Ron Magers fumbles and Mike Flannery picks up the ball and scores.

Yet another application of manager Casey Stengel’s comment made in frustration about his hapless 1962 Mets, “Can’t anybody here play this game.” Well, what do you know, Casey found somebody who can play this game-- the political analysis game, that is--- very, very, very well, CBS-2 News' Political Editor Mike Flannery.

However, this Cook County Board thing must be really tough on anchors [Antonio Mora, CBS-2 News anchor], co-anchors [Ron Magers, ABC-7 News co-anchor] and up and coming reporters who get to report from the news room, at least some of the time [CBS-2 News’ Dana Kozlov]. See, below and blog entry immediately below this one-- on Mora/Kozlov [CBS-2 News screws up].

So, we to turn to Professor Flannery to teach a little Cook County Politics 101. All right, students, settle down and take your seats. Mike, please tell like it is.
********************************
Mike Flannery: John Stroger [President of the Cook County Board for the last decade], he is 75 years old…he says he is not going anywhere but he certainly has, now two years in a row, suffered major embarrassments, major defeats. He has lost control of the County Board, there is a solid majority now of nine who consistently vote against—

Joel Weisman [WTTW’s Chicago Week in Review host]: Where does John Daley fall in this, the Mayor’s brother, who is the head of the Finance Committee.

Flannery: He is the [Chairman of the] Finance Committee. He has been Stroger’s ally. But, he has not been outspoken. He did not push—he did not speak out against the majority on the Board. He did speak out very strongly in favor of the tax increases on hotels, motels and restaurants that Stroger had been seeking.

Weisman: And those went down to defeat?

Flannery: They never even were called for a vote.

Weisman: And so—

Ron Magers: That’s the important thing, I think. While John Daley didn’t speak out, he had the ability to call Mr. Stroger’s package to the floor and he did not do it. That’s a pretty clear message.

Flannery: Well, because Stroger agreed with that. Stroger knew he didn’t have the votes. Stroger has not been the 8th Ward Committeeman [for nothing], you know, look, John- a lot of people underestimate John Stroger. He’s, you know, he had that country cornpone appearance from Arkansas. He is a very sophisticated, very smart Chicago politician. He’s been doing it for half a century.

Weisman: Obviously, this week he could count the votes.

Flannery: He could count the votes--
**********************************
WTTW's [Ch. 11] Chicago Week in Review, February 25, 2005, airing every Friday night at 7:00 pm.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

CBS-2 News Chicago Screws Up

Can’t anybody here play this game? [Casey Stengel, commenting in frustration, about his 1962 New York Mets and a good line perhaps for the CBS-2 News Director]
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you think you can live with all of those cuts [in spending].

Cook County Board President Stroger: I am certain I can. You have to. I want this government to run smoothly, okay.
*****************************************
Cook County Board President Stroger, Thursday evening press conference following the County Board meeting and vote on the Cook County 2004-2005 Budget.
****************************************
If you watched CBS-2’s 10:00 pm news last night [Thursday], the transcribed clips, below, from anchor Antonio Mora and Dana Kozlov make up the gist of what you heard regarding the Cook County Board Budget meeting and votes on Thursday, and, boy, did they get it wrong:

Antonio Mora: …[Cook County] Commissioners managed to balance the budget without adding or raising taxes. But, as CBS-2’s Dana Kozlov tells us, they did it by making cuts and that could impact jobs and services.

Dana Kozlov: ...After two days of often heated debate and personal jabs, [Cook County] Board members finally reached a budget deal before the February 28th deadline…Their solution: spending cuts instead of a President [Stroger] proposed restaurant and hotel tax hike to fill a 73 million dollar budget hole. But no new taxes mean cuts across the board [cuts across the Board? Certainly there were not cuts across the entire Cook County government structure] and that includes cuts in County Hospital. Right now, that could mean limiting care to Cook County residents, eliminating five operating rooms at Stroger [Cook County] Hospital and downscaling programs, including subsidized health services. President Stroger personally opposed any health related cuts and threatened to veto that portion of the deal. It’s a threat still dangling by a thread…
*****************************************
Gentleladies and Gentlemen, we are talking about a 3 billion dollar plus budget with 26,000 plus employees and about a 2% total cut in spending in that budget. Would you, if you were the County Board President, carry out that board mandated cut by cutting out operating rooms in a hospital? Apparently, that seemed reasonable to CBS-2 News anchor Antonio Mora and CBS-2 News reporter Dana Kozlov.

But, if CBS- 2 News Anchor Mora and 2- News reporter Kozlov had talked with the majority of the Cook County Board members, including Democrats Claypool, Quigley and Suffredin and Republican Peraica [the Gang of 4]; and Republicans Hansen, Silvestri, Goslin and Gorman, who with the Gang of 4 make up the Gang of 8; and a ninth Cook County Board Member- Democrat Collins- whose vote for the budget cuts resulted in a majority Gang of 9, Mora and Kozlov would have learned that a clear County Board majority supported the cuts and they don’t think any of the dire consequences, threatened by President Stroger and his staff, of limiting care to Cook County residents, eliminating operating rooms, etc. will happen as a result of the budget cuts.

For example, Commissioner Claypool would have told Mora and Kozlov that Cook County would cut out such services as operating rooms, etc., only if the President preferred maintaining patronage jobs to serving the needs of poor people. Shouldn’t the majority of County Board members count for something when CBS-2 News reports the news? Where were the thoughts of Commissioners Claypool, Quigley, Peraica, Suffredin, et al in Dana Kozlov's report? Not included, folks-- nada, zip, zero-- no weight whatsover. Fair and balanced reporting? I don't think so.

There are surely some, if not all, among the now minority [in number, not race] eight County Board members on the spending cut issue who would also concede that warnings of service cuts were simply scare tactics employed by President Stroger in an attempt to get his hotel, motel and restaurant tax increases passed by the County Board. Especially, if you made use of some truth serum. Indeed, as you can see below, by last night, even President Stroger was running from the dire consequences predicted by his appointee of last year, Cook County Health Director Dr. Daniel Winship.

Also, the jobs lost by the Stroger tax increase driving away convention, hotel and restaurant business would swamp any loss of Cook County government jobs. I would imagine CBS-2 News anchor Antonio Mora would know this, wouldn’t you? Moreover, the purpose of Cook County Government should not be to provide jobs, patronage or otherwise. It should be to provide needed services to the citizens of Cook County as efficiently as possible. So, why is Antonio lamenting the loss of jobs in Cook County government? A loss that probably won’t even occur.

How did CBS-2 News screw this report up so badly? Why did it ignore the clear majority view on the County Board and report the minority view almost as if it were fact? These are good questions, don’t you think? Do you think anyone in the Chicago mainstream media might ask someone high up at CBS-2 News those questions? I think someone ought to, don’t you?

Moreover, somebody high up in the CBS-2 News ought to be asking these questions of the people responsible for last night's report. Don't they care about ratings? If this is what CBS-2 News stands for, would you expect anyone to watch it if they were interested in an accurate report about public policy and politics?

Sure, Kozlov did not say what the cuts "would" mean. She said that the cuts “could” mean limiting care and eliminating operating rooms. And, that “could” be. In the same sense that I “could” be President of the United states in 2008. Or, I could be batting clean-up in April for the Chicago Cubs. Although any of the events "could" happen, I think we can say with virtual certainty that they won’t. And, at a minimum, more Cook County Commissioners would have told Kozlov that the operating rooms would not be eliminated than would have told her that they would be, if she had asked. So, why was Kozlov reporting the latter and not the former? Why, indeed?

I think Kozlov and Mora strike me as hard working and competent news people, so how could this happen? My guess is that both read copy written by somebody less knowledgeable than they are—or maybe the copy was taken from press releases from President Stroger. I don’t know why this happened. I surely don’t have the facts on that, yet. But, we could speculate that Mora and Kozlov didn’t write what they said. My gosh, saying it “on air,” was bad enough. That is one reason why I would never read anyone else’s copy. If I can’t write it or think it, I won’t say it. Words to live by.
**********************************************
Indeed, I think you get an even better sense of what is going on with the Cook County Board by listening to President Stroger in his own words, below. President Stroger answered questions from the media after the Board passed its budget and adjourned around 7:00 pm on Thursday evening [Feb. 24]. Perhaps Dana and Antonio were at the press conference- but I didn’t see them. However, CBS was represented at the Press Conference.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Since you didn’t get your tax increase, would you say this is a defeat for you.

Cook County Board President John Stroger: No, this was a victory for the County Board Commissioners, it was a victory for the people of Cook County—the fact that we got a budget-- we are able to carry forth our business. No, I don’t take that personally. I may argue sometimes in a personal way but I don’t take that personally.

Berkowitz: Do you think this affects whether you are going to run for County Board President-- for re-election?

Stroger: No, only Mrs. Stroger and God can make that determination.

Another reporter, No. 1: Are you really going to close those clinics or is that just something that was put forward as persuasion to try to change the vote?

Stroger: Oh, no, no, no. First place, I didn’t make the suggestion of the impact on the budget, that was left for Dr. Winship and his staff to make recommendations, I would never go out single-handedly and say that we are going to close up any clinics.

Another reporter, No. 1: Will they close, or—

Stroger: I told you I have to talk with Dr. Winship. But, above all, the State’s Attorney came to me before we left and asked me not to make any moves until after he had reviewed the transcript and I plan to follow his recommendation.

Another reporter No. 1: If you do veto, will you keep it revenue neutral, same amount? That way, it [the budget] will still remain in balance.

Stroger: I will talk with the finance people. But, if we go forward with the veto, which I hope we don’t have to do, we would definitely want to have a balanced type budget. And, if we don’t have a balanced budget, we are going to have to make a lot of adjustments. Not me personally, but the people in the Finance Department.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think it is [now] more likely that you may face a challenge in the primary?

President John Stroger: It’s the possibility but this is the political game. You run for an office, you have a right to have a challenger.

Berkowitz: Do you think [Clerk of the Cook County Court] Dorothy Brown is likely to challenge you?

Stroger: She’d be a great challenger. She is a very nice person.
***********************************
Berkowitz: Just one [more] thing. In light of what happened, do you think you should have negotiated those cuts in spending, rather than have them fought out on the floor, here, today?

Stroger: No, I think we used the right strategy. It worked, didn’t it?

Berkowitz: Did it? You are happy with those cuts?

Stroger: I am happy with everything that went down. All of the commissioners felt like they had a part in this process and that’s very important.

Berkowitz: So, you think you can live with all of those cuts [in spending].

Stroger: I am certain I can. You have to. I want this government to run smoothly, okay.

Berkowitz: Why did the people [Cook County Staff] talk about closing down the clinics if it is not really going to be necessary?

Stroger: No, because when they put through the Hansen bill—amendment, we wanted to know what the impact was because we wasn’t certain what we were going to do to balance the budget. We came to the conclusion after the balancing of the budget and the State’s Attorney walked up to me and said, I would like for you to reconsider that-- and I said I promised the people that if we didn’t get everything I’d, uh, veto it and they said, from a legal viewpoint we are studying this and we’d like for you to wait.

Another reporter, No. 2: I have just one question. If you don’t end up vetoing it, does that sort of prove your opponents’ point that there were cuts that could be afforded.

Stroger: Now, what are you talking about—at this point?

Another reporter, No. 2: Well—

Stroger: Obviously, there’s always some cuts that can be made in any budget and one of that size. But, the question becomes, what kind of impact will these cuts have? Dr. Winship told us, and you heard him—what he said, based on his experience as a former dean of a medical school—two medical schools; secretary of the Veterans’ Hospitals that he thought we would have an adverse impact in the manner in which he explained.

Another reporter, No. 2: But now you are saying you can live with the cuts.

County Board President John Stroger: The lawyers asked me to let them review the material and talk with them tomorrow. But, I will also ask Dr. Winship to have his staff look at everything and also let us know what they can do. But, we don’t want to keep a fight going on for no reason, whatsoever. If I find out that this thing can work successfully, I don’t need to veto it.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Dumbest Quote of the Week and McKenna Watch, Day 23

Columnist Cindy Richards in today’s Chicago Sun-Times [www.suntimes.com/output/richards/cst-edt-cindy23.html] tells us that “…he [Gov. Rod Blagojevich] also promised to oppose a plan that would shift some of the burden for education funding from local property taxes to a higher statewide income tax. The tax swap would benefit everyone -- not just homeowners in heavily taxed suburbs -- because renters pay more, too, when property tax increases are passed along in the form of higher rents.”

The statement that “The tax swap would benefit everyone,” is just patently false. It is one of those statements that one would hope, if a journalist wrote it, he or she would immediately recognize it as dumb and hit the delete key. Unfortunately for Richards, she apparently resisted that instinct, or worse, didn’t have it. Further, Richards apparently never heard of TANSTAAFL, that is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Yes, Richards is correct that most homeowners [and renters], at least initially, would benefit from lower real estate taxes [and lower rents]. However, most proposals for tax swaps in Illinois, including HB750, which the Governor said he opposes, are not tax revenue neutral. That is, state income taxes would increase by more than real estate taxes decrease. So, the average taxpayer would have his total tax bill increase. Everybody better off? I don’t think so.

Also, some people may currently have very little of their wealth in land and a lot in current or future earnings. Certainly these folks don’t reap a net benefit from a tax swap. Everybody better off? I don’t think so.

Although some would argue that residents of Illinois would receive more or higher quality total educational services as a result of the net increase in education spending, others would disagree and assert that higher costs do not necessarily equate to better quality or more educational services. Moreover, the distribution of such services would not benefit everyone equally. For example, people who pay higher taxes, but who have no kids in the public schools may not put much value on the higher expenditures for their neighbors’ kids. Also, any good economist would tell you that you can’t make total consumer welfare decisions by trying to aggregate individual winners and losers to see if there is a net societal gain. Everybody better off? I don’t think so.

Also, there is a significant body of economic literature that argues and finds empirical support for the proposition that the greater the share of the educational dollar that comes from a local source, such as the property tax, the higher the over-all quality of education in the state. The theory for this proposition is that local sources of financing result in greater accountability than say, federal sources. In short, a suburb or city will do a better job of education oversight than Springfield and Springfield will do a better job than the Feds. Everybody better off with a tax swap? I don’t think so.

Of course, none of this is to say that one couldn’t intelligently argue for tax swaps, even if it might be something that I would disagree with. For instance, one might argue that although there will be losers, as there obviously will be under a tax swap, she still favors it. This would be because she thinks that the tax swap would narrow the geographic disparity in per pupil education spending and that she favors that because she values helping the winners under the proposal more than she cares about the losers under the proposal. She might also argue that, in her view, the distributional or equity gains offset the efficiency losses.

If Richards made such arguments of equity or personal preference without arguing “everyone benefits,” I might still say that I disagree with the advisability of a tax swap. That is, I might argue that there are better ways to narrow the educational disparities than with tax caps. For example, I might suggest, as Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman did a while ago, school vouchers that are inversely correlated with parental wealth. Under such a program, we would give all kids school vouchers to spend at the school of their parents' choice, but we would make the amount of the voucher more for low income parents than high income. After all, as Richards argues elsewhere in her column, those are the kids who need the most assistance from the State. And, even though I would be saying we differ, I at least couldn’t say that Richards’ statement is patently false.

Oh yes, the Illinois State GOP, under new Chairman Andy McKenna, Jr., included Richards’ column in its daily “Illinois GOP news round-up,” using the Richards’ title, “Gov’s math off on school funding.” I would suggest that the State GOP try to include items in its round-up that constitute intelligent, not mindless, criticism of the Governor. Otherwise, people might start to think that the State GOP,under new Chairman McKenna, approves of or engages in mindless criticism of the Governor and I am sure that could not be the case.
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Cong. Schakowsky “Cut and Run,” “Orderly Withdrawal,” or "Keeping Commitments."

Cong. Jan Schakowsky:...I think it is time to begin a quick and orderly withdrawal of our troops—

Jeff Berkowitz: What does that mean? When should the troops be out of Iraq?

Schakowsky: Soon, in a few months.

Berkowitz: They should all be out within a few months?

Schakowsky: Well, yes, I think that—

Berkowitz: How is that not “Cut and Run” ? I mean aren’t you
cutting and running because...
*********************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Cong. Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist.]. See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule and for more about the show with Cong. Schakowsky. The show with Congresswoman Schakowsky will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on this coming Monday night, February 28 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
Cong. Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist.] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the War, the meaning and application of the term, “Cut and Run,” the elections in Iraq, and Iraqi nationalism; Social Security reform, including “personal accounts,” rates of return and social security taxes; prescription drug benefits provided by the government, including issues related to government negotiation, price controls and drug innovation; the faces and voices of the Democratic and Republican Parties; Cong. Porter, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Obama, Senator Kennedy, Senate Majority Leader Frist, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Hastert and much, much more.
****************************
A partial transcript of the show with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky show is included, below.
****************************
Jeff Berkowitz: On January 25th [2005], you held a press conference, that was about a week before the election in Iraq…and, basically, some would say, the gist of that press conference is you were telling the United States Government to “Cut and Run,” [in Iraq]. Would that be fair?

Cong. Jan Schakowsky: Well, of course it is not fair because “Cut and Run,” is a really pejorative sort of thing that implies that cutting and running means that we are reneging on our responsibilities and it has a very dark view of what I mean when I say bring home the troops. I was opposed to the War of course from the beginning but my feeling now is that the President has left us with no good options and that the worst of those options would be to continue to have our troops in the large numbers, 120,000 to 150, 000, facing harms way, who knows how many would be killed—more than over 1400 have been killed, the 1.6 billion dollars a week that we are spending in Iraq, I think it is time to begin a quick and orderly withdrawal of our troops—

Jeff Berkowitz: What does that mean? When should the troops be out of Iraq?

Cong. Schakowsky: Soon, in a few months.

Berkowitz: They should all be out within a few months?

Schakowsky: Well, yes, I think that—

Berkowitz: How is that not “Cut and Run” ? I mean aren’t you
cutting and running because a country—if you commit to stabilize that country, to change the regime, to see that democracy emerge to see security [function in the country]—if you want to see all of those things happen and a year or a year and a half after you sought that, started that effort, you say, “Now we are going to be out of here in two or three months, isn’t that “Cutting and Running”?

Schakowsky: That is only if you assume that our presence in Iraq can achieve the goals that you outline and I think they can’t. I think that the insurgency has been fueled by the presence of U. S. troops. I think it is unlikely—I think Iraqis are pretty smart. I am not going to get in front of a U. S. soldier when bullets are flying, as long as U. S. soldiers are there.

Berkowitz: But [Iraqi combat deaths are approximately equal to U. S. combat deaths, and of course the Iraqi population is less than 10% of that of the U. S.]

Schakowsky: Can I finish?

Berkowitz: Yes, you may.

Schakowsky: I think that there is the beginning now of a political process, fragile though it may be and I think that that process will be diminished rather than enhanced by a major U. S. presence there. Now, will there be anyone there to help with reconstruction, to help with training? Maybe. But, it is not the kind of force that is there right now. And, so I think the United States should not “Cut and Run,” in the sense of divorcing ourselves completely from Iraq. We do have some responsibilities. But, those are now in the line of being able to provide the kind of reconstruction help, enlisting—the French Ambassador said they would be willing to engage in training--they are very good at it--Iraqi troops. That won’t happen while there is the kind of combat—

Berkowitz: Excuse me, but they would be willing? When are the French offering to start their assistance to train the troops?

Schakowsky: They are not willing to get into a ground battle of the sort that is being carried out right now. But I think they are willing—if we were to ask them, if there were to be an exit strategy and believe me, Jeff- though I have called for a rapid withdrawal, the American people are beginning to really get weary of this endless view of what is going on in Iraq and many in the Congress are beginning to get impatient that there is no plan for getting out of there…

Berkowitz: Was there a plan to exit from World War II before we saw the end coming?

Schakowsky: You know this analogy with World War II is just simply false and I am just not even going to get into that conversation.

Berkowitz: For any war. Are wars fought—Do people really start wars and get into them with a plan to exit, to get out?

Schakowsky: You know I am not even going to get into a conversation about World War—

Berkowitz: Not even the general concept of—

Schakowsky: No. And I think that—

Berkowitz: You would have supported the United States in its efforts in World War II.

Schakowsky: I supported the effort in Afghanistan

Berkowitz: But, to the point, you would have supported the efforts in World—

Schakowsky: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: So, you are not a complete pacifist?

Schakowsky: I am not a pacifist.

Berkowitz: All right, I just wanted to clarify that.

Schakowsky: I am not a pacifist.

Berkowitz: But, you said you wouldn’t take all the troops out. [You said] there could be a force, but nothing like the current force. How many troops would you leave in Iraq—

Schakowsky: I don’t, I don’t know how many could, would be used for the kind of rebuilding efforts that we say that we want to do and civil society kind of efforts and I don’t even know if we are talking about troops or some other kind of presence in Iraq. But, I am saying that the combat forces should be removed from Iraq.

Berkowitz: Does Barack Obama, the junior senator from the State of Illinois, agree with you?

Schakowsky: I don’t know.

Berkowitz: I would think you would talk with him. He is part of the Illinois delegation. Because I think the answer is obvious that he doesn’t agree with you. He said that during the [U. S. Senate] campaign and I haven’t heard him say anything-- [to the contrary since]

Schakowsky: You know, Jeff, I feel very strongly about this…my goal is to help move that debate in that direction and you know, we’ll get support when—

Berkowitz: Do you believe that if we leave, the insurgents will suddenly say, “Okay, we will work collaboratively, we will work to have a democratic country here.” They would say that they would drop their arms, drop their attacks and life would be good. Do you envision that [happening]?

Schakowsky: There are some very important experts that really understand Iraq—[and they say] that there is something called nationalism in Iraq, that there is a sense of identity as a country and that the possibility—

Berkowitz: I agree with you, and I am not even an expert

Schakowsky: And that the possibility of leading Sunnis, presuming- and I do- that the insurgents are not the majority, might be more inclined to engage in the kind of writing of a constitution [and] moving towards free elections.

Berkowitz: 58% of the country. Quite a turnout in Iraq just two weeks [ago] overcame the threat of violence [and] the loss of their lives to vote. That happened on January 30, that’s what I am talking about. I agree with you—there is nationalism [in Iraq]. These are people who sought to have a democracy—these are people who are willing to risk, much more so than in the U. S.—I don’t even know if we have that turnout- and nobody is risking his or her life [in the U. S.] to vote.

Schakowsky: Have you seen the 1967 article from the New York Times during the Vietnam War where they were, the United States—you could almost substitute the word Iraq for Vietnam. There was an election where 82% of the people in South Vietnam came out—it was, and the same talk about how they overcame this kind of fear. The war didn’t end until 1975.

Berkowitz: So, you would analogize the insurgents in Iraq to the North Vietnamese who were fighting a civil war then.

Schakowsky: All I am saying is that it is way too soon to say mission accomplished.

Berkowitz: Oh, I didn’t say mission accomplished. But, … I think even [Senator] Teddy Kennedy…said this was an accomplishment. This election. This turn-out. I am paraphrasing, but I think he was complimentary about what happened [in the Iraqi election].

Schakowsky: And, I, as well, said that I thought that this was the beginning of democratization and I think it is important--

Berkowitz: It is important. Expanding the discussion to the Middle East [In general, and] I know it wasn’t the major reason why the U. S. went into Iraq. The major reason was the threat of WMD. But, all along the way, people who supported that policy also talked about the importance of establishing a democracy. Not necessarily an ideal democracy, but something much more democratic than what the Iraqis had under Saddam.

Schakowsky: But, then the question is—

Berkowitz: Excuse me, let me just finish. As a model, so people in Iran and Saudi Arabia could look at that and say, “Why can’t we do that.” [A model] to the countries that we sometimes are allies with and have dictators there—we wanted to change that area of the [world] to make it safer for those people and over-all, safer for the United States. What do you say to that general argument?

Schakowsky: I would say that, while, of course we favor democracy in Iraq-- You are presuming that the U. S. presence, right now, in Iraq, and for the foreseeable future, has to assure democracy there. And, I am saying that I don’t believe that to be true.

Berkowitz: Well, foreseeable future, if it takes two or three years to stabilize, that is to allow Iraqis to build up their own troops, their own security, their own police and there is a gradual withdrawal, a gradual step-down, if that were to take two or three years—

Schakowsky: Or five, or more.

Berkowitz: Obviously, there is some limit. But, if you saw progress, as we seem to be seeing, might you say—is it possible—that you would be wrong to advise to “Cut and Run”?

Schakowsky: Well, maybe we ought to also ask the question of whether or not it is that American mothers and fathers want their children to go into this very dangerous situation where I don’t know how many died last week—it is not even on the front pages.

Berkowitz: Well, the total of troops in this effort, U. S. troops, I think who have been killed—

Schakowsky: We are talking about a couple a day. We are talking about a couple every single—
*****************************************
Cong. Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist.]., recorded on February 13, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of Feb. 21] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, Feb. 28 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See the end of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
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
***********************

Dave McSweeney will push for Spending Freeze

Jeff Berkowitz: …Two of the economic issues …that you say differentiate you from Cong. Melissa Bean [D- Barrington] [are] tax cuts…and …tort reform. Are there others…?

Dave McSweeney: Absolutely… We need to control federal spending… I favor a three year freeze on the total level of federal spending. But, we need to exclude from that freeze Social Security, National Defense [and] Homeland Security…
**********************************
Berkowitz: What about the Brady bill? Do you support that? Background checks before people can buy guns?

McSweeney: I don’t support the Brady bill because I think instant checks are a lot better [show concludes].
*****************************
Dave McSweeney, a likely candidate to run in the 8th Cong. Dist. March, 2006 Republican Primary for the right to take on the incumbent, Cong. Melissa Bean [D- Barrington], is featured tonight on “Public Affairs,” at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago.

Cong. Jan Schakowsky [D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist.] is featured this week in the suburbs on “Public Affairs. [Additional program details to follow].
*********************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington] is a likely candidate in the March, 2006 8th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary. McSweeney, who ran in the Republican Primary in March, 1998 against then 8th Cong. Dist. Republican incumbent, Phil Crane, debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz tonight, on the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs, Tax cuts, a spending freeze, tort reform, the Iraq War, abortion, gun control and other domestic and foreign policy issues.
*******************************
A partial transcript of the McSweeney show is included, at the link titled “Dave McSweeney said Cong. Bean weak on Taxes and Jobs,” located to the right of this blog entry or at the bottom of this blog. An additional partial transcript of the show is included directly, below.
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …two of the economic issues that we have been talking about that you say differentiate you from Cong. Melissa Bean [are] tax cuts…and …tort reform. Are there others on the economic side?

Dave McSweeney: Absolutely. Spending. We need to control federal spending. The deficits are way too large…I favor a three year freeze on the total level of federal spending. But, we need to exclude from that freeze Social Security, National Defense [and] Homeland Security as three important components. We need to prioritize spending—

Berkowitz: How much is left of the total budget once you make those three exceptions: Homeland Security, National Defense and—

McSweeney: Social Security.

Berkowitz: Social Security, once you do that how much are you left to limit?

McSweeney: Sure, let’s go throught the numbers. The federal budget is about 2.3 trillion. National Defense is about 450 [billion] and then you throw Homeland Security and Social Security into the mix and you probably have a billion between those three components. So, you are dealing with a still, relatively substantial part of the budget.
************************************
Berkowitz: Things are going well, would you say, in Iraq?

McSweeney: 72% turnout, as of this morning [Jan. 30, Election Day in Iraq]. It is an historic day.

Berkowitz: So you support the President—you think it was the right decision, you think the United States conducted the right policy in Iraq and you think it will turn out well?

McSweeney: No. 1, it was the right decision. Saddam Hussein had an active chemical and biological development program. He definitely had ties with Al Qaeda. He was a security threat in the future and we are now in an historic phase where we are bringing about democracy in the middle east. Not everything was perfect. There were some implementation issues that—

Berkowitz: But no Weapons of Mass Destruction [were found], does that bother you? Was that the main motive for going into this—

McSweeney: No, the main motive is—and even the U. N. report — now we are finding out that the money that the UN was raising, the Oil for Food Program, was used to bribe some of the Iraqi officials and all of the reports [that] have come out have said he [Saddam] had a very active program in development and was ready to put it—

Berkowitz: So, no qualms. We are going to continue to speak as the credits roll, but I very much want to thank Dave McSweeny--
****************************
Jeff Berkowitz: … Would you say that [Cong.] Melissa Bean supported the President in Iraq.

Dave McSweeney: It’s early. She hasn’t taken many clear stands.

Berkowitz: So, it’s not too clear-- is what you are saying.

McSweeney: That’s exactly right.

Berkowitz: She [Cong. Bean] certainly was opposed to the Energy bill. Would you have supported the Energy bill.

McSweeney: I would support the Energy bill.

Berkowitz: What about ANWR, drilling in ANWR?

McSweeney: Yes absolutely, we need self sufficiency in this country.

Berkowitz: Social Issues, are you Pro-Life?

McSweeney: Yes I am Pro-Life.

Berkowitz: Would you say [you are] anti-gun control?

McSweeney: I certainly oppose gun control. It doesn’t make any sense to disarm the honest citizens.

Berkowitz: What about the Brady bill? Do you support that? Background checks before people can buy guns?

McSweeney: I don’t support the Brady bill because I think instant checks are a lot better [show concludes].
**********************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington], recorded on January 30, 2005 and as is airing tonight, Feb. 21, on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Matthews decides Iraqi elections matter. Can others on the Left afford to stay far behind?

Chris Matthews: Sixty years ago this weekend, the three leaders who won World War II met on the Black Sea and carved up Europe. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed that the countries liberated from Adolph Hitler and the Nazis should be democratic, that “elections would be held,”—catch this, “where necessary.” The notion of letting Joseph Stalin choose where democratic elections were deemed necessary was one of the most naïve agreements of history. Consider Poland, the unfortunate state defeated, divided and swallowed in two large bites in 1939 by Hitler and Stalin. At Yalta, this country, whose sad fate had been the cause of World War II, was promised free and unfettered elections. It never got them. Indeed, it was at Yalta that the Iron Curtain came clamoring down. Millions saved from Nazism were now captive peoples for half a century.

Chris Matthews (cont.): Elections matter. They matter in this country. They mattered in Iraq. Today, the elected politicians in Baghdad throughout that country are scurrying to form a government. A month ago, the unelected leaders of Iraq were scurrying merely out of fear. Many of us Americans didn’t like the invasion of Iraq, didn’t like the reasons given for it. Many of us still don’t. But, most of us can’t find anything but good in the holding in Iraq of free and unfettered elections. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

The Chris Matthews [Sunday morning] show, NBC, February 13, 2005.

Berkowitz and Peraica join Roeser this Sunday night on Tom's Radio show; Coming Next on PA

Political Shoot-out, WLS 890 AM Radio Show:

This Sunday night, Feb. 20, Jeff Berkowitz joins County Board Commissioner Tony Peraica [R- Riverside] and show host Tom Roeser on "Political Shoot-Out," WLS- 890 AM Radio, 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm, discussing, I would bet, Cook County and State public policy and political issues and whatever else Tom and his listeners think we should discuss.

Would you like to shape the discussion and the course of Public Policy in Chicago, Cook County, the State and, perhaps, the World. You can do that. Just call Political Shoot-out this Sunday night at 312-591-8900. Right now there are 10 open lines. Out of town? Don't let that stop you. Tom gets calls from as far away as UNC, Chapel Hill; Duke University and even Lincoln County, IL.(Spiritual home of Amb. Alan Keyes). You can listen from almost anywhere on www.WLSAM.com
********************************************
Public Affairs TV show [Coming Attactions]:
*********************
Suburbs [see blog entry, below, dated Feb. 15, or linked on right [McSweeney says Cong. Bean weak on Taxes and Jobs] for suburban airing schedule details]:

Week of Feb. 14- Likely 8th Cong. Dist. 2006 Republican Primary Candidate Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington]

Week of Feb. 21- Cong. Jan Schakowsky
[D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist.]

Week of Feb. 28- State Senator and possible 8th Cong. Dist. 2006 Republican Primary Candidate Pam Althoff [R- McHenry]
*******************************************
City of Chicago, every Monday night at 8:30 pm, Cable Ch. 21:

Monday, Feb. 21- Likely 8th Cong. Dist. 2006 Republican Primary Candidate Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington]

Monday, Feb. 28- Cong. Jan Schakowsky
[D- Evanston, 9th Cong. Dist.]

Monday, March 7- State Senator and possible 8th Cong. Dist. 2006 Republican Primary Candidate Pam Althoff [R- McHenry]
**********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************************************

Dan Rather's and Eason Jordan's journalism careers, RIP

Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee Chair and Clinton Crony [and who remarked recently that the first eight hours of the last election day were the best eight hours of his life], speaking this past weekend at the coronation of the DNC’s new Chairman.

“I would formally like to hand the gavel to the new Chair of the Democratic National Committee: Governor Howard Dean.”

Jon Stewart, commenting on this event on the “Daily Show with Jon Stewart,”[February 14, 2005]:

“You know there is something stirring about the peaceful transfer of no power.”

[Attribution of the Jon Stewart comments to Brit Hume’s Special Report show on Fox, February 15, 2005].
*****************************
This is quite a marvel, the faces and voices of the Democratic Party Leadership: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and now, Chairman Dean, aka the President of the Democrats. [Of course, my DLC friends and the Clintons must be wondering where in the Hell their party is going; even Harold Ickes couldn’t do the Clintons’ bidding, successfully, on this one].

Now, contrast the Democratic Leadership team with the faces and voices of the Republican Party Leadership: House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and, of course, President of the Republicans and the American people, George W. Bush.

Now, I will say this, both teams have a doctor [Frist/Dean] in the house, but other than that, they are quite different in their desire to locate and stay close to the center of the political spectrum.

If exiting anchor Dan Rather were speaking to us from the CBS Evening News or already exited chief CNN News Chief Executive and Chairman of the CNN editorial board Eason Jordan from CNN, which of those leadership teams do you think might be referred to as extreme and which as centrist? I am betting the Rather/Jordan duo would have labeled the Republicans as the extremist, on the right and conservative team and the Democrats as the centrist, moderate and progressive, and for sure, not liberal, team. Can there be any doubt?

Indeed, even NPR and Fox liberal contributor Mara Liasson has labeled Dr. and now Chairman Dean as, of course, liberal on the war but having a conservative record because he balanced the budget in Vermont and let the hunters hold onto a few guns. Really, Mara, what could Dean have done as the Governor—start printing money? Of course, he balanced the budget in Vermont. That is what Governors do. Ultimately, they must. For that, Chairman Dean becomes a conservative? Please. Only in the world of NPR.

There are those, e.g., the bizarre and quickly discrediting itself Columbia Journalism Review, who will blame conservatives and Republican bloggers, in general, for the demise of Rather/Jordan. But, the liberal bias of those two [and their friends at the CJR] has been transparent for a long, long time. The Rather/Jordan recent actions and miss-statements made it easier for their critics to “take them out,” at this time, but they could not have done so without the long record of biased and skewed reporting and news management by the Rather/Jordan dynamic duo.

Anybody watching the CBS Evening News could easily see that anchor Dan Rather never met a Republican, and surely not a conservative Republican, about whom he would report fairly. Unfortunately, for Dan Rather, given some dirt on “W,” Rather couldn’t contain his glee long enough to insure that basic journalistic checks were followed before he threw “the news,” out as red meat to the Left. Of course, the meat was shown to be adulterated by those who threw it back in Dan Rather’s aging and somewhat bewildered face.

Eason Jordan, having learned from his former boss and well known lefty Ted Turner how to make journalistically questionable and unethical accommodations and arrangements with oppressive and totalitarian governments and regimes, finally showed his bias a little too clearly. This is a news person for whom full and fair reporting seemed to be simply a slogan to be bartered for access to stories and countries, as with Saddam in Iraq and apparently with Kim Mentally Ill and his predecessor in North Korea.

Those who referred to CNN, under the guiding force of Eason Jordan, as the Communist News Network or Clinton News Network were, of course, engaging in a bit of hyperbole. But, they did seem to be going in the correct, if not Right, direction.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
********************************

Dave McSweeney says Cong. Melissa Bean is weak on Tax Cuts and Jobs

Jeff Berkowitz: What is it that differentiates you the most [from Cong. Melissa Bean [D- Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist]]?

Dave McSweeney: Taxes, without even a doubt.

Jeff Berkowitz: Taxes.

Dave McSweeney: 100%. I favor job incentives to protect the manufacturing base in this country. We need to keep—the Bush Tax cuts made permanent so that...
******************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Dave McSweeney, who ran in the Republican Primary in March, 1998 against then 8th Cong. Dist. Republican incumbent Phil Crane. McSweeney is a likely candidate to run in the 8th Cong. Dist. March, 2006 Republican Primary for the right to take on the current incumbent, Melissa Bean [D-Barrington, 8th CD]. See the conclusion of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule of "Public Affairs," and for more about the show with Dave McSweeney.

The show with Dave McSweeney will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on this coming Monday night, February 21 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
A partial transcript of the McSweeney show is included, below.
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: What is it that differentiates you the most [from Cong. Melissa Bean[D-Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist]]?

Dave McSweeney: Taxes, without even a doubt.

Jeff Berkowitz: Taxes.

Dave McSweeney: 100%. I favor job incentives to protect the manufacturing base in this country. We need to keep—the Bush Tax cuts made permanent so that we can be in a position where small businesses create jobs. For companies that are actually creating a net increase in jobs, we should cut the corporate income tax by 10%-- for companies that create jobs. And we should also be in a situation where we bring about real reform in the tax code, longer term…

Jeff Berkowitz: Creating jobs anywhere?

Dave McSweeney: U. S. jobs, that’s the key. U. S. jobs.

Jeff Berkowitz: You want to give them a tax credit based on the number of jobs that are created?

Dave McSweeney: A tax cut. A cut in the corporate tax income tax rate. For any company that creates at least a net increase of 5% off their job base, we should cut the corporate income tax by 10%. And, that’s U. S. jobs. We cannot allow the manufacturing base in this country to deteriorate. ..
****************************
Berkowitz: … Would it be fair to say that there are a lot of jobs, no matter what you do with tax credits [or corporate income tax rate cuts] that are not going to be returning to the United States, at least in the manufacturing sector?

Dave McSweeney: That’s fair to say—because we had some faulty government policies that have driven jobs offshore. No. 1, taxes are too high. No. 2, we have too much regulation. 3, we need to have tort reform so that we can reign in the trial lawyers—
****************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Did your opponent take a contrary position [on Taxes] during the last election?

Dave McSweeney: Well, my understanding is that Melissa Bean opposed the Bush tax cuts and that became a major issue during the campaign.

Jeff Berkowitz: She did later. Maybe she did, I don’t know. She was on this show in August, 2004 and she didn’t say how she would have voted on those Bush tax cuts.

Dave McSweeney: I think the documentation throughout the last campaign—

Jeff Berkowitz: I asked her and she said—I think she meant to say it is a hypothetical question. She didn’t quite use that phrasing, but she said she wasn’t there, she would have to see it, it’s complex—

Dave McSweeney: Well, Jeff, you are either for or against it. I mean there are issues that are complex—

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, I don’t know, on my show—

Dave McSweeney: My understanding, Jeff, [is] that multiple times she stated that—it was cited multiple times—that she opposed the Bush tax cuts.

Jeff Berkowitz: She did say on this show, to be fair, that she supported at least many of the individual tax cuts [income tax cuts for individuals]; She thought that both tax cuts [2001 and 2003] were weighted too much toward large companies and not enough toward small companies that are—as she saw it—those were the job creators, the small companies were creating more jobs than large companies—I am not speaking here for Melissa Bean, Congresswoman Bean, but she did give some of that argument on that. Now, would you agree with some of that, at least that you are for individual income tax cuts. Would you also agree when we look at tax cuts, perhaps we should be focusing on tax cuts for smaller, mid-size companies that generate more of the job growth?

Dave McSweeney: We should be focusing on across the board tax cuts.

Jeff Berkowitz: Across the board?

Dave McSweeney: That’s absolutely what the Bush administration did.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you support those [Bush] tax cuts unequivocally.

Dave McSweeney: Absolutely.

Jeff Berkowitz: 2001 and 2003, all of them. You would like to see them made permanent.

Dave McSweeney: No. 1, it kept us out of the recession. No. 2, we need to make them permanent and No. 3, if I do run, I look forward to debating Melissa Bean so we can get some yes or no answers. That is one of the things that the Democratic Party has been masterful at, is not taking—

Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to debate her? Right here on this set. If you become the nominee, you would want to come on and debate—

Dave McSweeney: I think we should debate at least 15 times.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think she will do that, now?

Dave McSweeney: I hope so. She challenged [Cong.]Crane to multiple debates.

Jeff Berkowitz: She certainly did challenge Cong. Crane.

Dave McSweeney: It would be awful hypocritical if she didn’t.

Jeff Berkowitz: Yeah, and we are not going to call her hypocritical yet, because—

Dave McSweeney: Not yet. Not yet. Absolutely not. In fact, let me just state right now that Melissa Bean is a hard worker. I have nothing personal against her. If I run against her, it is all going to be based on the issues.
****************************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington], recorded on January 30, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of Feb. 14] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, Feb. 21 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See the end of this blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington], likely candidate in the March, 2006 8th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz Tax cuts, spending constraints, tort reform, the Iraq War, abortion, gun control and other domestic and foreign policy issues.
*******************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

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

Race, Politics, Tax Increases, Daley, Blago and John Stroger

Jeff Berkowitz: You don’t think your critics are racially motivated?

Cook County Board President Stroger: No, I don’t think it is totally racial. I think it is—
********************************
Berkowitz: Chairman John Daley, the brother of Mayor Daley, you’d take him on, as well.

Stroger: If he is the candidate and I decide to run, and he wants to oppose me—remember, I am the incumbent and I have a very good record, not only here but….
********************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features Cook County Board President John Stroger. The show airs at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …You are saying that your critics are being racially motivated. Are you making that allegation?

Cook County Board President Stroger: No, I never made that allegation. My statement was that there are people confronting me telling me that some of the people who are my opponents are racially motivated by some of their questions [and] comments in the light of the fact that the Governor of the state, Mr. Blagojevich had a great deficit and had to borrow money to solve it and that the Mayor of the City of Chicago had to go out and increase every fee you could think of to come up with 83 million dollars to close a gap in his budget and they said that to me.
******************************
Berkowitz: You don’t think your critics are racially motivated?

Stroger: No, I don’t think it is totally racial. I think it is—

Berkowitz: Do you think it is at all racial?

Stroger: I think it is more political. I think we got people who are ambitious and who want to try to go ahead. I don’t want to talk about it. You named about four or five guys—

Berkowitz: So you think [Commissioners] Quigley, Suffredin and Claypool are politically motivated?

Stroger: I think a lot of the things they do are politically motivated and I have told that to them…
*********************************
Berkowitz: What about…Clerk of the County Courts, Dorothy Brown…if she were running, would you still run [for re-election as County Board President]?

Stroger: I think I am the President of the County Board. She would have to determine whether she wants to challenge me and that would be the same for any of the others.

Berkowitz: So, Dorothy Brown is somebody who might run. Assessor-

Stroger: Houlihan.

Berkowitz: Treasurer Pappas

Stroger: Sheriff Sheehan.

Berkowitz: Sheriff Sheehan.

Stroger: But, if I decide to run, I will take them on as I have done, my previous opponents.

Berkowitz: Chairman John Daley, the brother of Mayor Daley, you’d take him on, as well.

Stroger: If he is the candidate and I decide to run, and he wants to oppose me—remember, I am the incumbent and I have a very good record, not only here but….
***********************************
Cook County Board President John Stroger, interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast throughout the City of Chicago tonight, Feb. 14 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. This show was recorded on January 27, 2005, in the office of Cook County Board President John Stroger.
************************************
Tonight, on the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” County Board President John Stroger debates and discusses with show host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz Cook County Board President Stroger's proposed increase in the restaurant, hotel and motel taxes; race and politics; alternative ways to balance the budget by cutting spending across the board, by increasing employee health insurance premiums, by cutting budgeted contingent fees and by budgeting a higher vacancy rate for Cook County employment positions; the Gang of 4 [Cook County Commissioners Quigley, Claypool, Suffredin and Peraica], the Gang of 8 [Gang of 4 plus Cook County Commissioners Goslin, Gorman, Hansen and Silvestri], the fire at 69 West Washington, demolition of the old County Hospital, global searches by the County for consulting firms and President Stroger’s plans as to whether he will seek re-election as County Board President.
********************************************
Additional partial transcripts of our show with President Stroger are included at the February 8, 1:45 pm and January 31, 2005, 12:30 am blog entries, below.
**********************************************
The City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” is cablecast throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 p.m. on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

ICC Chairman Ed Hurley's Insanity Defense

*****************************************
Taking on Blagojevich, Berkowitz and Madigan: An ambitious hat trick for Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") Chairman Hurley.
****************************************
Did Chairman Edward Hurley suggest “Public Affairs,” host Jeff Berkowitz is insane? And, if so, is he suggesting the same about the Governor and the Attorney General? And yet Chairman Hurley readily concedes if the Peoples Energy execs said at the celebrated, private Peoples Energy/ICC lunch, “Here’s somebody the ICC should hire,” that would be inappropriate [illegal?]. Somewhat hard to reconcile, don’t you think?
****************************************
The Berkowitz Hurley discussion:

Jeff Berkowitz: Could I just ask you one follow-up on the Open Meetings Act? Isn’t the Open Meetings Act rather strict in that it says any discussion of Governmental entity or Commission business by a sufficient number of commissioners [to trigger the application of the Open Meetings Act], which in this case was two, is inappropriate [illegal] unless it is in an Open [publicly held and posted] meeting.

Illinois Commerce Commission Chairman [Blagojevich appointee] Edward Hurley: I am not going to comment on the strictness of the Open Meetings Act. I am simply going to say that to stretch— to stretch what happened at lunch to a violation of the Open Meetings Act would be INSANE, that’s ridiculous.

Berkowitz: Could you say where, in general, if you and Commissioner [Lula] Ford-- when there are only four board members [commissioners]—if you [two] sit down with somebody like Peoples Energy Company [as they did with People’s executives Jerry Fox, VP for administration and Sammy Fiorella, People’s Manager of State Regulatory Affairs and another Peoples’ employee, Bryant Scott for lunch on January 10, 2005 at Smith & Wollensky], what are the boundaries to what you can and can’t discuss with those individuals—

Chairman Hurley: As I said, as I said, it was a casual conversation and a casual introduction of a young man to Lula and myself [sic], and nothing more.

Berkowitz: So, if somebody did it more formally in terms of saying, here’s somebody we think you should hire, would that be inappropriate?

Hurley: I think that might be, yeah. Okay, excuse me. I-

Berkowitz: Thank you very much.
**********************************
ICC Chairman Ed Hurley, after he had concluded his formal remarks and the formal question and answer session at his City Club of Chicago lunch presentation on Wednesday, February 10, 2005, answering questions from the media. See the blog entry immediately below this entry for excerpts from that question and answer session and for information regarding the television airing of same.
************************************
Who are Edward Hurley and Lula Ford?

Chairman Hurley, a Democrat, graduated from Marquette University and from John Marshall Law School, was a self described “baby lawyer,” in the Attorney General’s office, a hearing officer with the ICC at least for a portion of the 1980s, first appointed to the ICC in 1999 by Republican Governor George Ryan and elevated to Chairman of the ICC by Governor Blagojevich in 2003.

Commissioner Ford, a Democrat, has a Master’s Degree and is working on a Ph. D. She was an educator with the Chicago Public Schools for 34 years and worked for the Board of Education before being appointed by Governor Blagojevich to the ICC in 2003.
*****************************************
Blagojevich, Madigan, Hurley, CUB and ICPR add to the conversation:

Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said of the Peoples Energy- Hurley/Ford lunch, “…they [ICC Commissioners Hurley and Ford] should be more mindful of the Open Meetings Act.” [Sun-Times, Jan. 25, 2005, Dave McKinney].

Attorney General Lisa Madigan spokeswoman Melissa Merz said, “…we are reviewing the propriety of the matter [the lunch] on a number of fronts, including possible violations of the Illinois Open Meetings Act and the Illinois Ethics Act.” [Sun-Times, Jan. 24, 2005, Dave McKinney].

Chairman Hurley, apparently by way of a “Diversity,” defense of the propriety of what he did, said the lunch was geared entirely around the possibility of the ICC hiring People’s employee Bryant Scott, an African American, or placing him elsewhere in state government. [Sun-Times, Jan. 24, 2005, Dave McKinney].

Martin Cohen, Citizens Utility Board’s executive director said “…it was simply improper for the People’s executives to be encouraging some of the ICC’s top brass to hire one of the company’s own with the [150 million dollar] refund case pending [against People’s Energy at the ICC]…for senior executives at People’s to place one of their employees with the state by using the commission to do so is unseemly. That alone is inappropriate.”
[Sun-Times, Jan. 24, 2005, Dave McKinney].

“…this seems like an unusual way to do your personnel background checks,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. [Sun-Times, Jan. 24, 2005, Dave McKinney].
*****************************************
What do the relevant portions of the Open Meetings Act say?

Would it be INSANE, as ICC Chairman Hurley suggests, to think that the Open Meetings Act could have been violated by the discussion at the lunch gathering of the Peoples Energy Executives, a People’s Energy employee and the two ICC Commissioners?

The Attorney General’s Guide to the Illinois Opening Meetings Act [“AG Guide”] states that the Open Meetings Act applies to gatherings “held for the purpose of discussing public business.” But, “although a gathering may not be ‘held for the purpose of discussing public business’ at the outset, the gathering is subject to conversion to a meeting at any point. Thus, for example, at the point that a dinner party turns to a deliberative discussion of public business upon which the attention of the requisite number of public body members is focused, the gathering becomes a ‘meeting’ for purposes of the act.” AG Guide, at 19

The phrase “discussing public business” refers to an exchange of views and ideas among public body members, on any item germane to the affairs of their public body. It is not directed at casual remarks, but…at discussions that are deliberative in nature… A deliberation in this context is a discussion aimed primarily at reaching a decision on a matter of concern to the public body, regardless of whether the discussion will result in the taking of an action, will set policy or be preliminary to either. The particular discussion need not be aimed at reaching an immediate decision in order to be considered a deliberative discussion of pubic business. AG Guide, at 19.
******************************
Analysis and Conclusion, does the Hurley “insanity defense,” work?

In the case at hand, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think, based on what even Chairman Hurley has said publicly about the lunch, that the purpose of the lunch was for the ICC to explore hiring, at some point, the Peoples Energy employee with whom Commissioners Hurley and Ford were meeting. Wouldn’t such a hiring be germane to the affairs of the ICC? Wouldn’t a discussion between ICC commissioners Ford and Hurley at the lunch about possibly hiring the Peoples Energy employee be deliberative in nature? If so, isn’t such a discussion at a private lunch an Open Meetings Act violation? And, of course, this is the case even if Commissioners Ford and Hurley did not intend to have such a discussion before the lunch but proceeded to do so after the lunch began, or at any other time that was not at a public meeting, in compliance with the Open Meetings Act requirements.

Of course, I am not saying an Open Meetings Act violation did occur. I am simply suggesting that contrary to Chairman Hurley’s statement, a person need not be insane to suggest that a violation could have occurred, based on what the public knows about the lunch meeting, including what it knows based on Chairman Hurley's public statements about the event.

It will be interesting to see what Attorney General Lisa Madigan has to say about the January 10 private lunch gathering of People Energy personnel and Illinois Commerce Commission Chairman Hurley and Commissioner Ford. Inquiring minds want to know the results of the AG’s inquiry.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
************************************

ICC Chairman Hurley denies violating Open Meetings Act

Gov. Blagojevich, who elevated Hurley to the ICC Chairman position in 2003, had his spokeswoman, Abby Ottenhoff, state that the ICC needs to be more mindful of the Open Meetings Act and questioned whether there were ethical lapses at the Hurley/Ford/Peoples Energy lunch meeting. [See Chicago Sun-Times, January 25, 2005 article by Dave McKinney]
*************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Commissioner [ICC Chairman] Hurley, this is a one month anniversary of a famous lunch, or a celebrated lunch that has been much in the news—your January 10th lunch at Smith & Wollensky…as you know, you were there with Commissioner Ford and two Peoples Energy executives, or so we are told by the media and a third utility company [Peoples Energy] employee and although some people question, which you apparently deny, whether you discussed at that lunch …the issue that CUB [Citizens Utility Board] raises, that Peoples Energy should be giving a [149 million dollar] refund, the more important point as I understand the Open Meetings Act is that it requires an open meeting…when, as in this case, where you had four commissioners, two, or more, are meeting to discuss Commission business. Isn’t it Commission business if you discuss, as you apparently agreed, potential employment of an employee of People’s Energy by the ICC?

Illinois Commerce Commission Chairman Hurley: The article of which you speak- and it hasn’t been going on that long, it was kind of a two day story-

Jeff Berkowitz: It was in the January 25th Chicago Sun-Times--

Chairman Hurley: The question that was raised by the article was whether or not Lula and I did in fact violate the Open Meetings Act by having lunch and discussing what some suggested was state business. The lunch-- the young gentleman that we were introduced to, we were not interviewing him, it was simply a casual introduction of a young man in our efforts to try to improve the diversity at the ICC, something I’ve been trying to do since I got there and how one could conclude that a casual introduction of a young African American gentleman to Lula and I [sic] is state business, I will leave that one to you.

Berkowitz: Has the [Illinois] Attorney General indicated whether she agrees with you?

Chairman Hurley: The Attorney General and the Governor’s Inspector General have both spoken with Lula and myself [sic] .

Berkowitz: But has she indicated whether she agrees [with you].

Paul Green [City Club of Chicago program moderator]. Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, it is not a-- Thank you very much.
***************************************
Paul Green: On behalf of the City Club [of Chicago], I want to give you [Chairman Hurley] something that even Jeff Berkowitz won’t complain about- a very expensive [City Club] mug and a one year membership in the City Club [of Chicago]. We are adjourned.
******************************************
Edward Hurley, Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, answering questions after speaking at a City Club of Chicago program this week on Wednesday, February 9. The full speech, preceded by introductions by City Club President Jay Doherty of personalities in the crowd of 300, or so, and the questions and answers that followed immediately after the speech, will be cablecast throughout the city of Chicago tonight, Saturday, February 12 at 7:00 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. The program will air again on Wed., February 16 at 10:00 am on Cable Ch. 19 [CANTV].
****************************************

The Daley McKenna Combine?

The daily [Daley] Act of doing business in Chicago.
***************************
Bob Crawford [WBBM-780 AM Radio Political Editor Emeritus]: The problem Mayor Daley has is that he deals with corruption the way his father did. He tries to contain it and when he reforms he tinkers around the edges, but he never changes the fundamental system that is—

Phil Ponce [WTTW Chicago Tonight Interviewer]: And what is the fundamental system?

Crawford: The fundamental system is one that allows corruption to be a part of the daily [Daley] act of doing business. That’s what Carol [Marin, of the Sun-Times] means when she says systemic-- the roots are very deep. It is the way business is done. Almost to the point where people think it’s legit.
******************************
Chicago Lite, oops, I mean WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, February 9, 2005
******************************
Bob Crawford, apparently unintentionally, got off a really nice pun [or double entendre] on Chicago Tonight [See above] when he discussed the DAILY act of doing business,which of course in Chicago has come to mean the DALEY act of doing business, with a Mayor Daley OCCUPYING the Mayor’s chair for 37 of the last 50 years.

So, the state GOP Chairman, Andy McKenna, Jr. has had almost a month, since he was elected to the Chairman’s post, to get into this issue. He has been on about a dozen weekend political talk shows, including two this past weekend. Have you heard Andy talk about Mayor Daley and the sea of corruption in which his administration swims, daily, so to speak?

I don’t think so. I know I haven’t and I don’t think I have missed a show. McKenna had at least two very good opportunities this past weekend to do that and he fumbled both. I don’t think he said the name Daley, even when prompted by questions. Of course, we have been trying to schedule Andy for “Public Affairs,” for almost a month and his aides have more excuses for his unavailability [e.g., he wasn't doing or scheduling such shows, that was a good one, huh?] than Carter had little liver pills.

Chairman McKenna is not shy about raising the issue of corruption and the State Democratic Party-- and the Guv. But, as to Mayor Daley, Mckenna almost can’t say his name within a country mile of the word “corruption,” without breaking out in hives. Same with McKenna’s supporter and good friend, Cong. Ray Lahood, who last time he was asked about this [prior to Eric Zorn's call of yesterday, that is] couldn't compliment Da Mayor enough about how well Da Mayor runs the City. Probably the same with Cong. Mark Kirk, although I have to say Kirk seems to focus mostly on foreign policy of late, except, I guess, when he is hosting his weekly DC Club for Moderates, not to be confused of course with the Club for Growth.

And, folks, this was all predicted. Not by me. No, sir. I am fair and balanced. But, it was predicted by Republican partisan Gary Skoien, aka Cook County GOP Chairman, and for a while a competitor of Andy McKenna, Jr. for State GOP Chairman. Skoien said, in December, that Mckenna would not be able to bring himself to raise the issue of corruption in Chicago, indeed, as Crawford put it, the corruption that is a part of the Daley act of doing business. Moreover, Skoien made it clear that he thought McKenna could not object to a Chicago owned and managed casino-- nor, indeed, to much of anything having to do with Da Mayor.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, it appears that shortly after those Skoien comments got some play, Jim Edgar, who was touted as a supporter of Skoien for state GOP Chairman, became less of a supporter, and shortly after that the Skoien drive for State GOP chairman veered off the road.

All of which makes you wonder whom Mayor Daley was supporting for State GOP Chairman. I think I know.

Which then leads us to ask what has happened to the Daley Ryan Combine that the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass discovered and so cherished as an object of his scorn.

Replaced by the Daley McKenna Combine?

Now, that would be irony—right, John?
********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Threats or Predictions by County Board President Stroger?

Watch the show this week and you decide.
******************************
Is Cook County Board President Stroger making a prediction or threatening Commissioner Maldonado with the loss of a health clinic if he opposes the Stroger Tax increase? We interview, you decide.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Who is going to prevail here [on the Stroger Restaurant/Hotel Tax increase], will the Gang of 8 that is looking for a 9th vote, 10th Vote—will they get Earlean Collins, will they get Bobbie Steele, will they get Joan Murphy, will they get Roberto Maldonado? Commissioner Maldonado has all but said he is opposed to this tax, right?

Cook County Board President John Stroger: Well, he [Maldonado] has been quoted as saying he was opposed [to the tax increase], but remember-- he comes from a community where they rely heavily on some of the services we render and if he doesn’t help us get these type of budgets passed, then the County Government is unable to provide the services for the people in his community and I understand that there is a health clinic over in his community—in his district, and it is sponsored by the County and I know I have heard him say he needs another one, because it is always too crowded.
******************************************
Cook County Board President John Stroger, interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast this week [Comcast Cable, Week of February 7] in the suburbs.

See the text, at the end of this blog entry, for a detailed "Public Affairs," suburban airing schedule. The same show will air throughout the City of Chicago this coming Monday night, Feb. 14 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. This show was recorded on January 27, 2004, in the office of Cook County Board President John Stroger.
*******************************
Next Week’s Suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features as its guest, Dave McSweeney [R- Barrington Hills], a likely candidate in the March, 2006 Republican Primary in the 8th Cong. Dist. The current holder of that seat, Melissa Bean [D- Barrington; 8th CD] won the seat by beating then 35 year incumbent, Phil Crane, last November, 52% to 48%.
******************************************
This week in the suburbs on “Public Affairs,” it is County Board President John Stroger debating and discussing with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz Cook County Board President Stroger's proposed increase in the restaurant, hotel and motel taxes; alternative ways to balance the budget by cutting spending across the board, by increasing employee health insurance premiums, by cutting out budgeted contingent fees and by budgeting a higher vacancy rate for county employment positions; the Gang of 4 [Cook County Commissioners Quigley, Claypool, Suffredin and Peraica], the Gang of 8 [Gang of 4 plus Cook County Commissioners Goslin, Gorman, Hansen and Silvestri], the fire at 69 West Washington, demolition of the old County Hospital, global searches by the County for consulting firms and President Stroger’s plans as to whether he will seek re-election as County Board President.
********************************************
An additional partial transcript of our show with President Stroger is included at the January 31, 2005, 12:30 am blog entry, below.
**********************************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly cablecast 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 cablecast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
The City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” is cablecast throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 p.m. on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Liz Gorman on abortion, guns, civil unions etc.

Dated February 7, 2005 at 3:00 pm
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Would you like a constitutional amendment to protect “Life”?

Cook County Commissioner Liz Gorman: Yes, absolutely. We have to protect life at all costs.
*********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to be able to own a gun in Beverly to protect yourself if you lived in Beverly?

Liz Gorman: Yeah, anywhere.
************************************
Cook County Commissioner Gorman on TV [“Public Affairs”] in the City of Chicago Tonight and County Board President John Stroger on TV [“Public Affairs] in the suburbs this week.
*********************************
Cook County Commissioner Elizabeth (Liz) Gorman [R- Orland Park] is featured on “Public Affairs,” tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 through-out the City of Chicago. The bulk of the show deals with current Cook County Board issues, such as President Stroger’s proposed tax increase. For a partial transcript of the show’s coverage of those issues, see the blog entry, below, dated February 1, 2005 at 7:00 pm.
***********************************
Because Commissioner Gorman was considered for an appointment by the Republican State Central Committee this summer to be the Republican party’s nominee for the U. S. Senate and because she has been described by Board of Review Commissioner and Republican State Central Committee Member Maureen Murphy as a “rising star,” in the Republican Party, we covered some issues beyond the current scope of the County Board, e.g., so-called social issues, during the show, and a partial transcript of that discussion is included directly below.
**********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to roll back Roe v. Wade, right?

Liz Gorman: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: Would you like a constitutional amendment to protect “Life”?

Liz Gorman: Yes, absolutely. We have to protect life at all costs.

Jeff Berkowitz: …so, you are conservative on that issue. What about guns? Would you say you are a 2-A lady? 2-A referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Liz Gorman: Well, it’s interesting. I think there should be a right to bear arms. You know, we had a break-in at our house.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, there is [a right to bear arms]. It is in the Constitution, right?

Liz Gorman: Yes, and I think—

Jeff Berkowitz: You had a break-in in your house?

Liz Gorman: Yes, many years ago-- in Beverly.

Jeff Berkowitz: You would like to be able to own a gun in Beverly to protect yourself if you lived in Beverly [An area on the southwest side of Chicago, boyhood home of Cook County Assessor Houlihan, who, BTW, apparently is giving some thought to running for Cook County Board President].

Liz Gorman: Yeah, anywhere.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, Beverly [unlike Orland Park] is within the City of Chicago.

Liz Gorman: Correct.

Jeff Berkowitz: Currently, there is a ban on gun ownership [in Chicago].

Liz Gorman: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: And possession.

Liz Gorman: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: At least, gun possession in the City of Chicago. If you lived in Beverly now—If you [the viewer] are living in Beverly now and you are “packing”—you have a gun in your house--

Liz Gorman: Right, it’s illegal

Jeff Berkowitz: You are violating the law. You could be arrested.

Liz Gorman: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think that is right?

Liz Gorman: I just know the personal situation that I was in with my family. You know, where there was a break-in and it was a very disturbing break-in. The guy had broken into sixty homes prior to our house.

Jeff Berkowitz: Were you there? Were you there when it happened?

Liz Gorman: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: And there was nothing you could do?

Liz Gorman: No.

Jeff Berkowitz: If you had a gun, you could have shot him.

Liz Gorman: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: Maybe he would have been less likely to break in, thinking that maybe you had a gun—that, itself, might have been a deterrent [If the law permitted gun possession in Chicago].

Liz Gorman: No, absolutely—

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay, so on guns, you are fairly strong?

Liz Gorman: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: You do agree with some gun control?

Liz Gorman: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: The Brady bill, background checks and all that.

Liz Gorman: Absolutely.
*****************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Civil unions may handle some of those things, right? You are not opposed to that?

Liz Gorman: Well, I really am not for it and not against it.

Jeff Berkowitz: Not for it and not against it, you are going to waffle?

Liz Gorman: Yeah, I am waffling on that, absolutely, because, you know, it is a difficult issue--
**********************************
Cook County Commissioner Liz Gorman, interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 throughout the City of Chicago. This show was recorded on January 23, 2004.
*******************************************
Tonight on “Public Affairs,” in the City of Chicago it is Cook County Commissioner Liz Gorman [R- Orland Park] debating and discussing with show host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz Cook County Board President Stroger's proposed increase in the restaurant, hotel and motel taxes, the impact of the increase on convention business and employment in the County, alternative ways to balance the budget by cutting spending across the board, by increasing employee health insurance contributions and co-pays, by cutting annual employee wage increase from about 8% per year to 3.5 % per year, the Gang of 4 [Cook County Commissioners Quigley, Claypool, Suffredin and Peraica], the Gang of 8 [gang of 4 plus County Commissioners Goslin, Gorman, Hansen and Silvestri], consideration of Gorman by the Republican State Central Committee for the Republican U. S. Senate nomination in August, 2004, same sex marriage, gay rights, domestic registries, civil unions, whether abortion should be illegal and the deterrent effect of making gun possession legal in Chicago.
****************************************************
This Week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features as its guest--Cook County Board President John Stroger [D- Chicago]. See the end of the January 31, 2005 blog entry, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Are Archpundit and Mark Caro applauding or deriding the Congressmen who dipped their index fingers in ink?

Archpundit[Larry Handlin] "sort of concedes" Berkowitz is right and Caro is wrong. Will Archpundit bite the bullet and state so unequivocally?
***********************************
In my blog entry, directly below, I take Mark Caro, a Chicago Tribune Entertainment writer who was sitting in this last week at Chicago Tribune Columnist Eric Zorn’s Blog [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook], to task. As I put it, “Caro is apparently upset that a number of Congressmen dipped their index fingers in ink and waved their index fingers to show their solidarity with the Iraqis who risked their lives to vote on Sunday and then proudly held up their index fingers dyed with indelible purple ink as a sign that they'd voted.” I went on criticize Caro’s criticism of the Congressmen for as Caro put it “vicariously experiencing someone else's toils on the front lines.”

Caro fired back at "Public Affairs" in a parting shot, on Friday afternoon, as he executed his own "exit strategy" as Eric Zorn’s [www.chicagotribune.com/notebook] blogitter. I will respond to Caro in a separate post later this weekend.

Perhaps more interesting than Caro’s retort is that of my friend and fellow blogger, the well respected and unabashedly partisan Democrat Larry Handlin [www.archpundit.com]. See the Archpundit entry dated February 5, 2005.

I would say Larry implicitly concedes his agreement with me that it makes little sense to criticize congressman, in general, who take symbolic action to demonstrate and publicize “their solidarity with the Iraqis who risked their lives to vote on Sunday.” At a minimum, Larry states no criticism of me and no defense of Mark Caro on that issue.

However, Larry seems to seek to distract us from the issue at hand by questioning the consistency of one of the Congressmen included in the group of those dipping their index fingers in ink. And that Congressman is one of Archpundit’s favorite targets over the last election season: Cong. Jerry Weller [R-Joliet, 11th Cong. Dist.]. If Archpundit is seeking to help Caro, he is doing so by taking the tack that the best defense is a good offense and Archpundit challenges me by asking:

“Maybe Jeff can tell us how El Geraldo [Cong. Jerry Weller] can both celebrate his solidarity with Iraqis when he got married at a lavish affair where his now father-in-law participated despite his father in law’s efforts to deny the right to vote to Guatemalans?"

"Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? And doesn't it suggest that Weller is less concerned about freedom and more about scoring political points?”

Nice try, Larry. But, before we get to Cong. Weller, you ought to make it quite clear that if a bunch of Congressman join together in a symbolic and even theatrical show of solidarity, and one of them has some conflict of interest problems that may also raise the issue of hypocrisy—that in no way dilutes the appropriateness of the actions of the other congressman in the group. Nor does the presence of one Congressman plagued by Conflict of Interest issues justify the silliness of those, like Caro, who criticize all of the Congressman in the group because they signaled their support of the Iraqi voters even though they had not borne the same costs of voting as the Iraqi voters who started the index finger ink symbolism.

Now, turning to Cong. Weller. As Archpundit may remember, I placed on this blog, on July 20, 2004, information regarding a Press Conference being held by Weller’s opponent, Tari Renner. Moreover, I quoted, [and I hope it was clear I was quoting with approval] media statements [including those posted on Archpundit] raising concerns about Conflict of Interest issues resulting from Cong. Weller’s wife to be:

"And, some argue, incorrectly, that I am not fair and balanced."

"But, here I am-- including on the "Public Affairs," blog some news of Tari Renner's (Democratic Candidate, 11th Cong. Dist.) coming up press conference re some of the recent, strange, romantic and re-location news relating to Cong. Jerry Weller (R- Morris, 11th CD). Another case of Republican family values?"

Renner Press Conference Promo:

"Tari Renner (pronounced Terry), Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress in Illinois’ 11th District, will ask Jerry Weller how he can represent the 11th district of Illinois after selling his home in Morris, buying a $594,000 condominium on Chicago’s lakefront, and commuting between Guatemala and his vacation property in Nicaragua, at 1 pm. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004."

"In addition to his Chicago condo, Weller also owns a home in the Washington D.C. area and vacation property in Nicaragua and has pledged to spend time in Guatemala with his fiancée."

Insert to press conf. promo:

"Of course, there are larger issues with Cong. Weller's decision to engage, so to speak. We are told by [www.chillinois.blogspot.com/2004/07/illinois-cong-jerry-weller-gets.html] that Cong. Weller's fiancee,Rios Sosa, is a high ranking official in Guatemala (a 10th year Congresswoman) and also a daughter of former Army Gen. Jose Effrain Rios Montt, who seized power in Guatemala in a 1982 coup, but was deposed in another military uprising the following year. Rios Montt, who was widely criticized for human-rights violations during his regime, most recently lost a bid for the Guatemala presidency in 2003.(The Weller-Sosa Engagement adds a whole new meaning to international relations, or indeed to Affairs of State; let alone to is Sammy Sosa related?)"

The Daily Southtown via Larry Handlin at www.archpundit.com (July 14 blog entry) takes Cong. Weller to task:

"We're not going to try to tell Weller whom he should fall in love with. But we are concerned about the potential conflict of interests that his relationship with Rios Sosa presents. Weller is a member of the House International Relations Committee, and his betrothal to a high-ranking official of another country presents an obvious situation in which voters will have a right to wonder whether he is voting in their best interests or the best interests of the woman he loves. The people of Guatemala and its neighbors also will have a right to question American policy and Weller's role in it."

The above quoted blog entry can be found by going to the archives on this site [Hit the 07.04 archives icon near the top of this site, and scroll down to the July 20, 2004 entry].

Indeed, I would go further than the Southtown and argue that Congressman Weller has a conflict of interest that exists irrespective of what committees he sits on, although his committee membership exacerbates the conflict.

Also, with almost 300 million people in this country to choose from and 6 billion in the world, I would question the judgment and self-discipline of any Congressman who put himself in the position Cong. Weller did by marrying who he did.

I have not discussed these issues with Cong. Weller, but I have invited him on our show and if he chooses to come on, he will be treated fairly and I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong on the above. As to specifics of the allegations against Weller’s father-in-law, I think that issue is rather far afield from my criticism of Caro. But, for purposes of this discussion, I am happy to jettison Cong. Weller from the group of ink spots in an effort to get a more straightforward answer from Archpundit and to see whether he will join me in the criticism I made of Mark Caro.

We look forward to hearing more from Archpundit on Caro.
************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************************