Fitzgerald endorses Rauschenberger: Stopping Public Corruption

Former U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald formally endorsed his old Fab 5 State Senate colleague, Steve Rauschenberger, for Governor on Monday at a Press Conference in the Chicago Loop. The Fab 5 also included current state senators Chris Lauzen [Aurora] and Dave Syverson [Rockford] and former State Senator Patrick O’Malley.

The Fab 5 were known for being a group of small businessman who ran independent of each other in 1992 but who were all embraced by then Senate President Pate Philip after they had become their party’s nominees. Calling Senator Fitzgerald a “small businessman,” might be a bit of a stretch, in light of his inherited wealth, but it was done.

The five Republican senators shook things up in the Senate, sharing a common enthusiasm for promoting economic and social conservative ideas, with a real emphasis on unleashing the forces of free enterprise from the onerous and oppressive burdens of state regulation and taxation. They also tried to stop, as Fitzgerald and Rauschenberger would put it, “insider” legislators from manipulating the levers of government for personal financial gain.

This theme of supporting Sen. Rauschenberger because of the common bond Senator Fitzgerald shared with Rauschenberger in terms of removing public corruption is something Senator Fitzgerald focused on in both the Monday morning Press Conference at the Chicago Hilton and the telephonic press conference held with media throughout the state in the afternoon.

Indeed, Senator Fitzgerald in the afternoon quoted Mayor Richard J. Daley as saying the three most important positions in Illinois are the Mayor of City of Chicago, the Governor of the State of Illinois and the U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Of course, the old Mayor Daley may have thought the U. S. Attorney position was useful to use as a shield for “defensive purposes,.” as opposed to using it offensively to reign in public corruption. Senator Fitzgerald went on to state, “the tenure of Patrick Fitzgerald and the aggressiveness of the prosecutions coming out of that office will…leave a significant mark on the State of Illinois for years to come.”

The irony to the old Mayor Daley, of course, is that U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has indicted many of the new Mayor Daley’s administration’s former employees, including a few who could reasonably be viewed as part of the new Mayor Daley’s management team. And, Senator Peter Fitzgerald had to fight Illinois pols from his own party, e.g., Speaker Hastert and Illinois pols from the “other Party,” Senator Dick Durbin to bring in not just “outsider,” Patrick Fitzgerald, but also “outsiders,” to fill the U. S. Attorney posts in the Central and Southern Districts of Illinois.

But, it is particularly U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald who has had and continues to have the greatest impact in terms of cleaning up the “culture of corruption,” in Illinois [former Governor George Ryan and his cronies now on trial and convictions of dozens of Secretary of State employees from when George was Secretary of State and perhaps various cronies of the current Governor, Rod Blagojevich and maybe even Gov. Blagojevich himself may be brought to trial before Patrick leaves town].

Given Illinois’ “no limits,” approach to campaign contributions, it is a bit surprising that Senator Fitzgerald, who spent about 15 million dollars of his considerable personal wealth to send himself to the U. S. Senate, has never given more than $5,000 to any one candidate, and he has followed that pattern, so far, by donating only $5,000 to Guv candidate Steve Rauschenberger. However, Fitzgerald is trying to help financially by authorizing Team Rauschenberger to recruit from Senator Fitzgerald’s Finance Committee with his blessing. Further, Senator Fitzgerald is sharing his “house file for direct mail fundraising,” with Team Rauschenberger.”

In addition to the above efforts to help Steve line up Senator Fitzgerald’s wealthy supporters for campaign contributions, it is expected that Senator Fitzgerald’s endorsement will be featured in Rauschenberger’s direct mail and in a television and radio ad or two.

Although certain media, e.g., NBC5 News’ Dick Kay, and Rauschenberger’s competitors may question the impact of Fitzgerald’s endorsement by pointing out Senator Fitzgerald now resides in Virginia [his Inverness house is “under contract], Peter Fitzgerald continues to be a conservative icon in Illinois. Indeed, Fitzgerald has broad based support within and outside the Republican Party, due to his willingness often to take “good government, maverick positions,” within his own party. Indeed, one such maverick action was Senator Peter Fitzgerald’s successful fight to install the independent New Yorker, Patrick Fitzgerald, as the U. S. Attorney.

Moreover, as the Chicago Tribune’s multi-talented columnist and blogger Eric Zorn notes [see here], the George Ryan trial could turn out to be all about protecting the taxpayer. Fitzgerald argued Monday that Rauschenberger was all about protecting the taxpayer and he was “the guy who was thrown out of the Executive mansion by Governor George Ryan because Steve was fighting Gov. Ryan on a variety of issues including his spending.”

So, while the backdrop of the George Ryan trial could hurt some Republicans who were politically cozy with George, Peter Fitzgerald thought the George Ryan trial publicity could help Steve’s campaign. As I have argued, Steve may be perceived, happily, by voters as the anti-Ryan, especially if he uses a snapshot of being drop kicked out of the mansion by George Ryan as a campaign mailer.
*********************************************
Senator Peter Fitzgerald: …It is a sad day for the State of Illinois to have a former Governor [George Ryan] on trial for corruption. I guess we had it not too long ago with Otto Kerner on trial and before that, we had it in the 20s with a Governor named Glenn Small. But, hopefully, we can put all of those days of corruption behind us and get good people like Steve Rauschenberger in [office] in the future.

Jeff Berkowitz: You talked about the fundraising and financial support for Senator Rauschenberger. Unlike Senator Rauschenberger, you have considerable personal wealth. How much of that are you prepared to use to remedy some of those [financial] difficulties for Senator Rauschenberger? The potential is virtually unlimited in Illinois. You could write a check [to Senator Rauschenberger] for two million dollars, today.

Senator Fitzgerald: Steve keeps reminding me of that. Thus far, I have given him five thousand dollars. But, the money will be there for Steve. There are a lot of people who will contribute to him. And, he will be able to raise money from people who just want a good economic climate in the state of Illinois for their businesses and their families and their communities and their schools. He will not be the type to be getting $100,000 or $200,000 from some state contractor. That’s where most of Governor Blagojevich’s money comes from. People who want a specific state contract… And, also, my guess is… Steve won’t need as much money because I expect Steve will do very well with the editorial board endorsements. When he ran for the U. S. Senate to succeed me, virtually every newspaper in the State endorsed Steve because they knew his knowledge and his qualifications were unmatched.

Berkowitz: Senator Rauschenberger has said, “We don’t need more ethics legislation, we need more ethical politicians.” Do you agree with that? Would you oppose any limits on campaign contributions or campaign finance reform for Illinois?

Senator Fitzgerald: Well, Steve is right to a certain extent. You almost can’t legislate good, honest people. There are so many different ways in which a legislator can work for his own interests and against the interests of constituents that you would never figure [them all] out. If I can tell a real quick story… the first bill I was asked to introduce. Steve remembers this. Steve and I took a similar approach to legislation…
**********************************************
Excerpt of the Press Conference held on Monday, Sep. 26 at the Hilton Hotel in Chicago by former U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald to formally announce his endorsement of State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger [R-Elgin] for the Republican Gubernatorial Nomination
**********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Is there a difference between you and Senator Rauschenberger on campaign finance reform? Are you more tolerant of some limits than Senator Rauschenberger appears to be?

Senator Fitzgerald: You know I have never talked to Steve about that, so I don’t know.

Berkowitz: What are your own views on campaign finance reform?

Senator Fitzgerald: Well, I voted for campaign finance reform in Washington. I voted for the McCain Feingold [legislation]. I do think that unlimited amounts of contributions to candidates are not good.
************************************************
Informal question and answer session held after the above referenced Press Conference, Sep. 26, 2005
*********************************************

Right [Roberts confirmation] and Wrong [Blunt new Leader ]

As the trial lawyers say, if you are not losing some cases, you are not trying cases. For pundits, if you not missing some predictions, you are not making predictions.

First, a pat on my back. More than two months ago, I wrote [see here]:

Most likely scenario? No filibuster, Judge Roberts is confirmed with 70 plus and maybe 80 plus votes. Unlike Bork, Judge Roberts would be very difficult for the hard line, far left Democrats to morph into a back alley abortionist...

This morning, Judge John Roberts was confirmed as the youngest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in more than 200 years by a 78-22 Senate margin. [See here].Take the median of 70 plus and 80 plus and you come pretty close to 78 votes. Score one for “Public Affairs.”

I wrote on July 20:

The betting is that a guy who holds a Harvard college and Harvard Law School degree, clerked for the very well respected 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Friendly and U. S. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, was Associate Counsel to President Reagan and the principal Deputy Solicitor General under President George Herbert Walker Bush, was approved pretty easily to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, i.e., by unanimous consent, doesn’t have an extensive paper trail and is viewed as more like the gentleman Rehnquist than the sarcastic, hot-tongued Scalia can withstand the Nan Arons and Chuck Schumers of the World.

On the money again. Resumes aren’t everything, but they do count. And, a guy who won 25 of 39 Supreme Court oral arguments can probably prevail over Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Biden, Durbin and Feinstein [Oh my, what an embarrassing performance by Diane. The feminist groups must have cringed. Only 13 women in the U. S. Senate, but couldn’t they find a woman who went to law school and who was conversant in the law to put on the Judiciary Committee?] Where is Emily's List when we need it?.

Now, I fall on my sword. Yesterday, I wrote:

Majority Leader Tom DeLay [R-TX] has been indicted on one count of criminal conspiracy and will step down [See here] with Cong. David Dreier [R-San Dimas, CA] expected to replace him.

Oops, got that wrong. It was right in the sense that the Speaker expected he could put Dreier there, and he tried to. However, sometimess [to the chagrin of economists at the University of Chicago] even rational expectations are disappointed. The new Majority Leader is Roy Blunt [R-MO] [See here]. Yes, Cong. Dreier apparently was both Speaker Hastert’s and Cong. DeLay’s choice, but not the choice of certain influential Republican House members who found Dreier too moderate and who would have led a revolt. Hastert could have fought. But, the old high school wrestling coach didn’t get to be Speaker by wrestling his way there, and he is not about to start now.

And I also wrote:

Long run, Dreier [Chairman, House Rules Committee] in for DeLay could be just what the doctor ordered.

I’ll stick with that prediction, but we may never know if I got that right.

And, I wrote:

Tom DeLay’s role in Leadership, RIP.

I’ll stick with that one. They don’t call this guy “The Comeback Kid.” That's Mr. Bill. They call Tom DeLay “The Hammer.” And, for now, the hammer has been taken out of "DeLay's," hand.

Delay may beat the Travis County indictment. It may be bogus as a three dollar bill. [See here]. He may stay a congressman. He may have influence. But, Speaker DeLay? Majority Leader DeLay? Whip DeLay? I don’t think so.

The times are a changing. And, they dictate a much different public face for the Republican Party than that of the Hammer. If I had a hammer, I’d hammer in the morning, I’d hammer in the evening. All over this land. But, I wouldn’t make the Hammer the public face of the national Republican Party. For that you want an articulate, thoughtful, telegenic conservative. Not a Hammer.

Dreier may not have been the right congressperson for the job. But’s it not DeLay and it’s not Blunt. So, the Speaker and Friends had best do a search. They need a new Public Face and they need it soon.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

The Hammer got hammered: Tom Delay’s Leadership role, RIP

Majority Leader Tom Delay [R-TX] has been indicted on one count of criminal conspiracy and will step down [See here] with Cong. David Dreier [R- San Dimas, CA] expected to replace him. With the Bush Administration and the Republican congressional leaders doing damage control, they are talking about a “temporary suspension,” of Delay’s duties and Cong. Dreier taking over “some of,” Delay’s duties [See here], but that’s just to soften the transition. Good bye Tom Delay. Hello David Dreier. [See here].

Of course, the short run effect on the White House and the Republican Party is not good. Looking at the bright side, the Republicans might say—It gets Michael Brown, Katrina and low Bush Approval ratings off the front page. Indeed, this is a recent pattern. Katrina got the Iraq War casualties and civilian deaths due to car bombings off the front page. Now, Delay gets Katrina and Michael Brown off the front page. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, each such event drives the President’s approval ratings lower and lower. Karl Rove has lost his magic.

However, long run, Dreier [Chairman, House Rules Committee] in for Delay could be just what the doctor ordered. Speaker Hastert and President Bush are probably toasting each other as I write this. Delay, despite his prowess first as a Party Whip and then as Majority Leader who could help congressmen get elected and stay there, had perhaps outlived his usefulness to the Party. He is definitely not a good face to put on the National Republican Party. Congressman Dreier is. Like Delay, Dreier is conservative, but not quite as much conservative, and much smoother, much more articulate and much better on TV than Delay.

As to the actual indictment of Majority Leader Delay, Ronnie Earle, the Travis County District Attorney who brought these charges and who has been gunning for Delay for a long time, is a strong Democrat partisan with little pretense of impartiality. One of Delay’s lawyers, Bill White, a Democrat himself, is referring to the indictment as "skunky." [See here]. However, even a relatively quick dismissal of the indictment, which could happen, won’t be quick enough to catapult Tom Delay back into the Republican House Leadership.

Although the White House is saying Delay is a good friend and ally, that’s about as far as it will go. ABC News’ Terry Moran did manage to get the White House to confirm this morning that it has “confidence,” in Delay, but that was like pulling teeth. And, Moran also got the White House to confirm that it took the allegations in the indictment of Delay seriously.

Tom Delay, aka "The Hammer," got hammered this morning. Delay may stay on as Congressman if he prevails over the indictment, but, like former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who faced a much less serious matter, the bottom line is: Tom Delay’s role in Leadership, RIP.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

John Filan on TV: Bonded with Blago?

Revised at 10:20 am on Wednesday to add Paula Wolff to the mix and a link to Bob Kjellander's response to the question of "how he earn's his keep." [See transcript, below].

OMB Director John Filan: Now, this is just you and me talking, just think about it a second—so we are about to give them 10 billion dollars because we have to stop this leak. The pension systems are draining money like crazy. They just lost $14 billion in investments. We went to them and said...
***************************************************
This week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," features John Filan, Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Director of Office of Management and Budget. A detailed Metro Chicago suburban airing schedule for “Public Affairs,” is included below. The "Public Affairs," program with OMB Director John Filan also will air through-out the City of Chicago on this coming Monday night, Oct. 3 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.

John Filan, a University of Chicago MBA, '76 [Jim Oberweis, BTW, is another University of Chicago MBA], who has been OMB Director for almost three years, debates and discusses the desirability of the Blagojevich Administration’s 10 billion dollar pension fund bond sale, whether the decision not to make several billion dollars in scheduled bond payments this year and next is a “raid on the pension funds,” the desirability of “fund sweeps,” by the Blagojevich administration, the propriety of payments received by Illinois’ RNC member Bob Kjellander from Bear Stearns and others, whether Governor Blagojevich and his close advisers were engaged in an illegal pension fund/campaign contribution “kickback scheme,”and much, much more with show host Jeff Berkowitz.

During this week’s suburban edition of Public Affairs, Director Filan shows his stuff in defending major fiscal decisions made by the Governor, Director Filan and others relating to state budget planning, bonding, taxing and fiscal management issues.

On the other hand, as the host tries to be tough but fair with all Public Affairs guests, Director Filan faces some tough questions about what the Blagojevich Administration has done or not done with respect to pushing the State Pension Funds and their money managers to use certain “placement agents,” or consultants, competitive bidding of brokerage fees for handling the bond sales and whether the State bonded debt has gone up dramatically under the Blagojevich Administration.

How did John Filan do on the show? We discuss, you decide. One thing is for sure-- you will be informed, entertained and challenged if you watch this week’s show. And, look especially for a strong finish by the guest and the host, which is the show’s trademark, along with the backpack, of course.
****************************************
A partial transcript of the show’s strong finishing kick is included, below.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …We very much want to thank John Filan, who is the Director of the OMB for taking the time to come here and talk about a lot of complicated issues. Thank you, John.

John Filan: It is. That was a fast half hour.

Jeff Berkowitz: Fast half hour.

John Filan: [Laughter].

Jeff Berkowitz: You know what people say is-- that you, when you got that 10 billion dollars [from the bond sale in 2003], you tried to direct or tell the pension board what kind of instruments they would invest in, who they would deal with and so forth. And, you are saying that there is no control over that [by Governor Blagojevich’s office]. Is that false? [what was said about you trying to control the investment of the 10 billion dollars in cash from the bond sale].

John Filan: That is so false.

Jeff Berkowitz: Is it?

John Filan: It really would anger me. I wish somebody who would say it would say it to my face because—

Jeff Berkowitz: You didn’t try to do that at all?

John Filan: Anybody who was there--We went to the pension funds to look at—we’re about to—I don’t mean “give,” like I am giving it—but we’re about to give you 10 billion dollars. Okay, remember, if you remember, back in February, ’03, the pension systems in the preceding two years had lost 14 billion dollars. Now, this is just you and me talking, just think about it a second—so we are about to give them 10 billion dollars because we have to stop this leak The pension systems are draining money like crazy. They just lost $14 billion in investments. We went to them and said, myself and Jim Annable [former Bank One Chief Economist and a member of Blagojevich’s CEA ],John Rogers [President and CEO of Ariel Capital Management and a member of Blagojevich’s CEA] and I think Paula Wolff [former President of Governors State University, former adviser to Gov. Thompson and a member of Blagojevich's CEA) was with us. Let me just say—

Jeff Berkowitz: No, we only have thirty seconds left, I have to get to this. [Illinois' RNC member] Bob Kjellander gets a $809,000 fee for getting [some of that 10 billion dollar bond brokerage] business for Bear Stearns in 2003 and now he is apparently getting 4 or 5 million dollars—or is supposed to-- for something that nobody can quite articulate. You are the chief financial adviser to Gov. Blagojevich. What do you think about that?

John Filan: We would 100% disapprove of it. We disapproved of it then. We—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you say Kjellander should not have gotten that fee?

John Filan: Absolutely not.

Jeff Berkowitz: What did he [Kjellander] do to get that? [See Here for Kjellander's answer to this and other questions]

John Filan: I-- [show ends].

*************************************************************
John Filan, Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Director of Office of Management and Budget, recorded on September 18, 2005, and as the program will air on the suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” tonight and this week and on the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” this coming Monday night, October 3 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
*******************************
The suburban edition of Public Affairs regularly airs in ten North Shore suburbs three times each week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Winnetka, Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire and Riverwoods.

In twenty-four North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the show will air once this week in its regular time slot: Tonight, Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. on either Comcast Cable Channel 19 or Channel 35, depending on the suburb. The show airs tonight at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette. Also, the show airs tonight at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*************************************************
The "Public Affairs," program with OMB Director John Filan also will air through-out the City of Chicago this coming Monday night, Oct. 3 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, 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
***********

Forrest Claypool on “Public Affairs.” Better than Monday night Football.

Jeff Berkowitz: [Hired Truck] Hired Tow, Hired Thief, the whole thing. Okay. If that’s ten percent of ten billion dollars, that’s a billion dollars [for a corruption tax]. You could do a lot on schools and libraries and parks that … isn’t being done. You could do a lot with that billion dollars. Do you think there’s been a corruption tax for the past sixteen years in the City of Chicago?

Forrest Claypool: Well, I don’t know about the past sixteen years but, I think, obviously, when you have a scandal like Hired Truck there is a cost to the taxpayers. There’s no question about it. There’s no question that when you have these scandals and there’s lots of money involved, that’s not good for the taxpayers, that’s not good for the city, that’s not good for the …
*********************************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner and candidate in the Democratic Primary for Cook County Board President, debating and discussing the issues with show host Jeff Berkowitz. 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 an additional partial transcript of tonight’s show and for links to more about Forrest Claypool, his March, 2006 Democratic primary opponents, the Republican candidate for County Board President and the current dynamic on the Cook County Board.
*********************************************
A partial transcript of tonight’s show is included directly, below:
*************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: … the budget is about five billon dollars for the city of Chicago. That doesn’t even count the Chicago Public School[s] budget, which is another five billion dollars. That’s about 10 billion dollars [of Chicago governmental spending].

Forrest Claypool: Umhmm.

Berkowitz: People have talked about a corruption tax, which we’re referring to here and this kind of corruption going on--In Hired Truck.

Forrest Claypool: Umhmm.

Berkowitz: [Hired Truck] Hired Tow, Hired Thief, the whole thing. Okay. If that’s ten percent of ten billion dollars, that’s a billion dollars [for a corruption tax]. You could do a lot on schools and libraries and parks that … isn’t being done. You could do a lot with that billion dollars [per year]. Do you think there’s been a corruption tax for the past sixteen years in the city of Chicago?

Forrest Claypool: Well, I don’t know about the past sixteen years but, I think, obviously, when you have a scandal like Hired Truck there is a cost to the taxpayers. There’s no question about it. There’s no question that when you have these scandals and there’s lots of money involved, that’s not good for the taxpayers, that’s not good for the city, that’s not good for the perception of the city around the world and here. And, it tarnishes a lot of the good that’s been done.

Berkowitz: Thirty years ago there was an agreement about patronage [in the City of Chicago], right? What was the name of that Agreement?

Forrest Claypool: Shakman [The Shakman federal Consent Decree]

Berkowitz: Shakman.

Forrest Claypool: Right.

Berkowitz: Now, that was supposed to control the way things are done [regarding City of Chicago hiring]-

Forrest Claypool: Right.

Berkowitz: That hasn’t been done. Basically the judges have concluded that-- the federal judge [has] taken hiring completely away from this mayor-

Forrest Claypool: Right.

Berkowitz: He’s got a monitor [to oversee City of Chicago hiring]. If you want to hire [even] a low-level clerk, basically, you’re going to run it by this person, right? That’s essentially what’s going to happen, now-- right?

Forrest Claypool: Yeah, Shakman is supposed to protect the-

Berkowitz: No, I’m talking about what’s happened now. The judge has said he’s been fooled, or the federal courts have been fooled, for thirty years. Daley’s been fooling them

Forrest Claypool: Yeah. That’s what he said.

Berkowitz: Daley’s been fooling them. Okay. That’s the conclusion. You were there as chief of staff. Were you a part of that? Were you a part of what Daley was doing, fooling the federal courts?

Forrest Claypool: No.

Berkowitz: And that, using, you know, you know what’s been going on. They don’t even interview people. They do interview people, but they are not real interviews.

Forrest Claypool: I’m aware of the allegations, but the chief of staff-

Berkowitz: They’re more than allegations--

Forrest Claypool: Well, let me finish. As chief of staff, I was not involved in personnel. The chiefs of staff, traditionally, and throughout-- from beginning to end, have never been involved in personnel. That’s not what we do. My job was to push through the Mayor’s policy objectives, whether it was chairing the McCormick Place task force to try to get work rules changed, to keep some of these trade shows here, which I did. You know, day care standards, to make basically higher levels of day care standards for kids. There was a series of things I worked on in 1998-the year I was chief of staff for the Mayor. But, personnel was not part of my operational responsibility. Making sure the snow plows- making sure enough snow plows were in place for the blizzard of 1998- making sure the snow got off the street, yeah, but not personnel. It was not part of my--

Berkowitz: Did you outsource politics with the Mayor? Did you say IGA–Intergovernmental Affairs... those folks, Vic Reyes, you know those folks-

Forrest Claypool: Sure.

Berkowitz: They can do whatever they want. Basically. Were you in agreement with them, saying, I understand what you’re saying, You and Daley wanted to do substance-

Forrest Claypool: If anyone was-

Berkowitz: Who was doing the politics?

Forrest Claypool: Just like every chief of staff, all ten chiefs of staff that the mayor’s had, all six corporation counsels, the lead attorney for the city that’s been there, if any of us, all ten chiefs of staff, all six corporation counsels, if any of us had had information brought to us indicating that there was anything improper or illegal, or in violation of the [Shakman] consent decree, or anything else like Hired Truck that-- we would have obviously reported that. Unfortunately, that information never came to anybody in that realm. At least, that I’m aware of-

Berkowitz: When did it first come to somebody in the city of Chicago?

Forrest Claypool: I don’t know. This, all this has happened in the last year. These reports…
*************************************************
Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner and candidate in the Democratic Primary for Cook County Board President,recorded on September 11, 2005, and as the program will air on the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” tonight, September 26 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
*******************************
Transcript draft 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
*******************************

Monday night Politics-- Forrest Claypool on TV: Coy on Daley

This Monday night’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features
Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner and candidate in the Democratic Primary for Cook County Board President. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on Monday night at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.

[See here]for more about Forrest Claypool, his March, 2006 Democratic primary opponents, the Republican candidate for County Board President and the current dynamic on the Cook County Board.
**************************************************
A partial transcript of Monday night's show with Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool [D-Chicago] is included, below.
************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …All right, and [you] have done a lot in terms of reform. Now, we raise these issues not to be--

Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool (D-Chicago): Let me say one thing, too [perhaps as a comment in response to Berkowitz’s prior questions regarding what Claypool did during his tenure as Mayor Daley’s Chief of Staff [‘89-’91 and ’97-‘98] to prevent patronage appointments in the City of Chicago]

Berkowitz: Okay.

Forrest Claypool: I did-I was in charge of personnel once. When I ran the Chicago Park District, I FIRED a thousand patronage workers-twenty five percent of the work force: Ward committeemen, politicians’ relatives, they were all affected, so if you want to look at my record on patronage reform, it’s there at the Park District!

Berkowitz: Let me ask you-let’s say Rev. [I mean] Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., runs for Mayor-

Forrest Claypool: And also, remember, one other thing: HDO [the Hispanic Democratic Organization, aka the Hispanic Daley Organization], Tomczack, all these guys were out working against me [in the 2002 Democratic Primary]-- when I ran for [Cook County] Commissioner, I had to beat them. So, remember that!

Berkowitz: Jesse Jr. runs against Mayor Daley, let’s say it happens, who would you support, Mayor Daley, or Jesse, Jr.?

Forrest Claypool: Talk to me two years from now and I’ll tell you who[m] I’m supporting.

Berkowitz: So, you’re not endorsing anybody [at this point]?

Forrest Claypool: I’m not endorsing anyone [now].

Berkowitz: You want the endorsement of Mayor Daley when you run? Do you want his endorsement?

Forrest Claypool: I want the support of any leader in the Democratic Party and I’m not-

Berkowitz: Including Mayor Daley?

Forrest Claypool: Of course, and I’m- He’ll be with President Stroger-- I know that, but I am obviously out respectfully soliciting [support]--

Berkowitz: Who is David Axelrod going to be working for here?

Forrest Claypool: He’ll be working for me.

Berkowitz: Yeah? Rahm Emanuel, same thing?

Forrest Claypool: I think Rahm will be doing his own thing. He’s got his hands full-

Berkowitz: Axelrod’s working for you and the Mayor says okay, even though the Mayor is working for Stroger [to be re-elected as Cook County Board President]?

Forrest Claypool: The Mayor doesn’t have any say in it [where David Axelrod, partner at AKP Message & Media [See here] and media consultant for Mayor Daley in his many campaigns, works].
******************************************************
Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner and candidate in the Democratic Primary for Cook County Board President,recorded on September 11, 2005, and as the program will air on the City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” this Monday night, September 26 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21.
*******************************
Transcript draft 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
*******************************

Senator Obama, a Different kind of Pol? Not today.

Edited slightly and link to Obama Statement on his Roberts' Vote added at 1:00 pm on Friday.

Senator Obama was to announce how he would vote on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow morning on the Senate floor. However, due to the Senate not being in session tomorrow, he moved his announcement to this evening and then to this afternoon, with the press release going out just in time [5:24 pm (CST)] for the network evening news. It appears, from the content, style and syntax, the press release may have been hurried a bit- with the same effect of a QB hurrying his throw to avoid getting crunched by a big defensive tackle.

Senator Obama, in a two page press release [See here] that straddled, intellectually, a fence or two, decided to go with his Party’s senate bosses [Senator Reid, Nevada and Senator Durbin, Illinois] and against the Ranking Minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee [Senator Leahy, VT], whom Obama, to his credit, defended at the end of his statement against the “unfair attacks,” Leahy received from “largely Democratic Advocacy Groups,” for voting to recommend confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice.

Senator Obama’s decision seemed to reflect somebody who decided to vote left and speak centrist, in superficially, measured tones.

Senator Barack Obama is supposed to be a different kind of pol, transcending race, transcending party, transcending ideology and transcending politics. Indeed, even I have said that from time to time. Urban legend or U. S. Senate reality? Today’s decision seems to reflect more the former than the latter.

The conventional wisdom is that no serious presidential or vice-presidential candidate can risk voting yes for Judge Roberts [But, See Sen. Feingold, below]. Yes, most fair-minded people would concede the Judge is extremely well qualified in that his intellect, devotion to the Constitution and the Law, judicial temperament, background [won 25 of 39 Supreme Court arguments], two years of solid experience, performance and acclaim on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals [the most important circuit of the federal court of appeals] and integrity can only be described as superb and without a blemish.

But, for a Democrat who aspires to be President or Vice-President of the United States, it is said that he or she simply cannot risk alienating the liberal Democrat activists and donors, who control the Democratic primaries as much as their counterpart conservative Republican activists and donors control that Party’s primaries. And, the Democrat base cannot countenance a Supreme Court nominee who will not promise to reject any challenges to Roe, who will not promise to rule for the little guy [or little woman] and who instead promises to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, irrespective of what that means in terms of who wins and who loses. No, we are told by Ralph Neas that is not the “American Way.”

Senator Obama may not be running for President in 2008, but it would be hard for him to turn down a VP nomination, and if circumstances were absolutely right, he might seek the Presidency.

So, Senator Obama decided to go with his party’s bosses and with the Democrat liberal activist base. Obama proclaimed that Judge Roberts cannot be supported because Senator Obama does not know if Judge Roberts has the “heart,” for the Chief Justice job. Is that the constitutional law that Senator Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School? You "gotta have heart,” as defined by the Democrat activist liberal base, by the Democratic Party Bosses Reid and Durbin to be confirmed as a U. S. Supreme Court Justice? I sure wouldn't want Sen. Obama grading my exam.

Senator Obama decided today not to march to the tune of a different drummer, but instead to go along with the Democrat Party bosses. He couldn’t agree with a liberal of impeccable credentials, former President Kennedy appointee and FCC Chairman Newton Minow, who [See here] set this standard for Supreme Court nominees:

Despite the lobbying of pressure groups pushing for party-line votes, senators should demonstrate that there is only one side: making sure that the nominee is an honest, able, thoughtful person who is devoted to our Constitution, not to one ideology or one political party or another. We should all be on the same side.

Minow then went on to urge Roberts' confirmation. Unfortunately, Minow diluted his own argument a bit when he qualified his praise of Judge Roberts:

My own conclusion is that it is inconceivable that the current administration would nominate a better qualified person to become chief justice [Emphasis supplied].

Nevertheless, the challenge for Senator Obama was clear. Would he line up with Newton Minow and tell his State and the Country that Obama is a different kind of pol, or would he line up with the senior senator and Party enforcer from Illinois and cautiously placate those who would have him toe the party line so that he can have a shot at the Democratic Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination?

In essence, Obama said, to be the Chief Justice of the United States, you must pass the Obama ideological litmus tests by having a “heart,” that has historically held, currently holds and promises to hold in the future:

1. Affirmative action is an appropriate and Constitutional response to the history of race discrimination;
2. There is and should continue to be a Constitutional right of privacy for a woman to have an abortion;
3. The commerce clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to speak to issues of broad national interest that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as inner-city commerce; and
4. A person who’s disabled has the Constitutional right to be accommodated so that they can work along side the non-disabled.

With respect to all of the above constitutional questions, Senator Obama concluded, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what’s in the judge’s heart.”

Really, now. I would have thought that these are issues that should be decided based on a justice’s understanding and analysis of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, the precedent, the briefs and the arguments. That’s why students at the University of Chicago used to study the “Elements of Legal Reasoning,” as opposed to say, the “Elements of Legal Emotions.”

Further, under Senator Obama’s reasoning [or emotions] it is not so much what is being argued, but who does the arguing that should decide the case. Who needs briefs? Just show us your ID [but not your real ID], your race, your religion, your ethnicity, your bank account, your years of education and your “strength,” whatever that means. Obama profiling, so to speak. Obama said:

The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.

Well, let’s see, Judge Roberts was a lawyer, an advocate most of his career, representing his clients zealously, as required by the canons of ethics. I suppose Senator Obama has now concluded that no one who has predominantly represented corporations [i.e., shareholders, the strong?] and not individuals [i.e., the employees and the customers, the weak?] should be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.

Why not take it to the next logical step, Senator Obama? Criminal defense lawyers who make a career of representing people who are accused and perhaps convicted of rape and murder should also not sit on the Supreme Court, as those clients were likely stronger than their victims?

And yet Senator Obama started his statement by reminding us of his prior role on the University of Chicago faculty where:

What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at, but the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Notwithstanding that, Senator Obama based his confirmation decision regarding Judge Roberts on the position Roberts had held or represented as a government or private lawyer and the “size,” or “strength,” of the entity or client Roberts represented.

Senator Obama was apparently not impressed with Judge Roberts talking about how the law and the judicial process are the great equalizers. No matter the size of the party, private or government, once a judge decides a matter based on the law and the facts, the entire force of the law and the government is put behind the enforcement of that decision. This equal and impartial enforcement of the law and judicial decisions is what is truly remarkable. That was the law and process which Judge Roberts admired. That blindfolded lady who holds the scales of justice? Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand. That's no lady. That's justice. Senator Obama seems to want to put his thumb on the scales of justice- not reflecting the evidence, the law and the Constitution, but simply whether he prefers one party to another.

Finally, Senator Obama concludes with a mishmash of verbiage that seems to get it all wrong:

I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination, although I do so with considerable reticence. I hope I’m wrong. I’m hopeful that this reticence proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to be not only an outstanding legal thinker...

Considerable reticence? Meaning considerable reserve? Perhaps. Although I think Senator Obama means to say "considerable reluctance." But then, Senator Obama says, “I’m hopeful that this reticence proves unjustified…” Really? Senator Obama wants his reserve to be unjustified. Doesn’t he mean to say that he is hopeful that this reticence proves “justified…” Or did Senator Obama write this statement thinking he might vote to confirm and then changed his vote at the last minute and did not make all the appropriate changes in the text, getting confused between justified and unjustified? Hard to know what he is saying here.

I am left with the impression that Senator Obama didn’t really write this statement. The Senator Obama that I interviewed on my television show seven times spoke and wrote more thoughtfully, logically and more carefully than this. Maybe it is time for the Good Senator to be at events and on programs such as CBS’ Face the Nation less, ABC’s This Week less and back at the University of Chicago Law School and in his Senate office more. Who knows. That Senator Obama might really transcend politics.

Oh yes, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 to recommend Judge Roberts be confirmed as the next U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. All Republicans on the Committee voted yes and they were joined by the Ranking Minority member Senator Leahy [VT.], Senator Kohl [WI.] and Senator Feingold [WI].

Senator Feingold, BTW, may be running in the Democratic Primary for President of the United States.

Barack Obama, a different kind of pol? Transcending party and politics? Demonstrating intellectual rigor and honesty? Not today.

Democratic Party Bosses Reid and Durbin? Couldn’t be happier, no doubt.
************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********





. .

Rauscheneberger beats Edgar and Oberweis—and Tom Roeser?

Edited slightly at 11:30 am on Thursday, Sep. 22.

Tom Roeser, perhaps the most prominent conservative in Illinois, seems to agree [See here] with the Jim Oberweis party line that former Governor Jim Edgar’s entry into the Republican Primary would propel Oberweis to the top of the field.

Roeser doesn’t spell it out completely, but I imagine the argument goes something like this: There are currently four potential Republican Primary gubernatorial candidates and four announced Republican candidates for the top State office [See here for old, but still reasonably accurate, odds and assessments of these eight candidates].

Let’s look at the four potentials: State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, Jim Edgar, Former State Senator and 2002 Gubernatorial Primary Candidate Pat O’Malley and DuPage State’s Attorney and 2002 Republican AG nominee Joe Birkett. Although Pat could still engage in some mischief and he might, odds are that he sits this one out. Most likely he has neither the inclination nor the ability to put together a statewide organization at this point.

Birkett, although coming within three points of beating the muscle and clout of Speaker Mike when Joe took on his daughter for AG, is also lacking in an organization and money, and his message for Governor is not resonating. And, if Edgar runs, Topinka says she won’t. So, with Edgar in, we go from four potentials to one actual—Edgar. [Indeed, if Edgar doesn’t get in, Topinka gets in and Birkett and O’Malley still probably get out].

Now, let’s look at the four actuals: State Senators Steve Rauschenberger and Bill Brady, Helene Curtis heir Ron Gidwitz and Dairyman and Investment Fund entrepreneur Jim Oberweis. If Edgar runs, Brady either becomes his Lt. Gov. running mate, of which there is talk or he steps down to another statewide position, with Edgar’s and the [old Establishment’s support] Note that Edgar is aligned thru history and temperament with the controversial Illinois link to the RNC—Bob Kjellander. As an aside, Sen. Brady is the only one of the four Republican announced candidates for Governor not to call for Kjellander to step down.

Gidwitz, in general, has a long shot bet that he can convert enormous television advertising expenditures into name recognition and credibility. The model here is Blair Hull’s 2004 Senate Democratic Primary campaign. However, Hull had more wealth than Gidwitz and he was willing to spend more of it. Further the dynamic of that Primary was different. In short, Gidwitz is likely to get out in either case, but more so if Edgar comes in because they are competing for many of the same moderate Republican votes and Edgar is better at it.

Oberweis has said he will not get out no matter what and no matter who gets in. Having lost two primaries for the U. S. Senate, he doesn’t mind the risk of being a “three time loser.” He also knows waiting two or four years doesn’t open up opportunities for him. He can afford to spend some money. So, why not? Oberweis is in, come hell or high water, and he has said so, essentially.

Rauschenberger has said he would assess the field and the circumstances if Edgar gets in. Not an unreasonable position to take.

Okay, so if Edgar gets in, we are left with Edgar, Oberweis and maybe Rauschenberger.

What happens? For one, Roeser says Rauschenberger has been mentioned as a Lt. Gov. candidate for Edgar. Several problems with that pairing. One, Rauschenberger, when asked what he thought of Edgar possibly getting in, has been fond of saying that the answer to the Republican Party’s problems “is not in the rear view mirror.” That would not be fun for Jim or Steve to deal with in a Edgar-Rauschenberger campaign, but winning tickets have dealt with far worse.

Also, especially during the 1992-1996 time period, Rauschenberger and the other Fab 5 state senators [Fitzgerald, Lauzen, O’Malley and Syverson] gave Governor Edgar quite a bit of grief. But, that was then and this is now. I imagine Edgar could get past that. Then there is Kjellander. Rauschenberger says Kjellander must go as Illinois’ RNC honcho and Edgar’s an old pal of his. Could Kjellander fall on his sword and make it easy for his old friend Jim Edgar to put that issue aside? Possibly.

If Edgar and Rauschenberger do get together, that could be one formidable ticket. Upstate-downstate. Pro-life and Pro-choice [both with their convictions, unlike the intellectually dishonest George Ryan in 1998]. They would both have to focus on fiscal responsibility and restoring integrity to government. Rauschenberger says we don’t need more ethics laws, just more ethical people in government. Could Edgar buy that. Rauschenberger says he could foresee no circumstances under which he would support an income or sales tax increase in the next four years [essentially taking the No New Tax pledge on my show]. Could Edgar buy that.

Edgar would be talking Pro-Choice on abortion. Could the Pro-life Steve Rauschenberger buy that. Could Edgar pass Rauschenberger’s test as a reformer? Without even getting into education and tax swaps, there is a lot to work out. But if they do, many would view that ticket as the first step to unifying the Republican Party in Illinois, putting the reform issue over the abortion schism. And, if they do all that, it is with the idea that Rauschenberger moves from Lt. Gov. to Governor in four years, and with the support of Edgar and his establishment allies.

If all of that works out, it is an uphill battle for Oberweis, but he could beat the Edgar Rauschenberger ticket. Forcing Pro-Lifers to take Pro-Choice Edgar with the Pro-life Rauschenberger might be more than they can swallow, even with the Oberweis’ residue of his comments tying Pro-Lifers to the Taliban. After all, even the Pro-Life, devout Catholic Tom Roeser has forgiven that Oberweis sin.

Oberweis would have to strike just the right note on immigration. He would have to make clear that he favors legal immigration and he wants to be compassionate about dealing with illegal immigrants who are already here, and yet not so compassionate as to keep attracting more illegal immigrants here. A real balancing act of which he has not been capable in the past.

Oberweis would have to convince the anti-taxers that Edgar’s historical receptiveness to higher taxes would prevail over Rauschenberger’s "No New Taxes," pledge. That may be very doable. Since when does the VP control the President. Since when did Pat Quinn prevail over Rod Blagojevich? Indeed, Pat who?

As of now, I give Edgar-Rauschenberger the edge over Oberweis, but things could go south for Team Edgar-Rauschenberger very fast.

As a alternative scenario, let’s say Edgar goes solo in the primary. Let’s say Rauschenberger convinces himself he has the money to compete with Edgar and Oberweis and he stays in [maybe his supporter Peter Fitzgerald becomes his financial angel; maybe O’Malley realizes that his views are a lot closer to his old friend Steve Rauschenberger than the other two and he becomes a financial angel to Steve]. Then what.

Well, maybe Steve becomes the centrist in the Primary, with Edgar suddenly on the left and Oberweis on Steve’s right. Yup, Steve becomes the Jim Ryan of the 2006 primary, i.e., the centrist. Poly Sci 101 tells us the guy [or lady] in the Center usually wins. And, in the general, Rauschenberger, like Blagojevich, may not be easy to spell or say, but it could be the winner. After all, Rauschenberger is not Ryan. Indeed, he is the Anti-Ryan. Not a bad position to be in with the George Ryan trial as the background landscape for the Republican Primary.

And Oberweis. Perhaps he should be careful what he wishes for. He just may get it.

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

Claypool on TV, Packing Heat: The griller and the grillee

This week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," features Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner and candidate in the Democratic Primary for Cook County Board President. Claypool debates and discusses Cook County Board public policy issues and politics with show host Jeff Berkowitz [See the end of this post for a detailed "Public Affairs," airing schedule and please note special additional airings of the show tonight and Thursday night in 10 suburbs].

Commissioner Claypool is already facing his fellow reformer, Commissioner Mike Quigley [who preceded Claypool as a County Board Reformer] in the Democratic Primary. And, it is expected that the 11 year incumbent County Board President, John Stroger [who has been on the Board for more than three decades] will announce in October that he is seeking re-election. Claypool has already raised more than a million dollars for his campaign and he will have David Axelrod, the Mayor’s long time media, communications and strategy guru, working on his campaign [as is discussed briefly on this week’s show].

On the Republican side, County Commissioner Tony Peraica is apparently running uncontested in the County Board President Republican Primary, and Cook County GOP Chairman Gary Skoien thinks he and others might be able to locate the kind of financial support for Peraica to run a credible campaign in the general election. Republican Peraica, in the last three years, has joined Democrat Commissioners Suffredin, Quigley and Claypool, to form the “Four Horsemen,” trying to bring about reform and Stroger’s Apocalypse Now. They do this by getting the four other Republican Commissioners [Gorman, Goslin, Hansen and Silvestri] to join them on key issues, and turning to Commissioner Earlean Collins, the Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the County Board, to be the swing vote and make reform happen, which she has done the last two years running to defeat Stroger’s proposed tax increases.

Axelrod, Cong. Rahm Emanuel [D-Chicago; 5th CD] and Commissioner Claypool go way back as friends and political allies, with each of them working intensely, in one form or another, to elect the Mayor in his 1988-89 campaign. Forrest Claypool served the Mayor twice as Chief of Staff: 1989-91 and again in 98-99, as well as in the position of the Mayor’s Parks Department CEO. Of course, all of that [and issues related thereto] is discussed in this week’s Public Affairs show. Also, Forrest Claypool worked in the past for Axelrod’s firm, worked with Axelrod to help Barack Obama get elected to the U. S. Senate in 2004 and the former Kirkland & Ellis associate still serves as General Counsel for Axelrod’s firm. And, both Emanuel and Axelrod have given impassioned defenses of the beleaguered Mayor Daley during the last month or two.

Is your head starting to spin from trying to keep all of these tangled and interlocking political connections straight? Well, don’t go wobbly on me yet. Rounding out the circle, it is said that the Mayor, notwithstanding all of his above connections to Claypool and his good friends-- Emanuel and Axelrod—will be pushing the 74 year old [in somewhat ailing health], 8th Ward Boss, John Stroger to seek re-election as County Board President. Moreover, Mayor Daley [and his team- alas without the now convicted felon and former City Waterworks and political boss Don Tomczak ] will be there to support Stroger, assuming of course the Mayor is able to handle his own current challenges, from the public corruption that surrounds, if not permeates, his own Administration.

During this week’s Public Affairs, Claypool shows his stuff in his criticism, among other items, of the continuing mess, patronage and cronyism at County’s Provident Hospital and the County’s Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, which spends about $60,000 per kid per year [about half the cost of a four year University of Chicago undergraduate education, or the lesser, but still valuable, Harvard undergraduate degree]. Claypool also discusses how the Hospital fails to serve its patient community and the Detention center fails to serve the 10-17 year old kids, who have been arrested and are waiting trial, notwithstanding the enormous tax bill that is presented to Cook County residents to fund these efforts.

On the other hand, as the host tries to be tough but fair with all Public Affairs guests, Commissioner Claypool faces some challenging questions about what he knew, didn’t know or perhaps should have known and what he did, or didn't do, about public corruption and patronage when he was Mayor Daley’s Chief of Staff.

How did Claypool do on the show? We discuss, you decide. One thing is sure, you won’t be bored if you watch this week’s show. If you are, you can get your money back, if you can find me.

The suburban edition of Public Affairs regularly airs in ten North Shore suburbs three times each week:Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Winnetka, Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire and Riverwoods. This week, two special airings have been added for those ten suburbs:

Tonight at 7:30 pm and Thursday night at 8:00 pm.

In twenty-four North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the show will air once this week in its regular time slot: Tonight, Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. on either Comcast Cable Channel 19 or Channel 35, depending on the suburb. The show airs tonight at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette. The show airs tonight at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.

The "Public Affairs," program with Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool also will air through-out the City of Chicago on Monday night, Sep. 26 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, 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
***********

Monday night TV politics: Rauschenberger says, “Pete Giangreco is dumb…”

Sen. Rauschenberger: If they [Gay candidates] were qualified and I agreed with them on the issues, I wouldn’t have any trouble running with them.

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay.

Sen. Rauschenberger: As long as the central point was not their sex[uality]. That shouldn’t be the focus.
********************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features Round 2 of our two show sequence with Steve Rauschenberger, State Senator [R-Elgin] and Republican Primary Gubernatorial Candidate. 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. Rauschenberger is currently in a Republican Guv primary contest with three other “announced candidates,” and four others who are thinking it over.

See here for a partial transcript of tonight’s show and for links to a partial transcipt of last week's show with Sen. Steve Rauschenberger and links to information about the Republican Gubernatorial Primary, the general election and candidate Rauschenberger and those links will link to posts about Rauschenberger, the other Guv Candidates and assessments about the Gubernatorial Candidates.
**********************************
Another partial transcript of tonight’s show is included, below.
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Pete Giangreco [Primo Blagojevich flak catcher and Strategy Group partner] said on this show that you filed for bankruptcy. Was he incorrect in saying that?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Yeah, Pete Giangreco is dumb because [a] bankruptcy filing is a public filing. I have never filed a personal bankruptcy. I have never filed a corporate bankrupty. To the best of my knowledge, none of my immediate family- mother, father, uncles, sisters or brothers have ever filed—

Jeff Berkowitz: Your furniture company—

Sen. Rauschenberger: Pete Giangreco, as the spokesman for the Governor, ought to check his facts.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, your furniture company that went under—it was dissolved?

Sen. Rauschenberger: We sold the stores and—

Jeff Berkowitz: No bankruptcy there?

Sen. Rauschenberger: No bankruptcy.

Jeff Berkowitz: No bankruptcy anywhere else?

Sen. Rauschenberger: No bankruptcy ever in my life.

Jeff Berkowitz: What are you going to do about that to correct that? Are you going to ask Mr. Giangreco to retract that statement?

Sen. Rauschenberger: This is the first time I have heard it but I think somebody ought to.

Jeff Berkowitz: Would you possibly file a lawsuit against him?

Sen. Rauschenberger: No [Laughter].

************************
Jeff Berkowitz: If the person were known to be gay, but they weren’t making that the issue of the campaign, would you be comfortable running with that person as the Lt. Governor [candidate].

Sen. Rauschenberger: If you are telling me that they were out there promoting and making sure that everyone knew what their [sexual] orientation was regardless—

Jeff Berkowitz: No, they would be talking about the same things you were but it happened to be known that the person was gay.

Sen. Rauschenberger: I don’t think gay people are disqualified from public service—

Jeff Berkowitz: Statewide?

Sen. Rauschenberger: If they were qualified and I agreed with them on the issues, I wouldn’t have any trouble running with them.

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay.

Sen. Rauschenberger: As long as the central point was not their sex[uality]. That shouldn’t be the focus.
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: But is it possible that you are wrong—that could happen—and that there is some effect, maybe not as large as the proponents of the ban claim and if so, how are we worse off by having this [assault weapon] ban because at worse, it is ineffective and at best, you actually do restrict the ownership and possession of assault weapons.

Sen. Rauschenberger: Because Jeff there is a constitutional amendment in the Federal Constitution that says the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be abridged. You can’t be much clearer than that. [More precisely, Amendment II of the U. S. Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”]

Jeff Berkowitz: But we do abridge it and you allow that with the Brady bill , why not allow this [an assault weapon ban]?

Sen. Rauschenberger: In a very narrow fashion, for very specific weapons. I mean it is one thing to make that societal compromise but to pass crappy legislation that doesn’t work because somebody, somewhere thinks it might help is an abridgment.
******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Is there a schism in the [Illinois] Republican Party and is it Pro-Life and Pro-Choice or is it reformers and non-reformers?

Sen. Rauschenberger: If there is a schism in the party, it is about whether we need to change the Party to move forward-- to reform it-- or whether we are basically OK, we just have to knock on more doors.

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, do you have to change the Party to reform it?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: And [Illinois’ RNC member] Bob Kjellander has to go?

Sen. Rauschenberger: I think Bob Kjellander represents someone that the Public doesn’t take credibly and I don’t know how you move forward as a party if the leaders aren’t credible.

Jeff Berkowitz: You have to get somebody who stands against public corruption, right?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Yeah, I think so. You have to have someone who is experienced, who has faced up to George Ryan, someone who is recognized as an honest legislator, someone who has had their public life on display for thirteen years…

Jeff Berkowitz: You can win the Primary and the General Election?

Sen. Rauschenberger: Absolutely. I am the Republican Party’s best candidate [for Governor].
**********************************************************
Steve Rauschenberger, State Senator and Republican Primary Guv Candidate, recorded on August 28, 2005 and as it will air on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs, tonight, Monday, September 19 at 8:30 pm on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21. This is Round 2 of a two show “Public Affairs,” sequence with Gubernatorial candidate Rauschenberger.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Brady wins Conservative Summit with Catholic, 12,000 watt smile

State Sen. Bill Brady won the Conservative Summit’s support for the Republican gubernatorial primary nomination, but what has he won. [See here] for rumored soon to be Chicago Tribune columnist Tom Roeser’s blog report of Saturday’s Summit activities].

Those attending did not appear to represent a very large sample or broad based cross section of the conservative movement. Caprio, one of the co-hosts had told me there would be about 50 attendees but only 36 voted, according to Roeser. Other than Board of Review Commissioner Maureen Murphy, I don’t think there was an office holder in the crowd, except there might have been a village official, local school board member or precinct captain to be found, if we looked hard enough. Nor were there many significant conservative movement leaders in the room.

State GOP Chairman McKenna and Cook County GOP Chairman Skoien did not attend and apparently they were not invited. By way of explanation as to the failure to invite McKenna, it was reported that no statewide GOP officials were invited. However, State Central Committee member Maureen Murphy [Also a member of the Cook County Board of Review and also a chum and ally of Paul Caprio] was there. This is a crowd who likes some rules, but exceptions even more so.

Caprio told me no media would be allowed in the room, as that would inhibit the give and take. But Bruno Behrend, who has a brokered radio program on WIND, was there—and some in attendance thought he was recording it—which would seem to be an inhibitor, of sorts. Dave Diersen, who identifies himself as a media member and Illinois Editor for GOPUSA was there. And, of course, WLS AM Radio media personality, mainstream print columnist and now blogger Tom Roeser was there. So, what was Caprio thinking when he said “no media.” I couldn’t begin to tell you.

And, 3 % of the cross section of conservative Republicans are apparently Democratic candidates for office, with 2004 Democrat Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Candidate Frank Avila, Jr., in attendance.

In short, a run down of the list of attendees doesn’t seem to show a lot of people with a lot of votes behind them, not unless you count all of those Democratic primary votes that Frank Avila, Jr. got or perhaps, those of his dad, who actually is a commissioner for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.

And, then there is Tom Roeser’s primary explanation of Brady’s winning tally: Irish Catholicism, physical attractiveness, devastating charisma and 12,000 watt smile. Devastating charisma? Well, Ok, if you say so, Tom.

And, Tom reports that Rauschenberger’s downfall was his insufficient explanation of his vote regarding what Tom Roeser calls “abortifacients.” And the group was “suspicious,” of Rauschenberger’s explanation for support he once received from a Gay Rights group—support that apparently makes Sen. Rauschenberger almost Un-American in the eyes of this crowd.

And yet, this is a group that invited Jim Edgar. That is to say-- they might be at home with Edgar’s social moderation but not Rauschenberger’s conservatism? What were they thinking? Hard to know. Mr. Caprio was unavailable for comment at the time we went online.

One of the co-hosts of the meeting is reported to have called the meeting counterfeit.

So, you have to ask, just why did Brady win? Why did Rauschenberger, Birkett and Oberweis lose? Hard to say.

Irish Catholicism? A 12,000 watt smile? This is what the conservative movement in Illinois is looking for?

Well, maybe you had to be there. I tried, but media were excluded. Or, at least some media.

What did Brady win? Why the Conservative Summit support, of course.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*****************************************

The Conservative Summit and Jim Edgar, Decision 2005

Eric Robinson, who was Governor Edgar’s press secretary in 1997-1998, following Tom Hardy and Mike Lawrence in that role, has been coordinating some press matters for Governor Edgar during what we might call—Jim Edgar, Decision 2005.

Robinson said on Friday that former Governor Edgar still has not made a decision about running for Governor in 2006. He continues to talk with those who are encouraging him to run—and he will announce his decision sooner rather than later, Robinson added.

While Edgar continues to ponder his return to politics after a 7 year hiatus, the U. S. Attorney set the Illinois gubernatorial race on fire by filing plea agreements on Thursday, in which it was reported that Gov. Blagojevich and two top fund-raisers schemed to steer lucrative state pension deals to investment firms and consultants who agreed to donate to Blagojevich's campaign [See here].

Republican Guv candidate and State Sen. Rauschenberger jumped all over the report/allegation of Blagojevich wrongdoing, calling yesterday for Governor Blagojevich to come forward immediately and provide a full airing of what he knew about the activities of Joe Cari and Steve Loren, both of whom had at least some involvement in activities related to a state pension deal scheme and both of whom have now pled guilty to certain of the allegations brought by the U. S. Attorneys office. [See here].

Rauschenberger also wants "Blagojevich to come clean,” with any knowledge he has about Stuart Levine scheming relating to the Pension Board. Levine is alleged to have been sort of the ringleader in the above referenced scheme. Levine was first appointed to the Pension Board by nominally Republican Governor George Ryan, who starts the defense of his criminal RICO trial this week. Blagojevich re-appointed Levine to the Pension Board, stating that the law required a certain number of Republicans on the Board. However, no law would require that Stuart Levine be appointed to the Board. Moreover, Blagojevich, who received his law degree from Pepperdine University in Malibu, California and who practiced law previously, got his laws mixed up. Although some state boards are required by law to have a mix of Republicans and Democrats, that is not the case for the Pension Board. [See here]

As an aside, it is “nominally Republican,” George Ryan because although Ryan was thought to be a conservative Republican when elected Governor in 1998, he soon "flipped his positions," on virtually every important campaign issue from conservative to liberal, e.g., abortion, capital punishment, spending, taxes, airports, gay rights and guns after he became governor. Those ideological half somersaults have caused many Republicans to suggest that George Ryan's tarnished reputation belongs to the Democrats, who applauded his “evolution,” and welcomed him with open arms as Governor, rather than the Republicans, who generally derided Ryan and his flips. Indeed, the conservative Republican base, who have a significant impact on the outcome of primary elections, would have rejected George Ryan for re-nomination, even if his scandal ridden history in the Secretary of State’s office had not been discovered.

Pete Giangreco, partner in the Strategy Group and flak catcher par excellence for Governor Blagojevich, in what some would call an unusual display of weakness on the Governor’s part, went behind enemy lines Friday morning and attended Rauschenberger’s press conference. That presser related specifically to Joe Cari’s [a former Finance Chairman for the Democratic National Committee] assertions that Stuart Levine had told him that Blagojevich was involved in using the bond scheme to stimulate contributions to his re-election campaign. Giangreco, never shy, argued, “the Governor knew nothing about this until yesterday. It is irresponsible for Rauschenberger to vomit up these over-the-top allegations from a known extortionist". Unfortunately for Pete, the press wasn’t buying and they turned on him with a vengeance, as Rauschenberger watched with glee.

Meanwhile, as I write this, conservative leaders from through-out the State of Illinois are meeting at the Ivanhoe Country Club in Mundelein, IL in an all day Conservative Summit to hear from and ask questions to announced and potential conservative candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor.

On the gubernatorial side, State Senators Steve Rauschenberger and Bill Brady, Dairyman and Money Manager Jim Oberweis, DuPage State’s attorney Joe Birkett and former State Senator and 2002 Gubernatorial Primary Candidate Pat O’Malley were each invited to today’s Conservative Summit. And, each of those individuals, except for O’Malley, had indicated they would attend.

Helene Curtis heir and mega-millionaire Ron Gidwitz [See here], who has announced for Governor, and State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, who continues to mull a run for Guv if Edgar does not jump in, are both generally viewed as “moderates,” and neither was invited to the Summit.

Also invited on the Guv candidate side was former Governor Jim Edgar, but Eric Robinson indicated Jim Edgar had declined the invitation because Edgar had not yet decided he would be running for Governor in 2006. I asked Robinson if he thought of Jim Edgar as a conservative, and he said, “…while the Governor may have different views on social issues than some conservatives, they appreciate he is a fiscal conservative and the work he did on turning around the state’s finances, to the point that each year he was Governor, Jim Edgar ended the fiscal year more in the black than the year before and the state was 1.5 billion dollars in the black when Edgar left the office in 1998.

Co-hosting the Summit are Joe Morris, Chairman, United Republican Fund of Illinois; Paul Caprio, Director, Family-PAC; Bob Redfern, Chairman, Illinois Forum; and Sandy Rios, President, the Culture Campaign. Former State Rep. and two time loser for State wide office [Senate and SOS] Al Salvi, an Honorary Co-Host of the Summit, picked up the tab for the Summit’s luncheon. Salvi’s wife, Kathy Salvi, officially announced this past week that she is a candidate in the 8th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary, joining previously announced candidates David McSweeney, Teresa Bartels and Aron Lincoln.

Similar conservative summits were held in 1995 and 1997 to clear the field for one conservative to run in the Republican U. S. Senate Primary, with conservatives Al Salvi and Peter Fitzgerald getting the support of the Summits in 1995 and 1997, respectively. Both Salvi and Fitzgerald went on to beat back Establishment Republican Party candidates, and, of course, Peter Fitzgerald went on to win the general election, as well.

Paul Caprio indicated yesterday that about 100 conservative leaders had been invited, with the focus being on bringing together a cross section of both social and economic conservatives. Caprio and his co-hosts wanted to have conservatives present whose opinions have significant influence on others. They have excluded (1) anyone who was professionally associated with any campaign and (2) media.

Caprio indicated that only 100 were invited because the co-hosts wanted to have the appropriate level of “give and take,” both with each other and with the candidates. Perhaps, like colleges, the co-hosts contemplated a certain acceptance rate by the invitees, as Caprio indicated only about 50 of those invited were scheduled to attend.

Caprio indicated that, as in 1995 and 1997, the purpose of the 2005 Conservative Summit is to see if conservatives can develop a consensus to support a single conservative candidate, around whom they can rally and be united. Of course, this is to maximize the chances of a conservative candidate emerging victorious from the Primary.

It is interesting to see that the conservatives apparently consider Jim Edgar sufficiently “conservative,” to invite him to the Conservative Summit.
Or, was that just a ploy to draw Edgar into a conversation with conservatives? Either way, it didn’t work. Jim Edgar, Decision 2005 continues to be more an enigma than a decision.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********

Roberts spars with Schumer on Movies and what Justices Do

Senator Schumer [D-NY]: …This process is getting a little more absurd every time we move. You agree we should be finding out your philosophy and method of legal reasoning, modesty, stability. But, when we try to find out what modesty and stability mean, what your philosophy means—we don’t get any answers. It’s as if I asked you what kind of movies you like—Tell me two or three good movies. And, you say: “I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinema photography.” And, I ask you--No, give me an example of a good movie. And, you don’t name one. I say give me an example of a bad movie—You won’t name one. Then I ask you if you like Casablanca and you respond by saying, “Lots of people like Casablanca.” You tell me that it is widely settled that Casablanca is one of the great movies.

Senator and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter [R-PA]: Senator Schumer, now that your time is over, are you asking him a question?

Senator Schumer: Yes, I am saying sir, I am making a plea. I hope we are going to continue this for a while. That within the confines of what you think is appropriate and proper, you try to be a little more forthcoming with us in terms of trying to figure out what kind of Justice you will become.

Senator Specter: We will now take a fifteen minute break. Reconvene at 4:25 pm.

Judge Roberts: Ah—Mr. Chairman, could I address some of the—

Senator Specter: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. I didn’t hear any questions, Judge Roberts, but you can--

Judge Roberts: There were several along the way.

Senator Leahy [D-VT]: We didn’t want to break anyway, you go right ahead.

Judge Roberts: I’ll be very succinct.

Senator Specter: You are privileged to comment. This is coming out of his [Schumer’s] next round if there is one.

Judge Roberts: Oh, well, then--

Schumer: I guess, there’ll be.

Judge Roberts: First, Dr. Zhivago and North by Northwest. [Big laughter in the room].

Schumer: Now, how about on the more important subject of what cases—

Judge Roberts: On the more important subject--

Senator Specter: Let him finish his answer. You’re out of time.

Senator Schumer: Not out of movies.

Judge Roberts: The only point I would like to make because you raised the question how is this different than justices who dissent and criticize and how is this different than professors? And I think there are significant differences. The justice who files a dissent is issuing an opinion based upon his participation in the judicial process. He confronted the case with an open mind. He heard the arguments. He fully and fairly considered the briefs. He consulted with his colleagues. He went through the process of issuing an opinion. And, in my experience, every one of those stages can cause you to change your view. The view you ask then of me—“well, what do you think. Is it correct or not? Or, how would you come out?” That is not a result of that process. And, that’s why I shouldn’t respond to those types of questions. Now, the professor. How is that different.

Senator Schumer: Yup.

Judge Roberts: That professor is not sitting here as a nominee before the court. And, the great danger, of course, that I believe every one of the justices has been vigilant to safeguard against is that-- turning this into a bargaining process. It is not a process under which senators get to say, “I want you to rule this way, this way and this way, and if you tell me you’ll rule this way, this way and this way, I’ll vote for you.” That’s not a bargaining process. Judges are not politicians. They cannot promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. And, if you go back and look at the transcript, Senator, I would just respectfully disagree. I think I have been more forthcoming than any of the other nominees. Other nominees have not been willing to tell you whether they thought Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided. They took a very strict approach. I have taken what I think is a more pragmatic approach and said if I don’t think that’s likely to come before the Court, I will comment on it. And, you know, again, perhaps that is subject to criticism. Because it is difficult to draw the line sometimes. But, I wanted to be able to share as much as I can with the Committee in response to the concerns you and others have expressed. And, so I have adopted that approach.

Senator Specter: 4:25, we’re anxious to move ahead to try to conclude your testimony, Judge Roberts, as early as we can. I know you will agree with that.

Judge Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the accommodation.
*************************************************
Excerpted from the Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on John Roberts nomination to be Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, September 14, 2005
**************************************************

Sen. Rauschenberger on TV: Better prepared to be Guv than Edgar?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger:...That is not to say that Jim Edgar is not a capable person. But, I am better prepared to be Governor today than Jim Edgar…
***********************************************************
Sen. Steve Rauschenberger [Republican Primary Gubernatorial Candidate]: What makes you think that Jim Oberweis is a conservative? …[W]e’ve got candidates here who have never taken a single vote. And, you’re telling me they are conservative, they are moderate. I mean, I don’t know what they are…
*************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features round two of two consecutive shows we did with Steve Rauschenberger [State Senator (Elgin) and Republican Primary Gubernatorial Candidate]. See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
************************************************
This show will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on this coming Monday night, September 19 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
A partial transcript of this week's show is included, below.
************************************************
Next week’s guest on the suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Forrest Claypool, Cook County Commissioner and Candidate in the Democratic Primary to become his Party’s Board President nominee. Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley has already officially announced that he is running for Board President in the Democrat Primary. Forrest Claypool will make his official announcement in October. The incumbent Democrat Board President, John Stroger, 74, has held that position since 1994 and he has been on the Board for more than three decades. The “smart money,” is predicting that Stroger will announce next month that he is seeking re-election. Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica is running for Board President in the Republican Primary, and apparently will not draw opposition in the primary, although some had thought Comm. Gorman would jump in that contest.
*******************************************
[See here]for a partial transcipt of last week's show with Sen. Steve Rauschenberger and for links to information about the Republican Gubernatorial Primary, the general election and candidate Rauschenberger and those links will link to posts about Rauschenberger, the other Guv Candidates and assessments about the Gubernatorial Candidates.
****************************************
Steve Rauschenberger [State Senator (Elgin) and Republican Primary Gubernatorial Candidate]: There is only one candidate in this field who can compete with Rod Blagojevich in the general election and that’s me. I’m the guy that can pull the party together; I’m the guy that can focus and interest the media in this race and keep them engaged; and I’m the guy with the vision to drive Rod Blagojevich nuts because he doesn’t know anything about the details. He doesn’t know anything about the health care system and he doesn’t know how to grow jobs.

Jeff Berkowitz: Are you running to the center and if so, in a Republican Primary, which has a strong conservative base, are you going to be conservative enough—if it’s a one on one against say, Jim Oberweis, to win with that base.

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: What makes you think that Jim Oberweis is a conservative? Jim Oberweis has never taken a public vote, Jeff. I mean, this idea—if you are talking about pandering, I mean we’ve got candidates here who have never taken a single vote. And, you’re telling me they are conservative, they are moderate. I mean, I don’t know what they are. I’ve got a thirteen year public record of a roll call with positions on issues… I don’t know what Jim Oberweis is, but I guarantee you I am a bona fide fiscal conservative and I am a bona fide social conservative.

Jeff Berkowitz: Are you proud of that? Are you proud to say you are a social conservative?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: Absolutely.

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, if you do win the primary, then do you have to run to the center to win the general election?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: No, No, the fundamental problem with the Republican Party of the past is this idea that you cut deals to win races. Where Republicans are being successful in places like Georgia and across the country, they are running on philosophy, principles and ideals. They are connecting with people. We need to get back in touch with the middle class in the State of Illinois. The Governor- the current Governor of the State of Illinois is at war with the middle class…

Jeff Berkowitz: One other name…Jim Edgar, the former Governor, left the office in ’98, very, very popular. People are pushing him to run. He is giving it thought. If he runs—you’ve said that you are better prepared than Jim Edgar to be Governor, is that right?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: Today. Absolutely. Jim Edgar has spent—the last time he was on the ballot was 1994. The last time he ran—he ran against Dawn Clark Netsch. How many people in your audience remember any of that. Now, certainly everybody in the rear view mirror has a wonderful reputation. When I leave the senate, people will say great things about me—the ones that know me. But, I mean, we are talking about being prepared to take on the challenges of the future. And, to take over a state that this Governor has run into the ground. I have been on the front line with his [Blagojevich’s] last three budgets; I know what they are doing and I know what’s wrong. That is not to say that Jim Edgar is not a capable person. But, I am better prepared to be Governor today than Jim Edgar…

Jeff Berkowitz: If Jim Edgar gets in, does that mean that you stay in unequivocally, you stay in the race?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: No—

Jeff Berkowitz: You might get out?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: Look, I am running for Governor. Okay. We will take into account circumstances as they change. If Jim Edgar gets in, we’ll see what the initial reaction is and try to assess whether he is seriously in, and then we’ll make our decision, but I am in this race.

Jeff Berkowitz: When you say, you’ll make your decision, it’s a possibility that if Edgar gets in, you might get out. Is that what you are saying?

Sen. Steve Rauschenberger: Well, we’ll have to take into consideration what effect it has if we throw 3, 4 or 5 more candidates into this race. What it means if a former Governor gets in it. Yes.
***********************************************
Steve Rauschenberger [State Senator (Elgin) and Republican Primary Gubernatorial Candidate], recorded on August 28 , 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” this week [week of Sep. 12] and as will be airing on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, Sep. 19 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV]. See, directly 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
***********