McSweeney takes on Cong. Bean on TV in the 8th CD

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, then-- you would accept support [from unions] as she [Cong. Bean] did and you might vote for CAFTA which would be against their [wishes]—

David McSweeney: But, I would tell them [the unions] the truth. Jeff, I would tell them the truth up front.

Berkowitz: Which is?

David McSweeney: Which is that I would support CAFTA.

Berkowitz: And you are saying she [Cong. Bean] lied to them when she said—

David McSweeney: I am not going to use the word lie. What I am going to say is that she gave them strong indications that she would oppose it. She took their money…and then she turned around…and then voted for final passage [of CAFTA]. Again, I think that creates terrible skepticism about politics.
*********************************************************
Berkowitz: In that sense, you have changed your position. You would not go to that [making it legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy only during the first eight weeks of the pregnancy] as a first step-- now you would like to have a constitutional amendment that bans it [abortion] completely, but that wasn’t your position in ’98, right?

David McSweeney: Jeff, I haven’t changed my position. What I have said is that I don’t think that the step is necessary from a tactical standpoint anymore—it is a different environment in 2005 than it was in 1998. But I strongly believe that we need to eliminate abortions in this country.
************************************************************
8th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary Candidate David McSweeney is the featured guest on this week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs." [See the post here] for more about David McSweeney and the last part of that post for a list of topics discussed on the show and the detailed suburban airing schedule of "Public Affairs."

McSweeney has a substantial organization up and running [including Campaign Manager Jim Thacker, who BTW managed [then 29 year old] Shawn Donnelly's 2nd place finish in the 10 candidate 10th CD Republican Primary in 2000, won by the current occupant of that seat, Cong. Mark Kirk]. McSweeney, a 39 year old investment banker, has the resources and fund raising ability to mount a serious campaign.

Moreover, Dave McSweeney has a good jump on his competitors, as he has essentially been doing this since January, if not before, and ran in the '98 primary against then Cong. Crane. At the moment, Teresa Bartels and Aaron Lincoln appear to be the only other candidates in the Republican Primary. Bartels has the resources [money and organization] to mount a serious campaign and rumors continue that Cong. Kirk helped get her into this and may help more in the future [rumors denied by the Bartels' campaign] and there are rumors that he has, or could, bail out.

Money and organization will be much more of a challenge for Mr. Lincoln, but he does have the name advantage in the contest [some are referring to him as Abe(based on his initials)Lincoln] .

In terms of the heavy hitters still out there [Resources, organizational support, name recognition, etc.], people are focusing on both Kathy Salvi and State Rep. Bob Churchill. Kathy has essentially said she is running, is now attending events and is scheduled to tape our show in early October. She is said to be quite well known in the family values crowd [especially Pro-Life circles] and her husband, Al Salvi, has good name recognition that may be transferable to Kathy. On the other hand, Al Salvi also has some negative baggage, which could also be transferable to Kathy Salvi. "For better or worse," as they say.

State Rep. Churchill appears to have pretty good name recognition and perhaps sufficient resources within his grasp to mount a serious campaign. He is expected to announce whether he will get in the race on or soon after Labor Day.

Other, apparently less serious candidates for the 8th CD Republican Primary, are still being mentioned as possibles, but it is getting late for anyone who wants to do it right, even if they have the resources and organization.
**************************************************************************
A partial transcript of this week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is included below:
*************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We thought we would give you the opportunity to give a report card to the current Congresswoman in that [8th Cong.] District, Melissa Bean [D- Barrington]. Let’s grade her. David McSweeney, what do you give her, try to be as objective as you can—grading scale of A to F, she’s been there now about seven months—how is she doing?

David McSweeney: I give her a D.

Berkowitz: a D? You are a tough grader.

David McSweeney: Absolutely, because she has established a voting record of inconsistency. One of the things that Melissa Bean has been doing is voting for final passage of the Republican bills- [but] a few minutes before, on the floor of the House, voting to kill them. I will give you a number of examples, Jeff. Class action reform. She voted for final passage—that would transfer the jurisdiction in certain cases from the state to the federal case--courts. A few minutes before, she voted to kill it. Bankruptcy reform, she voted for final passage. Again, a few minutes before she voted to kill it. Remember John Kerry? "I voted for it before I voted against it." It is a record of inconsistency. She voted against medical malpractice reform which is so important to keep doctors in this state…so I think the Bean record is very poor. What we need is a mainstream conservative like myself to vote how the district really wants to vote.
**************************************
Berkowitz: Now she [Congresswoman Bean] did vote for CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. You would have voted the same way on that?

David McSweeney: Absolutely, but--

Berkowitz: So on that you are in agreement, right?

David McSweeney: But, let’s go through that. It is a very important fundamental issue. Melissa Bean took the money from the labor unions, she took their support, she told them that she would vote against it [CAFTA] and then she voted for it, but in traditional form, she voted against the rule to bring it to the floor of the House and then she voted for final passage, but I think it is a fundamental issue and it creates a lot of skepticism in people’s minds in politics when you have a politician who takes money, takes volunteers, takes support and turns around for what she considers short term political purposes and votes the other way. I am a supporter of CAFTA but I say outright that I support CAFTA, I support free trade…but that’s what creates the skepticism that people have about politics when people don’t keep their word and I don’t think she kept her word on what she promised her people.

Berkowitz: ..Would you accept support from unions?

David McSweeney: Absolutely. It’s all a game of addition…

Berkowitz: Well, then-- you would accept support as she did and you might vote for CAFTA which would be against their—

David McSweeney: But, I would tell them the truth. Jeff, I would tell them the truth up front.

Berkowitz: Which is?

David McSweeney: Which is thatI would support CAFTA.

Berkowitz: And you are saying she lied to them when she said—

David McSweeney: I am not going to use the word lie. What I am going to say is that she gave them strong indications that she would oppose it. She took their money…and then she turned around…and then voted for final passage. Again, I think that creates terrible skepticism about politics.

Berkowitz: Labor unions are said to support minimum wages, increases in minimum wages. What’s the current federal minimum wage and would you support an increase in that?

David McSweeney: I believe the current minimum wage is $5.15/hour and no I wouldn’t because I think it kills short-term jobs…it kills opportunities that are available to minorities and also young people who are trying to find [a spot for] themselves in the work force. It is much better if we focus on creating good, high paying jobs…

Berkowitz: In general, would you oppose the concept of a minimum wage.


David McSweeney: No, not the concept, but I don’t want to see any further increases in the minimum wage.

Berkowitz: So, if you had the opportunity, not that it’s likely to happen, but if you had the opportunity to vote on a decrease in the minimum wage, would you do so.

David McSweeney: It’s not a realistic option that is before Congress.

Berkowitz: I know, but hypothetically, would you favor that? If somebody said, we think this is causing unemployment, we think we would be better off with a minimum wage of $4.50/hour, would you support that?

David McSweeney: I would support-- Let me be very specific, I would support no further increase in the minimum wage.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: One of the issues that came up toward the end of the [1998 8th CD Republican Primary] Campaign was your view on abortion. At that time, it was reported in the Press that your view in 1998 was that a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy within the first two months—

David McSweeney: That was not my position.

Berkowitz: Was that an inaccurate statement in the Press at that time?

David McSweeney: Jeff--

Berkowitz: You know that there are articles that state that. Daily Herald says that. Pioneer Press says that. You realize that.

David McSweeney: Jeff. Let me tell you what my position in 1998 was and it has always been a consistent position. I said as a first step toward eliminating all abortions that we should eliminate abortion-- post the 8th week. What people have failed to report, including some of my political opponents, is that I always said that was a first step towards eliminating abortion.

Berkowitz: Okay and one of the papers did report that. But, it was reported that the organizations both were lukewarm on you—Pro-Choice [and] Pro-Life. The Illinois Federation for Right to Life did not endorse you at that time. They have [now endorsed you] and that has become a controversy, but…the person who was chairing the organization at that time, or that PAC, said you were trying to have it both ways by taking the position you just articulated. Do you remember that?

David McSweeney: I [pause] was not trying to have it both ways.

Berkowitz: But, do you remember that criticism?

David McSweeney: I was not trying to have it both ways, Jeff , No. 1.

Berkowitz: But, do you know- just try to answer that question. Do you remember? Was that a controversy at that time?

David McSweeney: I ran against an incumbent [at that time, 29 year incumbent Cong. Phil Crane] who was supported by the Illinois Federation for Right to Life and I am very proud to have the support of the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, right now and what I have been consistent on is that I am Pro-Life and that I strongly believe that we need to reduce and eliminate abortions in this country.

Berkowitz: But, do you still adhere to the 1988 [sic--1998] position that the abortion procedure should be allowed during the first eight weeks of pregnancy.

David McSweeney: I never said—

Berkowitz: But not after that.

David McSweeney: Jeff. Let me just be specific. This is important. So, let’s talk through this issue.

Berkowitz: Okay.

David McSweeney: I never said it should be allowed. What I said is that as a first step, from a tactical standpoint for eliminating all abortions, that we should eliminate all abortions post the 8th week. That’s what I said. I believe at this point—that was when Bill Clinton was President of the United States—when we did not have a clear Republican majority in the same way that we do right now. We had it in the House but not as great [in terms] of numbers in the United States Senate. I don’t think that step is necessary now. I think that we can eliminate abortions. I think that the Supreme Court is going to be the real battleground here over the next couple of months, as we have seen in [U. S. Supreme Court nominee] Roberts’ nomination. Hopefully, eventually, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I think that will be a [inaudible] development.

Berkowitz: In that sense, you have changed your position. You would not go to that as a first step now—you would like to have a constitutional amendment that bans it [abortion] completely, but that wasn’t your position in ’98, right?

David McSweeney: Jeff, I haven’t changed my position. What I have said is that I don’t think that the step is necessary from a tactical standpoint anymore—it is a different environment in 2005 than it was in 1998. But I strongly believe that we need to eliminate abortions in this country.

Berkowitz: Do you remember Felicia Goeken, she was the Chair of the Illinois Federation for Right to Life [PAC]—

David McSweeney: Sure, absolutely.

Berkowitz: Do you remember that she is quoted at that time as saying--she was quoted-- that you are “Double talking,” that you, David McSweeney, “Can’t have it both ways, that’s a double position there.” Do you remember that criticism from her [Felicia Goeken]?

David McSweeney: She never said it to me but she was quoted in the Daily Herald.

Berkowitz: She was. Okay.

David McSweeney: Jeff, let me finish, please. She was quoted in the Daily Herald as saying that and she was supporting [then congressman] Phil Crane and she was a great woman. I admired her.
********************************************
David McSweeney, 8th CD Republican Primary candidate, recorded on August 21, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of August 28] and as will be airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on this coming Monday night, Labor Day, September 5 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*************************

McSweeney on TV: Is McSweeney the Rs' best shot to beat Cong. Bean? Rauschenberger up next.

Significant edits and links fixed and added on Tuesday at High Noon

This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features David McSweeney [R- Barrington Hills], candidate in the 8th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary. [See the end of this post for a detailed suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs.”] Our show with Republican 8th CD Candidate McSweeney will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on next Monday night, Sep. 5 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 in Chicago.

McSweeney is making his 2nd run for Congress, having run in the 1998 8th CD Republican Primary and having lost to then almost 30 year incumbent, former Cong. Phil Crane--65 % to 35%. You can find out more about David McSweeney, his positions on issues and endorsements he has received by going to his campaign site [See here].
********************************************
Next week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features 13 year State Senator Steve Rauschenberger [R-Elgin], who is vying in the Republican GOP primary for the right to carry the Republican Party’s banner in its November, 2006 effort to win the gubernatorial office back from first term Governor Rod Blagojevich [D-Chicago].

"Hot Rod," or Elvis, as Blagojevich is known with affection by many and derision by others, became in 2002, the first Democrat to hold that office since the brief and forgetable Jerry Ford Presidential era, 1976. Notwithstanding the Daley-Ryan Combine, that long drought consists of many bad memories for the Democrats. Blago and his new ally-Speaker Mike, and his old ally- Senate President Emil Jones, and their anticipated 20-25 million dollar war chest will not go gently or quietly into the night. Whoever wins the Republican Gubernatorial Primary [See the odds and assessments here], the hill is a long, difficult climb. First up, former Republican Governor George Ryan's RICO trial, scheduled to start in a few weeks. Let the games begin. Maybe Jim Edgar is planning the timing and announcement of his decision of whether the Republican Party and he will seek to "Go Back to the Future," in a way that will take the headlines away from the George Ryan trial. Maybe.

Back to Steve. You can learn more about Rauschenberger, his positions and statements on issues, watch prior TV appearances by Sen. Rauschenberger, including a recent interview by Phil Ponce of Steve on Chicago Sunday [which, BTW, is short [eight minutes, or so] but good and used by me as part of my preparation for my taping of Steve this past Sunday]] and read the Rauschenblogger [See here]. Gubernatorial Primary Candidate Rauschenberger celebrated his 49th Birthday a day early by taping "Public Affairs," on Sunday. What more could a guy ask for?
****************
Back to Dave. A partial transcript of the show with David McSweeney will be posted on this site prior to 2:00 pm today:
*************************************************
8th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary Candidate David McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz on this week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," a grade for first term Cong. Bean, Congresswoman Bean’s voting record, CAFTA, NAFTA, Cong. Bean and Free Trade; minimum wage increases, abortion, embryonic stem cell research; the “flat tax,”cuts in taxes, the social security tax and reforming social security; guns, assault weapons and gun control; Iraq, Term Limits, the Transportation Bill and pork, the Energy Bill, drilling in ANWR, school vouchers and much, much more.
************************************
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
*************************

Fritchey: Monday Night Political Football- Ds, Rs and Apologies

This Monday night’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features 9th year State Rep. John Fritchey [D-Chicago], who has given some thought to running state-wide or for Mayor of Chicago at some point in time, but not, apparently, against the current occupant of the office. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] Monday night at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
[See here] for more about the topics covered in tonight’s show, John Fritchey’s background and a partial transcript of the show.
*************************************************
You can learn more about John Fritchey, his positions on issues and his district at his [web site] and you can read some very current thoughts of his and others at Rep. Fritchey’s recently started and quite informative [blog].
**************************************************
Another partial transcript of tomorrow night’s show is included, below.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Berkowitz is my name, and politics is our game and we will be doing politics this evening …[Our guest] has been a state representative; this is his ninth year. There’s a lot of buzz about Representative John Fritchey, as to whether he’ll be running for other offices, or running for re-election in 2006. So, we might as well just get that off the table, right now. John, are you running for another office?

FRITCHEY WON’T RUN FOR TREASURER:

Rep. John Fritchey: We still haven’t made up our minds. When I say “we,” it’s been something I’ve been discussing with my family-- with my supporters, trying to find out what’s been going on. We’re taking a look at a number of different opportunities. I’ve always said that I would be interested in running for an office if there was an office where I felt I could accomplish something. One race that we looked at was the State Treasurer’s race and, really, within the past few days, I think I’ve made the determination for non-substantive reasons not to pursue that office in this cycle. Specifically, right now, I’m fortunate, I consider myself fortunate, to represent as constituents, the [Illinois] Governor, the Attorney General, the Comptroller, and I have both the Lt. Governor and Secretary of State a stone’s throw away from my district. I don’t believe it’s in the best interests of our party, at this juncture in time, to put forth another candidate in the general election from the same geographic area. I think that the party would benefit-- I think the State would benefit from some geographic diversity on the ticket. [John stated on a prior "Publc Affairs," show that he would consider a run for Mayor of the City of Chicago in 2007, if Mayor Daley does not seek re-election at that time. [See here]. There have also been rumors that Rep. Fritchey is also looking at a run for Attorney General in 2010 if the current occupant of that office, Lisa Madigan, runs for Governor at that time. [See here] for more about Rep. Fritchey’s decision not to run for Treasurer.

ARE THERE DEMOCRAT TREASURER CANDIDATES WHO PROVIDE GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY FOR THE DEM TICKET?

Berkowitz: All right. The names that are being thrown out; there’s not a lot of geographic diversity out there in terms of those names. Jim Laski, who, of course is currently the City Clerk, so that’s not much geographic diversity there. City of Chicago Clerk, [that is]. Jack Lavin, who’s director of-- what is it? DCCA [Department of Commerce and Community Affairs]…?

Rep. John Fritchey: DCEO [Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, fka Department of Commerce and Community Affairs].
*******************************************
Rep. John Fritchey: And, Jack [Lavin] is also another one of my constituents.

Berkowitz: Okay. So, there’s not [more geographic diversity for the Democrat statewide slate with those two], but [State Sen. Jeff] Schoenberg [D-Evanston] would be a little bit more, since he’s from the [Northshore] suburbs.

Rep. John Fritchey: Umhmm.

Berkowitz: In fact, [he is not] far from us, where we tape in Skokie. [Indeed, Sen. Schoenberg’s 9th District includes, among other areas, all or portions of Skokie, Wilmette, Evanston, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glenview and Northbrook] …

Rep. John Fritchey: …[State Sen.] Jeff [Schoenberg] established himself, distinguished himself very nicely… I had the privilege to serve with him in the House. He was an independent and studious voice there. I think he’s done the same in the Senate.

THE SPEAKER MIKE TWO-STEP:

Berkowitz: He [Schoenberg] was kind of pushed out of the race [for Treasurer], last time, when Speaker Mike Madigan was setting things up… what was the deal-- [that led to then State Rep. Tom Dart [D-Chicago] running for State Treasurer]? … Tom Dart was pushed out of the AG’s race [and given the Treasurer’s spot by Speaker Mike Madigan], so that [his daughter] Lisa Madigan [D-Chicago] would be thought to have a clearer field [to run for Attorney General in the Democratic Primary, although eventually she faced a challenge in the primary from John Schmidt] right?

Rep. John Fritchey: Well-

Berkowitz: Wasn’t that the general story?

Rep. John Fritchey: [smiling] I wasn’t privy to any of those conversations.

Berkowitz: I’d have to talk to Speaker Mike?

Rep. John Fritchey: I know, at the end of the day, Tom Dart [D-Chicago] was our candidate [for Treasurer] and he was a good candidate [but he was the only Democrat to lose statewide in Illinois in 2002].

Berkowitz: Okay.

Rep. John Fritchey: Jeff [Schoenberg, D-Evanston]-- I think would be a tremendous candidate for statewide office.

Berkowitz: So, Jeff might figure it’s his turn, now-

Rep. John Fritchey: That could be.

Berkowitz: We’ll see. Do you think that Speaker Mike [Madigan] might remember that “I owe you” and go in and support him [Schoenberg]?

Rep. John Fritchey: Yeah. I would hope that the Speaker in his role as chairman of the [Democrat] state party, as well, would want to put together the best over-all ticket that we can. I know he has, obviously-- I won’t say conflicting interests-- but he has interests in both advancing the party as well as protecting the House majority-

Berkowitz: Okay.

Rep. John Fritchey: And he will try to design a ticket that will achieve both of those goals.

SCHOENBERG LOSES AGAIN? CLAYBORNE’S THE GUY?

Berkowitz: [State] Senator [James] Clayborne [D-East St Louis], downstate, would he be more of the geographic diversity and also racial diversity [for the Democrats to run as Treasurer]?

Rep. John Fritchey: I think Jim Clayborne [D-East St Louis] is a great guy. He adds a great voice to the party… to have him, being from downstate, being an African American, and being a leader on a number of issues-
****************************************
Berkowitz: You’re endorsing Clayborne, right here today, for state Treasurer?

Rep. John Fritchey: Well, I’m going to wait to see who’s in and who’s out. What’s interesting though is that we haven’t had anybody say that they are in yet. [Treasurer] Judy Baar Topinka is being speculated to run for governor. And, I think that she will be an interesting candidate if she does that.

Berkowitz: That’ll open it up more; Democrats will be more willing to run for an open seat if Judy [Baar Topinka] runs for governor.

Rep. John Fritchey: I think so. I think Judy has proven herself to be tough to beat in the Treasurer’s race. And, as an open seat, I think it would be a good opportunity for the Democrats to pick up the one seat that we don’t have. But I think that it’s important to have a candidate there than can articulate ideals and not just say vote for me because I’m a Democrat.

FRITCHEY HANDICAPS THE REPUBLICAN GOP GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY:

Berkowitz: As an outsider, an outsider to the Republican Party, you know, if Judy’s in [running for Governor], there are currently three or four candidates in already, Senator Bill Brady, Senator Steve Rauschenburger, Jim Oberweis, Ron Gidwitz, three or four others may come in, Joe Birkett, ah, let me see, Ray, Congressman Ray LaHood [who subsequent to the taping of this show, announced he would not run for Governor]… past State Senator Pat O’Malley might get in as well. Have I left anybody out? We should be up to date. Looking at that field, of course, Jim Edgar is being mentioned as well, but assuming for the moment Edgar doesn’t get in, what do you think the chances are of Judy Baar Topinka winning the Republican primary?

Rep. John Fritchey: Well it really depends what happens in the primary. Republicans have a history of-- I don’t want to say the tail wagging the dog by any means, but they have a vocal conservative base that needs to be assuaged in primaries. But, it becomes difficult when those primary candidates have to go so far to the right that they can’t come back and moderate themselves in the general election. You know, Illinois, while one of the few remaining blue states, is not inherently a liberal or progressive state. The majority of people in this state, I think, find themselves somewhere in the middle and they can identify with candidates who can be there as well. Blagojevich has done a decent job of doing that; Judy [Baar Topinka] has done a great job of doing that. When you look at the Republican ticket, I think Judy can do that. Steve Rauschenberger, a very intelligent guy—[there is] a question of whether or not he can connect with the people. Ron Gidwitz— I think it is a name recognition issue. Bill Brady, good guy, and again, I don't know if he can get known outside of his geographic base. So, I think it'll be interesting to see--

Jeff Berkowitz: What about Jim Oberweis? He's got a lot of name recognition…. he's run twice before [statewide, for the Republican U. S. Senate nomination]. Oberweis Dairy, Oberweis Securities. He's got name recognition.

State Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago): He’s got name recognition. I think that the commercials that he did in the helicopter hovering over [Soldier Field]-- I think those are still going to come back to haunt him.

Berkowitz: The immigration stuff?

Rep. John Fritchey: Everybody makes some poor decisions; I think that was a poor decision. I think what will be telling in that primary is—is it one of cannibalism, with the Republican candidates simply turning on each other or-- will somebody try to rise above the fray and articulate a message that the public can identify with.

TOPINKA’S BASE-- DEMS FOR TOPINKA?

Jeff Berkowitz: Say at the end of the day in the Republican primary… the only people left will be Jim Oberweis, State Senator Steve Rauschenberger and state treasurer Judy Baar Topinka. You think Judy wins that?

Rep. John Fritchey: I think I-

Berkowitz: You know the Republican base, quite conservative. Judy's pretty liberal on a number of issues.

Rep. John Fritchey: Ironically, it may turn on whether or not there's a primary on the Democratic side. If there's not-if there's no real contested race-

Berkowitz: She'll get Democratic--

Rep. John Fritchey: I think you will have a lot of moderate to progressive Democrats that would cross over and pull a ballot to vote for Topinka-- wanting a Topinka/Blagojevich match-up.

Berkowitz: Would they then-- which way would they go then, once they had a Topinka/Blagojevich match-up? Would the same people-would they be doing it simply to sort of cover their bets so that if Blagojevich didn't win, they have somebody they may feel more comfortable with, namely Judy Baar Topinka-- or would they be people who would actually support her in the general [election]?

Rep. John Fritchey: I think the majority of those Democrats are ones that would come back into the fold.

Berkowitz: They would?

Rep. John Fritchey: In the general election. You know, it's not an unheard of voter pattern of people to try to, as you say, cover their bets, as far as who the candidates would be in the field. And, I think Judy has a track record that people are comfortable with.

Berkowitz: Yeah. Well, let's see. There hasn't been that much, now it may have been that there's usually enough interest in the Democratic primary where people don't crossover. People thought there'd be more of that when Corinne Wood ran-

Rep. John Fritchey: Correct.

FRITCHEY ON RAUSCHENBERGER’S PLUSES:

Berkowitz: There wasn't much then. Now, there was a sharply contested Democratic gubernatorial primary then [in 2002], so that makes sense, but I'm not sure how much she [Judy Baar] can count on that [cross-over vote, as there might be a contested Democrat race for Treasurer], and Rauschenberger has done- I think the question with Rauschenberger is-- can he get the money and the financial support. He's gotten the editorial board support from, you know, the vast majority [of media] across the state. The media have supported him editorially, but he was unable-he raises money fairly well, but he doesn't have a lot of wealth on his own…He couldn't compete with somebody like [former US Senate candidate] Jack Ryan…who had his own wealth last time [the 2004 Senate Primary].

Rep. John Fritchey: I think it's unfortunate that that becomes a litmus test. I don't know that it serves the public well-- if we narrow ourselves down to candidates who can self-fund their [own] race…Steve is probably one of the most-if not the most-intelligent people in that field.

Berkowitz: You know him pretty well, even though you’re across the aisle.

Rep. John Fritchey: I, we're, I'm across the rotunda as well as across the aisle from him.

Berkowitz: You respect him.

Rep. John Fritchey: I respect him a lot. I respect his ability to do analytics on the budget-

Berkowitz: You'd be comfortable with him as a Governor of the state of Illinois-

Rep. John Fritchey: That may be-- that may be another statement. I have a lot of respect for his abilities-

Berkowitz: Because of your partisan interests, right?

Rep. John Fritchey: It’s not even a partisan issue. I think we have some substantive differences of opinion.
********************************************
State Rep. John Fritchey, recorded on August 14, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs Monday night, August 29 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
*******************************
Transcript drafts prepared by Amy Allen, who also does research for “Public Affairs,” and has her own political blog [See here].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Emanuel: I don’t think Mayor Daley …said, "Don Tomczak, go work for Rahm."

Some links fixed and slight edits made on Friday, Aug. 26 at 1:00 pm.
********************************************************
Fran Spielman: But, you have already said you don’t think it was Mayor Daley.

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: No, I don’t think Mayor Daley picked up the phone and said, "Don Tomczak, go work for Rahm.". --

Jeff Berkowitz: No, but somebody in your campaign who knew--would have to know where they [the Tomczak army] could help Rahm Emanuel the most. If it wasn’t the Mayor, somebody from your campaign had to tell them where to go [to help Rahm Emanuel in the 2004 Primary].

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: First of all, I got help from, as I said earlier, …from the police union, firefighters union…
*******************************************************
Congressman Rahm Emanuel [D-Chicago, 5th Cong. Dist.] was the guest speaker Wednesday at a City Club of Chicago lunch program [the best deal in town], which, of course, was SRO. Even Rahm’s critics concede that he put together a good, polished argument and he handled all questions with finesse and humor. His defense of Mayor Daley was simple and to the point: Daley did all these great things for Chicago over the last sixteen years—Good Parks [Forrest Claypool], Strong Libraries [Mary Dempsey], Improved Schools [Paul Vallas] and a prosperous Loop business climate [Who Knows], but he let others take care of politics—which led to all the corruption [Bracketed names are attributed to Berkowitz, not Rahm]. Congressman Emanuel faulted Daley, “Not for what he knew. But for what he didn’t know.” [See John Kass].

Taking into account the “totality,” of the Mayor’s record, Rahm Emanuel, who is also Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") hopes Daley runs again and unlike U. S. Senator Barack Obama [See Berkowitz], Rahm is ready to endorse the Mayor now [See Gary Washburn]. Again, in contrast to Senator Obama, Cong. Emanuel owes Daley big time, whether it was Rahm’s CHA Vice Chairman appointment or Daley’s unusual primary endorsement for Rahm’s tough 5th Congressional District race against Nancy Kaszak and a few others [See Fran Spielman or Daley’s actions possibly leading to convicted First Deputy Water Commissioner Tomczak's efforts to help Rahm get to the finish line before fellow Democrat Nancy Kaszak in the March, 2004 primary [See Mark Brown] and [See Berkowitz].

The above, however, may be a bit too harsh on Cong. Emanuel. One, his relationship with the Mayor is much more of an even trade. As the Chicago Sun-Times’ Fran Spielman points out, raising seven million dollars for the Mayor in just 13 weeks for his 1989 Mayoral race went a long way to earn the assistance Daley provided to Rahm to help him become the Mayor’s “Go To,” congressman [borrowing a favorite phrase from the City Club of Chicago’s President and Democrat campaign consultant/fundraiser, Jay Doherty]. That is, even before the speech, the ledger for Rahm and the Mayor may have been in balance.

Two, you get the feeling that Cong. Emanuel didn’t appear at the City Club of Chicago simply to pay back his patron, supporter and mentor. The arguments he put forth are ideas he believes in, with passion. He was careful to argue that no good deeds of Daley could justify any corruption, on Daley’s part or by anyone else. Cong. Emanuel made clear he thought Daley neither knew about nor was involved in corruption-- at least Rahm doesn’t believe Daley has any legal culpability for the corruption. So, I understand Cong. Emanuel to be saying that voters in 2007 should balance the goods deeds of Daley against his failure to stay hands on “in the politics,” which failure led to others acting corruptly. In Rahm’s words, no pol should ever “outsource politics,” and Rahm said he never does.

Three, unlike Daley’s often retained consultant, David Axelrod [See here], or journalist John McCarron [See here], Cong. Emanuel made no attempt to excuse, justify or defend patronage.

If you missed the lunch, Cong. Emanuel’s talk, followed by some hardball questions from some of those in attendance will air this coming Saturday night [Aug. 27], 7:00 pm- 8:00 pm on CANTV (Cable Ch. 21 in the City of Chicago) and again on Wed. morning [Aug. 31], 10:00 am-11:00 am on CANTV (this program airs on Cable Ch. 19 in the City of Chicago; CANTV airs on five different cable stations in the City of Chicago).

The Emanuel speech was good; as was the food-as it always is at Maggiano’s Banquets. Further, the questions from the audience were unusually tough—mostly fastballs and curves.

However, the real fun of the program was the press feeding frenzy, which followed it. Cong. Rahm Emanuel, to his credit, not only didn’t run from the press, but seemed to enjoy the challenge of answering questions, no holds barred, from nine different directions, with the Sun-Times Fran Spielman just a notch above everyone else: Oh, what I could do for a television station’s ratings with a Chicago local news camera crew. Take a listen:
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Rahm, Bob Crawford [WBBM-780 AM Radio Political Editor Emeritus] has talked for more than five years about the systemic problem of corruption [in the Mayor Daley Administration] and the [fact that the] Mayor, until recently, never treated it as a systemic problem. How can you defend that? He has to have known it was a systemic problem.

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: I said I can give you my sense of why he doesn’t care about that stuff- doesn’t want to know about it. But, that’s not legit. You can’t say it is only the workings of government and the libraries and the police stations and the public housing and the public schools and, in my view, that same reform, that same commitment, that same willingness to spend political capital to see changes in public schools and public housing has to be brought to public institutions and public service.

Craig Dellimore [WBBM-780 AM Radio Political Editor]: Let’s take the question one step beyond, though. If someone could be a mayor who ignored or didn’t see those kinds of things-- while focusing on the things he wanted to do—misses this level of corruption, should that person be the Mayor?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: Craig, I answered the question. I think he should be Mayor and I hope he runs for re-election.

Bill Cameron [WLS- 890 AM Radio City Hall reporter]: How can you argue that he held the line on property taxes when every year, but one, I think, he has raised the [property] tax for schools right up to the limit?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: What I said and what I believe is that he has shown a sense of fiscal discipline and innovation that as we expand our services—that he has held the line on taxes and he has.

Cameron: But he hasn’t.

Fran Spielman [Chicago Sun-Times City Hall Reporter]: You are painting a picture of him as someone who is basically “see no evil, hear no evil,” on the political aspect but totally…

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: I believe that the way, as I said, all- Fran- the totality. I don’t think you get a pass when you say I didn’t know that was going on. Because at the end of the day, you are the address of accountability. And, what I am saying is—you have got to make those changes…I always used to say if …we had known in the first year of the first term [of the Clinton Administration] what we knew by the first year of the second term-- the Presidency would be different. The Mayor thought he could get away is my guess…if he just did all the good works on city government—you know the public schools, the…that was enough, and that he could basically let that go and let somebody else manage it. He [Daley] has to set the standards. He has to set the priorities… That is what he needs to do and I think he will…
************************************
Cong. Rahm Emanuel: …I am going to stand up for the Mayor because I think (A) you have got to pull the lens back and get a full picture of everything about his work. He doesn’t get a pass on the other stuff, but it is not a full description of the Mayor we know that has made this [City] in my view the most livable City in America.

Another Reporter: …don’t you believe it was the Mayor who called Tomczak [and] who said, “Get your troops out for Rahm.”

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: No.

Another Reporter: You don’t?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: You asked me do I believe the Mayor got on the phone. I just otherwise-- if I said that--

Another Reporter: [He called] Mr. Tomczak and said, back Rahm?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: You’re asking me to guess.

Jeff Berkowitz: How did Tomczak know where to go [with his help for you in the primary]?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: First of all, you know in that campaign, as I said to you earlier—in that campaign [the March, 2004 Primary in which Nancy Kaszak, came within nine points, or so, of beating Rahm Emanuel for the 5th Cong. Seat] Let me step back. One, he [Don Tomczak] never contributed to my campaign and he never worked for my campaign, and what he did was wrong. Two, I got support from a lot of folks in that campaign…

Spielman: But… who gave him the marching orders?
************************************************
Another reporter: …clarify now. Tomczak’s people did work for you?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: What I said is—they didn’t work on my campaign. They did not work out of my office or my payroll.

Spielman: But, they did field work for you. And, you had Greg Goldner as your campaign manager.

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: Fran, when Greg worked for me, he worked for me and nobody else.

Spielman: Right, but he’s [HDO honcho] Victor Reyes’-- [sidekick]

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: I was responsible for him [Goldner] for the four months he worked for me. He did not work for anybody else when he worked for me.
**************************************
Spielman: Who told Tomczak’s army to work for you?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: You have to go ask those people.

Spielman: Who do you think gave the orders?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: It’s a guess, I don’t know.

Spielman: You don’t think it was Mayor Daley?

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: You asked me to guess. I am guessing.

Spielman: But, you have already said you don’t think it was Mayor Daley.

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: No, I don’t think Mayor Daley picked up the phone and said, "Don Tomczak, go work for Rahm.".

Jeff Berkowitz: No, but somebody in your campaign who knew--would have to know where they [the Tomczak army] could help Rahm Emanuel the most. If it wasn’t the Mayor, somebody from your campaign had to tell them where to go [to help Rahm Emanuel in the 2004 Primary].

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: First of all, I got help from, as I said earlier, …from the police union, firefighters union…

Berkowitz: Could you have won the Primary without Don Tomczak’s help? [See here].

Cong. Rahm Emanuel: I will leave that to your insights.

Bill Cameron: Yes. [Well, Bill Cameron might be right. Rahm could have. I should have asked-- WOULD Rahm have won without Tomczak’s help, but I don’t suppose Rahm would have answered that one, either. He didn’t go to Sarah Lawrence and Northwestern just to eat his lunch.]

Press Conference by Cong. Rahm Emanuel after he spoke at a City Club of Chicago lunch program on August 24, 2005.
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

Fritchey Confesses: Mea Maxima Culpa

Berkowitz: Solid B? I thought maybe you would give him [the Governor] a Gentleman’s C, but it is a solid B?

Rep. John Fritchey: Yes.

Berkowitz: Notwithstanding the fact that you apologized for supporting him on- would it be accurate to say—“his raid of the pension funds.”

Rep. John Fritchey: I do think that the pension raid vote is very ill considered. I think it is going to come back to haunt us in the future.
***********************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features State Rep. John Fritchey [D-Chicago]. [See the end of this post for a detailed suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs.”] Our show with State Rep. John Fritchey will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on next Monday night, August 29 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 in Chicago.

Rep. Fritchey, 41, is in his 9th year in the Statehouse and is Of Counsel with the 400 attorney Detroit based [but largest office now in Chicago] law firm of Dykema Gossett. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council named Rep. Fritchey twice as “one of the 100 rising stars to watch” [2001 and 2003], and John notes that that constellation also includes Illinois’ brightest political star of all, it’s junior senator Barack Obama.

State Rep. Fritchey is Chairman of the House Civil Judiciary Committee and he has said he could be a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago, if and when Mayor Daley decides not to run for re-election. [See here for more about Rep. Fritchey, as well as a link to our April 10, 2005 discussion about a possible run by Fritchey for Mayor of Chicago].

********************************************
Next week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features David McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills], vying in the 8th Cong. Dist. Republican primary for the right to carry the Republican Party’s banner in its November, 2006 effort to win the seat back from Congresswoman Melissa Bean [D-Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist.]
**********************************************
A partial transcript of the show with Rep. Fritchey is included, below.
*************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Your Governor-- I should say our Governor…give him a grade [for his first] 2 ½ years as Governor…you [have] a University of Michigan undergrad [degree], Northwestern University Law School [degree], Latin School- couldn’t find a better prep school in the country—Attorney General Lisa Madigan also is an alum of that school, right?

State Rep. John Fritchey [D-Chicago]: She is.

Berkowitz: You are a smart guy… Using that education…objectively, write us an essay and lead it off by saying, objectively, the grade that Rod Blagojevich gets for his first 2 ½ years [as Governor].

Rep. John Fritchey: Well, given my education, the first thing I want to do is avoid a question like that.

Berkowitz: …That’s not what they taught you at Northwestern…

Rep. John Fritchey: The Governor came in under very, very difficult circumstances-- from a lack of confidence in state government, from a budget deficit in the billions of dollars…at the same time, there have been some lapses of judgment…

Berkowitz: So, let’s give us a grade and then we’ll talk.

Rep. John Fritchey: I would put him at a solid B.

Berkowitz: Solid B? I thought maybe you would give him [the Governor] a Gentleman’s C, but it is a solid B?

Rep. John Fritchey: Yes.

Berkowitz: Notwithstanding the fact that you apologized for supporting him on- would it be accurate to say—“his raid of the pension funds.”

Rep. John Fritchey: I do think that the pension raid vote is very ill considered. I think it is going to come back to haunt us in the future.

Berkowitz: Pension raid vote? Now you voted for that and then you apologized about a week later on ABC 7 Newsviews with Alan Krashesky [Local ABC, Chicago 7 news]. You said—this is John Fritchey [speaking], on June 5 [2005], "I wish I hadn't voted for it. I'd like to apologize to the people of Illinois for voting for it. But again, the Democrats made a decision. The alternatives that were out there -- an income tax increase, an expansion of gaming, deep service cutbacks -- none of those would have set any better with the general public." So, it is kind of a non-apology, apology. Were you apologizing or—

Rep. John Fritchey: Let me reiterate it. I apologize for the pension vote. I wish I hadn’t voted for it. I think it is something that we are going to have to pay the price for—

Berkowitz: Each and every voter…or potential voter or our viewers, you are looking them in the eye and you are saying you apologize.

Rep. John Fritchey: I think it takes a lot more courage to admit that you made a mistake than it does to try to speciously defend a vote that you shouldn’t have cast. I understand where the leadership was coming from. The Governor has made a no tax pledge- a No Tax Increase pledge and I respect him for holding to that. I have never voted for a gaming expansion. I voted against Rosemont. I have been opposed to anything-- significant gaming expansion proposals out there, so I wouldn’t have supported that either. So, I respect that position. [People must be asking] Well, John, if you didn’t support raiding the [state government employee and teacher] pensions, what did you support?

Berkowitz: What did you support?

Rep. John Fritchey: And the answer is, I don’t know. But, it is our job to figure that out. You know, for years, we had said this [a pension raid] was a bad idea. We shouldn’t do this. To do it as a way of getting us out of session or to balance a budget, you know- I don’t get it.

Berkowitz: But you hadn’t figured it out as of that time, by the end of May, as to what alternative you were suggesting to the Governor-- as an alternative to raiding the pension fund?

Rep. John Fritchey: At the end of the day, without having a better answer, I didn’t know that it was enough to dig my heels in and say, “This isn’t the answer. I am not going along with this.” [Instead, I said] I am going to respect the decision of the [Democrat] Party Leaders in this situation and they felt that this was the prudent course to take—I do feel however that it is a course that we are going to have to explain for years to come. [State Sen. Chris Lauzen [R-Aurora] joined State Rep. Fritchey on the June 5, 2005 Alan Krashesky Newsviews show [See here] and Senator Lauzen said, "Over the next 40 years, for every dollar of those $2.3 billion, it's going to take us $13-- according to the actuarial experts-- to pay it back." (Putting the payback cost to the state for the $2.3 billion pension raid at 30 billion dollars)].

Berkowitz: But, a week later, you decided that you should have dug in your heels and said it wasn’t the prudent course, even if it means giving the Republicans leverage because you would then need their votes to pass a budget. You were then essentially saying you should have said, “No,” and gone into oversession, right? [I mean] overtime.

Rep. John Fritchey: To me, it’s not a partisan issue. Whether education is getting cut back somewhere in the State, whether people’s taxes are getting raised, whether their neighborhoods are safe or not—is not a Democrat or Republican issue. We can’t always devolve everything [into politics]--
****************************************
State Rep. John Fritchey, recorded on August 14, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of August 22] and as will be airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on this coming Monday night, August 29 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
State Rep. John Fritchey [D-Chicago] debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz a grade for Gov. Blagojevich, Fritchey's political office aspirations, his assessment of likely primary challengers to Gov. Blagojevich and potential Republican gubernatorial candidates, his apology for supporting the pension raids, how possible match-ups between Gov. Blagojevich and Jim Edgar, Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka and State Senator Steve Rauschenberger play out and much, much more.
************************************
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
***********************

John Sullivan takes on Chicago's Royal Families-- Lipinskis, Daleys, Madigans and Hyneses--on TV

John Sullivan: She wanted to get tutoring for that student, and all I could tell her was there was not enough funds to do it. That’s all we could tell her. So, what are we going to do? Are we going to take money away from the public schools?

Jeff Berkowitz: Give her the eleven thousand dollars that she’s getting now [in the form of in-kind expenditures for a failing school]. Let her go to a private school.

John Sullivan: Take money away from the public schools to do that?

Berkowitz: I can’t believe you don’t want to do that.
**********************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features 3rd Cong. Dist. Democratic Primary candidate John Sullivan [D-Chicago], who is taking on 3rd CD Cong. Dan Lipinski, the freshman congressman and son of Bill Lipinski, the former 22 year congressman from the 3rd Cong. Dist. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] tonight at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
See here for more about the topics covered in tonight’s show, John Sullivan's background and a partial transcript of the show and see here for another partial transcript of tonight’s show.
*************************************************
Yet another partial transcript of tonight’s show in the City of Chicago with 3rd Cong. Dist. candidate John Sullivan is included below.
*************************************************
You can reach John Sullivan at friendsofjohnsullivan@yahoo.com
************************************************
SCHOOL VOUCHERS/SCHOOL CHOICE

Jeff Berkowitz: Education. School vouchers. Bill Lipinski supported that. [Cong.] Dan Lipinski supports school vouchers, school choice. What do you say?


John Sullivan: I think-

Berkowitz: Give people some choice over where they send their kids to school-

John Sullivan: You know, I’m not in favor of school vouchers.

Berkowitz: You’re not? You went to a parochial school [and your mother taught in a parochial school]. Your parents exercised choice, and you don’t want to give people of lower income, of lower means-- the same kind of choice?

John Sullivan: I think we can do more to help people with, uh, with-- especially lower middle class people and middle class people to give them breaks.

Berkowitz: Well, right now-- We spend, in the City of Chicago [public schools], eleven thousand dollars, per kid, per year. Take that eleven thousand dollars and give it to-- forty percent of your constituents live in the city of Chicago—let them choose how to spend that eleven thousand dollars. You are saying you can do something more? Let those people go-

John Sullivan: I’m saying-

Berkowitz: Excuse me, if they want to stay in the public schools, they can stay there. If they want to go, let them go. You went [exited the public schools], and you don’t want them to have that choice?

John Sullivan: [What] I’m saying is, the education system-- we cannot draw, we cannot take away funding from the public school system in this country. We can’t do it. We don’t have enough funding for the public school system, as it is.

Berkowitz: I’m talking about the kids. If two hundred fifty thousand kids go out [of the public school system], half the money goes out. They [the public schools] still have [half] the funds [left] to educate half the kids. Why is that wrong? Do you care about the kids in the public schools, or do you care about the public schools?

John Sullivan: It’s not that easy. I care about the kids in the public schools. Obviously, Obviously.

Berkowitz: Well, then, give them that choice.

John Sullivan: No, but here’s the problem.

Berkowitz: You had the choice and you don’t want to give them the choice?

John Sullivan: Right now, I’m on my local school board [local school council] and there is a-- there is a mother [who] came with her child the other day to one of our [LSC] meetings-- and said her child could not read and he’s in the third grade, and she wanted to get tutoring for that-

Berkowitz: Is she in a public school?

John Sullivan: Yes.

Berkowitz: Well, then—let that kid go, let him go to a private school.

John Sullivan: She wanted to get tutoring for that student, and all I could tell her was there was not enough funds to do it. That’s all we could tell her.
So, what are we going to do? Are we going to take money away from the public schools?

Berkowitz: Give her the eleven thousand dollars that she’s getting now [in the form of in-kind expenditures for a failing school]. Let her go to a private school.

John Sullivan: Take money away from the public schools to do that?

Berkowitz: I can’t believe you don’t want to do that.

John Sullivan: I’m not in favor of taking money away from the public schools.

Berkowitz: What about the kids in the public schools? Here’s a mother whose kid is not learning how to read [in the public schools].

John Sullivan: We need to do more to help the students [in the public schools].
*******************************************************
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN-ISLAM ETHIC?

Berkowitz: So, would you say-- is it a Judeo-Christian-Islam ethic now [in the U. S.]? It used to be Judeo-Christian ethic?

John Sullivan: Uh, yeah, like I said, I think as long as, as long as everybody has a chance to display what they believe.

Berkowitz: Equal chance.

John Sullivan: Yes. Absolutely.
****************************************************
GAYS:

Berkowitz: Gays. Where are you on that, would you, you, in general, would you support bans on discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment?

John Sullivan: Yes, I would. I believe that no one should be discriminated against in this country, the United States of America. We need to move beyond that.

Berkowitz: What about Gays in the military? You differ with [Cong.]Dan Lipinski, you think gays should be in the military?

John Sullivan: Well, I think, yes. That gays have a right to serve in the military. I think the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the most part, has worked. I think Dan Lipinski, so far, has said he doesn’t believe in that policy and he believes that gays should not be allowed to serve in the military.

Berkowitz: Following in his father’s footsteps on that-- Bill Lipinski took the same position, Dan is following in that?

John Sullivan: Uh, I’m not sure.

Berkowitz: You think, you think he is not representing the district? If you looked at that district, you’d say the third congressional district would agree with you, is that what you’re saying?

John Sullivan: Well, I’m saying--

Berkowitz: Gays should be allowed…Or, just that that’s your view?

John Sullivan: In a time of war, when people are willing to stand up and serve and go and serve our country, we shouldn’t be asking them whether or not they’re gay and having that be the determination of whether they can go and fight and defend our country.

Berkowitz: Same sex marriage. Do you favor that?

John Sullivan: Ah, I favor civil unions.

Berkowitz: Why? You said you were against discrimination. Why not [permit same sex marriage]? I mean, [not to permit that] isn’t that discrimination? Why would two gays or two lesbians not be allowed to marry? You know, isn’t that imposing somebody’s religious views on them. When you’re saying [you support] civil unions, you know, why isn’t the state, why wouldn’t you say that the state should say if they want to marry, they can marry.

John Sullivan: I believe that civil unions are [Inaudible]. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my personal belief.

Berkowitz: And you think that government though should-- not only should it be your personal belief-- you think that government should make that the rule of the land, the law of the land?

John Sullivan: Well I think that mostly-- that’s an issue that should be left up to the states, but yes, I think that you know, like I said, I believe that marriage-

Berkowitz: Would you support the Defense of Marriage Act, then?

John Sullivan: The Defense of Marriage Act? I-

Berkowitz: Yeah. At the congressional level.

John Sullivan: Yeah. I’d have to look at the, uh, specifics of it.

Berkowitz: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would ban, uh, marriage between gays and lesbians? Same sex marriage.

John Sullivan: No.

THE WAR:

Berkowitz: You wouldn’t. What about the war? Big issue?

John Sullivan: The war is absolutely a big issue. It’s probably one of the biggest issues facing our, our country today.

Berkowitz: [Cong.] Dan Lipinski said he wouldn’t have voted to, ah, you know, authorize the President to take military action in the fall of 2002. If he had been there. You agree with Dan?

John Sullivan: I do agree with Dan Lipinski on that. I would not have voted for the authorization of war in Iraq.
*********************************************
John Sullivan: …[W]hat I will say is… our motives were supposed to be to find weapons of mass destruction. And we find they weren’t [there].

Berkowitz: And, we [the United States Government] thought there were [WMD]. And, the French thought they were there, the Germans thought they were there. Everybody thought there were weapons of mass destruction, not just the U. S.

John Sullivan: That’s fine. Even with that though, even considering that, I don’t believe we should have gone in there. I think Saddam Hussein was contained—

Berkowitz: But right now- What would you do? Would you do what we’re doing now, or would you do something differently now?

John Sullivan: Would I do what we’re doing now?

Berkowitz: Yeah. Right now there’s a government emerging, there have been elections, there’s likely to be [an Iraqi] Constitution, and the United States government says that what it’s trying to do is provide sufficient security to allow that country to get off the ground. We won’t set a timetable to withdraw troops, thinking that would help the insurgents. Do you disagree with that?

John Sullivan: I don’t disagree with that.
**********************************************
HEALTHCARE:

Berkowitz: What’s the biggest issue that you see that’s going to come at you if you do run in the third congressional district?

John Sullivan: I think the biggest issue facing our country in the 3rd congressional district is healthcare. Healthcare has spiraled out of control in this country.

Berkowitz: What would you do? What kind of legislation would you like to see and would you sponsor?

John Sullivan: I would sponsor and would like to see national reform of the entire healthcare system, which would provide healthcare for every single American in this country.

Berkowitz: Would you like to see a single payer system? Make the government the only buyer and then parcel it [Healthcare] out?

John Sullivan: I don’t know that the single payer system is the best way to go. What I’ve looked at is-- the National Coalition on Healthcare has come out with four different scenarios in which-- we could ensure that every American has health insurance. One of those is the single payer system, but that’s not the only one. There’s other private and public partnerships that are involved-- uh, or that could be involved in reaching, insuring the forty six million that aren’t insured out there.

Berkowitz: What’s Dan Lipinski doing on that? Congressman Dan.

John Sullivan: Dan Lipinski thinks, well- at least the bill he’s proposed so far with Republicans is to give people a pretax savings account that they can put money into for healthcare.

Berkowitz: Medical savings accounts. Give them a little control. You think that’s a bad idea.

John Sullivan: Look, I think it’s not going to work.

Berkowitz: Why is it not going to work?

John Sullivan: To tell somebody that doesn’t have healthcare that they can put three thousand dollars into a savings account to cover a hospital stay-- that would probably eat that up in one day.

Berkowitz: Well, for the people who do have healthcare. It’s another way of giving people a little more control and also an incentive to use their expenditures wisely, because if they actually don’t use that, it accumulates into the next year, and eventually it could be part of their own wealth. You would agree with that, wouldn’t you?

John Sullivan: Well, what we need to look at is there are forty-six million people in this country without healthcare. There are eight point seven million children--

Berkowitz: Wouldn’t people choose to do that? Some of them choose to do that because they’re young and they’re healthy and they think, “This isn’t a sensible expenditure.”

John Sullivan: Well, I think people-

Berkowitz: Do you think there are some people who maybe do that?

John Sullivan: I, you know, I think everybody would have healthcare if they could afford it.

Berkowitz: Well, if it were a zero [price], but some people don’t find the price attractive-- and make a rational decision, perhaps [not to purchase it].

John Sullivan: Well, I, I. Who can afford it anymore? I mean that’s really the problem.
**************************************************
John Sullivan, Democratic candidate in the 3rd Cong. Dist. Democratic Primary, recorded on August 7, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs tonight, August 22 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**************************************************
Transcript drafts prepared by Amy Allen, who also does research for “Public Affairs,” and has her own political blog [See here].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Sullivan takes on the Lipinskis on TV tonight

Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features 3rd Cong. Dist. Democratic Primary candidate John Sullivan [D-Chicago], who is taking on Cong. Dan Lipinski, who is the freshman congressman from the 3rd Cong. Dist. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] tonight at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
**********************************************
See here for more about the topics covered in the show, Sullivan's background and a partial transcript of the show
*************************************************
A partial transcript of tonight’s show in the City with John Sullivan is included below.
*************************************************
Abortion—The Right to Choose?

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you think a woman should have a right to choose whether she’ll have an abortion or not, right?

John Sullivan: I think a woman should have a right to choose, yes.

Partial Birth Abortions:

Berkowitz: …Should there be any constraints whatsoever [on] partial birth abortion that should that be permitted, as well?

John Sullivan: I think I would favor a partial birth ban, with an exception for the life and health of the mother.

Berkowitz: What about parental notice? Should parents be notified of their minor daughter having an abortion, whether she’s twelve years old, thirteen years old, or seventeen years [old]? She’s a minor.

Judicial Bypass:

John Sullivan: Well, see- here’s the problem with the judicial bypass. I mean, in my work as a state’s attorney, I’ve spoken with many victims of rape and incest, and the problem is to ask a thirteen or a fourteen or a fifteen year old girl to go to a father who quite well could have caused this pregnancy-

Berkowitz: Go to her father, why doesn’t she go to a judge?

John Sullivan: Well, that’s exactly what I was going to get to- is-- the judicial bypass, I think, is what we need.

Berkowitz: So, you favor parental notice, require parents to be told unless a judge intervenes when this young lady-- young woman-- a child wants an abortion, they go to a counselor-- the counselor refers them to a judge, the judge decides, should we allow this abortion, and more importantly, if there’s a kid- if there’s an issue of rape, or incest by somebody-- don’t you want the court involved? So, not only should the judge be talking about whether there’s an abortion, but also somebody ought to be looking into whether there’s rape or incest. Don’t just give this young lady an abortion, but also do something about that situation. You don’t want it [rape or incest] to happen again, do you?

John Sullivan: Well, absolutely not. I mean, you know, these are-

Berkowitz: So, you agree with me though? You [don’t want to] just have an abortion and then you send the kid back and see if she gets in the same situation?

John Sullivan: In the same situation, No, absolutely not. You want the—

Berkowitz: So, you want the judge to follow up. Find out what’s going on.

Emergency Contraception:

John Sullivan: You know, society needs to do a better job of providing counseling for women who are put in this situation. We also need to do a better job of providing emergency contraception to women when they end up at a hospital and they’re a victim of rape. Eleven thousand women in this country are-- have an unintended pregnancy because of rape every year. And, many hospitals say they’re still not told that Plan B is-

Berkowitz: What about if it is a hospital-- a Catholic hospital that says it’s against their faith, against their conscience to do so-- is that why? or are there other reasons?

John Sullivan: I think there’s other hospitals. I think a lot of times it’s physicians who just don’t do it, or-

Berkowitz: What if it is the case in a Catholic hospital, should the Catholic hospital have a right not to do it?

John Sullivan: I think-

Berkowitz: You, yourself, are you Catholic?

John Sullivan: I am Catholic, yes. In fact-

Berkowitz; You, you, you don’t mind talking about your faith?

John Sullivan, NO, no, not at all.

Berkowitz: Okay.

John Sullivan: I mean personally I think abortion is abhorrent. I mean, if any member of my family or anyone I knew wanted to have an abortion, I would certainly counsel them not to do it.

Berkowitz: If it were your wife, you would counsel her not to …?
*********************************************
John Sullivan: She [Sullivan's wife, Nicole] does. She’s a pediatric intensive care nurse at the University of Chicago Hospital.

Berkowitz: All right. So, if she, if the two of you had a-- I don’t know how to put it. If your wife wanted to have an abortion, would you tell her, adamantly, no? You’re the man, you’re the husband.

John Sullivan: I don’t think my wife would ever want to have an abortion.

Berkowitz: Okay. But, if she did-- would you take that position, it’s wrong?

John Sullivan: Uh, you know, let’s-

Berkowitz; You can’t-

John Sullivan: How could I even-

Berkowitz: You can’t, she would never want to-

John Sullivan: I can’t even imagine being put in that situation.

Berkowitz: She’s Catholic, as well? Is that right? Okay. But you think a woman basically should have the right to choose. What about, let’s go over to guns. You would say you’re socially conservative [on that issue], or would you? Typically, prosecutors are fairly strong on gun control? Do you fall in that mode?

Assault Weapon Ban:

John Sullivan: I do fall in that mode. And, I think one of the greatest examples of where Congress has failed us lately is the assault weapons ban lapse. It was set to lapse last year-

Berkowitz: It did. It had been law for ten years, and congress didn’t bring it up

John Sullivan: That’s the thing about it and the worst part about it-- I’m not going to sit here and tell you the assault weapons ban is the be all and the end all of gun control legislation--

Berkowitz: But you would have supported it? If you were there, you would have liked to see it [the Federal Assault Weapon Ban] come up and you would have voted “yes?”

John Sullivan: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: To continue the-

John Sullivan: Absolutely, I mean-

Berkowitz: Assault weapons ban.

John Sullivan: There’s no reason to have assault weapons on the street. There’s no reason, and not three or four months after the assault weapons ban lapsed, there’s a child, a fifteen year old child, who was killed, in Chicago Heights, Illinois, by an assault weapon. So, we need to have that debate and we’re not having that debate.

Berkowitz: I think [Cong.] Dan Lipinski has said that he’s, that he would favor renewing the assault weapons ban. [It] didn’t come up so he didn’t have a chance to vote on it.

John Sullivan: Well, he was in a position where he should have been on the House floor speaking about it and bringing it up?

Berkowitz: Do you know if he was, or, was he arguing to bring it up?

John Sullivan: I have no information that he was. No.

************************************************
John Sullivan, Democratic candidate in the 3rd Cong. Dist. Democratic Primary, recorded on August 7, 2005 and as is airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, August 22 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21.
**************************************************
Transcript drafts prepared by Amy Allen, who also does research for “Public Affairs,” and has her own political blog [See here].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

News Flash: WTTW locates Cook County GOP Chairman Skoien— puts him on TV this Sunday

Two weeks ago, I complained [See here] that Chicago Tonight ["CT"] has had numerous City of Chicago mopes, uh- I mean alderman-- on the show during the preceeding days and weeks, saying the same boring stuff—“Don’t give up our aldermanic patronage—even though we don’t have it, we’d like it.” The City of Chicago mopes, uh- I mean alderman—were about as interesting and predictable as watching the paint dry. Corruption all around the Mayor and the mopes, uh- I mean adlerman had hardly a word to say about it. Of course, the Mayor has appointed 40% of the mopes, uh- I mean Chicago adlerman, so that could have something to do with their docile, forgiving attitude when it comes to City Hall corruption.

The Cook County Republicans, who are often criticized by the mainstream media pundits for being non-entities when it comes to standing up to Democratic corruption, elected, as its Chairman, not a mope, but somebody, "Gary Skoien," who is good “copy,” and who spoke out about the Chicago public corruption. And, Chicago’s Public TV station did what? Well, this was my complaint:

This is really amazing. Gary Skoien makes the now famous statement about offering $10,000 for information [note no mention of a “bounty,”] about corruption leading to the conviction of the Mayor and then “is fired,” from one of his two executive level jobs, as a result of making that statement. And, Chicago Tonight, as of 9:00 pm Wednesday night, still had not called Skoien to appear on CT.

But, the power of the pen is mighty and the power of the blog even mightier. Earlier this week, no doubt as a result of my rant, Cook County GOP Chairman Skoien was invited to be on Chicago Sunday [“CS”], Ch. 11’s [WTTW, Public TV] new effort which, appropriately enough, airs every Sunday at 12:30 pm, Ch. 11 in the Metropolitan Chicago area.

Hosted by Phil Ponce, CS is a half hour three segment Sunday quickie, patterned somewhat after Antonio Mora’s [CBS-2] Sunday evening Eye on Chicago, which was patterned after Ch. 11’s new [in 2002] Chicago Tonight-- which was patterned after a somewhat high brow or high tone version of the 5:00 pm local news shows. In short, the Local news shows led to CS, which either demonstrates Intelligent Design or evolution or both—because clearly CS is preferred to any local news show—Ch. 2, 5, 7, 9, 32 or whatever.

In any case, CS usually leads with a political/public policy segment, followed by two artsy/craftsy segments, as we used to call them in the olden days. So, I imagine the lead segment is where you will find Skoien questioned by Ponce. Will they be softballs? Or curves, sinkers and spitters. Who knows? But, take a [look at the end of this blog post] for some of my suggested questions and let’s see how Phil does. Let me know what you think or write Phil Ponce, if you prefer.

A small criticism. If CS tapes the interview on a different day than it airs [as it did with Skoien], shouldn’t it let the viewer know that. It is easy to do with a graphic at the beginning, end or throughout the show [as C-Span does]. On, “Public Affairs,” I start the show by stating when the show is being taped and then it is noted in a closing graphic. To omit such a disclosure is both deceptive to the viewer and unfair to the guest—and I would think is contrary to good journalism. Moreover, CT has started to air re-runs of CS segments without telling the viewers—more deception? And, of course, the interview date deception is even more so when they do that, don’t you agree? Please let me know.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***************

Drano needed for Illinois GOP Guv Primary?

Roosevelt University Professor Paul Green, Former Republican PR consultant Kathy Posner and I were guest panelists this morning on WBEZ’s "Eight Forty-Eight," magazine program- hosted by Steve Edwards. The topic was the State of the Illinois Republican Party, including the Republicans’ search for a strong gubernatorial candidate. [See here for more about Steve’s always entertaining and informative program].

A partial transcript of this morning’s program is included below and you may hear it in its entirety [by going here, the WBEZ audio library] ; also in the library is yesterday’s Eight Forty-Eight show regarding the State of the Illinois Dems—what can I say, Steve Edwards [and his talented associate editor Adriene Hill] have borrowed Professor Paul Green’s modified Fox creed— their show, like Paul, is so fair and balanced as to be the white line down the middle of the road].
*********************************************
Steve Edwards: So, what’s the mood in Springfield today, Professor?

Professor Paul Green: Well, the Republicans are gathering as we speak and [pause] they are looking for a giant can of Drano.

Edwards: [much laughter] Why do you say that?

Green: Well, everything seems to be clogged up and they need to get the pipes flushed because as long as Gov. Edgar keeps holding out that he may or may not run, it just simply clogs everything up. And, in order to run against Gov. Blagojevich, who showed yesterday that he will pull out all stops to get re-elected, Republicans have to stop talking to themselves and start talking to the people of Illinois. And, as long as they keep having these intramural squabbles or whatever they are doing, none of this works to their advantage-it only works to the advantage of Gov. Blagojevich.

Edwards: Jeff Berkowitz, why is this field so big, early on.

Berkowitz: Well...one would say because there are a lot of openings [opportunities for Republicans]. Rod Blagojevich is in trouble. His approval ratings are down in the 30s. So, contrary to what the good Professor just said, there is a lot of hope out there [for Republicans] and these folks—I mean I disagree a bit with Paul Green, my esteemed former guest on “Public Affairs.”

Edwards: [some laughter].

Berkowitz: ..These folks [candidates] have been running. [State Senator] Steve Rauschenberger hasn’t been sitting around waiting to hear what Jim Edgar is going to say. [Jim] Oberweis has said he is going to run-- whatever Jim Edgar does—he [Edgar] can get in and that’s fine [Oberweis stays in and maybe some others do, as well]. [State Senator Bill] Brady’s been in the race, he’s officially in it. Ron Gidwitz is officially in it. Pat O’Malley has been going to [participating in] the forums—he’s not officially announced, but he’s certainly actively participating [O'Malley did not attend Republican day in Springfield today-- but he told "Public Affairs," that was not an indication that he would not run].

Green: Hey, Jeff. Can you tell me one name Republican who has made an endorsement?

Berkowitz: One name Republican who has made an endorsement?

Green: Who has made an endorsement for Governor.

Berkowitz: You mean--Oh, somebody who has endorsed these folks?

Green: Yeah.

Berkowitz: Oh, its early. People want to wait and see—

Green: Oh, I see. Okay. So, you don’t believe it is clogged up—they’re [not] waiting for Edgar?

Berkowitz: I don’t think it is clogged up.

Green: All right.

Berkowitz: I mean, you know—all the names I’ve mentioned.

Green: Jeff, filing is only three months [more like four] away.

Berkowitz: [DuPage State’s Attorney] Joe Birkett is talking about it. You have eight [candidates], without [Cong.] LaHood, who just dropped out today- which I predicted about a month ago—you can find it on my blog [See here for that prediction and racing form odds for the other candidates]. You know without LaHood, you’ve got eight serious candidates, and I am counting Topinka, I am counting Edgar—you know, let him [Edgar] think about it. He can take a while.

Edwards: Kathy Posner, what’s your take on this field?

Kathy Posner: That’s what is hurting the Party— that there are so many candidates. Last night when I was thinking about who could possibly be somebody that could save the Republican Party in Illinois and while yesterday I was thinking Edgar until I read John Kass’ column [See here] and found out that Edgar is involved with Judy Kjellander [in the joint ownership of a horse farm]—

Edwards: We should point out that she is the wife of Robert Kjellander—the state committeeman [Republican National Committeeman from Illinois]

Posner: who should resign. And, the same way that the Republicans brought in somebody for the U. S. Senate from out of state, I’ve got the name of what can save the State of Illinois and that’s Rudy Giuliani

Edwards: [Lots of laughter].

Posner: The same way when Mike Ditka was thinking of running for the U. S. Senate, but I think if Giuliani came in here, that would energize all the Republicans and maybe we would have a chance to beat Blagojevich.

Berkowitz: Kathy, Kathy, wait a minute—this is Governor of the State of Illinois.

Posner: Right, Rudy Giuliani.

Berkowitz: This is not the U. S. Senate, where you can just pick people randomly, ala- Hillary Clinton—“Suddenly, I am a New Yorker.”
****************************************
Green: …If I were going to advise a political party… I would certainly say that Governor Edgar you’ve got two weeks to make your decision and then I would simply tell these other people who are out there and who want to run, to start getting endorsements, start raising money, start going on television like Gidwitz has and start talking about the Democratic incumbent’s record…not sit around and discuss whether some day-- some savior, Sir Galahad, will be riding in on a big white horse to save us—it just doesn’t work that way in this state.

Berkowitz: Nobody’s looking for a savior here. What the people are looking for is somebody, maybe, to bang some heads, some party leaders to step up and say—let’s prune this down to a field of two to three, a good competitive primary would be good; it would give those two to three [candidates] name recognition if they don’t already have it. So, I don’t see this great dilemma that Paul is painting here.

Edwards: We still have plenty of time in this cycle, you are saying?

Berkowitz: Yes, and a late answer to Paul’s question: sorry, Professor, but it took a minute-- a major endorsement is Peter Fitzgerald...an icon these days in Illinois—certainly in conservative politics and he has endorsed Steve Rauschenberger...[H]e [Peter] has some wherewithal to help him [Rauschenberger] and help get the people who have the wherewithal, the financial support to assist him. And, Jim Oberweis is running very hard. As you pointed out, Gidwitz has ads up. I don’t know about Gidwitz’s chances at this point, but he is certainly being quite aggressive and Judy Baar Topinka has time to come in. Very likely you’ve got Rauschenberger, you’ve got Oberweis, you’ve got Topinka [ultimately left in the Primary race]. That’s an interesting race. She’s [Topinka] got a shot with two conservatives splitting it [the Republican primary conservative base]. Everybody else gets out.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************