|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Blogs for February 2006
|
2/28/2006
Today’s the Last Day to Get in on the Big GOP Lt. Gov Debate. ...at the City Club. Now that Diersen and I have pushed the Club to put it on, we only have 12 people coming, which is less than the number attending the Last Supper. Get up a party and swell the ranks at Maggiano’s at noon on March 1. Call for reservations at the Club at (312) 565-6500. Now!
| | | I’m Sorry, Eric… ...I was wrong and unfair to the Tribune by forgetting that it and you have done a lot to push an answer to the $10 million pro-bono deal from Thompson. Yes, I’d like to play your end-of-the-month game but am too stupid to understand what I have to do (call or write me).
| | | Political Shootout Next Sunday: Forrest Claypool vs. Paul Caprio. Guests on Political Shootout next Sunday (WLS-AM: 8:00 p.m.) will be Forrest Claypool, a Democratic candidate for the Cook county board and Paul Caprio, director of Family Pac, and a leading social conservative.
This Sunday’s performance by Ron Gidwitz, a Republican candidate for governor and Democratic strategist Mike Noonan convinced me that we could do a whole lot worse than having Gidwitz as governor-and in some aspects we couldn’t do better. In fact, I would wager that he could easily be the least politically self-protective, cautious and timid about cutting the budget of all the Republican candidates, impressing me that with the $100 million he has from Helene Curtis and the-what would you guess?--$400 million or so that his wife has as the daughter of Jim Kemper, that he would take great risks to do the right thing, even if he were to mean that he would serve only one term. To Ron, the challenge is not just being elected but being remembered as a great governor. He has improved his communication skills enormously from the last time he was on the program. He is still uncharismatic and nothing can change that but he may well have mastered the Dick Ogilvie knack of capitalizing on his non-charisma.
To those of my fellows who worry about his social views, I would say he’s not nearly as socially liberal as either Rod Blagojevich, Eddie Eisendrath or Judy Baar Topinka. He’s against partial birth abortion, would not be caught dead in a gay rights parade. He impresses me very much with his candor, his willingness to admit that yes, he was an insider for many years, and precisely because of that he knows the territory sufficiently well to be able to clean it up. After all, you don’t ask a minister to clean up a bawdy house, do you? At one or two points he was not particularly forthcoming but he was on Kjellander. With respect to his not remembering whether or not he gave $20,000 to George Ryan and to Daley, I suppose when you have that much money you can easily lose track. I tried to hit him with tough questions-to-wit:
o You voted for Kjellander as National Committeeman at the State convention. Yep.
o You asked for Kjellander’s support early in this race with the admonition that both of you would keep it quiet. No.
o You won’t reveal the names of investors or profits you have made from the public housing-some say slum-that you run in Joliet.
It is no slum, there are no or very slight profits. If the city of Joliet would get out of the way we could release everything. They’re blocking us.
o You gave Mayor Daley hefty contributions. Yeah, at the behest of my wife [here she nodded vigorously] and I don’t remember how much.
o Do you think Joe Birkett is in a conflict of interest by prosecuting the toll-way I-Pass responders deal in which IGOR gave large sums to Blagojevich and was rewarded by ever-spiraling state contracts-since Joe is a Republican candidate for Lt. Governor?
Yes. [Here Democrat Noonan says no]
* Do you think that Edward McNally, the acting U.S. attorney in Southern Illinois who testified as a defense witness for George Ryan is in conflict of interest? Yes, absolutely.
* Would you irrevocably declare against a tax hike now? Nope but I can’t see any reason for a hike.
* Do you think Gov. Blagojevich is right by pushing legislation to force Topinka to release hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen funds for unpaid medical bills? Nope. There are other ways to pay those bills.
* Do you think an adviser to Louis Farrakhan belongs on the governor’s hate crime panel? Absolutely not.
* Where do you come down with respect to Bush’s port deal? In favor and I think the 45-day delay will help get it through.
In addition, I met for the first time his wife, Christina Kemper Gidwitz who is a real charmer and I can understand why in her day she was a model often for the cover of Vogue. In essence, those who say the GOP is on its last legs don’t understand that a party that can muster such excellent candidates as Oberweis, Brady and Gidwitz (sorry, Judy) is far from being sick unto death.
| | |
2/27/2006
Coming Soon in this Place: Candidate Endorsements for the March Primary That’s where I make permanent enemies-but, take heart, those who don’t make out, a no endorsement can be seen as a virtue, especially in so-called “moderate” districts. You can advertise that you’re unblemished, unbought, unbossed and un-Roeser’ed. But my history has not been resolutely one-party, just socially conservative. In Minnesota, pre-Roe v. Wade, I was a good friend of Gene McCarthy, an admirer of Hubert Humphrey (his style if not his substance). In this state I voted for Democrat Glenn Poshard for governor. I only voted for Chuck Percy twice (once for governor in `64, once for the Senate in 1966 which was probably a mistake but the aging Paul Douglas, whom I regarded as integrity itself, had the annoying habit of nodding off in public meetings. On socially conservative grounds I voted for Democrat Roman Pucinski against Percy in 1972, for conservative Republican Tom Corcoran against him in the primary of 1978 and for Democrat Alex Seith in the general. I never voted for Jim Thompson-casting my ballot for Democrat Mike Howlett the first go-round, skipping the next three.
For the March 21 primary, I intend to endorse for governor only in the Republican category and with rare exceptions will stay within the party’s borders. Then there will be the congressional races. If, perchance, you want to see where I come out in legislative contests, please indicate by corresponding with the Readers Comments box. Yes, you can lobby for your own wishes there, too.
| | | The Unanswered Question: What’s Thompson Get Out of This? I must say that if we had a good investigative press-or even a reasonably curious one-we would be deluged with questions concerning the multi-million-dollar pro-bono defense of George Ryan by Jim Thompson and Winston & Strawn. Thompson put his ace rain-maker, Dan Webb on the case and he’s been working virtually full-time for at least a year-without remuneration. Which means that the partners have had their pay trimmed proportionately. My question is: what’s Thompson’s interest in all this. Oh, I don’t mean the fact that he’s a good friend of George’s. I mean: what does George have on Thompson to have placed at his disposal the massive resources of a major law-firm, free?
Any good government idea that Jim Thompson is an idealist and wishes to pursue the unblemished nuances of the law ended during Big Jim’s 4-term reign as governor when he followed the lifestyle of Suleiman the Magnificent, building that taxpayer-funded god-awful glass menagerie called The Thompson Center, supporting each and every item of the liberal Democratic agenda, promising no new taxes and cynically reneging after election ending up with the strange court decision rendered by Seymour Simon’s son that ended any possibility of a recount on the election he narrowly won from Adlai Stevenson III, wherein even Jane Byrne told me that in the 5,000-vote margin, the election could easily have been stolen. Further, any view that Thompson is ethically unchallengeable must have died with the humiliating laxity he displayed as chief of the audit committee at Hollinger where he signed off on every Conrad Black wish, enjoying hugely as he did the schmoozing of Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, his board-mates.
The latest episode with the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois testifying for George Ryan without notifying anyone that he owes a debt to Winston & Strawn was ignored by everybody except the Tribune’s John Kass. Frankly, Chicago’s media has performed much better on other things than it has on this. Ladies and gentlemen of the so-called independent media, this has looked like a massive impropriety for a long time. Unless you have been suffocated by the charm of Big Jimbo, if there isn’t an answer made to this million-dollar-plus donation of corporate in kind support Mother Teresa-like by Jim for George, there ought at least to be some recitation of it in the public prints. At the least there ought to be some estimate on how much Dan Webb would have charged plus the auxiliary legal services. Good God, questions should be asked, don’t you think?
| | |
2/25/2006
Chicago Cathedral Demonstration Backs Embattled Cardinal {Note: This is another news analysis in The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest national Catholic newspaper. As many of you may have seen in the “Readers’ Comments” on this blog, a good friend, Loyola University associate professor of theology-probably the only truly authenticist theologian at the University, frequent breakfast partner and lively conversationalist Sundays after mass at St. John Cantius--Dr. Dennis Martin, has taken serious issue with me for publishing these articles which can be viewed as critical of the Cardinal. He says I should make my views known privately to the Cardinal and not by these articles. Thus he maintains I bring harm to the church. That, to me, an orthodox believer, is a serious charge and gives me pause. But to me, the fact that the Cardinal himself says he has erred justifies these reports. As a convert, Dennis believes, strongly, that the faithful can be scandalized and some can be estranged by too public a criticism of some bishops. I think I’ll have to take my chances in the Hereafter since I believe strongly that people in the pews should have a voice in the struggle for reform, which, to my mind, these articles illustrate. You should know that of all the newspapers in the nation-religious and secular-The Wanderer was first to report demonstrable cases of abuse by certain priests and bishops extending back some 30 years. Not the National Catholic Reporter, nor the Boston Globe but this paper that some snooty Catholics believe is quaint but is really cutting-edge. I believe information is essential for the clean-up. Therefore, Dennis, I hope this doesn’t interfere with our friendship but I will continue. To readers: Your own views on this matter and Dennis’ are welcomed in “Readers’ Comments.”]
CHICAGO-For one who began last week at the bottom of the heap emotionally because of initial failed handling of a priest-abuse scandal, Francis Cardinal George was bolstered Sunday by an impromptu ad hoc demonstration of supporters crowding the steps of Holy Name Cathedral, waving home-made signs, banners and rosaries and proclaiming over bull-horn, “We love our Cardinal!”
 As all major television outlets and newspapers recorded the action, the demonstration showed powerful support for Cardinal George from congregants in the pews who are heartened because he accepted blame and has expressed contrition for recent alleged sexual improprieties by priests while unjustly criticized by a bevy of media talking heads for alleged abuses that took place some thirty years ago. Foremost in the attacks has been the city’s most powerful liberal Catholic woman, Appellate Justice Anne Burke, a fixture in the Democratic party. The low-point in the crowd’s estimation has been one very liberal pastor (worshipful of the late priest-lenient Joseph Cardinal Bernardin) who suggested that Cardinal George resign as archbishop. A rumor has circulated that the forced resignation of the Cardinal as archbishop, a gentle, humble man imbued with admirable theological and philosophical clarity, has been a goal of some who wish for an ultra-pragmatic successor in the mold of Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles.
The effrontery of the priest calling for George to step down triggered outrage among hundreds of parishioners who want an end to pedaphilia certainly, but also with long-winded television interviews from so-called survivors of alleged abuses by priests thirty years ago-which has caused suspicion in some quarters that tales of the long-ago so- called incidents may have been resurrected or invented for the benefit of expensive law-suits against the archdiocese, designed to bankrupt it. Demonstration chairman John McCartney, a retired Chicago Public Schools teacher, alluded to this in an address on the Cathedral steps. McCartney, a legendary pro-lifer leader who has been jailed for his peaceful protests before abortion clinics, declared that alleged incidents from decades past which few could attest to could cause the Catholic school system to go belly-up and strand a generation of students. His words, spoken by a decorated veteran of the Korean War who endured freezing weather while his detachment was cut-off from the main army at the Chosin Reservoir, drew warm support and cheers.
The rally was supported by Catholic Citizens of Illinois and other groups including Legatus, the organization of Catholic CEOs. The Knights of Columbus were in attendance including a number of grand knights. More than 250 chanting, singing, praying demonstrators mobilized seemingly overnight. The rally was not long-planned or done with the support or even the concurrence of the chancery. The Cathedral rector was merely told the demonstration would be held on the church steps. True to form, the creaking church bureaucracy that thinks slowly and reacts even slower, initially accepted the idea that the demonstration would be held but did not assent to it. While the bureaucracy mulled it over, planners moved ahead.
But as soon as the crowd appeared, the archdiocese decided the rally should be moved far from the public, to an auditorium at the rear of the Cathedral-par for the course given the chancery’s exquisite sense of timing. As the crowd milled around on the steps, a tight-lipped, almost hostile archdiocese female official importuned a demonstration organizer to move the crowd away from the steps. She jerked a thumb toward the auditorium and said the Cathedral rector wished the session to be held there.
“Sorry,” said the organizer, politely, “the rector’s too late. He should have thought of that three days ago.” She grimaced, walked away and re-appeared with the rector who shyly agreed it should be moved. The organizer said, “I said you should have thought of that three days ago, Father.” He gulped, nodded and moved away.
But the staffer made another futile attempt. She reappeared from the crowd and declared: “Cardinal George-the Cardinal you are supporting today now says you should move it to the Auditorium!” “Really,” the organizer said. “You got to him just like that, did you? Nope; it’s too late. The demonstration has begun on the Cathedral steps and will end there.” Movement to the auditorium would have lost the cameras and caused the rally to decline to the status of a neighborhood tea.
All the while, Chicago’s finest-the city police-fumed that the group had no parade permit. But by the standards of Mayor Richard M. Daley’s administration, if a demonstration is not a politically welcomed labor, civil rights of gay rights matter, the city would spend endless hours poring over requisite papers as winter melted into spring and early summer. One volunteer, a prominent law firm partner, said with a wink that it was better to risk a slap-on-the-wrist city censure for an unscheduled demonstration than to endure the wait for permission, recognizing that by the time of issuance Cardinal George and many of the demonstration organizers might be dead of old age by virtue of natural causes.
As the crowd cheered on the steps, it seemed to be acceptably large but someone shouted and pointed down the street to a massed parade of reinforcements, like the cavalry galloping into the last movie reel. It was priests, seminarians, deacons and parishioners from St. John Cantius, on the near west side, the city’s mother-house of authentic Catholicism, peopled by young men and women, shouting in military style “cadence-count, one-two-three-four” coming with more banners and joyous songs to join the demonstration. Yet another crowd appeared from St. Henry’s parish carrying a huge yellow and white papal banner, eliciting a shout of approval from the crowd as police and the lady from the Cathedral staff groaned. Moreover another group appeared from St. Mary of the Angels, the Opus Dei church accompanied by none other than the Most Rev. Peter Armenio, regional head of Opus Dei, who addressed the group.
A delegation from Joliet, IL showed up along with a group from Immaculate Conception parish in Chicago. Msgr. Philip Dempsey, pastor of St. Philip the Apostle church in suburban Northfield-a nationally known journalist-was on hand. He was for ten years editor of the English language version of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservotore Romano. Also parishioners of St. Mary’s church in Lake Forest and St. Joseph’s in Wilmette. At the edge of the crowd the frantic woman staffer from the Cathedral was still trying to move the rally but, viewing the forest of TV microphones, gave up.
Then the speeches started, with McCartney serving as master of ceremonies. “People hate Cardinal George because he stands for the truth,” said Chiicagoan Kelly Ames, a young marketing executive through a bull-horn and waving a rosary of redwood beads. “We cannot lose him! We cannot let people get him down! He’s been taking most of the blame and he is in 100 percent support of all the victims!” Removing George is not the answer, would be the worst thing to happen, she said, because “the answer is chastity, faith, hope and obedience!”
The crowd of authenticist Catholics here applied the tactics usually performed by a group angered at Cardinal George, called SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). SNAP has been particularly adept at performing television sound bytes but the few members who stood at the edge of the crowd appeared to be stunned at the enthusiasm of the newly-formed “Catholics for the Cardinal.” There were times the gathering took on the character of a college pep rally, drawing enthusiasm from the young members chanting, “Two, four, six, eight! Who do we appreciate? Cardinal George! Cardinal George!”
Nowhere was the essence of the rally more adroitly captured than by northwest side residents Pablo and Liz Bottari-Tower who came to the rally with their 1-year-old son Christopher, who had met the Cardinal twice., “If there’s a problem, we need to correct it and he’s already taken the measures,” they told the Tribune. “We don’t see what else he can do!”
The demonstration captured major attention on NBC, CBS,, ABC, Fox News and WGN-TV in Chicago which also showed Cardinal George expressing gratitude for the turn-out, not disowning it but proclaiming he was heartened by the support.
Why, then, did some of the clergy and Cathedral officials want to dampen the demonstration by moving it away from the Cathedral steps? “Because,” said the law firm partner, “the nature of the church’s officialdom is bureaucratic, timidity, fright and uncertainty. It’s a legacy of weakness and supine-ness. If this demonstration did anything, it’s shown that ordinary Catholics like us respect a man of great intelligence and incisiveness, like Cardinal George who is moving to correct abuses against young people and at the same time not going to allow a bunch of greedy litigators to bankrupt the diocese in lawsuits based on something that may or may not have happenbed a generation ago!”
| | |
2/24/2006
So Busy Was I All Last Week Trying to Reclaim My Lost Luggage, that I… …didn’t comment on the Big Dick Cheney shooting episode-and now it’s history, supplanted by the Big Ports story. To show how media can react to different circumstances when it has an ideological axe to grind, compare two stories.
Story 1.
Suppose the news came out that Cheney had actually, accidentally killed a person-shot her to death when he was 12. Do you suppose that would be spun out of proportion? Sure, despite the fact that he was a 12-year-old boy, the gun accidentally went off, etc. Do you think David Gregory would accept that if it just came out now? Why didn’t Cheney acknowledge all to the White House press corps in his official bio?
Now suppose this actually had happened to a liberal icon? As it did to Adlai E. Stevenson, former governor of Illinois, two-time Democratic nominee for president and UN ambassador under Kennedy. Stevenson, soft-spoken, with a literary flare, a devastating sense of humor, self-deprecating, became the role model for the Kennedys. The image of a thoroughly literate, historically conversant politician, flavoring his statements with literary allusions began with Stevenson (who largely wrote his own stuff). That’s why he became an idol for journalists who pictured him as (a) thoughtful, (b) intimately familiar with the arts and history.
The story seeped out in 1952 and was posited on the most understanding terms by Time magazine. This is how the story was told, buried within a cover profile of the then governor, which reflected how the story has been told to history.
In Adlai Stevenson: His Life and Legacy [William Morrow & Co, N.Y., 1989] by Porter McKeever, Stevenson’s media person at the UN.:
It was 1912 and Stevenson was 12. It was at grandfather Adlai Stevenson’s house in Bloomington; the senior Stevenson had been vice president of the United States under Grover Cleveland and vice presidential nominee with William Jennings Bryan.The Christmas season was a lively round of gay parties and family feasts. Buffie [Stevenson’s sister] was given permission to have a supper party the evening of December 30 for her friend from Charlevoix summers, Margery McClelland, who had come for a holiday visit. Adlai was considered “too young,” so he was given his dinner early after which he went up to his room. As Buffie and her friends gathered in the drawing room, Lewis [Stevenson, Adlai’s father] and Helen [Adlai’s mother] went out to pay a neighborhood call. One of the boys lamented that he did not have a gun with which to demonstrate the manual of arms he had learned at military school. Buffie called upstairs to Adlai and asked him to go to the attic and look for an old .22 rifle she thought was there. Adlai ran down with it and handed it to Bob Whitner who examined it to be sure there were no bullets in it, proudly explaining that such checking was always required at school. To the applause of the group, he smartly executed the manual, then handed the gun back to Adlai to be returned to the attic. As Adlai excitedly imitated the older boy’s movements, the gun went off. One of the girls, Ruth Merwin, dropped to the floor dead.
She had been a close friend of Buffie’s at University High and was a cousin of cousins.
In the echo of the blast, Lewis and Helen walked in the door. Adlai turned to his father and exclaimed, “I did it.” Then he ran upstairs to his mother’s room and threw himself on her bed, gasping moans that could be heard through the closed door.
Latrer examination revealed that the ejecting mechanism of the gun had a rusty spring that probably had prevented the emergence of the single bullet. No one ever doubted that the discharge was entirely accidental.
Ruth’s mother, Mrs. Charles Merwin, arrived and faced the situation with a courage the family ever after gratefully acknowledged. She told Adlai he must not blame himself. In her own grief, she sensed that the experience would be devastating to a sensitive and exceedingly conscientious boy. Only Lewis and Buffie attended the funeral. Helen had taken Adlai, Dave Merwin, Margery McClelland and the new French maid to the Chicago home of Aunt Julia Hardin. When they returned home, the tragedy was not referred to; not then, or ever again.
Forty years later, William Glascow of Time magazine, in researching for a projected cover story found the report of the event in The Pantagraph and somewhat hesitantly asked Adlai about it. After a painful silence, Adlai said: “You know, you are the first person who has ever asked me about that since it happened-and this is the first time I have ever spoken of it to anyone.” Then, Glascow reported, he “told me the whole story in a quiet matter of fact way.”
No one can say with precision what impact the tragedy had on the man Adlai Stevenson became; but it can be said with certainty that the effect was profound. Does it account, at least in part, for his repeated self-deprecation, for the expressions of self-doubt and unworthiness, for making himself the butt of many of his jokes? Does it account for his incredibly calm acceptance of such wounding blows as his divorce and crushing defeats in two elections? Does it account for his intense concern with the careers of young people, both individually and collectively; for his visit to the bedside of the son of a UN staff member dying of leukemia, even though he did not know either father or son? A definitive clue to the mysteries embedded in these questions can be found in a letter he wrote in 1953 to a woman he did not know, whose son had been involved in a similar accident.
“Tell him,” Adlai wrote, “that he must live for two.”
Wow. Now notwithstanding the blamelessness of the accident, let us reflect that whenever journalists referred to the Stevenson act-which was seldom-it was done so with a similar tornado-like spin. This tells me two things, my friends. First, that the ``50s were vastly more gentle times. Second that all depends on whether the media agree with your politics (as they did with Stevenson’s). (I even feel guilty inside bringing this up, so much has the spin from 1912 enveloped the story). Compare that to the shouting from the White House press corps and the name-calling (“jerk!”) from the outraged moralist NBC’s David Gregory to the president’s press secretary Scott McClellan. Harry Whittington was hit with bird shot.
Story 2.
The huge ports controversy. Assuredly, some of the hijackers were United Arab Emirates citizens. But the London subway bombing was done by Brits. There is no proof beyond Lindsay Graham’s vague speculation that Dubai Ports World was insufficiently vetted. The deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment which consists of representatives from Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security. UAE has been one of the most cooperative of the Arab countries in our war on terrorism. The company will not be in guard of protecting the security of the ports; the Coast Guard and other U.S. agencies will do that. I’m not shaken by news that Secretary Rumsfeld never heard of this until last weekend or that President Bush didn’t know about it until he read it in the papers. That’s the way government should work when things are being done in an orderly fashion, folks.
My only beef is with Bush’s statement that he would veto a congressional bill to extend the period of study: this is the first time he would veto anything! Not McCain-Feingold, not massive spending-this!
He should allow the extension and tell the media, Frist, Graham and others to lighten up!
| | |
2/23/2006
Part III: How East St. Louis Blacks Came to Love Nixon and Percy [Note: After Chuck Percy picked private citizen Richard M. Nixon to campaign with him in 1964 for governor of Illinois at a time when blacks were alienated by the Goldwater presidential campaign, I was sent to New York to be instructed on the how’s and why’s of campaigning in this state by the future president himself. He told me that I would be called by a wealthy California tool manufacturer who would be flying his own plane to Chicago. This would be, Nixon said, “my guy. You’ll be Percy’s guy, ok.?” But he expressed grave reservations about adding East St. Louis for a pancake breakfast with blacks to the itinerary, saying East St. Louis looked like a bomb went off on it and that he and Percy would be “killed”-I think he meant it politically, but who knows? Whereupon I flew back to Illinois, was told that East St. Louis was definitely on the schedule and that Percy had vetoed it being dropped even after Nixon had called him personally. So much for that. And the show was to go on. The next thing was I got a call from the wealthy tool-maker pilot, to meet him at Pal-Waukee airport for us to take off and run the circuit.]
When I got to Pal-Waukee, I was greeted not by one Nixon guy but two. The wealthy, California tool-making manufacturer pilot and a Ned Sullivan of Yonkers, New York, first cousin to Patricia Ryan (Mrs. Nixon). Sullivan was added to the crew by Nixon in order to bring some sanity to the Percy scheduling and eliminate East St. Louis. But first we had to fly there.
On the plane, I sat next to the pilot with Sullivan kibitzing over our shoulders. “Those Percy people like to party,” the pilot said. “We were up half the night. Do you know Denise on Percy’s staffr?”
Who?
Sullivan said “skip it. We were up drinking until the early morning hours, had three hours sleep.:
I began whispering “O, my God, I’m heartily sorry…”
“Don’t worry,” said Sullivan. “We’ve done this before. We’re old advance men. Drink and play all night, work all day. We worked on advances for the vice president for eight years, traveling all over the world. Remember in South America when Nixon got stoned by a mob of Communists? We were there!”
Yes, said the pilot as we shot through the clouds, we got stoned before
Nixon did. Then the talk turned to East St. Louis. “Nixon’s sort of leery about countermanding Chuck,” said Sullivan. “After all, we’ll need him as governor in `68.
Fat chance, thought I: “…for I detest all my sins…”
We’ll give East St. Louis a hard look before we ditch it, said the pilot.
We landed in St. Louis where the arch was still in process of completion. We got a car, got in touch with Bill Stiehl who was ecstatic that Nixon himself had called his name. “That’s another reason why he should be president,” he said. Why, because he knew your name? “That and the fact that he has a steel-trap retentive memory.” East St. Louis did look like a bomb had gone off in it. We found only one acceptable hall, an armory which sat thousands.
“First of all, we’ll make preparations,” said Sullivan, signaling a guard who took us to the manager. Sullivan said a Republican rally was going to be held there in a month.
“A Republican rally?” mumbled the manager. “Here?”
Yes, and we want carpenters to build a small room in the back to hold possibly a hundred people. Who’s going to pay that bill? I asked. “Don’t worry about it,” said Sullivan. “We have contingency. I think we ought to be able to fill it. And I mean the worst-but I still haven’t given up scrubbing the event. Oh, we want your company to donate the pancakes.”
We make Aunt Jemima. The image isn’t--.
“That’ll be the least of our worries. We need the syrup, too.”
The next day after we scouted the suburbs Nixon liked, Sullivan got a commercial flight for Yonkers. “I’m going back to East St. Louis,” said the pilot as we parted. “I’m still worried and Nixon is, too. Every other part of the schedule looks great but not that one.” Midway through the next week, I got a call at Quaker Oats from the pilot.
“I’m still in East St. Louis,” he said. “We got worse problems than I thought. Can’t talk on the phone. I’m heading back now. See you at Pal-Waukee tomorrow at 8 a.m.”
As we flew back to St. Louis, he was taciturn. Why don’t you tell me what’s wrong? I said. “Too complicated to explain. You just have to see it.” We landed, docked the plane, got a car and drove to an awful bar near the armory where we had scheduled the carpenter. Not a word from the tight-lipped pilot. We walked in. The only whites. The patrons eyed his coldly. We went up to the bar. The biggest man I had ever seen up to then came to take our order. The pilot ordered coffee, nodded to me and beckoned the bartender over.
“You were telling me last night,” he said, “that you’re the head of a civil rights organization-is it the largest one in town?”
Yeah, said the bartender. CORE. Congress of Racial Equality.’
“And when I told you that we’re planning on having a rally at the armory what did you respond?”
I said that we’re going to have a sit-in, a lay-in-even a piss-in because CORE will not allow a group of Goldwater Republicans to hold a meeting in this town.
The pilot looked meaningfully to me and I said, “Well, that’s it. I’m going to call Percy and tell them it’s over. Either that or I’m not responsible for what will happen.”
At this point, I remind my kids and grandchildren: In those days there were no cell-phones. I walked over to a phone booth and, using the rotary phone, started to twirl a phone number. I was waiting for the call to go through when the pilot tapped on the glass door and beckoned me to come out. I said I was waiting for the call. He shook his head negatively and signaled me to come out. Cancel the call.
“What’s up?”
The scenario just changed, he said. Walk back with me to the bar. We ordered more coffee. The bartender this time seemed eager to accommodate. He said it was on the house.
While you were in the booth, said the pilot, I said to our friend here that it was a shame that a person couldn’t have a rally in this town, the land of the free, after all, where free speech is sacrosanct without having a demonstration. And this man agreed.
The bartender nodded. “I said he’s right. This is a country where there should be free speech. My only problem is that as the head of CORE I got money invested in signs, placards and banners-money that came from our treasury. So we’re obligated to hold the demonstration.
And the pilot said: you say if somebody picks up the cost of the materials, the demonstration could be cancelled.
“No problem. We got enough to do for civil rights without getting into that.”
How much would the banners and placards cost? I shook my head: I don’t like it.
The bartender jotted down figures from his memory. “Oh, about $500 but then there are other considerations.”
Such as?
Handbills--$500. But more important is the reputation of CORE.
How much is that?
As the bartender started calculating, the pilot said to me: We’d like to talk. Nothing personal.
I looked out the window.
After a time the pilot said: Now I got to use the phone. Does the one in the booth work?
“I got a house phone right here,” said the bartender. “On us.”
On the way home, I told the pilot: I don’t like this.
“Why not? East St. Louis is no problem now.”
I figure you gave him $1,000 to call off the picket but we still don’t have anybody coming.
“Wrong.”
What’s wrong?
“Our contingency’s giving him a lot more than that. Now CORE is chairman of the event, recognizing Nixon for what he’s done for civil rights. You ever hear of Roy Innis?
He’s the national head of CORE. Wait a minute: this guy who was leading the picket is now the chairman of the Nixon-Percy event?
“Marvelous, isn’t it? ”
Nixon will be furious.
He smiled. “Let us say he isn’t worried about East St. Louis anymore. Nor should you.”
I tell you these folks won’t show up!
“Oh yes, they will,” he said. “Anticipation is everything.”
You’re not paying until after a successful event.
“That’s the principle of capitalism.”
The rally was a success and Charles H. Percy, his blond hair glistening in the klieg lights, his eyes beaming with excitement pronounced that a new day is dawning, intoning: “I’m proud to be an American! I’m proud to be a Republican! And I’m proud to be here today!” Nixon gave an enthusiastic speech, hailing Percy as a new national leader, one who draws people of all races, colors and ethnicities together. He and Nixon waved to the crowd as a band leader, reportedly the brother of the bartender played “When the saints come marching in.” I had to admit it was quite a rally. Percy was ecstatic about his reception and clapped me on the back while the pilot stood next to the wall, filing his nails.
“I’m told you put on the rally of the year for Chuck!” reported Percy’s campaign manager, “and I’m reporting all this to Quaker Oats!” He added meaningfully: “Someone there will be enthusiastic!”
I said truthfully: it was nothing.
On election night, Percy held off conceding to Otto Kerner until the returns came in from East St. Louis.
Then, as soon as East St., Louis came in, Percy conceded. I’m not sure he ever figured it out.
| | |
2/22/2006
Part II of How African Americans Came to Love Nixon and Percy in 1964. This is the second part of a series begun yesterday wherein Charles H. Percy sought to overcome the disadvantage of running for governor of Illinois in 1964, the same year Barry Goldwater ran for president. It led to a masterstroke of an idea: the recruitment of Richard Nixon to come to the state to stump with Percy, which led to my being sent to New York city to meet with the former vice president to plan the two-day swing.
Well, of course, as this thing was supposed to be in my hands, I couldn’t wait to get to New York city to meet with the great man. I flew in, grabbed lunch at Oscar’s of the Waldorf and kept the appointment at the firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin & Todd at 20 Broad street at 3 p.m. (its name would change putting Nixon’s name up front as soon as he would qualify to practice law in New York). Armed with a highway map of Illinois, I entered the walnut-paneled offices, asked at the reception desk for Mr. Nixon and was ushered through a series of rooms. Finally I arrived at the desk of Rosemary Woods who was at her electric typewriter, a scene I recalled many years later when she showed the media how it was entirely possible to erase a stretch of tape while she was taking dictation. (Poor thing: for her service to Nixon and humiliation to be seen stretching in an ungainly position to demonstrate how the erasure happened, I hope she is enjoying the infinite benefits of heaven).
I told her I knew her brother, Joe, the chief investigator for the Better Government Association who was running for Cook county sheriff which pleased her, and she led me through a series of inter-connecting rooms to one stately one whereupon she knocked quietly and opened the door. He was standing at his desk with his own map of Illinois. At age 51, his black hair glistening, his ski-jump nose ever-prominent, his cheeks reddened almost as if they had been rouged (which they were not), he gave up a forced
smile and waved me over to him (Miss Woods departing). He tried to pull up a chair by his desk but it was devilishly hard for him, the overstuffed chair caught up on the carpeting-so he gave it up, awkwardly and suggested we sit side by side at a coffee table. He stretched out his map on the table and said
Now this is the way I’ve got this thing figured out. Percy wants to spend two days traveling the state with me. Okay? I’ll be coming in from St. Louis and we’ll meet in East St. Louis. That’s where Percy wants to begin this thing. Do you have any idea of what East St. Louis is like?
Nope. I’m an Illinois native but I’ve never been there.
Well (laughing cynically) I have and the whole town looks like a bomb hit it. It’s the most depressing goddamn place I’ve ever seen. Now Percy wants to have a pancake breakfast there for a large number of Negroes. This at a time when Goldwater is running. We’ll be damned near killed there. Do you understand me? Don’t you agree?
Very much.
I’m going to try to get Chuck to change his mind on East St. Louis. So let’s put it aside for now. Here are the other stops I would like to do.
(And he extended his hand, a long one with sensitive fingers; as he reached across I saw a long wrist with black hair and an expensive watch-pointing expertly across the map, circling with a marking pen in addition to others, Peoria, Springfield, Decatur, Rockford and a number of Chicago suburbs. He said nothing but marked towns for a long time, seemingly fascinated while a long time passed but it made me feel uncomfortable. So I said: I see.
Now the Republicans in Illinois make one huge mistake. They always want to hold rallies in huge auditoriums especially armories where the seats stretch out in hundreds of rows. I can’t tell you the times I’ve arrived to see places half-full and the damned press outside saying yeah, that’s Nixon all right, can’t fill a hall. What I’ve told them and they finally got it right in 1960, had it wrong in `52 and `56, what I’ve told them is get me a small hall and fill it belly-to-belly so that they’re standing out in the street! That’s what I want, the picture of people lining up outside-do you get me? There’s an Eagles hall in Decatur, holds about 150 people. Off the main drag. Skip the Armory in Rockford-God, don’t use that. There’s a VFW about two blocks down. Use that. Peoria has an Elks club. If the weather’s bad in Springfield I want the thing to be held at the Leland, that’s the Republican hotel, not the St. Nick, which is a Democratic hotel. Got me?
Yes. Exactly. (He looked at me closely, his glistening black hair, spectacular nose near mine, white shirt super-starched, impeccable blue tie. No humor but intently studious. After a long time studying me, he ignored my voluble nervousness at being studied like a specimen under a microscope). He said
All right. Now about the suburbs. I don’t want to go to the North Shore-Wilmette, Winnetka. Those are trendy suburbs, getting richer, getting more liberal every year. I want to go to Elk Grove Village, Schaumburg, pitch a rally at Randhurst but not Old Orchard. Not Niles. By no means Niles: a Democratic town. I want Randhurst I think it’s called where you have people gathering anyway. On the far south side, one at Evergreen Plaza.
(A half hour later we both stood up.)
That’s as much as I can do now. You’ll be contacted by (and he gave me his name). He flies his own plane; he’s a wealthy tool-maker from L.A. My guy. He’ll be my guy on the swing-around and you’ll be Percy’s guy. Got me? Now take your map and copy the marks I’ve made. You can sit down in an office next to Rose. Okay?
Yes sir.
You don’t have to sir me. How’s Bob?
Who? Oh, Bob Stuart. He’s fine and sends his regards.
He and his Dad Doug. They don’t make Republicans like that anymore. Doug’s still going strong?
Yes and well, too.
(As he walked me to the door)
I’m damn worried about East St. Louis. I’ll talk to Chuck. If he really wants to have something there we’ll have to chance it. It’s his show, after all. Maybe Bill Stiehl will help us.
Who?
Bill Stiehl. He was my coordinator in `60, lives in Belleville. You’ll meet him.
When I got back to Illinois I decided to try to talk Percy out of East St. Louis. But nosiree! East St. Louis had to stay. He wanted to try out a new position on civil rights before a hall full of African Americans. I thought about what Nixon said. A hall plumb full of blacks in the season when Goldwater was running against LBJ? Crazyness. I decided to argue his campaign manager out of it. I talked to Tom Houser who threw up his hands, saying, “I’ve worked with this guy for six months now and when he’s got his mind made up he won’t be changed.” Tom, I said, it can’t fly. He said, a better man than you tried to change his mind: Nixon. Chuck won’t budge. I said: what do we do? He said, “well that’s why we have a smart guy like you around, isn’t it? You guys’ll have to make it fly!”
Tomorrow Part III: the Nixon guy calls and we fly the route in his small plane, him piloting me while I sit next to him, the wheel in front of me turning as he plied his to and fro, he telling me how he loved Nixon, saying that this episode would be a dry run for 1968, plying me with Nixon stories all the while interested in the pretty women Percy had on his staff.
| | |
2/21/2006
Coming Up on Sunday’s “Political Shootout”: Gidwitz vs. Noonan Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Gidwitz and Democratic strategist Mike Noonan will be paired this Sunday on my “Political Shootout” program on WLS-AM, 8 p.m.
Note to Dave Diersen: Your GOP/USA is extremely valuable, giving updates on the political news plus your own commentary: I thank you for that. One request. If this were 1858 and you were billing the Lincoln-Douglas debates, would you just advertise it as “Debate Tonight: A. Lincoln” with no reference to Stephen A. Douglas? If this were 1960 and a presidential debate was looming between the vice president and his challenger, would you bill it as “Debate Tonight: Richard M. Nixon” and not refer to John F. Kennedy? Therefore, would you consider doing me and my station, WLS, the honor of reporting that I always have two guests on my show-a Republican and a Democrat, and the guest this week will be Mike Noonan. I can’t see how the cause of Republicanism can be helped by neglecting to mention half of the program. Thank you, sir!
| | | Thank You All for Helping Me Find My Lost Baggage! Many, many thanks to all of you who pitched in to help an incompetent senior citizen find his baggage which was lost-no fault of the airline-during my trip to Springfield last week. Through a comedic combination of circumstances over which the airline had no responsibility, the baggage got away from me and I arrived in the state capitol without any change of clothes. Gradually I noticed old friends moving away from me as the days intervened: no, I’m kidding but the men’s store across from the Abraham Lincoln hotel is everlastingly grateful for the mishap. After arriving in Springfield I received a phone call saying the bag was at O’Hare. Then I received a call saying the bag is in Fargo, N.D., then that the bag was back at O’Hare. At O’Hare they couldn’t find it. Several days passed in Chicago when the bag was variously reported either here, in Fargo, Portland, Maine or somewhere else.
So what do you do when because of your own failings order breaks down? When the problem isn’t lost shirts, ties or shaving utensils but a notebook containing important telephone numbers? You call upon friends. I called Jay Doherty, the president of the City Club whose contacts are endless. He put me in touch with Margaret Houlihan, the airline’s vp-government affairs. Over the weekend she worked on it and produced it. But helping her along the way was Leo Miller, now of Haymarket Center and a former executive at the airline and his wife Terri, an executive at the airline. All cooperated beautifully for which I am very grateful.
| | | How a Grand Influx of African American Rooters Turned Out in East St. Louis to Cheer Richard Nixon in 1964, the Year Barry Goldwater Ran. Part I Note: to those who complain that this blog is over-loaded with personal history, I must tell you I’m not writing it for you but for my four grown kids and 13 grandchildren, this in lieu of a memoir. Please be warned that it does not contain an iota of social or political value but is written to be archived and pulled up at some later date-please, God, much later-when my grandchildren who are beginning to evidence an interest in history may enjoy it.
In 1964 when I moved from Minnesota’s political scene to form Quaker Oats’ government relations department in Chicago, I started in July, in the midst of a presidential year. Accordingly the president of the company, Robert D. Stuart, Jr., said “I would appreciate it if you would spend the rest of the summer and early fall helping Chuck.” That was kindly, soft, patrician corporate-speak for “spend all your time helping Chuck Percy get elected governor of Illinois while we pay you and make a positive impression on his campaign.” Accordingly I decided to do that. I reported to the Percy office as just another staffer and was assigned to attend Saturday morning staff sessions with Percy, big business wunderkind on the sun-porch of his Kenilworth mansion, named “Windward,” with other eager-to-please staffers as Percy’s kitchen staff served tea, coffee and sweet-cakes. In eleven years of attending campaign staff meetings, including with the socially prominent Heffelfinger’s, owners of the Peavey Grain company, I have never slurped coffee in such baronial surroundings.
Percy was indeed the golden boy of Chicago industry. His resume could well have been written by Horatio Alger. Born poor, struggling through the depression in an neighborhood under the L tracks in east Rogers Park, he taught children Sunday school at a neighboring Christian Science church. There is so animated an owner of a small business that made cameras that he hired him immediately. The small business was Bell & Howell, which was just skittering along, sometimes struggling to make payroll. Percy spurred the company to great heights, spurring the boss to adopt aggressive marketing procedures in return for which the boss paid for his tuition at the University of Chicago. By the time World War II began, Percy was vice president of the company and had launched it into federal procurement where with contracts with the armed forces it zoomed into the stratosphere, making the owner a fortune and Percy himself a multi-millionaire. The federal government listed the camera company as an essential industry and Percy as an essential component to it, freeing him from the draft. In addition to which the owner who had no children left Bell & Howell entirely to Percy and at the age of 27 or 28 he became CEO and the subject of nation-wide attention for his perspicacity. He became adept at giving the Republican party a new, progressive image which fit in with his persona--blond, good-looking, with a magisterial baritone speaking voice. In short order he was baptized as an Eisenhower-style “modern Republican” and ordained as a future president of the United States-this when he was in his late `30s. So ambitious was he for political honors that it was said, only partly in jest, that he would use the presidency as a stepping-stone.
Obviously, these attainments were not an unalloyed benefit. Most other CEOs cordially despised him because he made them look under-motivated, grumbling that he was snooty (but it was because of a congenital hearing loss with which I have become recently sympathetic)-but not my boss, the president of Quaker who admired him hugely. The admiration was mutual in that Percy named Stuart, a heavy GOP contributor and scion of a famous Republican family, as Illinois Republican National Committeeman. Thus in doing Bob Stuart’s bidding to be helpful to his friend Chuck I was serving my party and also doing the Lord’s work which, I hoped, might possibly redound to benefit me.
The first Kenilworth staff meeting I attended dealt with the problem of race, discussed delicately as the African American maid lingered, pouring our tea. When she departed, the problem was stated baldly: Goldwater was the presidential nominee against Lyndon Johnson, in a year when crushing national GOP defeat was almost pre-ordained. Goldwater was one of the few Senators to vote against the 1964 civil rights bill. The question: how can Percy, who saw himself as having an enlightened civil rights record, transcend this problem running against the Democratic incumbent Otto Kerner? One sure given was to arrange to be in the opposite end of the state wherever Goldwater would appear-but as Percy remonstrated, that was not enough. To make matters worse, Percy’s own civil rights record was not unduly progressive. In running for the nomination he strove to make himself appear as conservative as he could to enlist the conservatives, declaring that the government need not resort to compulsory fair employment practices but should only utilize voluntary ones. (Hard to believe in view of today’s progressivism, but that was Percy’s position then).
While all of us were sipping tea, keeping an eye out for the black maid, we were seeking to come up with a solution while Childe Percy was stewing-but then one Tom Houser (not Tom Roeser) came up with a brilliant solution. Houser was the campaign manager and a lawyer for the Burlington railroad. Houser said this: “You have to tie up with a national Republican figure in order to beat the curse of Goldwater or else the GOP faithful fill think you’re snubbing the nominee. Who better than Nixon?” Everybody looked up brightly: Nixon, of course! And Houser made the case very well as Percy jumped up and shouted: “Of course! Brilliant idea!” Houser said: “He’s a retired Vice President, has had a brilliant civil rights record. Whenever LBJ as majority leader positioned a civil rights vote he angled it so Vice President Nixon had to break the tie-earning Nixon enemies in the South. Nixon is going nowhere, having lost for president to Kennedy, losing the governorship of California. He’s a private lawyer in New York with no future ahead of him. Have Nixon agree to come here to campaign throughout the state with Chuck. After all, Nixon almost carried Illinois and probably did if it were not for Daley vote fraud.”
“Bravo!” yelled Chuck and even the maid peered around the corner. The next step was to get Nixon lined up. Then Percy jubilantly pointed to me and said, “You’ll get him because Nixon knows and likes Bob Stuart.” While I was choking on my sugar roll, Percy said, “But I will call him first to line him up. He’ll do it, I’m sure! Then we’ll send Roeser to New York to plan the itinerary!” With that in smart executive style, Percy took the phone, consulted a list of numbers where Nixon could be reached and tried them as we munched thoughtfully. Suddenly Percy shouted:
“DICK! Chuck Percy here!” He listened, smiled and said, “Things are going well here, Dick! I’m sure we’ll make it!” He held the phone away from his good ear, winked at us and whispered, “He’s going on about vote fraud in Illinois!” Then he said, “That’s why it’s so important that we win the governorship here, Dick. Oh, it’s not about me, not so ego thing-no, no, no. It’s about good government! And wouldn’t that drive Daley nuts to have a conservative governor in Illinois?” He held the receiver aloft and we could hear the rejoinder.
In short, Nixon was set to come to Illinois and spend two days barnstorming town by town with Chuck Percy. When Percy hung up, he nudged me in the ribs and said, “It’s all set. You’re delegated to fly to New York Monday and see him in his Broad street office at 3 p.m. And he says “Bring a road map of Illinois.”
Thus endeth Part I. Tomorrow Nixon and I consult the map of Illinois!
| | |
2/20/2006
Personals: Things That Occur After You Write Your Blog. The Roundtable of 6 about which I wrote yesterday also discussed the possibilities of key Democrats getting indicted. They felt-almost to a man with one dissenter (me)-that Mayor Daley is in no danger, one of our number, a lawyer, citing the fact that the Shakman decision is a civil one and even if the mayor is in total disregard of it, he can’t be indicted. I have a different view-and it is this: if Daley isn’t indicted, it will be because Patrick Fitzgerald, the so-called “above all politics” prosecutor, remembers that Daley is President Bush’s favorite mayor.
One more thing: To David Graf-drop me an e-mail at thomasfroeser@sbcglobal.net and see when we can get together, either in Springfield or here: preferably here but we can work it out. Thanks.
| | |
Justice Burke Wins over Cardinal in Skirmish Over Priest Sexual Abuse. [Another column from The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest national Catholic newspaper]
CHICAGO-I ended last week’s article on this archdiocese’s sex abuse scandal by saying that, while Francis Cardinal George and Illinois Appellate Justice Anne Burke disagree on solutions, Burke could win hands down “in this Democratic town.” She has-and quickly. There is little doubt that new rules will be re-drawn to move near her specifications. The beginnings of reform have come from an unusual source: Burke’s insistence, editorial page clout, media hype which, in this case, may have produced good results.
Last week Justice Burke, an exalted princess of Catholic liberaldom was paired against Cardinal George in a controversy over what the first priority of the archdiocese should be after allegations are made of child sex abuse by priests. At the outset, Cardinal George said, mistakenly as it turned out, that priests are entitled to all civil rights in such accusations “or no one will be safe.” Justice Burke said the Cardinal was wrong: when an allegation is made, the priest should be removed pending the investigation, making the first priority the children.
Cardinal George quickly changed his view in meetings with the parents in the parish where a priest, Fr. Daniel McCormack, was alleged to have acted inappropriately with several boys. The Cardinal’s misstatement was indefensible in the court of public opinion, because no one was saying an allegedly erring priest had to be pilloried or even publicized, just removed and possibly sent to a desk job quietly while investigators study the case. This procedure regularly takes place in secular society including the Chicago Public Schools when teachers are accused.
Early failure of the Cardinal to clarify his remarks produced scorching heat from the media which quickly melted any bureaucratic arguments. The feminist Sun-Times columnist, Michael Sneed, a liberal Catholic flame- thrower, supporter of women priests and close friend of Justice Burke, focused bitter attacks on the Cardinal in a column that is read first by many Chicagoans. Later all of the archdiocese’s auxiliary bishops wrote to the editor of the Sun-Times protesting Sneed’s attacks. More significantly, perhaps, even Jack Higgins, the well-known Sun-Times prize-winning cartoonist, a Catholic, penned two cartoons severely criticizing the prelate. Higgins, the last person to be anti-clerical, is devotedly Catholic, strictly authenticist and courageously candid in his support of pro-life in contrast to the editorial policy of his newspaper. He is a hero to pro-lifers because he fearlessly draws more eloquently than most columnists can write.
Then came television commentaries. On public television, two Catholic women, Mary Anne Ahearn of NBC and Carol Marin of the station and the Sun-Times, were sustained in their criticism (no surprise from Marin, long a vitriolic supporter of women priests but a distinct shock coming from Ahearn, the more conservative of the two). As editorials and letters-to-the-editor flowed, suddenly Cardinal George announced that he had instituted “a complete review of all our archdiocesean policies and procedures surrounding the sexual abuse of minors.” It seems to be initially a victory for Justice Burke. Not that she is beloved by many orthodox Catholics: she is the wife of Alderman Edward Burke, a Democratic king-pin who often single-handedly picks for election many pro-abort Democratic judges in this county where endorsement by Burke is tantamount to election. She runs for the Appellate court as a powerful Democrat.
Tough on alleged erring priests she is, but if she is pro-life, she has been remarkably quiet about it. Two years ago, she was named, rather mysteriously, to the National Review Board set up by the Catholic bishops to draft a schema to deal with priests abusing children. Nor has she explained to The Wanderer who named her or Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s pro-abort ex-chief of staff to the panel.
But to her credit notwithstanding, when she became acting chairman of the group, Justice Burke became a tough proponent of removing priests from their ministries at first hint of accusation against them in an effort to protect the children first. This brought her into controversy with those bishops who wished to shield accused priests from accusations that might not be provable. She has said that Cardinal George was one of that number.
Now, in calling for a complete review of archdiocesean policies concerning the sexual abuse of minors, the Cardinal has tacitly acknowledged that Justice Burke has been right. In his message to archdiocesean employees February 7, the Cardinal tackled the problem of who should be informed after an accusation has been made, a question that has bedeviled the archdiocese. In the past, the chancery has been informed but felt it could not act until police authorities shared information. Now the Cardinal has directed “as clearly as I possibly can that any information from any source about a possible molestation or abuse of a young person by anyone associated with the archdiocese must be reported immediately to public authorities and to me or to the archdiocesean offices” and he named the officer designated to receive the information.
The Cardinal continued: “While we look again at why information is not properly shared, I have put Jimmy Lago [the lay chancellor of the archdiocese whose formal name is not James but Jimmy] in charge of overseeing the present policies and their revision. His background in child protection and his knowledge of archdiocesean offices and policies make him uniquely qualified to oversee the revision and its implementation.”
Then the final paragraph which shows a marked change from the Old Order: “The quality of governance depends upon the flow of information; information in any office, except in the case of health or finance records in some instances is not something to be guarded rather than shared” [emphasis added] which was Justice Burke’s early point. He summarized: “In the case of anything related to the sexual abuse of minors, I ask you with insistence to come forward to me directly or to someone who will immediately inform me” [emphasis added].
Earlier, when discussing the McCormack case, the Cardinal appeared greatly disturbed with himself, haggard and drawn. He told the Sun-Times with great emotion, “I get…you know…very…troubled,” he said as he cleared his throat, his words on the brink of tears. “Remorseful.” Then as if counseling himself, he added: “There is no point in getting upset; you do your work and you don’t let that paralyze you.” Journalists waited for him to continue and he finally said: “I can’t imagine what must be in the hearts of many people again. We thought this was done or at least contained and it doesn’t seem to have been. I can only apologize for that.”
Recognizing and admiring his scrupulousness in blaming himself, most Chicago Catholics understand that the Cardinal is an extraordinarily gifted man, one of the top theologians and philosophers in the U. S. church, ranked often as the most sensitive and perceptive of the archbishops in the country who has been outstanding in apologetics, the art of explaining the mission of the Church.
But no sooner had he expressed contrition and recognition of his own failing, than a brutal scathing of him came on NBC television from an unlikely source, a liberal retiring pastor, one who would have expected to show tolerance and compassion, but who has long been identified with Bernardin-style leniency in the archdiocese. The priest, Fr. William G. Kenneally, pastor of St. Gertrude’s on the city’s North Side, is on the verge of retirement after more than two decades as pastor (itself an anomaly in an archdiocese where pastors are required to live by term limits). Fr. Kenneally, a free-lancing critic of traditionalism, was shown in his favorite attire of open-throated sports shirt, and delivered the opinion that if the archdiocese can be shown to be derelict in any measure, Cardinal George should resign. The statement shocked the clergy and many congregants. Later, Fr. Kenneally fudged. But he clearly loved the media attention-as he did some years ago when he attacked Cong. Henry Hyde for being a “meathead” due to his sponsorship of the Hyde amendment that banned Medicaid funding of abortion. Fr. Kenneally is a friend of Sun-Times columnist Fr. Andrew Greeley, another over-age rebel of the Church who has made multi-millions savaging the Church.
The Kenneally pronouncement was a shocking attack on the prelate at the time when he was seeking some understanding. One priest told me it was a cruel assault that shows how unappreciative the liberal clergy has been with the successor to Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, despite the fact that Cardinal George has sought to protect clergy from possible unwarranted allegations.
“Helping them as he had, it still didn’t do Cardinal George any good, “ a priest mentioned to me. “They want Bernardin back.” But, when I said Cardinal Bernardin is dead and not coming back, he smiled and said “he was so good to them [the liberals] that they don’t want to recognize he died.”
Later Cardinal George removed another priest from the ministry, Fr. Joseph Bennett from Holy Ghost parish in suburban South Holland while authorities were trying to determine if he abused two young girls decades ago. Archdiocesean officials acknowledged that the south suburban priest, had not been assigned a monitor despite the fact that the church first received the abuse allegation against him in March, 2004.
While the Cardinal was undergoing brutal self-criticism, another bishop, known to be one of the most liberal in Illinois, was engaged himself in a spirited battle with the media and Catholics in his diocese of Joliet, IL. Bishop Joseph Imesch pleaded his case in a letter to church-goers last week. The bishop was the focus of a deposition in which he admitted not removing priests despite credible abuse, declaring that he knew one of his priests had gone skinny-dipping with boys and, according to the Sun-Times, “played naked games with them.” Bishop Imesch sent the priest to a psychiatrist. Later the priest was moved to another suburban town where he was accused of abuse.
In contrast to Cardinal George who took his blows and acknowledged he should have done better, Bishop Imesch steadfastly defended his actions and blamed them on bad advice from psychologists. He said that most of the abuse cases took place decades ago “before psychologists recognized that behavior…was indicative of a severe problem that could not be adequately treated…I would never have returned a priest into ministry if I had not been assured by professional therapists that he was ready to return. The media reports tend to portray me as someone who doesn’t care about the safety of children. Nothing could be further from the truth. I became a priest because I care.”
| | |
2/17/2006
Roundtable of 6 at Springfield Steak House on the Governorship. Whenever I get to Springfield we convene the Roundtable of 5 at a local steak house to discuss politics. This week’s Gang consisted of a (1) a prominent Democratic state Rep who has proved his electoral strength by winning consistently in a GOP suburb, (2) a bright and thoroughly knowledgeable Democratic operative, lobbyist and former top campaign manager, regarded as one of the brightest lights in the party; (3) an African American active in civic affairs, (4) a Republican staffer known as an exceedingly adept strategist in his party, (5) a libertarian known for issuing a pox on both parties -and (6): me, bringing up the historical allusions which happened long before any of my partners were born and whose tales of years past put everyone to sleep. Average age of the group was in the 50s but that’s only because I am factored in, which tipped it way over. Without me: in the late 30s.
Surprisingly, there was some consensus-but some dissents, too. The Roundtable will be nameless.
Most of the Roundtable felt the Blagojevich speech was an outstanding example of partisan pyrotechnics which gave an insight into how the governor will run his campaign. The lobbyist felt it was so-so, the only one to have that view.
Asked to put on strategists’ hats to deduce a strategy against the governor, all of them felt it is folly to concentrate on attacking the governor’s budget from a green-eyeshade basis because the goodies contained therein are desired by many of the voters-but that the better strategy should be to ignore the goodies and zero in on corruption.
All with one exception-me-felt that Topinka will be nominated and has the best chance of being Blagojevich. I don’t and believe the best race that could be run would be by Oberweis. They saw great dividends for Topinka to pull Democrats into her camp; I saw a more than equal disadvantage by her losing much of the conservative base.
All of them felt the Gidwitz ad as devastating but I hadn’t seen it then-although many didn’t see Gidwitz as benefiting particularly but severely wounding her. Now that I’ve seen it, I agree. I see the Gidwitz ad as also shoring him up in the public mind as a conservative (which he isn’t: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-Bush on the war). As a matter of fact, if he continues the onslaught, I see him rising in the polls and getting a bigger share of the conservative chunk. The libertarian, who admires Gidwitz’s positions, sees him gaining rapidly if the ads are continued.
All of us believe that pound-for-pound Bill Brady would be the best candidate because he is fresh, young attractive. But all of us feel that because he has not gotten the money, he will not be a decisive factor in the race with the exception of possibly wearing the collar if Oberweis fails to get the nomination, and thus dooming him in the future ala Pat O’Malley. His attacks on Oberweis are solidifying that impression.
All of us believe that Eisendrath has either missed the train or is about to miss the train which is even now pulling out of the station. I cited the folly of his step-father thumping his chest and saying, “That’s my boy!” when he’s too tight to plunk down the money that, by the size of his fortune, would be pocket change. Lay it to the idealism of some of the liberals who pay their dues to Common Cause, read the New York Review of Books and are usually in Aspen on election day, forgetting to have voted absentee.
Almost all of us-the state Rep being the exception-see that the Republican party must find an unconventional presidential candidate for 2008, the same faces of Senators-Allen et al-not being sufficient. At the CPAC Summit, Allen, regarded by so many conservatives as a favorite, laid a bomb; the one who didn’t is the one who had earlier been touted as a loser: Bill Frist. I threw out two unconventional names, Rice and Guiliani. Of the two, they enthused about Guiliani, one of the group-a Democrat-saying he would very likely vote for him-a big surprise. Another Democrat pointed out that in contrast to the SuperBowl coverage Giuliani has received, especially from the definitive book on his life, Fred Siegel’s Prince of the City, another book, 100 Minutes which details what happened on 9/11 shows that Giuliani’s reputation is hype and that actually he failed on that day (a surprise to me, but I haven’t read the book). No one particularly jumped on board Condeleeza Rice, figuring that she will not run anyhow.
All of us felt that the dark horse presidential candidacy of John Cox is likely to go somewhere-somewhere distinctly below the ranking of another Cox, James M. who ran for president against Harding in 1920 and about on a par with Lar Daly, with the notation that at least Lar Daly had an Uncle Sam suit. What was unusual was that everywhere Cox went at the CPAC Summit he was surrounded by security guards, who were ordered to take one for the candidate. Privately hired security guards, no less. We discussed how sick Cox must be to pay for this and decided that since he has the money to invest and has the conviction to do so, he is at least better than Eisendrath’s step-father.
Everybody ate steak except me-I had chicken.
| | | Political Shootout: State Rep. Bob Biggins vs. Becky Carroll Next Sunday’s Political Shootout will feature Becky Carroll, spokeswoman for the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and State Rep. Bob Biggins, the Republican who has been the House minority’s point-man on the budget. Should be good listening.
| | |
2/16/2006
Down in Springfield SPRINGFIELD--Gov. Rod Blagojevich gave a brilliant political speech, disguised as an annual budget address, again promising no income tax or general sales tax increase, banking on economic growth to help him deliver goodies that, he hopes, will guarantee his reelection later this year.
In a fighting speech reminiscent of Harry Truman, attacking the so-called "special interests," the youthful governor set himself up as the advocate of a "say yes" budget, callng on the legislature to "say yes" to more funds for education, in particular for pre-school education for every Illinois child, expanded school payments and an improved heatlh program. Because there is room to "say no" he called on the legislature to close so-called tax loopholes for business--pitting business as a special interest as agailnst pre-schoolers and health-deprived senior citizens. As such for a curly-haired fan of Elvis Presley which the governor is, it was a performance worthy of Huey Long in the 1930s, long before the governor was born.. He drew the line between liberal interest groups and business--declaring it a "special interest" to grant tax relief to the economic engine that provides jobs. To remedy that, he outlined a "jobs program" that called for subsidies. In essence, it was a broadly liberal speech reminiscent of the hey-day of the New Deal. He declared that the multi-billion dollar Bush Medicare program which has been condemned by many conservatives, as not sufficient to meet the needs of the time. In doing so, he positioned himself as a potential candidate for president by unfurling a heavily liberal program in contrast to the pale pastels that some presidential candidates are supporting.
Blagojevich's manner of presentation has improved 100 percent from his performance in past years. He read from a teleprompter with only few mistakes, pointing to charts showing the deficits he inherited from George Ryan. He made a case that sounded convincing to average citizens who haven't followed the details of pension borrowing and other gimmicks that have prompted some Demcrats as well as most Republicans to assail his governance. But the governor has done successfully what many liberals have done before--sketch an attractive program of services expansion, beckoning to the benefits that accrue from giving pre-schoolers educational opportunities, pointing to the human needs of the elderly who deserve expanded health care--and insinuating that his opponents will be tools of special interest and greed. That rhetorical device was patented by Long, modified with deft literary flourish by Franklin D. Roosevelt and re-packaged in fighting Missouri language by Harry Truman. To hear Blagojevich re-cycle it brought back memories of a Democratic party that succeeded by pinning the "greed" label on its opponents. For those who are weary of the old-style rhetoric, it showed a return to partisan, meat and potato politics--but they shouldn't pass it off as passe, for Democrats have been elected and reelected with this fighting style of campaigning for generations. To oppose this scenario, Republicans will almost instantly revert to the green-eyeshade, accountant style of rebuke which historically has not found much favor in an era of populist politics. In picturing those who oppose him, the TV cameras focused on Judy Baar Topinka, slouched like a matronly grandmother, working on her hand-held computer; State Sen. Bill Brady (Bloomington) conversing with a colleague and not paying rapt attention.
The reception by the legislature was interesting. It gave Blagojevich a rather grudging (I thought) reception as he strode inrto the House chamber, shaking hands right and left. The applause was subdued, pro-forma and so-so--but when Blagojevich got rolling with his "say yes" to kids and "say no" to the selfish interests, the Democratic legislature began to get worked up. At several points during the well-written, well-rehearsed speech, Blagojevich departed from the teleprompter to chide the legiislature, kid-style, with cracks like: "I thought that would wake you up!" Every time he did this, his punch lines were greeted with hollow silence, emblematic of a legislature that while controlled by his own party, withholds approval from him because of the indifference of attention he has given to its members. But it is clear that Blagojevich is not interested in portraying himself as one who is cozy with the legislature but who stands apart from them, playing to the grandstands. While it turns off those serious students of government who believe a mark of a successful administration is the ability to get along with members, it is clear that Blagojevich is following a vastly different strategy which is indebted to Bill Clinton. On other aspects, he imitates Ronald Reagan for whom Blagojevich voted twice.
Clinton it was who invented "triangularization," capitalizing on public cynicism in both parties and posturing himself on the side of a third way. From the very start, Blagojevich has not been inured to follow the regular path, even taking risks to chart a third way. He would rather not live in the gubernatorial mansion in Springfield despite having won his reelection in the southern part of the state. He does not present himself as other governors have as a workaholic, but comes up with incremental issues that bite off chunks of public approval. He is totally disinterested in the details of governance, witness his support of what he calls "stem cells" but which is actually embryonic stem cell research. To start a pilot program using state funds for embryonic research that pro-lifers attest is the exploitation of unborn life for research, a program that has not had any success, Blagojevich signed an executive order conveying funds that may very well be unconstitutional--but he lets the conservatives haggle about the details while taking the bows for "stem cell" which is a flagrant mis-labeling of what he has done. Reagan evaded discussion of how authentic the Contras in Nigaragua were by calling them "freedom fighters in the mode of our own founding fathers." While other governors seem to proceed along traditional lines, outlining programs consonant with their budgets, Blagojevich stitches together exciting projects that capture public attention and seemingly defers until tomorrow the prospect of whether or not the projects will work.
The reception of the legislature to Blagojevich was definitely mixed. State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) who was an early supporter but who soured on the governor, didn't rise in applause as did some of his Democratic colleagues, nor did Franks break his arms applauding, although he clapped weakly at one point. The attitude of the legislature seemed to be bemusement: here is a kid who is evidently comfortable skipping the long hours of consultation and sausage making of governance for the media spotlight, bankng that the public is not very interested in the details only the tinsel and drum beat of entertainment.
Can Blagojevich pull it off a second time? My view is that he can if he faces Topinka, even given that she's leading in the GOP polls. Reason: she represents the tired old pols whom the governor seems to want to contrast himself with. Against those who haven't ever been elected---Oberweis and Gidwitz---the going might be a littrle harder for the governor once the recognition kicks in about their particular views. Gidwitz is a long way down in the polls but seems to have a bottomless treasury and remarkably, he is not perceived by the Republican electorate as the social liberal he is: thereby taking some of the percentages away from Oberweis. Also the fact that Gidwitz is starting to open up on Topinka may win him favor from conservatiives. Oberweis might very well give Blagojevich a fight the governor doesn't want--on ideology. The fact that Illinois is a blue state does not compute when philosophical belief is presented attractively. Brady is, of course, a fresh face but I really believe he's starting to behave like a lost cause--not by his own fault but because he doesn't have sufficient money.
Every time I see Topinka, I see someone who is weighed down with age, gnarled hands, an old face and an old style of incumbency which might very well ratify what Blagojevich is seeking to stand against. I don't find that contrast with Gidwitz, Oberweis or Brady. Topinka kind of looks like she could be Blagojevich's mother, the penny-pinching Czech who buys her clothes at second-hand shops. That picture may play well when you're running as State Treasurer with the ethnic groups whiich thrill to her accordion, but not necessarily so in a prime time govenrorship race.
| | |
2/15/2006
As I Prepare to Go to Springfield for a Few Days, Let’s Look at the Funnies: What Did Whittington Say on the Armstrong Ranch Just Before?
Hey, Dick, would you want to slip away with me and play “Brokeback Mountain?”
The Robot Barber’s Computerized Conversation with Customers.
A new hair-cutting machine suitable for barber shops has been introduced in Hartford, Connecticut-a robot barber equipped to cut your hair efficiently and even supply an unending stream of talk, peppered with friendly questions. To get it started conversationally, it must inquire about your IQ. At test market in a real barber shop the other day, it did remarkably well. The first customer was asked, “What is your IQ?” He answered, “well, I don’t want to boast but it’s 130.” The robot sat him down and began cutting his hair, opening up the subject with a few comments on Einstein’s theory of relativity. Haircut and conversational séance an unqualified success.
Second customer said his IQ was normal-100. Robot started cutting his hair and asked customer his views on chances for the White Sox to repeat next season. Another superb success.
Third customer admitted his IQ was below normal-78. Robot started cutting his hair and began by saying, “well, do you Democrats think you have a winner with Hillary?”
Surgical Success Stories-Applicable to Any Diocese. -.
At a recent high-level conference on surgery before student doctors at the Mayo Clinic, talks were made by surgeons who performed amazing feats. One told of how he replaced the eyes of a man who had lost his sight, grafting on the retinas from a dead person with the result that the man not only could see, scores 20-20 and has become a famed flight instructor.
The second reported on how he transferred an 8 -month fetus from the womb of a dead mother to another woman with the result that the baby was born normally and is getting good grades at an exclusive private elementary school. The third won the prize by telling how a young man was brought to him on the brink of death, and that to save his life the surgeon had to remove his spine, brain, guts, heart, testicles and backbone. That young man not only lived but was ordained a priest after winning honors at a leading seminary and is now an auxiliary bishop in a Roman Catholic diocese. slated for even bigger things.
How Many Bush Administration officials Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb?
Answer: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; it’s condition is improving every day. The rumor that it needs changing is attributable to the liberal media. Illuminating rooms is hard work. The light bulb has served honorably and the criticism you make undermines the work it is doing and is the best gift the terrorists could have.
Prurient Interest Ad Suitable for Valentine’s Day.
This ad was published in a newspaper’s Singles section.
SINGLE BLACK FEMALE seeks male companionship, ethnicity unimportant. I’m a very good looking and love to play. I love long walks in the woods, riding in a pickup, hunting, camping, fishing trips, cozy winter nights lying by the fire. Candlelight dinners will have me eating out of your hand. I’ll be at the front door when you come home wearing only what nature gave me. Call (404) 555-6420 and ask for Susie. I’ll be waiting.
Over 15,000 men found themselves talking to the Atlanta Humane Society about an 8-week-old black Labrador retriever. (Men are so easy.)
For these I’m indebted to illinipundit.com Now share your jokes with me!
| | |
2/14/2006
Late News Flash: Hillary May Not Be a Slam Dunk! For some years now, conventional wisdom has given Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton the nod for the Democratic presidential nomination-but judging from the recent unease among some Democrats about her performances as a speaker, the nomination may not be a slam-dunk. If there is one quality that media-centric candidates seem to possess, it’s a calmness in presentation before television cameras. Hillary is seemingly a woman of two faces. Viewing her from afar, she appears to be a self-controlled, beaming moderate, a woman who’s surmounted the old hell-cat reputation of First Lady when she “mislaid” key papers from the Rose Law firm only to find them suddenly on a table in her private quarters. That’s one Hillary: calm, witty, self-deprecating, the kind the cameras love to picture.
Then there’s a second Hillary that comes out not in private but in public performance. She seemingly cannot make a speech of passionate intensity without her voice curdling milk and ending up in a shriek. At those times, her eyes bulge out, deep recesses form in pockets on her face and she appears shrew-like. Nor is this a sexist phenomenon. Sen. Diane Feinstein, not my favorite liberal, has a quiet, stateswomanlike attitude of contemplation, even when she pronounces outrageous liberal platitudes. There’s passion but not the anger that comes from Hillary. Take the attitude that was prevalent long ago with Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, who moved from First Lady to a major player in international affairs, a commentator and television performer, host of her own show on public affairs on Sundays when she was well into her seventies: “Mrs. Roosevelt Presents.” No one ever accused Mrs. Roosevelt of being attractive (her own mother called her an ugly duckling)-but she exuded a gentility, a graciousness and warmth that caused much opposition to her to melt away. Frankly in the First Lady department, Hillary is not unlike Nancy Reagan, the woman Howard Baker called “a dragon.”
Much is made of the striking difference between Bill and Hillary’s speaking styles at the Coretta Scott King funeral. I had a personal taste of it before Clinton was elected president. Bruce DuMont and I spent a few days in New Hampshire covering Democratic presidential aspirants in 1992. It was snowing heavily one day when we pulled up in the parking lot outside a high school in Manchester for a Clinton rally. It was snowing so heavily we got out of the car and ran to a side-door and pulled it open. It turned out that it led to the backstage where Bill Clinton, accompanied by Hillary, were waiting to go on. We clumped our shoes which we laden with snow, making a dreadful noise, me cognizant that someone was watching with a steady eye of disapproval: Hillary Clinton. When we introduced ourselves to the Clintons, I happened to say that I’m from Park Ridge. Hillary greeted that news with frosty disinterest-but Bill Clinton said, “really?” He asked where I lived and I said I live not far from the Rodham house, which led him to calculate whether or not I knew Field school where Hillary went to grade school.. All the while she was waiting for the emcee to present them and she tapped him on the arm and gestured with her head to the program. They went on but I realized that there was only one politician in that couple and one spouse. I wonder if Bruce remembers that.
| | | I Don’t Know if You Ever Read Reader’s Comments but… Aesop last week commented on my review of the Sun-Times by reproducing one of his fables which was supposed to pertain to me. The one about the sour grapes. My response: if to suggest a Pulitzer for the entire newspaper, praise its news staff, particularly Fran Spielman, laud its ace cartoonist Jack Higgins,Washington Bureau chief Lynn Sweet, the column QT, the business coverage by Dan Miller, the entire sports pages and even a column by Debra Pickett is sour grapes, the paper should hope for similar harvests. I have criticized certain columnists: Marin, Falsani, Roeper but praised others, notably Sneed-and here’s another: Mark Brown whose offerings are uniformly excellent. But critiques of the paper should prompt Aesop to recall another of his fables-the one about the farmer who told his sons he had buried gold on his estate which would make them rich. In a frenzy, they dug up the entire yard but found none; yet the digging stirred the earth so that the roots of the fruit trees were invigorated which brought forth a bountiful harvest that produced wealth. Moral: don’t be disturbed when someone takes a dig at you, if it spurs the requisite energy to improve. But thanks anyhow, Aesop, and keep on reading this blog.
| | |
2/13/2006
The Rally in Support of Cardinal George Accomplished its Objective... ...which was to show the media that a broad constituency of archdiocese Catholicism is behind the prelate, understanding that mistakes have been made but giving him the benefit of the doubt, as well as the benefit of understanding and support. To all who attended on very short notice, my personal thanks. To the chairman, John McCartney, our great thanks and debt plus appreciation for his timely remarks. And thanks to the enthusiastic delegations: the St. John Cantius one (my home parish) which marched all the way to the Cathedral with signs, banners and significant red ribbons…as well as the many parishes that joined in. We particularly thank the dedicated Filipino Catholics who were mis-led by a bureaucratic Cathedral functionary who ordered them to go into the auditorium on the purported order of the Cathedral rector and the Cardinal, possibly even from the Pope in Rome. It was then that your humble servant vetoed the move, told the orderly that she should bug off and the rally would begin and end on the Cathedral steps. The rally drew television and radio and the major newspapers to the discomfiture of the officious and gruffly sniffing Cathedral orderly. The Cardinal’s televised response of gratitude made it all worth while.
| | | Russ Stewart and I vs. Rod McCullough: A Lively Show At the end of last night’s program I had to admit that Rod McCullough could play rope-a-dope-for political analyst-lawyer Russ Stewart and I slugged him unmercifully for his assault on Joe Birkett, but the end product was a good show. The idea that Birkett indicted him because he worked for a candidate that Birkett beat handily doesn’t wash-but that’s Rod’s case and he’s stuck with it. Basically, though, he was a very good guest: controversial and exhibiting a street-smartness that helped the show roll along. My thanks to both for doing a great job.
o Both seemed to agree that Judy Baar Topinka is ahead not just in polling numbers but in actuality.
o Stewart, more than McCullough, was more positive about Topinka because, as he says, he wants a winner. On the other hand, Stewart felt that Topinka made a purposeful strategy of trying to glide through the Channel 2 debate without contributing much substance which, he felt, hurt her.
o Both feel that Edwin Eisendrath is on the lip of being a lost cause-as do I. The fact that the primary date is coming up and the candidate’s rich family hasn’t contributed much money is a deciding factor. Neither man understood the enigmatic posture of the family anent his campaign-nor do I.
o On the issue of how the governor made out by his appearance on the Jon Stewart show which ridiculed the morning-after pill controversy, both generally agreed. Russ Stewart thought the governor definitely didn’t help him. McCullough was more ambivalent. My view is that the pharmacist, Rep. Ron Stephens, may have benefited from the comic interrogator looking elitist for yukking it up on traditional values, especially in his own district.
I rather think the governor was disadvantaged by the slick double-entendres.
o As befits one who is the consultant for Sandy Wegman, McCullough feels that the Lieutenant Governor’s race is wide open. Stewart scoffed at the idea.
o On the Ozzie Guillen matter (the White Sox coach declining to go to the White House to be received by President Bush because Guillen is on vacation in the Dominican Republic, Stewart thought he was slightly harmed by the snub but McCullough, a Cubs fan, thought not.
o Both participants ridiculed Mayor Daley for renewing his call for a no-fly zone over Chicago, especially over the Loop, following Bush’s announcement of a foiled plot to crash into an L.A. tower. Stewart was particularly harsh, befitting his Northwest Side constituency.
o On the issue of Obama and McCain (McCain taking umbrage at Obama’s declining to work on a special bipartisan committee on lobby reform, both hit Obama, McCullough declaring that Obama has gotten away with murder by pretending he’s an independent but coming down as a partisan. I’m the only one who believes that the senseless tiff is more important than it seems-showing that McCain’s blow-torch temper is something to watch as his emotional fitness is considered for the presidency.
o And finally on the momentous issue of John Cox running for president-not president of a school board or of anything local but President of the United States, McCullough observed that he knew Cox when-when he ran for Congress with McCullough as consultant, the first election he lost of many to follow.
| | |
2/11/2006
One More Reminder… Catholics for the Cardinal, headed by the great John McCartney, former teacher, selfless volunteer who teaches the underprivileged at Midtown (valiant Korean vet, survivor of Chosin, honored pro-life hero who has spent years in this vineyard) will host the rally in behalf of Francis Cardinal George on Sunday, 3 p.m., on the steps of Holy Name Cathedral. This rally started just yesterday and it’s catching on. Will SNAP crash it? Be there!
| | | The Sun-Times: Where it Succeeds and Where it Fails Where it succeeds, nobly, is in its straight news reporting. Earlier I mentioned Fran Spielman who writes the most important City Hall news all by herself. Nothing more than a one-line identification but over the years it has been identified with sterling quality. Then there’s Frank Main and Annie Sweeney, Steve Patterson plus Chris Fusco and Dave McKinney.
More listed another time.
Another department where it’s not only superb but the one of the best in the nation, it’s top-flight cartoonist Jack Higgins who regularly hits pay-dirt with his droll commentaries which occasionally varies from the paper’s editorial policy. The Business pages: outstanding, edited by a real pro who’s as articulate on radio and TV as when he writes business news, the former chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, Dan Miller.
Once I used to criticize the paper because of its political non-objectivity-but that was before I recognized the importance of newspapers returning to old-style partisanship in political reporting. When I was young, I read the Tribune to get the Republican slant from the ferociously conservative Col. Robert R. McCormick and then walked around the corner to the out-of-town newsstand at State and Washington to pick up a copy of the New York Post, owned by a ferociously liberal Dorothy Schiff. The politics of both newspapers were covered superbly from right and left slants. Reflecting on it, I am sorry I once criticized Lynn Sweet for being biased. How stupid I was. Of course she is! But she is reporting political news on the slant in line with traditional, hallowed advocacy journalism which dates back to Greeley’s (Horace not Andy) New York Tribune. I later realized that she is excellent on the basis of the political partisanship she and the paper so passionately share. .
Where the paper fails -and lamentably-is in its columnists. The style there is to present hip journalism but it is often stale and sophomoric. You may think I’m picking on them but remember, these columnists make their living skewing; so it’s surprising that when someone skews them they’re so thin skinned. Cathleen Falsani, the Religion Editor who loves to quote her lefty buddies assaulting George W. Bush because he’s a bad guy. She’s girlishly gushing and popping her bubble gum because she just discovered the Song of Solomon on DVD. Just in time for Valentine’s Day. We get comic book religion but no depth, no feeling for religious news. She reports it with the same wafer-thin lack of perspective as she would a traffic accident.
Now, I confess: to one I’m been unjust to because I didn’t fully appreciate the need for a return to old-time partisan political analysis. Now that I have a better understanding of what she does (a reincarnation of Dorothy Schiff journalism) I find that whatever she writes, analysis of straight news, Sweet is excellent because she gives us the straight applejack 90 proof Democratic flavor, undiluted. Of course she takes Obama’s side in the controversy with McCain. May she prosper forever.
I must say Roger Ebert’s views of films leaves much to be desired because as a political-writer wannabe he is viscerally liberal but doesn’t know the territory as he does film. His critique of “Goodnight and Good Luck” about Murrow should have mentioned that the historical context of the times was not portrayed. But Ebert may not know the historical context; besides, he was so enthused about the liberal politics. Now that’s o.k. for a liberal Democratic writer like Sweet, but Ebert could have written that sadly the film didn’t portray the proper background of McCarthyism. He didn’t.
For a hip newspaper, Roeper is supposed to be au currant, sucking up to the kids. But he’s now a 40sh kid who never grew up, who writes like one and one of these days will not be able to keep up because the fads will catch him between the switches. The cleverest columnist hands down is QT. Sneed is the first thing I read. Even Debra Pickett is starting to pick up with an outstanding column on the genius she lunched with. I give Mitchell a B-, basis her willingness to criticize the amen corner for politicizing the Coretta King funeral.
Carol Marin, ostensibly hired to write a local political column, doesn’t. She writes as an outraged moralist. As one with few conventional religious absolutes, she makes up for it by adopting secular ones. The crusade to keep Jerry Springer off Channel 5 is old but made her the reputation she savors; now the Iraq War stinks, Bush is rewarding the rich with tax cuts, go to Brokeback Mountain: you know, the gripping intellectual issues of our time. In parsing her secular absolutes, she becomes everyone’s high rectitude Mother Superior. Everyone who’s been caught napping or derelict in some fashion, gets a severe rebuke from Carol., All except Joe Cari, the Democratic pol who’s a longtime friend. Then, strange for her, you could read the restricted sobs of remorse for poor Joe in her stuff.
Rather than write politics, she gives advice. Months ago she urged George Ryan to throw in the towel because of the suffering he’s bringing to his family. That’s more than being a naïf; it was wretchedly bad advice. Ryan at 71 has the free services of Winston & Strawn and the best criminal defense lawyer in the country so why the hell would he not make a run for freedom? Incidentally, why is Jim Thompson spending so much of the firm’s assets to get his pal George to beat the rap? Is Thompson another Mother Teresa? Is his feeling for stodgy, grumpy old George altruistic? I think not.
Now Marin began one column asking Rod Blagojevich why he hasn’t announced for reelection yet but before the piece is over she figures it out: “In truth, if I were running the Blagojevich (non) campaign I’d probably do the same thing.” Superb reasoning, Carol, you’re learning as your earning which might pay off as you do gigs on Channel 11, too along with the paper’s sex therapist. Now suppose you go to Lew Manilow, the multi-multi millionaire step-father of Edwin Eisendrath and ask why he hasn’t seen fit to contribute a sizable bankroll to help his step-son. Here was Manilow at the City Club the other day, nudging his partners at the table proudly: that’s my kid. Well why don’t you have enough faith in your kid to give him a few bucks, Lew?
All things being equal, the paper is good, deserves a Pulitzer for uncovering Daley scandals and Hired Trucks. But it can be better. Much better. To those columnists criticized, don’t sulk, now. Every day you rip someone a new aperture. Take it and come up smiling. That’s good.
| | |
2/10/2006
Supporters of Jesse Jackson, Jr. for Mayor Study a Black-Brown Base Coalition. Note: Since these details have not been released before, I’d appreciate it if major news media, bloggers or others who wish to comment on it give credit to the following: www.tomroeser.com. Seeking to call around to get your own copy so as to circumvent credit would not be ethical. Thanks.
Supporters of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. for mayor of Chicago in 2007 have engaged a comprehensive ballot strategy for building what they call a “Black-Brown Base Coalition” which would weld African American and Hispanic voters into a democratic striking force that would (a) link the two groups similar to how they were during the Harold Washington era to pursue unified goals and (b) enhance ethnic solidarity within the city that would improve the climate for civic, social and economic polity.
To do so, the strategy calls for a joint cooperation from leaders of both groups on the campaign to elect Joy Cunningham for Appellate Court Justice in 2006. Cunningham is an African-American woman, married with one child, currently senior vice president and general counsel for Northwestern Memorial Hospital. She is a former Cook county Circuit Judge, assistant state Attorney General and Appellate Court Clerk. Despite these outstanding credentials, she was not slated by the Democratic party slate-making mechanism headed by Alderman Edward Burke.
The ballot strategy test points out that “major issue of concern to Chicagoans, the desire for change in City Hall and the most likely agents for that change are all brought to bear in the Cunningham campaign. Support of Rep. Jackson, Rep. [Luis} Gutierrez and Sen. [James] Meeks brings mayoral speculation into play.” Cunningham is running against three white candidates which in itself is a microcosm of the 1983 mayor campaign won by Harold Washington. The strategy paper sets as a test the question: “Can Cunningham win by uniting African-Americans and Hispanics? If so, can she win a majority or just a plurality as Washington did?”
Proposed billboards have been prepared showing Cunningham joined by Rep. Jackson and Rep. Gutierrez and Rep. Jackson and Sen. Meeks with the slogan Joy Virginia CUNNINGHAM for Appellate Court: Honesty and Integrity - Fairness and Experience www.JoyCunningham.org
The rationale in the strategy paper says that U.S. Senator Barack Obama, Rep. Jackson and Rep. Gutierrez “are talking about corruption. No white elected officials in Chicago have talked about corruption. Jackson and Gutierrez have emerged as potential mayoral challengers in 2007.
“There is not a single white mayoral hopeful who has emerged or been suggested publicly. In 1983 Harold Washilngton won the mayoralty by uniting African-Americans and Hispanics in a Black-Brown coalition.
“Election laws in 1983 only required a plurality for victory-Washington won with 37 percent, [Mayor Jane] Byrne got 33 percent and [Richard] Daley had 30 percent.
“Today a majority is needed to win the mayoralty. A runoff would have been forced in 1983. Byrne and Daley supporters would have united and defeated Washington’s coalition. Similar dynamics exist today.”
The strategy says, “Blacks and whites have similar numbers in Chicago. If blacks and whites coalesce in opposition to one another, Hispanics become the swing vote. The top three issues to Chicago voters are education and schools, corruption and waste and crime and drugs.
“Mayor Daley is very strong but vulnerable.”
The document contains a breakdown of ethnic voting strength and other observations.
| | | A “Catholics for the Cardinal” Rally next Sunday, 3 p.m. at Holy Name Important: Some of the accusations on the priest-pedophile issue have been twisted to become a personal assault on Francis Cardinal George. His acceptance of responsibility and his forthright regret have not been accepted in some quarters, with the result that he is undergoing, in some aspects, a brutal verbal and media beating, including severe rebukes by at least one priest who should know better and who should have exercised Christian charity.
Consequently, a group of people, unorganized and unaffiliated with any particular group, have mobilized to show their support of the Cardinal by staging a rally in his behalf under the aegis of “Catholics for the Cardinal”-in front of Holy Name Cathedral at 3 p.m. this Sunday. I am not an organizer but have been asked to spread the word--which I am doing here. I do think it’s important to show respect and solidarity with one who has manifested tolerance, understanding, compassion and good will.
| | |
2/9/2006
Thoughts While Shaving… The latest Chicago Tribune poll has a ho-hum quality to it: Judy Baar Topinka at 38, Jim Oberweis 17, Ron Gidwitz 11, Bill Brady 8 and undecided 25. Why ho-hum? The Tribune poll, especially for primaries, has been totally useless. Remember the poll that showed, until the very end, Bob Kustra winning the primary over Al Salvi who was hardly more than a blip on the screen? Remember the poll that showed George Ryan getting 28 percent of the black vote? He got about 7. The fact that Topinka is ahead is no shocker. Topinka has campaigned statewide for many years. Ever since I first met the Market Share people I’ve had the idea-I can’t prove it but-that they shade the outcome to please the client.
Anyhow: Oberweis is about where he should be before any media surge. Gidwitz’s rise is due to the big bucks he’s spent on TV advertising. Brady is still stuck on 8 and not moving (although now that Rauschenberger isn’t running for gov, downstate senators are moving to Brady: an important development the media haven’t caught up with yet).
If we give the poll any credibility at all, what it means is that Jim Oberweis has to go negative on a certain prematurely-orange-haired accordionist-but go negative in an adult, not juvenile, way. Simply use her record against her: her attempted deal on what was the Renaissance hotel in Springfield in order to get big donor Bill Cellini off the hook, with the opposing decision nixing the deal by then Attorney General Jim Ryan. Let Jim Ryan’s statement of the time do most of the work. That’s first.
Second-and I’m sure the Oberweis people will do this-find the clip of JBT doing the polka with Gov. George Ryan while the wording carries the message that she has been in the hybrid for a long, long time i.e. her not saying a peep during the big spending years of George Ryan. Third, they will go easy on her gay-rights stuff and her participation in the gay rights parades but allude to it in subdued fashion. You don’t have to hit people over the head with a dead fish in order to get the idea across. Fourth, they will with a little more definitude her flip-flop on abortion, from when she was a pro-life legislator to her more recent pronouncements.
Fifth, they will go into a little history. A few years ago, Jim Nalepa was a sure-fire winner over Bill Lipinski and the only thing that prevented that victory was Riverside Committeeman Topinka sending out a mass mailing for Democrat Lipinski. I’m sure they’ll show the sample ballot from Riverside. Sixth-and this is a big one-the name Peter Fitzgerald is now golden because he’s not running, became a sort of martyr by paying the price for naming Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) as U.S. District Attorney whereupon he indicted George Ryan. Peter Fitzgerald also saved the Lincoln museum from being turned into a patronage dump by G. Ryan and his boys. While Peter was considering whether or not to run again, Judy was state Republican chairman. She refused to endorse him for reelection: imagine, the state GOP chairman refusing to endorse the Republican U.S. Senator for reelection! On a 50,000-watt station. It is the litmus test of belonging to the hybrid. Then after the show she denies she refused to endorse him.
The key would be to produce hard-hitting but deft commercials, stressing her stands but not demonizing her. Would there be a backlash, to Brady, for instance if the commercials are tough? Sure, there’s a chance of that but I don’t think Brady has the financial ammunition for the long haul. He’ll be in there until the end when, if he’s lucky, Oberweis will be nominated and bygones will be bygones…and if he’s not, Topinka will be nominated and nobody will forget that Bill Brady was the spoiler.
*****
For us oldsters who remember the early days of the civil rights movement when vigorous speakers made rhymes and got the crowd swaying, the politicized funeral of Coretta Scott King was a blast from the past. Here was Joseph Lowery of the SCLC, 87, who hasn’t been on TV since Selma finally mustering up a string of firecrackers in old-time Baptist style to link, in mushy, emotional fashion, the billions spent on Iraq and billions not spent “for the poor.” How nostalgic.
And out trots Jimmy Carter, who assuredly was the worst president of the 20th century-far worse than the fictional “worst”-Warren Harding (who really accomplished things by cutting taxes, sending the economy spurting)…that Jimmy Carter who accomplished what few did before: build high inflation and high unemployment plus botching a recovery of Iranian-held hostages where three helicopters went bust in the desert, aborting a raid on Teheran. Yes, that Jimmy Carter, sour, unrelenting. And what does he say? He says that Katrina killed more blacks than whites (when in a proportionate sense, fewer blacks died than whites, given New Orleans’ population ratio). Also: Martin Luther King was wire-taped without his knowing it. That was supposed to be a zing at Bush? Who wire-taped King: the royal Democratic family of the Kennedys, JFK the president, his brother Bobby the AG and later LBJ through help of his aide Bill Moyers. But it was a fun time, even though it took 6 hours: the biggest Democratic boomerang rally since the one held in Minneapolis for Paul Wellstone.
*****
Political Shootout Sunday should be ve-e-r-y interesting. On the Republican side, Rod McCollough, a consultant for Sandy Wegman for Lieutenant Governor who wants to “clear up things” concerning Joe Birkett’s indictment of him for falsifying candidate petitions. I’ve promised him only a few minutes on that topic. On the journalistic side, our old friend Russ Stewart, lawyer, political analyst for Nadig Newspapers. Should be good: that’s Sunday night at 8 on WLS.
| | |
2/8/2006
The House Republican Leader: Not Ideal but O. K. Sorry to be dilatory with this. Election of Ohio’s John Boehner as House Majority Leader is o.k. Republicans could have done far worse by electing Roy Blunt. The ideal choice would have been John Shadegg but his entrance into the race was late. Saving grace: by removing himself, he gets credit for electing Boehner, and will have, presumably, some influence to wield. Boehner is not an idealistic as Shadegg, but has strong convictions including on social issues. The fact that he has not been noted for bringing home the pork is exemplary. That everlasting tan comes from German genes (so-called “black German looks”). He comes across better on TV than DeLay although grammar is a problem as with some working-class (“Sure,” he said, “I took it serious”). Darkly good looking, he’s has been called “Dean Martin gone to Congress” which scares me a bit. He’s a two-pack a day smoker and still has enough of the non-Boy Scout image to quell regulars who feared the GOP would be run like a Campfire Girls picnic. Perhaps because I was a lobbyist for so long, I never saw anything wrong as such with Tom DeLay’s desire to build a constituency on K Street by convincing them to hire Republicans and pension off the old Dem guys. Those of us who remember the era of Tip O’Neill knew that K Street was overwhelmingly in his pocket and nobody complained. It was the deals that came after, born of DeLay’s desire to take overseas junkets that turned into golfing trips and the twisting of so-called 501(c) (3) foundations that caused trouble. That and rascals like Abramoff playing around with Indian tribes and writing speeches for the Congressional Record that Congressmen didn’t give.
| | | Eisendrath’s “Debate” to the City Club Yesterday It was good, with a misty sense of idealism ala JFK. Eisendrath gives the appearance of being a shade more conservative than Blagojevich, yet orthodox on all the Democratic positions and not a creature of image. The house was full of Eisendrath supporters (regular Democrats who normally should be supporting Blagojevich) including one half-billionaire lady, the daughter of a fabulously wealthy developer who sat next to me. A table away was presided over by Lew Manilow, the philanthropist, son of another developer magnate who is in the hundreds of millions of dollars himself, who is Eisendrath’s step-father. Now I can say that the lady next to me has been known for her liberal fervor but not necessarily losing he head and throwing away a lot of money on risky causes, like a candidate running against a governor with tons of money in the bank. But what about Lew? I caught up with him outside the hall and said, “Lew, when are you going to let loose with the dough for this guy?” The answer: ha-ha, I’ve been around a long time; well, not as long as you-but.
Huh? What does that mean? Earlier when Eisendrath came over to shake hands, I said “where’s the beef? [money] for your campaign? When will your step-pop pop?” He said, pointing to Blagojevich’s portrait on the wall, “he has enough advantages and I don’t want to tell him when we get it.” I suppose that has something to do with filing dates-but that worry’s weird. If money doesn’t come in soon, Eisendrath will have to be content with playing to houses with fawning liberals who wish him well, blow him kisses but that’s all. If I were Blagojevich, with Eisendrath’s rich people holding back for disclosure purposes, I wouldn’t stay awake at night worrying.
| | | McCain and Obama Deserve Each Other The temper tantrum letter written to Sen. Barack Obama by Sen. John McCain causes more people than Obama to wonder what prompted it. The Senate is filled with prima donnas and none are more sensitive to the need for adulation than the Illinois Democrat and the Arizona Republican. Ever since ethics raised its head as a juicy issue for presidential wannabe’s a few months ago, all of them have been playing in the sandbox. No big surprise that Obama, who’s being stage managed by David Axelrod, does not want to dilute his rock-star celebrity by working with another rock-star, McCain.
Is it a surprise is that McCain reacted in such a tempestuous way? Not really, and it is something that McCain idolaters should consider. Not long ago I talked with a national reporter who was visiting spouse in-laws. The reporter has long covered McCain in the Senate and was on the receiving end of an unaccountable blast from him. This is what the journalist said in paraphrase:
Few people realize what an erratic major presidential candidate McCain would be were he to get the Republican nomination in 2008. We had a taste of it when he ran against Bush in 2000 and blasted the entire evangelical Protestant leadership-all of it!. Frankly, there are some people who say he’s nuts. --What does that mean? It means that one’s emotional conditioning can be irreparably damaged by years of torture. The Bush people alluded to it indirectly in the campaign of 2000 which sent McCain off on a tantrum, claiming that for this draft-dodger to question my emotional stability was an insult and blah-blah-blah. But the fact is that unrelieved mental torture works a terrible price on one. I always thought Denton [Republican Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, held for many years at the Hanoi Hilton after being shot down in Vietnam] was goofy. Take a look at the Admiral [James Stockdale] who ran for president with Perot, the guy who began his debate by asking “who am I and why am I here?” The unspoken problem is not that McCain will be too old-72-in 2008, but something that nobody likes to even think about-the question of instability. For one thing, if anyone brings it up he’s a goner, given the kind of sensitivity people have to war heroes being criticized.
So likely it won’t be brought up.
Even bringing it up in this oblique way is going to get me a lot of vicious comments on this blog but fire away. Remember I’m only quoting somebody else.
| | |
2/7/2006
Catholics are the Worst Sinners: And that’s the Good News When I was a boy, learning the essentials in the catechism of my faith, I took it as a given that Catholics were the worst sinners. And I am convinced now that they are. It was easy as a boy of the `30s to appreciate why. Review some of my leading purported co-religionists of that era in alphabetical order: Tony Accardo, Jim Adduci, Louie (Two Gun) Alterie, Samuel (“Samoots”) Ammatuna, Tony Barosso, Louis (“Little New York”) Campagna, Anthony (“Tough Tony”) Capezio, Al Capone, Ralph (“Bottles”) Capone, James (“Big Jim”) Colosimo, Joseph (“Caesar”) DiVarco, Tony D’Andrea, Sam (“Mad Sam”) DeStefano, Vincent (“Schemer”) Drucci, Ada and Minna Everleigh Rocco Fischetti, Michael Genovese, Sam (“Momo”) Giancana, Joe (“Machine Gun”) Granata, Mary Louise (“Texas” and “Hello, Sucker”) Guinan, Edward (“Big Red”) Kelly, George (“Machine Gun”) Kelly, John “(Honest John”) Kelly.
Pasqualino (“Patsy”) Lolordo, Joey (“The Clown”) Lombardo, “Machine Gun Jack” McGurn, Eugene (“Red”) McLaughlin, Cornelius (“Con”) Moore, George (“Bugs”) Moran, Timothy (“Big Tim”) Murphy, Durland (“Jimmy”) Nash, Frank (“The Enforcer”) Nitti, Dion O’Banion, Al Prignano, James Ragen, Fred Roti, Paul (“The Waiter”) Ricca, Vincent Solano, James (“Turk”) Torello, Johnny Torrio, Roger (“The Terrible”) Touhy, John F. Viche (gunned down in my suburb of Park Ridge) and Jack Zuta to name a few. (Were I making the list today I’d add John (“Quarters”) Boyle who hijacked $5,000 worth of quarters from the tollway, repented and got involved in the Hired Trucks scandal before being sent away (from my hometown of Park Ridge).
 Then (when I was a kid) you got to the Big 3 world leaders: Adolf Hitler of Austria, Josef Stalin of Georgia (who trained at a seminary) and Benito Mussolini of Rome. In fact in those years few contemporary role models were held up to us in school-beginning and ending with Mother Cabrini. Now I have a book of saints all of whom were Catholics but few who lived at the same time with the Chicagoans I list in the first two paragraphs. So now you understand why I decided early as a kid that Catholics were the worst sinners. The priests scandals haven’t improved my view.
After we understood how sinful Catholics were, we considered the pay-off for them-and to us potentially. God could toss them into hell any time He wanted to; we deserve to be cast into hell; they were all under a sentence of condemnation to hell; the devil was willing and eager to seize them as soon as God would release them; it didn’t matter that these Catholics were feeling well and in good health; eventually they would fall into bad health and die; all the evasions men make to ignore the prospect of punishment do not avail; God is under no obligation to spare them for a moment.
When you are 11, those ideas sort of concentrated the mind. Indeed, these sins convinced Protestant reformers to split from the Church and form their own. But their facing up to sin by willing it away never convinced me. And just when we were facing up to depression, came the solace. After the reformers of Protestantism challenged the sacrament of penance, along came the Council of Trent to uphold it on every count. Every count. And for the over-scrupulous, it prescribed three conditions for defining serious sin. Once when I was on a radio show with Gerry Brown, the former governor of California who was seeking the presidency, he touted his training as a seminarian. “Very well, then,” I said, “tell me the three conditions for mortal sin.” He tried until the veins stood out on his forehead. He got the first one right: “grievous matter.” He described but didn’t define the second-calling it full acceptance of sin whereas the nuns told us it is “sufficient reflection.” He gave up and punted on the third; I told him “full consent of the will.” The beauty of the instruction was this: the nuns smashed our pride and our youthful unconcern about death. They brought us crashing to earth. Then just when it was unbearable, they presented the relief. They taught us how to recognize sin and what to do about it.
Even with our eleven-year-old insouciance, after the nuns instructed us in this, most of us sought frequent confession. Then we took a short course in the history of the Church. If you ever want a roadmap to every vile evil mankind can plunge into, listen to the history of the Church from immediately after Christ left it to now. (That history convinced no less a world-weary cynic like Robert Novak, a former unbeliever, to convert just a few years ago at another low-point in Church history whereupon he told the Legatus group I attend, “I decided this is the Church for a guy like me. If an organization can survive all the bad people, wrong judgments and tremendous errors for more than 2,000 years and emerge intact, I want to be with it.”)
It pleases me to think I am corrupt, rather like how Everett Dirksen would describe all of us members of humanity, “a piece of s---t.” And since then, whenever I am reminded about the dereliction and corruption of Catholics, I thank God I am one for I know what to do. It is fitting that the very first saint-the very first one-was not Peter or Paul or the martyrs. It was a Jewish insurrectionist named Dismas. Known as the “Good Thief” he lived an utterly worthless life and was put to death with a companion on either side of Christ. The companion berated Christ and shouted in agony, if you are what you say we are, bring us down from here and save us! Dismas rebuked his partner in crime, saying shut up, this man is innocent and we are not.
Then turning to the figure in the center, Dismas said, remember me when you get into your kingdom. Christ’s answer rings through the ages and is a profound encouragement to sinners like me: This day you shall be with me in paradise. This day. This day.
Thus the only human being who got a green light to heaven from the Master himself, was a bum, an insurrectionist, a no-good, probably adulterer, possibly a homosexual, a child molester or a wife-beater-maybe all these things. Therefore, ask why I don’t leave the Church because of its faults? How can I when I consider my own? It’s the right place for me to be. Besides, if I leave I won’t have the opportunity to say to Him: Remember me when--.” I pray God I will hear the same answer.
| | |
2/6/2006
Ken Arnold and Mark McGuire: All Lines Burning—and During the Super-Bowl, Yet! Last night’s Political Shootout program was remarkable in many ways-not the least the fact that Super-Bowl Sunday is the absolute worst time for any program to be broadcast that doesn’t reflect sports. But this was the greatest exception in my 15 straight years of broadcasting: all ten lines burning for most of the hour. Of course it had to do with the charisma of the host, I’m not denying this: but also with the controversial topics the duo handled.
Ken Arnold, a Republican candidate for 8th district Congress, running against a pack of people, whom I met for the first time, has an unique formulation on the issues. He says he’s a libertarian but made it clear he disagrees with the Republican and Democratic candidates on four issues of major significance. First, he made it clear he’s a fair trader, not a free trader. He would have voted against CAFTA which makes him the only candidate in either party who takes that position, positioning him as a moderate protectionist against the GOPers and Democrat Melissa Bean were he to survive the primary. Given that organized labor has denied Bean its endorsement in the primary and feels outraged at Bean who evidently led labor unions to think she was with them, Arnold-if he made the primary cut-might just have a shot at union endorsement.
The second issue where Arnold differs from most of the group is his strong, even fierce, opposition to illegal immigration which differs in intensity from his opponents who generally favor curbs on illegals but not the wall (I think I’m right about that; if I’m not, let me know). He also is a Minuteman, tried to enlist as a volunteer not long ago and contributed money to this cause. Again, he must be the only candidate to support the Minutemen (again, if I’m wrong, tell me so).
The third issue: While agreeing with his Republican opponents on pro-life, he does not support in the last analysis a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, relying on a Court overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing the matter to go to the states. Actually, in a practical sense a Court overturn is the most that can be hoped for anyhow as a practical matter and conservatives will generally settle for that as a great victory. Nevertheless as a general matter, social conservatives give explicit support to a constitutional amendment. Not so Arnold who stresses his libertarian credentials in opposing a tinkering with the constitution.
Now the fourth issue would seem to be a contradiction-because it calls for a dramatic and drastic change in what the Founders set out for Congress.
Arnold supports an amendment which lengthens the terms of House members to four years rather than two (I think I’m right about this) and places term limits on the Senate (maybe he can fill us in more definitely because as I write this late at night I’m not entirely clear on whether he would add term limits to the House as well.) For one who spurns a change in the Constitution to protect life but endorses a change at radical divergence from the Founders, it’s quite a prescription.
All the while Mark McGuire, a Democrat, came out strongly against so-called merit selection of judges and for the right of the Democratic slate-makers to make a choice, notwithstanding that when he ran last time he was not slated. A good night for independent political thought and robustly expressed views which led to the widespread excitable audience response.
| | | Wheaton College and Dennis Martin [Another article of mine that appeared recently in The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest national Catholic newspaper.]
CHICAGO-A complete misunderstanding of the tenets of Catholicism resulted in an unprecedented firing of a highly acclaimed professor from the faculty of Wheaton College, a renowned evangelical institution and alma mater of Billy Graham-because, the Wheaton instructor became a convert to Catholicism. That’s the view of Dr. Dennis Martin, associate professor of theology at Loyola University Chicago, who respects Wheaton’s right to fire any faculty member, including a Catholic, but believes the convert was let go not because of what views Catholics hold but because of what the college president wrongly assumed Catholics believe. I interviewed Martin at great length and respect him greatly, as a friend and thoroughly sophisticated expert on both Catholic and evangelical Protestant scholarly thought. While I did not interview Wheaton’s president, I read his views at great length as he expounded on them on the internet.
The firing has spurred an intriguing theological dispute which is bound to carry over in future relationships between Catholics and evangelicals. Some scholars believe that if the firing were allowed to start a precedent, relationships between Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism who have cooperated so effectively on significant moral issues and public policy positions could deteriorate based on ignorance of the tenets of Catholicism. The ironic point is that they believe the president of Wheaton acted peremptorily and with final authority in contravention of what Catholics really believe, not unlike some charges Protestants have made about the Pope and the Magisterium [the church’s teaching authority] overriding Scripture.
The firing of Dr. Joshua Hochschild has kicked up a national storm with a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal earlier this month. The headline: “A Test of Faith: A Professor’s Firing After his Conversion Highlights a New Orthodoxy at Religious Colleges.” A controversy is raging over the dismissal on numerous Catholic blogs in the country and last week centered on the fact that the president skipped over the details of paragraph 86 in the Catholic catechism which delineates Catholics’ acceptance of the Scriptures..
Paragraph 86 states “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” The provision goes on to state that that the Magisterium may in no way be considered an authority extrinsic to Scripture but is dependent on Scripture.
Martin, himself a Wheaton grad who attended as a Mennonite but converted to Catholicism, argues the firing was unjust and based on the concept that Wheaton “knows Catholic doctrine better than Catholics know it.” Thus, he says, Wheaton is “arrogant” and that “Hochschild was not dealt with fairly according to the college’s own doctrinal statement and policies.” Wheaton’s president says Hochschild’s Catholic faith violates the doctrinal statement that all faculty members must affirm. But Martin says the doctrinal statement is one which he himself could sign today in good conscience as a Catholic. Therefore, Martin argues the firing was unjust and based on the concept “that Wheaton knows Catholic doctrine better than Catholics know it.” Not so, counters the Wheaton president. Why, then, did he avoid paragraph 86, asks Martin. The Wheaton president does not fully respond to this point but cites what he sees as Catholic tradition.
Martin’s views are central in the controversy since (a) he does not dispute Wheaton’s right to hire and fire faculty, a fact he agrees on in his words “without reservation” and (b) that he knows the requirements of Wheaton, having matriculated there in history as a Protestant in 1974. With this background, very few see as clearly as he does the irony of the Wheaton decision since the Wheaton doctrinal statement is not in conflict with a Catholic’s religious beliefs. Wheaton’s president says the trust Catholics place in the Magisterium is well-known and self-evident-trust he understands completely, does not challenge for Catholics but which put a truly believing and practicing Catholic faculty member at odds with Wheaton’s mission.
At issue is the tightening of distinctions between the two religions by Wheaton, seen as a departure from the Billy Graham era when efforts were made for rapprochement between evangelicals and Catholics. Also the belief by Wheaton’s president which Martin maintains is falsely based on what Catholics believe. Martin says, “Wheaton’s doctrinal statement does not include anything that a Catholic cannot affirm. The issues that separate evangelical Protestants and Catholics involving the nature of the Church, the priesthood and sacraments among them, are not presented in specifically Protestant form in the Wheaton statement.”
The story is of national significance because approximately 400 U.S. colleges list religion as a factor in hiring practices; full-time faculty where the colleges hire mostly Protestants rose 36.2 percent from 1991 to 2003. Some wrongly insist that by firing a Catholic the action is a discrimination but Martin does not hold this. Again, he maintains the question is not Wheaton’s right to hire whomever it wishes, but that it is falsely ascribing tenets to Catholics which are not requisite to the faith, stemming, as Martin says, from misunderstanding of Catholic beliefs. The firing of Hochschild falls in line with a trend that has reversed an earlier thawing of relationships between evangelical Protestants and Catholics. The Wall Street Journal characterizes the new arm’s- length distance between the faiths is prompted by college administrators “fearful of forsaking their spiritual and educational moorings.” They are “hiring for mission” even when it requires lowering academic standards.
The same goes for some Catholic universities. The new president of the University of Notre Dame, Fr. John Jenkins, who is refreshingly orthodox compared to some predecessors, has reported with some concern that the Catholic percentage of his faculty has fallen to 53 percent compared with 85 percent in the 1970s-just a hairline above the stricture laid down by the late Pope John Paul II who maintained that non-Catholics shouldn’t be a majority at the faculty of a Catholic university.
Grumbling parents of students at Catholic universities may ask, despairingly, what is the big deal about non-Catholics when many so-called “Catholic” professors, such as Fr. Richard McBrien who taught theology for years at Notre Dame in wide variance to accepted Catholic teachings. The answer is, as many point out, that it is of great significance since slowly but surely Catholic higher education seeks to manage a turn-around. Non-Catholic professors need not respond to any authority and can thumb their noses at any discipline but the case can easier be made that Catholic teachers have an obligation to adhere to church norms.
That’s why the Joshua Hochschild case is being studied in evangelical and Catholic universities. Wheaton requires full-time faculty members to be Protestants. They must sign a statement expressing belief in “biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity.” Hochschild, 38, says he’s still willing to sign the Wheaton statement. What’s the trouble then? Essentially, the college president, Duane Litfin, believes he can’t-and because Hochschild is willing to do so, must either misunderstand Church beliefs or implies that the young professor could be compromising his own beliefs. That is not only an insult to Hochschild but exhibits Litfin’s misunderstanding of Catholicism, says Martin. No it isn’t, says Litfin but is a human misunderstanding of some aspects of Catholic theological procedure.
Hochschild has made an interesting spiritual journey. He was reared in Plainfield, Vt. by a Jewish father and Lutheran mother but neither were religiously observant. Noted in public high school as a brilliant student, at Yale Hochschild became engrossed in philosophy but concluded that its basis was religious thought. He was converted as an Episcopalian in his sophomore year and completed his graduate studies at Notre Dame, his Ph.D thesis analyzing the thought of a 15th century Cardinal who sought to re-convert Martin Luther to Catholicism. After receiving his doctorate, Hochschild, offered teaching posts in philosophy by Wheaton and Mount St. Mary’s in Emmitsburg, Md., chose Wheaton because he believed he fell in between the schools’ two traditions.
After signing Wheaton’s statement which maintains the Bible is “inerrant” as well as “of supreme and final authority,” he was interviewed by Litfin who inquired how Hochschild understood the concept of biblical supremacy. The then Episcopalian Hochschild responded that he believed the Bible could be read with acceptance of “authoritative traditions.” An example would be that of church councils. His concept was accepted. Moreover a teacher and scholar, his department chairman testifies that “he was excellent on every score.”
But at the same time, Hochschild was re-thinking his religious commitment, asking himself why he wasn’t Catholic, viewing evangelical Protestantism as flabby scholarship and, in contrast, admiring Catholicism’s rigorous academic tradition, particularly the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Reportedly he was not impressed with evangelical opinion that the study of philosophy undermines religious convictions. It was at a 2003 scholarly conference at Notre Dame that Hochschild discussed his views with a Catholic priest. To the priest, Hochschild seemed to have embraced Catholicism entirely. Thereafter, Hochschild announced that he wanted to “obey the Gospel commands to eat the flesh of Christ [as a Catholic]” and joined a Catholic initiation class.
That’s when the trouble began. He notified his department chairman who hoped Hochschild could stay, but in accordance with the college rules advised the president. A month-long discussion was initiated between Hochschild and Litfin centering for the most part on whether Hochschild could, in good conscience, re-subscribe to Wheaton’s doctrinal statement which faculty members must renew each year. While Wheaton’s 12-point statement doesn’t exclude Catholics, by emphasizing Scripture as “supreme and final authority” and its focus on identification of Wheaton with “evangelical Christianity” were exclusively Protestant, according to Litfin, who has insisted that Catholics believe the Bible and the Pope are equally authoritative.
But Hochschild disagreed, declaring the Bible is certainly the supreme authority for Catholics who turn to the Catholic hierarchy just as Protestants turn to their minister, arguing that “I see no reason why I should be dismissed from the college on joining the Roman Catholic church.” Litfin insisted Hochschild was “quibbling” and said “perhaps Wheaton colleges has come to a point where, because of challenges such as yours, it must revise its documents to make more explicit its non-Catholic identity.”
Beyond that, Litfin won’t discuss the matter other than saying, “Josh is a terrific young guy. We would have loved to keep him” but citing that a majority of the faculty supports his decision. On Easter eve, 2004 Hochschild was received into the Catholic church. His brother Adam, a St. Louis attorney, says he was initially shocked by his brother’s decision but eventually he joined his brother and became a Catholic on the same day.
Martin views the president’s views a serious misunderstanding of Catholicism. “First of all,” he told me, “I believe any Catholic could sign the doctrinal statement in good conscience without any reservation because the statement is very general. Evangelicals agree on some things but on churchly things-on the question of the nature of church authority-they’re all over the map. Some are Congregationalists. They think that there’s no authority beyond a congregation. Some have bishops, such as the Episcopalians. Some have synods, some have presbyteries-Presbyterians. The constituency of Wheaton college, evangelicals, does not agree on the nature of the church and church government so the doctrinal statement cannot take a position for episcopacy against congregationalism. On the very general level, the way it’s written, Catholics could agree with it. Where Catholics and evangelicals do disagree, none of that is in the statement.
“Now the president of Wheaton tried to argue that Catholics could not in good faith sign the statement because of the one clause in this doctrinal statement which says `we believe the Scriptures are the final authority.’ He says they believe in another authority, namely the church, the magisterium and the Pope. But Catholics do not believe the Pope or Magisterium is another authority: they believe Scriptures are the final authority but that when there’s a dispute over interpreting the Scriptures, the bishops, the councils and the Pope should resolve that. As a matter of fact, Protestants also have various kinds of authority. Their pastors-or in this case the president of Wheaton college-also interpret disputes but they don’t realize that.”
A deciding factor, Martin says, was discovered when Catholic bloggers started reviewing the matter after publication in the Wall Street Journal. An earlier statement by the president was uncovered showing that he had “skipped over #86 in the Catechism when he was trying to prove that Catholics believe in an authority outside and beyond Scripture.” Martin said, “Litfin claimed to show from the Catechism that they believe this. He quoted from the Catechism’s #85, 87 and 88 but skipped #86 which states that the Magisterium is the servant of Scripture. It totally blows Litfin’s exegesis of what Catholics believe, totally blows the basis on which Hochschild was told he could not sign in good faith. Litfin left it out in the 1998 document that is now used as the benchmark for glossing over the Statement of Faith.”
A second problem lay with Wheaton’s preamble, says Martin, the fact that it states its belief in evangelical Christianity rather than Protestant evangelical Christianity. “Actually,” he told me, “if the evangelical Protestants at Wheaton would listen to what Hochschild is saying and what some evangelicals are saying-Timothy George, Mark Noll, Charles Colson, J. I. Packer and others-they would realize that Catholics are one of two major blocks of evangelical Christianity. Evangelical Protestants like Wheaton are one block but Catholics, traditional Catholics, orthodox Catholics form another block.”
The theological controversy rages on-which serves to educate proletarians like me that there are many other things to fight about in the Chicago area besides the usual items of politics, fraud, waste and abuse and double-dealing in Richard M. Daley’s City Hall. But this struggle has vast significance for the future. As a light-hearted aside following hours of written dispute with President Litfin, Martin ruminated: “Looks like my chances for an honorary doctorate from my alma mater are rapidly slipping from my grasp!”
I do not wish to allow mundane secular politics to intrude in this pristine theological discussion-but. But let me murmur a prayer that the pointed and heated discussions Catholic and Evangelical Protestant theologians have conducted don’t interfere with the cooperation which has truly changed the politics of this nation on social issues for the better.
| | |
2/4/2006
Thoughts While Shaving: If Oberweis Pulled Out...Four, not Five, Real Catholics on the Court…and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals Suppose, just suppose, instead of Bill Brady pulling out of the gubernatorial race, Jim Oberweis did. The sad fact is that with very little funds raised and with an overload of campaign staffers eating away the money, Brady would not be in a position to consolidate the conservative vote-insufficient funds to go on statewide TV (as Oberweis will do shortly). Hence if Bill Brady, at age 44, wanted to shore up the conservative good will for a future statewide run, he would withdraw. The word on Brady is that he doesn’t like to make fund-raising calls, does not schmooze the way a candidate should, etc. All things being equal, with the most handsome visage since the young Reagan or young JFK with a charmer personality to-boot, Brady can be judged as the conservative candidate of the future. Why would Brady want to carry the collar for an Oberweis loss in the primary by splitting the conservative vote? Isn’t it just like the Pat O’Malley episode a few years ago? O’Malley was thought to be the conservative Moses when he ran against Jim Ryan for the nomination. But O’Malley stuck in the primary race against Jim Ryan when it was almost certain he couldn’t get nominated, refusing to withdraw, all the time making insufferably harsh attacks and then doubling his blunder by not endorsing Ryan afterc the attorney general won the nomination-a failure that hobbled Ryan and contributed to him losing the governorship. O’Malley is estranged from many conservatives today and is, as candidate material, as cold as yesterday’s mashed potatoes.
Bill Brady’s not a guy to listen or take advice-any more than O’Malley was-which is a tragedy-but if he were, he would pull out of the governor’s race now…setting himself up as first-rung for the next statewide race to come along, and spare himself any sore-loser retaliation. Increasingly it is clear that Brady will not find the cash to run a competitive race, that he couldn’t find the cash even if Oberweis pulls out. The fact that he doesn’t pull out and allow conservatives to be united behind one candidate, is a mistake that could amount to a sizable political blunder. Despite what the Brady people say, the campaign ain’t going anywhere.
*****
A good friend points out the article in this week’s Economist which cites how far Catholics have come from the days when John F. Kennedy’s campaign was called a high risk venture, in 1960. Now there are four Catholics on the Court in philosophical agreement: Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. The fifth-Anthony Kennedy-was named by Ronald Reagan on the pretext that Kennedy would be pro-life. Shortly after he joined the Court, Kennedy went Hollywood by turning pro-choice and earning the kudos of The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse for having “grown in office.” Kennedy was one of two Justices-Sandra Day O’Connor the other-who went to the ailing Harry Blackmun and said they wanted to do anything to keep Roe v. Wade in effect, participating in the writing of the Casey decision. Roberts, incidentally, is the second Catholic chief justice in U.S. history.
The first was, let us say, not a star, Roger Brooke Taney (pronounced “tawney”) author of the Dred Scott decision, born into a wealthy slave-owning Maryland family whose fortune came from tobacco. Taney was Andrew Jackson’s attorney general and was named to the Court by Jackson to succeed John Marshall. In the infamous Scott v. Sandford decision which he wrote largely himself, Taney ruled that neither slaves nor free blacks could be citizens, stating as an incidental that Congress did not have the authority to prevent slavery from entering the territories-by which he hoped to end the slavery controversy altogether by overthrowing the Missouri Compromise. Rather than end the controversy, Scott helped precipitate the Civil War. In his final years, Taney sought to thwart President Abraham Lincoln and died with the contempt of many citizens.
While Catholic jurists’ opinions are not pre-ordained across the board, on abortion it should be because, as the Economist says, of the generally held philosophical opinion on natural law. The death penalty is not a good test because Aquinas favored it as have moral theologians through the ages, the view that it is wrong coming in recent years from John Paul II who did not apply his views ex cathedra or “from the chair,” meaning that other Catholics are free to dissent (as indeed many do, not me, however). The fact that leaders of the Democratic party’s opposition to the pro-life Alito are Catholics-Kennedy, Durbin and Leahy-doesn’t mean the Church’s view is flexible. It means Kennedy, Durbin and Leahy have deviated on the abortion issue from the stand taken by Church leaders. The Church’s stand on abortion has been consistent through 2000 years of history. (And dissenters, don’t write to tell me Augustine was a pro-choicer. Limited by ancient biology, he thought, wrongly, that life began with “quickening,” the movement of the unborn child in the womb.)
*****
In 1977 when I was up for appointment as a Fellow of the John F. Kennedy Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government, I faced my first grilling from a young professor there, Doris Kearns Goodwin. Ms. Goodwin is not just a fierce liberal but a devoted Democrat, wife of Dick Goodwin who advised the Kennedy’s. To say the least she was unimpressed with the fact that I would be, if not the first Republican, assuredly the first conservative Republican to be appointed as Fellow. I passed muster with the Dean, Ernest May but he told me, “Doris has reservations about you. Let us say you only got a base hit with her--so you’ll have to come back here to be interviewed by the Senator.” Meaning Edward Kennedy. Well, I thought, if I struck out with Doris, I’m sure going to strike out with the patriarch of the Kennedy clan.
Surprisingly, I hit a home run with him, our conversation turning on one subject we agreed upon-that Everett Dirksen was a helluva Senator. Dirksen was also a pal, drinking companion, stunning story teller and great confidante of John and Robert Kennedy. (In fact, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, he was so invaluable to John Kennedy that the president called him to the White House from Illinois where Dirksen was campaigning for reelection. Being called on for advice by JFK sunk the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Syd Yates. When Dirksen walked into the Oval Office, the President grinned and said he really didn’t need advice at that particular time but he and Bobby wanted to do something for Everett to save his election-Bobby appearing suddenly from a corner office which prompted wholesale guffawing, a fact Ted Kennedy corroborated for me). In fact in telling Dirksen stories, we yukked it up so loudly in the Senator’s Cambridge office that a secretary timidly opened the door to see if the Senator was all right. I got a pass, went back to Ms. Kearns who said, “well, I understand from On High that you’re acceptable-more than that, you’re entirely agreeable with the Senator. Did you change your views from when we talked?” That sort of burned me up but I said no, Everett Dirksen had much to do with it. As Dirksen had died eight years earlier, she looked puzzled but waved me through.
Since then Doris Kearns Goodwin has won a Pulitzer Prize but subsequently her career had some incredibly tough knocks-a finding that two of her biographies, No Ordinary Tim: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt-The Home Front in World War II and The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys contained vast stretches of copy which were plagiarized, at least several paragraphs running word-for-word. She received bad press nationally and was let go as a contributor to The Jim Lehrer News Hour on PBS, never satisfactorily answering the charge, saying only that through some slip or other the paragraphs were copied verbatim. However it pleases me to say that her latest volume Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln [Simon & Schuster: 2005] is easily the most significant contribution to Lincoln literature in a century, her writing zeroing in on Lincoln the politician who managed his presidency by naming his key rivals to places in his cabinet where he easily dominated them, including William Seward (highly educated, New York-sophisticated) as Secretary of State and Edwin Stanton (again, superbly educated, a lawyer who once rejected Lincoln from a law suit because he felt Lincoln was a backwoods rube. She writes like an angel; her insights are profound, her research at places is unusually fresh (remarkable for a subject about whom hundreds of thousands of biographies have been produced). It is a five-star and you must read it. Tell me what you think.
*****
This has already become too long-but it occurred to me while shaving this morning what it was about Everett Dirksen that Ted Kennedy and I were suffused with mirth about. I will try to clean this up for younger readers. I told him the Senator that shortly after I joined The Quaker Oats Company, I had the chance to ride with Dirksen as he made his political rounds in the Chicagoland area, riding in the back of his car as his eccentric aide Harold Rainville drove and the Minority Leader was flicking a cigarette (disturbing because he was at the same time wheezing with asthma) in the ash-tray. The name of a prominent Illinois party leader came up and I asked how sagacious, how profound, how deep he was.
Dirksen turned around in the seat, looked at me for a long time with his baggy, rheumy eyes and intoned-in his rolling baritone-“actually, he’s as dumb as dog sh-t.” I thought about that for a long time: how dumb is that? It so happened, I told EMK that in his office and he exploded with laughter, saying that in the early `60s this was a favorite saying of his brothers about politicians they didn’t like-and he often wondered where it came from and how exactly dumb is that, anyhow. We wondered who gave the image to whom and concluded it would have to have been the Wizard of Ooze, the Pundit of Pekin, Everett Dirksen.
I’m outta here. Your comments? Don’t attack Teddy now: for the moment I feel mellow about him.
| | |
2/3/2006
Diss ‘n Data: Thoughts While Shaving Those who say President Bush’s State of the Union speech was a disappointments forget that such addresses must contain laundry lists of recommendations and do not generally contain high flights of rhetoric. But Bush’s did. The content of his speech and his very effective delivery will make it a model for such addresses to follow. Among those who dissed it was Billy Kristol, founder and editor of The Weekly Standard which comes close to being my favorite magazine. Nevertheless seeing Kristol the other night on Fox News, I was dismayed to hear from this oracle that Bush was insufficiently warlike vis-à-vis Iran. We can only fight one war at a time, Billy. Moreover I would suggest that somehow either The Standard or The Committee for the 21st Centuiry to which Billy belongs find a way to send him to Iraq to observe the fighting there so that he can get his belly full of danger. It might change not just his belligerent views in behalf of wars young men would have to fight-but modify this talking head whose voice has been modulated to a soft purr fit for the Harvard faculty lounge. With his all-knowing supercilious smile which flashes the message “I’m every bit as smart as I sound” Billy is becoming, as he ages, a William F. Buckley ultra-sophisticate. All he needs to do is to learn to pop his eyes in mid-sentence, move his hairline up and down as he talks, punctuate his sentences with “aw-aw-aw” and affect Buckley’s Brit-rich-rich Connecticut accent to complete the caricature.
*****
Christine Cegalis, they tell me, is a leftist of the charming Howard Dean school and is not going to take the challenge from Tammy Duckworth in the 6th district lying down. That may be all well and good, but Cegalis is too timid to appear on my WLS radio show, her campaign manager having turned it down absolutely for the foreseeable future. The show is top-rated and has never been so studiously avoided as by Cegalis who evidently is afraid that the Republican, whomever it would be, would be too tough for her to face. Tell me, what Democrat on the show was ruined by an appearance? Becky Carroll, the governor’s budget spokesman, is a stand-out and probably no one I’ve heard has done a better job for the Dem party either statewide or national than does she.
Someone who could possibly rival Cegalis on the Republican side is, inexplicably, Kevin White, the lawyer who is challenging Rahm Emanuel. Why in the world would someone running for Congress have to think over an invitation to appear on WLS? If he’s like Cegalis and too timid to take on anyone from the opposition party, why is he running? Oh, well. It takes all kinds, I guess.
*****
Which reminds me that this Sunday the guests will be Ken Arnold, a Republican candidate for 8th district Congress (who has been lobbying to get on) and Mark McGuire, the Constitutional scholar who ran as a Democrat some years ago for Circuit Court judge. My guess is that the Superbowl will turn out to be so over-balanced in scoring early that we’ll have the full listenership when we go on WLS at 8 p.m.
| | | Joey The Clown [Here’s another article I wrote recently for The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest national Catholic newspaper published in St. Paul.]
CHICAGO-Beginning in 1915 when one Alphonse Capone moved here from New York, mob crime took on a distinctively ethnic character. Known locally as The Outfit, it attracted white men with sleek, black pompadours, expensive suits, pointy imported shoes and surnames ending in vowels. Most were either lapsed or irregularly practicing congregants of the Catholic Church.
One exception was Earl (Hymie) Weiss, a Jew, the boss of the North Side Outfit but he also left his mark on the Church. Literally. He was strolling down a sidewalk across from Holy Name Cathedral on Oct. 11, 1926 when a fusillade of bullets from a nearby rooming house cut him down, enabling him to “take a shortcut to God” in the words of one romantic. But Hymie’s demise was well noted and long remembered because a few bullets went askew, chipping the Cathedral cornerstone. Thus its inscription changed from a longer version to the condensed and meaningless “…every knee should…heaven and earth.”
The altered cornerstone was a regular tourist stop for years with buses halting and allowing visitors to peer at the stone until the archdiocese finally had enough and obliterated the whole thing. Memories of the Outfit have been fading until last week. That when the feds nabbed spry, 77-year-old Joey (The Clown) Lombardo, on the lam and the subject of an international manhunt since April, 2005 after the authorities charged him and others with 18 or so unsolved murders.
Lombardo’s gentler side came home to me a few years ago when a woman whose restaurant I patronize told me that after she bought the place she solicited bids to renew the booths. Those who answered were short of skill. The hands-down winner was a grandfatherly type who expertly re-fitted them with beautiful leather-and his fee was reasonable, too. She mourned that he may be the last surviving leather re-fitter in the city. She grew pensive when she learned that the re-fitter, Lombardo, is also the last of the old-time Chicago hit-men. The feds determined that he was indeed the city’s last surviving serial assassin from a lineage that went back to Dion O’Bannion. Lombardo got his nickname The Clown because he was a decidedly manic, enthusiastically good-natured comic in his trade. While the FBI searched for him, the newspapers would receive every so often letters postmarked from far away in which Lombardo would protest he was innocent. The letters usually had a clever and irreverent comment or two, a trademark for the man they called The Clown. The letters spurred a media binge to find him. The newspapers ran old pictures of him grinning which led one newspaper to run a photo of an old guy riding a bicycle which it proclaimed was Lombardo-but it was not. Rather than sue the paper, that old guy seemed to be flattered.
While the search went on, Lombardo stories were re-told. For one thing, he was a kind of progressive Outfit kingpin. While Capone and others liked to live high on the hog, Lombardo had an affinity for working people and unions. Particularly the Teamsters. In 1977 he was convicted of attempting to bribe Nevada Senator Howard Cannon to delay passage of a trucking deregulation bill long sought by the Teamsters. When the senatorial bribery business turned sour, he turned to leather upholstery. Then he disappeared but after he was picked up in suburban Elmwood Park the other day, it was evident that business-serial murder, bribery and leather booth refinishing-was not good.
When he appeared in court last week he looked like Saddam Hussein with a beard that would require a weed-whacker for us to see his face. When the judge inquired solicitously about his health and whether he had kept up his doctor’s appointments to treat hardening of the arteries, Lombardo said, “I was, ah, what do they call it-unavailable.” This drollery was worth an appearance on Letterman.
But while Lombardo’s capture captivated the news, a more significant indictment may well have led to fever chills in city hall. Up to now, indictments and convictions on graft have been devoted to city workers- not elected officials. It led to speculation that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald might veer away from indicting elected officials because, presumably, Mayor Richard M. Daley is President Bush’s favorite big city mayor. But now Fitzgerald has started indicting elected Democratic officials-starting with the elected Democratic city clerk, James Laski.
Laski, a popular politician, had ambitions to become mayor. He is a former alderman, possessed of a popular Polish name, comes from the South Side where the cream of Democratic hierarchy have originated. As such Laski has been receiving generally good media attention-until now at any rate. He has not been known as a devotee of Mayor Daley, has taken issue with him in the past over tax increases and is regarded as a latter day exponent of bungalow belt morality, even reputed to be a reformer. Yet as it appears now, being elected and a reformer didn’t help Laski.
That’s because he could not resist the honey pot that has lured so many city workers to their political doom: the Hired Truck scandal where officials take bribes in order to schedule private trucking firms to receive lush city contracts, not only getting their owners high paid work but enabling some not to work at all and still get paid. Laski was so greedy say the feds that he became a regular broker for the hired trucks, getting them contracts and taking his own fees in cash. Indeed, much business was conducted on the phone where he communicated with the bribers by code. The feds taped the calls and one minute’s eavesdrop convinced them Laski was dealing in code-because the words he used didn’t sound like Laski.
In order to signal that a payoff was expected, Laski would say on the phone, “Go Cubs!” But as any respectable fed would know, Laski was a South Sider and thus a Chicago White Sox fan. Rooting for the Cubs by a South Side politician led the FBI to conclude rightly that something was funny. So they kept listening.
A cautionary thing Laski did was pat down people who came into his office to see if they were carrying wires for the feds. That in itself led the FBI to wonder what Laski intended to say that could be damaging. But the final touch was that Laski’s pat-downs weren’t thorough. One FBI mole was patted down and Laski’s pudgy hands passed by the wire and the microphone.
No sooner was Laski indicted than it was discovered that he had four city policemen who were detailed to him as bodyguards. Why a city clerk needs police bodyguards has always defied reason, at least for me. (Indeed, why the Illinois secretary of state has bodyguards also is a mystery). Laski’s guard story prompted widespread speculation. And it turned out Laski isn’t the only one to have police protection. That the mayor has cops to protect him no one will quarrel about-since two mayors in city history were assassinated. But the city treasurer has bodyguards as does an ex-mayor of fifteen years ago! Not only that but the bodyguards were also serving the city’s richest alderman, Edward Burke, chairman of the council’s Finance committee, his snow white hair setting off his ruddy face as he surveys his own greatness, attired in expensive suits, a green tie and ever-present green handkerchief in his breast pocket.
. Burke and his wife Anne (who served as the oracular acting chair on the Church’s National Review Board as set up by the bishops) are millionaires many times over. He is raking in the dough as the city’s foremost zoning lawyer and his wife is an Appellate Justice in the state court system. If Chicago has a royalty apart from the Daleys, it’s the Burkes who together rank as prince and princess of city Democratic politics and in the establishmentarian Catholic church and society. Moreover, Burke also heads the Cook county Democratic party’s judge selection committee. He picks those to run for election, making sure, of course, that they pony up sufficient monies for the Cook county Democratic party’s campaigns. Let us say it’s the last vestige of the old-line patronage system that constitutes the bedrock of the Democratic party here and which enables Illinois to be a blue state, fore-square pro-abort and hotly anti-Bush.
Now, why, oh why, does Eddie Burke have police body-guards? If his life were in danger, he could easily pay for private eyes. But there is a certain status to being escorted to meetings and social gatherings fore and aft by uniformed police. It provides the aura of prominence. Jim Laski will have to do without police guards while he stands trial. But there’s a consolation. If convicted he will once again be surrounded by guards, to keep him in, not to serve his needs. This thought may well have also occurred to Richard M. Daley as Patrick Fitzgerald continues slowly and deliberately to study corruption in Chicago. When he goes to jail, Joey the Clown will be the last chapter in the old era of Capone-style corruption. An entirely new chapter-typified by Jim Laski-an impeccable one that merges wealth and Democratic political prestige is about to begin.
| | |
2/1/2006
Diss and Data: Random Thoughts While Shaving Sunday’s Political Shootout on WLS-AM (890) was extraordinarily good if I say so myself due to the contributions of the two guests-Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor and Jeff Berkowitz, the savvy recovering lawyer and political analyst. I tried to hold Jeff to three questions which he narrowly missed adhering to. He has come into his own with his weekly show on CAN-TV and his blog. I don’t know if any major TV station is in the market for a political reporter but they couldn’t do better than trying to hire him away from his lawyer recruitment firm. His tenacity and political sophistication is a major plus for any TV gig. He reminds me of the very early Mike Wallace, pre-“60 Minutes” and post-“The Chez Show with Mike Wallace and Buff Cobb” (for those of you old enough to remember this WGN feature in the `50s. Wallace had a show called “Nightline” where he would go one-on-one with an interviewee. I think Berkowitz is that good…
Speaker Mike Madigan is doing a whale of a good job protecting and defending Rod Blagojevich and the natural answer to the question “why” is wrong. The natural answer is that the Speaker is trying to keep Blagojevich on his feet until Madigan’s spoiled brat daughter, Lisa, can succeed the governor, whether she runs when he retires or against a Republican in his/her second term. But astute Dems downstate (several in fact) tell me that the real reason is self-evident and is passed over by those in search of deeper meaning. Madigan wants to continue as Speaker and the unpopularity of Blagojevich downstate worries him that he may lose seats down there and with it the Speakership. In any event, the thought that Blagojevich would have difficulty assuaging the Speaker in campaign time has been wrong for a long time…
Some Republican candidates for governor are getting bitchy-and I don’t mean the female candidate. Judy Baar Topinka stays away from any attacks whatsoever on her GOP opponents but not so some of her GOP competitors forgetting (if they ever cared) that after primary day they-if they win-they will have to pick up the marbles and urge unity. For one thing, whomever is doing the Topinka Tattler should can it, desist: it’s bitterly derisive and divisive, not funny and sophomoric. Bill Brady can be better served by stowing the line-used in two debates, now-that Jim Oberweis’ solution to immigration is rounding all the illegals up by helicopter and stashing them in Soldier Field. That’s not what Oberweis said in an earlier commercial that he has already disowned. Ron Gidwitz’s pronouncements are tough but fair. This is not a run for president of the junior class but supposedly a convergence of adults…
That the Sun-Times should get a Pulitzer is not due to its local columnists who try feebly to play the hip-flip commentators (Falsani, Roeper, Steinberg and Pickett come to mind) but the straight news staff which has done an outstanding job of covering Chicago. I think first and foremost of Fran Spielman who seems to write a third of the newspaper every day from City Hall-stuff that is pointed, journalistically sharp and thoroughly mature and probing. Abdon Pallasch who covers the courts is superb-and of course the brightest orb of the Bright One is located on the Business Page run by Dan Miller who has been a journalist in two cities for a thousand years. Sports (about which I’m far from expert) is superb as well. Lynn Sweet does a fine job covering Democratic news for what is certainly an unannounced but purposefully partisan Democratic newspaper. I’ll have more to say about certain straight news stars who are under-pushed by their newspaper later…
Edwin Eisendrath is running like a dry creek-this not because he isn’t saying interesting things but because he has been unwilling-or his rich surrogates are unwilling-to back his candidacy with cash. The feeble attempts at TV commercials aren’t working and if he thinks he can substitute for money his frequent appearances around the state, Dem insiders tell me, he ought to save his energy. Without put-up he is nearing the stage when his campaign will be hooted out of town as ridiculous…
Rep. Mark Kirk has long been seen as a comer. Indeed, he should be thought of as first tier to take on Sen. Dick Durbin who’s ripe for the picking after casting opprobrium on the troops in Iraq and who’s been desperately trying to salvage himself. Social conservatives like me would prefer one of our number rather than Kirk-but the need to replace Durbin is so crucial in this blue state, that accommodation should be made for reality. Kirk would certainly have voted for Alito and his strong positives would more than make up for the few social failings he has…
But don’t carry broad-mindedness too far. Ms. Topinka’s quick ratification of Gov. Blagojevich’s stand on over-the-counter birth control pills shows that she has determined to wipe clean most thoughts of rapprochement if she wins the primary-which, increasingly, she is unlikely to do given her bad performance reviews in debate…
Mainstream media tell us that Sen. Barack Obama is significant because he is a thoughtful liberal, able to take independent positions and not run with the Dick Durbin predictables. He is posed for these magazine cover stories looking moodily out the window, contemplating Big Thoughts in the context of his “the road not taken” image. After all, wasn’t it Obama who said the other day that the attempt to filibuster Sam Alito was foolhardy, wouldn’t work etc.? But then the left-wing lobby hit the anterooms of the Capitol: Ralph Neas and Nan Aron and Sen. Kennedy launched his stentorian shouter on the Senate floor. David Axelrod said that if he wants a shot on the national ticket, he’d better conform. Upshot: Obama voted against cloture and in favor of the filibuster. We knew Dick Durbin and Axelrod could count on you, Barack.
| | |
Archives
Want to see more? Try browsing our archives by month.
| |
