As Appeared in the Chicago Tribune: 4 contenders vie for heart of their party

With socially liberal former Gov. Jim Edgar out of the way and liberal Judy Baar Topinka uncertain thus far about running for governor, the Illinois GOP's political right can draw a breath of relief, but only temporarily.

In mid-September, conservatives had held their own summit to endorse their favorite. Attending were representatives from its constituents: anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, home-schoolers, libertarians and anti-illegal immigration minutemen who interviewed four stalwarts in relative harmony.

Of the four, multimillionaire dairy owner and economic forecaster Jim Oberweis of Aurora seemed to start out leading the pack. He was the sentimental favorite, having stressed conservative themes in two failed U.S. Senate bids, with name recognition growing by the 2004 primary, in which he came in second to Jack Ryan. But after Ryan resigned after disclosure of his divorce record, the establishment-dominated State Central Committee passed up Oberweis because his vehement stand to curtail illegal immigration meant that President Bush could not campaign for him. So the committee picked Alan Keyes, who listened to nobody, was endlessly oracular and proved to be an inept candidate plus bad loser who refused to concede to Barack Obama. After the election, Oberweis offered to be state Republican chairman, but was again rebuffed.

At the summit, the first speaker was Oberweis, who won his usual applause. But Oberweis is, to the view of some summiteers, mistake-prone. Several elections ago, he said those who oppose abortion rights on religious grounds were similar to the Taliban. He apologized profusely and has since adopted an anti-abortion stance.

In the next campaign, he was in an over-the-top TV commercial on illegal immigration, flying in a helicopter over Soldier Field to illustrate that it could be filled each week with the number of illegals crossing the borders. He apologized again and said he overstated the issue.

Then the group looked at state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger of Elgin. Always impressive as a policy wonk, he bobbled a query on a major social issue. He was asked about his vote to force insurance companies to cover abortifacients and contraceptives. His response: "This was only one of thousands of bills I've voted on." Bad mistake since his audience rates social issues of top importance.

Joe Birkett, the DuPage County state's attorney, pleased them, but many felt he is too much the grim prosecutor. Also, he's had trouble raising money (with a $700,000 debt from his last attorney general's campaign) and could lose Hispanic votes because of his purported linkage to the Rolando Cruz prosecution. Although it was then-state's Atty. Jim Ryan's case and Birkett, Ryan's deputy, played no role in it, Birkett hasn't been able to shake himself of the link.

The true "Goldilocks" candidate proved to be state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington: not too hot, not too cold, just right. He won easily (with Oberweis coming in second). He embraces all the hot-button issues and is eager to cut taxes to apply the supply-side theory. An Irish Catholic in a party that now sets great political store by this group, he is a businessman (a Realtor-developer and owner of two radio stations whose net worth approaches $10 million), he appears gaffe-free from 10 years in the state Senate, where he also served as a committee chairman.

At 44, he's not unlike a young Ronald Reagan in appearance, tall, gregarious, witty and pleasingly shy. Moreover, he's rich enough not to pander for dirty--or gray--money, but not so independently wealthy as to discourage good Republican donors. Plus, he's from Downstate, which has been tipping Republican, a sharp contrast to a Democratic slate that is almost entirely from Chicago.

There's more. He has a jaunty self-confidence that is contagious. With his voice and movie-star good looks, he is eminently suited for the media. And it goes beyond looks. As charismatic as the young John Kennedy and the fledgling Reagan were, they avoided policy debates with wonks, particularly staffers, pretending superiority of status, but in reality fearful of stumbles. Not Brady. On my WLS talk show, he tussled on the budget and spending with Blagojevich's best: politically savvy budget expert Becky Carroll. They tied in strenuous forensics. But after Carroll, Blagojevich would be easy.

In the hope of building a dream ticket on the right, the summiteers recommended Brady for governor, Birkett for attorney general, Oberweis for secretary of state and Rauschenberger for either treasurer or comptroller with lieutenant governor left open. That slot just might be reserved for either Topinka or multimillionaire Ron Gidwitz who, though too liberal for the right, has financially supported some of its favorite candidates.

Does Brady have the nomination locked up? He would if the conservatives were not such a wild and woolly group. Oberweis has not only his own money, but the prospect of massive funding from multimillionaire Jack Roeser (no relation), who gave conservative aspirant Patrick O'Malley $500,000 in 2002. There is out there among the conservative grass-roots a bonfire burning against illegal immigration that Oberweis has fanned and that Brady can approach but not duplicate.

Will the conservative candidates agree to serve on the dream ticket? Birkett just might; Rauschenberger possibly. But if they all continue to run, there is a good chance that Topinka, who is an abortion-rights supporter and pro-gay rights, can capitalize on a divided vote and win the nomination. Despite spending $3 million, Gidwitz hasn't moved beyond three-point status in the polls.

But as of now, in the view of a majority of conservative leaders, Bill Brady of Bloomington is the candidate of the future.

The Bush Legacy

A friend called attention the other day to a seminar he attended sponsored by a large corporation that featured a personage who “pioneered the field of private intelligence forecasting.” He is reputed to be an expert on “the long range forecast as well as [a] guides the strategic vision” of his group. Evidently the expert has been paid big bucks to give his analysis of political conditions. The transcript of his opinion runs some 31 pages. In it he gives his views on George W. Bush. Reading it, all I can say with charity, is proof if any more be needed, of business’ frequent inability to judge political events. I might say that I have heard more learned opinions at the brass rail of my favorite Gale Street Inn.

Having said that, let me give unsolicited and for free my view of the Bush legacy. It will be very great indeed. His current low status in the polls is not important since under law he cannot run again. Imagine, if you would, that we were living in 1864 and had retained a global strategic expert to analyze the low estate of Abraham Lincoln. The civil war is bloody, going badly, the generals on the Union side have been shifted regularly: McClellan has been in command twice, then removed. Burnside was an absolute failure; Hooker deserving of his name; Meade has failed to follow up on a victory. Lincoln has just placed in command a man with a spotty record from Galena, Illinois who reportedly has had a drinking problem, who in private life had worked for his father-in-law at a tannery. Against this widely rumored poor dissolute wreck is Robert E. Lee, who graduated high on the list at West Point and who actually was offered the post of commander of the Union armies but turned it down because he loved his own state of Virginia more than he did his country.

The president of the Confederate States is a gentleman of great bearing, an aristocrat and former U.S. Secretary of War as well as a former Senator. The Union president is a man of little formal education who only served as Congressman for one term and who, while prosperous, was a railroad lawyer and state legislator who, in deference to his monetary trade, had arranged for the Illinois Central to jog this way and that throughout the state to satisfy various constituencies. He is a man overwhelmed with work, who came to his office without having made a great impression on the country and who wobbled this way and that on the issue of slavery. I have no doubt that my global analyst friend would give Lincoln very low marks.

This is simply to say that George W. Bush will be remembered as a very great president—if things only continue as they have been until the completion of his second term. Why do I say that? And will he be remembered as greater than, say, Ronald Reagan who really deserves credit for winning the Cold War? Very likely yes if things go as they have. Reagan will be remembered as one who took hold of the rudder from the trembling, uncertain hands of Jimmy Carter and steered the ship to port. In doing so, he reverted to the same course as had been taken by Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy—firmness where it counted and (unique with Reagan) an eloquence rarely heard in our statecraft, even more so than John Kennedy’s. This is to say that Reagan was a continue-er of a tradition that has made us proud, not that he devised a new course.

After 9/11 Bush devised a new course. Nowhere is it better illustrated than in the book “The Pentagon’s New Map” by Thomas Barnett. In essence, Bush moved from a reactive position to a pro-active one, believing—correctly I feel—that the growth of democracy wherever it can be nurtured is the best course for our country. Barnett is not a great writer but Bush adopted his concept—that we must be involved in the nurturing of democracy among the Third World countries (this does not always mean war but the uniting of other developed nations in this enterprise). Moreover he adopted as his own the ideas of Natan Schransky who lays it out better than I have ever seen it described. By benefit of hindsight, we can now look at Lincoln of 1864 and see great changes in place. He had finally found a general in Grant; he had penned one of the greatest documents in our history that extended the magnificent reach of the Declaration. Yes, to wage a civil war he had to trample on some of our sacred liberties but he was a benevolent man and relinquished that power as the war eased to victory. It is for this reason that some people—not I—believe Lincoln was the greatest president (they’re wrong: Washington was because without him we would not have had a Lincoln).

Now look with a broad view at what has happened in this nation under Bush. First, he responded magnificently to 9/11—everyone gives him credit for that. Mis-led as was his predecessor president and as were his fellow heads of state on WMD he entered Iraq on the gamble that removing Saddam Hussein was essential to bringing democracy to the Middle East. Over massive criticism he has held to that conviction. Iraq is on the way to democracy; Afghanistan, as we are reminded by this nation’s (I believe) finest political analyst, Michael Barone (main author of the yearly bible, “The Almanac of American Politics), has several millions of people voting; Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution is as inspiring as the fall of the Berlin Wall; Egypt had its first popular election this month (with the Washington Post’s David Ignatius reporting that the election “is potent because it’s coming from Arab societies themselves and not just from democracy enthusiasts in Washington.” Democracy is contagious as Bush foresaw. Against their wills the French, British and Germans seem to understand this now, China with power over North Korea is beginning to recognize it. None of these changes would have been possible without a Bush in the White House.

As I am quick to recognize as grandfather of 13, four of them boys, that the progress thus far in Iraq has been attained at great cost. While this pro-lifer knows that no life lost can be replaced, let us understand that the carnage is less than are taken on this nation’s urban streets in a given year. I certainly fault Bush for not adopting the Colin Powell rule of sending an overwhelming number of troops to accomplish this. I wish Bush were as eloquent as Reagan or as Kennedy, and wish he had responded to Hurricane Katrina as he did with 9/11. I wish he had vetoed at least one spending bill and would not seek to rival the Great Society in rebuilding New Orleans. But on the economy, it is going fine although our people seem to believe it is not; the war overhangs their mood. But they will find out the real facts in time—including the one that tells us that China and India with 37 percent of the world’s population are transforming their economy from Third World to First World. Does Bush deserve all this credit? No. But some? Yes, because of all the world’s leaders, he has charted a vision that we can understand and follow. It is free trade and the determination to root out injustice where we can—not, as Robert Taft once said, in order to give milk to the Hottentots—but to make the world safer as to protect ourselves.

The recent Pew Trust polling shows diminishing world support for Islamist terrorists; the modernization of China shows that it may not be a threat that some conservatives have forecast—because, as Bush has said and I believe, nations that are economically viable do not war with each other now. On the domestic political front, Bush has expended so much energy that he is down in the polls. Certainly were there polls taken in 1864 Lincoln would have been at his nadir. We know he wrote a private memo to himself that listed virtually as 50-50 whether or not he would be reelected.

On the political front, there is only one thing that worries me greatly. That is the utter dissolution of the Democratic Party into a party that is not worthy to govern: that is harshly protectionist, isolationist, left-tilted to the extreme. I am old enough to remember the great Democratic Party—the party of Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey and John Kennedy, of leaders in the Senate like Tom Connally of Texas, Paul Douglas of Illinois. Quite frankly, successors to these men cannot survive in the left-wrenched Democratic Party…and it is endemic that this nation will be turning to another party to lead it. I say most reverently, most fervently: God help us if that is the Democratic Party of today as it is presently constituted. I went to bed on the night of Nov. 2, 1960 not knowing if Richard Nixon or John Kennedy had won, but slept the sleep of the just because I knew that either of those young men could govern. I am not sure anyone worthy of removing the Republicans from office can do so. I say it not as a partisan cry but as a sad lament. The moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party, the fall from grace of liberalism from a cause of help for the underprivileged it once held to a pandering to exotic whim and behavior is our most severe domestic problem. And on this somber note I conclude.

Why is Ultra Affixed to Conservatives Only?

Interesting how some liberals torture the word “ultra.” A recent column by liberal columnist and dissenter priest Andrew Greeley (who markets himself always wearing a roman collar but who, unlike his church, favors women priests, married priests, contraception, relaxation of strictures on sexual mores and general absolution) calls the Catholic magazine First Things ultra-conservative. The magazine is a journal of intellectual inquiry in the church and favors the theology of the teaching magisterium. In addition, in the same column, Greeley refers to the National Catholic Reporter, a newspaper that publishes him and like him endorses free-wheeling criticism of Rome and the magisterium as just that—the National Catholic Reporter…not the liberal National Catholic Reporter nor the ultra-liberal National Catholic Reporter. Ergo: there is no such thing as ultra that applies to liberal in the liberal vocabulary.

Now consider a popular political newsletter about Illinois that free-wheelingly applies its writer’s prejudicial views toward ideas. The words ultra-conservative are recklessly applied—which is code for someone who holds views the writer disagrees with. I have not seen ultra-liberal applied to any politician in that publication. Which means there is no leftish view that is propounded that is out of bounds. Once on a radio show with Lynn Sweet, the frequently absolutists, defiantly judgmental Washington bureau chief of the Sun-Times, who doubles as a political analyst often on the editorial page (a unique juxtapositioning where one day she reports the news with purported objectivity and the next day she writes opinion on the same story where originally only she and God knew whether there was no admixture; no only God knows) ran a litany of supposed ultra-conservatives of which number I am sure, by her lights, I qualify. I asked her gently if she could name any ultra-liberals. She paused and the silence continued so long that the moderator intervened. She never thought of any. The next day, when I bumped in to her, I asked if she had found any ultra-liberals yet. She hadn’t. I asked, “Would Ramsey Clark qualify?” She didn’t say yes, didn’t say no. So much for passionate liberal objectivity. Now you can resume reading this ultra-conservative stuff.

The Importance of Judicial Firepower

Some of you have taken issue with my amended position on Harriet Miers—that the Senate should defeat her nomination in hopes that the person Bush names as successor will be from the list of highly qualified jurists that he considered but passed up. Why, if she is in fact pro-life, should she be nixed? Because the role of a jurist, in attempting to bring the Court back to sanity, must have more weight than just his/her own vote. In a very real sense, even Chief Justice Rehnquist while possessing laudable credentials, did not have the persuasive weight to convince many of his colleagues (apart from Scalia and Thomas) to effect that change.

Rehnquist in his book, The Supreme Court, tells of the first day he served as a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. Jackson asked him: “What is the most important number to keep in mind as we deal with the Court?” Rehnquist was puzzled and thought back through the numbers of Constitutional amendments and the numbered cases on the docket. He was struggling with the answer when Jackson held up five fingers. “It is five,” he said, “five votes of the nine to get a majority.” Actually, Rehnquist was a very good Chief because he could get along with his colleagues, but in my estimation he was not a great Chief because he didn’t sway many beyond his ideological confines. Example: Sandra Day O’Connor idolized him, wept at his funeral but she followed her own drummer on key issues. Old Bill was a great guy, very considerate and from Arizona as she was but on the issues? For some reason, he didn’t build a following even among the Republicans on the Court.

Chief Justice Roberts, whose legal scholarship is reputedly higher than that of Rehnquist, may have better luck in conservatizing the Court. It comes down to intellectual firepower. Anyone who studies the history of the Court, including the book, Becoming Justice Blackmun, written by the aptly named Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times, and The Brethren by Bob Woodward, learns that the Court is not unlike other groups, where natural leaders assume precedence and intimidate lesser minds. Harry Blackmun is a case in point. He and Warren Burger went to the same St. Paul high school and stayed close friends throughout their youth. Burger, the more political of the two, was named to the Court by Richard Nixon and wrote Blackmun that his fondest dream was that they would both serve on the same court together. He worked doggedly to get Blackmun named and was successful.

Named by Richard Nixon as a thoroughly conservative jurist, Blackmun, the former Mayo Clinic general counsel, soon found himself treading in deep intellectual water on the Court. Insecure, painfully slow at writing opinions, somewhat overshadowed by the more political stature of his once great and good friend Burger, Blackmun was subtly taken into camp by two liberals on the Court whose power put him in thrall: William O. Douglas and William Brennan, both of whom were far more powerful intellects. They worked him over like Iago did Othello, first with heady flattery, telling him that he was, in fact, as smart as they which seduced him, then injecting the poison that Burger expected Blackmun to tag along after him like a lackey, insisting that Blackmun should be too independent a jurist to be the lesser half of the “Minnesota Twins.”

In the conference on Roe v. Wade, Blackmun’s halting approximation of his views on abortion led Burger, whose views were similar, to assign the majority opinion to Blackmun, hoping to guide the writing of the draft that way so as to get a narrow construction. When he got the assignment, both Douglas and Brennan told the wobbly, pathetically insecure Blackmun that they had every confidence that he would write one of the great decisions on human rights which would ring through the pantheons of time. Intimidated by that flattery, not wishing to disappoint, Blackmun wrote his decision, spinning out “emanations” and “penumbras” that legislated an entirely new right which was not contained in the Constitution. From that time on, Blackmun was owned by them and became overnight an electric voice in behalf of ever-to-be enunciated new rights.

For a man who was best man at Burger’s wedding, Blackmun didn’t even attend the funeral of his once old friend. Also there was the “Greenhouse effect,” the adulation from The Times Greenhouse, no slouch of an intellect herself, who builds up heroes and villains as she reports the Court for her newspaper. Another key case: Anthony Kennedy. He started out as a conservative jurist, was taken into camp by Brennan, courted by Breyer and written up as a man of great intellectual “growth” with the Greenhouse effect. Now he’s invited overseas to talk to foreign jurists and is applauded for his willingness to apply international law to our jurisprudence.

In short, even if Harriet Miers is everything Bush says, a tough lady with inflexible views on certain things, she will in all probability be one vote. We need a powerhouse who can sway votes and joust with the libs in the sense that Scalia can and to some extent (though he is of a reticent nature) Thomas can. Scalia for all his brilliance is a short-fuse who says the hell with it and writes scathing opinions that mock his liberal colleagues. Fine, but we don’t exactly need that either because it doesn’t get votes.

The ideal Chief was Marshall who had the firepower and also insisted that the entire Court take rooms at his boarding house. Thereupon at dinner, pouring them many a glass of port, he worked on his colleagues including Bushrod Washington, nephew of the first president. We can’t get all the Justices to live at the same boarding house these days or all drink port but if we’re going to turn the Court around, we’ve got to have not only votes but firepower. Ms. Miers may in fact be a living embodiment of Clarence Darrow but so far all I’ve heard is that she’s a quiet lady who very well may be pro-life and is a workaholic. The others who Bush passed up have the power of powerful reasoning strength. Bush cites diversity in his pick. Surely we’re beyond that, now, else we would be naming as Justice a black nun from Alabama with an Hispanic surname. I would rather have him go to the list of superb intellectual jurists in his rolodex. (One thing that haunts me: if Miers is defeated because of a dearth of conservative Senate votes, the next pick may also evade intellectual firepower and go to diversity—Alberto Gonzales—who would be the first Hispanic and whose position on Roe is lukewarm. Oh well, we are all haunted by our personal nightmares.)

Governor Unveils “All Kids” Program

Although he’s been under fire from a number of different sources, Gov. Blagojevich unveiled a program with an attractiveness that will likely be easy selling to the 2006 electorate. Basically, he’s saying that all kids, regardless of income or health status, should have the opportunity to get health care. Today, he proposed a program that gives parents who don’t qualify for Kidcare but who can’t afford private insurance, what he calls an inexpensive alternative to get health care coverage for their children. He’s going to pay for it by moving all of his other health care coverage with the exception of senior and blind recipients into a managed care system to be run by the Department of Health Care and Family Services. He calls it “All Kids” and states further that the program, if passed in the veto session, would make Illinois the first state in the nation to make comprehensive health insurance available to the parents of kids without health insurance at rates they could afford.

His program would allow all families to buy health insurance for their kids through this new program. Families making in the $40,000 to $60,000 range would still pay monthly premiums and co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs but since the state could provide health insurance for a child at far lower costs than private insurance, the state rate makes it affordable where the private rate may not be. He’s justifying it on an economic basis too by saying that kids without health insurance end up costing the state in many ways, i.e. instead of going to a doctor to treat flu-like symptoms, the child without insurance tends to end up in the emergency room (hospitals have to take such cases). Blagojevich points out the cost of treating the uninsured is a major cause of high private insurance premiums and treating kids on the front end with preventative care saves a lot of money on the back end with emergency care.

On Political Shootout Sunday

On my WLS Political Shootout next Sunday will be dairy magnate and prize-winning market analyst Jim Oberweis, a Republican candidate for governor, and Frank Avila, conservative Democrat who attended the Conservative Summit and told the group Oberweis’ candidacy would be fatal because he has alienated Hispanics (which loyal Oberweis fans vehemently deny and question why Avila was even at the meeting). That’s in line with other GOP gubernatorial candidates who have jousted with their critics including State Sen. Bill Brady vs. Becky Carroll, the gov’s spokesperson on the budget…and DuPage County state’s attorney Joe Birkett vs. the man who ran Lisa Madigan’s campaign against him, Mike Noonan. Not to be sexist about it, but the willingness of these GOPers to battle political operatives and/or wonk critics separates the men from the boys. (Note: We’ve had invitations outstanding to Gov. Blagojevich for a long time.) That’s at 8 p.m. on AM 890.

Mike Madigan: Let’s Try to Change the Subject

You know the legislature is not in session when you see task forces cruising up and down the highways featuring politicians in your area. They’re doing everything from helping you renew your driver’s license to helping kids to read to probing the high price of gas. All good for favorable press, huh? This summer, however, we’ve seen one of the more shameless efforts at using state task forces for political games without a shred of relevancy to the issue being discussed. Wanna guess what it is?

Social Security. Huh? State task forces involving Social Security which is a federal program? Yup. House Speaker Mike Madigan is one of the shrewdest politicians and it’s his way of defending his House majority like a Mother Bear protects her cubs. Recently Mike announced he is going to host statewide hearings to address possible changes in Social Security benefits! I thought this was a misprint when I first saw it! Any decision involving a federal program as Social Security is must come from Washington—not by Madigan or State Reps in Springfield. Huh? I wondered: is Mike thinking of running against freshman Democrat Dan Lipinski who’s his Congressman? Of course not.

No, the reason is Big Daddy who is also state Democratic chairman, is worried about his almost-all Democratic ticket being cursed with low poll numbers. Some say he saw his plan of raiding our state’s pension system (which will cripple future generations and services for future generations) receiving far more attention than he had imagined. Unfortunately for those Democrats who were forced to vote for the scheme, a scandal blew up over the pensions this summer. It didn’t help the Democrats. Many of them were upset since they had to vote for the plan. They were told the negative publicity would be over before the Memorial Day potato salad started going bad. One brave state Rep Democrat, John Fritchey, (who like me blogs every day) has even publicly apologized for his “yes” vote.

So Big Daddy to the rescue. He has started to try to change the subject, talking about “the evil Republican Social Security reform” although the state legislature has about as much to do with Social Security as I do with the Chicago Bears play calling on Sundays. Madigan theorized: Why not try to scare seniors into thinking the big bad Republicans are trying to take away their benefits? So state Democrats think holding these hearings in places where they have targeted members (legislative districts where Dems have a chance to lose) would help blur the issues. So citizens in Aurora, Morris, Kankakee and Decatur will be hearing about Social Security reform from someone who has no savvy on the issue. Hey, I’m more qualified to teach lacrosse to Deerfield High seniors than these Madigan ducklings are to discuss Social Security.

Harriet Miers: On Reflection, Senate Should Reject

One need not go so far as columnist George Will (who wrote that the president has “forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution”) to find that if the Senate were to vote down Harriet Miers it would be no calamity. What changed me from passivity on this matter, was intriguingly, an interview Bill Bennett conducted with Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh said something like, oh, well, perhaps the president will have other opportunities to name members of the Supreme Court. Nuts to that. After reading as much as I can about Ms. Miers, I believe she is a sound choice but not an excellent one. President Bush’s view that she is the best he’s found, is a rather arrogant view to which we are supposed to conform because he knows what is best for us. My blog yesterday which thanked God for cronyism went too far, I now believe, in accepting his choice which, though of an accomplished lawyer, is not the best that could be made.

Let me put this in fine print to show who would be ideal to do it.

To those who say it would be too great an act of courage for a Republican Senator to challenge this appointment, I have two words to offer: Tom Coburn. The self-term-limited physician-lawmaker from Oklahoma has made a career out of following his own conscience. He who had the guts as a GOP House member to get Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay riled because he questioned appropriations, has the intestinal stamina to do it. As a member of Senate Judiciary, he would be the logical one to start the ball rolling. Joining with him would be a number of Democrats who, for reasons of their own, would oppose the nomination. Sorry, Rush, I love you like a brother but I really don’t think we have to simply take this on the chin because our guy made the appointment.

Harriet Miers: Let’s Hope Cronyism Works

Underscoring the outrage from social conservatives over the naming of Harriet Miers as President Bush’s choice for Supreme Court justice, her appointment means one thing: With his plate full on the war in Iraq and Homeland Security problems, the president has finally shown some battle fatigue and seeks to avoid a brawl with his critics in Congress. His battle fatigue is regrettable but such is the human condition. The bigger question is whether Ms. Miers is a social conservative. Her attempt to convince the leftish American Bar Association to forego its endorsement of federally subsidized abortions, is encouraging; her financial contributions to the 1988 Al Gore presidential run are not. The praise from Senate minority leader Harry Reid is not encouraging but her reputedly being a “Born Again” Evangelical is. Her contributions to the pro-abort Al Gore while purportedly belonging to a church that is pro-life would spell out a cynical nature.

The essence of Ms. Miers’ appointment is cronyism about which Alexander Hamilton warned and for which he specified that the Senate confirmation process would be crucial to counteract. I personally am not persuaded by Dr. James Dobson appearing on TV saying with a cryptic smile like the Cheshire cat, “If you only knew what I know, you’d be confident” etc. nor Vice President Cheney’s statement that we’d be happy with Miers in ten years. Why must we wait ten years when better qualified jurists are available now? The history of this “if you knew what I know” dodge is not impressive. After the senior Bush’s naming to the Court of David Souter, John Sununu also from New Hampshire said approximately the same words: if you knew Souter as I know him--. He should have been stopped right there: who can know a 50-year-old bachelor who has lived lifelong in the woods with his mother? He might bay at the full moon on frosty nights. He might have regarded Paul Simon as a sex object. I wouldn’t support him on the grounds of being a crypto-monk alone, never mind his legal views. (It reminds me of those who didn’t know Jimmy Carter well when he was elected president, having been elected only because he appeared pure after Watergate but who was almost entirely unknown. His first appointment was Cy Vance, his second was Bert Lance. Then the nation started worrying that all other appointments would have names rhyming with pants. Perhaps that wouldn’t have been so bad as those he did appoint.)

The problem was that, of course, Sununu didn’t know him very well despite having been New Hampshire governor. Sununu and Bush père were going on the recommendation of New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman, one of the slickest operators in modern Senate history who somehow psyched out the recluse and who pulled the fastest one in modern Supreme Court history by gulling the president. We have today arguably the Court’s most liberal justice because of the “if you knew what I know” ruse. Following that deliberate ruse, anyone who believes Rudman on anything including his Concord Coalition of high taxers ought to be checked out for fatal naïveté.

Unfortunately, the “if you knew what I know” axiom must be followed in this case. She is trusted by Bush and Bush has done reasonably well in living up to his commitments. If anyone should know what Miers is like, it should be Bush. She worked with him closely and unless she is a merciless charlatan like Souter he should have a good approximation of her views. That’s better than a Dr. Jim Dobson recommendation. I regret that Bush is not up the battle by picking an acknowledged conservative and fighting the good fight on the filibuster—leading to a narrow but decisive confirmation. But he’s not. So for conservatives, our only hope is to rely on cronyism—that this time, despite Alexander Hamilton’s misgivings, it is validated.

The Edgar Decision

In his brilliant film, “The Great Dictator,” Charlie Chaplin shows a German crew in Berlin pointing a huge cannon at the sky with sixteen stupid-looking Teutonic types (with spears on top of their helmets) tugging the missile to it, loading it laboriously into the cannon. This missile is destined to go all the way to London! They congratulate themselves. They push the button for the charge to send the missile on its way to London. Everyone holds his ears. The cannon roars. Smoke bellows angrily. The men are toppled to the ground by the detonation. Then—blip!—the missile plops out and topples to the ground. They all run away fearful it’ll explode. But it’s a dud. That resembles the comic opera given us by former Gov. Jim Edgar with the liberal media’s compliant help, where, posing as the intellectual he assuredly is not, pondered his future for weeks, a forefinger pressed to his cheek as he weighed his future. The media is alerted that this announcement will come any day. Days drone on and no announcement. Then, a flurry of excitement: the day is here! The Great Man has decided! All are present for the announcement. Everyone holds his ears for the shock will be deafening. Then—blip!—he’s not running. He always was a dud. Pencil-thin, with a brush of stylishly grey hair, he looks good. That’s it. What in the world did he learn during those months of pondering that he didn’t know initially? Nothing. And why in the world is he shown weeping, his handkerchief to his nose: Is making $700,000-plus in private life so hard to take? And guess what, the media are sad, too. “Your party will miss you, Jim,” said one. Yeah, right: like they know what the GOP feels, huh?

Edgar and his well-wishers in the liberal media have made him look exceedingly foolish in this farce, which he compounded by unaccountably weeping. The media wasted too much time over this Hamlet, concentrating on a non-story while ignoring the valid discussion other GOP gubernatorial candidates have been having. They have maintained that only a recycled pseudo-liberal Republican can beat Blagojevich and assuredly, a poll has shown that Edgar beats Blago handily. But, of course, Edgar was leading: it’s based on name familiarity of one who served decades in public life and to whom little onus has come.

But the media won’t understand that a recycled Edgar, who made permanent one tax increase, would have to be subjected to harsh reexamination. Example: Do you think the secretary of state scandals began with George Ryan? I am not an insider and don’t know much about that office but I don’t. The scandals were perfected to a high gloss with Ryan but the scandals go back at least to Paul Powell and undoubtedly before. You think Alan Dixon just ran a clerical shop as secretary of state? You don’t think Blagojevich’s negative research couldn’t find at least one guy who would say he got a commercial license the old fashioned way under Edgar? I do: because the culture didn’t start or end with Ryan. Edgar would have been an exceedingly poor choice against Blagojevich. The media don’t understand this because they are inherently liberal without even recognizing they are and fawn on the idea of a pro-choice, pro-gay rights social liberal running against Blago.

Now that Edgar’s out, the next media watch will be on his accounted choice, Judy Baar Topinka. Yes, the media have a poll (presumably taken by Topinka’s people) showing she can beat Blagojevich. So the media hustle will be: will Judy run? Run, Judy, run! Media are entranced because again there’s a pro-choice, pro-gay rights liberal woman. Again, the media are wrong. Topinka will go into the race with good name ID but again the deals from the old days will be brought front and center. Blagojevich has a corner on the gay vote, has a corner on the pro-abort vote, has a corner on all the liberal interest group support which Judy claims. You think core Republicans are going to vote for her because she played her accordion at gay rights marches? If she runs, nobody will be trying to scoop up the socially conservative vote. Nobody. She very well may not run—not because she doesn’t want the governorship but because she may not survive the primary. And if she decides against it, media will say: oh those horrid old Republican extremists short-circuited her!

The real facts are these: Illinois missed the Reagan revolution because Republican governors—Thompson, Edgar, Ryan—were of the old school where cooperation with the Democrats was mandatory and no ideology or philosophy was required. Reaganite revolution means tax cuts; Thompson and Edgar gave tax hikes and Ryan fee hikes. Reaganite revolution means conservative social policies: all three were pro-choice (Ryan did a flip to become a liberal after election). Topinka is an inheritor of that tradition. The real way Republicans can win is to nominate a conservative, pro-life, anti-gay rights, pro-business, pro-Second Amendment guy. Media can’t understand it because they aren’t sympathetic to those issues so they talk to themselves and all sound like Rich Miller (to whom any Republican slightly right of center is a dinosaur, a nut, goofball, wacko). How to explain it? You start out with the base and add to it. No, that doesn’t mean go to the left. The great center field is un-determinative, fluid, able to be formed.

When Ronald Reagan ran for governor the first time, the smart folks and the lion’s share of the media believed the man of the future was George Christopher. Who was George Christopher? He was the Republican mayor of San Francisco. He was a liberal, indistinguishable from a Dem. He had smooth, rounded-off edges that didn’t offend. Reagan was perceived to be a B actor with paleo-conservative views. He then convinced Californians he was not a nut but fiscally responsible with a deft sense of humor. He captured the middle. Christopher would have been licked by Pat Brown because he wouldn’t have captured the base.

There are four good candidates for governor now running: Oberweis (whom the media have demonized as they had the early Reagan), Birkett (whom the media have also demonized), Brady (whom the media haven’t figured out yet) and Rauschenberger whom the media likes because he is malleable on some social issues. All are well qualified and all have particular strengths. The main job for Republicans is to build a unified ticket. If they don’t build a unified ticket, with four conservatives running they will split the vote and either the accordion lady or Ron Gidwitz will get the nomination. No one who knows Gidwitz well believes in his heart of hearts that he’s a winning candidate. There are certain things money can’t buy: one is a contagiously friendly personality. I know what I’m talking about because for a time he was chairman of the City Club when I was its president. A chillier scion of multi-wealth there never was. Unless the conservatives get together, they will split the votes and either Topinka with her accordion or Gidwitz with his godzillions will get the nomination. Blago vs. Topinka? Blago vs. Gidwitz? Whatta choice. Then Republicans could kiss 2006’s governorship goodbye.