Tuesday, November 29, 2005

After Mine: When the Readers Have their Say

Q. Why don’t you understand that while Judy Baar Topinka is not a conservative, neither is she a liberal but is in the center, basis her opposition to partial birth abortion and support for concealed carry?

A. You have a point if, in fact, Topinka carries those views.You’ll forgive me if I have trouble accepting what she says as her views ever since on my radio program as state Republican chairman, she flatly—vehemently and whole-heartedly—refused to endorse Peter Fitzgerald for reelection, this on a 50,000-watt station that reaches not just the entire state but the Midwest region as well. Then when the heat goes on she tells the media that I should “take the wax out of my ears,” a dig at my impaired hearing purportedly stemming from my senile decrepitude. I admire this personal roughing up as it comes from a true brawler; she’ll need all those tactics when the brawl gets going as I imagine it certainly should after Wednesday. Her denial in the face of truth is outrageous, cavalier, the study of which is truly for the metaphysicians. Steve Brown, Mike Madigan’s guy was on the show as well and heard it. Does she think we’re so gullible as to doubt our ears—and others when mine are failing—and which is on tape? So, sorry, this stuff about she’s really against partial-birth abortion and for concealed carry coming from her claque doesn’t carry water—and even if it comes from her own lips, given her track record. Sorry.


  1. Sir, think about your rationale: if you don't believe anything she says, how do you know she is a liberal-because she says so? Is this consistent? With your credentials, I know you can argue more persuasively.

  2. Let me first say, I would vote for Judy if she won the nomination. Unfortunately, I don't think Judy would do the same for Steve Rauchenberger (Fitzgerald jr.). She would probably stay silent as the biggest jackass in illinois gets reelected. But what else would you expect from... dare I say... a liberal???

  3. Considering how Topinka played coy with supporting the candidates of the Illinois' Republican Party, why should she expect us to support her?

  4. Tom,

    One item ignored by Mehlman, McKenna, et. al. is the devastating effect that a Topinka Nomination would have on Republican turn out.

    With two inveterate liberals in the race, most uninitiated voters (the majority) would vote for the guy who promised not to raise taxes. Add to that the powerful democrat organization, and you've got Blago's positives.

    Blago's Negatives don't work for Topinka because shes pasted with all the same issues.

    The real kicker is that the entire Republican base stays home if she wins the nomination. Any State Rep. or Senator who is seen with her will see a drop in conservative support.

    Couple this with the retirements in the House and senate, and it doesn't take a genius to see that Topinka's Nomination will set the Republican Party back a decade - that AFTER she and her ilk have brought it to where it is now.

    Republicans who support Topinka are either uninformed or Democrats.

  5. seems to be the message from "reformers".

    I don't understand the hysteria about the only GOP statewide office holder. Is Illinois GOP politics a suicide pact? After the Alan Keyes debacle (which Rauschenberger is cowardly and disingenuously distancing himself from), how can you you ask people to donate to a doomed to failure kamikaze mission from the right wing?

    JBT may differ with conservatives on some issues, but she has been consistent, and is a proven statewide winner.

  6. Warfield,

    What does having been a statewide office holder have to do with anything?

    This is the type of "it's my turn" thinking that destroys ideas and thinking everywhere.

    I could give a damn that JBT engineered her elections by cutting deals with Dem powerbrokers. If anything, it proves that she is devoid of principles.

    You comment that we conservatives wish to "destroy the party in order to save it." This is utter nonsense. Your implications are intructive.

    By your statement, you imply that;

    1. Party is more important than any policy or principle.

    This was a party founded upon principle. Who is destroying it? Look to those without priciples.

    2. That JBT is "the party."

    Nonsense. If a party is a power center that exercises power for the sake of power, then by all means, support JBT.

    On the other hand, if a party is a set of ideas and ideals, JBT offers nothing. She lacks any substance.


    JBT has "proven" nothing. She lacks any "consistency" whatsoever.

    To elect some one only because they have been elected in the past is the definition of vacuity.

    That is what democrats do.