration, it rose a little bit less than it has risen in the first two years of Rod Blagojevich’s administration.

Berkowitz: The budget did?

Rauschenberger: Yes.

Berkowitz: The budget did?

Rauschenberger: Absolutely, sir.

Berkowitz: Wait a second; it went from about 36 billion to 50 billion dollars [under George Ryan].

Rauschenberger: No, General Revenue budget.

Berkowitz: What about the Total Budget. The total budget went up about 12 to 14 billion dollars, didn’t it?

Rauschenberger: But, that’s re-appropriations. It doesn’t matter. It’s not part of the—

Berkowitz: It doesn’t matter?

Rauschenberger: No, [it] doesn’t matter.

Berkowitz: Illinois First itself was, what, 12 billion dollars, wasn’t it?

Rauschenberger: No. It was never gonna be that. They advertised it as 12 billion dollars.

Berkowitz: What was it?

Rauschenberger: Actual spending, it was about 2.6 billion [dollars].

Berkowitz: You mean there is 10 billion dollars yet to be spent, that hasn’t been spent yet under Illinois First?

Rauschenberger: No, it was never authorized. It was never real.

Berkowitz: Is that right?

Rauschenberger: Yes.

Berkowitz: So, Illinois First was a two and a half billion dollar program, that is what you are telling me?

Rauschenberger: Two and a half billion dollars of state money.

Berkowitz: And, how much of other money? Federal money?

Rauschenberger: It depends on what you count.

Berkowitz: Well, this is news. You are making news tonight because most people I know think of Illinois First as a twelve billion dollar program.

Rauschenberger: It never was. For example—

Berkowitz: That’s news. Don’t be modest.

Rauschenberger: I am excited—

Berkowitz: But you better be right about it because, you know, there are a lot of people out there taking a look at this. It’s not just you and me, Steve.

Rauschenberger: I am excited—

Berkowitz: There are one and one-half to two million people out there in the City of Chicago [and the North, West and Northwest suburbs who could be watching this].

Rauschenberger: Let me tell you how they get to 12 [billion dollars]. What they do is they say, “Oh, we are going to put 2 billion dollars into the state supported program to help local school districts build schools.” But that program requires that the local government, the local school district, match—so that when they went with their $12 billion, they called the two billion-- four billion because they counted the local match. When they did their highway money, they counted all of the federal appropriations for the next five years as if it had to do with Illinois First. That federal money was coming [to Illinois] no matter what we did. I mean, so it just depends on—you can call anything any number you want, if you are willing to—

Berkowitz: What is the total budget of the amount of money [to be] spent by the State of Illinois in 2005? Is that a tough question to answer?

Rauschenberger: Yes, Yes. Because there are two places where spending comes from. One is the general revenue fund. That’s the actual tax collection and the annual expenditure. The other side of the equation is the construction and capital expenditure. If you are going to build a new medical school at the University of Illinois, in the first year, before you even plan it or draw it, you authorize 100 million dollars of expenditure. Okay? Because that is what the total project is going to cost. The next year you appropriate it again. It is called a re-appropriation. So, any time you are increasing the amount that you are spending on the infrastructure of the state, your budget rises dramatically because you re-appropriate the same funds that you [previously] authorized.
**************************************
State Senator Rauschenberger interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Jan. 17 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. This show was recorded on January 4, 2005.
*******************************************
State Senator Rauschenberger debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the “Illinois First,” spending program, spending and taxes in Illinois in recent and current years and under former Governor George Ryan, capital projects, school vouchers/school choice, Governor Blagojevich’s performance, Gun Control, the Assault Weapon Ban, state subsidies to the CTA and publicly financed embryonic stem cell research.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Updated January 17, 2005 at 1:40 pm
***************************************
State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger [R- Elgin]: I think a lot of legislators, including myself, would support a casino complex in Chicago under the right set of conditions and understanding how the resources were going to be used.
*****************************************
State Senator Steve Rauschenberger is featured on “Public Affairs,” throughout the City of Chicago tonight [Jan. 17 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21]. A partial transcript of the show with Senator Rauschenberger is included, below.
********************************************
Next Monday night’s “Public Affairs,” show in the City of Chicago features Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool (D- Chicago), aka one of the four horsemen in President Stroger’s Apocalypse Now. The other three horsemen, of course, are Commissioners Quigley (D-Chicago), Suffredin (D- Evanston) and last, but certainly not least, Peraica (R- Riverside).
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Sounds like you are going to be a candidate for Governor—

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: I am very excited and I am very excited for the State of Illinois.

Berkowitz: Sounds like you are going to try to be the Republican candidate for Governor to oppose Governor Rod Blagojevich, assuming he does not face a primary challenge or assuming he survives it if there is…. Let us know in June if you have decided to run, is that the decision date?

Rauschenberger: … it will probably be in the summer.

Berkowitz: Casinos. Should Mayor Daley be given a casino that he owns, that he controls?

Rauschenberger: No. No. I don’t think--

Berkowitz: Should there be a casino in Chicago, at all.

Rauschenberger: I think a lot of legislators, including myself, would support a casino complex in Chicago under the right set of conditions and understanding how the resources were going to be used.
*****************************************************
Berkowitz: You’re OK with more casinos.

Rauschenberger: It’s not my first choice, but if people are asking me if I could support them under the appropriate—

Berkowitz: You don’t want them to be owned by the mayor-- of the City of Chicago?

Rauschenberger: I don’t think the mayor of Chicago—

Berkowitz: He should not be controlling.

Rauschenberger: Right, exactly. Now, it is one thing for the people of the City of Chicago to own it. I don’t have as much of a problem with that—

Berkowitz: CTA Funding. Should the State jump in and bail out the CTA?

Rauschenberger: I think we need to take an honest look at the CTA’s structural problems. Their Dial a Ride—their responsibilities to disabled customers are a major problem. They may need some fare box recovery. I think we ought to talk to the CTA…but some of us are a little tired with the City’s kind of full court press.

Berkowitz: Guns, Guns. Would you like to see a ban on assault weapons? There was one [such ban] on the federal [level for 10 years], it wasn’t renewed. Would you like the state [of Illinois] to step in and provide a ban on assault weapons?

Rauschenberger: I am very comfortable with the current state of gun laws. I think what we need to do is enforce the ones we have.

Berkowitz: Did you support the override of the Wilmette gun control ordinance [that provides for prosecution of residents who possess guns- even when they are used against home invaders.]

Rauschenberger, Yes, I did.

Berkowitz: Gun owners should be allowed to defend themselves [against home invaders] without being prosecuted for illegal possession of guns?

Rauschenberger: Absolutely.
********************************************************
State Senator Rauschenberger interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Jan. 17 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. This show was recorded on January 4, 2005.
*******************************************
State Senator Rauschenberger debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz Illinois First, spending and taxes in Illinois in recent and current years and under former Governor George Ryan, capital projects, school vouchers/school choice, Gun Control, the Assault Weapon Ban, state subsidies to the CTA and embryonic stem cell research.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Updated January 15, 2005 at 8:00 pm, revised on January 16 at 11:15 pm.
*********************************************
Andy McKenna, Jr. was elected this afternoon in Springfield, IL, with eighty-six percent of the weighted State Central Committee vote to be the new State GOP chairman, effective February 1, 2005. Jim Nalepa, who won the hearts and minds of many in the audience during the one hour or so public portion of the Republican State Central Committee meeting, came in second with fourteen percent of the Committee’s weighted vote.
*******************************************
Amid allegations of a backroom deal involving Andy McKenna and the Illinois Republican Party Finance Committee, some of which were the subject of questioning by State Central Committee (“SCC”) members of Andy in the course of their two hour executive session meeting prior to their vote, Andy McKenna received eighty six percent of the SCC’s weighted vote on the first ballot to become the State GOP chairman-elect.

In a surprise move, Steve McGlynn, withdrew during the executive session as a candidate, leaving only Andy McKenna, Jim Nalepa, John Cox and Jim Oberweis in the race for State GOP chairman. McGlynn withdrew because, although he was confident of significant support on the SCC, it was insufficient to win and it might have involved putting his supporters through some difficult political issues. Saying he did not want to put his supporters in those situations if he could not win, he withdrew, in what some of his colleagues described as a “class act.”

Nalepa’s fourteen percent of the SCC vote reflected the support of SCC members Maureen Murphy ((1st CD), Steve Meyer (7th CD), Steve McGlynn (12th CD) and Ron Smith (Hyde, 6th CD). Even if Bob Winchester (Shimkus, 19th CD) and Regan Ramsey (17th CD), who were thought to be in McGlynn’s camp prior to his withdrawal, had given their support to Nalepa, instead of Mckenna, Nalepa would have been way short of winning, achieving a total of about 25%. It was said that Dennis Wiggins (Hastert, 14th CD) would have supported McGlynn with his 8% [and perhaps Nalepa after McGlynn withdrew], but neither he nor his deputy could attend the SCC meeting and it is unclear whether he was able to vote by phone. Nevertheless, Nalepa, even assuming all of the above breaks could somehow go his way, needed two more big hitters to step up to make this race competitive and that never happened.

There was a second “feel good,” ballot to make it unanimous and Andy got the support of the entire SCC on that one. The party activists who showed up with dreams of Jim Nalepa, Steve McGlynn, Jim Oberweis or John Cox somehow upsetting McKenna [viewed by many as the non-reformer in the crowd] were disappointed with the outcome, although many did not know the numerical vote totals on the first ballot, as they were not disclosed by the SCC.

However, the Republican Party activists present were stirred by what was described as an extremely exciting speech by Jim Nalepa, who started by reminding the leadership that “this is a Republican meeting and it should start with the Pledge of Allegiance,” which he proceeded to lead the crowd to state.

Nalepa, it might be recalled, lost in a close race to former Congressman Bill Lipinski in the 3rd Cong. Dist. in ’94, when Riverside Township Committeeman and current State GOP Chair and State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka is said to have dual endorsed Republican Nalepa and his Democratic opponent, Bill Lipinski, apparently displaying what many describe as Topinka’s unique, agile deal making ability.

Andy’s speech to the SCC and the 500 or so party faithful in attendance was described as bland and made use of only three, or so, of his allotted five minutes. This was in contrast to Jim Nalepa, who apparently used every minute available to excite the crowd and connect with the SCC—so much so that many thought the speech alone might win it for Nalepa.

On the other hand, McGlynn, who [along with withdrawn state GOP Chairman candidate Gary Skoien] had been quite critical of Andy’s ability to speak on behalf of the Party to the press and his lack of political experience, before Andy was elected Chairman, said he saw Andy’s post election press conference and thought he handled it quite well.

When State GOP Chairman-Elect McKenna was asked at the press conference about how the Republican Party would be able to withstand the negative publicity from former Republican Governor George Ryan’s upcoming federal racketeering trial in March, Andy responded, “The people in the Ryan trial are not part of this party and we- this is a new way, a new day- a new day for us to move forward and we’re clear about what our priorities are and that’s what we are going to work on.” The activists in attendance found McKenna’s syntax and inspiration lacking but they were relieved to hear that Andy no longer considers George Ryan a member of the Republican Party.

Mr. McKenna has not returned our phone calls in the last month, so we are unable to say much about his plans as State GOP Chairman. However, John Dempsey of Fox News Chicago reported today that McKenna said his top priorities are fundraising, rebuilding the Illinois Republican Party at the grassroots level and, of course, trying to oust Governor Rod Blagojevich next year. Critics of Chairman-Elect Andy McKenna, Jr. were quick to note that Andy omitted any mention of using press conferences to highlight the corruption that is swirling around City of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, thought by many to be a, if not the, major leader of the Democratic Party in Illinois.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*****************************************