Personal Asides: Chris Lauzen May Run for Congress…Hmmm. “Snuffed Out” Not Familiar to Chicagoans, Eh?

Lauzen.

It’s no news to anyone who has continually read this website that I supported Jim Oberweis for the gubernatorial nomination, supported Jim Oberweis for the U. S. Senate in the primary election and felt exceedingly depressed after the State Central Committee did not choose Jim Oberweis to succeed Jack Ryan for the senatorial nomination. Moreover, I have carried the fight beyond the gubernatorial primary to Sen. Bill Brady for targeting Oberweis in the primary when all logic would have prescribed him going after Judy Baar Topinka, the leading candidate. I still believe a kind of fix was in. That I should forget and forgive old enmities came home to me clearly when I heard that Jim Oberweis met not long after election with Brady and allowed bygones to be bygones—which is what I should have done instead of nursing old political scabs. After all, who am I to continue to be upset about Brady in behalf of Oberweis when Oberweis has made up with Brady? Exactly.

So now in the 14th district where the congressional seat is held by J. Dennis Hastert, the rumor is that perhaps he will not run again. If he does run again, obviously Republicans will support J. Dennis Hastert. But if he does not, a few names have been circulated. One is that of Jim Oberweis. Sorry, nothing against Jim because I have been an Oberweis veteran in the trenches…but this time I think my allegiance will shift to someone else….someone with excellent legislative experience, who has served the people brilliantly for 15 years…someone who is utterly unassailable from the standpoint of conservative credentials…who has been used to competing against heavy odds—almost always when the GOP establishment has been against him. This is State Sen. Chris Lauzen of Aurora. A superbly educated fiscal conservative, a superbly trained social and governmental logician, a man of the highest intellect and extraordinary gifts, it is my hope that he will be the successor to Congressman Hastert when the time comes.

Chris is noteworthy for doing what he thinks is right no matter what the political consequences. He was opposed in its initial go-round by some heavy Republican establishmentarian forces including Jim Edgar and won. He was singled out as one of the “Fab Five” in the state Senate along with Peter Fitzgerald, Patrick O’Malley, Steve Rauschenberger and Dave Syverson. I was gratified when he defeated Harry Seigel, an establishment favorite for the state comptroller nomination. I was impressed when he single-handedly and alone challenged George Ryan’s faulty spending on “Illinois First.” Since then he has walked alone but because of his doughty intelligence and convictions he has been joined by many of his friends, among whom I wish to be included. Not that we have always agreed--but disagreement with civility is part of polity.

If Jim Oberweis, who has already spent more than $7 million in past campaigns, runs for the Congress in that district…the umpteenth campaign of his life…he can do great damage to the prospect of a brilliant lawmaker going to Congress. There is always some greedy consultant who wants to importune wealthy people to run—for the consultant’s own benefit. For some reason—and I think it unfortunate—the electorate does not cotton to Oberweis: but I am no electoral psychologist. If I were, Jim Oberweis would be either Senator or Governor today. Now, I think it best for Jim to concentrate on using his good name and undeniably strong views to help the ticket this time and take a breather—especially from the 14th district. The chance to elect a Chris Lauzen to the Congress comes once in every blue moon…and I hope no conservative shirks from the opportunity to help him in the 14th. Of course you know that I don’t have any vested interest in Chris’ political career; my radio show hosts both sides of every contest, the mike open to all candidates for the post, Republican or Democratic.

I’d be interested in what you think of Chris in Reader’s Comment.

Snuffed Out.

As we have seen, Fr. Michael Pfleger, the left-wing media darling and such a hot exponent of gun-control that he threatened to murder a Riverdale gun shop owner, is an angry demagogue who excels at delivering stem-winding political sermons to congregations for whom he is expected to celebrate Mass. This is hot stuff for the liberal media which, since they are disinterested in moral absolutes, have adopted “gun control” as the first article of their secular religion. Pfleger has gotten away with slangy street palaver to shows how hip he is, how well he understands the lingo of ghetto life. He has even put on a South Side black accent…although he is white…to be close to the discordant masses he calls grandly “my people.” In essence what you have is a white version of Fr. Jean Bertrand Aristide with all the trimmings and yearnings for political power.

Because he is an emotionally overhung faux crusader, devoid of humor or modesty, when he went rhetorically over the top the other day and shouted to the gun shop owner that we will “snuff you out” he could not bring himself to say he misspoke. Had he done so, the error would be as quickly forgiven as it was unprinted by the supplicants of the media. No, just as his great mentor Jesse Jackson, Sr. cannot admit of an error, neither can Pfleger. So he was forced to insist that he didn’t and doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase “snuff out.” He is ignorant that since Al Capone’s day, it has meant murder. And he says the fact that the media who covered him didn’t mention his remark shows that the media themselves were unaware of what “snuffed out” means.

A friend who ran a check with “Roget’s New Millennium Thesaurus” found that synonyms for the word “dead” include deceased, dead duck, departed, done-for, exterminated, extinguished, fallen and “snuffed out.” Another check for the words “not alive” include defunct, departed, lifeless, liquidated, off’ed, rubbed out and “snuffed out.” Perhaps it would be good for some who read this to send it to the various city desks and assignment editors who feign ignorance of the words.

The subsequent publicity of the episode has made nary a dent with the secularly humanistic liberal “Tribune” which believes that if it does not cover a story that slights liberals, it didn’t happen…nor with the blissfully slavish Ron Magers of Channel 7 who with Cheryl Burton ran a panel on violence which included Fr. Pfleger, the patron saint of gun confiscation. The presence of guns, you see, not anything else—not broken families, not the failure of clergy to insist on observance of the moral code…the presence of guns is the sole reason for violence…not lack of religious or moral message which can be laid to the doorstep of the unruly and disobedient priest and his colleagues. Let’s say Magers and Burton read their scripts and asked the proper questions mandated by their editors. Whenever I see those two I think of the phrase delivered after application of the powder puffs: “I’m ready for my close-up, C. B!”

Flashback: So the Upshot is, I Go to Chicago with a Request to the Republican CEO—Fund the O’Neill Film Project…Tossing My Hat in First.

[Fifty plus years of politics written for my kids and grandchildren].

Dear Children and Grandchildren: If you seek to perpetuate an enduring life in the modern corporation, my advice is not to go about trying to convince a Republican CEO to allow his corporation to fund a documentary on PBS favoring a liberal Democrat whom the CEO believes is a distant relative of the anti-Christ.

This foolhardy act did not cut short my corporate career because I had a very genial, broad-minded and understanding CEO. The mold was broken when he retired…as there was a major acquisition coup, a major gaffe, a firing of a venal CEO successor and a hustle by corporate vultures to sell the company to Pepsi and make a killing—but all in the future).

My meeting with Tip O’Neill led me to decide to visit my CEO in Chicago to gain permission for the venture. First, I visited with a few of his colleagues who were on a higher corporate level from me and obtained their approval. Then I tackled the big boss himself. And it was just my luck to approach him in his office when something or other had gone wrong and he confessed in his gentlemanly way that he was “grumpy.” Grumpy!

Were I in his position, finding out that some marketing plan which was highly extolled had turned sour and now to hear a proposal for the company’s foundation to support Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., I would not have to feel ill at ease.

Instead he listened politely and expressed the opinion—originally made by me, actually—that Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. was a hack, a bulbous-nosed, cigar chomping Massachusetts pol who had never done much of anything except run for office. His liberal views—wanton spending and taxation—were anathema. But there was one further thing. I braced myself wondering what it was. Did he know something about O’Neill I didn’t? Was it malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance? None of these. Worse.

To the mind of this CEO (one of the finest men I ever met, whose generosity was legend and whose courage and diplomacy was faultless) of all the sins that modern man could contrive, the worst that could be hurled was this. Not that O’Neill was a Democrat, or liberal, or a vituperative anti-conservative, or anti-free market: no, none of these.

This CEO knew John Kennedy when both were young, was a good friend of Sargent Shriver, a good acquaintance of another Lake Forest denizen by the name of Bill Proxmire and stayed overnight at the gubernatorial mansion of Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. Collectively they were not conservative. But this was of no great consequence.

No, there was one thing O’Neill was that they weren’t.

O’Neill was fat!

In the board rooms of the time, in the executive committees, the baronial law firms, the patrician social milieu, the elite dining room of the Chicago Club (known as the CEOs’ “Van Buren street Y”), the abstemious Presbyterian churches, the civic philanthropies, the social salons and fixed indelibly in the mind of this CEO there was absolutely no countenancing one being fat. I remember this CEO looking askance at Herman Kahn, the great thermonuclear strategist who came to speak at one of our conferences. Kahn must have been 300 lbs. What he said about unthinkable nuclear options meant little. Being fat—as he was--was the great no-no. It smacked of over-indulgence, lasciviousness, gluttony and a dedication to decadence. .

That was the most mortal of mortal sins to this brilliantly trim CEO. Whenever he passed by, I instinctively sucked in my own gut. Being fat to this CEO…and I must say many others like him…was degenerate and remindful of bad character, a condemnation of excess and gluttony, failure to self-discipline.

Bigotry about weight has not always been in the ascendancy. Time was, from the 1890s to the 1930s, business leaders were ample and portly which they were proud of, since portliness was indication of robustness, a zing for life, boldness. J. P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, John Jacob Astor, Leland Stanford, Henry Clay Frick, Henry Flagler, James Fisk, James Buchanan Duke, Jay Gould and Jay Fiske. Were I born at their time and had proximity to them I, at 6 foot even and 230 lbs. would have certainly been included in their midst. The last portly successful CEO I remember after Henry J. Kaiser was John Swearingen of Standard Oil (Ind.).

Presidents and presidential candidates the same. The 22nd and 24th president, Grover Cleveland , 240 lbs and five-feet eleven, with a great bull neck, strong jaw and double chin which would wobble in anger and ham fists, would prop his ample girth behind his executive desk or at the rostrum, slightly open his vest buttons so as to allow him more breath. His successor, the 25th, William McKinley was an erect, statuesque, brawny figure well over 200 lbs. at five-feet-seven. He defeated William Jennings Bryan, a 6 foot one, 258 pounder, with McKinley relying on his sage campaign aide, Mark Hanna, 5 feet 11 and 238 lbs.

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th, had purposely trained himself from a delicate, asthmatic youth to barrel chest, bull neck, devouring what he called “zesty meals” eagerly, striding into the presidency at more than 200 lbs. at five feet eight. William Howard Taft, the 27th 6 foot 2, 325 lbs., up to 340 lbs. Now we skip the trim but near-psychotic Woodrow Wilson, congenitally unable to compromise, five feet eleven and 175 lbs., Warren Harding who in his youth had a nervous breakdown and spent some time in the rubber room of the Kellogg mental clinic at Battle Creek, Michigan, 6 feet even and 190 lbs. Calvin Coolidge, my own political favorite but hopelessly skinny, five feet nine and 166 lbs., Herbert Hoover my decided un-favorite but nonetheless five feet eleven and 220 lbs.

FDR, about whom I have mixed feelings, was well over 200 lbs., at inauguration for the third term, 240, standing 6 foot one…then before death shrinking to 171, with pallor and sagging jowls and he gave thinness and gauntness a bad name. . But then he was a polio victim and was rarely seen standing (when he was, he was behind a rostrum and gripping it tightly to retain balance).

Since FDR, men’s styles have gone almost all trim (except for Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton pre-Monica) —Truman, 185 lbs. and five-ten; Eisenhower, five-ten and 178, JFK, 6-1/2 feet and 170; LBJ, six foot three, 210 at inauguration but expanded with the years to 240 lbs. at retirement; Nixon, five-eleven and 175; Ford, 6 feet, 195 lbs.; Carter who wears elevator shoes (which is all you need to know) an official 5 feet 9 (probably 5 feet 7) and 155 lbs.; Reagan 6 foot one, 185 lbs. Bush, Sr., 6 foot 2, 195 lbs.; Clinton 6 foot 2-1/2 with weight fluctuating between 200 to 220 lbs. Bush, Jr., six feet and 190.

The CEO studied me carefully.

“How much would you guess O’Neill weighs?”

I have no idea.

“Guess.”

Oh (lying), about 210.

“Impossible. You’re at least that heavy and he’s got you by 50 lbs. Which reminds me: what did you clock in at when you were last on the scale?”

Eight pounds four ounces.

“Thomas, Thomas what are we going to do with you? What does Lillian say?”

Agrees wholeheartedly with you.

“You should weigh 180. You weigh 220 if you weigh an ounce.”

I suppose.

“Do you walk?”

Repeatedly, repeating the same trek through the night.

“Tom, I am unhappy with this O’Neill film —primarily because of your own good advice through the years…that business should not cave in, should not try to ingratiate itself with critics by shirking candor. I am an exponent of the same thing. What will our friends say when they see us cuddling up to…” he described O’Neill’s physique perfectly, followed by an accurate estimate of his irreconcilable liberal positions. “I cannot fathom why we should do this.”

I can only say that at this time when we are outnumbered…with the White House and two houses of Congress in the hands of the opposition, we would be wise not to foreclose building relationships that can conceivably allow us to make our case without selling out.

“I don’t buy any of it..”

Well, sir, I understand. Case closed then.

(But evidently not entirely!).

“How much is this boondoggle?”

$100,000 for which we get credit at the beginning: This program funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, station WGBH Boston, a grant from The Quaker Oats Company and viewers like you. The film will be a classroom masterpiece, showing how personalities affect the formation of public policy. With it will be a brochure for the students for which we’ll get credit.

“And we’re supposed to pay for this as well, are we not?”

Well, yes.

“Can you guarantee that this won’t be just a liberal propaganda piece, advocating higher spending, higher taxes, the Carter energy plan, windfall profits tax on oil, mandates for industry to convert from oil and gas to goal?”

Well, the documentary won’t touch much on issues, judging from the rushes I’ve seen but on the work of the Speaker which--.

“Including sipping a bit of the brew?”

As a matter of fact, that’s in it, yes.

“Bob Thurston…your old boss… has talked to me about it and thinks it’s a good idea. I value his judgment far more than anyone else’s including yours on this matter since you have obviously been captivated by this project. Bob has the level-headedness I depend on. And he says in his considered estimation, we should do it.”

He sat back and was thoughtful. Finally:

“Since he’s approved it, all right. Run it by him once again and if he has second thoughts, it’s over. Let me say, we no sooner agree to send you to Harvard than you come in here with a grant for Tip O’Neill. To make matters worse, I understand you are taking a course from Ken Galbraith on the economy. That right?”

No, just a one-time lecture on contemporary history entitled “The Age of Uncertainty.”

“He should be very good at that since he has been wrong on history and public issues as well as the economy for his entire career—always wrong, never in doubt, although a charming man, I must say. All right.”

As I walked to the door, he was writing at his desk.

“Do all of us and Lillian a favor and not try to match that old glutton forkful by forkful. You are 230 lbs. if you’re an ounce. Do not dig your own grave with a knife and fork.”

Thank you. The Speaker thanks you…

“Out.”

************

Now the fun: breaking the good news. From my Quaker desk, I called the Speaker’s secretary: I have good news.

“Just let me put him on”

Pause.

“Tommy!”—that was a stunner. First name basis now. “You got good news!”

Yes, sir. The grant’s approved.

“Where are you?”

In Chicago. Going back to Cambridge.

“Can you stop by here? What time is it? Just after one. I have a Democratic leadership dinner starts at 7 but we won’t sit down until 8. I’d like you to join us. You’re not adverse to a few drinks and prime rib o’ beef are you, Tommy? All the committee chairmen and ranking Democrats will be there.”

(The same committee chairmen who were too busy to see me through the years. Foley of Agriculture; Rostenkowski who always gave me the fish-eye; not Ways and Means chairman yet but close. )

I’ll be there!

“It’s in a special room at The Monocle. Come in and ask for me. I want to introduce you to them. We usually go on until late so you might get a hotel room. Can my secretary help you get one? Where d’ye stay, the Madison?”

Yeah.

“We gotta celebrate. Millie [his wife] also wants to meet you but that’ll come later.”

Put this down definitely as a highpoint day. My diet will start immediately after the Democratic leadership dinner at The Monocle.

Personal Aside: Excuse Some Technical Difficulties the Last Few Days, Folks…Ah, Note the Deft Parsing on Pfleger and the Philosophy of Pyrrho.

Excuse Us.

You know what technical difficulties are. They’re bugs which get into the machinery in every business…including the Internet. My bosom buddy Jake has fixed them up now and we’re ready to go ahead.

Sorry for the delay.

Deft Parsing.

To some of us who are not philosophy Ph.D’s, the statement issued by Superior street regarding Fr. Michael Pfleger looked like a rebuke. That was at first blush. On re-reading, not so.

Parse it as the writer obviously did and it goes like this:

1. Some report Fr. Pfleger said such and so.
2. Saying such and so is wrong.
3. It is up to the police to decide if he said such and so.



It is a brilliant example of skeptic philosophy. The Stoics and Epicureans laid down certain theoretical principles from which they deduced canons of conduct, always keeping in view their aim to make people happy. Essentially it takes after the teaching of Pyrrho, the chief Skeptic, who argued: (1) Real things are neither beautiful nor ugly, large of small. (2) We have no right to say they are the one as we have to say they are the other.

Ergo in this case: The fact that an audio and video tape was made of the remarks does not establish authenticity. It is up to the police to make the judgment.

In contrast, the recording of Fr. Pfleger shows him saying that the gun shop owner will be dragged out of his shop like a rat…and we “snuff you out.”

Here is what a partial transcript showing the threatening words from May 31:

“John Riggio! R-i-g-g-i-o! We’re going to find you and snuff you out! You can’t keep hiding because you’re afraid! Obviously you know you’re doing something wrong [sic]. Like a rat, you’re going to hide because you know you’ve got to hide [sic]. Like a rat you’re going to hide but like a rat we’re going to catch you and pull you out! We are not going to allow you to hide when we’re here!”

Consider now if the speaker was a priest or minister shouting in front of an abortion clinic. “We’re going to find you and snuff you out!” Do you think the print media would refrain from publishing the original death threat? The “Chicago Tribune” or the “Sun-Times?” Or the “Herald?” Or the “Southtown”?

Pfleger’s own website explains: It says the media were there and they don’t construe “snuff out” as a death threat. That again is skepticism: forego all theoretical inquiry and disclaim all certainty of knowledge. They were on hand, saw and heard Pfleger but did not construe “snuff out” as a threat of murder. That tells you all you need to know about the media, does it not? Twisting themselves into pretzel form to pass up “snuff you out.” And then reporting without giving an opposing view Pfleger’s explanation that he doesn’t know “snuff you out” means murder in Chicago parlance.

Then, yesterday in the “Tribune,” on the front page a long disquisition about “hate crime” with no mention of Pfleger’s shout. If this isn’t the teaching of Pyrrho…that there is no verifiable certainty…I don’t know what is. You were there, you heard it, you heard the recording of it but it is inconclusive as to whether there was a death threat…because in the church of liberaldom gun control is the apparent good…in whatever form. It doesn’t matter that there is already stringent gun control; there must be more. It doesn’t matter that a priest issues a death threat; he is justified under relativism to threaten murder in order to preempt further murders.

Of course, if a conservative priest or minister threatened an abortion clinic owner with being snuffed out, the media would report it as a death threat. Of course…and they should. But the hypocrisy comes when a media favorite, radical priest Pfleger, standing next to another media favorite, Rev. Jesse Jackson lets his anger get away from him. The print media refuses to publish the story…until the Sun-Times caves after 48 hours and publishes the Cardinal’s statement. Nothing from the “Tribune” yet. The editorial board is obviously determined to believe ala Pyrrho that truth is what you want to believe.

The Pfleger Moment is the most dramatic proof that most of the liberal print media in Chicago have an agenda that not just shades the news but holds it back.

Now you can help me. The other night on Channel 7 there was a panel discussion on gun control…with Ron Magers hosting, Cheryl Burton participating and Fr. Michael Pfleger one of the panelists. I missed it. If any of you saw it, tell me if the Pfleger shout at the owner of the gun shop was brought up. Or if you would by chance have a tape, I’m interested.

Flashback: Huh? The Idea of Quaker Helping to Finance a Tip O’Neill PBS Film Documentary? Well Let’s Give it a Bit of a Thought.

More than fifty years of politics for my kids and grandchildren.

The evening at the Durgin Park ended with me getting a ride home from my friend at WGBH and turning things over in my mind as he chatted about the television business. A documentary about Tip O’Neill funded partially by Quaker Oats. What are the negatives? They are six. First, the CEO is a Brahmin Republican…highly principled, a Boy Scout, a kind of country-club preppie to whom O’Neill the whiskey drinker, bon vivant and blue-collar labor union rabble-rouser is anathema. No, it can’t work and to even suggest it would be a bad idea from the standpoint of my own corporate career, such as it is. Second, the company as it’s broadly perceived is non-political. A big mistake to support with its foundation dollars a vehemently partisan speaker of the house. Third, with his company paying for an O’Neill laudatory film, the Republican National Committee to which Bob Stuart belongs might give him a lot of heat—and he’ll come to regret the decision to fund it…and regret I ever came up with the idea.

Fourth, a documentary on a house speaker might be acceptable if O’Neill was a kind of pattern-breaker, like Andrew Young who was the first black man in a century to represent a Deep South district in Congress, But he’s an old pol, a hack. O’Neill holds JFK’s old House seat in a solidly Democratic constituency and there’s no pattern-breaker in that. Fifth, , if O’Neill was a kind of independent voice or, say, an historic figure like Walter Judd (the leader of a band of Republicans to support Harry Truman on creation of NATO or foreign aid), it might be acceptable. But O’Neill is a savagely anti-Republican partisan with a long history of rapping conservatism and Republicans: no, a bad deal for us.

Sixth, the year was 1977. The next year would be a congressional election and there’s no doubt that the film will be spliced up or used in some way as Democratic party ammunition to show what a great regular fellow O’Neill is…which would be an embarrassment to our CEO. Conclusion: No, the idea of us co-sponsoring it is ridiculous.

Then when I got to my apartment and got into bed I examined the pluses. First, the title of my job is corporate lobbyist. I had a sheaf of priority items to advocate for the industry. To myself I said: Are you telling me that not getting to meet the speaker of the house and his key staff is not going to be an advantageous to my industry—are you seriously maintaining that it will not…when all my colleagues…from General Mills, Pillsbury, General Foods, Nabisco…would be giving their eye-teeth for this opportunity? You know they will. Second, if I say forget about it before I run it by Chicago, why wouldn’t O’Neill’s people go to Pillsbury, General Mills, General Foods, Nabisco and leave us sitting around with the CEO saying ruefully, “if Roeser didn’t just peremptorily turn it down but let me consider it. Why didn’t he do this?”

Third, , during the exercise with the “con” side, you assumed that the documentary would be larded with O’Neill praise. But there will be no narrator. The schema of the film will be just O’Neill, no intro, no conclusion…just O’Neill gripping hands, walking around the Capitol. That is a very pallid production. Fourth, do you realize, you dummy, that if you follow through with this thing you will know not only the second ranking potential successor to the presidency in entire country but his staff, his allies and people in the White House which is the nature of your job?

Fifth, and the kicker. Why don’t you ask the guy from WGBH to get you to visit with O’Neill anyhow…regardless of what the ultimate decision would be from your company…and get a personal feel of O’Neill’s position is on this? That decided it. This I would do. Brilliant idea!

So the next morning when I got to my Harvard office, I called the WGBH guy and said, “Rob, I’ve been thinking. I have no idea whether the powers-that-be at Quaker will go for this. A good many reasons tell me they won’t. But wouldn’t it be a good idea for me to sit down with the Speaker and kinda get his view of what he expects the documentary will do?”

And Rob said: “Sure. As a matter of fact, he’ll be coming into this very studio tomorrow because he can’t wait to see the rushes. Why don’t you get over here and meet him when he’ll be here from about 10 to noon?”

This I couldn’t do because of a class I had to teach at 9:55 a.m. and a class to go to that I was looking forward to…John Kenneth Galbraith, then a mere stripling Keynesian of 70, speaking on “The Age of Uncertainty.” So in the late afternoon when I got back to my office…at about 5 p;m. or so…the phone rang and a snippy female voice said—a statement I was to hear repeatedly for many months—“Mr. Roeser? Hold the line for the Speaker.”

He spoke as if we had known each other a long time, saying that he had seen the rushes and was enthused. Then he said he was disappointed we couldn’t meet at WGBH but asked, in a deferential way, if it were possible that I would be coming to Washington soon…if so he would like to take me to lunch. He gave me his personal number so I wouldn’t have to go through the formality of having to introduce myself to his staff—just his secretary. Okay with me.

When the second man in line for the presidency asks this, you agree and within a day I was winging to Washington, someone taking my class. I didn’t know where we were going to have lunch but I strolled into the Speaker’s Reception room, a grand and ornate series of chambers. Once I gave the minion my card, it seemed that the great doors swung open and I found myself in his personal office just off the House chamber. The House had just convened. I walked in, greeted this enormous, great white-haired bear of a man with his famous red bulbous nose and I saw the table was set for two beside his desk.

Ah, said I, for an ex-reporter for the “St. Cloud Daily Times” whose last raise had him earning $67.50 a week and told he would not earn a farthing more so long as I stayed there…not bad. Here I am age 49, never went to a classy school until now where Harvard pays me and, in addition, I am to sit down with Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. While my animosities against this liberal didn’t vanish, I began to examine him critically. As he poured a glass from a bottle of red wine while the procedural orders were being read outside in the House chamber, I began to figure out how I could sell this Tip O’Neill film to the company whose CEO was such a regnant Republican.

“Ah,” said Tip O’Neill as he sipped it and smacked his huge lips. “Water of life.”

He explained with a joyous chuckle: “That’s what my old father would say before he took his drink at the start of supper.”

My Irish grandfather, the marble layer, Thomas Francis Cleary would say it as well. And the next time I heard that self-same phrase, it would be uttered at lunch at the O’Hare Hilton two years later—by another Irishman, Ronald Reagan. I thought: I’ll give this the old college try in Chicago.

Personal Aside: The Republican Debate—While He Likely Won’t be the Choice, Mike Huckabee Shines Brightest. Then Giuliani. Then Romney. Get the Hook for Tommy Thompson.

The first conclusion I made after watching the two-hour Republican debate on CNN last night was: how fortunate this tattered old party is to have the quality of candidates we have produced—and that includes even Congressman Ron Paul. Here we have a party with great talent and diversity…Paul providing most of the diversity…while the Democrats all sound like they came out of the same ideological dye pot…all for socialized medicine, all for pulling out of Iraq without demanding victory…all, or seemingly so, for canceling the Bush tax cuts. I know I’ll be accused of blind partisanship but here goes: the quality of all the candidates was head and shoulders over the candidates shown a few nights earlier on CNN. And this with one…maybe two…candidates who are ready to come in.

The second was that the most engaging candidate—the candidate most comfortable with himself, most at ease, the wittiest, a rival to be a latter-day Will Rogers--was not in the first tier…Giuliani, McCain, Romney. It was Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher who was governor of Arkansas for ten years. The third conclusion was that the most eloquent sound bite came from Huckabee where he defended his belief in God—one of the great down-to-earth yet inspiring presentations I have ever heard. The abjectly secular Democratic party which shies away from religious overtones…negating the general view of the American people…could be actually stood on its head when this Baptist preacher gets through.

The third was that it is very unlikely that Huckabee will be the choice—but that any candidate who is chosen as the nominee should turn to Huckabee first-off as running-mate. He is that good. And it’s not just me. One of the legal-political analysts on CNN, Jeffrey Toomin, made the same observation about Huckabee. He is the most genuinely folksy, witty, engaging and interesting political figure since Ronald Reagan. And I have been with Reagan one-on-one. This guy Huckeabee’s got it, let me tell you. Don’t let anybody tell you this guy is a rube and a jester, nothing more. Time magazine earlier this year named him as the best governor in the United States.

The fourth is that Giuliani did very well in this debate—far better than /when he tried to waffle on abortion. He seems to have mastered the knack of holding a pro-choice position in a solidly pro-life party without sounding apologetic, uncertain or hazy—an attitude I got from the very first debate where he floundered. Giuliani comes across as one who will be in the first-tier for a very long time, and may just survive the cut to take the nod.

The fifth is that Romney’s articulation and presence is almost eerily perfect…looks, persona, in presidentiality…in deftness in handling difficult positions. From the standpoint of content, delivery and professional aplomb, he was unmatched.

The sixth is that McCain made the best pitch of his life…and probably the best summation of all the candidates…at the conclusion and helped himself greatly. Second best was his pitch for a return to thrift which was superb for McCain who is not particularly an oracular candidate.

The seventh is that Ron Paul helps the Republicans very much overall because he proves the party is not intolerant of diversity, because while he’s a libertarian, his view of Iraq is almost identical to that of liberal Democrats. His views are authentic Robert A. Taft of two generations ago when Taft’s views dominated the conservative firmament. Paul’s presence in the debates gives the paleos hope that someday their views will dominate the Right once more—and I’m not sure they won’t. Can you imagine the Democrats having a pro-Iraq War candidate? Or a Democratic pro-life candidate? Or a Democratic Voucher candidate? Or a Democratic candidate who has crafted a reasonably private sector health care bill? Won’t happen because its netroots exert a fascist-like stranglehold over the party.

The eighth is that Tancredo vastly improved his presentation this time and comes through as a credible exponent of a view that is majority opinion in the nation—for which his prescience must be credited.

The ninth is that Tommy Thompson really doesn’t belong there.

The tenth is that Duncan Hunter would be probably everybody’s choice for secretary of defense (except for Ron Paul, of course). Hunter comes over very well as certain for that post if any of the logical presidential candidates here win (Paul would probably be his own defense secretary).

The eleventh is that Sam Brownback has lots to offer but thus far he hasn’t come to life on the stage (although in a personal meeting with him a few months ago I was impressed)…although his command of the subject matter is impressive.

The twelfth is that Jim Gilmore, as a former Virginia governor, former state attorney general and former general chairman of the Republican National Committee should be more impressive than, say, Mike Huckabee…he isn’t.

Flashback: The Tip O’Neill Film…An Odd Couple …and How a Controversy Grew.

[More than 50 years of politics as a memoir for my kids and grandchildren].

Every lobbyist cherishes the day when he can have direct access to a Speaker of the House…for many reasons: for ego gratification, to get his advice on how to handle legislation of importance to his company, and to live a bit of U.S. history knowing the person second in line to the presidency of the United States. In a very complicated way, not having known Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill and having no particular affection for him, I became for a time about as close an intimate to him as it was possible to be—since he and I were particularly entwined with a project that was near and dear to both of us.

Our association started this way. As the weather in Cambridge, Mass. was turning delightful…long about April of 1977…and I was midway in both teaching and taking courses at Harvard as a John F. Kennedy Fellow at its Institute of Politics…I was strolling down Mt. Auburn street one morning before class, carrying a laundry bag filled with dirty clothes (shirts, socks et al) as well as some badly wrinkled suits, on the way to a cleaning and pressing shop a few blocks from my apartment. It was a great place; I could dump the stuff there and pick all of it up after school the same day—if I got there no later than 8 a.m. As I rounded the corner, however, I saw a great crowd standing outside with a group of television cameras. I thought: oh-oh, the joint has either been held up or worse the manager (who had become a good acquaintance of mine) may have been killed. Pondering the human possibilities of a tragedy I also did reflect, I must confess, that the store would have to close and I would have to hike further down the street to downtown Cambridge to find another cleaner’s.

As I elbowed through the crowd, I asked a guy what had happened—a hold-up or break-in or what. He said, “no, nothing like that. Speaker O’Neill is taking his clothes to the cleaner and this film crew from WGBH-TV is doing a documentary on him…so it’s rather interesting.”

I nosed around and found the project director, squatting down with headphones gauging the sound level from inside the cleaner’s. I introduced myself and said that I was from Quaker Oats which caught his attention right away. Our company was known for funding documentaries and for its support of public television anyhow; our president, Ken Mason, was chairman of the board of WTTW-TV in Chicago. Under his leadership we had hyped up the contributions to public television including to WGBH which was and is the flagship public television station for the nation. I knew the chief of development for the station, Henry Morganthau, III., son of FDR’s old treasury secretary, who was the chief fund-raiser for the station (Henry being the brother of Robert Morganthau, then and now at age 88, the elected District attorney of New York county including Manhattan). The director and I chatted about the documentary that was being produced.

He said, “You’ll be interested in this since Quaker has been a longtime friend of public television. This documentary will just follow O’Neill around and will have no narrator. We have microphones on his coat lapel and just record his conversations, coming and going. In fact that’s going to be the entire show. Now, granted if he has an important conversation that bears upon national security or something like that, we’re bound to follow his advice and edit it. But very little else. If he has a particularly eloquent string of cuss-words we may take it out but the audience will know what Tip means. We have his concurrence for all this. We just started doing this. We’re going to take this camera into the White House next week when he has a meeting with President Carter; into the Democratic caucus where he will be laying down the law to some of his guys. It’s going to be a real historic document.”

Well, Tip finally finished turning his dirty clothes over to my suit cleaner and dryer friend and I got inside to do the same thing, shook hands with the Speaker (which was the second time I had met him, having met him once before when Quaker sponsored the “Andrew Young” documentary grand opening at Ford’s Theatre).

He remembered the Ford’s Theatre premiere—not me.

“Hey,” he said, “you put that thing together? That was a great evening!”

I said, no I didn’t put it together but I worked on the Young film and supervised the premier.

Believe it or not, I had somewhat of a hard time getting rid of him so I could turn in my dirty clothes and get on to my class; he was that interested. Finally, he took my card and trundled off with the TV crew following at his heels.

After my classes…one where I taught and another class I was taking “Constitutional History of the United States” by the renowned James Q. Wilson…I got to my office at the Kennedy Institute to find the secretary there saying that WGBH was calling. Almost simultaneously I got a phone call from my secretary at Quaker Oats in Chicago who said that someone from the Speaker’s office had called to ascertain where I could be found at Harvard. She said, “what did you do that infuriated the Speaker? See, I knew when you took up temporary residence in Democratic Massachusetts you’d get into trouble with the powers-that-be.”

Very funny, I said. I called WGBH and it was the same guy who had been directing the O’Neill film.

He said, “The Speaker told me to call you. He was very impressed that you guys at Quaker had sponsored, financed and put on a reception for Andy Young in Washington at Ford’s theatre. He wants me to take you ought to dinner to see if you would be interested in helping to finance our film on him. We have a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and from our station of course, but we’re looking for a private sector sponsor—and the Speaker is very choosy about who we get. We can’t get Exxon, we can’t get Mobil Oil. We can’t get this one or that one. But he thinks a grant from The Quaker Oats Company would sound terrific—for, as he says, who can think there’s any kind dirty politics from Quaker Oats?”

Very nice, I said, but number one I’m on a leave from Quaker through the coming summer. I live here. And I hardly think that the company’s CEO, Bob Stuart who is also the Republican National Committeeman for Illinois would be interested in funding a laudatory documentary on Tip O’Neill.

“It won’t necessarily be laudatory,” he said.

Don’t kid me. WGBH is a great station but nobody ever accused it of turning out conservative product—especially when the subject is Tip O’Neill who is your own Congressman and where public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is involved. How dumb do you think I am?

“Okay, I agree,” he said. “But why don’t you let me take you to dinner tonight anyhow since the Speaker asked me to do it. It’d help me a lot.”

Listen, if you’re buying, I’m on. Where do we meet?

He said: Durgin Park restaurant in Boston. Durgin Park it was, on Market Street in Boston, which for more than a century had been serving sumptuous American style dishes. It also had an ingratiating way of insulting you when you came in the door which has been part of the Durgin Park tradition. If you’re not prepared for it, you may be offended. When I walked in, the maitre d’ looked at me and said, “well, fatso—what’ll it be tonight? Crab cakes?”

Crab cakes my eye; we had steaks and ample adult beverages. But by the end of the evening, there came a seismographic change…a great shaking and trembling in the ground equivalent to a political earthquake…that ended up with me, a conservative Republican corporate lobbyist becoming for a fairly long time an ally and partner of Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., liberal Democratic Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives.

Personal Asides: The Next Republican Presidential Campaign Better Re-Tool to Recapture the Fast Fleeing Reagan Democrats.

George Will who likes to begin most political discussions by recalling quotations from Pliny the Younger, is not very strong willed where social policy is concerned. Once a pro-lifer, he now yearns for dialogue that does not begin or end on the issue of abortion—something like the genial discussions he has with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday mornings. But George has drifted far, far away from the days when he was living in Champaign, Illinois and worked as a speech-writer for Sen. Gordon Allott (R-Colorado). He is extremely sophisticated and yearns for the days when men discussed topics like the ancient Greeks. Accordingly, he has moved away from his once understanding of social movements. His most recent column expresses a sense of gratification that conservatives are getting more sophisticated and are not so hot and bothered about abortion.

Will’s weariness with old-tie evangelical and conservative Catholic conservatives (he is neither) is a danger signal for those of us who want to overcome the odds that a Democrat will win the presidency next year. George W. Bush may be excused for moving away from the conservative faith, due to the heat he has been getting from the media over Iraq. While he has remained firm on abortion, Bush looks for all the world like a squishy moderate, reconsidering his once firm stand against global warming, vetoing only two bills in his entire time in the presidency with neither having anything to do with fiscal solvency. Bush is a big government conservative who is, frankly, getting burned out…all the while the grassroots are getting burned up. A final outrage—which indicates he’s burned out—was his recent statement that those conservatives who oppose his immigration bill are not interested in the well-being of America.

While I respect Bush for his toughness on Iraq and his clear-headed nomination of two great Supreme Court justices (although we inestimably helped him by fighting against Harriet Miers), I must concede that he is far from the model that the party must emulate in the future if it is to rekindle the flame with Reagan Democrats. I think several things have to happen for that coalition to be resurrected. Three things come to mind.

First, the American presidential candidate must definitely adopt a strong position on immigration that sets as its first priority the up-building of border security before consideration of anything else. The candidate must be fore-square on the 14th amendment and its application to the rights of anchor babies. No one with any knowledge of American history can deny that the 14th was added to readjust inequities to African Americans, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

It was adopted so that the states could not deny citizenship to blacks born in the United States. Since there was no serious immigration to the country, the authors saw no need to further elucidate. But the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from citizenship persons born in America whose allegiance to the nation was not complete i.e. children of diplomatic foreign nationals who were born here. The American presidential candidate must risk alienation from the squeamish liberal media and other publics by saying that by not addressing the abuse, funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies is a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Second, the American presidential candidate must explain the destruction wrought by the VAT tax by foreign governments which simply substitute high rates for high tariff rates, thereby erecting high border barriers against competition from U. S. goods…with the result that most foreign countries still have “de facto” tariffs pitted against us that are as high or higher than the tariffs of 40 years ago.

Third, the American presidential candidate will condemn President Bush’s latest concession that allows Mexican trucks for the first time to have full and open access to our highways, roads and bridges—in contradistinction to Bill Clinton’s program to keep Mexican trucks off our highways but for a 25-mile commercial zone north of the border.

These are only three…but they are three initial proposals that can begin to woo the Reagan Democrats back to the fold. I suspect the one who enunciates these things…I can imagine that Fred Thompson could do the best job…will rebuild a coalition that is essential to election.

Flashback: Radio Daze Starts with a Little Station in Evanston…Moves to WBEZ and WLS-AM.

[Fifty years of politics written as a memoir for my kids and grandchildren].

A friend of mine, Bruce DuMont, a former Republican candidate for the state Senate from Chicago, started an interview program in the early 1970s in Evanston on WFLD, a tiny station which beamed out onto Lake Michigan. In fact if you were in a rowboat a mile or two out in the lake you could hear it perfectly. He asked me to participate with him and after that I went out there many times. Then he moved to Chicago’s public radio station, WBEZ, and set up a show he called “Inside Politics” which ran every Thursday night from 8 p.m. It was a vastly different show than others in that it didn’t have journalists but had real life political participants. It was a call-in. The mechanics were so crude that the producer had to take the calls and relay them to Bruce via the head set (no screen monitor) and no seven-second delay.

The show happened to take off and become a kind of cult-fest. I was the only conservative, the only proponent of an election of Ronald Reagan. Others came and went. The regulars were Alderman Cliff Kelley, the African-American lawyer and skilled parliamentarian who was an arch-enemy of Mayor Byrne…Alderman Dick Mell who even then was a multi-millionaire and who see-sawed somewhere between a conservative Republican on national issues to a foresquare Democratic ward committeeman on local ones…there was Marilyn D. Clancy, a bright, witty Oak Park suburban liberal and Phil Krone, a real genius of sorts: a former Republican now turned Democrat with a brilliant sense of humor. Alderman Ed Smith, then Alderman Bobby Rush, then university student Jesse Jackson, Jr., J. B. Pritzker, the State Sen. Judy Baar Topinka were frequent guests. One hot show occurred when I asked U. S. Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.), a Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar, when he was going to begin payment on his federal student loan, inducing a rejoinder and counter-rejoinder which almost broke up the furniture in the studio. Another tense program came when I confronted Rev.Jesse Jackson on his “Hymietown” slur of New York city.

Others came and went. Carol Mosley Braun who was then Recorder of Deeds. Mike Royko (who was on once and who because of his Pulitzer Prize rather cowed us). Grace Kaminkowitz, a feisty Jewish lady who was probably the most liberal human being I had ever met and probably was to the left of Ramsey Clark. Occasionally Bruce would have some national guests: I remember former California governor Jerry Brown, a man who later would become Democratic National Chairman but who was to die in a plane crash, Ron Brown. Congressman Harold Washington was on several times. Once U. S. Sen. Al Gore. U. S. Rep. It was the only show existent where Ed Vrdolyak appeared with Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. It was a kaleidoscope of Chicago, Illinois and some national political talent.

I have always been grateful to Bruce for the opportunity because as an officer of Quaker Oats in charge of political liaison I would probably never had widened my acquaintanceship with Chicago politics as I did without the show. After the show we usually went out and had dinner. The dinners were a continuation of irreverence that the shows had. The “Inside Politics” show was…for good or bad…the debut of Rahm Emanuel who was then an ex-ballet dancer Democratic fund-raiser—who now is a former political director for Bill Clinton, a multi-millionaire made rich through his Clinton contacts…a Congressman…member of Ways and Means…former chairman of the House Democratic Caucus…and Democratic Whip.

Bruce signed up as a producer with NBC Channel 5 and produced the Lee Phillip TV show, “Noonbreak.” He had me on a number of times which was my introduction to television. Then he moved to WTTW-TV channel ll where he was the executive producer of “Chicago Tonight” with John Callaway. Callaway and Bruce’s inclination was to have a lot of politics and economics on. I was often designated as the token conservative—later others filled the bill including Joe Morris who performed far more articulately than did I. Bruce also had for a short time a talk radio program on WFYR where I was a continual guest—on Sunday nights.

Then he started a program series on WLS-AM, ABC in Chicago which imitated the WBEZ program and I was with him there for several years. It was during that time that Ed Vrydolyak launched his very successful program with Ty Wansley on WLS, from 2 p.m. to 6, drive-time. I was a guest there for quite a few times. One day to my surprise, Ed told me that he was going on strike. The show originally was on both AM and FM and was now going to be just on AM. This discomfited Ed because his friends in the Loop had difficulty hearing the show on just AM. So he invented a sore throat and left the show saying he would be back when the sore throat cleared. It was a signal to the station’s manager that the show had to be returned to FM or he would not come back. He believed management would yield, so he asked if I would replace him with Wansley until he got back.

I did but management would not yield and Vrolyak never came back. I did the show for many months but it was too restrictive—from 2 to 6 interfered with my work. Then I got on a list to substitute for Don Wade and Roma when they went on vacation which necessitated getting up at 3:45 a.m. so as to be in the studio preparing at 5 a.m. for a 6 a.m.-9 a.m. program. That almost cost me my wife so I begged off after a week.

I asked management if they would give me my own show at a different time—preferably on the weekend. This they did; I had a show on Saturday mornings from 8 to Noon—then after a few years, to my disappointment with management, they exiled me to Sunday night, one hour, from 8 to 9. Nevertheless I took it and still have it now.

Along with the radio and TV broadcasts, I initiated a series of Op Ed columns, starting off with the Chicago Sun-Times…then with the Tribune…then back to the Sun-Times…back to the Tribune…then to the Sun-Times for a denouement.

At the same time, I was teaching my variant of “Influencing the System” at a number of colleges—Northwestern, Loyola, DePaul, the U of I. Twice I went to Oxford as a Fellow of St. John’s College and once I participated in a debate at the Oxford Union with the resolution: “Resolved—Britain Should Move Immediately to Reclaim its American Colonies.” I made a few return trips to Harvard to sub for some other Kennedy Fellows and picked up a Woodrow Wilson International Fellowship at Princeton, New Jersey—which did not involve teaching at Princeton at all but which financed my going to smaller, well-endowed and generally magnificent smaller private colleges. The best one was Southwestern Texas where I stayed for a week (using my vacation time).

The three photos I am displaying are interesting. One showing me at a radio microphone was taken in the 1980s when we were on WBEZ. A much older photo shows me standing with one of the great influences on my life, former Congressman Walter H. Judd (R-Minnesota) who typified the doctrine that you don’t have to sell out to be influential in politics. Had he agreed to run for Nixon in 1960 both would have been elected. Judd was a former medical missionary to China, a distinguished Mayo Clinic surgeon, so skilled that Charles Mayo, Sr. almost wept when he learned that Judd was going overseas as a missionary since he was in line to be chief of surgery. A third shows me teaching the course at Loyola about a decade ago.

With a wonderful wife and four kids, I thought that life would continue to be unblemished for me and my company—but that was not to be. More later.

Personal Asides: Guess What? Pfleger’s Death Threat Doesn’t Involve the Catholic Archdiocese. That’s the Ecclesia-Political World Jimmy Rules.

Personal Asides: Guess What? Pfleger’s Death Threat Doesn’t Involve the Catholic Archdiocese. That’s the Ecclesia-Political World Jimmy Rules.

Jimmy Rules.

While Chicago newspapers have put a gag on the murder threat Father Michael Pfleger issued to a Riverdale merchant…and to state lawmakers who vote against gun control…Fox News Network carried the story Friday night on “Special Report.” The show repeated the details of the story…that Pfleger shouted to an unruly Operation PUSH crowd that they should drag the owner of the legally constituted gun shop out of his store “like a rat” and then “snuff” him as well as “snuffing” lawmakers who vote against gun control.

The threat against the life of a business owner and the lives of lawmakers who don’t follow the dictates of Fr. Pfleger—a threat of murder and violence—was ignored by the Chicago archdiocese and the print media which stalled for days providing no comment. But Hannity & Colmes show May 31 quoted the archdiocese as saying Pfleger’s statements were a ‘matter for civil authorities and not the Archdiocese.”

Pfleger’s impassioned speech went like this (after he was introduced by the Rev. Jesse Jackson):

“He’s the owner of Chuck’s, John Riggio, R-i-g-g-i-o. We’re going to find you and snuff you out. You can’t keep hiding because you’re afraid. Obviously you know you’re doing something wrong. You wouldn’t have your business in a truck. You wouldn’t have a truck pushed in front of your door because you know you’ve got to hide. Like a rat, you’re going to hide, but like a rat, we’re going to catch you and pull you out. We are not going to allow you to continue to hide when we’re here.”

Pfleger’s spokesman said the priest didn’t understand the word “snuff you out” meant execution. If he’s an expert on anything, Pfleger understands poor ghetto gangland talk—and “snuff out” means only one thing: “murder.”

The archdiocese’s refusal to complain about Pfleger is in line with the habit it has had of hiding whenever controversy looms involving either the left or the powerful Democratic party in which Pfleger is a key player. . Source of the statement came from Chancellor Jimmy Lago …the layman who makes the trains run in the archdiocese…also the best Democratic precinct captain former Cook county Democratic chairman Eddie Vrdyolak ever had. The ecclesia-political world Jimmy rules brushes off the incitement to death and violence by a radical priest who is incardinated into the high command of the Democratic city of Chicago (attending Sox games in box seats with Mayor Daley) and the Cook county Democratic committee—a special group of Catholic Democratic favorites including the Daleys, Eddie Burke, the Hynes, the Madigans, the Emil Joneses, the Stogers and the Jim Houlihans.

Why is the Catholic church here buttoned up so tightly with the Democratic party…that both entities breathe in unison… notwithstanding there is no such thing as a pro-life Democratic pol anymore? The alliance pays many bills. Jimmy Lago (pronounced “lah-go”) is the shrewd political entrepreneur who runs the archdiocese. The Catholic church has been for years linked indissolubly with the Democrats who fund the Church and stack the boards of the two so-called “Catholic” universities which sanction abortion and teach and preach gay-rights, part of the current liberal Democratic catechism…with the Church refusing to lift even one heavily ringed finger of protest. But as Chancellor, with his symphony orchestra director skill, Lago has erased distinctions to seemingly make a unity of two parts.

He is where he is because only one party runs things here (the Republican party is insignificant)—and leaders of that party are pro-abort, a doctrine that has been anathema to the Church for most of its 2000 years. Since “Roe v. Wade,” there has been a kind of restive uneasiness but under Jimmy the Church has come to dismiss the differences in favor of political and financial rewards that can only come from being on the good side of the Democrats. Thus under Jimmy, the Church has become the Church Compliant and recognizes that fact. Were it to go to war on the abortion issue, it would alienate the entire political structure on which it depends. It it would censure its entire financial base, its political base and most of its societal standing.

Can you imagine what would happen if the Church inveighed publicly here against its political members who support abortion—from Mayor Daley to the second most powerful U. S. Senator, Dick Durbin? Allies of both bring hefty largesse, subsidies and powerful social clout to bear. To turn on them because of principle would take a foolhardy courage. The dictum that we are to be fools for Christ has never had a great following in this archdiocese. The one thing you have to say about Jimmy is he’s no fool.

Thus Jimmy has decided that the Church here will rise above principle. The architect of that policy is the Italianate ex-Democratic precinct captain who now is, unaccountably, Chancellor of the archdiocese—the first layman to hold the office. To measure his influence you would have to compare him to a combination of the deft boldness of Karl Rove and the whip-cracking decisiveness of Dick Cheney both serving under consecrated ecclesiastical leadership—theologically gifted, studious, introspective, spiritually intellectual, but with all the drawbacks of humility: a man of hesitations and double opinions in a post where decision and singleness are indispensable.

Time was when Chancellors of the archdiocese were priests. Not this time around. The argument is that giving a layman this job frees a priest for more spiritual duties. By that reckoning, Lago has done a lot of relieving of the clergy of heavy duties. Essentially, he has risen because at least two archbishops recognized he encapsulates Democratic party power in a one-party city as well as its attendant financial ties that bind.

He was chief lobbyist for the archdiocese in Springfield where he was disinterested in the social issues—only in the material ones. One ex-lawmaker who headed House Appropriations told me that of all the lobbyists he had to necessarily deal with, he dreaded Lago most because Lago “had the coldest eyes in the Capitol” and could hint unique retribution for displeasure. Lago eschewed anything to do with moral issues, just subsidies, inducements for parochaid and tax credits. He was promoted to head of Catholic Charities. There “he told so many lies to get things moving, he convinced himself he was telling the truth,” a former executive told me.

Those political wiles continued to shove him up to Chancellor. His predecessor, Fr. Thomas Paprocki, was a dedicated pro-lifer who with sermons and effective communications could zing Catholic lawmakers who were heedless of the social teachings of the Church on abortion. Paprocki was okay with Joseph Cardinal Bernardin but then Bernardin who his own best politician and linkage with the left. An Italianate skill with liberal social thought identical to Lago’s got him national attention and he thought it prudent to have Paprocki as counter balance as when Paprocki called for “reform of the reformers.” Being diffuse…and acceptable to many publics… was Bernardin’s genius.

Church Compliant vs. Church Militant.

But once Bernardin died, it was felt that a hard-core Dem pol was needed for Chancery and Lago was the choice. Since then any distinctions between the way the Chancery here is run and City Hall or Cook County are negligible. Chancellor Jimmy Lago, once the best Democratic precinct captain Ed Vrdolyak had, knows how to push the right levers.

Do I say that Jimmy down and ordered the women’s auxiliary of the Mercy Home for Boys & Girls to ask Hillary Clinton to come here and speak? No, of course not. The Church’s penetration does not depend on one man; it is a cultural reality. The good liberal ladies who volunteer are hot-breathing Democrats and they thought they could kill two birds with one stone—get a big turnout with contributions for Mercy from fellow Democrats and help a Illinois native running for Democratic president. Do I say that when there was a rumble about Clinton’s coming here Jimmy interfered and said “naw, she comes”? No, of course not. A smooth running political operation does not need the ministrations of the head man at every step of the way. That’s what a nest of Democratic precinct captains…as Jimmy was in the 10th…are supposed to do. Fr. Scott Donohue takes the heat. He’ll take the heat for awhile but soon, it is hoped, all will be forgotten.

Jimmy Lago (his real baptized name is Jimmy, not James, just as his brother’s real name is Timmy, not Timothy), is enormously influential as the tie-in between the Church and the ruling Democratic junta of city, county and state. If the Dems still published an ad book, his name and photo would follow on a page just after the Mayor and Board president.

This Pontius Pilate pro-Democratic hand-washing exercise is served up to the largely…not entirely…compliant spoon-fed liberal Democratic Chicago media via its p. r. office led by Chancery spokeswoman Kathleen Dolan who herself has in her background impeccable Democratic relationships. But don’t think the decision to leave Pfleger’s murder incitement up to cops was hers. It was made by one much higher. That’s because Pfleger is a major player in the politics and the economy of the Church. Were he to depart, as he earlier threatened, the politics and economy would be worsened.

The favoritism Pfleger gets is vastly different than most other pastors have received in politics since Pfleger is a crown prince of radical leftism and the Cook county Democratic party. Pfleger’s role is to host black incendiary leadership to fire up the black base and keep it fired up until election day. Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan have been main speakers at Pfleger’s church rallies.with Barack Obama high next on the list… to rev up the “faithful” in election season. Pfleger plays to the base which bolsters the Democratic party here but his value to the Church Compliant in terms of financial benefits is every bit as valuable.

Pfleger is a Sacred Cow because if he is transferred from Sabina’s which he has pastured since age 31—more than 20 years ago—he has announced he will start his own church. If Pfleger skips…with his oratorical skills and demagoguery, Superior street worries he’ll be another James Meeks in a couple of years with his kind of following…to be joined by some other independent operators. The Church will lose the revenue. Meeks operation is so popular he has a private jet at his disposal. Although a Democrat, Meeks keeps the Dems up at night with his threats to run for mayor or governor. No one at either City Hall or on Superior street needs another Meeks; especially a Pfleger. That’s why Superior street has vowed to keep Pfleger happy, keep him free from term limits and hope he sticks. He can run a carnival at Saint Sabina’s as part of his Masses, with dancing and Dem presidential pols, but keep him there.

That’s why Pfleger has been given a pass from the usual term-limits that all other pastors have to observe. Courting the highly influential Democratic base of the Church here means political favor and largesse. That’s why the Chancery looks the other way as so-called “Catholic” universities accommodate major Democratic “Catholic” office-holders at City Hall, Springfield and Washington to deliver subsidies to the schools…in return for which everybody in the Church shuts up about “Gay Pride Week” such as is happening at DePaul and “Gay Theology” at Loyola without a peep of protest.

All the while, pro-lifer volunteers are kicked out of Church parking lots on Sunday distributing literature for candidates? The volunteers are verboten because they are seen as opponents of Democrats—and are, since no Democrats can touch pro-life, the third-rail in the party. You think it’s coincidence that these good silver-haired, silver-tongued Irish monsignors and auxiliary bishops…with eyes as blue as the lakes of Killarney…romance the Democratic pro-aborts on one hand and on the other give the order to priests and ushers to shag the pro-life volunteers away—“or, goodness me, we’ll lose our tax exemption”? And some of the baa’ing sheep telling their beads in the pews murmur: oh no, we wouldn’t want that!

Is it not ironic that a Church whose most recent Pope opposed the death penalty has no protest to Pfleger’s death threat? A Church that condemns violence has nothing to say about Pfleger intimidation? And why no major print media squawk? Hey, isn’t it a story when a priest shouts vengeance and death threats? It always was when I was reporting. Well, what party does the working press…99.99% of them…belong to, vote for and cover lovingly? You got it. The reigning party that governs us all. The orchestra is directed by Ed Vrdolyak’s former number one precinct captain—who is the Chancellor of the archdiocese no less.

Superior street will recover its mission when it condemns without fear or favor those Catholic politicians who support abortion and other abnormalities…not just behind trembling cupped hands but from the pulpit. The Church Compliant will then become the Church Militant. It’s a far, far better thing for us to lose our political clout, our special favors, our subsidies…even if an IRS cracks down, our tax exemption…than our souls. And Superior street should start by condemning and transferring Michael Pfleger.

Personal Asides: Fr. Pfleger’s Exhortation of a Crowd to Murder Should be Enough for this Chancery. But Will it?

After hearing the hatred-filled shout of a Roman Catholic priest urging a crowd to murder a Riverdale merchant and all lawmakers who vote against further gun control, I think the time has come…even for the leadership of one of the flabbiest archdioceses in the nation…Chicago…to remove Fr. Michael Pfleger on the solid issue of hate speech and solicitation to murder. Either that or stand condemned of fearing to interfere with threat to life made by one of its priests.

Pfleger, a white radical, urged a stormy racially mixed crowd gathered before Chuck’s Gun Shop & Range with his bad imitation poor black ghetto accent to drag its owner, John Riggio “like a rat” from his shop and “snuff” him. “Snuff” is the word used by gangs to wipe someone out. Further, the incendiary priest urged the same treatment for state lawmakers who vote against further gun-control. In any civil society, one who calls for murder and assassinations is a threat to civil peace—not to mention an insult to a Church that maintains it stands for peace. Like all demagogues, Pfleger gathers unto himself the cloak of righteousness; community violence, drive-by-shootings including of his own foster son. But sympathy must be long passed from that demagoguery. He has preached violence and murder.

Pfleger’s thug-like incitement to violence was taped by the Illinois State Rifle Association and distributed to the media. It is significant that while it has been played on the Internet and on selected TV stations, major newspapers in the Chicago area evidently determined not to run it. The reason is clear: the newspapers’ editors feel a responsibility to behave judiciously to protect society from violence are loathe to present Pfleger’s call for murder with which they would inadvertently play a part. But Pfleger’s emotionally unbalanced screed has so inflamed the community that the merchant’s life may well be in danger. And the Roman Catholic archdiocese…principally its Chancery…will bear the brunt of the guilt if something happens to the merchant or others.

Asking the archdiocese to take action is like pleading a cause to the deaf and dumb church officialdom which covers eyes and ears with heavily ringed hands to hear no evil, see no evil. The archdiocese has been notable for having a collective clerical spine the consistency of Jello pudding. Therefore the move must be made by the one institution that governs all—the Chancery. Action is not expected, due to two reasons. First, , the overwhelming philosophic direction of the Chancery as with the archdiocese has been…and continues to be…to the left. Pfleger is a close friend and associate of the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, aka “the Pout” who has run roughshod over the media in this town with few interruptions and whose Operation PUSH has often been in tandem with the unstable priest.

It has been not accidental that PUSH, which is a Democratic party adjunct and the Cook county Democratic party have cowed the trembling miters and crosiers of this town…caused them to bow supinely in the accommodative style of the late Archbishop Thomas Cramner…with continued and unrelieved ministrations to the ruling liberal Democratic junta which stands for abortion or demand and gay rights.

That is why Hillary Clinton got to take her presidential campaign with all the trappings to Mercy Home for Boys & Girls. Anyone who suspects that the schedule just happened to “slip by unnoticed” from this Roman Catholic chancery is a hopeless naïf. Not when the Chancellor is noted for his past as an outstanding 10th ward Democratic precinct captain.

The chancellor, layman Jimmy Lago (Jimmy being his baptized name, not James) was Ed Vrdolyak’s best Democratic precinct captain in the 10th ward when Ed was committeeman, alderman and chairman of the Cook county Democratic party. And while Vrdolyak changed his party, no one is imagining that Jimmy—who marched with that other icon of liberal protest, Caesar Chavez—has. Lago, who has been pushed upward in the Chancery bureaucracy by several archbishops and was promoted to the top post of Chancellor by this archbishop, is the symbol of all that is wrong with the liberal Democratic politicization of the archdiocese where first among equals are the Daleys, Eddie Burke, the Madigans, the Hynes, the Strogers and the Emil Joneses, good parishioners all…some of whom are Knights of Malta, crème de la crème and big donors no less. This Catholic archdiocese…with its ultra-friendly clerics cherishing their Dem pol friendships…is the Cook county Democratic party at prayer.

The Democrats’ agenda has been unchallenged by priestly suasion or sanctions despite their living contradiction of church theology and moral law. The smoke of politics has infiltrated the incense burners as it did once in old England. When Henry VIII’s mistress got pregnant, Cranmer dissolved the king’s marriage when Rome wouldn’t and when Wolsey refused. Wolsey later murmured on his death bed that “had I served my God with the diligence I had served my king, I would not be afflicted with such worries as are now before me.” The same murmur could be expressed today—except that the clergy don’t run things downtown. It’s Lago.

The source of this Cranmer-Wolsey politicization has long been Lago. And his promotion to Chancellor was made in callous defiance of assorted legal facts that lay major responsibility for laxity of priest abuse to minors at his doorstep. The Lago promotion upward to Chancellor served notice that there will be no reform, just continued Democratic political business, with a wink and a nod, as usual. Hillary Clinton’s triumph here…with the sanction of the leading center for troubled youth in this archdiocese…is an insult to the Church and a rebuke to those who had hoped to reclaim this archdiocese from the Democratic party’s strangling unmoral pro-abortion tentacles.

Second, inaction in rebuke of liberals is this archdiocese’s middle name. Pfleger’s tenure at Saint Sabina’s as pastor is an enduring rebuke to those good priests who have had to conform to a term limit pastorate from which Pfleger has been exempt…exempt because of Chancery timidity and cowardice that either agrees with his horrible political tactics or fears to remove him because of the bullying he has gotten away with. Time was when Pfleger was regarded as a civil rights priest, identifying with his congregation in the time-honored tradition of other pastors, white and black, Catholic and Protestant who identified with the poor.. That time has long since past. Pfleger now not just identifies with rabble, he exhorts it.

He has turned his ministry over to the entity, the bark and woof of the liberal, pro-abortion Democratic party…has attempted to use his church as a sanctifying agent for a party that stands opposed to the tradition of moral decency that Catholicism embraces. He has run a political left-wing Democratic party carnival at his church, touting multiple Democratic candidacies including that of Al Sharpton. Others are merely timid. This Chancery, because it shares the left-wing, redistributionist Democratic faith, has shrugged him off. Pfleger says he “supports” gun-control but that is not so. He supports gun violence and has proven so with his own admonition to “snuff” people out.

Now that Pfleger has espoused murder, will the Chancery act? The normal expectation is that, rooted in fright and cowed by a mélange of Democratic politicians surrounded by its ex-Cook county Democratic Precinct Captain Chancellor, it will not.

If it does not act, violence breaks out in Riverdale or elsewhere that suits Pfleger’s demagogic mood, blood will be on the chancery’s hands. And on the newspaper print media which, content to inveigh against “hate speech,” shrinks from the task of condemning this flamboyantly irresponsible emotionally erratic blond cleric who has been carried away with his own celebrity, savoring as he salaciously does the cheers of an unruly, violence-prone mob.

Well, Chancellor Lago; since you’re in charge, since you’re running things, it’s now your move.