The Cong. Foley soap opera: As the Stomach Turns?

Okay, everybody is presumed innocent. But, when you resign 24 hours after the damning reports, when the Speaker and the Republican Leadership tell Foley no defense is going to fly here-- you can turn out the lights--The party is over for Cong. Foley. Unless he can develop a bi-polar, substance abuse, “I lost my mind defense,” the guy is going to do some serious time. And, unless the Republican Party can show the Republican Party Leadership did not cover this up, it will be Speaker Pelosi and maybe Majority Leader Reid, come November 7.

As the saying goes, "I can handle my enemies, but God help me with my friends." This has to be President Bush's thoughts right now. Aren't there supposed to be grown-ups in the House who know how to get rid of people like Foley before he brings down his Party.

Rolling Stone took my line before I got my post online, “Foley turns over a new page.” See here.

"Three years ago, Cong. Foley held a news conference in Florida to say that he would refuse to talk about his sexual orientation ..." See here. [Ed. note, always a bad sign-- lacking in "gay pride," no doubt.].

Just when the National Republican Party thought it was turning over a new page of its own in the November 7, 2006 mid-term election, it is jolted back to reality by yet another Republican scandal. Jack Abramoff and Cong. Duke Cunningham started the deep descent for the national Republican Party. Then there was the daily onslaught of bad news from Iraq, with the Bush Generals murmuring over the sectarian violence replacing terrorist insurgents as the primary threat. The nation seemed to be saying it did not sign up to be peacemakers in an Iraqi civil war. And, there were high gas prices. And, that all followed Katrina and Michael [Great Job] Brownie.

Bush’s approval ratings tumbled and the generic congressional polls turned sharply in favor of Democrats, i.e., the nation was saying gimme a Democrat congressperson, almost no matter in whichever part of the country the voters were and no matter between whom the choice was.

Then, in the last few weeks, the national Republican Party seemed to have found its footing. Gas prices were tumbling downward. President Bush was out making positive speeches and the case for the Iraq War. Once again, the President was sounding the popular, bi-annual Republican theme, “It’s National Security, stupid." Iraq was simply the central front in the War on terrorism. If the terrorists were drawn to Iraq, that was all to the good. Better to fight them in Baghdad than in Chicago, New York, Dallas or even in San Francisco.

More than 4000, or so, Al Qaeda, troops were said to have been killed in Iraq. Not a bad three years work, notwithstanding the loss of Coalition troops and massive injuries to same. Yes, the NIE may have said that the Iraq War had become a cause Celeb and a recruiting tool for terrorists, but it also said that the ultimate defeat of the insurgents in Iraq [finishing well, as 6th CD candidate Senator Roskam might put it] would be a major blow to Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

The Bush approval ratings were, on average, out of the high 30s and into the low or mid 40s. The generic Congressional poll had become a tie between Rs and Ds. The National Republican Party was no longer tanking. The Republicans, once they got past their internal dispute between the President and the maverick Senate Leadership i.e., Senators Warner, McCain and Graham on defining torture and the rights of non- U. S. citizen detainees, i.e., accused foreign terrorists, had laid a nice trap for Democrats. And, in large part, Pelosi and Reid fell for it, letting the Ds once again define themselves as the Party not to be trusted on National Security.

Then, what happens? Six term Chief Republican Deputy Whip, Cong. Mark Foley [Southern Florida] announces he is resigning, all but conceding he had engaged in terribly wrong, shameful and most likely, unlawful, communications with a minor, male page, communications which a former FBI agent has said could probably be viewed as unlawful solicitations of homosexual sex with a minor. [However, there are some reports that 16 might be age of consent in that area] [See here].

Major Garrett, no left wing, radical Democrat sympathizer and a correspondent on Fox News Channel’s nightly Special Report, said on Friday night’s program, “To call today’s events dramatic and shattering would be a grotesque understatement.”

Speaker Hastert, when asked Friday afternoon about the Foley resignation, said, “He has done the right thing. I have asked Cong. Shimkus, who is head of the Page Board to look into this issue regarding Cong. Foley. We want to make sure that all of our pages are safe and the page system is safe.” Hastert reported further, “None of us are very happy about it.” Garrett commented that would be “another classic understatement."

Meanwhile, questions are being raised [including some late breaking questions reported by Nightline at the end of its Friday night segment] as to what Speaker Hastert and other members in the Republican Leadership knew about allegations of this type with respect to Foley’s improper communications with minor House pages, and when did they know it, to resurrect the famous Watergate phrase. Further, what did they do about it? [The folks on the hot seat include, among others, NRCC Chairman and Cong. Reynolds [R-NY]; Cong. Shimkus [R-IL] and Majority Leader Boehner [R-Oh], and, significantly, a senior staffer to the Speaker, which could implicate the Speaker, himself].

The Republicans have one shot to get past the situation: answer the Foleygate questions promptly and thoroughly- pulling no punches. They, of course, will hope that Hastert, Boehner and/or others in the Republican Leadership can survive them. If not, the rank and file need to cut them loose. It is their collective butts that are on the line. In any case, they better Moveon.Republican and put the ball back in the National Security court. The Foley court is not user-friendly to congressional Republicans.

Because-- if the next few months end up being about the below, the Democrats likely will add at least 11 Democrat pick-ups in the House to the almost certain pick-ups of the Delay seat in Texas, Ney Seat in Ohio, Foley seat in Florida, 8th CD in Arizona, bringing about an early retirement for J. Dennis Hastert as Speaker, and disaster for many House candidates-- and the gavel will go to Speaker Pelosi, if not Speaker Murtha. Further, the Senate could go Democratic, as well, meaning the Congress could turn into Bush Investigation, 24-7. Talk about a living Hell for a President. W, say Hello to Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and Judiciary Chairman John [not so Jr.] Conyers [D-MI], just to mention a few of the new Chairmen in the House.

As indicated above, the question for the Republicans is when did the Republican Leadership first learn of this issue? With whom among the Leadership was this information shared? Was it withheld, as is being alleged, from the Dems on the Page Board? Why shouldn't the information have been shared with the entire Page Board? with the Democrats? Were the initial reports appropriately followed up on? By whom?

Early reports are that the Republicans may not have performed too well on this score. Remember, it is always the cover-up that is the major political problem. Look at President Nixon. That’s the reason he had the choice of resigning or being impeached. Look at President Clinton. Perjury was much more of a factor than sex in the Impeachment of Mr. Bill.

Take a look at the alleged email exchanges between a 16-year-old page and Cong. Mark Foley, as reported by Nightline last night and on it’s web page [see here].

Florida Rep. Mark Foley's resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age. In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican Leadership and the Chairman of the House caucus on Missing and Exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for Sexual Exploitation of children. "They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," Foley said. [Foley has met the sick people and they are him.]

...According to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges. They say he [Cong. Foley] used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.
************************************
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed. [Ed. Note, well there you go, how is that for mentoring, as Foley first defended to Republican investigators what he was doing in the emails].

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you. [Ed. Note, more mentoring?]

And this one:
Maf54: You’re horny, though. [Ed. Note, even more mentoring].
Teen: Well, yeah, a bit. But, I’m still a virgin.
Maf54: Everybody wants you. [Ed. Note, some helpful congressional assessments of his page desirability--teen was much in demand for his coffee getting ability would be Foley's defense? .
Teen: If you say so.
Maf54: You like being the only one?
Teen: Of course, less competition [Ed. note, tutoring on the antitrust laws would be Foley's defense].

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex. Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

"Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex," said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. "And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years."

Foley's resignation letter was submitted late this afternoon, and he left Capitol Hill without speaking to reporters. In a statement, he said he was "deeply sorry" and apologized for letting down his family and the people of Florida. But he made no mention of the Internet messages or the pages.

One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program. [Ed. note: But had those involved in the Program discussed with Shimkus? Had Shimkus investigated? Discussed with authorities? What obligations did Shimkus have to report to authorities? to others on the Page Board?]. Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress. [Ed. note: What about Shimkus? Did he cover this up or did he act properly? And, now Speaker Hastert turns to Shimkus [D-IL] to determine if the page system is safe? Wouldn't Shimkus have a bit of a conflict?]

This all came to a head in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, we [Nightline] asked the congressman [Foley] about some much tamer e-mails from one page, and he said he was just being overly friendly. [Ed. note: another grotesque understatement? ]After we [Nightline] posted that story online, we began to hear from a number of other pages who sent these much more graphic messages.
*************************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Cong. Melissa Bean [D]: Managing the medium is the Message

Links fixed and added at 4:50 pm on Thursday.
****************************************************
Reliable sources have it that real polls and other indicators have 44 year old incumbent Democrat Congresswoman Melissa Bean [Barrington] ever so slightly ahead in the Illinois 8th CD. Although, contrarian Bob Novak has it tilting for David McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills] and giving the Rs a one vote margin of control in the House]. Partly that is the power of incumbency and partly the recent boost of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce putting out almost one million dollars in soft, well produced TV ads in August. Advantage, Bean

Bean's critics, including her opponents in the race, Republican David McSweeney and Moderate Party candidate Bill Scheurer [Lindenhurst], will say the ads are a reward for Bean’s decision to become one of only fifteen Democrats to support CAFTA. Some of her labor critics chant a similar theme [See here and here for transcripts and video podcast of show with Cong. Bean discussing these and other matters].
Disadvantage, Bean.

Bean and her supporters, including the U. S. Chamber, of course, deny the connection. The U. S. Chamber says her record of going with the Chamber on 73% of the votes they scored in 2005 was helpful, but not dispositive, in getting the endorsement. They contend there is no specific number for an endorsement, although there is a number, i.e., 70 %, for the Spirit of Enterprise award, which Bean also got. Advantage, Bean

In addition to her 73% number, the Chamber looked at the over-all performance of the incumbent on the matters they considered important in 2005 [Oddly, 2006 seemed not to count]. And, of course, as to the million dollars, or so, in TV ad support that the Chamber gave Bean, that decision is based on even more “intangible,” criteria. Advantage, Bean

The Chamber talked to Republican challenger McSweeney about its endorsement and may have given some perfunctory, thought to third party candidate Scheurer-- who got on the ballot in late June-- as is the case with independent candidates in Illinois, but it is clear the Chamber’s approach in this contest was to ask: “Do we want to reward Bean for voting more pro-business, in our view, than is the case with most Democrats, even though we are confident McSweeney would have been a more consistent supporter of business than Bean.” “Hell yes,” essentially said the very political Chamber. Advantage, Bean

Indeed, Chamber insiders would no doubt concede that McSweeney would have been likely to score in the 90-95% range on the votes of interest to the Chamber. But, the Chamber wanted to reward some Dems who tilt their way. The better to buy more votes in the future. And, then there was Bean’s vote for CAFTA, which was really, really important to the Chamber. Advantage, Bean.

Of course, Cong. Bean works the District hard, and has for the last 20 months as only an incumbent can, as well as for the prior four years when she ran twice again Cong. Phil Crane. Advantage Bean.

With four forums being held in the 8th CD over the last week of August and into the first week of September, the Bean campaign no doubt felt their candidate, a Democrat in a Republican district came out okay, even if not a winner. If a forum has a winner, but no one sees it, or writes about it much, was there a winner. Advantage Bean.

The forum ground rules, venues, etc. were controlled in large part by the Congresswoman. This is not unusual for incumbents. Multiple organizations want to host, but virtually no organization wants to do it unless both, and in this case, all three candidates will show.

McSweeney and Scheurer would show no matter what. Bean, on the other hand, as the incumbent, can say to the sponsor, “Let’s make a deal.” And, deal she did. And, the sponsors all said, “what would you like, Congresswoman? Your wish is our command.

Another case of Bean masterfully managing the medium and the media. You want not so much TV? We can do that. You want no live TV, we can do that. [See here]. You want no questions by the candidates to each other? We can do that. You want an early morning forum that no Chicago TV station would consider televising live? We can do that. You want the radio taping outside of the Loop so few Chicago media members will cover it? We can do that. [Note the greater press coverage by the Chicago media of the recent 6th CD AT Issue forum, which was held in its usual venue[the Chicago Loop]: the WBBM 780 AM Loop Radio studio, as opposed to 8th CD forum which Team Bean required to be held in the District. Nice one, Congresswoman Bean. Managing the Media is truly her message.

The primary goal of Congresswoman Bean was to structure the forums in a way that would generate little interest and would make it hard for many of the 800,000 8th CD constituents to see or hear much about the forums. In short, Bean wanted to cap the effective audience size. This is true for almost all incumbents. This approach maximizes the power of incumbency, which includes a lower cost of communication with the District’s residents than for challengers. Advantage Bean.

Also, this approach to forums limited the number of people who might conclude, based on observation, that the challengers are “equal,” or better, than the incumbent. If the constituents can’t see the candidates debate with each other, it is hard for them to conclude equals are in the race. If the events are structured more like dull forums than lively debates, even better fr the incumbent.

Televised debates, in short, are the great equalizers for challengers. They are also helpful for democracy. But, they are not so good for candidates who do not want a full and fair airing of the issues. No major TV station televised any of the 8th CD forums. At least one of the 6th CD forums will be televised by WTTW. Advantage, Bean.

So, Cong. Bean got her way. Although ABC, NBC, CLTV, WTTW and Public Affairs all indicated an interest in hosting televised forums in the 8th CD race, and McSweeney and Scheurer were hot to debate on TV, Bean stiff-armed the television offers, declining even to show up for an ABC-7 pre debate candidate meeting, with the others not even getting that far. NBC got an early solo appearance with Bean out of the deal, and if lucky, McSweeney and Scheurer will get something similar, but not the debates they cherish. Advantage Bean

Republican former investment banker David McSweeney called for twenty four debates. Third party independent candidate Bill Scheurer supported twenty four, but would have happily settled for ten. Bean argued she is a busy Congresswoman with no time for televised debate, even though this would expand the reach of the forums to the District’s constituents, of whom Bean purports to care. As to Scheurer and McSweeney, Bean essentially says they should be grateful for what they got. And, the voters, too. Or, reaching into history, Bean might say, “No real debates, no way for the voters to see the forum? Well, then, let them eat cake.” Disadvantage, Democracy.

McSweeney and Scheurer jumped at the opportunity for four forums, and now will argue for more forums or better yet, some true debates. Good Luck. Advantage Bean.

A secondary goal of Bean’s was to do the forums early in the campaign, i.e. before Labor Day, as it is well known that most constituents pay little attention to these races until after Labor Day. Bean managed to schedule three forums before Labor Day and one a day after Labor Day. Advantage Bean. Managing the Medium is the message.

Bean will try to stonewall McSweeney and Scheurer and the media, who may argue that Cong. Crane should hardly be the gold standard for how to provide information about the candidates to the District [The Northwest Herald has already criticized the Congresswoman for not doing more debates]. It is somewhat ironic that Bean now points to Crane, as her benchmark. During her 2002 and 2004 campaigns, Bean wouldn’t even use the 74 year old Crane as a bench to sit on. Now, he is her frame of reference for deciding how to communicate with the community; Crane has become Bean’s Gold Standard. Watch for the price of that kind of Gold to fall. Advantage Scheurer and McSweeney.

Who won the forums? I say forums because they were not debates. Bean pushed for and got rules that barred any real direct questioning, communication or engagement by the candidates of each other. Advantage Bean.

The candidates and pundits can debate who won the forums over the next 40 days but it is doubtful that will matter. Three of them [Northwest Suburban Alliance of Commerce and Industry [NSACI], Lake County Chamber of Commerce and a taping of “At Issue,” in front of Grayslake Central High School students] were seen live by fewer than 100 potential voters at each event, with one [McHenry County College], attracting about 250 potential voters. Advantage Bean.

The Grayslake Forum was also beamed out by radio to the District, so the potential impact is greater, but it isn’t TV. Advantage Bean.

CBS-2 [Katie McCall] made its way to two of the forums, putting up maybe two 90 second, or so, spots. ABC-7 sent a camera to a portion of one and if it put up a spot, it was hard to find. CLTV sent a camera and it’s ace political reporter Carlos Hernandez Gomez to one forum and he put up one spot, although it may have appeared multiple times. NBC elected no coverage and WTTW [Public TV] apparently has decided women’s professional basketball is a higher priority for coverage than the two of the hottest races in the country: the 8th CD and 6th CD, unless WTTW is able to host it’s own forum, as it is in the 6th CD. Advantage Bean.

There was more print coverage of the forum, with the Chicago Tribune, Daily Herald, Northwest Herald and Pioneer Press, and perhaps one or two other local papers providing some coverage and some of those entities, e.g., Tribune, Daily Herald and Northwest Herald helped with sponsorship of the forums, to their credit. But, the Sun-Times, which is fairly significant in the District, ignored the 8th CD [but not 6th CD] forums and the print coverage that did occur does not quite equate to TV impact. Advantage, Bean.

Public Affairs edited about 80% of the three pressers that followed the NASCI forum into a show that aired in a portion of the 8th CD [the footage was courtesy of the Illinois Channel], throughout the city of Chicago and is available to almost anyone, with a computer, as a video podcast. [See here].

The Illinois Channel streamed the full NASCI forum video and aired it as well across the State of Illinois, including in portions of the 8th CD. Advantage democracy.

Public Affairs also aired a portion of the Grayslake At Issue forum in a portion of the District, and streamed it as well. Advantage democracy.

Public Affairs had a camera and correspondent at each forum and may continue to prepare shows containing each, or portions of each, forum.
Advantage democracy.

The Scheurer Campaign is streaming the full NASCI forum video, as well as that forum's pressers portions of the McHenry Forum, as well as a CBS-2 spot from the McHenry Forum, and a webcast of the At Issue forum, and links to the Public Affairs podcast coverage of the forums. Advantage Democracy. See here.

In light of Congresswoman Bean’s excellent job of managing the media and the forums, and recently coming on strong with negative and somewhat deceptive mailers and ads-- you might expect her to have more than a narrow lead, with forty days to go [polls purporting to show otherwise will be debunked in separate posts]. And, if she doesn’t, does that mean she is vulnerable to losing the seat back to Republican McSweeney, after the Republicans held it for more than the prior half century? Or, vulnerable to losing even to the long shot, albeit poorly funded, but spirited and articulate, campaign of third party candidate Bill Scheurer?

Well, is Bean vulnerable to losing the seat? We discuss. You decide.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Better than Monday Night Football: 27th Sen. Dist. Debate

Jeff Berkowitz: Your gubernatorial candidate, Matt Murphy, has a plan for education and a budget that includes a freeze on property taxes for two years. Do you agree with Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka?

Matt Murphy: The concern I have with either the Governor’s proposal or Judy’s proposal with regard to freezing property taxes—this is all a movement towards taking local control of education dollars away from us in the long run and making the state the primary funding source for education. In our area, we have been able to continue to provide quality education throughout the last four years while the Democrats in Springfield have cut our state funding—because the vast majority of the money we use to educate our kids never left our area and I am very concerned about exposing the education in our area to political winds in Springfield, so anything that leads us towards that direction, I am extremely skeptical of.

Jeff Berkowitz: Peter Gutzmer, what do you say to that?

Peter Gutzmer: Like I said, I’m undecided right now [as to a tax swap: an increase in the income tax, a decrease in the real estate property tax and a net increase in taxes]. I know that local property taxpayers would certainly benefit: homeowners, business—commercial and industrial property owners-- would certainly benefit. Secondary higher education would certainly benefit. The question of local control is-- does the bill as sponsored currently allow for that local control and that local flexibility? From my understanding, I do believe that it does provide local control. Basically, if the Attorney General or the Illinois State Board of Education fails to act, the continuing appropriation in the bill as drafted allows school districts to demand their money.

Matt Murphy: Can I make a point, Jeff? I am surprised actually to hear my opponent today saying that he is not sure where he stands on the tax swap, Senate Bill 750, because in the past, on seeking the endorsement of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, he repeatedly indicated that he would support that.

Jeff Berkowitz: Let’ see what he has to say about that now. What do you say, Peter?

Peter Gutzmer: Yes, I would support it.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you said you would support it but you are still undecided?

Peter Gutzmer: I am still undecided.

Jeff Berkowitz: What does that mean?

Peter Gutzmer: I want to see somebody run the numbers and see what the direct dollar for dollar benefit is for property taxpayers in this District. How much benefit are they going to see in a local reduction of their local property taxes?

Jeff Berkowitz: But, you told the IFT that you would support it [the Senate Bill 755 Tax Swap]? Or, was it a contingent support?

Peter Gutzmer: Well, it was contingent support—that didn’t leave any question. It was either yes or no. So, I don’t think I would tie my hands or any elected official’s hands and say they shouldn’t consider anything.

Jeff Berkowitz: Talking about tying your hands—while we’re on taxes, or that general issue, your opponent has taken a pledge not to raise the income tax, not to raise the sales tax. Would you take a similar pledge, or not?

Peter Gutzmer: No, I don’t think I would take that similar pledge.

Jeff Berkowitz: Because?

Peter Gutzmer: I think I’d like to see what alternatives are out there for Senate Bill 750. The income tax increase that is contained within it for both the personal and the corporate side may be changed based on changes in the sales tax structure, a variety of other things, as well. So, to say I would be signing off on a commitment of no new taxes I think really ties government’s hands….
******************************************************
From this week’s [Sep. 25] suburban edition of Public Affairs with
27th Senate District candidates Matt Murphy [R-Palatine] and Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates]. See here for a detailed suburban airing schedule for “Public Affairs.”
*****************************************************
Issues discussed on this week's suburban edition of "Public Affairs," include: Ending Pay to Play; Ryan's and Blagojevich's impact on various state and local elections; An elected Auditor General; Tax Swaps; Funding and Local Control of Education; In State Tuition and Drivers Licenses for illegal immigrants; All Kids and Private Sector Provided Health Insurance; Taxes, Jobs and the Illinois Economy; Assault Weapon Ban; Abortion.

The program, recorded on September 17, 2006 will also air though-out the City of Chicago next Monday night, Oct. 2 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] and can be viewed anytime on your computer [Watch here].
**************************************************************

27th Senate Dist. Debate: Gutzmer and Murphy

"Public Affairs," is featuring 27th Senate District Candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine] this week in thirty-five Chicago Metro suburbs [See end of this post for a detailed suburban airing schedule] on Comcast Cable; next Monday night [Oct. 2] through-out the City of Chicago on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm; And, all of the time [24/7],on the "Public Affairs," podcast page on your computer [Watch Murphy-Gutzmer, Obama, McCain, Radogno, Peraica, Stroger, Blagojevich, Topinka and many, many others here].
****************************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including this week's suburban show with 27th Senate District Candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine], and Republican Candidate for State Treasurer Christine Radogno,8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and many, many more on our video podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
In twenty-five North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the "Public Affairs," show airs tonight in the regular weekly Public Affairs slot, 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or 35 on Tuesday night, as indicated, below.

In ten North Shore suburbs, the show is also airing in its regular airing slot at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 this week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as indicated, below.
******************************************************
The episode of Public Affairs, featuring 27th Senate District Candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine], airs tonight:

at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, parts of Inverness, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette

And at 8:30 pm 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.

and Monday night, Wednesday night and Friday night at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 and in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Treasurer candidate Radogno shoots at Giannoulias' ethics plan

Sen. Christine Radogno: What he didn’t say, though, is that he [Alexi Giannoulias] will take contributions from executives who work for banks. So I think it’s a distinction without a difference. He’s saying, “I won’t take it from an institution, but I will take it from the executives and the people who work for banks, which is, in fact, where a large portion of his campaign funding has come from.”
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Well, let me make that proposal. We’ll make it to him [Alexi Giannoulias] when he comes on. [Ed. Note: If he comes on our show, that is; Alexi scheduled and cancelled two appearances on Public Affairs in his contested primary; After repeated additional invitations for him to appear on "Public Affairs," Alexi told me a few days before this taping of Sen. Radogno that he would call me to meet and discuss his appearing on our show. Subsequent calls from Public Affairs to Alexi and his campaign manager have gone unreturned. The Sep. 10 Public Affairs taping of Sen. Radogno was her second as the Republican nominee for State Treasurerand her fourth appearance on the show].
****************************************
"Public Affairs," is featuring Christine Radogno, State Senator and Republican candidate for State Treasurer, ; tonight [Sep. 25] through-out the City of Chicago on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm; And, All of the Time [24/7] on the "Public Affairs" podcast page on your computer [Watch Radogno, Obama, McCain, Peraica, Stroger, Blagojevich, Topinka and many, many others here].
****************************************************************
Next week's suburban edition of Public Affairs features press conferences with 6th CD candidates Major Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates] and State Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton].
*************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including this week's suburban show with 27th Senate District candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine] and 8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and many, many more on our video podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
A partial transcript and more about the show with Republican Candidate for State Treasurer and State Senator Christine Radogno is included here and another partial transcript is included, below.
******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …Alexi said [on At Issue, September 10] that he has a new Ethics Plan and he says he’s not going to take any campaign contributions from banks and he said his opponent, Christine Radogno, does. He said “she does and she will.” Did he get that right?

Sen. Christine Radogno: What he didn’t say, though, is that he will take contributions from executives who work for banks. So I think it’s a distinction without a difference. He’s saying, “I won’t take it from an institution, but I will take it from the executives and the people who work for banks, which is, in fact, where a large portion of his campaign funding has come from.”

Jeff Berkowitz: Is that right? From individuals at Broadway Bank [his family’s bank] or other banks?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Both. So, with respect to my own situation, who I accept contributions from—again, I have been in the Senate ten years, and I have never categorically excluded any group from making contributions. I have received some contributions, over my time in office, from banks. That has not accelerated during this particular campaign, but I have received some contributions from banks, as well as from healthcare operators, transportation entities, and all kinds of different entities that we generally raise money from.

Jeff Berkowitz: But if he would go farther and say he would not take contributions—not just from the entity, from the bank, but also from the employees, or officers or directors of the banks, then would you say he’s got a point?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Then I would say that that’s a very different proposal from what he laid out, because what he did is sort of say, “I’m not going to, but by the way, I’ll take it from the employees.”

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, let me make that proposal. We’ll make it to him [Alexi Giannoulias] when he comes on. [Ed. Note: If he comes on our show, that is; Alexi scheduled and cancelled two appearances on Public Affairs in his contested primary; After repeated additional invitations for him to appear on "Public Affairs," Alexi told Public Affairs a few days before this taping of Sen. Radogno that he would call Berkowitz to meet and discuss his appearing on our show. Subsequent calls from Public Affairs to Alexi and his campaign manager have gone unreturned . The Sep. 10 Public Affairs taping of Sen. Radogno was her second as the Republican nominee for State Treasurer and her fourth appearance on the show].

Sen. Christine Radogno: Okay.

Jeff Berkowitz: Why not do that, irrespective of what Alexi does, why not say, “I, Christine Radogno, am not going to be tainted at all. I’m not going to take any money from banks, because the Treasurer has important relationships with those entities in that industry, the banking industry. No money from banks, no money from directors, officers, employees.”

Sen. Christine Radogno: No. I will not categorically exclude anyone from contributing, as long as there’s full transparency in the operations that go on within the office. For example, if there were to be a no-bid contract with a bank, I would then not accept any contribution from them. But the way it works in the Treasurer’s office is the Treasurer actually posts the interest rate that they want to receive for the taxpayer dollars, and then any bank that can provide that interest rate, along with the appropriate collateralization, is entitled to those deposits. So there is no-

Jeff Berkowitz: You’re saying the Treasurer’s office posts, daily, the interest rate--

Sen. Christine Radogno: That they want to receive [from Banks for deposits from the Treasurer’s office].

Jeff Berkowitz: And any bank can speak up and say, “I’ll take that,” and they [the State Treasurer’s office] splits it equally among all banks?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Right. Relative to their collateral, their ability to handle the deposits.

Jeff Berkowitz: Not so fast. That gives you some leeway, so the Treasurer can say, okay, this bank has better collateral, better this, better that, and they can favor one bank over another. And they don’t have to give any reasons, do they?

Sen. Christine Radogno: No. If you provide the interest rate, you get the deposits.

Jeff Berkowitz: You do? Okay. So none of those qualifications you were giving about collateral, experience, and so forth--

Sen. Christine Radogno: Well, everyone has the same requirements for collateral. It’s not an issue.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, daily, how many banks is the Treasurer depositing money with, statewide?

Sen. Christine Radogno: It’s in excess of a hundred. I don’t know the number.

Jeff Berkowitz: And you’re saying it’s the equivalent of a bid contract. In this case, it’s the maximum [interest rate that is offered] ?

Sen. Christine Radogno: You meet the criteria.

Jeff Berkowitz: Whoever steps up and wants to pay that level of interest or more,”we’ll deal with you.”

Sen. Christine Radogno: There’s no “or more.” It’s that level of interest [payment]. Because if you are starting to say, “Well, then give me a little more-- then you do get into an issue of ‘could there be favoritism.’ ” There is an [interest] rate set out. If you meet the criteria, you get the deposit.

Jeff Berkowitz: You get the deposit? But, is it equal? Is there a certain amount that the state has to deposit each day and then it divides it equally?

Sen. Christine Radogno: There is a limit for any bank. There is a formula. It’s pretty formulaic. So, I think it is not as big of an issue as some people would like to make it.
************************************************
From tonight’s [Sep. 25] City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs with Republican Candidate for State Treasurer and State Senator Christine Radogno.The program, recorded on September 10, 2006 airs through-out the City of Chicago tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] and can be viewed anytime on your computer [Watch here].
*****************************
Transcript draft prepared by Amy Allen, who also does research for “Public Affairs,” and has her own political blog [See here].
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Gov. Blagojevich: Sex, Lies and Videotape

Revised at 1:45 pm on Friday to add video link to second segment [four minutes] of Blagojevich Presser]; Both links to Curry and Zorn, below, have links to full fourteen minute Blagojevich Presser.
***************************************
The Governor looked into the camera, pointed his finger and said, “I did not trade a job to that woman for $1500.” Not really, but it would have gotten the attention of the folks watching the 5:00 pm or 10:00 pm news—almost as much as if he said, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

Instead, Gov. Blagojevich decided to break his vow of silence on the $1500 check which until yesterday, Blago’s staff had said had been given in 2003 to his older daughter, 7 year old Amy, by his friend of forty years, or so, former campaign treasurer and current City of Chicago worker, Michael Ascaridis. Ascaridis’ wife happened to get a 47K a year state job [initially located in a far-a-way county of which the woman had never heard, and after she failed the test for the job] right around the same time that the $1500 check was given to Rod and/or his spouse or daughter in celebration of their younger daughter, Annie’s, Christening, or at least that was the story behind the check that the Governor gave yesterday [See story by AP’s Deanna Bellandi, who now has the reputation of the fastest political writer in Chicago, and one of the fairest, of State and sometimes other political stories].

But, the real story here is that Rod was way off his game yesterday. In fourteen minutes of a video presser [See here (ten minutes) and here(four more minutes)] following the Governor’s announcement of millions of dollars in grants to combat domestic violence and sexual assault, the Governor took questions yesterday mostly on the $1500 gift, but also a bit on Wednesday’s Sun-Times story of a possible extortion scheme by Blago’s top political operatives to help the Governor’s campaign fund [and watch for yet another such story in this morning’s Sun-Times on the famous Blago funder in NYC? Did this trip involve, among others, Deputy Governor and former Bloomberg aide Bradley Tusk? (who has told "Public Affairs," [See here] he only does government, not politics). Moderate Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg coincidentally has endorsed Democrat Blago].

Talk about deer in the headlights, it was like Rod just woke up from a three hour nap and was groggy and surrounded by the news media, all asking questions for which he had no really persuasive answers. Worse, he looked genuinely surprised to hear the questions—all which have been written about for a week. Who sent the Governor out there in that state of mind? What were they thinking?

Further, who shot the 15-minute video? Somebody from Topinka’s campaign? Very amateur. But, it works. The amateurish video, definitely not on a tripod, seems to accentuate the amateurship answers and bewildered look of Blago. Who is the NJKimme who submitted it to Youtube? Nancy Kimme? Kimme is Topinka’s Chief of Staff in the Treasurer’s office and de facto Campaign Manager for Team Topinka.

Then, take a look at the ABC-7 video [Paul Meincke]. Professional video and ABC seemed to use the better part of Rod’s performance. If you were watching on ABC-7 News and they only showed what is on the web site, not so bad for Rod. Advantage, Blago. Flannery had no video on the CBS-2 web site. Did he have a video on the CBS local evening? He should have—Mike hammered pretty well at the presser on the job thing. If Flannery had no news spot, Advantage Blago.

Same thing on NBC-5. I saw no video on their website, but Mary Ann Ahern was there asking questions. Did she have a spot? If not, advantage Blago.

The presser got a short mention by Ponce on WTTW's Chicago Tonight, but no segment. They blew that one. What else is new? They did cover the Feds visiting the County Building and coming away with boxes of documents. But, they couldn’t cover both? Advantage Blago.

You see how that works, boys and girls. The power of the media. If a presser goes badly and nobody sees it, did it happen? Yes, yes I know. There are the print media and the radio folks. But, still, Team Topinka is salivating for some reverse earned TV media, or whatever you want to call this.

But, it may be that CBS and NBC had video spots on the news. If so, I may have to take back much of the above. However, we would still have to see if they were closer to the images that came out of the full presser or closer to ABC-7’s spot. The medium is the message.

Send your comments to Zorn or Curry [both of whom link to the full fourteen minute Blagojevich Presser]. They deserve the credit. Curry had the link first and then Zorn picked it up. Me? I am just a recovering country lawyer learning from the pros.
************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Radogno slugs Alexi on mob ties: Cable and streaming

Jeff Berkowitz: You’re saying that Alexi Giannoulias is lying about this [What he knew and when he knew it regarding loans to mobbed up borrowers?]

Sen. Christine Radogno: I think he’s being evasive about it. Because he’s been all over the map. But I do want to mention bankers I’ve spoken with have talked about the “four Cs” of making loans. There’s “credit-worthiness, cash flow, collateral, and character.”

Jeff Berkowitz: Character counts?

Sen. Christine Radogno: To consider character as an element in making these loans is certainly germane. ... We’re talking about tens of millions of dollars that had been invested—one to buy a property in Florida that actually a prostitution ring was run out of...it’s the pattern of this behavior—not just one, but more than one loan to more than one crime figure. So I think that’s problematic.
****************************************
"Public Affairs," is featuring Christine Radogno, State Senator and Republican candidate for State Treasurer, this week in thirty-five Chicago Metro suburbs [See end of this post for a detailed suburban airing schedule] on Comcast Cable; next Monday night [Sep. 25] through-out the City of Chicago on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm; And, All of the Time [24/7],on the "Public Affairs," podcast page on your computer [Watch Radogno, Peraica, Stroger, Blagojevich, Topinka, Obama, McCain and many, many others here].
****************************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including this week's suburban show with Republican Candidate for State Treasurer Christine Radogno and 8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and many, many more on our video podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
A partial transcript of the show with Republican Candidate for State Treasurer and State Senator Christine Radogno is included below.
******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Now, as we sit here on September 10th, how clear is it that Barack Obama is endorsing, wholeheartedly, Alexi Giannoulias?

Sen. Christine Radogno: I am not sure it’s clear at all. In fact, he [Alexi] was on the radio this morning [Sep. 10, WBBM 780 AM’s At Issue] and Alexi was asked that very question, and he certainly did not say that he would have Barack doing commercials for him again. In fact, he was very evasive on that issue.

Jeff Berkowitz: Now, he didn’t say he wouldn’t, he just didn’t quite say one way or the other. Would that be accurate?

Sen. Christine Radogno: That would be accurate.

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay. So there’s that issue-- the Obama factor, the experience factor. You mentioned the loan factor—the loans that Alexi was involved with at Broadway Bank.

Sen. Christine Radogno: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: As you’re out on the campaign trail, how important is that [the loans made from his family's bank to alleged "mobbed up," borrowers] as you see the voters thinking about and assessing you and Alexi Giannoulias?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Well, I do think it’s an issue, because what he has put out there in terms of his resume is that he’s been a banker for three and half years and he was in charge of the loan portfolio. Yet, when he’s been asked about loans to crime figures, he’s been all over the map. He said at one point that he wasn’t really involved with them, his brother made the contact. Then, at another point, he says, well, in retrospect, he wouldn’t have made those loans. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of accountability or a good explanation for those loans.

Jeff Berkowitz: When you say [loans made by Alexi or his bank to] crime figures, who are you talking about?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Michael Giorango is one of the individuals, and then there’s another, a self-described “mobster,” Boris—it’s a difficult name [Boris and Lev Stratievsky], and in fact [he] Boris Stratievsky has some property up in this area.

Jeff Berkowitz: This area where we tape, Skokie?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Correct. But he’s a guy who in federal papers described himself as a mobster. And that was another twenty million dollar loan. It’s a pattern of big money loans to people who are connected with organized crime. [Radogno has stated elsewhere that millions were loaned by Alexi and his family’s bank to reputed mobsters Boris and Lev Stratievsky, who were charged with money laundering and forgery].

Jeff Berkowitz: Alexi would probably say that federal regulators have not found problems with Broadway Bank. He said they’re not required to make criminal background checks as they issue loans. And, I think he implied that he didn’t know the criminal background, and his bank did not before making these loans. You dispute that?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Well, yes, actually he has said he was aware of legal problems. Again, he’s been pretty evasive as to whether he knew those were criminal problems or just legal problems. He also said initially he didn’t know Michael Giorango, and then it came out he actually went and visited with him in Florida. So he’s been all over the map on the explanations. Now, were the loans legal? Probably. But I think that’s a very low bar when you’re looking for someone to step in and basically take over the keys to the State Treasury. I think you want to have someone who has the good judgment to know that it probably isn’t appropriate to associate with known crime figures. That’s a problem.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, if you’re a banker and you’re issuing loans and you think there’s a chance that somebody has a criminal background and is involved in criminal activities, even though you are saying it wouldn’t be illegal, you’re saying if you were there, if you were the banker at Broadway Bank, you would not have made the loan.

Sen. Christine Radogno: Well, right. And in talking-

Jeff Berkowitz: Is that right?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Yes. And Alexi actually said that as well, that in retrospect, he wouldn’t have made those loans.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, he said that [would be the case] if he had the information that he has now.

Sen. Christine Radogno: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: You’re disputing that, you’re saying that he had enough information to make that decision before.

Sen. Christine Radogno: I think he knew more than he’s telling.

Jeff Berkowitz: You think?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: You’re saying that Alexi Giannoulias is lying about this?

Sen. Christine Radogno: I think he’s being evasive about it. Because he’s been all over the map. But I do want to mention bankers I’ve spoken with have talked about the “four Cs” of making loans. There’s “credit-worthiness, cash flow, collateral, and character.”

Jeff Berkowitz: Character counts?

Sen. Christine Radogno: To consider character as an element in making these loans is certainly germane. And we’re not talking about ten thousand dollars for a car loan. Everyone’s entitled to that kind of money. We’re talking about tens of millions of dollars that had been invested—one to buy a property in Florida that actually a prostitution ring was run out of. So it’s the magnitude of it, it’s the pattern of this behavior—not just one, but more than one loan to more than one crime figure. So I think that’s problematic.

Jeff Berkowitz: What does that tell you about him being in the position of, or you being in the position of Treasurer for the State of Illinois?

Sen. Christine Radogno: Well, what I would ask voters to look at is the very short history that Alexi’s put forth, the problems that we’ve just talked about versus myself—ten years in the Senate, eight years prior to that in local government, which, by the way, you don’t get one cent for. That’s strictly volunteer. We didn’t even get a meeting stipend in LaGrange.

Jeff Berkowitz: You were not paid a lot as a Village Trustee. I understand that.

Sen. Christine Radogno: We were paid less than zero. We were paid absolutely nothing.

Jeff Berkowitz: They could double your salary and it wouldn’t help you much.

Sen. Christine Radogno: Ten years in the state senate. I’ve been on the ballot nine times. I think the voters pretty well know where I’m coming from. I not only have a history of legislative accomplishments, but also a completely, unblemished history when it comes to any kind of ethical issues, and in fact, I have taken a leadership role in advancing some proposals relative to ethics and curtailing “pay to play” in this [the Blagojevich] administration.

******************************************************
From this week’s [Sep. 18] suburban edition of Public Affairs with Republican Candidate for State Treasurer and State Senator Christine Radogno.The program, recorded on September 10, 2006 will also air though-out the City of Chicago next Monday night, Sep. 25 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] and can be viewed anytime on your computer [Watch here].
*****************************
Transcript draft prepared by Amy Allen, who also does research for “Public Affairs,” and has her own political blog [See here].
***************************************************
In twenty-five North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the "Public Affairs," show airs tonight in the regular weekly Public Affairs slot, 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or 35 on Tuesday night, as indicated, below.

In ten North Shore suburbs, the show is also airing in its regular airing slot at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 this week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as indicated, below.
******************************************************
The episode of Public Affairs, featuring Christine Radogno, State Senator and Republican candidate for State Treasurer, airs tonight:

at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, parts of Inverness, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette

And at 8:30 pm 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.

and Monday night, Wednesday night and Friday night at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 and in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Sun-Times Pink Eye: Stroger with big lead over Peraica

Update 2, Monday at 5:30 pm

Public Affairs was incorrect when we reported early this morning, see below, that the Cook County Board President election poll is “another automated, touchpad phone call poll commissioned by the Chicago Sun-Times/NBC-5, similar in methodology to the Sun-Times/NBC-5 gubernatorial poll formally released yesterday morning.”

Public Affairs was informed today by Chicago Sun-Times Political Reporter Scott Fornek that the Sun-Times/NBC-5 Gubernatorial, State Treasurer [also reported today in the Sun-Times], and Cook County Board President polls are not automated polls. Fornek indicated to me that “the polls all used operators who called people based on random digit dialing and read them basically a prepared script of questions-- the way these polls are done, [that is] asked them the questions and got responses.”

Indeed, Fornek’s article, in this morning's Sun-Times, discussing the Cook County Board President’s poll, states [in a side bar included in the print version, but not the online version], “Operators used random digit dialing to gather a random sample of 400 likely Cook County voters.”

Public Affairs regrets its error and apologizes to the Chicago Sun-Times, NBC-5 and our readers for any inconvenience caused by same. Public Affairs stands by the remainder of the blog post, below.
*********************************************
Update 1: Monday at 9:25 am

While reasonably accurate, all things considered, Public Affairs' reliable sources were slightly off, with this morning's Chicago Sun-Times poll reporting a lead of 52% to 19% by Todd Stroger[D] over Tony Peraica[R] in the Cook County Board President's race. As indicated below, Public Affairs had predicted the poll would show a 52%- 26% spread for Ald. Todd Stroger [Chicago's 8th Ward]. However, the additional buzz this morning is that the poll results were changed late last night so that the Public Affairs report would be slightly wide of the mark [Shades of LBJ].
*****************************************
The buzz early this morning is that the Chicago Sun-Times will report in this morning’s paper a big lead for Democratic Chicago Ald. Todd Stroger [8th Ward] in his Cook County Board Presidential race with County Commissioner Tony Peraica [R-Riverside]. Reliable sources indicate that the Sun-Times/NBC-5 commissioned poll will show Ald. Stroger with approximately 52% and County Commissioner Peraica with approximately half that total, 26%.

The poll is likely to be criticized by Peraica and others for its methodology and for over-weighting Democrats, even for heavily Democratic Cook County. The poll is another automated, touchpad phone call poll commissioned by the Sun-Times/NBC-5, similar in methodology to the Sun-Times/NBC-5 gubernatorial poll formally released yesterday morning [See here] and discussed Sunday morning on NBC-5's City Desk by NBC-5, WTTW and Chicago Sun-Times Host/columnist Carol ["startling results"] Marin, Sun-Times political reporter Scott ["Illinois is just becoming more and more blue"] Fornek and Roosevelt University's Professor Paul["perhaps a low double digit lead for Rod]" Green .

Such automated touch-pad polls are generally viewed as much less accurate than those using individuals to ask the questions. Further, the Sun-Times gubernatorial poll was roundly criticized today for its small sample size, over-weighting of Democrats and the fact that it shows a projected margin of victory for Blagojevich [30%] almost double that of Blagojevich’s own poll, and far greater leads for Rod than polls commissioned by other media. [See here]. In the words of statisticians, the Sun-Times/NBC-5 polls are becoming synonymous with the word "outlier."

Peraica commissioned a poll almost two months ago that had him in a statistical tie with Stroger.

Look for Peraica to react to the poll on Tuesday morning in a media availability prior to the Cook County Board Meeting scheduled for 10:00 am .

And, at the Board Meeting, look for Peraica to have a shot at obtaining majority support for his motion for the Board to support the appointment by the federal court of a court appointed monitor. As has been true in important budget votes in the last few years, Cook County Commissioner Earlean Collins is likely to be the decisive swing vote.

Indeed, it was Commissioner Collins who provided the vote to make it clear Bobbie Steele would have the requisite votes for interim County Board President, causing Commissioner Claypool to throw in the towel and abort, so to speak, his run for interim County Board President in July. Tomorrow, it may be Collins who will remind Steele how she got there.

Also, look for Commissioner Suffredin [D-Evanston] to move, at the board meeting, for a budget rule that would require 11 votes, instead of the majority nine, on the usual seventeen member board to approve a budget, if it is introduced after January 1 of the new fiscal year.
***************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Better than Monday night Football:Steele, Peraica and 8th CD Forum on cable/streaming

"Public Affairs," is featuring Press Conferences with Comm. and Republican candidate for CC Board President Tony Peraica, current Cook County Board President Bobbie Steele, 8th CD candidates Cong. Melissa Bean [D-Barrington], David McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills] and Bill Scheurer [I-Lindenhurst]and a short interview with Cong. Bean tonight [Sep. 18] through-out the City of Chicago on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm; You may also watch this and other episodes of Public Affairs All of the Time [24/7],on the "Public Affairs," podcast page on your computer [Watch Steele, Radogno, Peraica, Stroger, Blagojevich, Topinka, Obama, McCain, Bean, McSweeney, Scheurer, a 27th Senate District debate taped yesterday between Matt Murphy [R-Palatine] and Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and many, many others here].
****************************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including this week's suburban show with State Treasurer Republican Nominee and State Sen. Christine Radogno, and many more on our video and audio podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
A partial transcript and more about the show with Cook County Board President Bobbie Steele, Comm. Tony Peraica, 8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and a short interview with Cong. Bean by Berkowitz is included here and another partial transcript of the show with the 8th CD Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Republican challenger David McSweeney and Third Party challenger Bill Scheurer is included below.
******************************************************
Craig Dellimore [WBBM 780 AM Radio AT ISSUE host]: Mr. McSweeney, you have accused Melissa Bean of trying to have it both ways on some legislation, voting no on a bill, early on and then yes on final passage. She says that you aren’t the tax fighter that you claim to be, that you didn’t support a particular multi-billion dollar bill when you ran against now former Cong. Philip Crane. Why shouldn’t voters think that this isn’t just a case of politicians misrepresenting each other’s voting records?

Dave McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills, 8th CD]: Craig, let me make this clear. On the issue of taxes, I am for making the Bush tax relief package permanent. We need to keep taxes low in order to keep jobs and small businesses in this country. In 1998, when I ran against Phil Crane, I criticized Crane for not cutting taxes enough. Congresswoman Bean has refused to take a stand on making the tax cuts permanent. Congresswoman Bean is a very nice person, but she has a very inconsistent voting record. What she’ll do is vote for the final passage of Republican bills—immigration reform, the PATRIOT Act, class action reform, but then she’ll vote to kill them a few minutes before. She’ll say it’s unimportant, that it’s a procedural vote. It is important. There is no concept of important and unimportant votes. Remember John Kerry? “I voted for it before I voted against it?” That’s the Melissa Bean record in Congress. We need someone who is going to be consistent and fight for lower taxes, and that’s what I’m going to do when I get to Washington, DC.

Craig Dellimore: One quick follow-up to that. Why isn’t your earlier opposition to the Crane tax cut similar to a procedural vote?

Dave McSweeney: I actually sent out a mailing in which I criticized Phil Crane for not cutting taxes enough. That was the criticism. In fact, the bill that Phil Crane offered had a hundred and twenty billion dollars of tax increases and did not cut taxes enough. That was the tax bill. I sent out mailings that criticized him for not cutting taxes enough. We need to keep taxes low in this country. I have been consistent. Congresswoman Bean refuses to take a stand on tax cuts that will expire, which means that we will have the largest tax increase in the history of the United States if she--

Craig Dellimore: Our first response is from independent candidate Bill Scheurer.

Bill Scheurer [I-Lindenhurst, 8th CD]: We’ve already had largest tax increase in the history of the United States, and those are the Bush administration tax cuts. This administration has added trillions of dollars to the national debt. There is now a credit card with your name on it—think of it as a nice graduation gift. There’s already thirty thousand dollars on it. That’s your share of the national debt. The Democrat incumbent voted for the Bush budget every step of the way. So would the Republican challenger. If you are looking at the deficit, there is no such thing as cutting taxes. They are only doing the shifting of them. Passing them on from their wealthy campaign contributors, who they don’t want to ask to pay taxes, and guess where they’re shifting it to? You.

Craig Dellimore: And a response from Congresswoman Bean.

Cong. Melissa Bean [D-Barrington, 8th CD]: I don’t know that I heard any consistency from my opponent Mr. McSweeney, who insists that he did not oppose any tax cuts for families, which include a child tax credit, college tuition, capital gains, and healthcare. Now, I’m the only candidate in this race who’s been a consistent fiscal conservative. I not only have voted to extend the Bush tax cuts which have come before me while I’ve been in Congress, but I’ve also voted for two hundred billion dollars in spending cuts, and that’s what we really need to get to, from a fiscal conservative perspective in this nation. We need to go back to the pay-as-you-go budget rules. If we require fiscal discipline in Congress, then before you put forth an appropriation, you have to say where those funds are going to come from. We need more honesty in accounting. I’ll also correct what Mr. Scheurer said, which is that I voted for the Bush budgets. I did not.
***********************************************************************
From tonight's City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs with the 8th Cong. District candidates, President Steele [D] and Republican nominee for County Board President Tony Peraica. The program, recorded on August 28-29, 2006, and Sep. 1, 2006 will air though-out the City of Chicago tonight, Sep. 18 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] and can be viewed anytime on your computer [Watch here]. The program includes portions of an 8th CD Forum/AT ISSUE show that was taped on Sep. 1, 2006 and was broadcast on Sep. 3, 2006.
*****************************
Transcript draft prepared by Amy Allen, who also does research for “Public Affairs,” and has her own political blog [See here].
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Senator Barack Obama in Iowa: “Had enough.”

With a speech that could be labeled, “Best of Obama,” the 45 year old junior U. S. Senator from the State of Illinois, Barack Obama entered, unofficially, the Iowa Democratic Presidential caucuses yesterday at the Senator Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola. It was a speech that relied heavily on Senator Obama’s tried and true stomp speech from his 2004 U. S. Senate Democratic Primary. The primary stomp speech gave Obama a big win in a field of seven candidates, so the generally politically cautious Senator Obama no doubt felt comfortable with this material.

Obama used some of the same stuff in his U. S. Senate general election campaign but in large part there was no such campaign, with Republican Jack Ryan withdrawing in late June, 2004 and his replacement candidate, Alan Keyes, turning his portion of the campaign into something resembling a Pentecostal revival tour across the State of Illinois.

First there were the oft-repeated two questions then state senator Barack Obama got the most: where did he get that funny name and why would a nice, smart, talented, “church-going," guy like Obama, who "teaches at a fine law school," has a "fancy law school degree," and is "doing good work on behalf of labor unions," want to go into something “dirty and nasty like politics.”

Almost two year Senator Barack Obama hit hard, yesterday, on the theme of “mutually shared obligations in America,” that he seems to think characterizes only Democrats and not Republicans, or at least not the Republican philosophy. This is an Obama favorite from his Democratic Senate Primary, although the emphasis at that time was more on the positives of Democrats than the negatives of Republicans.

Senator Obama brought up the truly touching story of his conversation with a 105 year old Obama fan backstage at a 2004 Democratic U. S. Senate Primary election eve rally [This story obviously is one that couldn’t have been in his primary stomp speech, but did make it into his 2004 general election campaign themes].

Here, Obama discussed the broad sweep of progress of civil rights in America during the last half century. He noted his elderly fan voted every time after the passage of the Voting Rights Act [in 1965] because she understood that in America, “there is no challenge too great, no injustice too crippling, there is no destiny that is out of reach for those of us who are lucky enough to be born in this country we call America.” This was Barack Obama almost sounding Republican for a moment—that line about being “lucky enough to be born in America.”

You don’t hear Democrats and especially not San Francisco Democrats talk that way much about America. But, Obama is no San Francisco Democrat when it comes to oratory. Got some of that resistance to such perhaps from having lived two decades in the Heartland—well, at least Chicago, Illinois and maybe from his Kansas mom.

Senator Obama then went quickly back to what he thinks is the Democratic strength: “In America, we don’t settle for equality just for some and we don’t settle for opportunity just for the few. We don’t settle for freedoms only for a handful… We have an obligation not just to ourselves, but to each other… that’s what she [his elderly fan] understood.”

Yesterday, Senator Obama used his philosophy of “mutually shared obligations,” to bash Bush. In short, he bashed the “Bush ownership society.” Obama thinks that Bush, although “not a bad man,” believes we do not have obligations to each other. He accused Bush of thinking all will be fine if we just privatize schools, social security, police and parks and cut taxes for the wealthy. In the world of Barack Obama, Bush and his Republican cronies don’t worry about 46 million people who lack health insurance, about people who work at a plant but lose their jobs, pensions, etc. when plants close and move to Mexico and China. Democrats, on the other hand, feel their pain.

Obama would dismiss Bush’s work with Senator Kennedy and other Democrats to produce No Child Left Behind as no rebuttal to the above because Bush “left the money behind.” He would dismiss Republicans who argue school vouchers-school choice would help kids of low income parents more than those of high income parents with the argument that vouchers create a two tier education system. However, Senator Obama doesn’t explain why he thinks that would be more of a two tier system than is currently the case in American elementary and secondary public school education, a system that he acknowledges is often characterized by “retched and deplorable conditions,” at least in inner city, public schools [This inconsistentcy of Senator Obama was one of the better points made by Alan Keyes during the 2004 U. S. Senate campaign, and he made it on the "Public Affairs," TV show].

Obama said he would quote former House Speaker and potential 2008 Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich as to what the Democrats' theme in the fall election should be. Senator Obama said that Newt’s advice [which Obama would take in this instance] to Democrats, in light of all the problems that Republicans have had managing the country—managing the economy, managing the War in Iraq—would be to run on just two words: Had Enough?

There is a bit of irony in that choice of words by Senator Obama. Tony Peraica, Cook County Commissioner and Republican nominee for Cook County Board President, is using that phrase to run against his Democratic opponent, Ald. Todd Stroger [Chicago 8th Ward], son of the former President of that Board, John Stroger. Commissioner Peraica, along with several Democrat allies on the board, argues that Cook County citizens, and especially low income, minority consumers of county services have been treated to decades of waste, patronage, bloat, poor health care and juvenile detention services and inefficiency under Democrat John’s Stroger’s 12 year Cook County regime, as well as under Stroger's Democratic predecessors going back to 1968. Thus, Tony's patented question, "Have you had enough."

Ald. Todd Stroger, Democratic nominee for Cook County Board President, got his nomination as a result of a process that Democrat Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool characterizes as basically abusive, cynical actions taking by an evil cabal in the Illinois Democratic Party. [see here]. And, essentially, reformer Forrest Claypool is not the nominee of the Democratic Party for County Board President because as some of his Barack’s local critics say, Senator Barack Obama was looking up, not down, when his good friend, reformer Forrest Claypool was looking for some help from fellow reformer Barack Obama. [See here]

So, as Tony Peraica likes to say, “Have you had enough.” Well, have you?
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************
.

Chicago's Big Box Living Wage, RIP

Revised and improved at 12:40 pm on Friday.
*********************************************************
Archpundit, who usually is more thoughtful than this, is way wide of the mark in his discussion of the politics and public policy of Chicago's thankfully short-lived, Big Box Living Wage ordinance.

First, let’s look at the politics of the Mayor’s veto of the living wage ordinance [sustained by the City Council earlier this week]. This is a plus for Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. if he runs for Mayor in 2007? I don’t think so. Junior needs a united African-American base behind him to win. For starters, Daley will keep a significant portion of the black vote, even if Dock Walls, Dorothy Brown and Junior are all in the 2007 Mayoral race. That is just a matter of Daley’s history of working with all ethnic and racial groups and spreading around the spoils of victory, as illustrated, for example, by the way John Stroger and he traded support for each other over the years. Stroger supporting Richard M. Daley over Harold Washington, Hynes over Obama, Dixon over Moseley Braun, etc. Former Cook County Board President John Stroger is one of the few African-Americans I know who has always voted like an Irishman.

About half, or maybe more, of the black aldermen voted against the Big Box living wage law. Some of that may have reflected playing footsie with the Mayor. But, a good chunk of it was voting their Ward. Whatever, an issue that divides the African-American community and their aldermen can’t be good for Junior. Cong. Jackson can’t mimic what one of Illinois' most colorful Senators, Everett Dirksen, said, “Some of my friends are for this bill, some against it and I am for my friends.”

SEIU will try, but they are not going to chase the aldermen out of office over Big Box, and they aren’t going to hurt the Mayor much on this issue. Economic development is good for white wards, Hispanic wards and Black wards. In short, it is good for the City. Yes, economic development has not been evenly distributed through-out the City, giving minorities on the south and west side of the City the short end of the stick. However, the Big Box living wage would only have made things worse, inhibiting Big Box stores and their ancilliary commercial development from coming to the City. This would have been especially true with respect to Big Box stores avoiding the south and west sides of the City, where the Living Wage would have put the labor pool in those areas [relatively unskilled; a number of ex-offenders] at a major disadvantage relative to other parts of the City and nearby suburbs. Of course, Ald. Moore's 49th ward is not too close, in any sense, to the south and west wards. How is that for a coincidence?

Mayor Daley may be a Johnny-come-lately to doing something about economic development on the south and west sides of Chicago, but as Judge Easterbrook[7th Circuit Court of Appeals]says, wisdom come lately is better than wisdom not come at all. Advantage Daley.

Even if Daley doesn’t get a majority of the vote on the first round of the Mayoral election in February, 2007, unless he gets indicted- or somebody very, very close to him does-- he wins the election run-off with the runner-up in April, 2007. And, Big Box doesn’t help Junior or hurt the Mayor. Yes, it helped Joe Moore [the Alderman from "Big Labor"], Acorn and their Lake Front liberal supporters get their fifteen minutes of fame—and gave SEIU a rallying cry, but that is it. The living wage law might play in Santa Fe and San Francisco, but neither location is a good model for Chicago or any other City. Perhaps the phrase Sante Fe Democrats will become as popular with Republicans as San Francisco Democrats.

In terms of public policy, the Big Box Living Wage hurts those it purports to help, no matter how good SEIU is at organizing. The black majority wards are starved for economic development and jobs-- and the people, as well as a number of their the aldermen, in those areas get it: People are not better off being unemployed at $13 per hour than they are being employed at $7.70. A modern day Adam Smith might write, "Empower the people." And, there is nothing more empowering of individuals than the free market.

Smith might also write, today, about the dignity of getting and holding a job. There is a great benefit to having a real job even if it is only "entry level." It gives you on the job training, lets you learn some universal requirements for getting and keeping a job; and lets you move up from there. Alderman Ike Carothers [29th Ward] made eloquent arguments of this type when he spoke at the first City Council vote about the detrimental impact of the Big Box Living Wage.

You don’t need a Ph. D. in economics to figure these things out. Indeed, Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, remarked recently that some people earn a Ph. D. in economics and never learn to think like an economist [Paul Krugman of the New York Times comes to mind, as Paul is constantly trying to repeal the laws of supply and demand] and others have little or no formal training in economics and they get it from the get go. [7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner comes to mind]. If you want to help low income people, it is better to understand the laws of supply and demand than to try to repeal them.
**************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************
.

Pressure mounts on Obama 2008 Presidential Run

Yet another Inside the beltway voice [Washington Post’s political blog] tells us that Senator Obama will have to consider a run for President in 2008, with a warm-up coming this Sunday as Senator Harkin’s special guest at his annual Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa [just a five hour drive from Chicago]. Remember-- former state senator Barack Obama has already spent some time helping elect state legislators in Iowa. How’s that for being on top of things.

After watching Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) closely over the last few months, we've grown more and more convinced that he will come under significant pressure to at least consider a run for president in 2008.
****************************************************
Whether it's Obama, Gore, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold or someone else, we are convinced that a candidate who has opposed the war since its inception could make a serious run at the nomination. Clinton has almost no weak spots, but her unwillingness to call for a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq has angered liberal activists, who are actively looking for an alternative [See The Fix].

Come on, now, tell us something we don’t already know.

First, Barack Obama qualifies as a more consistent, articulate liberal than Hillary, making him a little more suitable to Democratic activists than Senator Clinton. Second, although not yet calling for a timetable for withdrawal, Obama’s very early, vigorous, articulate opposition to the War in Iraq [at least six months before the U. S. took military action] will satisfy the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party [as Howard Dean loved to put it] in a way that Hillary never could on the Iraq War.

More generally as to the appeal and likelihood of an Obama 2008 run for President, as I wrote [See here] almost two months ago:

Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Eric Zorn is certainly right in his argument that there are more liberal senators or senators farther to the left than Obama, but that hardly means Barack Obama is not a liberal [as Zorn contends]. Even Zorn's colleague at the Tribune, Elleen Warren, noted two years ago that Barack Obama is "quite liberal". And, for a Professor of Political Science [Melissa Harris Lacewell] to be “taken aback by the notion that Obama is liberal,” is nothing short of astonishing. … [Emphasis Supplied]
*********************************************************
Well, Barack Obama is in the fortunate position of being able to run without running-- at least for now. Senator Obama has a barebones, nationally oriented, skeletal organization set up to raise money for such things as training people in the political process, etc. Ever since his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in July, 2004, Obama has been a national figure, invited to help Democratic candidates raise money through-out the country, receiving something like three hundred, or so, invitations per week to speak.

Senator Obama is building a strong base of national support and attracting followers who continue to transcend race, geography, political party and ideology, albeit with a few, slight bumps from time to time. He is as good a speaker as you will see, and he connects with audiences, large and small.
***************************************************
So, Barack Obama is in a very good position. He oozes talent, style and charm. He has a great command of the issues. He knows the right people and the right people keep wanting to get close to him. And, most importantly, for a while, Senator Obama can do virtually all the things that a candidate for VP or President should do, without having to say he is running for President. At some point, he will have to make a decision. Knowing Barack Obama, it will be a cautious, well thought out decision.

Obama's decision will depend on the perceived strength of Hillary, Edwards, Kerry and perhaps Gov. Bill Richardson [D-NM] or someone of that type [Ed. Note: add Mark Warner, former Virginia Governor]. It will also depend on how well his national organization is coming together, and perhaps on how well received he is in Iowa and New Hampshire [Ed. Note, add South Carolina and to a lesser extent Nevada, both of which are now in that first window of the Democratic Presidential Primaries/caucuses]. Unless one of the above referenced contenders becomes a prohibitive favorite or his nascent national organization fizzles in the next eight months, Senator Obama will give it a shot by March, 2007. …

Even if Senator Barack Obama falls short, and doesn't become a candidate for President, he will have a good shot at being selected as the VP candidate and thus would be on his way to the Presidency. Not bad for a skinny kid from the south side of Chicago, with a funny sounding name. [as he used to describe himself] Not bad at all. [See here]

And, to watch a precursor of a possible Obama-McCain 2008 match-up, go here, which includes the exchange, below, as well as a link to the video of discussions with Senators Obama and McCain:

Jeff Berkowitz: One last thing... In a July 22nd Wall Street Journal op ed column [Nobel prize winning economist] Milton Friedman is interviewed and he states that he agrees with you that it was a mistake to go into Iraq, but he says, once there, it’s important that we succeed. Now I know you’ve said before, that we can’t just get out of Iraq, though you vigorously argued against getting in, but as of July 22nd, 2006, is it still the case that you think it is important that we succeed in Iraq?

Senator Barack Obama: I think that it is important for us to stabilize Iraq. I think the measure of success should be that there is not an all-out civil war. That there are not terrorist bases inside Iraq. That there has not been a melt-down of Iraq that draws its neighbors into escalating conflict. That should be our criteria. And, I think that can still be accomplished, although it is getting tougher and tougher, because increasingly what we’re seeing is sectarian warfare as opposed to insurgency as the primary source of instability.
****************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************