Barbara Blaine

[This is my latest story appearing in The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest weekly Catholic newspaper. It’s significant, I think, because of a decidedly favorable treatment of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) and its founder, Barbara Blaine. The Wanderer was the first newspaper, religious or secular, to report priest and bishop abuse some thirty plus years ago when other newspapers wouldn’t touch the subject. Your comments are welcomed].




CHICAGO—In this largely politically black or white town, most authenticist Catholics who thought of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), viewed it as a liberal organization dedicated to toppling Francis Cardinal George.


But now, increasingly SNAP’s message that little or nothing is being done here to quickly remove priest predators, is winning adherents as more people recognize the failings of this archdiocese and are demanding action. Not that rank-and-few congregants want George out—but they want something done on priest abuse: and SNAP seems to be the only game in town.



In the wake of criticism of the archdiocese here, a clearer view of SNAP is coming into focus. In an interview with The Wanderer last week, both founder Barbara Blaine who lives here and national director David Clohessy of St. Louis pointed out that


SNAP is concerned only with rectifying priest abuses and, unlike “Voice of the Faithful” or “Call to Action,” does not take positions on any divisive issues affecting the Church such as ordination of women priests, changes in celibacy or any auxiliary issues affecting theology or philosophy;


Runs self-help programs for victims in volunteer meetings similar to Alcoholics Anonymous;


Acknowledges it has received financial support from trial lawyers but only 18 percent has come from lawyers and


Has some problems with Illinois Appellate Justice Anne Burke (I think possibly unfairly) for seemingly stressing some difficulties in affecting change in the religious orders.


The straw that broke the camel’s back came when it was divulged routinely by the Sun-Times that the archdiocese’s own Review Board had recommended removal of Fr. Daniel McCormack which was ignored by the archdiocese—following which the priest was placed under criminal indictment for sexually molesting three children. The disclosure was made by the state director of Children and Family Services, which the archdiocese subsequently admitted and produced a new wave of criticism. The spontaneous gathering of supporters of Cardinal George on the steps of Holy Name Cathedral was held before the disclosure was known. News of the spurned recommendation caused some supporters of George to say they were misled.



The disregarded recommendations cast doubt on whether the so-called new procedures of the archdiocese to prevent and correct abuse are working—especially when they are being implemented by the same old bureaucratic faces which have disregarded action earlier, a view SNAP has long held.



I conducted two extensive interviews with the two main leaders of SNAP. The first, outlined in this issue, was with its founder, Barbara Blaine the Chicago woman who was abused by a priest when she was a child in Toledo many years ago. The first thing I learned from both Blaine and David Clohessy of St. Louis, the director, is that SNAP in no way supports radical groups prescribing a total change of rubrics and canon law as does Voice of the Faithful or Call to Action. It does not take a position whatsoever on celibacy in the Church, on female priests, married priests. So far as I can determine it has a single mission: to secure justice for victims, assuredly, but beyond that—to protect children from further abuse. It sponsors self-help sessions for those abused and is quite tough on prelates who meet with it, promising action and then revert to the old clerical game of relying on the bureaucracy.


That’s what’s happened in Chicago, says Blaine. And dissatisfied with queasy parsing of answers from Cardinal George she and her organization has called for his resignation. Not that she’ll get it, not that the Church will bow or should bow to a pressure group, but she calls for it anyhow. And in Chicago it’s plain that the atmosphere has changed from one of anger against anyone who would ask George to resign, to anger and frustration by many Catholics, authenticists as well, who can’t understand why the first issue with this archdiocese is protection of priests before protection of children.


Blaine is an articulate 45-year-old lawyer, with a masters in social work and a masters in theology, married for the past three years (first and only time) to a DePaul university law professor. She’s frequently called upon in radio and television newscasts and panel shows to outline the organization’s position. She grew up one of eight kids in a solidly authenticist Catholic family in Toledo where mother and father stood by the church, defending it from attack, belonging to appropriately-named Pius X parish, the parish founded before Pius was canonized with “Blessed Pius X” etched on the cornerstone (Pius was canonized on May 29, 1954).


Blaine sipped her iced tea and looked back wistfully at the time decades ago when young men idolized the priesthood and young women the religious sisters or being mothers of large families. In her family the notion of a priest coming to visit at their home would send her mother scurrying to clean the front room and get out the best china. She went to Catholic grade school and along with her girl friends worked around the school and rectory—mimeographing for the school and stapling the parish Sunday bulletins.


In that parish, priests were treated as representatives of Christ but one, a hardy, 45-year-old athletic, witty assistant who gave extraordinarily influential and solid homilies was particularly revered. When she was 12, and he got friendly she was flattered. Then when he became too familiar, she became confused. They never had sex but his hands were all over her. When he told her he loved her and Christ was such a forgiving God He would wash away any sin in an outpouring of ineffable love, she became dazed, it conflicting with what she understood from her catechism.


He told her she should become a nun and that after they both died—the priest and Barbara—they would meet in heaven and become man and wife there with the beneficent Lord looking on. Moreover he enabled her to think that it was partially her fault that he was interested in her—which spurred guilt for decades.


He stressed: This would be their secret which they would keep from all others, including her parents. When she wanted to go to confession because she was overwhelmed with guilt, he urged her not to go to his church because his priest associates who would hear her would not understand—but go to a neighboring church. She went to a nearby church where the confessor did not remark upon her confession unduly.

As she looks back on it now, she was enveloped in guilt, did not believe he was doing anything wrong but blamed herself for causing difficulties for a priest and fearful of what her parents would say. She grew up, went into social work, then went to a convent where she was a postulant but left. She went to Jamaica as a church worker among the poor.


Then to Chicago at a Catholic Worker House. There she happened to see a newspaper containing a story about priest sexual abuse. She confided, for the first time, to an associate who said “why, you were abused!” She went back home to Toledo and told her parents. They and she confronted the priest. He stuttered, grew angry, denied all and then with a rush of words tried to insist that when he kissed her she was an adult, forgetting his earlier words that he had not made a move on her. He admitted all.



They went to the bishop. He said this was the first case involving this priest and that he would send him away for therapy. Blaine received $88,000 in a mediated settlement (no law suit) from the Toledo diocese. The bishop said the priest would go to therapy and then be assigned as a hospital chaplain and undergo continuous monitoring.



Subsequently, she determined to improve her education and went to St. Louis University for under-grad degree and a master’s in social work, went to Chicago’s Catholic Theological Union where she got a master’s in theology and finally to DePaul law school after which she was admitted to the bar. She found that the experience of her youth hampered her from ever trusting, ever having a tender relationship with a man: similar things that have happened to other victims.


The dissimulation of the Toledo bishop came to be known after her father had a stroke and went to a Toledo Catholic hospital. She flew to Toledo immediately to see him. He told her with great anxiety that the priest who abused her was the chaplain and that he did not want to have this priest come to his room. Barbara didn’t either because with her father in a bad way, any emotional upset could be fatal.


So standing by her father’s bedside, Blaine phoned the chaplain’s office, talked to a nun there and requested that the priest not visit her father. The nun asked why not. Because, Blaine said, the priest is being monitored for preying on a child—me, when I was a child. You’re wrong, said the nun, this priest is not being monitored. The words of the bishop came back to Blaine as a patent and cynical lie. Investigating further, Blaine found that he had made advances to a number of girls in her school, all with the same line: they should wait for him in heaven where they would be married with Christ looking on.


Meanwhile her legal career advanced, beginning with a clerkship for a Circuit judge here, then a post as legal adviser to the Cook county child guardian who gained a national reputation defending children against all kinds of abuse. Meanwhile, she began SNAP in 1989 by word-of-mouth, then networking, reading stories of priest sexual abuse and following up with the victims. The meetings held here and at other places in the country are not therapy—it’s along the lines of Alcoholics Anonymous, with each victim describing the outrages and the group working together to assuage guilt. The organization grew as Blaine went to the media to publicize it. Some money came in from victims and their families, enough to pay Blaine a modest salary and a salary to a national director, another abuse victim, who lives in St. Louis as well as some clerical support.


While lawyers contribute to SNAP, their donations are not dominant, she said, and stand at about 18 percent of the organization’s budget. Surprisingly, she finds Illinois Appellate Court Justice Anne Burke, a vocal critic of Cardinal George, herself too involved in bureaucracy. Burke told her bishops have no jurisdiction over religious orders. This angers Blaine, seeing it as a kind of evasion—but in this Blaine shows impatience rather than understanding that religious orders are not under the jurisdiction of the bishops. When I told her Burke is right, she looked at me skeptically and with impatience, as if to say she’s tired of such bureaucratic answers. Yet that is the answer and a way to end abuse by religious order priests must be take a different path than from the bishops.



I asked her how the imbroglio has affected her practice of Catholicism. She acknowledges that it has, says she goes to church some Sundays, not others (different from abuse victim Clohessy who has left the Church altogether).


Dissatisfaction with the way Cardinal George has handled the priest abuse problem has prompted promises of tougher control but the bureaucracy looks the same. Jimmy Lago, the lay chancellor, has been put in charge—but not only Barbara Blaine but a good many Catholic authenticists say: what is this? Lago is the guy who was in charge before and look what happened! He’s a bureaucrat who moved up during the era of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. There’s no change here!


Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, Chicago’s foremost priest voice, Fr. Andrew Greeley, novelist and Sun-Times, the only priest in the nation with his own foreign and domestic policy who lectures the city weekly on his own variant of theology, has up to last week been silent, notwithstanding that he is a friend of and occasional dining partner with Cardinal George.


So the struggle in Chicago goes on. But many things have changed. Not long ago Blaine was regarded by many Catholics as a trouble-maker. But critics are coming together. For now the feeling is that Francis George is a talented theologian, a splendid philosopher, a gifted former university professor—but not an administrator determined to bring in new people to end the abuse even if he has to knock heads together. Despite all the protestations, Jimmy Lago is still running the shop and the archdiocese is mired in evasions, half-truths and circumlocution.


Catholic authenticists, Blaine, the firebrand feminist columnist Michael Sneed of the Sun-Times and Justice Burke appear to be almost on the same page now. The consensus is building that it is up to the archdiocese to show that reform—in the nature of an independent person not beholden to the powers of the archdiocese and motivated by prompt removal of alleged offenders is truly on the way.


So far, all Chicago Catholics hear is words—neatly parsed sentences for media ops. To most, that’s not enough.



Next week: an in-depth interview with David Clohessy of St, Louis who gives details about SNAP’s work.

Oberweis and Berkowitz a Smash on “Shootout”, Winding Up Primary Season

Jim Oberweis and tough questioner journalist Jeff Berkowitz were a smash on my WLS-AM program last night with the two good-naturedly trading observations that were sometimes contrary, sometimes in agreement, on the last program before the March 21st primary. One significant point raised by both: State Sen. Bill Brady has steadfastly maintained that educational vouchers would be unconstitutional in Illinois—causing Berkowitz, an educational reformer and lawyer to question the fact…and prompting Oberweis, also a supporter of vouchers, to point out that the Bloomington senator has received a generous campaign donation from the Illinois Education Association, the professional teachers group that strongly opposes vouchers.

State Senator Jim DeLeo (D-Chicago) and Cook County GOP Chief Gary Skoien to Analyze Primary on “Shootout” Next Sunday on WLS-AM.

State Sen. Jim DeLeo, an assistant Senate majority leader and Cook county GOP chairman Gary Skoien will analyze the March 21 primary election next Sunday—and sketch out probable battle plans for the 2006 campaign which will be historic. Questions: if John Stroger gets the nomination for Cook county Board president, will he be able to effectively campaign and govern? If Forrest Claypool wins on Tuesday, will he be able to put together a campaign which shores up the Democratic party and still points the way to reform? And in either case, will Tony Peraica, the GOP nominee, have a chance to become the first Republican Cook county Board president since Dick Ogilvie in 1966?

Flashback: The Humphrey Up-Close Experience Begins a Career Change.

“Well, I see we’re going to cover Hubert Humphrey,” sneered the business manager of my paper. “If bull-s—t were music, he’d be a brass band.” That really did it. I determined to give the Senator the best press of his life notwithstanding that I’d have to hold my nose doing it. But surprisingly it didn’t come to my overcoming a dislike; he was irrepressibly exciting, superbly irreverent, imitating Harry Byrd (“you shouldn’t do that,” cautioned the driver, my college classmate Mitch Perrizzo, “haven’t you had enough trouble with that guy?), putting on the new Democratic minority leader’s Johnson treatment (pressing his face near mine and straightening my tie and brushing lint off my jacket as he drawled southern-talk), taking off John Stennis’ hard-of-hearing tendencies in committee meetings, rolling a falsetto baritone in imitation of my home state’s Everett Dirksen. The bouncing, gregarious 43-year-old lawmaker was fighting a heavy cold on a grey Minnesota fall day, swigging what was really prescription cough medicine (I jokingly maintained it wasn’t) as we spun down Highway 10 through heavily Catholic and German central Minnesota.

He was ingratiatingly scatological as many young men can be, not caring if he would be quoted (strangely enough, trusting me not to quote him in the newspaper profile). “Woweee!” he said as we hit the campus of St. Cloud State Teachers were coeds were running in the chilly weather wearing gym tights that were then in fashion, “maybe we oughta have a seminar here, huh, Mitch? I’d take that brunette there aside and say `come here, my dear, and let us talk foreign policy’--.” “Hubert!” shouted Perrizzo, “I’m really getting concerned! Do you know we have a journalist here and likely a Republican one, too?” The next minute he was hustling down the sidewalk with the college president outlining a federal program he had authored, quoting the details from direct recall. At an old people’s home in Albany, Minnesota he was tender with a lady age 92 in a wheelchair who had fallen on the home’s back step having broken her hip and the step, saying that he had authored legislation that would install a Fall Clinic at University of Minnesota hospitals which could specially treat her hip and that there was also a program to repair the step, derived from the Hill-Burton Act. Mitch and I looked up to heaven for forgiveness.

But by 11:30 a.m. he had a slight fever by Mitch’s thermometer. We stopped at a restaurant for a glass of orange juice which he calculated would help his throat. I went to the phone to call in some of his quotes and when I returned they were in a serious conversation. Humphrey had agreed to speak at our alma mater, St. John’s University without having told Mitch, his driver and scheduler. St. John’s was thirty miles away and he had only 15 minutes to get there. Mitch was angered, sulky and properly stunned that Humphrey would pull that kind of thing without telling him. But that was Humphrey. “Don’t worry,” Humphrey said, “I’ll get you there.” Perrizo growled, “Oh you will, huh? What the hell are we going to do, sprout wings on this car and fly?” Humphrey took the insolence good naturedly and had decided what to do. There were two state highway patrolmen drinking coffee at the counter. “Gentlemen,” he said and they jumped up, startled. “Do you think your Republican governor would be upset if I asked you to escort this Democratic Senator to St. John’s in Collegeville with some special help?” They were delighted. Mitch was mollified and shook his head sadly, since he had seen this kind of thing happen before. Humphrey and I got in their patrol car; they turned on the flashing lights and siren and roared to St. John’s at 80 miles an hour while Mitch in his old Buick roared behind us trying to keep up. Flying through the small towns of Sauk Centre (home of Sinclair Lewis: Humphrey had a story about him), Avon, Freeport, Melrose while drivers pulled over to the side, Humphrey deciding not to wave at them (“bad idea” he said to me. “Why don’t you wave at `em?” I said, I don’t want `em to blame me! “Good thinking,” he said. “You got a future in this business!”

As we roared along, I discovered that he had not the foggiest notion of why he was asked to speak at St. John’s and I’m sure Mitch in the car back of us didn’t either. Then I remembered something as an alum. The Benedictines were marking some kind of anniversary of either the birth of St. Benedict or his founding the monastery at Mount Cassino in Italy—something like that. Humphrey paid great attention as he neared the campus. And, oh yes, I said: they are launching a 100 year building program. “Christ!” he said, “what takes a hundred years?” That’s the nature of Benedictines, I said, it is said that time means nothing to a Benedictine, as our police car swung into the courtyard and the Abbot of St. John’s was waving at us. Oh yes, I said: I remember now what the title of your talk is to be. “The Spirit of Benedictinism in America Today. It’s the keynote.” “What?” he said, trying to stop coughing, “What is the title?” The Spirit of Benedictinism in America Today, I said.

“The—what? The Spirit of--?” I repeated it: The Spirit of Benedictin-ism in America Today.”

“What is Benedictinism?”

I said: “Monasticism.” Then growing exitedly angry: “This is a monastery, Hubert! A Benedictine monastery with roots back to St. Benedict who lived in Italy in 500 A. D.! The monks kept learning alive! Don’t you remember your medieval history? Jesus!”

He grew thoughtful.

Then I saw the guy standing next to the Abbot (the head of the monastery). “See that guy? He’s the architect. You’ve got to recognize him.”

Humphrey said, “Now?”

“No not now! Of course not now. In your speech! I’ll tell you a little about him. I’ve sold out as a journalist before; I might as well again.”

“Jack,” said Humphrey to one of the patrolmen, “lock the doors. Don’t let `em in here. Go on out there and say we’re conversing and’ll be out in a minute.” The patrolman, commandeered as an escort, now became an official of the campaign, got out of the car and did what he was told. And as for me, intending to be a reporter, I had become an official briefer for the candidate, prepping him for his speech—all in the space of an afternoon.

“The architect’s name is Marcel Breuer,” I said.

“ Never heard of him,” he said.

I was surprised at that. “He’s a world famous architect, designed the UNESCO Building in Paris. Revolutionary. He’s been retained to design this 100 years building program. That’s all I know about it.”

Humphrey said, “gotcha. Let’s go.” One more swig of the purple cough syrup and he was out the door, bounding over to the Abbot and the architect, pumping his hand warmly.

As we walked to the auditorium, he glanced up at the Abbey buildings which were soon to be replaced, giving special attention to an old dormitory. In the auditorium we discovered the archbishop of St. Paul was along with about 2,500 Catholic dignitaries. As we strode along the sidewalk, he dropped back, grabbed me and whispered, “The Spirit of--?” I said: The Spirit of Benedictinism in America Today.” “Right.” Behind us, Mitch was rolling his eyes. He said, “You know, I’m still so mad I hope he goofs up. Would serve him right. I had to cancel a lunch with a big contributor because of this—this Humphrey will drive you right straight up the wall…” Aw, I said, let’s see how he does. “See how he does? Fine for you. You’re a Republican! This is my job!”

When he was introduced by the Abbot, Humphrey said this. I was so fascinated I didn’t take notes but 52 years later I can paraphrase it.

Father Abbot, Archbishop Murray, Reverend Fathers, Reverend Sisters, Distinguished Faculty, Students and Lovers of Saint John’s, I bring you greetings from our Nation’s Capitol where, outside the Senate chamber, there is a Men’s Room…

I thought: what in the world is this?

…where after you wash your hands you and extend them before an automatic drying machine which can emit a rush of tropical air to dry them you see a small sign on the machine that reads: “Push the button and listen to the voice of your U. S. Senator.”

The Abbot and archbishop suffocated with laughter (I frankly didn’t think it was that funny) but we were off. Twenty minutes later after he reviewed the contributions of the medieval Benedictine monasteries which kept the learning alive which has continued to be the treasure of the West, he talked about education—the education he taught as a professor at Macalester, the education dependent on the eternal verities of the West which the Benedictines had imperishably preserved. I saw the Abbot straighten up proudly. After 35 minutes of tracing civilization to the then contemporary struggle with “atheistic Communism,” he concluded in this fashion:

Down through the ages it has been said with great truth that glancing with a smile at me, time means nothing to a Benedictine. That’s why I am pleased to honor you as you initiate a one-hundred year building program. And that you have retained the outstanding architect, Marcel Breuer who designed the UNESCO Building in Paris.. Why as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee when last year I went to Paris I stole away to view that building. As vibrantly modern as are the challenges of this age, yet it is rooted in tradition and firmness, emblematic of the words of your holy Father, Benedict—and his immortal words “Ora et Labora.” Work and Pray! Those words, my friends, constitute the Spirit of Benedictinism which, God willing, you will make the Spirit of America today!

The crowd leapt to its feet and I would imagine if the Abbot had not concluded the session and the crowd were still alive, they would be applauding yet. Marcel Breuer was ecstatic: he told me in a thick Belgian accent, he saw my building! The history professor wanted the text. The university president grabbed me by the arm and shouted to me as the cheers continued, “Now you know why I’m a Democrat!” Surrounded by those eager to pump his hand, Humphrey signaled to us that this was the time to leave. We got in the car and Mitch said, “Well, goddamn it, Hubert, you did it! Magnificent! Just don’t ever pull that on me again. My heart can’t take it.”

What time is it, said Humphrey. It was 2 p.m. I believe, he said, “I’d like to stop for a sandwich and—and a drink.” He had sweat through his heavy woolen jacket. “I will buy that drink,” said Mitch. And I said, I will drink it.

As we sat and munched sandwiches, I told Humphrey: You remembered everything I told you about St. John’s—the 100 years, Marcel Breuer, the title “The Spirit of Benedictin-ism in America Today.” But where did you get the motto of St. Benedict—“Ora et Labora?”

He said, “Right off the building when we got out of the car! I saw it again on the old dormitory! On the top of the building! I saw it as we walked into the place. You guys think I’m dumb? Don’t know what Ora et Labora means? I’m a pharmacist; we know Latin!”

I was so entranced and protective I didn’t write it the way it happened. He knew I wouldn’t but didn’t ask that I not. But the experience started me thinking. Rather than being a journalist which is somewhat like a stenographer, I’d like to learn more about this business of politics. Because I saw it up close—somewhat phony, yes, but exciting and thoroughly captivating. And it was making history.

When I wrote the story, the Humphrey campaign thought it was so good they sent it around the state. A day later at my desk, I got a phone call from my buddy Mitch.

“He wants you to be his campaign press secretary,” he said. “And if he’s reelected you’ll go to Washington. Fifteen thousand per.”

God, I said, don’t tempt me. I’ve got to keep on doing this for awhile but I’m flattered.

Mitch said: Think it over. He wants you to cover him next week at the Duluth Labor Temple!

O.K. I’ll do it. But I got to cover your opponent, sometime.

I pondered it over and concluded that no matter how captivating this man was, how exciting, how irreverent and funny, I’m just a damn conservative…and I can’t work for him. But I didn’t say that to Mitch until some time later.



[See what you got yourself in for, reading an old man’s blog? Some more soon.]

Stroger’s Worsening Condition Pushes Cook County Democratic Kremlin to Consider an Ultimate Decision. Will it be Similar to the One that Helped Hastert?

The best way to understand the Cook county Democratic party is to relate it to the model it greatly resembles: the USSR’s Kremlin in the days of the Cold War and draw appropriate conclusions. Cook county board president John Stroger’s worsening condition—the fact that his stroke is much more serious than was let on—means the local Kremlin must come to grips with the likelihood that he will never return to physical health. What should the Kremlin do now that Tuesday’s primary election is almost here—an election in which Democrats want a huge black turnout that a vigorous Stroger running for reelection would assure?

There are four choices for his succession, only one of which would guarantee a heavy black turnout. One, if Stroger dies or quits today—three days before the primary—challenger Forrest Claypool will automatically win the nomination. But Claypool while liberal is white and resultant black dissatisfaction may well see a lagging turnout.

Two, they can put Stroger on ice, or to be more euphemistic, life support and enable him to win the nomination which would be probable given voter sympathy. Then he would resign and the 80 Democratic ward and township committeemen would approve a successor. That’s the route to take to guarantee a heavy black turnout for the primary but not necessarily the general election unless an African American is picked.

Three, they can tax credulity (the only remaining thing Stroger hasn’t already taxed) and keep Stroger on ice or life support until the November general election. Then the board could meet before the new commissioners take office in December and elect one from their number to succeed Stroger. But even by Cook county Kremlin standards it might trigger a reaction to the point where it would be parodied on Letterman and Leno, harming the next electoral go-round for Richard M. Daley in 2007.

Four, they can keep Stroger on ice or life-support until December when the newly-elected board takes over and have the board elect one from their number to succeed him. That choice would either be Claypool or an un-defined black.

Probably the best choice for the local Kremlin is #2, enabling a wider selection for president and possibly increasing the chance that a prominent African American will be appointed. But who would be the African American? Claypool, a white originally from downstate, would have a strong claim anyhow. Strike the notion that the committeemen would pick John Daley, the mayor’s brother who’s being looked at by the feds. If they would, you can really see the machine has hardening of cerebral arteries: just as the USSR did when after Leonid Brezhnev’s death it picked Yuri Andropov who died a year and a half later and then Konstanin Chernenko who passed six months after that. (By not centering on Gorbachev until too late, it signed its own doom). A good bet is that the committeemen’s choice would be either Claypool or Jim Houlihan, the assessor but there is a downside. With Houlihan, it would be yet another Irishman holding forth where a black had been formerly: not good politically. With Claypool, it would be Stroger’s most bitter adversary succeeding a man who in death would be invested with hallowed reverence. Either or, the Cook county Kremlin could be slowed by lagging black participation.

Republicans shouldn’t enjoy the Dems’ difficulties too much. In 1985, as astute political analyst Jill Zwick reminded this blog the other day, U. S. Congressman John Grotberg, a first-term moderate, came down with terminal cancer. He was already re-nominated for 1986. He went to the Institutes of Health at Bethesda for an experimental treatment and fell into a coma from which he never recovered. The GOP establishment then didn’t want a movement conservative, Tom Johnston, to run (he had challenged Grotberg earlier)—and others were lined up as well. Denny Hastert was a state Rep, who had become a Grotberg ally when Grotberg was a state senator. Hastert was a moderate. The powers-that-be cut a deal with Grotberg’s people in behalf of Hastert. It was announced that Grotberg, who was unconscious, would resign not as Congressman but as GOP nominee. That meant that the district GOP would pick and at a convention they chose Hastert. As the world knows, Hastert won the election, went to Washington and through an interesting series of events (Newt Gingrich self-destructing; Bob Livingstone having a mistress), was picked as Speaker.

The Channel 11 Gubernatorial Debate: Topinka Wasn’t Missed

The WTTW-TV – City Club of Chicago debate Thursday night featured a lively exchange between Jim Oberweis, Bill Brady and Ron Gidwitz. What struck me was two things: having watched governors of two states for over 50 years, it was clear that any one of the three could make a powerful impression as governor. My choice is Jim Oberweis who I believe won the debate with the rejoinder to a carping Bill Brady. Brady for some unaccountable reason feels he can get conservative votes by blistering fellow conservativd Oberweis. He tried to recycle the old bogus game played by some Hispanic activists who tried to set up Oberweis as an employer of illegals by shuffling a person onto a temporary clean-up consultant business and insist that Oberweis hired him.

Brady quoted the case again which was answered completely by Oberweis. Brady then responded that all he knows is what he reads in the newspapers whereupon Oberweis slugged the answer out of the park by saying that if his knowledge is limited to newspaper reading, he doesn’t belong running for governor. A very effective response which elicited a laugh and applause by the studio audience which wasn’t particularly pro-Oberweis.

It is significant that with the exception of the Sun-Times most newspapers decided not to report the statement, concentrating instead on defending Brady’s voting record that was slammed by Oberweis. There is no doubt that the Oberweis animus is due to his strong pro-life stand and his support of traditional family values. Mainstream media prefer Topinka overwhelmingly for the GOP nomination, after which they will bargain between Blagojevich and her, hoping to ratchet up the increasingly liberal bargaining, holding their endorsements as bait. But failing Topinka, they prefer Brady, spurred by his attacks on Oberweis. Normally they would prefer Gidwitz but he hasn’t been as vocal in assailing Oberweis as Brady.

Why Brady thinks he will get conservative votes by blistering Oberweis and going easy on Topinka is a real mystery but he does.

As of today, the race is still wide open, I believe. Polls don’t tell the whole story in primaries—the ground game does. I believe Oberweis has the ground game, the people engaged round-the-clock in getting voters to the polls. Political organization doesn’t show up in polls but on election day. If Oberweis wins the nomination, look for a wholesale media assault on him reminiscent of the attacks on Barry Goldwater in 1964. Remember, the stakes involve something in addition to the governorship: the leadership of the Illinois Republican party. I’m usually not an all-for-nothing guy, but the nomination of Topinka will spell the continuance of the Jim Thompson organization and no choice whatsoever for conservatives. Ideally, Jim Oberweis will get the nomination and the governorship. Second to that is that even if he fails to win the governorship through the attacks by the mainstream media, he controls the party for the future.

I can think of nothing worse for conservatives than a state where the two-party system is closed to them. Topinka’s famous derogatory name-calling of conservatives and her rejection of her opponents as “morons” (before she came to her senses) underscores this election’s importance.

News Story: Catholic Bishops Support 100,000 Person Immigration March in Chicago

First, it’d be nice if they could convince some of their priests to keep their pants on.

Bi-Location: The phenomenon in Catholic theology which details how, very rarely, some persons of great sanctity can be at two different geographical locations at the same time. Vis. Lynn Sweet is not a Catholic nor, so far as I am aware, a saint but is especially venerated by certain secular liberals for her ability to be at two places at the same time. Her bi-location is truly remarkable: a Washington bureau chief who can at the same time cover local events i.e. warning John Stroger to make available his health records to the media.

Flash-Back Part I: Worrying About Getting Stuck in St. Cloud at $67.50 a Week for the Rest of My Life—But Traveling with Hubert Humphrey

[Too bad: You just got struck with another memoir written for my kids and 13 grandchildren.]

Carl Sandburg wrote in his poem, “The Sins of Kalamazoo” that they “are neither scarlet nor crimson/ The sins of Kalamazoo are a convict grey, a dishwater drab/ And the people who sin the sins of Kalamazoo are neither scarlet nor crimson/ They run to drabs and grays—and some of them sing/ They will be washed whiter than snow/ And some: We should worry.”

But in 1954 at age 26 I was worried that as good as my life was—and fun—I would be stuck in St. Cloud, Minnesota making $67.50 a week for life (the business manager saying I had no right to expect a raise in the foreseeable future)…which would mean continuing to get my hair cut free by the latest Indian the sheriff would incarcerate…hyping feature stories for a wire service…eating Mrs. McIntee’s oatmeal cookies…writing promos for the new sheriff, Peter A. Lahr including the slogan “the County’s PAL.”. Sandburg never went to St. Cloud so he never understood its sins were bleached next to those of Kalamazoo. Key venial sins:

Item: the city elected a new mayor, a 28-year-old lawyer, ex-Air Force jet pilot who won decorations from Korea, pencil-thin with distinct resemblance to a young Gregory Peck: a bachelor and Democrat who stole my girl-friend, from the city Chamber of Commerce office notwithstanding that I wrote a glorious feature on him--in return for which in retribution I dated his secretary who had mooned over him and who was so enraged at his lack of interest in her that she gave me all kinds of interesting inside stuff on city government—but which I couldn’t publish it because he would know where it came from. Sour grapes: who could get a Pulitzer Prize writing about rigged bids in St. Cloud, Minnesota. anyhow?

Item: The Minneapolis Tribune’s city editor liked my stuff, paid my way down there on a Greyhound bus for an interview but after I got there found out his news budget was strapped—but sure as shooting I’d be hired in the next go-round. So while I was down there on the Trib’s bus fare I tried to get hired by the rival St. Paul Pioneer-Press: no luck.

Item: When I got back to St. Cloud a phone call was waiting from the local chairman of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party. Sen. Hubert Humphrey was going to make a swing through central Minnesota and would I want to accompany him in the backseat of his car as his staff tooled him around. Huzza! Would I? This might be the real break that gets me to the Washington bureau of the New York Times! The DFL chairman said, haltingly but with ignorance and impropriety: “we got a feeling you’re Democrat anyhow, aren’t you? You come from St. John’s University so that’s good. We don’t want you goin’ with him if you’re goin’ to savage him.” My response: Obviously it’s improper to ask my politics but my mother was a Democratic judge in Chicago.” He: “That’s good enough for us!” I didn’t say she was a Democratic judge of election, which is rather different than a jurist. I resented his question and decided to write a savage attack on Humphrey anyhow to get even for his effrontery. See what I mean by grey sins? Two in this paragraph alone: misrepresenting and planned revenge.

* * * * * * *

But I couldn’t write an attack on the 43-year-old former Minneapolis mayor elected Senator because I liked him too much—a mortal sin for a Republican. I had seen him some years earlier from the top deck of the Minneapolis auditorium when, as a college student, I hitch-hiked to the big city with a Democratic buddy to catch President Harry Truman address a half empty canyon in September, 1948, in the campaign he was slated to lose to Thomas E. Dewey. Mayor Humphrey was then 37, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor nominee for the U.S. Senate, a liberal firebrand who had stunned the Dem convention by his fighting speech from the floor, challenging his party “to stride from the shadows of segregation into the broad sunlight of civil rights” which prompted Strom Thurmond and other southerners to walk out and which didn’t win Humphrey many friends among moderate Democrats who wanted to keep the party together. As you know, Thurmond ran against Truman as a Dixiecrat, spurred to anger by Humphrey’s cyclonic speech, a step that portended to ruin the party. .

To gin up the 1948 crowd which was very apathetic to Truman and pessimistic that he could win, the Dems brought in as master-of-ceremonies a handsome actor the same age as Humphrey, 37: Ronald Reagan, a fellow officer of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Thus on one stage I saw two United States presidents, one who initiated the containment policy of the Cold War and the other who concluded it with victory as well as one vice president. Reagan was not very sure about political speaking that night, speaking in a soft voice with the characteristic deferential bob of the head to mark his humility. Truman read his speech with defiant hand-chops, railing against that do-nothing 80th Congress and Humphrey gave the speech of the night which sent the rafters ringing. His speech was reminiscent of one he would give later about Goldwater. Paraphrase: “When the elderly want health care who fights for health care? President Truman, a Democrat; Senator Barkley, a Democrat. And Mr. Dewey—where was he? Where was Mr. Dewey?” The crowd would shout back “no-where!” I noticed Reagan would shout back with them, laughing heartily.

I told Humphrey that when I got in the backseat of the car in 1954. Yeah, he said glumly, Reagan headed up Democrats for Eisenhower in 1952. I knew that and was secretly glad. Humphrey was not in a good mood and didn’t appreciate being reminded about his old ADA buddy Reagan defecting. He had gone to the Senate in 1949 as a divisive force, had tangled with conservative Democrat Harry Byrd of Virginia who headed up a Select Committee to Eliminate Non-Essential Expenditures in Government. Byrd was the Senate’s watchdog conscience against overspending and was berating Truman about overspending. Sitting on the Senate floor, freshman Humphrey got a bright idea: why not find out how much money Byrd was spending on the Committee to Eliminate Non-Essential Expenditures and rip him with it—which would be warmly received by President Trumam . So Humphrey stepped out in the anteroom, called his aide Herb Waters and in a few minutes had the bill the taxpayers were paying for Byrd’s committee. While Byrd was speaking, Humphrey asked courteously for recognition, got it and announced how much Byrd, the guardian of the treasury, was spending.

Byrd, the most venerable Old Bull of the Senate, was humiliated. He answered Humphrey briefly, concluded his remarks and walked out. Then all the Democrats walked out in protest, including Dick Russell of Georgia. And henceforth whenever Humphrey arose to speak, all the major Democrats walked out. Even senior Republicans Taft of Ohio and Milliken of Colorado, friends of Byrd walked out. So did Joe McCarthy who was hard up for friends then. Lyndon Johnson told Humphrey, “Hubert, that’ll never do.” The brash Humphrey was disconsolate. He apologized to Byrd and ate crow—huge dishes of it. He was silent for quite a while, a huge penance for Humphrey while LBJ led him around to make amends. The story raced across the nation that this brash young man had insulted the ranking Elder: a rude, ignorant young man had wiped his nose on the drapes of the Senate.

So when reelection time came in 1954, Hubert Humphrey was not exactly el supremo in the country. In Minnesota he wasn’t too bad but the Republicans thought they could beat him and President Eisenhower and his vice president Richard Nixon had slated him as a key target. Some Minnesotans weren’t exactly sure what they had in this firebrand young Senator. In fact, they had just beaten a liberal Republican Senator who was a show-boat: Joe Ball who thrived on press and controversy; they had picked Humphrey over him. All in all, they were used to more conservative Senate types: like Republican Ed Thye, an expert on agriculture who served their interest; Hendrik Shipstead, the old Farmer-Laborite who voted against World War II and Ernest Lundeen who rarely made speeches. The Minnesota Republicans nominated to oppose Humphrey a veritable ethnic icon on that tail-end of the ethnic era: a man named Valdimar Bjornson, an Icelander who spoke Norwegian, Danish and Swedish, who was progressive but also conservative: the state treasurer. He was Mr. Fiscal Integrity and had calculated how many billions of taxpayer dollars Humphrey had proposed for his ever-growing list of urgent agendas for the nation. Like Humphrey, Bjornson was an orator. It promised to be quite a match.

When I rode along with Humphrey, he was blowing his nose and coughing, sipping syrup to ease his throat; the money wasn’t coming in all that well; Eisenhower was sky-high in the state and had promised to come in frequently for Bjornson on Ike’s silver eagle, the Colombine. It was a cold, grey day in Minnesota, the farmers were pouty, the Catholics seemed to like Ike, Protestants liked Ike, Jews liked Ike, business was chilly to Humphrey and after a rocky couple of years he was getting re-acquainted with the territory. What happened that day has stayed with me for the rest of my life.

There’s a Market for A Chicago Conservative Newspaper (Shhh. Don’t Tell the Media Moguls This)

Two significant items about journalism in the news the past couple of days: More about them in a minute. First, while the Sun-Times is trying to keep its head above water after surviving the era of the two crooks and with the Tribune struggling in well-documented ways, their numbers are falling in the same way that the giant networks’ viewership is tumbling. Why? I maintain it is not because of competing news sources but because newspapers are failing to capitalize on the slow, steady rise of conservatism that has changed our politics. The Sun-Times has correctly moved from so-called bland tabloid to a vehement strongly liberal tabloid, picking up some strength from the polarized left of the public. The Trib has tried to steer a middle ground, with the news coverage slightly left of center and the editorial policy centrist with emphasis mainly on economic libertarianism and social policy the same.

Of the two, the Sun-Times is more nearly correct: imitating the past by taking a partisan position: at least appealing to one dominant political strain in Chicago and not trying to straddle. Lynn Sweet is a political writer who were she to fathom how to write an objective story would certainly have a brain hemorrhage. She writes from the left which is acceptable. The entire paper in lefty: pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-Democratic party et al.

But conversely there is a market in Chicago for a truly conservative newspaper. Slowly other cities are starting to realize this. The New York Post is an unapologetically right-wing newspaper. The New York Sun is another. Two conservative daily papers in New York City? Unheard of? No, somebody gauged the newspaper reading mood correctly. They reflected on the rise of conservative talk radio, the rise of Fox News and understood that conservatives are a different breed, a wealthier breed than liberals across the board, a breed that likes to read and reflect, a breed familiar with the need to nurture the free market, a cerebral breed that is not intimidated by the general undertow of liberal thought.

Take for example, item #1: a story in, of all places, The NewYork Times, the liberal journal I read everyday. On March 6 in the Business Page David Carr writes about the woes of Mortimer Zuckerman, the real estate mega-millionaire whose enormous personal wealth has allowed him to venture into journalism, owning the struggling New York Daily News which he bought out of bankruptcy for $36 million, a paper that makes money “albeit less and less.” Then Zuckerman owns U.S. News & World Report, a once conservative magazine which is trying to keep its head above water but is barely doing it. Carr reports that Zuckerman is dismayed because his Daily News is losing readers to the Post. And why? Let Carr tell us: “The problem is that the Daily News competes against a paper that wakes up every day knowing exactly what it is.” Did you get that? I’ll repeat: “a paper that wakes up every day knowing exactly what it is.” And what is that? Carr has only part of the answer because as a good Timesman he’s impervious to its lesson. He says the Post”s “tangy to toxic mix of gossip and media news makes it a must-read among certain people—the kind that Mr. Zuckerman hangs out with—and its hard to put a price tag on that.” But Carr doesn’t mention the Post’s conservatism! Certainly anyone who reads both papers knows that the Daily News is as glitzy as the Post on gossip and show-biz. The difference is conservatism. In brief, the same thing that has led to the rise of Fox News and talk radio—conservatism—is causing the Post to catch up with the Daily News. Neither paper is in particularly strong financial straits but why is one building circulation and the other losing circulation? I’ll tell you.

What do you get with the Daily News? You get only one thing that is constant. It wishy-washily finds fault with Bush on some things, weakly praises him on others. The only constant is Zuckerman’s strong support for journalism, support which, to use Carr’s words, “put him in the thick of policy debates and allowed him to bang the drum on behalf of the state of Israel.” True enough. The only constant in the Daily News is support for Israel. Okay, but that’s not enough, even in the city of New York (the Post supports Israel, too). The Daily News has lost 40,000 in daily circulation; the Post has gained 20,000. The Daily News is only slightly ahead with 688,584 to the Post’s 672,731 and only after wrangling with the Audit Bureau of Circulation did the Daily News manage to save its reputation as the city’s favorite newspaper (when the Daily News was owned by Capt. Joe Patterson it was the biggest newspaper in the world). Now Zuckerman says the Post has money problems just as he does, but the point is so-called liberal New York is responding to a paper that every day it wakes up knows what it is—and that is conservative. Read the Daily News and you get a mélange of political correctness, no guts, a bland pastiche of generally acceptable opinion. Do you suppose this may have something to do with the paper’s tumbling circulation?

Zuckerman is bewildered. “How is it that a paper with half the ads, a hemorrhaging balance sheet and what he thinks are questionable journalistic ethics has more cachet?” Of course, the ethics thing is a cheap shot. Neither paper is the pristine Christian Science Monitor. One is gutsy New York and the other is pale pastel.

Now take a look at Zuckerman’s other property, the U.S. News & World Report. When the magazine was run by conservative David Lawrence, it had no trouble standing out in bas relief from Time and Newsweek. Now those who magazines are liberal, losing circulation and increasingly glitzy. The U.S. News & World Report is characteristic of Zuckerman himself, on-one-hand-then-the-other with liberal feminist columnist Gloria Borger, a conservative columnist Michael Barone, a Periscope that tilts liberal with a final back-page column by Zuckerman himself which has no absolutes except Israel. Another mélange. So the upshot with U.S.-based news magazines is they are either copiously liberal, predictably so or, in the case of U.S. News a mélange. What does that tell you?

O.k., here’s item #2. The Economist, the magazine that improbably calls itself a newspaper which is published in London. Clive Crook in National Journal gives us the story. Its worldwide circulation has doubled over the past 10 years with the United States accounting for roughly half. It sells more than three times as many copies in America as in its home British market. Writes Crook: “The paper’s growth has run counter to a nearly universal trend of declining circulation of newspapers and general interest magazines. Moreover, The Economist is expensive…My point is, you actually have to pay for it, unlike much of the competition, once you have allowed for discounts and promotions. I draw comfort from this as the industry reshapes itself around the Internet. The right kind of content has value and will continue to, regardless of the technology that delivers it. The Economist isstill small compared with publications like Time and Newsweek but thanks to its high price and its readers’ appeal to advertisers, it is profitable.”

Compare The Economist to Time and Newsweek and you’ll find it has small photographs, is full of maps and charts and does not even provide its writers with bylines, forsaking the journalistic star system. It concentrates on the economy but not exclusively, is witty, ranges over global politics with a depth that no other magazine (er, paper) does. It is more influential than the three U.S. newsmagazines. It will feature Chicago’s economy and politics in the next issue. And it makes money.

The Economist is, by and large, conservative—certainly conservative economically: laissez-faire. Yes, it is liberal socially but on its basic product, the economy, it is solid. Moreover it blends opinion and facts together ala the old Chicago Tribune, verifying my position that a publication should do that to compete in today’s market (and why I think basically the Sun-Times which for the most part produces a slanted journal, is following the right business course: I don’t think much of so-called “objective journalism” as you know, believing there is no such animal.) The Economist is the publication a well-read traveler, sophisticated business type, articulate person-of-the-world, would read. And would want to be caught dead having read it.

My contention is that if someone were to start a Chicago newspaper, published, say, five days a week with a decidedly conservative bent, you’d be surprised at how it would begin to grow ala The Post and The Sun in New York. Well, why hasn’t it happened thus far? The same reason why Hollywood does not produce films that sell but panders to the political left while the U.S. public loves “Narnia” by C. S. Lewis. Hollywood gives its awards to films that entertain a distinct minority: “Crash,” “Brokeback Mountain” et al. They produce films that gain kudos from the so-called intelligentsia and from each other. Michael Medved has chronicled it brilliantly. (The big critical cheese here is supposedly Roger Ebert who gloriously zips off to Hollywood and with his lefty buddies to Canne, who praises “Good Night and Good Luck” as a testament to the McCarthy era when the film hardly mentions the surrounding atmosphere of the Cold War—but Roger doesn’t know, how would he? He’s congenitally unable to. But all the same Roger fits the bill for a Democratic newspaper). What we need is a conservative Republican newspaper. If somebody ever figures that out, real change will begin to happen in Chicago—and Illinois.

Next Sunday’s Political Shootout: Jim Oberweis and Jeff Berkowitz

That’ll be the last program before the March 21st primary with the conservative primary leader and who I think is the best political interviewer in town. I’ve got to keep on convincing Jeff that he is to give analysis not just ask questions. That’s at 8 p.m. on WLS-AM (890).

Stroger’s Stroke Could Well Prompt Pressure for His Withdrawal from the Race

News that John Stroger has suffered a stroke may well lead Daley supporters to push the 76-year-old Cook county Board president to withdraw from the race in favor of Forrest Claypool. While there’s a bitterness between Stroger and Claypool, there is very little doubt that the aged president is at a point—with news reports saying his speech is slurred and his reasoning unsteady—where it would seriously jeopardize his health to continue to run. Then, too, it is no secret that Claypool has superb credentials with the Daley people given that David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are backing him. There’s no chance that they would be involved if the mayor did not want them to be. Up to today, the position of the mayor might well be stated as this: Since Stroger wants to make the run, we will back him because of the long historical alliance between the two camps extending back to Daley I and including Stroger’s great loyalty to Richard M. Daley even when Harold Washington ran. You simply don’t turn your back on that magnificent expression of loyalty if you’re Rich Daley—especially if you count on African American votes turning out in great numbers when you run for mayor again in 2007. But realism requires to show a good deal of respect for Claypool who is extraordinarily close to Daley.

Now obviously the Daley position has to change, I would imagine. If the president is maimed by the stroke, his running from a sick bed would be detrimental not just to county government but his own reputation. His continuing to run could trigger a vast emotional outpouring of sympathy for his re-nomination—and he might very well be re-nominated, but such an eventuality would be highly dangerous politically. The re-nomination could spur a national story which could damage the machine: the idea that it is willing to run a seriously ill man against a vigorous younger one. Even though the machine is generally impervious to media concerns, there is little doubt that the editorial boards and TV coverage would present a pathetically vulnerable machine unwilling to react to changing events. In that eventuality, if the machine lowered its head and stuck with Stroger, it could present a series of devastating satirical commentaries by Leno and Letterman and the Democratic machine would be a laughing-stock. If Stroger happened to beat Claypool on a sympathy vote, the stage could be set for a Peraica Republican win.

That, I’m confident, would be unacceptable no matter how much sentiment is involved in Stroger’s condition. After all, politics is politics and the idea of a Republican running the county board is totally unacceptable. My guess is that great pressure will be put on Stroger and his family to get him to withdraw gracefully from the lists, leading to a great circus of Claypool and others praising the old man. Something not unlike the old days of the Soviet Union where you looked at the figures on the Kremlin parapet. The machine is, after all, very like the old USSR. Unless I’m far wrong, you’ll see a staged event where Daley, Claypool and a weakened John Stroger appear on the parapet with everybody kissing up to Stroger.

What are the chances this would not come to pass? I think very unlikely. True, Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack, stroke and ileitis and ran for reelection in 1956 but he was younger and in vastly better shape than Stroger appears to be.