Girl Talk at WTTW with Marin, Netsch and Topinka

A few weeks ago this reporter noticed a major change for WTTW, our public TV station. It did a program on illegal immigration with two people who argued illegal immigration was harmful, on net, to the U. S. economy and two who argued such immigrants were helpful to the U. S. economy. Wow, exact ideological balance on public TV, I couldn’t believe it.

Then last week, I saw WTTW had returned to substituting Women’s Professional Basketball for Chicago Tonight, from time to time. I wouldn’t think the mission of public TV was to fill the gaps in commercial coverage of sports, but there you have it. Women’s Basketball knocks out public policy discussion on WTTW every 10 days or so during “basketball season.”

WTTW, one step forward, one step backward. Then another step backward, last night.

Chicago Tonight brought us three lefties, who happen to all be women, discussing the issues pertaining to the state legislature’s resolution of State budget/taxes by the May 31 deadline, after which the legislature requires a three-fifths majority to pass the budget. Indeed, if a budget is passed by May 31, but then a supplemental budget that is effective before June 30, 2008 is passed, that supplemental also requires a three fifths majority.

Since the Dems have a majority in the House and more than 3/5 majority in the Senate, many think they could and would get together to pass a budget before May 31. On the other hand, if they are going to raise taxes substantially, they might want some Republicans with them to provide “political shelter.”

--Marin, a far Lefty

From reading and listening to Carol Marin over the years, we know, as an opinion journalist she is far, far left. If journalists had to register like lobbyists, she would be a registered far, far left journalist. To Carol, sane people are against the Iraq War, against Bush, for more government spending, for legalized abortion, for more taxes, for more government regulation and provision of health care, against school vouchers and on and on it goes. A registered lefty.

--Netsch, a far left pol

Dawn Clark Netsch, a far, far left pol. She never met a tax hike she didn’t like, nor a spending increase, etc. Social issues, all Left.

--Topinka, comfortable on the Left

Judy Baar Topinka, a “moderate Republican,” who probably is fairly comfortable slightly left of center, notwithstanding her occasional statements against more gun control. How do we know Judy is a comfortable lefty. Well, for one, virtually no lefty fiscal statements from Netsch or Marin seemed to elicit any effort by Judy to knock them down. Judy did swipe at Rod Blajojevich’s ethical issues, but as to fiscal lefties? Not a word.

Now, some of my best friends are far left or far right. Nothing wrong with either. But, there is something wrong with having no balance on a TV show. Such shows tend to be dull and unhelpful to understand all sides to an issue.

The upshot of tonight’s discussion? Netsch kind of led it, as the grand dame of Public Finance in Illinois, with Marin nodding yes, and Topinka generally going along.

--the Netsch '94 vision rides again

Netsch said with Dems in control of everything, it would be sensible for Illinois to have a major increase in taxes that would go primarily into education, but also take care of mass transit, underfunded pensions and a capital budget. She may not have laid it out, but no doubt she would be thrilled to have income taxes increase by 66%, or from three per cent to five per cent and maybe a slight decrease in real estate taxes. This would be a vindication of her ’94 tax swap and that of her modern day tax swap, HB 750 ally, Ralph Martire, who is backed by the unions—those composed of teachers and otherwise.

Netsch said constitutionally the state should bear the burden on education and she decried the potential expansion of gaming as a revenue source for education. Topinka defended gaming as a revenue source, in part because it was part of her gubernatorial plan, but she concurred with Netsch that while gaming could “pay the bills,” it really wasn’t appropriate as a major funder for education.

--Girl talk, no time for reform

No one said a word about reform in education, let alone true reform such as school vouchers or school choice. No one said a word about savings from managed care. No one said a word about removing member initiatives or pork from the budget. No one said a word about the harmful effects of increases in taxes or fees on the economy or jobs. This was “girl talk with Carol, Judy and Dawn.” There was neither need nor time to talk reform or economics.

--Right of Center pols shunned by WTTW

WTTW, if it were following its recent experimental policy of ideological balance, might have invited any one of a number of Republicans who are right of center on taxes and economics, e.g., former Senator Rauschenberger, House GOP Leader Cross, current Senators Lauzen or Brady, former guv candidate Jim Oberweis, former guv candidate Ron Gidwitz, just to name a few.

But who at WTTW really cares about ideological balance. What they seem to want is “girl talk” about male hormones being to blame for the crisis in Springfield. And, oh yeah, we can have racial, gender and sexual orientation diversity at our public TV station. But, ideological diversity? That would be a truly radical, reform type idea at your public TV station. And, we know, like Chicago, WTTW ain’t ready for reform.

Back to you, Phil
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
******************

Dan Curry, Former Senator Fitzgerald's Communications Director, Cable and Streaming

This week’s suburban edition of Public Affairs features Dan Curry, a Republican campaign consultant who previously was Communications Director for former Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan and former U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald, consulted with Lt. Gov. Candidate Joe Birkett and now is President of Curry Public Strategies, Inc. and publisher of www.reversespin.org . For more on Curry, the show topics of the Public Affairs show with Curry and a partial transcript of the show, go here.

The airing schedule for the suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” is included, below, with a special airing of the show in ten suburbs this Thursday evening at 9:00 pm. on Comcast Cable Ch. 19
*************************************************************************
The show with Curry also airs through-out the City of Chicago this coming Monday night [June 4] at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
***********************************************************
You may also watch the show with Dan Curry on your computer at PublicAffairsTV.com. In addition to the Curry show, additional recent shows posted on our video podcast site are shows featuring Roberto Maldonado, a Cook County Commissioner who is running in the 4th CD Democratic Primary in 2008, State Reps. Julie Hamos, Jim Durkin, Paul Froehlich and John Fritchey, former State GOP chairman Gary MacDougal, Presidential candidates Obama, Giuliani, McCain and Cox, and many other pols and opinion makers.
****************************************************
A partial transcript of this week's suburban show is included directly below.
**************************************************************************
----Hillary to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination?

Jeff Berkowitz: …The Republican Primary skews right to the Republican base

Dan Curry [Repubican campaign consultant and President, Curry Public Strategies: Right.

Jeff Berkowitz: The Democratic Primary skews left to the Democratic base. If Hillary is more centrist than the other top tier Democrat candidates, why do you pick her to win the primary?

Dan Curry: I think slightly so. I mean she is barely to the right of the other Democratic primary candidates, but the Democrats want to win and I think at the end of the day they’ll talk tough, well not tough, but they’ll talk the left talk but at the end of the day they want a candidate who can win the race and when they see a Giuliani or a McCain or a Romney on the other side, they are not going to want a far left candidate like Barack Obama or a John Edwards.

----Obama too far left?

Jeff Berkowitz: What makes you say Barack Obama is far left?

Dan Curry: Well, you listen to his introduction speech or his announcement speech and it sounded like he was giving it in the 1980s. He barely mentioned terrorism, which is the No. 1 issue of our time. Radical Islamic Terrorism. And, in the Democratic debate the other night, I think they mentioned the word Al Qaeda twice. And, this is obviously the No. 1 threat to our country and the Democrats are not even talking about it.

Jeff Berkowitz: When you say, obviously the No. 1 threat, does that mean Al Qaeda and the threat of Al Qaeda is an integral part of the War in Iraq or—

Dan Curry: Well, it is now.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, it wasn’t then [when the U.S. went into Iraq]. Well, we are getting ahead of ourselves.
******************************
-----Can Republicans support a Pro-Choicer for President?

Jeff Berkowitz: He [Giuliani] is pretty much as pro-choice on abortions as one can be other than he says he hates abortions, but he is really not willing to use the apparatus of the government to roll them back in any way and yet you think the Republican Party anoints him their Presidential nominee in the Primary?

Dan Curry: Well, he is a very smart guy and when you look back at his mayorship in New York, he stood down the liberals, he stood down the press and he made tremendous—

Jeff Berkowitz: He was a big spender in New York, wasn’t he?

Dan Curry: Well, no—

Jeff Berkowitz: Did spending rise considerably when he was Mayor?

Dan Curry: I’m not sure about that.

Jeff Berkowitz: Did taxes go up when he was Mayor in New York?

Dan Curry: He says he lowered taxes a bunch of times.

Jeff Berkowitz: I don’t think the record supports that.

Dan Curry: What he did … he took a situation in which New York City was uninhabitable in various neighborhoods and –

---Why does it matter if Giuliani was a good mayor?

Jeff Berkowitz: That’s a city issue. Why are we electing a guy President based on whether he was a good mayor?

Dan Curry: He is a problem solver. That was a very tough—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, dealing with foreign policy and dealing with crime is the same thing?

Dan Curry: He is a problem solver. He is a tough guy. The other thing that he did in New York that I think a lot of conservatives really appreciate is that every day he would go before the press…and the New York Times and the media in New York pounded him every single day. They didn’t want him to get the squeegee people off the streets; they didn’t want him to target certain neighborhoods and he …told them what you are saying is wrong. That’s not compassionate…this is the right way to do it.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, he handled the media well and you respect that?

Dan Curry: Well, he stood up to them…I think it shows leadership. I think Republicans have a more difficult road when it comes to the media because the media tend to be more anti-Republican than they are anti-Democrat.

Jeff Berkowitz: You think the media are pretty biased? Networks, would you say? ABC, NBC, CBS?

Dan Curry: Very biased.

Jeff Berkowitz: Very biased?

Dan Curry: Very biased.

Jeff Berkowitz: CNN? MSNBC? Only Fox would be a friend of conservatives, would you say? Of the cable and broadcasting networks?

Dan Curry: Fox is—You watched the [Republican Presidential candidate] debate…and you compare it to the MSNBC [Republican Presidential] debate the week before—

Jeff Berkowitz: The Republican Presidential candidate was on Fox News Channel, not the local Fox station in Chicago.

Dan Curry: Right. The questions [on the Fox debate] were very tough on Republicans—You know, this “Conservative,” network. But they were very good questions-- and they were very professional and they weren’t trivial.

Jeff Berkowitz: Yes, but you would agree-- Fox slants right. You would agree, right?

Dan Curry: Slightly.

Jeff Berkowitz: Slightly, whereas you say the other cable and broadcast networks, in your view, slant largely left, not slightly left?

Dan Curry: Right. Exactly.
******************************************************
Dan Curry, as he is airing this week on Public Affairs in 35 Chicago Metro suburbs [See below for the suburban airing schedule] and as will be airing on Monday, June 4, 2007, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21, CANTV on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs and on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 7:30 pm on Aurora Community Television, on Comcast Cable Ch. 10 in Aurora and some surrounding areas. The show was recorded on May 20, 2007.[You may also go here to watch Curry on PublicAffairsTV.com].
***************************************************
In twenty-five North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the "Public Affairs," show airs every Tuesday night in the regular weekly Public Affairs slot, 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or 35, as indicated, below.

In ten North Shore suburbs, the Public Affairs show airs three times each week in its regular slots at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as indicated, below. In these ten suburbs, there is a special airing this Thursday night, May 31, at 9:00 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19
********************************************************
The suburban episode of Public Affairs with guest Dan Curry 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 this week on Monday night, Wednesday night and Friday night at 8:30 pm and Thursday night, May 31, at 9:00 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
******************

State’s Attorney Birkett’s Prosecutors: What did they know and do?

Jeff Berkowitz: In short, how did [prosecutor] Jane Radostits get to more than three times the legal limit for driving without any of her “prosecutor friends,” noticing the excessive consumption of alcohol by their colleague during the middle of the day?

Joe Birkett: “That book is not closed.”
***************************************************
DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett, interviewed late Saturday night, May 26.
**********************************************
Think about it. Eight prosecutor colleagues (and a secretary) are at a restaurant for a few hours. One of them, supervisor A, drinks enough to have a blood alcohol content of three times the legal limit for driving. Another, supervisor B, drinks some and the others perhaps not at all. When they leave, nobody thinks it wise to make sure supervisor A does not drive. Could this be? Let’s take a look.
************************************************
On Friday mid-day, May 11, 2007, eight DuPage County prosecutors from DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett’s office were in a restaurant [Kona Grill in Oak Brook], lunching on appetizers. Their offices and the courtroom in which they practice had been closed, due to a bomb threat, at about 9:30 am and they were told they probably could not return to their offices or the courthouse until about 12:30 pm. The eight prosecutors had been brought together at the restaurant, by Deputy Chief Jeffrey Kendall, at about noon, some a little later, some a little earlier. [See here].

At least four of the eight prosecutors were at the restaurant for at least three hours. One prosecutor was at the restaurant for only a short time. At least two of the eight were drinking that afternoon [publicly available information does not indicate whether the others were drinking]. One prosecutor, Jane Radostits, managed to drink enough to give her a blood alcohol content of 0.25, more than three times the legal limit for driving. Radostits was a co-deputy criminal chief in DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett’s office. According to media reports, Jeffrey Kendall, the other co-deputy criminal chief, was drinking but it is not known how much. [See here].

After being driven back to her county car-- along with two colleagues-- by Kendall in his county car, Radostits got behind the wheel of her car and ten minutes later she was dead, apparently as a result of her driving over the street dividing line, clipping a car coming from the other direction, veering into traffic coming at her from the opposite direction, and then hitting another car head on.

According to media reports of the Sheriff’s report, Radostits was traveling at 81 to 85 mph in a 45 mph zone, not wearing a seat belt and likely using a cell phone when the wreck occurred. Co-Deputy Chief Radostits had a blood alcohol level of 0.25, more than three times the legal limit for driving. The driver of the car Radostits hit suffered a broken arm and leg, and underwent surgery. [See here].

Now, it would be reasonable to assume most ot the prosecutors at the restaurant know something about DUIs and how many, or how few, drinks it takes to become a dangerous drunken driver.

Radostits, herself, had prosecuted, a decade ago, someone for killing four people while driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.14 [See here]. The defendant drunk driver in that case received a sentence of 13 years.

The well-known saying is, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”

Does that adage hold, even more so for prosecutors, especially those who deal with DUIs, from time to time?

And, if so, what did any of Radostits’ colleagues know about how much she drank on that Friday afternoon? Some of them told investigators they thought she drank “at least three lemon martinis,” and possibly one Lite beer. Kendall thought it was three or four martinis and possibly a Lite beer. They did not notice “a slurred speech or difficulty walking.”

Did any of the prosecutors think, at the time, Radostits might have had more than five drinks? At least three of her colleagues were with her at the restaurant for three hours. Did any take note of what might be viewed as excessive drinking? Can four martinis and a beer get a female of normal height/weight/metabolism to 0.25 in three hours? If not, how did Radostits drink more and yet none of her prosecutor colleagues saw it?

Kendall paid the bill by collecting money from everybody and putting the charge on his credit card. Did Kendall, during the course of that transaction, take note perhaps of the number of drinks for which he was paying? If nobody else was drinking except Kendall and Radostits, and if Kendall had not been drinking much, one would imagine Kendall could figure out how much Radostits had to drink. Was it more than four martinis and a beer?

If Kendall made that calculation and it was much more than was safe to drive, did Kendall try to stop Radostits from getting behind the wheel of her car? If not, should he have? What about Radostits’ other “friends.”

In short, how did Radostits get to three times the legal limit for driving without any of her “prosecutor friends,” noticing the excessive consumption of alcohol by their colleague during the middle of the day?

This reporter asked that question to State’s Attorney Birkett this weekend and he said, “That book is not closed.”

On the other hand, Birkett would not answer the question of whether he had asked Kendall to resign, saying that was a personnel matter which he would not discuss. Although the public reports had been that Kendall was now on vacation and that his resignation was not effective until June 4, 2007, Birkett said, “He resigned a week ago and he is out of here.” Birkett’s tone was not that of a boss who was sad to see Kendall go, notwithstanding the strong skills and dedication to the office for which Kendall is known. Another source close to the DuPage County State’s Attorney office confirms that impression.

As to whether there should be an independent investigation of the above-described matter, State’s Attorney Birkett said anyone could ask for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. However, Birkett did not sound inclined to do so. Birkett pointed out that although friends should not let friends drive drunk, there is no legal obligation to take such action. So, which potential violations of laws would be investigated, he asked.

This reporter noted that it appears that, for some of the time, some of the prosecutors may have been drinking on county time. That is, if they were given “the rest of the day off,” that action may have come after the drinking started. Birkett acknowledged that the phone records could be checked to follow up on that. Further, although it apparently is not in dispute, there is the matter of county cars being driven by county employees who had been drinking, and how and why that happened.

But, more importantly, there is the matter of determining what is the ethical obligation of DuPage County prosecutors in these circumstances. That is, prosecutors presumably are obligated to act in such a way as to protect the integrity of the DuPage County State’s Attorney office. First, there is the matter of is it ever wise and ethical for prosecutors to drink three times the legal limit for driving. Second, what is the obligation, if any, of prosecutors to prevent their colleagues from doing so? Third, even if there is not such an obligation regarding consumption of alcohol, what is a prosecutor’s obligation to prevent another prosecutor from driving after excessive drinking?

Birkett has said, other than Ratostits and Kendall, nobody from his office who was at the restaurant was a supervisor and nobody had a county car. However, maybe the relevant questions are much broader in scope and maybe these questions, as to the May 11, 2007, matter need to be investigated by a special prosecutor:

1. Who was drinking on May 11 in mid-day?

2 Was that done on DuPage County time?

3. Even if it was not done on county time, what level of alcohol consumption in public should be tolerated by the State's Attorney office?

4. Who knew or should have known that Radostits had been drinking enough to be well over the legal limit for driving?

5. Which of those individuals, with knowledge or constructive knowledge of the drinking by Radostits, had an ethical obligation to try to stop Radostits from driving: for the public safety, for Radostits' safety and to protect the integrity of the office of the DuPage County State's Attorney? [see here].
*******************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
******************

Rep. Jim Durkin on State Taxes, McCain and more: Cable and Streaming

State Rep. Jim Durkin [R-Western Springs]: …The Republican nominee for President will be decided by February 5, 2008.
***************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” airing at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV], features State Rep. Jim Durkin [R-Western Springs]. Durkin, who lost to Illinois’ senior U. S. Senator Dick Durbin in 2002 and is currently Co-Chair of the McCain for President campaign in Illinois, discusses state, national and Presidential issues with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz.

For more about tonight’s topics, Durkin and his background, and a partial transcript of the show, go here.

You can also watch the show on your computer at www.PublicAffairsTv.com, along with “Public Affairs,” shows featuring Presidential candidates McCain, Obama, Giuliani and Cox as well as pols, opinion makers and opinion shapers, e.g., 4th CD candidate and Cook County commissioner Roberto Maldonado [D-Chicago], possible 14th CD opposing candidates State Senator Chris Lauzen [R-Aurora] and State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia [D-Aurora] and state budget/tax players Ralph Martire, MarySue Barrett and John Filan.
*******************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Dan Curry, Republican campaign consultant who was Communications Director for former U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald [R-IL] and former Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan.
****************************************************
Another partial transcript of tonight’s “Public Affairs,” show in the City of Chicago is included, below:
*************************************
State Rep. Jim Durkin [R-Western Springs]: …The Republican nominee for President will be decided by February 5, 2008.

Jeff Berkowitz: Because there are 25, or so, states that will hold their primaries by then?

Rep. Jim Durkin: California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, Iowa and a number of other states
*************************************
Rep. Jim Durkin: I’ve discussed this with Senator McCain last time he was in town. He said that the nomination will be decided on the 5th of February.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: What about his age. Senator McCain would be 72, if elected President in 2008. Is 72 too old to be President. It is a pretty demanding job. You saw that Bill Clinton got—he didn’t have any gray hair when he started his presidency. [See here] for a discussion and links to articles about Age and the Presidency.

Rep. Jim Durkin: Well, John McCain, I think, is the only candidate who hasn’t died his hair. But, I know…that John McCain could beat us both in arm wrestling. He is a high-energy guy; his staff can’t keep up with him…He has served his country honorably and he has been through a lot. No one has a command of the international issues like John McCain. Nor has the respect, internationally, like John McCain.
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
******************

Presidential Candidate John Cox: Cable and streaming

John Cox, the candidate in the eleven person Republican Presidential Primary field who is most focused on advancing conservative ideals, is the featured guest on tonight’s [May 28] Aurora edition of Public Affairs, airing at 7:30 pm in Aurora and some surrounding areas on Aurora Community Television, Comcast Cable Ch. 10. The Aurora station reaches all of Aurora, Bristol, Big Rock and parts of Oswego, Sandwich, Sugar Grove and Montgomery.

For more about the Republican Presidential race, John Cox, the topics covered in tonight’s show, a prior show with Cox and a partial transcript of tonight’s show, go here and here.
******************************************
You can also watch Republican Presidential Primary Candidates McCain, Giuliani and Cox, Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate Obama and many more pols, opinion makers and opinion shapers, e.g., MarySue Barrett, President of the Metropolitan Planning Council and State Rep. Jim Durkin [R-Western Springs] on your computer by going to PublicAffairsTv.com
*************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Barack Obama, Good cop/Bad cop, all in one.

Speaking today to a thousand, or so, rank-in-file union members from seventy cities in the U. S. and Canada at the 36th annual Coalition of Black Trade Unionists [CBTU] convention, Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama gave the mostly African-American audience what they came to hear: red meat, but with eloquence, style, energy, and a cadence that was in sync with his audience.

He told them America can have universal health care and by that he seems to mean universal health insurance. They can do that by getting “the fat cats to put a little back.” But, is that really the problem with health care and health insurance in America? Fat cats? Or, do we need to give the market the right incentives and low income people sufficient purchasing power to exercise choice? Obama didn’t say.

Obama seemed to promise that every child can have a quality education by just giving the teachers the resources they need to do it. Do we need to introduce competition into public schools by giving people school vouchers and charter school choices. Obama has said, at times, he would consider vouchers—and on other occasions that he favors charter schools. But, he didn’t discuss any of that today. Perhaps, that is because charter schools and vouchers are very much disliked by teachers’ unions, and perhaps by unions in general. Today’s crowd would not be the place for Obama to discuss Charter Schools, not if he wanted a lot of applause.

Blacks and women who are not paid as much as whites and men can catch up by organizing through unions, Obama seemed to say. This is standard liberal fare. It does not hold up very well at the Harvard or University of Chicago economics departments, but Obama graduated from the Harvard Law School and taught at the University of Chicago Law School, staying away from economics departments. However, Obama must know that a great portion, if not all, of those race and gender pay differentials have to do with education and skill disparities, and are not best fixed by unions. Nevertheless, even if Obama agrees, this wouldn’t be the time or place to say that.

Finally, Obama went out of his way to return fire at Republican Presidential candidates McCain and Romney for their criticism that he was not supporting the troops. Obama would remind his critics that he has grieved with parents whose kids made the ultimate sacrifice and he has visited those severely injured while in Iraq. However, Obama then closed with “let’s put politics and rhetoric aside and show we support the troops by bring them home.” For more on the Obama- McCain/Romney dust-up, see, below and go here.

Most of today's speech by Obama should work well in the Democrat Presidential Primary-- and Obama continues to have a good shot at beating Hillary and certainly anybody else in that race. As to the general election, that could be tougher. Only 13% of the people in this country are represented by unions. How much do you want to play to unions come November, 2008? Even if they did "bring him to the dance," as Obama told the union activists today.

Senator McCain spent more than five years in a POW camp in then North Vietnam and more than two decades in the military, often putting his life on the line for this country. And, he has visited with quite a few grieving parents. How much does Obama want to show his military strength to the electorate at large by telling McCain and the country that he displays his support for the troops, who are still fighting, by saying, “Bring them home now,”—before they have had a chance to make the new policy in Iraq work?

Of course, none of that concerns Barack Obama now. All of the above are issues for the general election. First, he has to win the primary. Who could disagree with that?

But don’t rely on this reporter. Take a listen, below, to Barack Obama, in his own words, speaking today before the CBTU convention at the Hyatt Regency in the Chicago Loop, at high noon for about a half hour:
****************************************************
We don’t need to save money by making nurses work longer hours…we need to save money by making sure that those who are getting fat off the system right now are putting a little bit back so that every single American has health insurance in this country and we can stop having children sent to the emergency room for treatable illnesses, like asthma, we can do this.

[Teachers] want to do right by their children. That’s why they went into teaching. I don’t know any teachers who went into teaching to get rich. …We’ve got to give them the resources to do it and if we do there is no reason why every child in America can’t get a decent education and we’ll make that happen when I am President of the United States.
***********************************************
If we organize, we can do more for the millions of Americans who are being left behind in today’s economy. We know that African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as the national average. Those who are employed earned about $13,000 a year less than white Americans, with African-American women earning just 66 cents for every dollar that a white man earns. What’s worse, nearly a quarter of all black families live below the poverty line. That is unacceptable. That is un-American, it has got to change. And, what you are doing right here at CTBU is part of the answer…Thanks in part to the work that you do…one in every five black workers now belongs to a union. And, those who do earn 40% more than those who don’t. We’ve got to make the union movement stronger in this country. We need to have the Employees Free Choice Act so that workers can get organized without intimidation.
**********************************************
By the way, if we organize, we can start ending this war in Iraq. Now, you guys know, because some of you all were there, that I opposed this war in 2002. I knew back then that it was going to cost us billions of dollars. I said then it was going to cost us thousands of lives. I said then publicly that this would make us less safe and distract us from the job of hunting down Al Qaeda and capturing the terrorists…and in January I put in a bill that said it is time to bring our troops home and it is time to redeploy our troops out of Iraq…and [Bush] had an opportunity to sign [a bill that would do that]. We were one signature away from bringing this war to a close—A war that is costing us 275 million dollars a day—money that we could be investing right here in Chicago …and in Los Angeles and in New York—investing in hospitals and in schools and giving workers a decent opportunity in life. We were one signature away and George Bush said no.
*******************************************
Last night, I voted to give our country and our troops a new policy in Iraq that would end this War once and for all and today, apparently, because I rejected George Bush’s approach, John McCain and Mitt Romney thought they could score some political points. They said I don’t support the war on Terror. They said I don’t support the troops. Well, let me tell you something: When I talk to mothers who are grieving for their lost children. When I visit Walter Reed and see 18 and 19 and 20 year olds who lost an arm or a leg, I know the toll of this war.

And, what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric—they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course that we are on in Iraq is working-- I do not. And if there was ever a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flak jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side so he could stroll through the market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago for a "photo op." That’s the truth in Iraq. The truth is this war has cost us thousands of lives, made us less safe in the world, and resulted in a resurgence of al-Qaeda.

It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm. So, let’s put aside the fear mongering and let’s put aside the rhetoric and let’s put aside the politics and let’s come together and say all of us support the troops and the way we are going to show we support the troops is by starting to bring some of them home. That’s our message to George Bush. That’s our message to John McCain. That’s our message to Mitt Romney. That’s our message to Republicans in Congress…these are the challenges we can meet, if we organize. That’s what this campaign is all about, working together to bring change to this country… We won’t just win an election but we can transform a country…we can do this…
**********************************************************
U.S. Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, CBTU Annual Convention, May 25, 2007, Chicago, IL
***********************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
******************

May Winners: Speaker Mike, Pat Quinn, Tom Cross and Lisa Madigan

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune columnist and one of the creators of the Chicago blog movement, is a guest panelist this morning on WBEZ FM 91.5's "Month in Review,” which will air live at 9 a.m. on the "848" program.

One of the categories of “Month in Review,” is always "Winner of the month." And Zorn says he is having trouble thinking of nominees. Indeed, he is having so much trouble that he solicited, on his blog, names of state or local public figures who come to mind who “had a fabulous May, 2007” [See here].

It might be hard to come up with names of those who had a FABULOUS May, but not so hard to come up with clear May winners. No doubt, part of the problem Zorn is having relates to his core liberal views. Liberals, almost always, are convinced that governments, anywhere, anytime, of any type, should all have increased spending. On the state and local level, the governments can’t print money and borrowing only goes so far, so ultimately that means raising taxes—especially since libs are not very into supply side economics and incentives.

Since the Governor’s Gross Receipts Tax (“GRT”) is a bust, Ralph Martire’s [and his merry band of big taxers] tax swap seems to be faltering badly, and other proposals for an increase in state taxes, e.g., Civic Committee of the Commercial Club and the Civic Federation [so called business groups] are also coming up empty, there appears to be no increase in state taxes on the horizon. No increase in state taxes means no major increase in state spending and thus the mainstream media, including the Tribune’s Zorn, the Sun-Times’ Cindy Richards and Carol Marin, the Tribune’s and The Sun-Times edit boards and the rest of the liberals in Chicago would tell you—there are no winners in May.
But, that’s not true. Four easy winners come to mind: Speaker Mike Madigan, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Republican State House Leader Tom Cross and Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Winner, Speaker Mike

Speaker Mike has only two goals in life: Keep the State House Democratic so he can stay Speaker and advance the career of his daughter, Lisa Madigan—probably by helping her move from Attorney General to Governor, although he might settle for moving her to the U. S. Senate as an interim step.

The Speaker has a 66-52 Democratic majority and the budget session has been good for his majority and him so far. Speaker Mike said he wanted a power rate freeze, in part to protect his reps who might face some angry constituents over the dramatic increases in their electric and gas bills. He won’t get the freeze but he will get substantial relief from the power companies for various segments of consumers, and that relief may help some of the Democratic incumbents of the House—who might be in need of help.


The Speaker does not think a major tax increase would help him keep his majority and he also does not think it would be good for the state's economy. He does think an expansion of gaming would provide a revenue stream for a state capital budget-which he wants-- and he will get more gaming and the budget. The capital budget will be good for his members and for keeping a majority. Not raising taxes will be good for the Illinois economy, which will be good for the Speaker- which will be good for Lisa, should she run for Governor in 2010. That is, Lisa will be given credit for the good deeds of her father.

Winner Pat Quinn

Records from Governor Blagojevich’s campaign were subpoenad by the
Feds this week, moving Lt. Gov. Quinn one step closer to the Governor’s office if the Governor is indicted and especially if he is convicted. It is always nicer to be placed in office, as opposed to actually having to win an election. Also, Quinn did a nice job of disassociating himself from the GRT, proposing instead that the state government close corporate income tax loopholes. And, Speaker Mike's caucus much prefers closing corporate tax loopholes to proposals to raise other taxes.

Winner Tom Cross

Republican State House Leader Tom Cross has done a nice job of keeping his House Republican Caucus together this month, as they made it clear that nobody in that caucus would support a tax increase. Cross has also stated he was open to gaming expansion as a means to provide a revenue source for a capital budget. The Democrats will be happy to deal Cross in—because he represents a reliable, united caucus and they may want to spread any blame for gaming expansion among the Rs, as well.

By doing well as Republican House Leader, Cross continues to position himself well for a Guv run in 2010.

Winner Lisa Madigan

As Lisa’s father, Speaker Mike, has his reputation grow and broaden [See above], so does Lisa's grow. A win for Mike is a win for Lisa; Like father, like daughter.
*****************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. You may also watch "Public Affairs," shows with Presidential Candidates Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Cox and many other pols at www.PublicAffairsTv.com
******************

Senators Rutherford and Watson, the wrong match ups for Romney and McCain, respectively?

Yesterday, Senator Dan Rutherford [R-Pontiac] was named to Chair the Mitt Romney for President campaign in Illinois. The press notice from the Romney campaign said that Mitt Romney was “looking forward to working with [Rutherford] to end the status quo and bring conservative principles back to the federal government." [See here].

But, two days ago, Rutherford and his “conservative principles,” became separated, at least on one piece of legislation. The good Senator was one of four Republican state senators to vote for legislation [HB1347] designed to protect above market-wage union contracts with schools, i.e., to block a school’s efforts to lower costs by outsourcing jobs that range from security and transportation to food service and maintenance work. See here and here.

Under the legislation, which has now passed the House and Senate, firms would have to offer the same pay, health and retirement options as the school districts that hire them. Opponents say if outside vendors have to pay more, they would pass on the costs to the school districts, ending the financially beneficial deals that school districts make when privatizing or outsourcing these services. Further, the legislation requires contractors to offer work to any school district employees who lose their jobs because of outsourcing. See here.

The proponents of this legislation might have been more honest about their intentions if they had stated, simply, that they sought to prohibit all outsourcing by public schools. Yet, this is the bill for which Romney’s chief honcho in Illinois, Sen. Rutherford, voted.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has expressed support for means-tested vouchers – through which households below a particular threshold receive vouchers of equal value – that would fund student attendance at public or private schools, including religious schools. [See here].

Doesn’t sound like Mitt would be a fan of banning outsourcing in public schools. Mitt Romney, meet your Illinois Chairman, Sen. Rutherford.

Further, one of three other Republican State Senators who supported HB 1347 was Senate Republican minority leader Frank Watson [R-Greenville], who along with Rep. Jim Durkin, is co-chairing the McCain for President campaign in Illinois. Senator John McCain, on the other hand, supports school vouchers that would allow students to attend public or private schools, including religious schools.[See here].

Who knows, maybe Senators Rutherford and Watson support vouchers, too? Maybe they just don’t like outsourcing? Maybe. I wouldn’t bet on it, but it could be. In an effort to be fairandbalanced, calls were made to the offices of Senators Watson and Rutherford to get their comments and response to the above. Neither was available and neither returned this reporter's calls.
**************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Durkin on "Springfield end game," and "Good and Bad McCain": Cable and Streaming

State Rep. Jim Durkin: …John McCain has said he would rather lose an election than lose a war. And, remember, he has two young sons. One is in the marines and the other is—
***************************************
State Rep. Jim Durkin: My prediction is that we will leave Springfield the end of May with a “no growth,” budget and that we will perhaps get called in for some type of special session during the summer, which will allow the parties to negotiate, I hope they engage the House and Senate Republicans
***************************************
This week’s suburban edition of Public Affairs features State Rep. Jim Durkin [R-Western Springs], who gave up his eight year state house seat to run in and win a tough, three candidate Republican U. S. Senate primary in 2002, and then ran unsuccessfully against first-term Democrat Incumbent, Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]. Durkin, of Counsel at Wildman Harrold, won a state house seat again last year and is also now the Co-Chair of Senator John McCain’s Illinois Presidential Campaign.

The show with Rep. Durkin was taped on May 20, 2007.

The airing schedule for the suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” is included, below.
**************************************************************************
The show with Durkin also airs through-out the City of Chicago this coming Monday night at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
***********************************************************
You may also watch the show with Rep. Durkin on your computer at PublicAffairsTV.com. In addition to the Durkin show, additional recent shows posted on our video podcast site are shows featuring (1) Roberto Maldonado, a Cook County Commissioner who is running in the 4th CD Democratic Primary in 2008 and (2) Political and Corporate Campaign Consultant Dan Curry. The show with Curry will air next week in the suburbs [contrary to what is stated here, and that post also includes more information about Curry and his guest appearance on "Public Affairs"].
****************************************************
PublicAffairsTV also has our shows with Presidential candidates Obama, Giuliani, McCain and Cox, as well as many other pols.
*******************************************************
Durkin Background:

State Rep. Jim Durkin, a John Marshall Law School grad, worked for a year in the Illinois Attorney General's office and then five years as an Assistant State's Attorney under then State’s Attorney Jack O'Malley. Durkin, in 1995, was appointed to a seat in the Illinois House of Representatives, giving him a short-lived taste of what life was like in the majority. [Speaker Mike Madigan and the Democrats have held the Illinois State House for more than a quarter century, except for 1995-96, when Speaker Mike “took a coffee break,” so to speak].

Durkin show topics:

State Rep. Durkin discusses and debates with show host and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz alternative tax increases being proposed by the Democratic Party leadership, who have substantial majorities in the Illinois House and Senate. Those Democratic Party leaders are considering ways to resolve the substantial and competing education, mass transit, health insurance, capital budget and pension funding wishes of their various constituencies.

Budget Revenue Alternatives, aka the Legislative Liberals' Field of Dreams?:

The alternatives to deal with these budget issues being considered by the Democratic Party leaders include increases in the income and general sales taxes, imposition of a gross receipts tax on virtually all transactions, final and intermediate [the Blagojevich dream], an increase in the income tax accompanied by a much smaller decrease in the property tax [Ralph Martire’s dream, HB750], an expansion of the sales tax to include services, closing of corporate income tax loopholes [another Martire Dream], lease of the lottery/pension bond arbitrage scheme [Illinois COO John Filan's dream] or an expansion of gaming [Rep. Lang's dream].

No Growth Budget:

An emerging Democratic plan, assuming none of the above tax or expansion of gaming plans can be worked out by May 31, 2007, would be to adopt a "maintenance or no growth budget,” by the end of May, which would be supplemented during this coming summer. This Springfield concoction is aka Illinois’ version of Pay as you Go, or government on the installment plan.

House Republicans: Read my lips, no new taxes.

The Republicans purport to have a strategy for winning back some House seats [under minority leader Tom Cross] in 2008 and part of the strategy, according to Rep. Durkin, is to focus on downstate seats. Others, and perhaps Rep. Durkin, say the strategy also requires that the Republicans all decline to support any tax increases. The Democrats under Speaker Mike Madigan currently enjoy a 66-52 margin over the Republicans. In the Senate, under Senate President Emil Jones, it is a veto proof 37-22 margin for the Dems.

Speaker Mike and Houli butt heads on Assessment Caps:

Additional topics discussed include Speaker Mike Madigan's and various pols' efforts to renegotiate, legislatively, the Energy Industry de-reg deal [or energy industry restructuring, as Exelon honcho John Rowe would have it] of a decade ago and to return to a "freeze of electric power and natural gas rates," at their 1996-2006 levels, to impose a big tax on energy producers/generators and/or to require or induce substantial discounts be given to certain classes of customers by Ameren and Comed; Cook County Assessor Houlihan's and other pols' efforts to legislate caps on real estate assessments in Cook County [resisted by Speaker Mike] and whether Dems want Republicans to have some power to affect the final outcome regarding spending and tax decisions for the coming fiscal year [spreading the blame for a tax increase].

Clash of Houlihan and Business:

Also discussed is whether the proposed caps on residential real estate assessments would hurt commercial and industrial interests in Cook County, would help real estate tax appeal lawyers, e.g., Speaker Mike Madigan and would continue to drive business out of Cook County.

McCain: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?

Finally, the program’s dialogue includes a discussion of Rep. Durkin's role in the McCain campaign for President, whether there is a “good and bad,” John McCain, McCain's votes against the Bush tax cuts, the political and public policy implications and consequences of McCain's strong support for the Iraq war and much, much more.
**********************************************
A partial transcript of the Durkin show is included, below.
*************************************
State Rep. Jim Durkin: My prediction is that we will leave Springfield the end of May with a “no growth,” budget and that we will perhaps get called in for some type of special session during the summer, which will allow the parties to negotiate, I hope they engage the House and Senate Republicans- the Democrats have kept us out of the mix the over last few years. But, we’re part of the process.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, a maintenance budget to keep things at the current levels and then consider raising them in terms of taxes, spending and reforms, after that?

State Rep. Jim Durkin: Well, we’ll see what they have to say.

Jeff Berkowitz: After May 31?

State Rep. Jim Durkin: After May 31 [2007], correct.

Jeff Berkowitz: And… if the budget goes over, after May 31, that requires a three fifths vote for legislation to pass?

State Rep. Jim Durkin: Three fifths. It requires participation [by Republicans] out of the House.

Jeff Berkowitz: …If you have a supplemental budget [after May 31], will all of those things require a three fifths vote?

State Rep. Jim Durkin: It would require a three fifths vote if it was going to have an effective date that [fiscal] year, before June, 2008.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Some Democrats tell me that it may be a good idea [for them] to get some Republicans to put some skin in the game. That is, make it three fifths, require some Republican support, and that way nobody can run around blaming Democrats…if there is a tax increase, you can’t blame just the Democrats because the Republicans would be a part of it. Have you heard that strategy. Do you think the Democrats are thinking that way?

State Rep. Jim Durkin: I am sure they are thinking that way, trying to see how they can get us on the Board but I don’t see it happening. I think all of us in the House, the House Republicans, that we’re pretty united, as I said earlier-- we’re not going to support any tax increases.

Jeff Berkowitz: Even going forward, after this maintenance budget.

Rep. Jim Durkin: No, absolutely not. I don’t see it happening.

Jeff Berkowitz: In the House.

Rep. Jim Durkin: I don’t see it happening. I don’t see where—

Jeff Berkowitz: There are some [Republican tax increasers] in the Senate, you realize that?

Rep. Jim Durkin: Well, apparently, somebody [a Republican] was sitting in this seat some time ago who said they would support it [an increase in taxes]

Jeff Berkowitz: Yes, Senator Syverson. Well, what about people like Senator Bomke and others downstate—you know those folks have…a little higher tolerance for taxes than you seem to have?

Rep. Jim Durkin: Well, there are some geographical differences that individuals have and I think it probably translates into a difference of opinion into how the budget should be operated and how we should get to the budget.
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: I think it was Bob Novak who said that God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes. Do you agree with Novak? Was McCain almost going against the Bible in the Republican Party when he opposed the Bush tax cuts?

Rep. Jim Durkin: At that time, Senator McCain’s comments were, “We cannot afford them at this point in our life.” At this time, he thinks that the tax cuts have been working and with all things considered, we should not go back and reverse tax cut policy…people do make some mistakes at times but the fact is that I think he has explained himself.

Jeff Berkowitz: He more than anybody else in that top six [of candidates for President]-- certainly relative to the three top tier Democrats-- but even relative to the two other Republicans in that top tier, has supported the War in Iraq. He has been critical of the management of the War, but he has supported it, he continues to support it. He says the surge will work…most would say the War was the reason why the Republicans lost the House and the Senate, nationally, so McCain, with that deep commitment to the War in Iraq, can he win the Presidency?

Rep. Jim Durkin: …John McCain has said he would rather lose an election than lose a war. And, remember, he has two young sons. One is in the marines and the other is—

Jeff Berkowitz: Is that what is going to happen now? Is he going to lose the election because of his commitment to the War in Iraq?

Rep. Jim Durkin: If he is, it means so be it. I think this is a man who is extremely principled, who loves his Country, but also believes the consequences of pulling out of Iraq are greater for this Country, as opposed to walking out and getting some stability and bringing some stability to the Middle-East, particularly to Iraq. That is something he is staking his career on. But, the thing is this is a personal decision he has made. As he said earlier, this is not about politics. He believes this is what is right for this country.
***************************************************
State Rep. Jim Durkin [R-Western Springs], as he is airing this week on Public Affairs in 35 Chicago Metro suburbs [See below for the suburban airing schedule] and as will be airing on Monday, May 28, 2007 [Memorial Day, 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21, CANTV] on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs and on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 7:30 pm on Aurora Community Television, on Comcast Cable Ch. 10 in Aurora and some surrounding areas. The show was recorded on May 20, 2007.[You may also go here to watch Rep. Durkin on PublicAffairsTV.com].
***************************************************
In twenty-five North Shore, North and Northwest suburbs, the "Public Affairs," show airs every Tuesday night in the regular weekly Public Affairs slot, 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19 or 35, as indicated, below.

In ten North Shore suburbs, the Public Affairs show airs three times each week in its regular slots at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Ch. 19, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as indicated, below. ******************************************************
The suburban episode of Public Affairs with guest State Rep. Jim Durkin 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 this week on Monday night, 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
******************

Better than Sopranos: 4th CD candidate Roberto Maldonado: Cable and Streaming

Jeff Berkowitz: You support ROTC-Reserve Officer Training in high schools?
****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you like those charter schools.

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I like the charter schools.

Jeff Berkowitz: How about just giving parents $8,000 or $9,000. We spend about $12,000 per kid per year [in the Chicago Public Schools].
***********************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs features Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado [D-Chicago]. The show airs through-out the City at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. Maldonado is also one of half dozen 4th CD Democratic Primary candidates—who have either declared their candidacy or are thought to be considering a run on February 5, 2008. Cong. Luis Gutierrez is stepping down in 2008 after 16 years in that seat and most think that the winner in the Democratic Primary in the 8th CD is virtually certain to win the general election.
[See here] for more about Commissioner Maldonado, tonight’s show topics and the 4th CD race.
**********************************************
We applaud and admire Commissioner Maldonado for being the first 4th CD candidate to come on our show and face tough questioning on issues ranging from County Board President Todd Stroger’s performance to education to taxes to the War. Some of the other candidates [or potential candidates] have been less courageous when it comes to telling voters, in the context of vigorous questioning, what they think. Perhaps they much prefer softballs and mushballs to hardballs and, if so, they should be judged by the voters accordingly.
***********************************************************
You may also watch the show with Comm. Maldonado on your computer at PublicAffairsTV.com. In addition to the Maldonado show, additional recent shows posted on our video podcast site are shows featuring (1) State Rep. Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) [who is also co-chairing, with Senator Frank Watson, the McCain for President campaign in Illinois] and (2) Political and Corporate Campaign Consultant Dan Curry. The show with Durkin is airing this week in the suburbs and the show with Curry will air next week in the suburbs [contrary to what is stated here, but which also includes more information about Curry and the show].
****************************************************
PublicAffairsTV also has our shows with Presidential candidates Obama, Giuliani and McCain, as well as many other pols.
*******************************************************
A partial transcript of tonight’s City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs, featuring Commissioner Maldonado, is included directly below. Another partial transcript of the show is included here.
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: We’ve had four months, maybe five months, of [Cook County Board President] Todd Stroger, have we had too much of Todd Stroger or too little? Should we have more or less of Todd?

Roberto Maldonado, Cook County Commissioner [D-Chicago] and 4th CD Democratic Primary Candidate: Well, I am very disappointed at his Presidency. I felt and I sensed that he was going to be a very much more hands-on President, engaging himself very deeply into the ins and outs of County Government and we have not seen that…I have to say that I voted against his first proposed budget...
******************************************
Comm. Roberto Maldonado: …our undocumented workers who reside in Cook County—they pay sales taxes and many of them pay property taxes…
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Should we have more or fewer military careers for Hispanics? Is that a good thing or a bad thing: Military careers for Hispanics?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Oh, sure-- I support that and—

Jeff Berkowitz: You support ROTC-Reserve Officer Training in high schools?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Yes, I support the ROTC.

Jeff Berkowitz: Because there are some people who say they shouldn’t be there. They have taken ROTC out of some schools. You disagree with those folks?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: When I was an undergrad student in Puerto Rico, I was against it. Today, I have a much more open mind and I support it.

Jeff Berkowitz: You’ve gotten wiser with the years?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Much wiser. Yes. And, plus, it is a great exposure to our kids where they can learn discipline. This is a great skill that they can take with them, as they go thru life.
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …would you end this [Iraq] War in October of 2007.

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I would support starting to bring our troops home.

Jeff Berkowitz: Would you leave any troops there?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Yes, I would. Of course.

Jeff Berkowitz: How many troops?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I don’t know. I don’t know how many troops but we need to have a presence—

Jeff Berkowitz: Two, two hundred, two thousand—

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I really don’t know. But, I think we should work with the leadership of Iraq to see what kind of presence we need to have in Iraq.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: If somebody is earning $200,000, would you take away their tax cuts?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: If they are earning $150,000, a family, would you take away their tax cuts?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: No.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, that’s the cut-off, $150,000- where they can keep their tax cuts?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Yes.
*********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Education.

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: You’d like to see some school choice-school vouchers?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: Well, yes, you know why? Because, in the Latino community, there has—although at the beginning I was very much against it because I thought that funding for public education should go directly to our public school system. But, we have learned that in the Latino community the charter school approach has been very effective.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you like those charter schools.

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I like the charter schools.

Jeff Berkowitz: How about just giving parents $8,000 or $9,000. We spend about $12,000 per kid per year [in the Chicago Public Schools].

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I would rather stay with the charter school.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, you are not going to reject school vouchers? That might be something you would consider?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: No, I think that we have to perfect first the charter schools.

Jeff Berkowitz: But, would you consider school vouchers?

Comm. Roberto Maldonado: I would, but way after we perfect the charter school system.
*********************************************************
Public Affairs, taped on May 6, 2007.
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

A possible Durbin-Bush Iraq War Funding Deal?

Jeff Berkowitz: As you know, the news reported today that the Iraq War funding meeting attended by House Speaker Pelosi, House Minority Leader Boehner, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton and others was characterized by the attendees as “disappointing,” but that the Bush Administration is now willing to accept a tying of a loss of financial assistance to the Iraqi government if they don’t meet political and military milestones. Is that your understanding [of the Bush administration offer] and would that be sufficient to resolve the war funding issue?

Senator Dick Durbin: We have made some progress. For a long time, the situation was that the Bush Administration was not holding the Iraqi government accountable and now benchmarks [would] hold them accountable. The question is, if they fail, what’s the price? There comes a point where the United States has to acknowledge the obvious. As our generals tell us, we cannot win this by military means. It will take a political solution. If the Iraqis can’t summon the political will to deal with the situation, it’s just unfair to leave our soldiers in the crossfire of this war indefinitely, so the important question now is—with benchmarks, what price will the Iraqis pay if they fail to meet them.

Jeff Berkowitz: What price do you think you would require during negotiations in order to continue funding the Iraq War?

Senator Dick Durbin: The most obvious thing that the Bush administration may accept is that we would cut-off the economic aid to the Iraqis if they don’t make the important political decisions. I would go further. We have been in this War almost four years. They have promised us deadlines and timetables over and over again that they have failed to meet. There comes a point when we say to them, “that’s it. Our soldiers are going to start to leave. At this point, the Iraqi soldiers have to stand up to defend their own country.”

Jeff Berkowitz: Roughly, what does that amount to, in terms of economic aid that would be cut-off?

Senator Dick Durbin: You know, there is so much. At this point, the President is asking for two billion dollars, but there are so many billions that we have given them in the past that are just backed up in accounts that they are unable to spend. You know they can’t provide the basics in this country because they can’t resolve the civil war. As long as this war is going on and they are blowing up electric power stations, the people of Baghdad don’t have electricity; [they have] no chance to work and they are unhappy. So, unless and until they deal with their civil war-- their internal struggle—all the American money in the world is not going to solve this problem.
****************************************************
Senator Dick Durbin, interviewed after a World Vision, One Campaign Water for Life Rally held after work on May 18, 2007 in the Federal Plaza, Chicago Loop [See here]. Speaking at the rally [attended by more than a hundred, mostly young adults] were Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky [D-Evanston, 9th CD], Senator Durbin [D-IL] and others. Live music by the Giving Tree Band. Shades of Monterey Pop, almost forty years ago, with Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix et al. Okay, not quite, but still, pretty good music for early Friday evening in the Loop. Maybe even good to dance to, I'd give them an "85."
*************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Chris Matthews: “Hillary’s equally dishonest.”

Jeff Berkowitz: What’s your main problem with the Clintons? It’s not just with Bill Clinton, is it?

Chris Matthews[MSNBC’s Hardball]: I think the problem that Clinton has, intrinsically, is basic dishonesty. I think that’s it. He is unusually dishonest.

Jeff Berkowitz: Wasn’t it Bob Kerrey who said [Bill Clinton] is an unusually good liar, right?

Chris Matthews: And, he is unusually good at it, that’s the scary part. I think sometimes when Clinton would say things like, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” he was more credible saying that, which is really scary, than some of these things that he said that were true. So, I think he’s—I think he could pass a lie detector test. He’s pretty amazing. A smart guy.

Jeff Berkowitz: You’d say the same thing about Hillary. You don’t like Hillary, right?

Chris Matthews: I think she’s more—well, she’s equally dishonest, I think, but, she’s—she at least has an ideology. She has a lot of guts to run for Senate from New York. That took a lot of guts. She could have taken a big fall, if she had lost that one. It says something good about her. [[See here] for Matthews on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency. And, [See here] for a Scooter Libby juror's explanation to Matthews that closing arguments at a trial are not evidence and the Bush Administration was not on trial in the Libby case.]
**************************************************
MSNBC Hardball's Chris Matthews, interviewed on “Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz,” on November 8, 2001.
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Dan Curry: Giuliani beats Hillary in ’08; Iraq- Some sort of democracy

Jeff Berkowitz: Iraq is unstable now. I just don’t see your argument as to how the world and this country are better off now than they were five years ago.

Dan Curry: Well, I think because we had to change the dynamic in the Middle East. And, there is a chance that Iraq will turn into some sort of democracy.

Jeff Berkowitz: You think?
*********************************
Dan Curry, President of Curry Public Strategies, Inc. is featured in next week’s suburban edition of "Public Affairs." Curry was a Democratic mainstream journalist [using a redundant adjective he would say] for fifteen years before going over to the political or government side. His journalism career included more than a decade of investigative and political reporting at Chicago’s suburban Daily Herald.

Curry worked in communications for Illinois' Republican Attorney General Jim Ryan for eight years [including Ryan’s 1998 AG re-election campaign and his 2002 run for Governor] and U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald [R-IL] for the last two years of his senate term-- and now for a number of other Republicans, as well as corporations and private individuals. Curry’s specialty is strategic communication in the corporate, political and media worlds.

Curry is not necessarily backing anyone for President at this point, but he did pick a winner in an episode of “Public Affairs,” which we taped last night. You may read a partial transcript of the show, below, and the show is soon to be posted at PublicAffairsTv.com, so you can watch it on your computer. At that same site, you may also watch shows with Senators Obama and McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Congresswoman Bean [D-Barrington] and many other pols, including 4th CD 2008 Democratic Party Primary candidate and Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado [Chicago].

You can find more of the articulate, thoughtful and often provocative political and public policy comments of Dan Curry and those he likes at reversespin.com.
********************************************************
Dan Curry: In the absence of us going in there [Iraq], what was going to happen in the Middle East? It wasn’t trending in our direction.

Jeff Berkowitz: It was. The thinking was you had inspectors there. They [Saddam] seemed to be contained. They found no WMD, apparently because there were none. And, so you had a “not good guy,” Saddam Hussein [running things]. We have "not good guys," all around the world and we generally have not adopted the policy (I keep saying “we”; the United States has not adopted the policy) of going around and removing every bad guy.

Dan Curry: Well, the difference is—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, how was he more dangerous than a number of other bad guys? Was he more dangerous than Iran? I don’t think so.

Dan Curry: The difference now—

Jeff Berkowitz: Was he more dangerous than North Korea? I don’t think so.

Dan Curry: The difference now is that these radical Islamic terrorists—they are running around in a lot of the countries of the Middle East, a lot of the countries of Europe, they want to blow up our cities. It is a lot easier to do than—

Jeff Berkowitz: They still want to do that now. And, you—

Dan Curry: They didn’t want to do it back in Vietnam [Curry is referring to an earlier segment of the show dealing with the Vietnam War] —

Jeff Berkowitz: No, but they still want to do that and the government you supported has probably created, in the next few years, a safe haven [for Al Qaeda in the Sunni portion of Iraq] to do it.

Dan Curry: See, here is a part of history that people forget. David Kay, the guy that the media loves to quote because he said [after doing a thorough search in Iraq in the last half 2003] there were no WMD-- In that report, he also said Iraq, when we went in there and looked at it, was far more dangerous than we ever thought because it was very unstable and there was the ability of a lot of groups to move around and join with other groups.

Jeff Berkowitz: It is all that now.

Dan Curry: What?

Jeff Berkowitz: It is all that now.

Dan Curry: Well, it is.

Jeff Berkowitz: It is unstable now. I just don’t see your argument as to how the world and this country are better off now than they were five years ago.

Dan Curry: Well, I think because we had to change the dynamic in the Middle East. And, there is a chance that Iraq will turn into some sort of democracy.

Jeff Berkowitz: You think?

Dan Curry: Yes, I think—

Jeff Berkowitz: You still think there is a chance?

Dan Curry: I think there is a chance. Some kind of functioning democracy. Absolutely.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you think it might turn out okay…you think the troops are going to be withdrawn pretty much in a year?

Dan Curry: No.
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …November, 2008. In that election, a week before, how many troops will be in Iraq in November, 2008, a week before the general election in the United States. Give me a ballpark figure?

Dan Curry: Oh, roughly, probably the same number [as now]. You know, it’s hard to say.

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay, the same number. So, you are saying somehow Bush muddles through, he get funds, somehow this happens and then there is an election—Iraq definitely is the issue…and, you are sitting here and predicting Rudy Giuliani beats Hillary Clinton in a tough presidential contest [Did Giuliani win the South Carolina Debate? See here and here].

Dan Curry: Well, I think there is a chance we are going to have some success. You know, [General] David Petreus is an expert—

Jeff Berkowitz: So, there will be success [in Iraq] and Giuliani wins? That’s what you are telling me?

Dan Curry: Right now, you have—the country—there is a ten point Democratic tilt in generic [preference of voters for Democrats over Republicans].

Jeff Berkowitz: Yeah, some say fifteen points, you say ten?

Dan Curry: Ten or fifteen.

Jeff Berkowitz: People generally favor the Democrats to Republicans.

Dan Curry: But, then you look at the horse races with the top people [Presidential candidates from each Party] and it’s a dead heat.

Jeff Berkowitz: Yes, it’s a real mystery, isn’t it?

Dan Curry: It’s because, I think, the Republicans have stronger candidates [for President].
***************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

McCain, Giuliani and Romney: Win, Place and Show at the South Carolina debate

In terms of attracting voters, McCain won the Debate. He won because he came across as sincere--and seemed like the kind of guy you would trust to be President, and yes, a Republican President. He could and would reach across the aisle, which he assured the Republican voters—is what the voters across the country want.

McCain looked younger than he has when shown recently on debates or on other events on TV. The 70 year old McCain looked like he had the energy to run, win and govern as President. Giuliani scored some points, but not as many as McCain. Romney came in third—he just seems to lack sincerity. When challenged by the moderators for his flip-flops, Romney’s answers were unconvincing.

And, there was no real movement by the other seven candidates. It would be hard for anyone to break out of that pack and move into the top tier, and that surely did not happen on Tuesday night.

McCain reminded Republicans that he is enough of a conservative for them to trust him. Yes, he wants immigration reform, but one that includes real border control, a temporary worker program with a tamper proof biometric document. Yes, he favors McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, but who doesn’t think there is too much money in politics, he asked, noting also—“some of which ended up corrupting our own party.” And, he only opposed the Bush tax cuts because the Republicans didn’t restrain federal spending. Now, he wants to cut federal spending and keep the Bush tax cuts in place--Senator McCain argued at the debate.

And when ripped by Mitt Romney, who argued he was afraid McCain- Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold had done to campaign finance—McCain shot back he [unlike Romney] did not change his views on even number years or depending on what position he was seeking. And, McCain reminded the Republican stalwarts he has always been Pro-Life.

Giuliani seemed surer of himself on defending his "social issue," positions than he did in the last debate. He emphasized that while Mayor, abortions declined 16 percent and adoptions increased 133 per cent. Giuliani argued, “Everyone on this stage, including most Democrats, could probably very, very usefully spend a lot of time figuring out how we can reduce abortion [without making it illegal].”

Giuliani said the focus of immigration reform should be to know everybody who is in the U. S. He said, “We should have a tamper proof ID card; we should have a database in which we can identify the people who are in this country.” Rudy also said we need a fence. He emphasized, not unlike McCain, “we need a way that people who are working in this country can come forward, sign up for the tamper proof ID card, get in the database and start paying their way.”

Cong. Paul made Giuliani’s day when Cong. Paul said, “…They attacked us [on 9-11] because we had been over there and we had been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East.”

Giuliani asked the Fox questioner Wendell Goler if he could step out of the debate regiment and comment on what Cong. Paul said. Giuliani then responded to Paul, “That’s an extraordinary statement as someone who lived through the attack of September 11 that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sep. 11th."

For his part, Cong. Paul said, “ I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback.”

Notwithstanding that Cong. Paul may have had a point, Giuliani got credit, no doubt, for jumping on the exchange and coming across to the public as a leader. It was a shining moment for Giuliani but not enough to carry him past Senator McCain into first place for the evening.
*********************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************