As you know, I backed Jim Oberweis in the primary but if you heard my radio show last night youll see the vast, almost chasm difference, between Ron Gidwitz, an economic conservative and Judy Baar Topinka (as she demonstrated in that caterwauling cat fight called a debate on Sunday night which is due to be re-aired this morning on Channel 5 at 11 a.m.). My point is that in Topinka you have someone who served for more than 20 years in state government and politics and still comes to the debate winging it with no definable program for getting the state out of its present sorry condition.
My earlier column on the Train Wreck was to point out that social conservatives who supported Brady well beyond the time when it was obvious he either wasnt able to win or couldnt muster the finances bear major responsibility. Much of the hashing back and forth in Readers Comments are rather, if I may say so, unconvincing justificatory excuses such as: with a runoff, Judy still might have won from Lovies Leather
well, Oberweis couldnt have won anyhow; Roesers comments are not objective (of course they arent: no analysis is objective but is subjective) from D. Thomas who storms about saying Oberweis was unprincipled with ties to the Wizard of Carpentersville
and another from Lovies Leather: get over it, Tom; cry me a river.
another that Brady got into the race first and before Oberweis got in, Brady was leading (you have to be a kind of moral theologian to compute that one: Brady was leading Oberweis before Oberweis got in)
but after Oberweis got in, Oberweis was leading but anyhow Brady had been in first so Oberweis should have withdrawn
Yet another objection: my point that following Topinkas loss its time to rebuild the party with new leadershipwhats different now than in 2002? That kind of futility that because it hasnt been done yet it cant be done in the future from Matt Nelson
besides, as Jason A says Topinka will win anyhow (give me a drag on that, Jason). See, this is weasel-worded self-justification: call me a whiner, say Oberweis made his own mistakes like tying up with Jack Roeser: anything except agreeing that Brady and his people did the damage. None is so blind as he who will not see. So now you got the 62-year-old prematurely orange-haired lady, dressed in the carefully selected Goodwill Industries jump suit that matched her hair (supposedly to strike a chord with the working class?) with no program whom one of you predicts will win anyhow. Youre kidding yourself friends and if it makes you feel better o.k., except that mistakes unrecognized are sure to be repeated. My thanks to those who called in with agreement last night and to Yvonne Arentz who wrote in to the Blog.
The objection of Speaker Dennis Hastert who linked up with Nancy Pelosi to blast the Justice Department for supposedly violating separation of powers by getting a court order and invading Congressman William Jeffersons cache of cold cash has no intellectual or constitutional worth to it. What Hasterts really worried about is that Justice may in fact traduce Hasterts preserves in a legal search for something. Hastert is edgy because an ABC investigative reporter, the same one who rigged an automobile to ignite in flames so as to produce a better photo op some years ago and who got fired for it, is playing footsie with somebody from Justice. Hastert ought to lighten up. Nothing he has done or even contemplated doing will be probed.