Gidwitz Lays Out a Conservative Program One-Two-Three Making it Short and Sweet As a Gubernatorial Candidate is Expected to Do.

While I’ve never supported him, on my radio show last night Ron Gidwitz laid out a conservative response one-two-three with fact-filled answers which produce a definite contrast to the hair-pulling domestic screamer between self-justificatory Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka. The fact that the overwhelming number of “mainstream media” savants supported Topinka in the primary race either casts severe doubt on their analytic abilities or could presage another reason. There is no doubt that liberalism is ascendant in the “choice” between Blagojevich and Topinka.

I’m touted Gidwitz’s response at this point in counter-distinction to charges that I’m an Oberweis rule-or-ruin guy. Gidwitz is a social liberal but as I learned in his appearances on my program, he is a superb logician who applies top-notch cerebral qualities to figuring out the problems of state government. I would one thousand times prefer him being the nominee to our present one: and indeed, at this advanced stage of progress on social issues, a libertarian with a “hands off” view might well be preferable to spoiled kid so-called socially conservative candidates who refuse to budge or compromise with all hands on deck going down.

I’ve made notes on Gidwitz’s answers to the major issues of the week and here they are. First, as to who he viewed won the gubernatorial debate, he said Topinka…but he was very clear that she offered no positive program of her own. On the issue of the Reverend-Senator James Meeks who feels he got what he wanted on the lottery privatization deal, Gidwitz scored the scheme in staccato, machine-gun fashion (intriguingly, Democrat Mike Noonan agreed with him)…Second he felt correctly that the budget impasse was not settled but shoved off for future generations to solve…Third he felt the Cook county board presidency vacuum is intolerable with no one knowing how ill Stroger is—but he coupled that with the candid statement that Tony Peraica is hobbled by inability to raise money and a consequent failure of opportunity to articulate positive programs…Fourth in outstanding cogent fashion he presented a tough solution to the impasse over immigration between House and Senate bills.

Fifth, when I tossed him the political hot potato of the District 214 high school reading list battle, he pointed out that the resolution, whether you like it or not, was made in the right way—by local people at the school board level. Who can quarrel with that? I would have preferred the resolution upholding the book ban—not because they’re dirty books but because they’re junky pop reads rather than the classics the kids should be reading: but even I can’t quarrel with the local solution to the problem…

Sixth on the Gary school’s problem with the boy who went to the prom in a dress—and who was tossed out while civil libertarians howl that they will sue the school—Gidwitz supported the school decision…Seventh as to the issue on Exelon’s John Rowe owning a private Egyptian coffin 2,600 years old which Rowe bought with his own money—a matter that was challenged by the Egyptian director of antiquities who said that such coffins are made for exhibit in museums and that this one should be either exhibited or returned to Egypt, Gidwitz, a vice chairman of the Field Museum, said rightly that the Egyptian should take his objections to a private purchase and stuff it: noting that there are probably 20,000 coffins of this type in existence.

Seventh on the Hastert matter, Gidwitz said the Speaker is full of beans in the fight with the Justice Department over so-called separation of powers, pointing out that proper procedures were utilized and that there should not be a separate privilege for the Congress that the rest of us private citizens can’t enjoy.

Let’s have a plebiscite on this one. Am I right that Gidwitz has the perspicacity and guts to answer these questions with sharpness and crispness or am I wrong?