Two Major Political Stories Today

# 2: The Trib’s Gidwitz-Rauschenberger Endorsement is a Blow to Topinka. That She’s Got the Sun-Times Nod was Expected.

No newspaper endorsement today—given the low estate that most newspapers have these days—is as important as it used to be. While the Tribune’s recommendation of Ron Gidwitz and Steve Rauschenberger is a surprise and definitely valuable to their campaign. The Sun-Times endorsement of Judy Baar Topinka was expected and it remains to be seen if the newspaper which has fast become the liberal Democratic publication in the city (moving from a kind of moderate liberal stance to a left-wing advocate) would give Topinka approval in the general where the Democratic candidate will be Rod Blagojevich.

About the Trib plug, one must recall that earlier management of the newspaper gave its presidential endorsement to Rep. John B. Anderson in 1980 and Anderson went on to carry 7 percent of the Republican electorate. That was the low-point in the newspaper’s 180 turnaround from its old paleo conservative days—a turnaround which it has deftly moderated in recent years.

However, having said that, there is no doubt that the Gidwitz-Rauschenberger team is strengthened and heartened by the endorsement as it should be. I have been a somewhat lonely prophet about Gidwitz, not endorsing him but saying all along that were he to become governor, he would likely be a great one, bolstered by a multi-millionaire’s not needing the job and a multi-millionaire’s wish to be remembered as a great governor, one tackling tough tasks even if it means he is defeated for reelection. His communications skills have greatly improved. I have been steadily impressed by his doughty nature. And the fact that he is devoid of the political arts of charm, baloney and oleaginous verbiage is a big boost in his favor, I think.

The second impact of the endorsement is that it is a body-blow for Judy Baar Topinka who had every right to expect an endorsement from the state’s biggest paper which radiates socially moderate Republicanism. So far Gidwitz has managed to steer clear of conservative attacks because of his social liberality. Now I would imagine his liberality would be played up by his conservative rivals—particularly Jim Oberweis. By playing it up, these conservatives will be advertising reasons for Gidwitz to take votes from Topinka. Tough fiscal candidate Gidwitz can soothe social conservatives by pleading that at this stage, with respect to abortion, a governor would not play as decisive a part as he would in earlier years, although he should be called upon to clarify a few things. First, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade and send the issue back to the states, would a Governor Gidwitz play a major role in support of pro-abortion legislation here? Second, a question ignored up to now because Gidwitz’s chance were regarded as problematic: will Gidwitz support the Blagojevich “morning after” plan and embryonic stem cell research. The media have not asked him these questions. I have. (And I’m not telling; that’s for later).

If he says he will not take a pro-abortion stance outside of his earlier announced position and will leave Illinoisans to determine the issue themselves, he would be politically astute, resembling the Gov. Mitt Romney position when he ran in Massachusetts of several years ago (since then, running for president, he has changed). On the “morning after” issue, Gidwitz would sound reasonable if he denounced the high-handed way Blagojevich applied to it and said that legislation would be the only way to proceed, not executive order, but he would reserve passage or failure of such a measure to laissez faire.

Gidwitz has a powerful ally, one he has never used, in Henry Hyde who headed his exploratory committee. Hyde’s name is legend among social conservatives. If Hyde would say from the standpoint of long association with the Gidwitz family that Gidwitz would remain consonant with his personal opinion on abortion rights and not be an abortion crusader, it would be of enormous help. Enormous. But whether he can do that would depend on Gidwitz’s own views. If Gidwitz takes a personal pro-choice stand and says he will follow a “hands-off” stance basis the division of the state on the issue, it would be very wise. He shouldn’t worry about pro-choice fall-off as he would still occupy the middle course between Topinka and his social conservative rivals—and he must remember that in the general election, nobody—but nobody—is going to get the pro-abortion vote over Rod Blagojevich.

Having said this, the election is still totally up in the air—but I think it’s fair to surmise that Topinka’s star is declining. . A declining Topinka base and sharply or even slightly rising Gidwitz support, will start to level the field. Jim Oberweis could well move forward to take the lead under this scenario as the Topinka totals come down and the Gidwitz candidacy is assailed by Oberweis and Brady as pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Here’s the important thing that I find not sufficiently stressed by media moguls. The polls mean little in a primary. In a primary where organization means everything, Oberweis has the movement people who dominate grassroots organization: pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment people, home schoolers, anti-illegal immigration people. Oberweis has the organization. It doesn’t show in the polls, necessarily or in flashy TV commercials, but media pundits should avoid being mis-led by their personal politics and recognize that the heart and soul of the Illinois Republican grass-roots is socially conservative. This race can be compared to the 2004 presidential where while media savants pondered how effective John Kerry was on the stump, Karl Rove and Rich Mellman perfected a grass-roots organization that topped that of the Democrats.

Social conservative Bill Brady, who has just taken out a $250,000 loan may start capitalizing on any discontent with Oberweis if some conservatives believe he is not electable. All along, Brady has demonstrated the attractiveness on the stump to get the nomination; he has failed to raise the money and I don’t think his organization is very effective (notwithstanding his endorsement by the Illinois State Rifle Association).. Moreover as the Gidwitz endorsement gains currency, the news media will start recognizing that he is, in fact, a possible governor. Everybody seems a winner in this formulae except Topinka who, still leading because of her many years as a statewide candidate, has not shown the fiscal or governmental expertise to command the discussion on where Illinois should go. The Trib’s assessment of her weakness on substance in the editorial is devastating.

Finally, where are the media wise-guys who said the Illinois GOP is dead from the shoulders both ways? You’ve got an MBA business genius who built a small dairy business into a multi-million-dollar enterprise, who doubles as a prize-winning investment counselor…a mega-millionaire married to another mega-millionaire who built a cosmetics business into an international leader—tied to a Lieutenant Governor who is acknowledged as the legislature’s unrivaled expert on the budget and spending…a state senator who at 44 is regarded as one of the best communicators in the business…and a veteran female state treasurer with a wittily self-deprecating personality tied to a Lieutenant Governor candidate who is the best prosecuting attorney in Illinois.

Time for media to stop prattling conventional wisdom and get real.

Two Major Political Stories Today

#1. Topinka’s former Deputy Treasurer Says Her Closeness to George Ryan Produced Checks for Her Campaign Delivered by Commercial Drivers’ License Employee and She Ordered Cellini Document Shredded.

As controversy swirled over Jim Oberweis’ charge concerning Judy Baar Topinka and her extreme closeness to George Ryan—a fact she heatedly denies—the number two executive in the Illinois State Treasurer’s office during the early years of Judy Baar Topinka’s tenure has revealed, in sworn testimony taken by the Oberweis campaign that

she ordered the shredding of a key document involving two hotels which spurred considerable controversy to be shredded, and that

her closeness to then secretary of state George Ryan led to a state worker delivering checks to her campaign from the infamous McCook drivers’ license facility where commercial drivers licenses were purportedly received from bribes; also that

employees of her state Senate office worked on her first Treasurer
campaign and were paid by the state with her acquiescence, a fact that could be prosecutable if further verified.

Martin R. Kovarik, of Kenosha, Wis., 73, who is now retired, who was her chief of staff when she first ran for treasurer and was deputy state treasurer, contacted the Oberweis campaign to attest to the truth of a TV commercial produced by the campaign that blamed Topinka for trying to write off a debt owed the state for two hotels by prominent GOP Springfield businessman-contributor, Bill Cellini. The Topinka effort to eliminate the debt by having the state take over the property was overruled by then state attorney general Jim Ryan. Topinka, now a candidate for governor, blasted the Oberweis commercial as being inaccurate. Kovarik met with Oberweis officials and in a sworn deposition declared the commercial correct in every detail. Kovarik left the Treasurer’s office because of a dispute with his ex-wife concerning matters that had no pertinence to the treasurer’s office.

It so happens that I knew Marty Kovarik at that time; we were and are friends although when the Oberweis campaign released this material after he contacted officials of the campaign this disclosure and his views on it were news to me. As one who knew Topinka and Kovarik while she was a state senator and during her first treasurer’s campaign, I can say that Kovarik was the top aide in her office and was the guru of her successful treasurer’s campaign as well, specializing in computer technology as well as commonsense political strategy.. Nor was his professional career spent entirely in politics: he received a degree in chemistry from Wayne State, holding down posts in chemistry research at Wyandotte Chemicals, worked at Upjohn at New Haven, Connecticut in product development; opened the Houston plant for Upjohn; later managed sales for Upjohn’s Palmer Chemicals division; also held executive posts for Witco Chemicals and InstaFoam in Joliet, IL. A “natural” in languages, based on his experience as a child when he could speak Czech before English in his assignments overseas for business he could communicate in 17 different languages, including German, Japanese, Chinese and Scandinavian. After he retired he was ready to go to the Peace Corps, to be sent to take a position in the Czech republic to teach computer skills.

In the sworn statement to lawyer Kent D. Sinson, of Sinson & Sinson and transcribed by Jennifer Vravis of Chicago, a professional court stenographer, , Kovarik says he met Topinka in 1988, began as a volunteer, carried the title chief of staff and after a year began to be paid, at first modestly, about $10,000 a year. His job was to modernize the computer system of the office and carried the title chief of staff. She ran for reelection as state senator in 1992 while Kovarik worked for her and the following year initiated a campaign for state treasurer. Kovarik assumed some duties in her campaign and after she was elected in 1994 was named by her as deputy treasurer.

State Senate Employees Working on Her Campaign

The questioner asked Kovarik if in the campaign for treasurer her state senate employees worked on her campaign. Kovarik responded: “…It would be unusual to not have them participate. It was expected of them.” He named the people in her office who were paid by the state while working for the Topinka campaign: “These people were all paid with state money that came out of Springfield as their payroll. They worked in and out of state business and campaign business and it was simply a matter of going from one place to another. If they wanted to write letters for the campaign there was no hesitation at all to do it on the computers because the computers we had were owned by the campaign…”

The questioner asked, “So there was no effort even made to keep the efforts of the campaign and the efforts of the State business separate?” Kovarik answered, “Absolutely none. Absolutely none.”

Questioner: “You said it was the expectation of Judy Baar Topinka that these people would do campaign work on state time. Did she—did you witness her at all specifically tell these people this? How would she convey that?” Kovarik responded, “She would give them work assignments and would bring stuff to them…In the evening hours she would take the time with either a computer or typewriter and she’d type like fury and make notes, voluminous notes, and she would write a note to [a woman’s name] and she would write a note to [another woman’s name] and she’d write a note to [another woman’s name], she’d write a note to [another woman’s name] and she’d write a note to me and in the morning she’d distribute those. These were work assignments that she’d expect you to complete in some reasonable time and there was no differentiation between campaign or state, none whatsoever.”

Money from George Ryan to Topinka

Kovarik said one George Valasco once called him on the phone at the office and said he wanted to come over and talk. “And we arranged a time and he came into the office and introduced himself again. We went into a little office and closed the door and I said, `What can I do for you?’ …He told me that he worked for the McCook office of the secretary of state’s facility where they did the commercial testing” which he described as testing “truck drivers for drivers’ licenses…I might add that George was a tester. He would test people to drive for CDL [Commercial drivers’ licenses]…I’m going to make my best guess as far as when that was that it was in the early spring or summer of 1994. Mr. Vakasco asked if—if he could help in any way whatsoever to—with our fund-raising and I explained to him, `you bet, We can get all the help we need, all the help we can get.’” It was in the state senate office as well as the campaign office.

Said Kovarik: “The first conversation he asked if we could use some help in raising funds and I explained that we could use help because it’s the lowest office in the constitutional race and it’s sort of lost when it comes to fund-raising, people just don’t pay attention. And he said, `Okay, I’ll see what I can do. And about a week later he called again and asked if he could come in and he did and he reached in his pocket and he brought out a wad—and I say wad—several bills—totaling of about $4- or $500 and asked if we could accept that for the campaign and I said ‘Well, who’s it from?’ And he said, `from some of my friends’ and I said, `well, I need names’ and he said, `well, I can’t give you any names.’ And I said, `well, unfortunately, I can’t take your money unless I know where it comes from. You must show attribution.’ And he said, `well, would you accept checks?’ And I said, `sure,’

“`Okay,’ put the money back in his pocket, we chatted a little bit and a week or so later he came back and now he’s giving me checks—and if my memory is correct, it was like $600 but I can’t remember exactly what it was in the first group of checks and they were from drivers, drivers’ schools, trucking companies, that’s about it, you know, just nothing unusual, just it was for me, but that’s about it. I said, `who are these people?’ And he says, `friends of mine. They like her work.’ I said, `they don’t know her. What do you mean they like her work?’ He said, `don’t worry about it. They just want to give her some money’ and that was it.

“And this went on several different times during the campaign and at some point in time—and I can’t remember when it was, I said, `George, why are you doing this?’ And he says because George asked me to. I said, `George?’ He says, `yeah, the boss.’” The questioner said, “Now when he said `George, the boss’ who did you think he was talking about?” Kovarik said, “I knew he was talking about George Ryan, then secretary of state.’” Kovarik said there were three or four checks each time his visitor called, from $100 to $200 a check.” Kovarik said he showed Topinka the checks and she said, “that’s great.” She did not express concern that the checks came from driving schools: “Not one iota.”

The Cellini Hotels Deal.

Concerning Springfield power-broker Bill Cellini, Kovarik said Cellini always introduced Topinka at meetings where GOP county chairmen met before going to the state fair to mark Republican Day. After asserting that Sangamon county was essential to any statewide Republican candidate, Kovarik described what he knew about the Cellini hotels deal that Topinka figured in. “During the Jim Thompson administration—and I believe it was the first year that he served as governor—and in the days of Jerry Cosentino [the Democratic state treasurer] a document was prepared that would allow the state of Illinois to buy a hotel i.e. the Holiday Inn at Collinsville.

“The management of that hotel was going to Cellini and friends, I guess—I don’t know how you’d describe their organization—and there was crafted into the deal was they had to show a certain percentage of profit in order to have to make any payments on the original loan; and for some reason like, $14 million was the value of the original loan but I could be wrong. It was a lot of money. More money than I make in a lifetime. And there was never any payment made on that—on the principal of that loan. The interest kept getting added every year and it had, I believe, a 20-year life. I’m not sure of that but it had some life expectancy that had to be closed in a period of time. It was about—from memory again because it’s been a long time--$44 million at the time of the closure and the now state treasurer, Judy Baar Topinka, said she had to get rid of this debt and wanted to foreclose.” The contract covered the hotel in Collinsville and the Renaissance [then so named] in Springfield.

By “foreclose” Kovarik said “she wanted to get rid of the property for cash to recover from—some value for it. The state would take over the property and either sell it or manage it—you know, management would have a pretty tough deal to do.” He said the deal was done “during my absence,” adding, “I was not in on any part of the deal” but “at the end Cellini et.al. would assume ownership of the property and literally be forgiven, if not entirely, for a major portion of the indebtedness and in recalling and having been reminded of it very recently, then Jim Ryan, Attorney General struck, or looked at the deal and evaluated it and said it is not a good deal, back away but it received a great deal of coverage, a great deal of criticism that here Bill Cellini would assume ownership of the property not having paid a penny of it—for it, not having paid any interest on it in the entire time that it was there [and] that the state ha advanced the money.”

The Search for the Agreement, Its Discovery and Her Order to Shred.

An original contract existed and “a great deal of time was spent looking for the document.” Kovarik said they looked high and low for the document arranged under Jerry Cosentino and couldn’t find it. Topinka told the press that “it was nowhere to be found”. Kovarik said, “understand, Counselor, that she was telling these people [the press] that she couldn’t find this document for at least two weeks. So it was pretty well stressed that these documents didn’t exist. We’ve been up one end, down the other, we’ve turned every piece of paper, we’ve gone through all the filing cabinets, you know, all of that had to be explained.”

One day after Kovarik and Topinka returned from Springfield, they were at her home. “We had just come in and were unloading bags and so on and her phone rang and I said, `Do you want me to get that?’ and she said `yeah, get it. It’s probably the damn Springfield office.’ `Okay.’ So I picked up the phone and there was Jim Howard at the other end and I said, `what’s up, guy?’” Jim Howard was the public relations staffer in the office.

“I said, `Hey, Jim, what’s up?’ And he said, `Guess what I got’ …and I said, `no telling, what you got?’ And he says, `I got the document.’ `What document?’ He said, `the deal for the hotels.’…involving Cellini, the hotel, the indebtedness, the structure, everything. And I put the telephone on my shoulder so he couldn’t hear me talking, and I said, turned to the Treasurer and said, `Jim Howard’s on the phone. He found the contract,, he the document.’ She said, `what do you want me to do with it?’ were her words and I said, `he wants to know what to do.’ `I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. It doesn’t exist. I told everybody that it wasn’t around Get rid of it.’ `What do you want him to do with it?’ `I don’t care. Shred the damn thing.’”

Kovarik saw the document later on. He did not shred it and to the best of his knowledge Howard didn’t shred it. Kovarik saw the document later on “and in neither case to the best of my knowledge was there any money given—or paid by the state for those properties.” Not long ago, Kovarik said, he was watching TV “and I saw the current treasurer, Judy Baar Topinka, lambasting Jim Oberweis for telling untruths, being dishonest over the issue of the hotels and the shredding of documents. Having looked at the Oberweis campaign ad, there was nothing untrue about it. There was nothing misleading about it. Everything that was in that ad was 100 percent accurate. I had called Jim Leahy because I knew he was with the Oberweis campaign and I said, `Look, I ‘ve met Oberweis on a couple of occasions. He’s an honorable man. He’s a businessman. His goals are very much the same as mine were when I went into government and that is that government can run better on private sector ideas and concepts and he didn’t deserve the maltreatment that Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka was dishing out to him.”

Import of the Disclosure.

As she rose in political influence, Judy Baar Topinka has been exhibiting difficulty telling the truth. I know this first-hand, ever since she appeared on my radio show as State Chairman and refused to endorse the reelection candidacy of Sen. Peter Fitzgerald—denied it not once but several times, speculating that perhaps she could do so as Riverside GOP committeeman but not as State Chairman. This was long before Fitzgerald had determined not to run. After the heat came on her for refusing to endorse, she announced that I should “take the wax out of my ears” because she did endorse him. It was a stunning statement in that her refusal to endorse was carried across many Midwest states on a Sunday night and was heard by many political junkies including the other guest on the show, Steve Brown, spokesman for Speaker Mike Madigan!

This disclosure from Marty Kovarik could be dismissed as pay-back from a disgruntled ex-aide except for the detailed recall that Kovarik has and the important role he played in her state office and political campaigns. While the disclosure might well be regarded as sour grapes, the fact that by Kovarik’s sworn statement she knowingly received money from the McCook commercial drivers license facility from people who didn’t know her is not criminal but is highly revelatory of the kind of politics she played in the rough-and-tumble era where George Ryan ran fast and loose, rewarding his friends, punishing his enemies in a style that has become familiar as vintage nineteenth century-style power politics with no subtlety. Obviously the Topinka forces will attempt to sully Kovarik’s name, declare she didn’t know anything about checks and that if checks were received Kovarik was responsible etc.

When she goes on TV to deny it, just remember: she’s the lady who appeared on a 50,000-watt radio station, refused to endorse Fitzgerald to the hearing of thousands of listeners and declares insouciantly that what they heard is wrong.

Thoughts While Shaving

Now that Channel 5’s political reporter Dick Kay is retiring (whom I call “Mr. President” because he headed the AFTRA union I belong to), the best choice the station could make to replace him would be Jeff Berkowitz, recovering lawyer and host of the best TV political show in town on CAN-TV. I have doubts that someone with the skill, knowledge of issues and deft questioning ability of Berkowitz will be chosen. But it would thrill me if he were…

Any doubt that this nation is involved knee-deep in a culture war can be seen by the Academy Awards finalists for Sunday night. “Munich” tells us that there are no absolutes, that one who blows up school buses may well be a freedom fighter, that evil and good are in reciprocity. “Breakback Mountain” is pictorially vivid but at least presents at the end a sadness for those who follow lustful inclinations at odds with 7,000 years of heterosexual tradition. Pushed for best foreign film is ‘”Paradise Now” which gives hero status to two suicide bombers. Then there’s “Syriana,” nominated for best screenplay along with George Clooney as best supporting actor, with an hero an Arab prince who seeks to liberalize his country and is burned alive with his beautiful wife—burned alive by a missile from CIA headquarters, with the result that his evil brother a puppet of a U.S. oil company takes over with the help of fast, corrupt and venal Americans.

The bad news is that Hollywood is intellectually (if that’s the word) allied in a propaganda war against us, far different from the era when Hollywood was an ally for us in World War II. The good news is that these films are earning far less than they are expected to. But a final rush of bad news: Hollywood doesn’t care that they are not money-makers; they are determined to participate in the battle to overthrow America—the same America that allows these producers and actors to earn lavish salaries and waddle in the finery that the Academy Awards night will portray.

Lynn Sweet Again Takes the George Tagge Memorial Prize!

My friend Jeff Berkowitz once asked me if I’m serious: and I am. Newspapers should return to the partisan state they once were and stop pretending they present “objective” news. It is impossible to present objective news. The New York Times has long understood that case and puts out a paper which is liberal, even lefty, but honest. Not long ago, its public editor, an outstanding writer named Daniel Okrent, announced (to the paper’s discomfiture) that it is an unashamedly liberal journal.

Why the Times seemed concerned with Okrent, I don’t know. He was right. With few exceptions, the news columns match the editorials with unashamed bias. The New York Post, possibly the oldest newspaper in the country, founded by Alexander Hamilton, gives us a determinedly conservative Republican slant. The Washington Times, a much better paper than it is billed, is similarly undisposed to represent that it presents objective news.

The Washington Post is in the tradition of the Times—an absolutist of the left. And hurrah for it.

As I have earlier pointed out, the Sun-Times now has dropped any façade of objectivity and gives us liberal Democratic news—allowing its coverage of politics to spurt to the news pages direct from the lefty faucet (the only exception being Fran Spielman who is such a great city hall reporter that she disdains ideology and reports as she sees it; but she is so good the paper doesn’t correct it). And for the most consistent purveyor of Democratic party and ultra-liberal news, its Washington, D. C. bureau chief, Lynn Sweet, once again takes the George Tagge prize. She has won it so often it may become part of her permanent possessions. Ironically, he worked for the Tribune which today says it presents objective news. Of course it does not but makes a better pretense than the Sun-Times which has dropped the kimono. Perhaps some day it will revert to what it used to do. Then it will have need for another George Tagge.

Who was George Tagge? In the days when the Colonel ran the Tribune and for some years after, Tagge was its political editor. I knew him well. Like Sweet, he was an unashamed partisan: only a conservative Republican. That didn’t stop Tagge from being an extraordinary journalist. He not only covered news from a Republican slant, reaching over to give Democratic news only when the nuggets he reported were demoralizing…he frequently produced stunning scoops about both parties. Sweet has resurrected the Tagge tradition: she covers exclusively Democratic news, veering over when the mood suits her to give a thumb-in-the-eye to the GOP. Her breathless reportage of the 6th district congressional race is a case in point. Unhampered by copy editor involvement, Sweet is the feminine version of Tagge as partisan run-amok. Republican Peter Roskam is mentioned obligatorily only once in an article breathlessly reporting the two liberal candidates against him—Christine Cegalis and, Sweet’s favorite, Tammy Duckworth. But Sweet has had scoops, too—and major ones.

Once I went to lunch with Tagge at a haunt he reserved only for his favorites: the ultra-posh Chicago Club, home to c.e.o’s, which is called disparagingly “the Van Buren Street Y.” He stalked into the Club magisterially with me in tow, an anonymous Quaker Oats lobbyist. He was a slight man outfitted in an expensive suit, iron grey hair, carrying a Coach under-the-arm briefcase, looking for all the world like a banker rather than journalist. As he gave his magnificent cashmere top coat to the custodian along with his umbrella, he was surrounded by deferential c.e.o’s who asked him not just the latest political news but whom he thought they should contribute to. Asked about one Republican worthy, he growled, “don’t give him a dime.” Then a small group took him to a huddle—as I waited timidly—to ask him strategic questions about the forthcoming Republican national convention. I could overhear him say, “no-no-no, Indiana is supposed to come in on the third ballot!” as if he were instructing a child. At the 1964 convention, in San Francisco, seeing no one was carrying the Illinois sign in the Goldwater demonstration, he picked it up, hoisted it aloft and strode in the parade.

This is the model that Lynn Sweet follows, although I never saw her parade with the Illinois banner, but she is a youngish woman and has sufficient time to grow. She reportedly does give superb political advice, attends strategy meetings of top Democrats where her sagacity is valued and advice treasured—advice that were she a consultant would be worth far more than she makes as a journalist. All this she does gratis because she is a believer. God love her for that. Tagge was a believer, too. A believer in conservatism, the Republican party. A believer in the Colonel and in his corporation, the Tribune company. After McCormick died, the newspaper promoted a huge convention-exposition hall to be built on the lake, which would be named after McCormick. Getting legislative approval was a difficult task and for it, the paper recruited the best lobbyist it could find—Tagge. In some circles, McCormick Place is still called “Tagge’s Temple.” That’s the kind of journalist who would have made the founders of this profession proud: Horace Greeley, Hearst, Rudolph Murdock. Tagge was the kind Lynn Sweet is. And I do not say this with irony or sarcasm.

For all his love of politics, Tagge was a loner—living with his wife in a nice apartment on Lake Shore Drive. I don’t know whether Lynn Sweet is a loner and sure hope not because the only love of Tagge’s life was in addition to his wife a yellow canary he called “tweety-bird” after the famous cartoon character in a Bugs Bunny film. As soon as he would get home from a hard day in Republican strategizing and reporting, consulting with Bill Stratton and Everett Dirksen, Tagge would open the expensive cage and take out “tweety-bird” on his forefinger. Then he would sit down, sip a drink and talk to it as so: “Hello, tweety bird! Have you missed your daddy today? No? Why not, tweety bird?” I was privileged to witness this. The bird would look at him as if he really understood, would cock its little head and George would give it a soft kiss on its beak. I can tell you that it would return the favor. A slight peck but it meant everything to George. It was a touching moment for one who had a rigid, frozen-ice exterior. And I don’t mean the bird.

I have told this before, but one day Tagge, who did not have colleagues as friends at the office and wanted none (sufficient that he was venerated upstairs) brought up in the newsroom the fact that he had a canary and softened a bit, showing with moistened eye a great deal of respect for Tweety-Bird. Not long later, when he and the missus went to a movie in the evening, they returned home to see that their apartment was broken into. No money or jewels were taken but the door to the cage was open and there was no tweety-bird. Plainly it was an inside job. After that, Tagge’s demeanor hardened a bit. If possible. He became less compassionate. If possible. But not more conservative. Not possible.

I hesitate to give the Tagge loving cup to the permanent possession of Lynn Sweet for she may ultimately be untrue, presenting both sides as he indignantly refused to. We will see. Right now she has a lock on it.

The Cardinal George Matter: Some Authenticists Feel Mis-Led

Some of the same people who went to the spontaneous demonstration for Cardinal George on Feb. 12—authenticist Catholics—feel they have been mis-led, basis the report that came out showing that an archdiocesean review board had recommended Fr. Daniel McCormack be taken out for sex abuse. The report was ignored and McCormack was indicted for criminal activity subsequently. That reply from the archdiocese that the report was “interim” is bogus. Nothing interim about it. Also there was a report that McCormack was sent to a Maryland facility for psychological evaluation—the same procedure pursued by other bishops, a procedure since largely discredited. More to follow.

The City Club Lieutenant Governor Debate

One more evidence that the Republican party is back is the quality of the debaters who met at the City Club Wednesday to debate: DuPage county states attorney Joe Birkett and State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger. Who won? I know and like both but I’d say Birkett—not that he routed Rauschenberger but that he was the more aggressive of the two. But then Rauschenberger is the more relaxed, convivial and easy-going of the two. Perhaps I am wrong. Clue me in on your choice on Readers’ Comments.

Another Bogus “Reform” Issue: the Oberweis Commercials

Consider: we have a television tape of Topinka at the Gay Pride parade surrounded by those committing antics which are unsuitable for children to view. Do we hear from the Old Media on this? Nary a peep. Now we have a really big scandal: Oberweis quoted the papers correctly but didn’t present the correctly-cited newspaper stories with the right headlines. They used fake headlines. Stories correct but fake headlines. To the Old Media it’s huge! One more: we have Topinka urging the state to give big GOP power player Cellini a pass on paying up for the Springfield Renaissance hotel. Big story? I would think so. Not to the Old Media which played it years ago and has scarcely returned. But Oberweis’ commercials are the issue. Which have more impact on Illinois’ future? Why are the media engrossed with Oberweis’ commercials that really involve the fine print?

Simple. The real issue is that Oberweis is a social conservative, Topinka is a social liberal and the news commentators are all liberal. Besides, why do we have an election on March 21? It’s all over. WTTW-TV pundit Carol Marin has said that her fellow feminist Topinka will win the primary.

Governor (Ahem) Meeks, Meet Senator Meeks, Reverend Meeks and the Political Hustle

I’ve known types like him ever since 1969 when I headed up the federal minority business program. And believe me, this guy Meeks is not as smooth as others—just lucky he’s got a compliant media to cover him. You heard it here first: one of these days he’s going to melt away like a snow-cone in July. But for now, he’s the only racial game in town, politically.

How much do you want to bet that the latest indignant minister-pol-on-the-make is bluffing? Reverend James Meeks threatens to run for governor as an independent as soon as an election lawyer researches the law and tells him he can do it. That’s supposed to make Gov. Blagojevich tremble? To spur Blagojevich to announce that he’ll raise taxes promptly—yessir—so that the arrogant senator will be pleased? If the governor does that, he really ought to have his head examined. I personally hope Meeks does it, of course, which will elect a Republican governor. And if the governor capsizes to call for a tax hike, it will elect a Republican governor. (Now I’m beginning to think Meeks is working for the Republicans).

Meeks sees only one way to improve education—more tax dollars and a tax hike. Where has he been on vouchers which can really help the black community? Meeks is miffed that there is criticism of Claudette Marie Muhammad’s appointment by the governor to a state panel because she works for Farrakhan who is a hate monger. His rationale: one who works for a hate-monger shouldn’t be penalized? Why not? The ultra-patronizing turn the media is taking on this case is clear evidence that they are paralyzed out of fear of antagonizing the worst element of a pressure segment. Like politicians, fearful to disturb a spoiled child grown bloated by super-coverage, media cower and play it soft in order to pacify an arrogant pretender.

Pass Tax Hike or Else: Well, Call it a Catastrophe!

If you haven’t read the story, the usual cast of characters including the head of the Legislative Black Caucus, the man who is everywhere—in the church, in politics, passing the plate, filling the plate, both at the same time, endorsing Democrats from the pulpit and mixing hard endorsements and brimstone fire at the same time—State Sen. James Meeks, wants the governor to back off his no-tax-hike pledge, or else. Or else what? These blacks won’t vote for the Democratic governor after he is re-nominated March 21? No, not really. There was Meeks, venting his anger (easily kindled for the television cameras) and who else? PUSH, headed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., Sun-Times columnist (although the grand pooh-bah couldn’t attend in person), a cast of indignant faces and good old Ralph Matire, Sun-Times columnist who writes the same column over and over fighting for higher spending and tax hikes. What? No Carol Marin? No Cathleen Falsani? Hey, Meeks is a minister! Meeks ordered that the state needs to come up with at least $1,000 more per student to improve education. Either that, or… Or what? Well, not commission of political suicide, which shows that Meeks hasn’t fully taken leave of his sense. But “it would be responsible government to say to an electorate, I don’t know what’s going to happen or what catastrophes may occur.” Oh. That’s all.

Were I cynical, I would think that Blagojevich orchestrated this news conference himself to show how he can stand up to tax-hike pressure, facing up to tax dollar recipients who bang their cups and want more. Great press that.

What Constitutes Hate Speech to Mary Mitchell?

In an effort to promote racial peace, this city—and nation—has been giving Minister Louis Farrakhan a great deal of slack: too much. Whenever he goes on a tirade, blasting “Hollywood Jews” for being responsible for debasing the culture, the media print it, show it on TV and seem to simply say, “That’s good old Louis, saying his thing.” It’s been a dirty secret that the media publishes him out of excessive timidity because they believe he represents much of the average African Americans’ views. But that is in itself a slur to blacks. Suppose a white revivalist minister hauled off and shouted at “Hollywood Jews” for producing disreputable films: the media would be all over him in a minute, linking his words to others: Falwell and Robertson etc. But Farrakhan gets away with it and all of us have to hunker down and take it because the media believe his views are representative, without any box-score of what African Americans believe.

Not long ago, Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed a representative of Farrakhan to, of all things, the state commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes. She is Claudette Marie Muhammad, who carries the impressive title (as all Farrakhan’s employees seem to) of Chief of Protocol for the Nation of Islam. Because the media are politically correct in this town—more so than in many other places—there was no stir or mention of the irony of a Farrakhan staffer being on a commission devoted to ending hate talk.

Then Farrakhan himself engaged in a multi-hour harangue Sunday at what was billed as a “Sunday’s Saviours Day Conference” whatever that is: an opportunity for Farrakhan to work himself into a lather and for the amen corner to rise up with clenched fists and shout huzzas. He lashed out again at what he calls “Hollywood Jews” for “promoting lesbianism, homosexuality” and charged that “Zionists manipulated President Bush into war.” If that isn’t a form of hate, I don’t know what is. I’m not advocating he be silenced but when the governor names his staff member to a commission formed to combat hate, there is room for legitimate criticism. As indeed it has come from one Lonnie Nasatir, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.

All of this is grist for the mill, but what is stunning is a column by Mary Mitchell of the Sun-Times. I’m not saying the column should have been spiked but its publication shows that editors at the paper are intimidated to give fulsome attention to views by an African American, even when she spouts nonsense, rather than face a charge that her views were edited. Mitchell is usually sensible but on Feb. 28 she says that were Muhammad, who invited her colleagues to the Farrakhan address, kicked off the board those who do it would be guilty of “cowardice”. Huh? O.k., that’s her opinion, even if logically unjustifiable.

Then her column veers to the point of agreeing with Nasatir that Farrakhan has actually “espoused hate.” Mitchell: “I’m not going to argue that point.” Huh? Now we’ve got a columnist who says kicking off Muhammad would be cowardly even if she supports Farrakhan who espoused hate. Get that for a neat contradiction. Following which Mitchell reports Farrakhan’s statement that Zionists maneuvered Bush into the Iraq war, a charge that is never backed up. Is Rumsfeld a Zionist? Cheney? Rice? The Joint Chiefs of Staff? You can argue that some neo-conservative think-tank experts have endorsed Iraq, some of whom have been Jewish, some not. That’s the end of any respectable argument. Unaccountably, Mitchell resurrects the Ku Klux Klan, arguing rightly that Farrakhan isn’t as bad as it. (No, but is that a recommendation?) Now, zigging and zagging, Mitchell says “if the commission members want to condemn Farrakhan anew as an anti-Semite, that is their call”—zig. “But Muhammad should not be banned from that body because she represents the Nation of Islam”—zag.

There’s cowardice here, all right, but it’s not those who might be tempted to remove Muhammad. But it’s not Mitchell who is good because she wears her emotionalism on her sleeve. But cowardice is the way to label her intellectually flabby editors who printed Mitchell without worrying about the contradictions, evidently fearful that if they utter a criticism they will be regarded as anti-black. The same people who allow Carol Marin to express outrage at certain corruption, yet feel tender toward Democrat Joe Cari who got caught; people who allow bubble-gum popping Cathleen Falsani to blast Bush and the war as an expression of her own feelings being passed off as coverage by a so-called “religion editor.” Look, I know the paper is trying to be partisan and that’s o.k., but once in a while columnists, black and well as white, should feel the pressure of copy editor involvement.