Friday, July 14, 2006

Personal Asides: Topinka’s GOP Support Down Since Primary…This Blog Went for Birkett at the Conservative Summit, Remember?...Birth Control, a Favorite Philanthropy for the Well-Off, is Bad Economics Even it Gains Adulation for Buffett and Gates

birkett
bill gates
Topinka.

Unsurprisingly, Judy Baar Topinka’s Republican support has dipped since she narrowly won the March 21 primary because the social conservative vote was divided. In the primary, exit polls showed that of her vote, 75 percent called themselves Republicans, the remainder Democrats and independents. But in the Rasmussen poll released yesterday, 65 percent of her supporters call themselves Republicans. Statisticians have always believed that in order to win the election, a Republican candidate should ordinarily receive at least 85 percent of the base party vote and supplement it with Democrats and independents.

That her GOP vote has shrunk is unsurprising because of her history of thumbing her nose and what she has contemptuously called “ultra-conservatives.” Nancy Kimme, her political guru has told many that whenever she is assailed as not being sufficiently Republican her popularity swells from an influx of Democrats and independents. Well, they ought to really be pouring to her aid now since social conservatives have all but decided to ignore the governorship category. All the while, Topinka’s people are trying to round up conservative leaders for a “let’s forget the past” pow-wow. The early strategy was to have them meet with Joe Birkett, her conservative lieutenant governor running-mate, but conservatives know where Joe stands, it’s Topinka they’re worried about.

Birkett.

Some respondents to this Blog, angered at its criticism of Bill Brady for not getting out of the primary when it was clear he would lose—thus handing the nomination to Topinka—have said: Well, you voted for Brady at the Summit. No, as the Blog reported at the time, it voted for Birkett and indeed was the only Summiteer to do so. When the motion was made to make it unanimous, it voted for Brady along with seemingly everyone else—but the crucial vote was for Birkett. Nor was it a case of “I voted for it before I voted against it.” In the arguments on the floor, this Blog said that Birkett as a prosecutor would have the best chance of bringing the fight to Blagojevich. There was—and is—nothing fundamentally wrong with Brady’s philosophy or votes…which led this Blog to join with all the others after the vote was taken to present a united front.

Birth Control.

If one wanted to draw a caricature of the trendy rich, he would have them jogging, drinking white wine, nibbling brie and diet crackers, extolling Samuel Beckett, quoting Tom Friedman, talking off-handedly of escaping to Hobe Sound for the Christmas holiday, condemning Bush for the war, carrying an ACLU membership card, shopping for neckties at Stuart’s on Michigan avenue, working out at East Bank, subscribing to public radio, denying existence of absolutes, tucking an Obama for President button on the reverse side of a lapel so as to flaunt it proudly at the Urban League board meeting but hiding it discreetly at meetings at company-union negotiations, opposing the U. S.’s failure to sign the anti-pollution treaty at the Tokyo Summit, going to Fourth Presbyterian Sundays where the sermons call for the economy to be “more humane,” believing that Creative Design is mythology, subscribing to the New York Review of Books, contributing to Common Cause, mooning that Hilliary is losing all respect because of her abject pragmatism, supporting gay marriage, thrilling to Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” insisting that the feds’ right to tape phones means the twilight of personal liberties, reading and loving the autobiography of Bernard Schorr, believing deep inside that if the Palestinians only got more understanding and if Israel were not so confrontational, the Middle East problem would be solved.

Extolling meditative Yoga, taking a course in “Finding One’s Inner Self,” believing that Ramsey Clark has been sorely misunderstood, insisting that Rich Daley fundamentally put his trust in the wrong people and was ill-served, still holding out hope for the Cubs, expressing an inability to really get worked up about the White Sox, frowning on bowling, polka clubs and “amen” storefront churches in poor black areas, believing Fred Hampton was a misunderstood spiritual leader trying to alleviate poverty, insists no Illinois lawmaker, except possibly Lincoln, ever approached Paul Simon in intellect, despising neighborhoods where, seemingly, taverns are on every other corner, mystifying that Reagan is so admired when he over-simplified, believing Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were on the cusp of discovering how Bush faked it in the Air National Guard. All these things and--. What have we left out?

Oh, yes, a fervent belief in population control and a growing warm feeling, akin to a man wetting his pants surreptitiously in a blue serge suit, for the Gates-Buffett philanthropic merger because—and put this in italics—as we all know, population control is really…really…the big problem, isn’t it? Not so but as an Upper Crust don’t let reality disturb you since population control is really the “big BIG THING” is it not? And Buffet & Gates’ billions are solely needed now that many Third World countries have birthrates below the replacement level and in a few years most will have socially suicidal birthrates, not producing enough children to maintain their populations long-term. Most Third World countries now are facing rapid population aging with fewer young people on hand to work and pay taxes and without First World wealth or safety net systems. Gates and Buffett do much good work and will continue.

But here is Billy Gates prattling the same old population control nonsense and bestowing it as guru on his old admirer Buffett. “The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population …reproductive health” Gates told PBS. “And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that’s still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down. You know I thought it was…before I learned about it, thought it was paradoxical. Well, if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food?

“You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.” Thus Gates favors reproductive health programs because they reduce population as the major goal with boosted health as a side benefit. The age-old view that the fewer of us there are in the world, the more for the rest of us—rather than seeking to improve the lot of a growing population especially in the Third World. That’s why Buffett helped launch the human pesticide RU-486. And Buffett’s biographer, Roger Lowenstein, has written that Buffett “has a Malthusian dread that overpopulation would aggravate problems in all other areas—such as food, housing and even human survival.” Will anybody have the guts to break it to him that Malthus was proved wrong? In the late 18th century this Anglican minister predicted that population growth would outstrip food production leading to massive famines and death. More than 200 years later, massive famines have not come true. But what’s needed are funds to improve health, spur agriculture and improve conditions to accommodate population growth of particular importance to the Third World. But that’s not trendy.

Soccer matches, polo, horse-breeding, yacht-racing on Lake Michigan, informal dress on Fridays at the office etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

11 comments:

  1. Normally, the primary winner reaches out to the supporters of her opponents. Topinka did not do this. She shouldn't be surprised when conservatives give her the level of support she gave to Alan Keyes and Peter Fitzgerald. As John Kass said the other night on Extension 720, Tugboat Annie (his nickname for Topinka) is not credible as a reform candidate. Blago is vulnerable, but not to a low rent party hack like Topinka. Oberweis could have beaten Blago, but the combine used all its resources to defeat him since they couldn’t control him.

    The combine members who foisted Topinka on us are about to get a nasty surprise. Their only real argument for nominating her was that she was the most electable candidate. Her campaign has been a series of blunders, showing that the she is out of her league. Running for governor requires skills that were not needed in running for treasurer. This “proven vote getter” has shown a tin ear for what she needs to do to rally the base and it’s already too late to repair the damage. Her repeated snubs of Oberwies have alienated his supporters. Calling your opponents morons is not smart, and that was only one of many Topinka gaffes. The Oberweis campaign correctly argued that Republican candidates need support from conservatives to win in the general election. She has done nothing to earn the support of conservatives and will most likely lose in the fall. This will be a good thing for the Republican party in the long-term, since the combine may lose its stranglehold over the party. The combine is more interested in continuing the gravy train than in supporting Republican principles. They will get their reward on election day.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congradulations on your fine investigative reorting in your article in The Wanderer 7/13/06 about the problems in the Chicao Archdiocese. Perhaps you should now start some investigating of the Milwaukee Archdiocese where you may find a related circumstance in that the New Archbishop, Timothy Dolan, has been here almost 5 years and yet the policies and abuses in our Archdiocese still seemed to be contolled bythe former Archbishop, Rembert Weakland, and his cronies. Go back into the archives of The Wanderer to learn more about Weakland and his perpetual fights with the Wanderer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congradulations on your fine investigative reorting in your article in The Wanderer 7/13/06 about the problems in the Chicao Archdiocese. Perhaps you should now start some investigating of the Milwaukee Archdiocese where you may find a related circumstance in that the New Archbishop, Timothy Dolan, has been here almost 5 years and yet the policies and abuses in our Archdiocese still seemed to be contolled bythe former Archbishop, Rembert Weakland, and his cronies. Go back into the archives of The Wanderer to learn more about Weakland and his perpetual fights with the Wanderer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lovie's LeatherJuly 15, 2006 at 11:53 AM

    You dwell in the past and don't care about the future. It is a ton of bitching because YOUR GUY didn't win. It is crucial for the GOP to do as well as it can in Illinois. But you people obviously want to crush it. You willing bring the highest office in Illinois into Dem hands for the next 20+ years and you should be ashamed. Have some pride for the party and carry the banner! I was certainly no Judy Topinka supporter in the primary, but put your conservatism aside for one moment. Realize that there are no conservatives on the ballot and vote for the best leader. Topinka can lead this state. The concensus during the primary was, "Anybody here is better than Blagojevich." Well I guess that isn't true anymore since your proving to be exactly what Topinka calls you... Far Right Nutjobs!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is crucial for the GOP to do as well as it can in Illinois. But you people obviously want to crush it. You willing bring the highest office in Illinois into Dem hands for the next 20+ years and you should be ashamed. Have some pride for the party and carry the banner!"

    You keep talking about The Party, The Party, The Party. Who cares?!?!?!? Unless you work for The Party, who cares? Do the people benefit from the GOP any more than the Democrat Party? No, since there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. I notice you don't bring up a single issue, you just talk about electing "our people", as if that's supposed to be a convincing argument. Sorry, I don't work for The Party, so I don't benefit when either of these nut-jobs are in power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lovie's LeatherJuly 16, 2006 at 6:53 AM

    When we see the people that are hired by state government... do you want them to be the liberals or conservatives? While Topinka may not be conservative, other people "make suggestions" on who to hire. Come on, you didn't know this? I don't work for the party either. I just have a lot of Republican family memebers that work in state government. So if you want Chicago liberal democrats to be working those jobs that downstate conservatives should, Blago is your guy. There is a lot more at stake in this election than abortion!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I just have a lot of Republican family memebers that work in state government. So if you want Chicago liberal democrats to be working those jobs that downstate conservatives should, Blago is your guy. There is a lot more at stake in this election than abortion!"

    Well that explains the fanatic loyalty to the "cause" - whatever that may be. Not going along with The Party is taking food out of you and/or your family's mouths. There's a real rallying cry The Party should hang it's collective hat on - and sadly, it looks like they've been doing that. Elect "our people" - who are really no different than "their people". It's just that a different group of friends get employed by the State. That's all it's boiling down to with you Party people. You don't think there's some guy in Chicago writing the same thing for the Other Party? So, we're supposed to vote based on who's going to get jobs? Forget the issues, there's patronage to pass out? You guys have a family to feed? Sure, take more of my money! Far be it for me to care about something as mundane as "the issues" when you guy's have to tax me to eat. Give me a break.

    Thanks for exposing that the only real difference between these two parties is who's friend will be working for the State.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lovie's LeatherJuly 16, 2006 at 11:54 AM

    When there are no issues that the far right thinks are relevant, what else is there to do? If the right doesn't support the party this year, why should I, a Republican moderate, support your people in 2008, or 2010, or 2012? I am out there for the party. If ever you are the mainstream in the Illinois Republican Party I will support you. But I would expect that support to be reciprical.

    ReplyDelete
  9. reason I support the State of Illinois--because it interposes itself between me and a greater threat--unchecked, centralized Democrat rule in Illinois.

    I don't love Illinois state government, but I support it in contests with the unchecked, centralized Feral government in Washington, DC.

    One need not be Catholic to admire that institution's stand aginst tyranny throughout history.

    By the same logic, I don't always agree with the Republican nominee, but I will support them (in this case, her) in the contest against unchecked Democrat power.

    Liam, tell me what is the greater threat--a moderate Republican in the governor's mansion with a Democrat state legislature, or establishing Democrat hegemony in Illinois state government?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "why should I, a Republican moderate, support your people in 2008, or 2010, or 2012? I am out there for the party. If ever you are the mainstream in the Illinois Republican Party I will support you. But I would expect that support to be reciprical."

    I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative. I wouldn't want reciprocal support. I could care less about your party since I'm conservative, not Republican.

    How ridiculous does that sound - you'll support whoever is in the mainstream of the Republican Party. So, it really doesn't matter one iota the beliefs of a candidate or party, as long as they are called the Republican Party you'll support it. Rod Blagojevich or Hillary Clinton could earn your support today simply by changing party affiliation. Good to know what I'm dealing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. At the very least I can admire the reasoning behind William's position. However, I don't believe my taxes are safer or more at risk with the Republicans (at least, these Illinois Republicans) or that Blagojevich is more or less likely than Topinka to grab guns. There's nothing in her history to indicate that she will be any better whatsoever or display any willingness to fight with a Democratic legislature. If there were at least a hint of partisanship or anti-Democrat Party sentiment there (say, a moderate like a Pate Philip), you're argument would be much more convincing. Here you have somebody who actually endorses Democrat candidates as a Republican committeeman. I highly doubt she'd be picking fights with Mike Madigan or Rich Daley.

    ReplyDelete