Better than Monday night football: McCain and McSweeney

Senator John McCain [R-AZ]: The fact is that people, like me, and I have had the great honor and privilege now for serving in Congress for twenty four years—the obligation, not privilege, the obligation I have is to try to help recruit and elect and keep people of honesty and integrity and commitment and honor to the Congress of the United States. This is what you have in David McSweeney…This will be an independent voice. This will be a strong voice.
****************************************************
Sen. McCain: …We do need to reform the institutions of Government. We do need to stop the earmarking. We’ve got to get a better stewardship of your tax dollars. I know that David is committed to that…
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Senator McCain, you’ve called not just for a larger military, but for more troops into Iraq—

Sen. McCain: Yep.

Berkowitz: Almost under any scenario, even the best scenario for the Republican Party, there will be diminished Republican troops in the House and the Senate, come November 8th, how do you sell that—you may have trouble even selling that to the Republicans-how do you sell it to the Congress in general and the Nation—to send more troops into Iraq, given the political climate?

Sen. McCain: Well, I can make a case, historically, that if you read any chronicle of our involvement in Iraq, one of the major problems has been we never had enough troops there. Read any book, written by anybody, it will tell you that we didn’t have enough troops there to start with, nor have we—and three years ago I gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, saying you've got to have more troops there, and if you don’t, here is what is going to happen and guess what, that’s what happened.

Berkowitz: So, starting with General Shinseki and the Democrats, you are saying you could pull over Democrats to now say—if you are going to do this, you need more troops?

Sen. McCain: I don’t know if I would pull over Democrats. I saw an article in the New York Times this morning that said a lot of very conservative Democrats are running. I hope that that means that some of them would agree. But, look, I have to stand up for what’s right. When I first came out in favor of campaign finance reform—I didn’t have any support. When I first came out with a number of other positions that I’ve taken, I didn’t have a lot of support. You’ve got to convince the American people. That’s all. My first position is what’s right. My second concern is how you sell it. That’s always the best way to approach any issue.
*******************************************************
Senator John McCain, speaking and answering questions at a lunchtime fundraiser for 8th CD Republican candidate David McSweeney at the Chicago Club on October 30, 2006, and as is airing, almost in its entirety, as the suburban edition of Public Affairs in 25 Chicago Metro suburbs tonight at 8:30 pm on either Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or Comcast Cable Ch. 35.
***********
The suburban edition of Public Affairs, featuring Senator John McCain and 8th CD Candidate David McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills], 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.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Never before seen Duckworth-Roskam 6th CD face-off

Another Public Affairs exclusive:

This week's suburban edition of Public Affairs features Video clips of 6th CD candidates Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates] and Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] debating the issues on October 19, 2006 on Chicago Public Radio, 91.5 FM Radio, WBEZ, on Steve Edwards’ always excellent program, Eight Forty-Eight, as well as video clips of the pressers that followed the debate. Go here, and scroll down to or click on October 19, 2006 to listen to the entire 27 minute Duckworth-Roskam segment, but without the press conferences that followed.
*********************************************************
The WBEZ 6th CD Candidate debate focused on Iraq, North Korea and immigration, and to a lesser extent: Taxes, abortion, guns, stem cell research and promoting a more civil tone in Congress. Go here for more about the 6th CD debate.
*******************************************
A partial transcript of the debate and pressers from this week's suburban edition of Public Affairs is included, below.
******************************************
Major Tammy Duckworth: …He [Roskam] is to the right of [Cong.] Henry Hyde [R-Addison, 6th CD], even on the assault weapons ban. Mr. Hyde stood up and voted against his own party and was an independent voice and said fully automatic assault weapons do not belong in the streets. Mr. Roskam would actually like to have them on our streets…

Steve Edwards [Host, Eight Forty-Eight]: All right, let’s come to the final question then, I want each of you to tell us—

Duckworth: Can I just finish real quickly?

Peter Roskam: I mean we are at two minutes and you are going to let her close like that, and then toss it open? Spare me.

Edwards: Well, fine. All right, if you want to pick up on that very quickly…

Roskam: There are a couple of issues. There are factual errors in what my opponent just said. Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930s. I rolled up my sleeves in the General Assembly and closed the gun show loophole. I am the person that made it illegal for domestic abusers to have a firearm. I am the one that has worked in the General Assembly to make sure that penalties are enhanced for people that use firearms--

Edwards: Although, it is true that you didn’t support the federal assault weapon ban.

Peter Roskam: That’s true. Right. But, let me ask you this, Steve. What weapon in the hands of a criminal is not an assault weapon? You know my opponent fundamentally misrepresented and mischaracterized the debate. Automatic weapons on the streets of Illinois? As if a guy that’s raising four kids in this in this District wants automatic weapons on the streets. That’s an absurdity. As it relates to embryonic stem cell research…
****************************************
From the WBEZ 6th CD debate portion of this week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs.” The debate occurred on October 19, 2006. See here for the suburban schedule of Public Affairs.
***************************************
Sen. Peter Roskam: The decision to make tax cuts permanent is one roll call. So that if you are not in favor of making them [tax cuts] all permanent, ultimately you are in favor of making none of them permanent…
******************************************
Sen. Roskam: …The goal of democratization of the Middle East is a glorious goal and it is one that we should aspire to. The ability of the United States alone to influence that? I think we recognize, most Americans, that we have limitations on our own influence in the region…
*************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Peter, do you think your opponent wants to make this race about abortion and embryonic stem cell research and if she does and she succeeds, does that hurt you?

Sen. Roskam: Well, I think my opponent is very leery of talking about the immigration question, for example. The anecdote that I gave you [during the debate from] yesterday was dead on. I am in a store. A guy in Bloomingdale comes up to me, seeks me out and says, “I’m Shawn and I’m voting for you because I agree with you on immigration.” So, she [Duckworth] either was misinformed or does not understand that the Senate version of the immigration bill that she has embraced puts a 5.2 billion dollar obligation on social security. That’s objective. I mean that is according to the Congressional Budget Office [“CBO”].

Berkowitz: Is that if the people who are currently here illegally become legal immigrants- is it your supposition—

Sen. Roskam: Yes, and what it does- no, it is not my supposition

Berkowitz: It is the CBO?

Sen. Roskam: It is the CBO. And, that’s been reported in the Post and so forth. So, my opponent—I think she [Duckworth] has really gotten under a little bit of quicksand on the immigration issue and then the tax issue in particular.
**********************************
Berkowitz: Has the Republican [House] Majority not asked tough enough questions on the War? You said you would ask tough questions, as would Tammy Duckworth. Would you say the Republican Majority has been too easy on the President on the War?

Sen. Peter Roskam: I think there are more difficult questions that need to be asked.
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Tammy, you’ve talked about training and you’ve said we need to train up [the Iraqi Army]. The Wall St. Journal has reported recently that the Army has been making a mistake of using inexperienced reservists to do that training or mentoring. Do you agree with that criticism? [See Oct. 18, 2006 WSJ, p.A1; online WSJ site available, in large part, only to subscribers]

Tammy Duckworth: I deeply resent you implying that the members of the National Guard or Reserve are not up to standards. In Iraq, my battalion flew—

Jeff Berkowitz: Excuse me, but the Wall St. Journal said they [the U. S. Military] were using people who were not very experienced to do the training.

Tammy Duckworth: Well, that is absolutely untrue. [Ed. Note: According to the WSJ, it is true. Berkowitz’ mistake, however, was to say “inexperienced reservists.” Although the WSJ lead example is about using inexperienced reservists to train Iraqis, it is clear that the issue discussed in the article pertains to the use of inexperienced members of the military, in general, not just reservists, to “train up,” the Iraqi army. Of course, Berkowitz clarified that in his follow-up question, but Ms. Duckworth does not have appear to have been listening, by that point. Moreover, it would seem to be a good idea for a congressional candidate to read, regularly, at least the first page [which is where the cited article appeared one day before the Debate] and editorial page of the WSJ, and even more of a good idea for someone who is campaigning on the issue of “training up,” the Iraqi military forces to keep current on how the U. S. military is, or is not, doing that.]

Jeff Berkowitz: It wasn’t a criticism of all reservists [or even any reservists].

Tammy Duckworth: That was not true. Our reserve forces are trained and pass the exact same standards as the active duty forces. And, I know, because my unit in Iraq flew more missions than any other aviation unit in Iraq at that time. As a matter of fact, I was flying a mission for the First Cavalry Division because they needed help from the Illinois Army National Guard. So, that’s not true. [Ed. Note: All of what Ms. Duckworth said could be true, but none of it is relevant to whether the U. S. Military is using inexperienced reservists and inexperienced active duty forces to “train up,” the Iraqi Army, and whether that is a good idea]
***********************************
Tammy Duckworth: The evidence is clear that our very presence in Iraq is making the situation worse, which is why I advocate the beginning of a drawdown [of U. S. troops in Iraq] immediately 2007, tied to the stand up of the Iraqi Security Forces.
*******************************
Times of London Reporter: Do you think the President lied?

Tammy Duckworth: I think the truth was massaged in order to get us to—you know—I don’t think we got the true intelligence report of what was going on.
********************************
Tammy Duckworth: Iraq is one of the top three issues in my district. The other two issues are our national debt. We have nine trillion dollars in national debt and that is affecting our economy, and it is affecting the ability of the people in my district to afford health care [and] education, and also we need to look at energy independence. That is another big issue in my District. And, energy independence [has] become a national security issue because the money that we spend on gas goes to Iran which is then used to build nuclear weapons.

Jeff Berkowitz: You don’t think immigration is a major issue in your District?

Tammy Duckworth: I think immigration is an issue in the District, but it has become an issue because Mr. Roskam, who has been following and rubberstamping the Republican playbook, has suddenly discovered it’s an issue. He has been in the state legislature for many years now; he has never, ever, ever talked about immigration and suddenly before an election he starts talking about this in exact wording from the national Republican Party and you know, I think he is just following the Republican playbook on this. We have a real problem with immigration but let’s talk about real solution[s] instead of using it as a way to exploit for political gain.
*************************************
Excerpts from the press conferences that followed the WBEZ, Eight Forty-Eight 6th CD debate on October 19, 2006, and as is airing, along with portions of the debate, this week as the suburban edition of Public Affairs. See here for the airing schedule of the suburban edition of “Public Affairs.”
*****************************************
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: Bush-Duckworth-Roskam on Cable

Watch a "Public Affairs," exclusive with President Bush tonight throughout the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm. on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. Watch a "Public Affairs," exclusive this week in the Chicago metro suburbs with 6th CD candidates Sen. Peter Roskam and Major Tammy Duckworth .
*******************************************************
"Public Affairs," is featuring this week in the Chicago metro suburbs an exclusive televised airing of portions of last week's WBEZ Chicago Public Radio debate and portions of the follow-up press conferences with 6th CD candidates Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] and Major Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates]. See, below, for the Public Affairs suburban airing schedule.
****************************************************************
Tonight's City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs features President George W. Bush, speaking on October 12 at a funder in the Chicago Loop for 8th CD Republican candidate for Congress David McSweeney [Barrington Hills] and 6th CD Republican candidate for Congress State Sen. Peter Roskam [Wheaton]. Aon Executive Chairman Pat Ryan introduces Speaker Hastert, who in turn introduces President Bush. The President spoke, among other issues, about the economy, tax cuts,the tools necessary to fight terrorism , national security, the upcoming mid-term elections and winning in Iraq. See here for a complete transcript of the President's Remarks.
*************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including interviews, discussions or remarks with or by U. S. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Republican Challenger- Judy Baar Topinka, a debate between 27th Senate District candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine], 8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and many, many more pols on our video podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We take you to a fundraiser featuring George W. Bush. The fundraiser was to raise money for sixth district Republican congressional candidate Peter Roskam [Wheaton] and 8th district Republican congressional candidate David McSweeney [Barrington Hills]. You’ll start out and see Pat Ryan, chairman of AON Corporation, a long standing and well known Republican in the Illinois community. And, he introduces Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who in turn introduces the President, who spoke to an intimate crowd of three hundred people. You’ll see they’re standing in a pretty small room and they’re pretty close up to the President.

Berkowitz: These folks paid big bucks to see the President, so perhaps they got what they paid for. The buzz in the last few weeks has been about Mark Foley and his salacious emails, but the Presidential message was quite different. It’s about tax cuts and prosperity. He says Democrats oppose those tax cuts and that they want to take them away. The Presidential message is about liberty, freedom, democracy and national security. The President is talking about winning in Iraq, not like Senator Barack Obama, who is talking about stabilizing things. He wants to win. He says the United States can still do it.

Berkowitz: President Bush is talking about terror, surveillance, interrogation of detainees and the monitoring of [terrorist] communications. He says Democrats in the House opposed all that. The President has been on offense and he says it’s important to stay on offense, offense for the United States and offense for the Republican Party. We’ll see if he can take Republicans on offense as we go into the closing three weeks of the mid-term election on November 7th. The question is, can the President sell that to the American people? We know he can sell that to the Republican base, who might be watching this evening, but can he sell it to the American people, or as presidents like to say, to “My fellow Americans.”

Berkowitz: … we discuss, you decide. Enjoy the fundraiser. You’re seeing it for nothing, only the value of your time. Those folks that paid to see it—they paid big bucks. And, after you watch the President’s speech, we’ll be back with closing comments. Enjoy the show.
*************************************************
Patrick Ryan, Executive chairman of AON: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the welcome, and thank you for supporting this wonderful event tonight. Your support really makes a difference, and is greatly appreciated. I have the pleasure of introducing Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who is the longest-serving Speaker in the history of the US House of Representatives.

Patrick Ryan: As we hit the long stretch of this very lively campaign season, there’s no one we would rather have leading it than Speaker Hastert. He has been diligently working on behalf of Republican candidates all over the country and of course he’s been working extremely hard on behalf of two outstanding candidates, Peter [Roskam, 6th CD candidate] and David [McSweeney, 8th CD candidate]. And we all appreciate that. So I’m proud to introduce the Speaker of the House, and my good friend, Denny Hastert.

Speaker Denny Hastert: Thank you Pat, for your tireless work. You’ve taken a lot of leadership in helping with this event tonight. And folks, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor and always a privilege to introduce this man. He is the President of the U.S. He is our friend. He is our leader. George W. Bush, President of the United States.
***********************************************
President Bush:

...In other words, we've been giving people the tools necessary to protect the homeland, and our Democrat colleagues back in Washington have taken a very different approach to the war on terror. There is a difference of opinion. I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism or love for America. But I am questioning their view of how best to protect you. And this is an issue in this campaign. If the security of the United States is the most important issue, then part of this issue is which party has been willing to step up and give those charged with protecting you the tools necessary to do so.

In each vote a clear pattern has emerged on which party can best protect the American people. More than 75 percent of the House Democrats voted to block the renewal of the Patriot Act. Almost 80 percent of the House Democrats voted against allowing the CIA to continue the interrogation program. Almost 90 percent of the House Democrats voted against continuing to monitor terrorist communications through the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Rarely has a single series of votes summed up the difference between the two political parties so clearly. If the Democrats' Congress had their way, we wouldn't have had the Patriot Act or the interrogation program, or the Terrorist Surveillance Program. They can run from this record, but we're not going to let them hide. (Applause.)

You know, I was -- recently read where the Democrat leader said this. She said, ‘The midterm elections should not be about national security.’ I strongly disagree… See here for a complete transcript of the President's Remarks.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Hope you enjoyed this visit with President George W. Bush. If you’re watching it in the suburbs, you’ve got three weeks until election day, November 7th. And, if you’re watching it in the city, you’ve got two weeks until election day, November 7th. And the question is-- on election day, can the President and Karl Rove-- Can they do it one more time? Can they keep the Senate and House Republican? Do they have a good “October surprise” in store for the Democrats? Can they turn the buzz across the country back to prosperity and national security? Can they emphasize that there’s been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th? Can they claim some of the credit for that for the Republicans? Is the economy strong and can they claim that for the Republicans? Can they argue that the U.S. is winning the war on terrorism, winning it with their allies? Can they argue that Iraq, difficult as is, was a good move for national security? The answers to those questions will determine if the House and the Senate stay Republican—[that is] they keep the Democrats from getting the fifteen seats necessary to turn the House Republican, and the six seats necessary to turn the Senate Democratic.

We discuss, you decide. If it’s politics, it’s "Public Affairs,". See you next week.
*****************************************************
From Tonight's airing on Public Affairs of a President Bush funder of October 12, 2006 in Chicago for Congressional Candidates Roskam and McSweeney, as it will air tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 throughout the City of Chicago. See here for a complete transcript of the President's Remarks.
*********************************************************
In twenty-five North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the "Public Affairs," show airs tomorrow night 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 suburban episode of Public Affairs, featuring portions of the WBEZ 6th CD debate and pressers , airs tomorrow night:

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 [tonight], Wednesday night and Friday night at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 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
******************

Duckworth and Roskam: It’s the Chinese card, stupid.

Tammy Duckworth: I think what we need to do is work with our allies [on North Korea], something we have not done when we practiced cowboy diplomacy in the last several years, invading Iraq …[we need to] look to the Chinese and to the U.N.
*************************************************
Tammy Duckworth: We should make it clear that we will not accept further nuclear tests and that we should look at cutting off aid, even further, and working with China to use their influence.
*************************************************
Ed. Note: Cutting off aid? U. S. aid to North Korea? I don’t think there is much of that left to cut. Wasn’t that the Clinton approach? Carrots and dancing with Madelyn Albright for North Korea? [See here and here]. Did Duckworth mean working with China to get it to cut off aid to North Korea? That might be good, but she didn’t say that in the first part of the above statement. Moreover, does Duckworth think the U. S. is not already trying to get China to “use its influence.”
*************************************
Sen. Peter Roskam: First of all, [let’s] look back at really the failures of the Clinton Administration. It was the Clinton Administration who said that we can continue chatting with these folks [the North Koreans] and hope to drive something…We need to continue to drive the Chinese into this conversation…It is the Chinese that are ultimately the financial patrons of North Korea and it is China that frankly has more to lose than we do…so I think the six party talks is ultimately the way to go and we have a great deal of influence over the Chinese that we need to assert.
*************************************************
Ed. Note: I think the U. S. is asserting pretty hard on China. Roskam thinks we can do more? What, exactly? I am sure President Bush would appreciate the advice and support.
*****************************************************
Excerpt of 6th CD candidates Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates] and Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] debating the issues this morning on Chicago Public Radio, 91.5 FM Radio, WBEZ, on Steve Edwards’ always excellent program, Eight Forty-Eight. Go here to listen to the entire 27 minute Duckworth-Roskam segment, but without the press conferences that followed.
*********************************************************
So, Tammy and Peter seem to agree, essentially, on North Korea: It’s the Chinese card, stupid, that has to be played. Except, I think the Bush Administration knows that's the card it has to play. The questions for it are: How does it get China to do more than China is currently doing to restrain North Korea in the development of its nuclear program? Or, are the “agreed to sanctions,” enough? Now, those might be good questions for Roskam and Duckworth at the next debate. WTTW?

The WBEZ 6th CD Candidate debate this morning focused on Iraq, North Korea and immigration, and to a lesser extent: Taxes, abortion, guns, stem cell research and promoting a more civil tone in Congress.

About 80% of the 6th CD is in Eastern DuPage County and about 20% is in Northwest Suburban Cook County. The seat is an open seat, with Republican Cong. Henry Hyde [Addison] stepping down after holding that seat for 32 years. Prior to Cong. Hyde's re-election for the last time, he was a guest on Public Affairs:
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, do we need more troops there [in Iraq]? Would more troops, at least at this point, help provide more security- more security for the upcoming elections in Iraq, do you think we need more troops?

Cong. Henry Hyde: I am inclined to think so.

Berkowitz: And, has the International Relations committee looked at that issue?
***************************************************
From a "Public Affairs," show recorded on September 19, 2004, [See here].
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Better than Bears' Monday Night Football:Roskam-Duckworth-Bush

Watch a "Public Affairs," exclusive with President Bush tonight throughout the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm. on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. Watch a "Public Affairs," exclusive this week in the Chicago metro suburbs with 6th CD candidates Sen. Peter Roskam and Major Tammy Duckworth .
*******************************************************
"Public Affairs," is featuring this week in the Chicago metro suburbs an exclusive televised airing of portions of last week's WBEZ Chicago Public Radio debate and portions of the follow-up press conferences with 6th CD candidates Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] and Major Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates]. See, below, for the Public Affairs suburban airing schedule.
****************************************************************
Tonight's City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs features President George W. Bush, speaking on October 12 at a funder in the Chicago Loop for 8th CD Republican candidate for Congress David McSweeney [Barrington Hills] and 6th CD Republican candidate for Congress State Sen. Peter Roskam [Wheaton]. Aon Executive Chairman Pat Ryan introduces Speaker Hastert, who in turn introduces President Bush. The President spoke, among other issues, about the economy, tax cuts,the tools necessary to fight terrorism , national security, the upcoming mid-term elections and winning in Iraq. See here for a complete transcript of the President's Remarks.
*************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including interviews, discussions or remarks with or by U. S. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Republican Challenger- Judy Baar Topinka, a debate between 27th Senate District candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine], 8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and many, many more pols on our video podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We take you to a fundraiser featuring George W. Bush. The fundraiser was to raise money for sixth district Republican congressional candidate Peter Roskam [Wheaton] and 8th district Republican congressional candidate David McSweeney [Barrington Hills]. You’ll start out and see Pat Ryan, chairman of AON Corporation, a long standing and well known Republican in the Illinois community. And, he introduces Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who in turn introduces the President, who spoke to an intimate crowd of three hundred people. You’ll see they’re standing in a pretty small room and they’re pretty close up to the President.

Berkowitz: These folks paid big bucks to see the President, so perhaps they got what they paid for. The buzz in the last few weeks has been about Mark Foley and his salacious emails, but the Presidential message was quite different. It’s about tax cuts and prosperity. He says Democrats oppose those tax cuts and that they want to take them away. The Presidential message is about liberty, freedom, democracy and national security. The President is talking about winning in Iraq, not like Senator Barack Obama, who is talking about stabilizing things. He wants to win. He says the United States can still do it.

Berkowitz: President Bush is talking about terror, surveillance, interrogation of detainees and the monitoring of [terrorist] communications. He says Democrats in the House opposed all that. The President has been on offense and he says it’s important to stay on offense, offense for the United States and offense for the Republican Party. We’ll see if he can take Republicans on offense as we go into the closing three weeks of the mid-term election on November 7th. The question is, can the President sell that to the American people? We know he can sell that to the Republican base, who might be watching this evening, but can he sell it to the American people, or as presidents like to say, to “My fellow Americans.”

Berkowitz: … we discuss, you decide. Enjoy the fundraiser. You’re seeing it for nothing, only the value of your time. Those folks that paid to see it—they paid big bucks. And, after you watch the President’s speech, we’ll be back with closing comments. Enjoy the show.
*************************************************
Patrick Ryan, Executive chairman of AON: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the welcome, and thank you for supporting this wonderful event tonight. Your support really makes a difference, and is greatly appreciated. I have the pleasure of introducing Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who is the longest-serving Speaker in the history of the US House of Representatives.

Patrick Ryan: As we hit the long stretch of this very lively campaign season, there’s no one we would rather have leading it than Speaker Hastert. He has been diligently working on behalf of Republican candidates all over the country and of course he’s been working extremely hard on behalf of two outstanding candidates, Peter [Roskam, 6th CD candidate] and David [McSweeney, 8th CD candidate]. And we all appreciate that. So I’m proud to introduce the Speaker of the House, and my good friend, Denny Hastert.

Speaker Denny Hastert: Thank you Pat, for your tireless work. You’ve taken a lot of leadership in helping with this event tonight. And folks, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor and always a privilege to introduce this man. He is the President of the U.S. He is our friend. He is our leader. George W. Bush, President of the United States.
***********************************************
President Bush:

...In other words, we've been giving people the tools necessary to protect the homeland, and our Democrat colleagues back in Washington have taken a very different approach to the war on terror. There is a difference of opinion. I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism or love for America. But I am questioning their view of how best to protect you. And this is an issue in this campaign. If the security of the United States is the most important issue, then part of this issue is which party has been willing to step up and give those charged with protecting you the tools necessary to do so.

In each vote a clear pattern has emerged on which party can best protect the American people. More than 75 percent of the House Democrats voted to block the renewal of the Patriot Act. Almost 80 percent of the House Democrats voted against allowing the CIA to continue the interrogation program. Almost 90 percent of the House Democrats voted against continuing to monitor terrorist communications through the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Rarely has a single series of votes summed up the difference between the two political parties so clearly. If the Democrats' Congress had their way, we wouldn't have had the Patriot Act or the interrogation program, or the Terrorist Surveillance Program. They can run from this record, but we're not going to let them hide. (Applause.)

You know, I was -- recently read where the Democrat leader said this. She said, ‘The midterm elections should not be about national security.’ I strongly disagree… See here for a complete transcript of the President's Remarks.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Hope you enjoyed this visit with President George W. Bush. If you’re watching it in the suburbs, you’ve got three weeks until election day, November 7th. And, if you’re watching it in the city, you’ve got two weeks until election day, November 7th. And the question is-- on election day, can the President and Karl Rove-- Can they do it one more time? Can they keep the Senate and House Republican? Do they have a good “October surprise” in store for the Democrats? Can they turn the buzz across the country back to prosperity and national security? Can they emphasize that there’s been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11th? Can they claim some of the credit for that for the Republicans? Is the economy strong and can they claim that for the Republicans? Can they argue that the U.S. is winning the war on terrorism, winning it with their allies? Can they argue that Iraq, difficult as is, was a good move for national security? The answers to those questions will determine if the House and the Senate stay Republican—[that is] they keep the Democrats from getting the fifteen seats necessary to turn the House Republican, and the six seats necessary to turn the Senate Democratic.

We discuss, you decide. If it’s politics, it’s Public Affairs. See you next week.
*****************************************************
From Tonight's airing on Public Affairs of President Bush funder on October 12, 2006 in Chicago for Congressional Candidates Roskam and McSweeney, as it will air at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 throughout the City of Chicago. See here for a complete transcript of the President's Remarks.
*********************************************************
In twenty-five North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the "Public Affairs," show airs tomorrow night 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 suburban episode of Public Affairs, featuring portions of the WBEZ 6th CD debate and pressers , airs tomorrow night:

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 [tonight], Wednesday night and Friday night at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 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
******************

Fox reports on Bean-McSweeney 8th CD Ad controversy

The Bean-McSweeney ad controversy [See here] in the Illinois 8th Cong. Dist. heated up further as David McSweeney [R-Barrington Hills] hit the broadcast airwaves yesterday with his own ad, labeling the first term incumbent Melissa Bean’s [D-Barrington] ad “a lie,” citing to this reporter’s discussion of same in this blog.

The Fox News Channel reported on the 8th CD campaign controversy this evening on Brit Hume’s Special Report nightly weekday television show [5:00 pm, Cable Ch. 54], and you can watch the segment [here] or when the show is re-run this evening at 11:00 pm or on Saturday morning at 5:00 am [CST] [The Bean-McSweeney segments airs about 20 minutes into the show].

The Wall St. Journal, on which the Bean campaign relied in part for its assertion as to McSweeney’s views on abortion, has now conceded it got McSweeney’s views on abortion wrong, as this reporter wrote earlier this week [See here], and the Wall St. Journal will print a “clarification,” tomorrow.

Steve Brown, Fox News Channel Midwest Bureau Chief, reports on this evening’s show that “the Bean campaign says it is going to continue running the ad despite today’s admission [of error] from the Wall St. Journal.”

Eric Adelstein, Bean Campaign media consultant, is fond of using Ken Starr’s line, “Facts are stubborn things.” However, the Bean campaign’s motto now seems to be : “Our errors are stubborn things.”

Is this Democrat Congresswoman Bean’s version of “Staying the course.” Even the Wall St. Journal seems to realize that this is the time for a mid-course correction. Should the Bean campaign reconsider, do some damage control and pull its incorrect ad? 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
******************

Roskam and Duckworth play “Meet the Press.”

Jeff Berkowitz: On the issue of embryonic stem cell research-- of taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research-- is your objection simply that that doesn’t have the highest potential gain scientifically, or are there philosophical objections that you have in terms of pro-life issues?

State Senator Peter Roskam: My opponent misstated my opposition in the state senate. In the state senate, the reason that we were able to defeat the bill was because it was actually putting the state’s imprimatur on embryonic stem cell research. It wasn’t a private ban on embryonic stem cell research. So, I think she was misinformed on that. But, the other thing was that it actually allowed human cloning. And, it was very subtle. You have to understand the language and read the bill, but it allowed human cloning. That’s why a majority of the state senators, bipartisan, top to bottom of the state, agreed with me on that issue.

Berkowitz: But, if it didn’t allow—

Deanna Bellandi [AP]: But, are you opposed to using taxpayer money to fund it, or are you opposed to the complete idea of it.

Sen. Peter Roskam: I am opposed to using taxpayer money to fund it.

Deanna Bellandi You are Okay with it being private?

Sen. Peter Roskam: Well, look. I think the question that either Craig [Dellimore] or Eric [Krol] asked earlier is really the question that is going to come to the fore. I think that this is an issue that gets attention. Let me put it this way. In all of the doors that I have knocked on, this is not the issue that people are talking to me about on doorsteps. What they are talking to me about on doorsteps is taxes, spending and immigration and I have been all over this District. I don’t knock on a door and they say- what’s your view on stem cells? They are interested in taxes, spending and immigration.

Deanna Bellandi: But, are you opposed to embryonic stem cell research because of your position on abortion?

Sen. Peter Roskam: Well, I am pro-life and I’ve been consistently pro-life and one of the arguments I made on the Senate floor is you don’t pit one life against another. But, by the same token, to characterize my senate vote as putting forth a ban on embryonic stem cell research is fundamentally untrue.
**************************************************************

Jeff Berkowitz: When you say you want to raise taxes, or at least roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% of [income earners of] people in America, what‘s that to you? Is that people with an income over $150,000? People with an income over $200,000? Where would you start raising taxes?

Major Tammy Duckworth: Well, you know, it’s the top one percent. I agree that we absolutely need tax cuts for middle-income families. And, that’s where I am going to focus first. And, then I am going to roll back the other tax cuts based on what we can afford. I think in the studio earlier today Mr. Roskam never answered the question of how are we going to pay for these tax cuts of the very wealthiest Americans. So, I would start off with No. 1, let’s give tax cuts on child care tax credits, let’s eliminate the estate tax and protect small farmers and small business owners. Let’s protect the childcare tax credit. Get rid of the marriage penalty. Let’s fix the alternative minimum tax. And, then let’s start rolling back the tax cuts for the top tier, depending on what we can afford. I just don’t think we can afford that right now. In the next congress, we need to take a long hard look at our budget and see what we can afford. We can’t afford giving tax cuts to people who make millions of dollars.

Jeff Berkowitz: Does that have any effect on the economy as you start rolling back Bush tax cuts on what you would call higher income people?

Major Tammy Duckworth: On the top 1%? I don’t think it is going to have a negative effect on the economy. I think the bigger negative effect on the economy is the 400 billion dollar deficit that we have every single year [Ed. Note: the fiscal 2006 deficit was $248 billion dollars, or 1.9 % of GDP] and the fact that we are hitting nine trillion dollars in debt. I think that has a bigger effect. I think the fact that these just uncontrolled spending – whether it is the President that my opponent endorses, or as he did in Springfield, when he endorsed Gov. Ryan’s various bloated budgets that left us with 5 Billion dollars in debt. It is going to leave our children with a tax burden that they can’t afford. Every child that is born in America today—their portion of the national debt is well over 25 thousand dollars. We can’t do that to our kids. We cannot do that to this great nation. This nation should be strong and it cannot be strong as long as it continues to owe trillions of dollars to foreign owners. We just cannot do it.
*****************************************
Partial Transcript of separate Press Conferences held by Sen. Peter Roskam [R- Wheaton, 6th CD Candidate] and by Major Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates, 6th CD candidate] on September 22, 2006 in the WBBM 780 AM Radio offices after their taping of AT ISSUE.
**************

Blagojevich and WTTW have a Good Night: Blago's Bus

In an unusual early evening presser, postponed from 5:30 pm to start at 7:00 pm and ultimately starting around 7:20 pm on Wednesday night, Governor Rod Blagojevich gave a virtuoso performance, unlike his last one which was turned into a Topinka ad. The press conference, which lasted about 18 minutes and ended abruptly with Blago exiting stage left with a question left dangling in the air, was on his home turf, Blago headquarters at 1200 No. Ashland, about 10 minutes from the Loop.

This was the old Rod, quick on his feet, charming and even smiling, as he politely said No—when asked if he thought he would be indicted during the next four years. He seemed ready for all the questions about the indictment of Tony Rezko. He proudly discussed why he brought Rezko into his kitchen cabinet and how Rezko had done a number of good things: bringing people like Jack Lavin [DCEO] and a number of African-Americans into the Blagojevich Administration. On the other hand, although he had some caveats, e.g., “if the allegations are true,” “and I pray that they are not true,” “I hope they are not true,” etc., Blagojevich essentially threw Rezko under the bus, with Rod saying:

What is, from a personal standpoint, so disappointing to me, and so surprising to me, is that he [Rezko] would engage in a criminal conspiracy to personally enrich himself and do that behind our backs and repeatedly deceive us, deceive me, lie to us and reassure us that the rumors about him weren’t true and I tend to be somebody who if you are a friend of somebody’s and you have no reason to not believe him, you believe him unless there is something tangible. Now, there is something tangible and I am obviously disappointed in him.

Rezko joins Stu Levine, Jews [from the Sister Muhammad incident], father-in-law Ald. Dick Mell, et al under the Blago Bus. In short, it is getting crowded under the Blago Bus, and perhaps a few of those folks will climb into the driver’s seat and start steering it in another direction, trying to run over their former buddy, Governor Blagojevich.

The above described press conference came to you and me, courtesy of WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, which interrupted a panel discussion on CT of Wednesday’s Rezko indictment to bring viewers live coverage of the presser, with a short update in the opening news segment from Rich Samuels. Further, I am told that WTTW was prepared to carry the presser later in the evening after the Chicago Tonight show, if that had been necessary.

Kudos to Samuels, Marin, Ponce and anyone else involved in the decision and process of WTTW bringing the Blagojevich press conference to its viewers, live. This is exactly what Public TV should be about. Now, why didn’t I think of that?
**************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Duckworth and Roskam square off on cable in suburbs

"Public Affairs," is featuring 6th Cong. District Candidates Major Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates] and State Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] in separate press conferences 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. 16] through-out the City of Chicago on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm.
****************************************************************
The "Public Affairs," podcast page gives you a choice of more than twenty-five episodes of “Public Affairs," including 8th CD candidates Bean [D], McSweeney [R] and Scheurer [I]; Senators Obama [D] and McCain [R]; Republican Treasurer Candidate Sen. Radogno; Cook County Board President candidates Peraica [R] and Stroger [D]; Gubernatorial candidates Blagojevich [D] and Topinka [R] ,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 6th CD Candidates Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates] and Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton], 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
******************

Roskam and Duckworth: Better than Monday Night Football:

"Public Affairs," is featuring never before shown press conferences with 6th CD candidates Sen. Peter Roskam [R-Wheaton] and Major Tammy Duckworth [D-Hoffman Estates] tonight [Oct. 9] through-out the City of Chicago on CANTV, Cable Ch. 21 at 8:30 pm
****************************************************************
This week's suburban edition of Public Affairs also features the same 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 U. S. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Republican Challenger- Judy Baar Topinka, a debate between 27th Senate District candidates Peter Gutzmer [D-Hoffman Estates] and Matt Murphy [R-Palatine], 8th CD candidates Bean, McSweeney and Scheurer and many, many more on our video podcast page[Watch here].
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Anatomy of a Melissa Bean TV ad lie

Jim Thacker, David McSweeney’s [R-Barrington Hills, 8th CD] campaign manager, said:

“Let’s put it this way: somebody lied. And, I don’t know if it was [Cong.] Melissa Bean or if it was her handlers, but somebody lied. The Bean TV ad lies.”

Bean’s television ad does misrepresent David McSweeney’s views, pure and simple. It’s too bad. The first term Congresswoman Bean [D-Barrington, 8th CD] could have taken the high road in this campaign.

Democrat Melissa Bean was swept into office in 2004 in large part by the distaste the 8th CD had developed for 35 year Republican incumbent Cong. Phil Crane, who had taken to hiding from and ignoring his constituents and opponents, as well as abusing his powers of incumbency. Bean had the opportunity to set an example for what politics should be like in her first re-election campaign for the 8th CD seat. Instead, Cong. Bean resorts, in this ad, to distorting the views of one her opponents, David McSweeney, on the issue of abortion. [Moderate Party candidate Bill Scheurer is Bean’s other opponent].

Winston Churchill said: ‘A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.’ That was in the pre-digital age.
Now we enjoy a 300-channel, ever-connected world. Today that lie is around the world and knocking at the door before the truth has even fetched the morning paper. In fact, before that paper is even printed, the lie has probably bounced around the TV, radio and Internet echo chamber for hours. [See here].

So, it is up to the tough, but fair-minded media to set the record straight, even if Cong. Bean’s lie has what Churchill might call, “a leg up on the truth.”

A partial transcript of Bean’s broadcast television ad [See here], which started running last week, reads as follows:

Dave McSweeney in his own words. …The Wall St. Journal reports McSweeney opposes choice, even in cases of incest, rape or the life of the mother. He says, it is more important to protect the unborn in that case than it is to protect the exceptions…

I am Melissa Bean and I approve this message because you deserve an independent, mainstream voice in Congress.

What 8th CD voters deserve are candidates who will illuminate the issue differences, but take care to represent the views of their opponents accurately. Despite the conventional wisdom that Bean and McSweeney are quite close on the issues, there are sufficient issue differences between the two for voters to have a real choice, e.g., taxes, trade, terrorism, lawsuit reform, term limits, education, abortion and the war. The choice, of course, is expanded when third party candidate Bill Scheurer [I-Lindenhurst] is brought into the equation.

If Bean wants to highlight the differences between McSweeney and her views on abortion in an ad, that, of course, is fine—so long as she states McSweeney’s views accurately. Instead, Bean’s ad engages in a gross misrepresentation of David McSweeney’s views on abortion, and she cites to McSweeney’s December 11, 2005 appearance on “Public Affairs,” as the primary supporting source.

Anybody watching any of McSweeney’s numerous appearances on “Public Affairs,” in which he was asked about abortion would know his position on that issue. Candidate McSweeney would like to see court rulings and legislation that would result in a ban on all abortions in the United States except in “reported cases of rape and incest,” or to protect the life of the mother. [See here].

Perhaps to a fault, David McSweeney is consistent. He is not somebody who changes his public policy positions from campaign appearance to campaign appearance, or year to year, for that matter.

So, how did Congresswoman Bean and her media consultant, Eric Adelstein, misrepresent McSweeney’s views? They just chopped up a video and took statements out of context. Further, they took advantage of a Wall St. Journal (“WSJ”) article that they had to have known was erroneous.

The Bean ad is not unlike the one Adelstein produced in 2000, which resulted in Adelstein almost being run out of Chicago for his TV ad misrepresentations about Cook County Criminal Courts Presiding Judge Thomas Fitzgerald. [See here]. Adelstein, in that instance, worked on behalf of Appellate Judge Morton Zwick in Zwick’s failed run for an Illinois State Supreme Court seat. Then Judge Fitzgerald won that race over Adelstein's candidate and he now sits on the Illinois Supreme Court as Justice Fitzgerald [See here].

First, we’ll take a look, below, at what McSweeney said and then see how Adelestein and Bean have misrepresented that. Second, we’ll dissect the WSJ mistake and Bean’s intentional exploitation of that error.

The context of the “Public Affairs,” discussion with candidate McSweeney is that host Berkowitz was probing McSweeney to see just how Pro-Life he was relative to his March, 2006 Republican Primary opponents, in light of his favored exceptions for reported cases of rape and incest, and, of course, the life of the mother. [See here]. Host Berkowitz also knew that [proposed] Human Life U.S. constitutional amendments provide generally either for the return of the abortion issue to the Congress or to the state legislatures-- or provide for a federal ban on abortion, but with an exception to protect the life of the mother. [See here]. Thus, there was no need for host Berkowitz to keep repeating the exception for the life of the mother when discussing the Human Life Amendment, nor for McSweeney to keep correcting Berkowitz, if he left it out. This is the kind of short-hand that many TV political interviewers use in an attempt to cover a large number of topics in a short amount of time.

It is with the above in mind that McSweeney was questioned:

Jeff Berkowitz: …Are you less Pro-Life than Kathy Salvi and Bob Churchill?

David McSweeney: Dave McSweeney is Pro-Life. No. 1, I have the endorsement of the Illinois Federation for Right to Life and I am proud of that. I will talk about my position and I’ll contrast it with Melissa Bean. Melissa Bean voted against a piece of legislation on the floor of the House that would have made it a crime to bring a minor across state lines if the intent was to avoid parental notification laws. That was a terrible vote. I, of course, would have voted to make it illegal to cross state lines to avoid those laws. So, Melissa Bean has a terrible record. That’s who I am running against. And, that is what I am focused on.

Jeff Berkowitz: She [Cong. Bean] talks about herself as being Pro-Choice. She says she follows the “Law of the Land, Roe v. Wade,” and those views are consistent with that. Do you dispute that statement?

David McSweeney: Melissa Bean is definitely Pro-Choice. She got a lot of money from Emily’s List.

Jeff Berkowitz: She follows Roe v. Wade. That is the Law of the Land, right?

David McSweeney: I would like to see that overturned and that’s why hopefully with the Supreme Court justices in front of us right now, with Roberts on the Bench and hopefully, Alito, we’ll see that overturned.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, you wouldn’t want to see a Constitutional Amendment protecting the fetus because you would still want to have reported cases of rape and incest, as exceptions, right?

David McSweeney: No, I would support the Human Life Amendment; I have been on record on that.

Jeff Berkowitz: Even though those [types of Constitutional Amendments] wouldn’t fit within your reported cases of rape and incest exceptions.

David McSweeney: That is correct because it is more important to protect the unborn in that case than it is to protect the exceptions [for reported cases of rape and incest]. What I have said and let’s be specific on this, you have brought this up a couple of times in interviews and I don’t want to avoid the question. I want to answer it very specifically. Ideally, I would like to see exceptions for life of the mother and reported cases of rape and incest. What I've also said though is that I would vote for a final form of legislation that was pro life and prohibited abortions even if it didn't contain an exception [for reported cases of rape and incest], if that was the only choice. And, in the case of the Human Life Amendment, that is the choice. There is not the exceptions [for Rape and Incest] and it is better to protect the unborn than it is to be in a situation where we are allowing abortion to continue in this country [unless the life of the mother is at issue].
*******************************************************
Public Affairs TV show, recorded December 11, 2005, and airing the weeks of December 19 and December 26, 2005 in the Chicago Metro area.
*************************************************
What did Bean and Adelstein take from the above?

“It is more important to protect the unborn in that case than it is to protect the exceptions.”

Bean and her media guru Adelstein, in their ad, wrap the WSJ article [discussed, below] around the “Public Affairs,” quote. They start the process by stating McSweeney is willing to forego the exceptions for reported cases of rape and incest, if he had to choose between the current law and a law which banned all abortions, except if the life of the mom is at issue. But, then they take the ball farther than intellectual honesty permits:

Bean and Adelstein state implicitly that McSweeney would let a mom die, even if an abortion would save her life. But, that simply is not the case. The author of this post knows that from interviewing McSweeney numerous times on Public Affairs over the last twenty months. Anyone watching the referenced episodes, above, of Public Affairs or others with McSweeney, or anyone reading this blog regularly knows that. But, more importantly, Cong. Bean, who said she approved that television ad, knew it was false when she approved it. That’s why McSweeney Campaign Manager Jim Thacker says the “Bean Ad lies.” And, that’s why Thacker is right.
*************************************************
The referenced Wall St. Journal piece was sloppy, inaccurate journalism and now its author apparently wants to forget about it, and let sleeping dogs lie.

Congresswoman Bean quoted the WSJ correctly, but she had to have known the quote misrepresented McSweeney’s views on abortion. Bean has heard McSweeney discuss his views on abortion during the campaign and candidate forums, as has McSweeney heard Bean discuss hers. The decision by Bean’s media guru, Mr. Adelstein, Melissa Bean and presumably others in Bean’s campaign to use the quote, nonetheless, demonstrates questionable ethics by Team Bean. Further, Team Bean’s decision to wrap the WSJ erroneous statement around Bean’s distortion of the McSweeney Public Affairs clip only compounds the Bean ethical lapse.

WSJ staff reporter Yochi Dreazen wrote:

Mr. McSweeney supports a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion even in cases of incest, rape or danger to the life of the mother [See here].

Although Dreazen spoke with McSweeney for his article about other issues, Dave McSweeney indicated that Dreazen did not speak with him about abortion. Instead, Campaign Manager Thacker got a follow-up call from Dreazen, saying that he had just one quick question and his quick question was whether or not McSweeney would support a Human Life Amendment or constitutional amendment on abortion, if it didn’t contain “the exceptions,” meaning, as Thacker understood it, the exceptions for rape and incest. Thacker said to this reporter there is no Human Life Amendment or Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion that does not have an exception for the Life of the Mother. It is just a given, said Thacker.

So, Thacker’s answer to Dreazen was that David McSweeney would support a Constitutional Amendment even if it didn’t have the exceptions [for rape and incest], although he would favor the exceptions being included. Thacker said that when people in political journalism discuss abortion and talk about giving up the exceptions for a ban on abortion, they mean exceptions for rape and incest because everybody assumes proposed legislation or constitutional amendments banning abortion will always have an exception for the life of the mother.

Dreazen wrote, based on his “I just have one quick question,” conversation with Thacker that the life of the mother was included in the exceptions which McSweeney would have agreed to omit from the Human Life Amendment. Thacker told this reporter, “I would have never said that Dave McSweeney would vote for something [a ban on abortion] that did not have a provision for the life of the mother.”

Thacker emphasized that Dreazen’s comment about McSweeney’s position is a characterization; it is not a quote; there are no quotes around the statement. Further, Thacker said, “you will never see a piece of legislation in the U. S. Congress that doesn’t have an exception for the life of the mother.” Indeed, in almost 450 episodes of “Public Affairs,” Host Berkowitz has heard only one guest, Jonathan Wright, candidate for the U. S. Senate in the 2004 Republican Primary, advocate a ban on abortion without an exception for the life of the mother. Wright received one per cent of the Primary vote, finishing 7th out of a field of seven candidates.

Further, McSweeney stated to this reporter last week, “I have never seen and I have never been asked to support a piece of legislation that does not contain an exception for the life of the mother. I don’t think it exists. I have never said anything but that I favor an exception for the life of the mother.”

McSweeney Campaign Manager Thacker stated that Yochi Dreazen conceded to him in the last week that there is no Human Life Amendment that does not have an exception for the life of the mother. However, Dreazen has not responded to this reporter’s email request for a conversation on this matter. Further, Dreazen has indicated to Thacker that his editors would not allow him to discuss the above issues with a “local reporter.”

Team McSweeney is not without fault on this matter. On seeing the erroneous report of McSweeney’s abortion position in the June 24, 2006 Wall St. Journal article, Team McSweeney should have fired off both a written and oral response to the WSJ, clarifying the record. Thacker indicated there was only an exchange of voice-mails with Dreazen until the Bean ad highlighted the importance of the error.

Nevertheless, that mistake by Team McSweeney does not absolve Team Bean from the ethical lapse represented by the Bean ad. Thacker, in discussing what the Bean campaign has done with this ad, said as professionals, campaigns do opposition research. But, his point was that you can’t take an article or two that clearly gets an opponent’s view wrong and go with that-- when you have a stack of articles, over a long period of time, that go the other way. Clearly, Bean would know this is not a flip flop by McSweeney but an error by the WSJ journalist.

Thacker said, “For this Melissa Bean ad, they actually had a tape and they chose to segment off a piece of that tape. Had they played an earlier part of that tape, people would have a very different view, from the Bean ad, of what Dave’s position is on abortion.”

In discussing Bean’s obligations on this ad, Thacker said “Bean said she approved this ad; she has been in candidate forums with Dave McSweeney, she should know what Dave’s position is [on abortion]… Let’s put it this way: somebody lied. And, I don’t know if it was [Cong.] Melissa Bean or if it was her handlers, but somebody lied. The Bean ad lies.”

Team Bean did not return phone calls from Public Affairs seeking comments on this matter.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************