Rumsfeld’s Resignation.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation is a sign of weakness for the administration and will do nothing for it…because nothing can appease the Left except the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the resultant humiliation of the United States—because the Left has moved from liberalism to an anti-U.S. posture that will not be satisfied until the country it instinctively despises will be rejected in the eyes of the world.
For that reason the firing of Donald Rumsfeld was a gaffe for the Bush administration, showing that possibly there is an accommodationist switch that undercuts the valiant war we have been waging up to now. Right now—and I could be wrong—the White House smells like Dick Darman has returned, the smiling Rabbi’s son who convinced old man Bush to violate his no new tax pledge in the interest of “realism.” No pacification program can influence the Left.
The Left is in no way related to the liberalism of the 1950s as typified by Hubert Humphrey, Henry Jackson and others: it is sometimes passively, sometimes vehemently anti-U. S. For proof all you have to do is to read the “New York Times” every day as I do. Don Rumsfeld was a gutsy secretary of defense and it is sad to reflect that his undoing came from his fierce determination to support his president. The fact that he paid the penalty may well show that someone in the White House…we hope not the occupant of the Oval Office…may have decided to change the course and prepare to abandon our commitment in Iraq before victory is achieved. If that happens, what has lasted thus far as a White House with intellectual integrity, may soon change to a poll-driven Bill Clinton type of operation. Let’s hope not.
Further Reflections.
By losing the Senate, the election was a disaster for social conservatives and put an end, temporarily, to any chance of further changing the Supreme Court. The House is not so important. In fact it would be distinctly helpful if the Judiciary committee under John Conyers could begin structuring grounds for presidential impeachment which would so upset the country that a corrective can be made in 2008. I would hope that Ways and Means could do something about hiking taxes and that the Intelligence committee would not get Jane Harmon as chair but the formerly impeached federal judge known as a security risk: we have to take a chance in order to have the electorate learn that in this business with all its imperfections, there is really only one party worthy of trust for our defense.
The only bright spot in the election Tuesday was the national exit poll that showed voters believe the Republicans are better suited to fight terrorism—by a margin of 8 percent.
Oberweis and Franks.
Guests on “Political Shootout” Sunday will be Jim Oberweis and State Rep. Jack Franks. Oberweis was narrowly pointed out of the Republican gubernatorial nomination in March by the refusal of State Sen. Bill Brady to withdraw and run for another post which gave the nomination to Judy Baar Topinka. Franks, a Democrat and chairman of the House Government Affairs committee, was a severe critic of Governor Rod Blagojevich…and while he didn’t endorse Topinka declared that he could not support the governor for reelection. The program should be interesting in that it could show (a) what the non-Blagojevich Democrats are preparing to do in the next session of the General Assembly and beyond…including the possibility that the next Democratic governor could be Pat Quinn…and (b) what conservative Republicans would like to do to rebuild a party which has never known the influence of Ronald Reagan because of “Combine” leaders like Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan and Judy Baar Topinka.
That’s this Sunday at 8 p.m. on WLS-AM (890).
Baise.
Greg Baise, president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, the most effective business lobby in the state, will address my Roosevelt University class on Thursday, December 14 at 7 p.m. Baise has an impressive resume. He began as an assistant to Governor Jim Thompson and became a top Republican operative, serving as campaign manager in Illinois for Ronald Reagan’s 1988 reelection drive in which the president carried Illinois. Greg ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer and then joined IMA. He is a forceful and articulate business spokesman and will outline an idea that he has been pushing for quite some time: a state constitutional amendment that will return Illinois to its old pattern of multiple-member House districts, a tradition that was overturned by Pat Quinn who secured an amendment through his Coalition for Political Honesty which led voters to believe that by reducing the number of House members the state would save money. In fact it took power from the general House membership and consolidated it under the Speaker who, with a handful of other leaders, comprised the “Big 4” that meets with the governor and determines budget policy. I welcome Greg as a special guest lecturer.
Nalepa.
When the Illinois GOP was looking for a new state chairman some time ago, one candidate appeared for the interview with the fire and steam of a heavyweight…plus solid political experience and an oratorical skill that moved many on the committee. He was Jim Nalepa, a wealthy businessman who was all but elected to the House some years ago until State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka cut a deal with the Democrats and circulated her Riverside committee sample ballot marked for Lipinski. Nalepa lost by inches and has had the personal experience of seeing how the Combine works. Originally I suggested Gary MacDougal return but in visiting with him further, he told me that he has no interest in the job: which I can understand as he’s been there and done that. But Nalepa would be a great find, I think. What’s better than one who has waged a fighting campaign for the House which would have succeeded except for double-dealing? Nalepa ran as a pro-lifer and social conservative plus a businessman and former Marine officer who defended his country well. I haven’t talked to him about this so this’ll be as surprising to him and to you. Let’s hear what you think about his candidacy.
Nalepa's not the guy Tom. Where has he been the last year? I'm sure he was hoping Topinka would lose, but why never a peep? He stayed in the tall grass letting guys like you having to take the principled, public stance. He didn't want to offend the powers that be.
ReplyDeleteNalepa's just another go along to get along guy, unless it's about him - then he's prone to fly off the handle in a rage if you disagree with him.
Nalepa simply doesn't have the temperament to be State Party chairman. He's a show pony out for his own ego.
When he ran for the job last time, he also refused to call for the resignation of Bob Kjellander. That alone disqualifies him.
It's true he was screwed over by Topinka, that's tragic. But who hasn't Topinka screwed over? The simple fact is, we only hear from Nalepa when it's about HIM. He doesn't seem willing to help on the less glamorous tasks. This party doesn't need another show pony. We need a factory manager.
By the way Tom, I believe Nalepa was in the Army, not the Marines. Stufflebeam was a Marine.
Come off of it. Jim Edgar is probably the most popular governor in Illinois history. And he still be a great one if he wasn't popular. "The combine" as you like to call it, was a symbol of GOP greatness in the state of Illinois for years and years. Your lack of understanding is exactly why you will never be able to have a hand in a strong GOP in Illinois. And of course, bring ole Obie back for a night, that'll be as exciting as watching an Illinois football game. Even if you want the party to go conservative, Obie can't do it. He is too hated... I am a staunch Republican, and he annoys the crap out of me. Get some new people on your show Tom! You are living in the past.
ReplyDelete"I would hope that...the Intelligence committee would not get Jane Harmon as chair but the formerly impeached federal judge known as a security risk: we have to take a chance in order to have the electorate learn that...there is really only one party worthy of trust for our defense."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you want to put the country at risk, to show that the GOP is
better for our national defense??
"The only bright spot in the election Tuesday was the national exit poll that showed voters believe the Republicans are better suited to fight terrorism-by a margin of 8 percent."
If this is accurate, why did Dems win so decisively? Are voters stupid and/or ignorant?
Today's column by Charles Krauthammer argues that the national election results
ReplyDeleteare not all gloom & doom for conservatives:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901775_pf.html
It will be interesting to hear what Oberweis thinks about this mess here in IL. Thanks for bringing him on!
ReplyDeleteLovie,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Illinois GOP is that it never had a Reagan revolution. The Rockefeller Republicans have had control of the party, and they have run it into the ground. Conservatives told the combine leaders (see a recent article by John Kass, "Yes Judy, there is a Combine") that JBT would be a disasterous candidate, and they were right.
Why should any of us have to be lectured to by a guy named "Lovie's Leather." I'm used to the blow hards, but this is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteRebuilding is harder than it needs to be as long as we have to waste our time with people actually defending Combine politics. I mean good grief, how many of the people who practice that corrupt business model have to go to prison before some will wake up? How much artificially higher do gov't services have to get? How many padded payrolls and contracts will it take? How weak does the Illinois GOP have to get?
Topinka gets fewer votes than Alan Keyes did, and some still stay in denial. Tom, let's face it. We're dealing with a lot of Democrats here who love destroying the Republican Party in Illinois.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
ReplyDeleteH. L. Mencken.
How can anyone ever say I have favored combine politics! Crap, I supported Ron Gidwitz. I am a moderate, people. I am not a combine Republican. Judy wasn't my choice. But I still supported her over some Chicago democrat. But maybe if Dan could do a little less blow-harding that I am apparently so good at, maybe he could be rebuilding the party. So far, I haven't heard anything but talk from people who say we need to rebuild the party. So, if you are so high and mighty, and disgusted with this party, why aren't you doing anything about it?! But I guess talk is all we are going to get. We lost the house and the senate because all the GOP could do is talk. Thanks for carrying on the tradition, Dan.
ReplyDeleteAfter all we have heard from the "moderates" about Judy being the only electable Republican she recieved less votes than Alan Keyes!
ReplyDeleteKeyes recieved 1,390,690
JBT recieved 1,332,755
This better be the last time I hear a "party person" tell us to moderate our stand's. Hear that Jim Edgar and Ray Lahood?
L.L., you asked how can anyone say you favor Combine politics.
ReplyDeleteGee, I dunno, maybe it was the toadying praise in your first post on this thread:
"'The combine' as you like to call it, was a symbol of GOP greatness in the state of Illinois for years and years."
So keep trying to backpedal all you want. But that sounded like a pretty ringing endorsement of Combine politics. Maybe you need to tell us which of your statements to believe, and which to discard.
The 2006 gubernatorial election had a stronger third party candidate than those presented in 2004.
ReplyDeleteWhitney (Green) received close to 350,000 votes; Franzen & Kohn combined (2004), only about 140,000.
Jim, put your numbers in perspective.
ReplyDelete2004 was a presidential year with turnout of 5.1MM voters. 2006 is an off year, with 3MM votes cast.
Republican winner President Bush led the ticket and the faithful to the polls. Not so this year, in which no incumbent Democrat lost.
And, as Bob in PF notes, there were strong third-party efforts. (I don't consider the write-ins strong efforts.)
And, bear in mind, absentee and provisional votes are not included in the 2006 totals.
So Keyes eeked out less than 58K more than Topinka with 2MM+ more votes cast and all the above advantages. You've really got to be proud of yourself.
Jim, I'm not a "party person", I'm a gun-owning pro-life home-schooling combat veteran. Forget Edgar and Lahood. I'm telling you to drop the ideological litmus test, which some of your colleagues are changing from traditional issues like abortion and taxes to include supporting "combine" candidates, meaning anyone they oppose.
To prevent another "Topinka-Brady" episode in either party where you have the machine run someone to dilute the values voters, I suggest the top two candidates in a primary have a runoff election if no candidate gets 50%. This would allow the voters in the party to make the choice, not some group in a "backroom". Other states have done this and it would help eliminate the game playing.
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is Keyes got more votes in '04 than Topinka got last Tuesday. Anyone can try to point out the problems with that comparison, Presidential year vs. not, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact remains that more people walked into a voting booth and cast a vote for Keyes than for Topinka. That's a stunning fact on its own.
Both Keyes and Topinka were horrible candidates. But no one should forget that we only got Keyes after Topinka helped destroy the voters' choice Jack Ryan, and she had no back-up ready to go.
And it was the committee that Topinka chaired that chose Keyes, behind closed doors, and with no input from Republicans. It doesn't matter that Topinka didn't have a vote. She created the trainwreck, and then closed the doors to any rank-and-file Republican who tried to have a say in the replacement process.
The same goofballs who made Topinka their Chairman also picked Keyes, under Topinka's rule.
OK, if you want insist on comparing apples and oranges, why stop in 2004?
ReplyDeleteTopinka 1998 General 1,610,498
Topinka 2002 General 1,896,020
Keyes 2004 General 1,390,690
Topinka 2006 General 1,318,420
Again, Topinka has never run in a presidential year. Ignore it if you want to remain ignorant.
Jennifer, your narrative of the Keyes events is at odds with Jim & Tom.
For example, Jim Leahy says that conservatives dumped Jack Ryan. Don't believe it? Check out "Whose Fault" by Leahy at his own website:
http://www.illinoisgop.org/archives/storys/issue_185.html
Of course, you won't read it.
And Tom Roeser says that Judy did not create "the trainwreck". Don't believe it? Check it out, again, on Leahy's website:
http://www.illinoisgop.org/archives/storys/issue_186.html
Read it? Of course not.
My question is, have these guys changed their stories? I wonder why? If so, how does the old question go:
"Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
William, you must still be hurting from getting thrown off the train with Topinka.
ReplyDeleteLet me help you. Tom and Jim are good men. I'm sure they will come around on the small details once they learn all the facts.
Similarly, voters finally got to know the real Topinka this year. And they said, HELL NO!
I can't stop you from living in the past, but I don't think it's healthy. Topinka conned more people in previous elections. That's tragic. But all's well that ends well. A huge majority of Illinoisans stepped up and said ENOUGH. We stopped the worst Governor the state ever would have had. We saved Illinois and the Illinois GOP from becoming even bigger laughingstocks.
So Judy duped the electorate in 1994, 1998, & 2002, right? But they weren't duped in 2004 by Obama & 2006 by Blagojevich, right?
ReplyDeleteThe question begs, was the electorate duped then (1994, 1998, 2002) or merely in 2004 & 2006?
TOPINKA'S GONE!! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!!
ReplyDelete