Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Flashback: Father’s Heart Attack and the Struggle to Keep Composure.

ressurection
[Fifty years of memories for my kids and grandchildren].

On July 4, 1966 we took Mother and Father along with our kids to a picnic in a nearby forest preserve. I thought I had never seen Father look so frail. He was only 68, not old as people lived even in those days but there was a frightening air of being enfeebled about him. He sat seemingly exhausted in a camp chair, smoking his pipe, reflecting, watching his grandchildren frolic. Mother, 70 and Lillian, 36 chatted and I, age 38, scampered briefly with our kids—Tom, 6, Mary, 5 and Michael, 3--through some trails in the forest, a bucolic setting only a few miles from Chicago. It had been a hot day but the preserve was cool, the food sumptuous and as the afternoon turned late, we all sensed the joy of being together. As it turned out, it was the last day that Father spent with his entire family.

We went to our houses—Mother and Father in the family home in the Edison Park area of northwest Chicago, Lillian and I to our house in nearby Park Ridge. We had a bite of late dinner and I was lounging on the floor, playing with the kids with the television on when the phone rang.

“Tom,” said Mother, “you should come right over here. I think your Father has had a heart attack. We’ve called Conley.” In those days of yore, family physicians not only made house calls to favored patients, they were embedded with families. The Conley brothers were longtime physicians in Park Ridge (where both lived) and went by their first two initials. T. E. (for Thomas Edward) delivered me. H. H. (for Henry Harold) was our internist.

They had come from a long line of Irish physicians from the South Side. In a never-ending web of happenstance coincidences that seems to revolve about our family and its inter-relationships, the father of the Conley brothers, Dr. T. J., had a nurse and midwife at his side named Alice Breen. She, like all midwives, delivered far more children than did he; that self-same Alice Breen, it astonishes me to imagine the coincidence even now, was nee Cleary—Alice Cleary, the sister of my grandfather Tom Cleary the marble-layer who described to me the city burning from one end to another in October, 1871 and who indoctrinated me on why Republicans are no damn good. His kid sister, Alice, who saw the city burn as did her brother Tom, agreed on these political fundamentals. And the web of Irish coincidence extended long after H. H. had departed—when Fr. Ignatius McDermott recalled the Conleys from the litany of South Side Irish—“they were,” he said, “T. E., H. H., ha-ha and hee-hee.” But it was the connection with Addie Cleary Breen that fused our relationship.

Breen, her Irishman husband (his first name unknown to me), came over here reportedly to help dig the Sanitary & Ship canal, the 28-mile stretch that links the south branch of the Chicago river to the Des Plaines river and which was used to permanently reverse the flow of the Chicago river in 1900, sending sewerage south into the Illinois river rather than Lake Michigan: which would be a marvelous feat even now notwithstanding it was done 107 years ago. The reason for Breen’s disappearance from his wife and small son was never disclosed to me (perhaps I was too young then and am still even now to hear the terrible details: whether from drink, inconstancy, early death, all three or only one of the three) but Alice, called “Addie” by children too young to lisp her correct name “Aunt Alice,” was an indomitable figure in Evanston. Why Evanston? It had a connection in some way with the Canal.

She was a nurse who also rented rooms to Irish workers on the Canal: presumably where she first met Breen. At any rate, the linkage of Addie Breen, the indispensable nurse and midwife to Conley pere, solidified the relationship Father and Mother had with his sons, the Conley brothers, for more than 40 years, principally H. H.—from Mother’s pregnancy to my delivery (although that was by T. E.) and H. H. again through all the assorted colds, flu, bone breakages and sprains, through my paternal grandmother’s death all the way up to my mother’s death and even after until H. H.’s retirement.



He was a doctor who made home calls from hell: at 12:30 a.m. when I was wracked with fever and near pneumonia at age 12, to Mother’s bedside when she had bouts of colitis, to bicycle spills that prompted seemingly hemorrhaged bleeding, to knife cuts when Mother unsuccessfully cut an apple, to one day when, believe it or not, she sank down in an easy chair only to be plunged by an open scissors left carelessly there, to grandmother’s heart pains which were indigestion. H. H. was a grump but a definite lover of the family. For a full 30 years, I would look up from bed and see his round, bespectacled face. When they brought me home as a baby and I was screaming with colic as Father was sure I needed the last rites, through grade school when I seemingly caught every cold germ in the school, he was there. When I was four, wondering where I came from, I was told by Mother that the doctor had delivered me in his satchel one day when he came calling. A week later when I had a fever and he came to prescribe—and he left to confer with my parents—I checked his bag in hopes of finding a baby brother there. There was none; nor baby sister either.

We knew all his hobbies—foremost of which was a love of circuses. Each Spring H. H. would take his vacation and join Ringling Brothers-Barnum & Bailey, the Greatest Show on Earth, at Baraboo, Wisconsin where it had been wintering. And with it he would start out. He was Emmett Kelly, Sr.’s best friend and his house had a large painting of him: Kelly having been the master clown, with a lamentably sad face “weary Willie”—an ill-begotten tramp. I have never particularly liked clowns—particularly since John Wayne Gacy had been one but Kelly was an original and H. H. knew him and his family for years. H. H. was also a wonder to me as a kid because at his home in Park Ridge he had a monkey, a gift from the ringmaster in Baraboo.

I visited him for hay fever shots; he prescribed for my early asthma. In those days the internist did seemingly everything—prescribe for colds, sore throat, wrapped your ankle with tight bandages after you took a tumble, consulted on abdominal pains most generally without referring you to a specialist (internists’ views were decisive: “I think the pain is from the pizza you ate this noon which you washed down with warm Coke …the bowel irregularity suffered during Christmas vacation is undoubtedly due to the tense life you’ve been leading at college : lighten up!”).

When I arrived and I saw H. H.’s car in the driveway, I was comforted. Father was sitting in a red chair (which I now have on my sun-porch), breathing with deep breaths as H. H. had the stethoscope to his chest while at the same time taking his blood pressure. H. H. was two years older than Father (70) and had no thought of retiring. He pulled a hypodermic from a tube and injected it deep into Father’s forearm, pursing his lips as it went in: Father, his eyes closed, had no reaction.

“Of course,” H. H. said in a loud pronouncement for my ears yet without acknowledging my arrival, “this guy here has been his own worst enemy. He’s had no physical for years; amazing he’s still with us. Why is that, Harold? Why no physical?”

“Because,” Father gasped, eyes still shut, trying to catch his breath, “I—don’t—want—to—pay—you—for—bad—news.”

“Isn’t that the craziest thing you ever heard of?” H. H. asked me as he continued working on Father, trying to egg me on to agree with him. Well, I was not going to side with him in criticism of Father when Father was looking at me for understanding, as he struggled for breath.

“What do we do now?” Mother asked, like me trying to avoid a debate as the patient seemed to be sagging. (H. H. told me later he was doing this for two reasons: (a) to keep Father conscious and reacting and (b) to keep himself from panicking: as a man older than Father, he was direly affected by Father’s condition.

“Hold this,” said H. H., signaling my mother, “I want you to hold this needle straight and keep it straight in his arm. Where’s your phone?”

Mother and I followed the ambulance to Resurrection Hospital which Father had raised money for as a vice chairman of its initial finance committee and in a swoop similar to what we have always seen since on “E. R.” white-clad people surrounded the wheeled cart and rushed him in full running strides down the hall while we flew behind him, no one paying attention to us to ward us off. The door of a glaringly-lighted room opened, the stretcher went in, the door closed and an attendant led us to an anteroom. We sat for an interminable period. I peppered Mother with questions not only for my own keen interest but because I thought it was best to keep her talking; she was, after all, two years older than Father.

“I was watching television,” she said. “He was doing the usual—in his den saying the rosary. He has been lately in the habit of kneeling down to say his prayers and he was in that position when it hit him. I can always hear him pray the rosary because he does it aloud. It’s always been a comfort to me to hear; I say mine to myself in bed but he likes always to--. Suddenly the prayers stopped. I thought something had happened and was starting to go to the den when he came to me, his face grey, ashen. I knew what happened before he said it. He said `I can’t breathe.’ I said, `do you have a pain in your chest?’ He said `no-no.’ He sat down and then he said, `yes-yes, I do have a severe pain right here’ pointing to his chest `and a pain down my left arm.’ I ran to the phone and got H. H. and called you. I’ll tell you he was at our door seems like five minutes later.

“H. H. is right, you know. I could never get him to go to the doctor. It’s fatalism isn’t it, that strange idea that if he doesn’t go he won’t have to consider bad news? He’s been failing; I haven’t told you this but you saw him at the picnic; he was actually better today than he had been for the past week or so. Will you say the rosary now with me so he makes it? I don’t know what I’m going to do if something happens to him. Do you have your rosary? Yes, you do. Good boy. Let’s start. What mystery do we have today—it’s Sunday. Can you remember?”

She started to weep, almost convulsively. I wanted her to keep her mind fastened on duties, not grief.

Listen: you taught me this. Sunday is Glorious—that’s today. Tomorrow is Joyful; Tuesday is Sorrowful; Wednesday is Glorious and the series starts over. I’ll start: “The First Glorious Mystery: the Resurrection. Our Father…”

She stopped weeping and spoke pointedly.

“No-no-no! We always start with the Apostles Creed, then the Our Father and the three Hail Marys for faith, hope and charity. I hope you haven’t been neglecting them before you begin the mysteries because then the rosary--.”

I said: I hope you’re not going to say the rosary doesn’t count if you neglect the faith, hope and charity part.

“I most certainly am. Is that what they taught you at St. John’s?”

Listen to me, my dear heart. We’re together on this. Let’s do it the way you taught me by starting out with the Creed. I’ll start off: “I believe in God--.”

“That’s not how! You forgot! First, we bless ourselves with the crucifix of the rosary and kiss it before we begin, as you remember. We switch at the end of the Mysteries as you remember. You start with the Resurrection.”

Yes, my dear. The boss of bosses as you were with Father and at J. Walter Thompson.

We began as she ordered. Praying seemed to calm both of us. We were saying it aloud as a comfort. Aquinas said vocal prayer associates the body with the interior prayer of the heart. We were just getting to the mystery of the Visitation when H. H. came to us, in a white surgical coat.

We stopped praying and stood up. He went to her; I was a non-person.

“Now listen to me, Fran. I’m going to give you the fullest details and after you ask all the questions you want, you are to go home and go to bed. You’re no kid yourself; just as old as me. And you are not going to help him by having a stroke or heart attack yourself, do you hear me?”

She said meekly, “yes, doctor.”

“As for you,” he said to me, “I want you to take your mother home and come back here.” To her: “He’s [meaning me] young enough to camp out here tonight because we don’t quite know--. We are still studying and examining. Not you, Fran. You’re going home, do you understand me? He’s driving you home.” Back to me: “If you can take off work tomorrow, do it.”

To us both: “He’s had a major—and I mean major, a massive—heart attack. No use kidding ourselves.”

We asked all the questions; it was 12:30 a.m.

He said, “I’m going home.” To me: “I have a brochure down in my car that outlines facts for families of a heart patient. Come down with me and pick it up.” To Mother: “ I have to work tomorrow. Fran, will you give me a smile? Com’on. No, that’s not good enough! That’s the ticket! Great! Tom will keep you informed and I’m sure you both can see him when the doctors say you can see him but not for long periods. Now, young lady, I have known you for forty years. You’ve always been the anchor and you are going to continue to be. I want you two to stay close through all this. I’ll be in close touch. We’re doing everything we possibly can for him and I’m seeing to that. I was chief of staff here and T. E. was chief of staff here before me and you know we both are as dedicated to you as we can be ever since Addie was my father’s nurse. You have nothing to worry about concerning lack of care. Now you finish your rosary. If I had more time I’d say it with you but I have to make rounds tomorrow morning—and rounds start with him, here, in this hospital with Harold my first call. Do I get another smile? Huh? That’s the girl.”

A kiss and he held her as a father: unprofessional but highly comforting.

As we went down in the elevator he said: “I want you here because he may die tonight. I don’t want her here or we’ll have another heart attack. Do you know that she has serious heart trouble?”

No, she never told me.

“I figured that.” He picked up a brochure at the desk. “I invented the car thing to tell you this. Take it upstairs and keep her calm. Get her home soon and come back here. You can sleep on the couch; I’ll tell the nurses.”

And he was gone .

When I returned, she said, “My God, he said a massive heart attack, didn’t he?”

I said, The second Glorious Mystery…Your turn.

She said, “The second Glorious Mystery--the Ascension. Our Father…”

Monday, February 19, 2007

Personal Asides: A Revelatory Off-the-Record with John McCain…The Generational Test Has Been Met

mccain
chief illiniwek


Off-the-Record.

Last Friday I attended an insightful off-the-record with John McCain with a small group of about 20 or so, courtesy of David McSweeney who is involved in the senator’s presidential campaign. I am deeply grateful to David who is a personal friend for his including me in the list. David arranged the session at the behest of Peter Fitzgerald, his—and my—friend who is an enthusiastic supporter of Senator McCain. The ground-rules specified no reporting of the views expressed by Senator McCain and I will honor those rules. Let me give impressions of how the senator looked, acted and handled himself in this gathering.

Many of the people involved in the session were social conservatives. It is clear that the Senator has a superb voting record on abortion and on the issues no explicitly involved in that issue with which the group disagreed—such as embryonic stem cell—he expressed himself completely and fairly and volunteered to study the side with which he has not been identified. I am satisfied with the exquisite fairness and courtesy with which he handled disagreement on this, the issue of McCain-Feingold’s alleged and possible abrogation of free speech and the 527 “loophole” which the Senator feels allows people and groups with money to short-circuit the law. These are issues with which fair-minded people can disagree and I am an opponent of embryonic stem cell federalized research, McCain-Feingold and a supporter of 527.

The major thing I look for in a presidential candidate after having done this for more than fifty years is not whether or not he agrees with me on every instance. It is whether he has the passion needed to keep this country the leader of the Free World. On this issue, let me record that John McCain came across Gangbusters. His legendary short-fuse, blowtorch temper was in check but was subliminally visible; not unlike Eisenhower’s with whom I met at Wold-Chamberlain field, Minneapolis when he was president in 1956.

McCain is determined that we shall not lose the war on terrorism’s major first battle in Iraq. To me that is of paramount importance, second only to the life issue. The central life issue being abortion, he assuaged me completely. On embryonic stem cells he did not. On McCain-Feingold he doesn’t nor on 527s. But these are not do-or-die issues: embryonic stem cell is but I noted a degree of malleability there which tempered me. Beyond this, he so impressed me with his intellectual strength and hardihood essential to the presidency that were he to be the Republican candidate I would have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting him to the limit of my ability.

I would dearly love to have the same opportunity with the other two members of the Big 3—former governor Mitt Romney and former mayor Rudy Giuliani. I have had one private meeting for a considerable time with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) whom I favored at the time but with the deep feeling that he will not be around in the final countdown. Since then, the senator has come out against the Bush surge which I think was his mistake…sufficiently so that despite his support for social issues on which I agree…he has forfeited my possible endorsement. I cannot support anyone who is less than eager to finish the work we are in and see that the sacrifice made in terms of lives and treasure is carried through to ultimate success.

There are three conditions I place on any candidate for the presidency. First, is he well motivated i.e. determined to do what is right on major issues for the best interest of the nation as he sees it? Second, is he sufficiently intellectually and physically up to the challenge?. Third do I have any reservations or personal doubts about his willingness not to flinch from major challenges? (Richard Nixon did not pass my first and third qualifications in my similar meeting with him in 1967; Hubert Humphrey, despite my fondness for him did not measure up on the third: I said what the hell and voted my heart. Perhaps, strangely, Reagan with whom I spent four hours one-on-one bothered me on the second. I said what the hell and voted my heart).

On all three counts, John McCain has proven to me that he deserves the highest possible consideration…and I am very grateful to David McSweeney and Peter Fitzgerald for allowing me to be in the room.

The Test Has Been Met.

Each generation has its own test. Mine—World War II, Korea, civil rights, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis when Dean Rusk said things were so tough that he was pleased to awaken the next morning and see the world had not been cremated with H Bombs; assassinations and shootings of two presidents, a civil rights leaders’ murder, a presidential resignation. My parents’—from the struggle for labor’s right to organize in the `90s, World War I, a dark recession and heavy unemployment thereafter, the battle for woman’s suffrage, the Depression, World War II, the beginning of the civil rights struggle, the Cold War. And now the banning of Chief Illiniwek—a linkage to those times: the only test we could muster.

Equate it to our heroic past when school children huddled under their desks in mock air-raids. Commentators in tense years asked “what does Stalin want?” Answer: To regain the territories he had lost to the Germans in World War II, to retain the territories taken with the pact of August, 1939—portions of Poland, Romania, Finland and all the Baltic states…then—how to resist his further expansion? What about the program one generation faced standing with Truman on the program of military and economic assistance to Greece and Turkey, March, 1947 while George Marshall was concocting a gutsy strategy of containment: committing us to nothing less than the rebuilding of Europe?

Parents with sons as soldiers winced at news of U. S. and South Korean troops on a forced retreat to the southeastern tip of the Korean peninsula and considering whether to evacuate it altogether…thrilled when Douglas MacArthur surprised the North Koreans with a daring amphibious landing at Inchon, near Soul, in mid-September 1950, trapping the North Korean army below the 38th parallel, his forces advancing almost unopposed into North Korea? These were just preparatory challenges. The big one was yet to occur. And the test was met by this generation last week.

In 1926, two years before I was born, Chief Illiniwek, a mythological Indian chief, was conceived by an assistant band director of the University of Illinois, Ray Dvorak and the Chief, in full headdress, appeared brave and in authentic dance at the Illinois-Pennsylvania football game in Philadelphia. Ah, but my countrymen—Dvorak was benighted as were all his successors. The crisis began in 1989 with—who else? Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), also known as Paul PaleFace PureHeart, he of the lovely baritone resonant with meaninglessness who worried that an entire race was being mocked. In blind, racist reaction the U of I trustees voted a year later to defy Saint Paul PaleFace PureHeart and make Chief Illiniwek the official university symbol. But conscience touched the Board as in 2000 it announced renewal of the dialogue on the mascot issue. Two years later a heartless trustee, heedless of public opprobrium, Roger Plummer, announced to the world that there was no compromise that could be found to please both sides of the issue.

Ah but the cavalry was on the way in the personage of Sen. Emil Jones, the state Senate Democratic leader, eager to cleave to prior generations that had fought oppression when they do not interfere with Com Ed, announced his determination to remove the Chief out of concern for the Native American race. He pushed the nomination of the reincarnation of Rosa Parks, Frances Carroll to the Board. Voila! Carroll announces she is part Creek Indian! She introduces a resolution to retire Chief Illiniwek but withdraws it for lack of support.

The long exploited Indian…er, sorry, Native American, race saddens. The shade of the great chieftain Massassoit, proper name Woosame or Yellow Feather aka King Philip by agonized liberal white scholars, sachem of the Wampanoag, folds his arms in resignation. . 2004: University trustees plead with supporters and critics to reach a consensus on the Chief. He whose reputation has suffered so much from the white man’s disdain along with the entire Indian race—beginning with the emotional truth concerning the 90 towns attacked between 1675 and 1680 of which 12 were completely destroyed and a thousand dead.

Continuing: These whites who tried to buy us off with the drivel of John Eliot [1604-90] who developed a written version of the Algonquin language—pure tokenism which we repaid by not applying the written language…these whites who believed we Indians had a true conception of land ownership and understood what we were doing when we sold land to the Puritans—well we did but we weren’t prescient enough to appreciate it—because we did not use the wheel, possessed no written language and were, in effect, living in the Stone Age. All this beatific Stone Age the white man defiled. And now modern universities wallowing in guilt have begun to set the record straight—but still they exert the final insult: damnable whiteys dancing in our sacred rites.

Aha! 2005: the NCAA comes to the rescue…guilt-ridden white executives whose god is wampum…says the chief is “hostile and abusive” and that the university cannot host postseason tournaments if he remains, thanks to bespectacled Myles Brand who in turn is indebted to his public relations agency in New York. Now…the shade of Massassoit smiles…university officials announce they will drop Chief Illiniwek following the last men’s home basketball game of the season, February 21.

Let not the dead of past generations who have fought for rights…the dead sleeping under the snows…think their successor generation has gone soft And somewhere the haunting vision of Sanctimonious Paul PaleFace the PureHeart who never shirked from the challenge to defend the helpless—unless the helpless were unborn children…that vision shall clasp hands with the mighty Massassoit in a bond that will inspire a future generation…

…a future generation more mature than this flaky one to ask “what in the hell was that nonsense banning a mythic Indian chief all about anyhow when so many other things were at stake? Truly decadence and sentimentality hit the bottom at that point when grown men and women—turning their eyes from legitimate exploitations—wasted their time in 2007 with this arrant nonsense and felt good in their shallow vacuous souls, mistakenly believing they fought in this way for social justice. God give them sense!”

Flashback: 1968: Ogilvie, Mum on State Income Tax in Campaign, is Elected Governor and Goes for It to the Applause of the Liberals. But Had He Used Billy the Kid’s Stratagem Would He Have Been Reelected?

ip7207161
[More from fifty years in politics for my kids and grandchildren].

Richard Ogilivie, once a darling of Goldwater conservatives, ran as a candidate for governor in 1968 saying nothing about a state income tax one way or another. He won the GOP nomination easily, defeating, among others, Billy the Kid who was trying for a comeback. I voted for Billy the Kid (William G. Stratton) out of old time’s sake: he had been an outstanding two-term governor and he eschewed the idea of a state income tax but, reviewing the state’s financial condition as only he, among the candidates, could do as an acknowledged expert, said its near bankruptcy would be solved by massive budget-pruning or a drastic means of recovery such as an income tax—declaring that he, Stratton, would apply the drastic budget surgery needed and not the income tax solution.

All the while, Ogilvie stayed mum on the issue, stressing that there was a revenue problem but advocating revenue sharing as a solution; but he knew it would not be a solution since revenue sharing, a propensity of the Nixon administration which had been elected with him, would not arrive on time.

It was not until his first budget message, that Ogilvie tackled the income tax. He delivered his budget message asking for a huge $4 billion, an unheard of proposal—which made evident that Ogilvie was going to be a big-spender governor in the style of Nelson Rockefeller. To raise the $4 billion he outlined a sizable package of revenue bills which led off with a 4% income tax on individuals and corporations. Ogilvie received total support from Mayor Richard J. Daley. The process took many months during which time it was amended with some of the miscellaneous taxes in his budget dropped and the income tax rates set at 2.5% for individuals and 4% for corporations. The state Supreme Court held the state income tax constitutional. The new governor had planned to use the income tax revenue on schools, universities, welfare, mass transit, parks and a lot list of government services. Public aid costs were rising dramatically; he tried to make certain reductions in welfare payments but was blocked by a court order in Cook county.

The media and editorial boards joined the campaign and everybody agreed that Dick Ogilvie was a helluva guy: courageous, realistic, prescient, to recognize that big government is here to stay and should be adequately financed. Shortly after Ogilvie came out for the income tax and was lauded as a statesman, the Gang of 3—Billy the Kid, Charlie Barr (Standard Oil [Ind.]) and I sat down for lunch to digest the news—which was, in fact, the last time we three ever met.

Charlie started out by asking Stratton as a two-time former governor what he would do in the situation since in his abortive primary campaign Stratton had declared he would not support the idea of a state income tax. Stratton’s answer was classic.

“The first thing I would do would be to arrange a meeting with Daley. At times like this Daley can be a realist. I’d tell him this: `Dick, your people—your constituency—and liberal voters across the state generally can be expected to favor the income tax. My people across the state are generally anti-income tax. Your people are those who more largely depend on state services; my people generally are those who do not. I will tell you this frankly, were I you I would see the dire fiscal emergency of the state as an ideal opportunity to get an income tax. If so, my dear mayor—and I agree with you on the opportunity—you would have to pay the price. That means you will have to do the heavy lifting for this thing.

“`My public position will be unalterable: I oppose the income tax and will cut services back to the bone. My budget must be rejected by an overwhelming number of Democrats to which I shall supply some Republicans. In that way, forces in the legislature on both sides will be able to contrive it so the income tax bill can pass but I must be placed in a position that the tax is inevitable and my signature is indispensable to keeping the state out of bankruptcy. . Any attempt to put the blame on me for the tax by your party initially will result in its not being passed and services starved—or if the partisan attacks on me would continue after passage, I shall veto the goddamned thing and I mean it. I can live with that politically. I can live with being a hero of the right for vetoing the income tax. But I cannot with the onus of income tax supporter.

“So, Richard, I will repeat: ‘At the outset I will support a draconian budget with severe cuts and am willing to take the heat for it from your party. If my budget which calls for grave cuts is declared dead on arrival by the Democrats and a number of my own party—I will understand and there will be an accommodation so that a budget with an income tax will be advanced by the minority—your party, Dick—and supported by a minority of my party which whom I will disagree. But only in that situation will I sign the bill. I am willing to take the heat from my people for signing it but I must—I repeat must—be able to prove that the Democrats and certain lawmakers in my own party made my decision inevitable. With that and with the acknowledgment of the Democrats, we can go into the next election and debate other things since both sides will have played a role in the income tax being passed and signed.’”

I said, brilliant if he would go along with it. Would he?

Charlie groaned.

Stratton replied, “Knowing him well, I think he would.”

Charlie grunted, shook his head and began, “well--.”

Stratton interrupted. “Charlie, I know what you’re going to say and it’s wrong. Dick has done it wrong by coming out for the tax because of two reasons: first, he is a man of no finesse; second he does want to ape Rockefeller. In these things he is wrong, but is courageous and has recognized that government today is a major enterprise and it must be funded sensibly. He is a courageous governor for doing so. This will kill him politically but it was a prudent and statesmanlike thing to do.”

“B. S.,” said Charlie. “This palaver of statesmanship! It’s the easiest thing in the world to court special interests that want to line up at the trough with a tax hike. I agree that Ogilvie is not going to survive it, though.”

You mean he will lose in 1972?

“Of course. His plan is to get reelected and be considered a modern governor in the style of Nelson Rockefeller and possibly be considered for president. But that won’t happen for three reasons. Dick is as magnetic as a lead nail for one thing; and secondly, hiking taxes is not the way to go. Third, this martyrdom thing which will play well in the liberal press fails to discern that Ogilvie believes every man has his price which he is prepared to pay but in return for which he expects absolute loyalty. Just as Daley.”

Stratton said acidly, “it’s a marvelous thing to be able to foreclose most public services, cut off the needy, go to bed at night and sleep the peace of the just and all the while expect to be reelected, Charlie.”

“Don’t get into this business of how I can sleep at night, Bill, because you’ll lose that duel with me sure as shooting. The income tax will be passed but he’ll be defeated. He’ll be retired and converted into a multi-millionaire as the gratitude for these recipient groups including big business which will reward him with legal contracts and board directorships, having gotten used to bigger and bigger government. The gratitude will get extended to the editorial boards and the like. What bothers me is that he made the duplicitous act of pretending to be a conservative Republican. Just as you have done on occasion, Bill. Why do you guys go to the bother? What separates you from liberal Democrats? What separates the Republican party essentially—the party of Ogilvie-- from the party of Richard J. Daley? Very fine distinctions—hardly any.”

Stratton jabbed at the butter with his knife. “Are you finished?”

“Let me say this. This thing will breed corruption. The plans he has are to extend the government of Nelson Rockefeller to this state—to, for example, set up an Illinois environmental agency which will imitate what Rocky has done in New York. The corruption will come when the two parties act interchangeably, with officials leaving state employ to become lobbyists, with political donations used to gain favors from the government rather than to change government. What will occur is this: a whole generation of young people will grow up, whether Republican or Democrat, reflecting big government.”

“That’s old fashioned talk, Charlie,” said Stratton. “There are plenty of distinctions between the two parties. We Republicans have the chance of being the party of prudent management; the Democrats can either emulate us or, as I suspect, be like the Democrats, the party of outrageous growth and duplication and patronage—but to say that state government should not be modernized from what it was a generation ago is wrong. Already there are plans for a Con-Con to reform state government even more.”

Barr poked a forefinger at the former governor: “Are you saying to me that the Republican administration of Dick Ogilvie will be exempt from patronage favors and patronage corruption because they are Republican?”

Stratton said, “don’t point you finger at me, brother. I don’t like it.”

“I will,” said Barr, “because what you’re saying is pure folly. Both parties will have been corrupted by this action in twenty years time and the public will be sickened by the sameness of them.”

I said, “but Charlie will you at least acknowledge that Dick Ogilvie has done the courageous thing by coming out for the income tax fair and square rather than use the stratagem Bill has outlined?”



Charlie said, “no I will not!” Either one gets into this business to do what is right or he does not. Bill is a master of surreptitious maneuver which is why he is sitting here today with us rather than in the state house. The voters have recognized that in him.”

Charlie, I said, that is unfair. Bill has had a successful two terms as governor and you know yourself has paid the price for scandals that were not his doing and were out of his control.

Stratton arose and said, “I thank you for your kind words, Tom. Obviously Charlie belongs to that kind of ideological mind-set that cannot tolerate negotiations or anything beyond primer-level civics—a mindset for which the Republican party will pay dearly over the years. Arch-conservatives who forget nothing but learn nothing. I’ll take the bill and will say good-day, gentlemen.”

Now as to the predictions. Ogilvie signed the income tax, took the heat for it from the public and from wild-card Democratic candidate Dan Walker and was defeated. He became a millionaire, even multi-. He was praised by the editorial boards and liberal students of Illinois government ever since. The two parties moved almost indistinguishably closer together with Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and finally the denouement of George Ryan. There were patronage abuses in both state and city governments. The Republican party appears intellectually bankrupt. The Democratic party is in the full bloom of health despite divisions.

________________________________

And now your opinion. Given that Charlie proved right in his predictions, who was ultimately correct in his view of responsible Republican government —Billy the Kid or Charlie Barr? Was Billy’s view the correct one and should Ogilvie have tried it? If Charlie’s theory of root starvation of government services to balance the budget without an income tax had been adopted, would the GOP be any better off today?

Friday, February 16, 2007

Personal Aside: “The New York Times” Coverage of the Obama Gaffe…Al Salvi and Mike Noonan on Sunday’s “Political Shootout.”

modotoday


Obama.

I haven’t seen any coverage in “The New York Times” of Barack Obama’s charge that due to George W. Bush, the lives of 3,000-plus U. S. troops were “wasted.” Perhaps it appeared in the New York edition but it certainly wasn’t in the Midwest; probably it was tucked in someplace in the general news and carried over to page A23. But yesterday mention appeared in the coverage of Obama by the “Times’” Maureen Dowd. She gave it all of one sentence which read: He made his first Swift-boat-able slip when he had to apologize for talking about soldiers’ lives “wasted” in Iraq. It appears in paragraph 11 of her editorial page piece.

Pulitzer-prize winner Dowd is my favorite liberal columnist: favorite because of her cunning style which mixes pop culture, movies and classic literature with political analysis. She has the claws of a true savage, honing them on the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal for which she won the Pulitzer in 1999 but has been positively a terrorist on people she dislikes—including the man she calls “W” and Benedict XVI. She rages with a feminist’s vitriol, stemming from her Irish Catholicism, the daughter of a Washington, D. C. cop who began as a sportswriter for the old “Washington Star,” the spectacle of a beautiful woman who gave up chances at marriage and now interiorly regrets it but not to admit it—her latest book, “Are Men Necessary?” telling more about her than she wishes you to know.

The more she outrages me the more I run to her column. In fact, “The Times” is, for all its leftism, the masterpiece of a brilliantly written advocacy newspaper—the kind I think should exist; her column ties with that of David Brooks in my view.

Concerning Obama, Dowd’s piece had the trappings of a bouquet tied up in a ribbon but which underneath contained some vicious barbed wire sublimated under fluff. Showing her real sympathies are with Hillary Clinton, she said that Obama’s big problem is “he so hung up on being seen as thoughtful that he sometimes comes across as too emotionally detached and cerebral with crowds yearning for an electric, visceral connection. JFK mixed cool with fire.” Dowd is not just a brilliant wordsmith, she takes a novelist’s license of reading people’s minds—wonderful for those she likes, tough for those she dislikes. And it’s obvious that Bambi isn’t her cup of tea. Here are some capsule IDs of Obama:

“…at a press conference in Ames on Sunday where he was getting irritated at suggestions that he lacked substance and at the specter of his vanishing privacy…The Illinois senator didn’t have on an implacable mask of amiability, as Hillary did in Iowa. He didn’t look happily in his element, like Bill Clinton. But he certainly didn’t look as if he was straining to survive the Q & A’s as W. did in the beginning…Beyond his smooth-jazz façade, the reassuring baritone and that ensorcelling smile,* the 45-year-old had moments of looking conflicted…Senator Obama’s body language was loose—and he’s so slender his wedding band looked as if it was slipping off—but there was a wariness to his dark eyes…He sounded self-consciously pristine at times, as if he was too refined for the muck of politics. That’s not how you beat anybody but Alan Keyes.”

He snapped at the press which evidently was waiting for the substantive beef in his talk to high-school journalists: “Take some notes, guys, that’s how it’s done.” Here’s a tart Dowd-ism, unusual in covering a liberal star: “Using the dreaded third-person that some candidates slip into, he told the press that one of their favorite narratives boiled down to `Obama has a pretty good style, he can deliver a pretty good speech but he seems to prioritize rhetoric over substance.’ After an odd to his own specificity he tut-tutted, `You’ve been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit.’” Then she added with an uppercut: “He poses for the cover of Men’s Vogue and then gets huffy when people don’t treat him as Hannah Arendt.”

More: “For a man who couldn’t wait to inject himself into the national arena, and who has spent so much time writing books about himself, the senator is oddly put off by press inquisitiveness. When The Times’ Jeff Zeleny asked him on his plane whether he had a heater in his podium during his announcement speech in subzero Springfield, Mr. Obama hesitated. He shot Jeff a look that said, `Are you from People magazine?’ before conceding that unlike Abe Lincoln, he’d had a heater.”

She winds up applying his own words to the press corps: “Take some notes, senator, that’s how it’s done.”

And there’s usually a word-lesson a day in a Dowd piece. Yesterday it was the word “ensorcelling” for Obama’s smile. Meaning betwitching, it is not just French from the original ensorceler, it’s an allusion to the Old French ensorceror.

Salvi & Noonan.

Former U. S. GOP senatorial nominee Al Salvi will appear on “Political Shootout” with Democratic strategist Mike Noonan…Salvi still one of the bright young assets of the Illinois Republican party and who, along with his wife Kathy, is half of a very attractive youthful duo that can still attain great benefits for the GOP. Noonan is the best political brains the Democrats have and is not surpassed by any other young Dem leader.

HOW TO PICK A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Start Off by Asking Yourself Whether You’re an Idealist or Realist.

rudyg
mitt_romney
By Thomas F. Roeser



Another column from The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest national Catholic newspaper. Updated since publication.


CHICAGO—How tough will it be for Catholic social conservatives also critical of the Iraq war to pick a presidential candidate who (a) favors them on the issues and (b) can win? Very tough. To pick the right candidate, you should be able to peer into the wannabe’s souls and we aren’t endowed with that x-ray vision. But to arrive at a decision, the first step is to decide whether you intend to be idealistic or realistic on choice of your candidate.

Idealistic means you are willing to sacrifice winning for a principled candidate who will not waver. If this is what you’re looking for, perhaps the best choice of a traditional conservative, one opposed to globalism and yet supportive of conservative social policy, is Cong. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican. A physician, Paul is both pro-life and critical of the wholesale global interventionism that has characterized our foreign-defense policies under both parties. The downside: he is not ranked among the top contenders for name ID or funding. In fact, he has not just a miniscule chance but almost a nonexistent one to get nominated. And if nominated to get elected.

So, idealists will decide to support Paul for the Republican nomination-- and when he loses the nomination, go over to the Constitution Party. Founded by Howard Phillips, it will run someone with the same views as Paul. He very well might not win but for Phillips, principle is important; so it is with idealists.

If you are a realist who supports pro-life and the Bush initiative on the war, hoping we either win it or emerge from Iraq with honor intact, you have ten choices starting with The Big 3. They’re Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. After them come the Lesser Known 7—Sen. Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Cong. Tom Tancredo, Cong. Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich. All of them including the aforementioned Ron Paul were detailed in earlier Wanderer issues.

For realists who want to win, of the Republican Big 3, Giuliani, the former mayor of New York city now leads in popularity over major Democratic rivals. The average of major polls by the conscientiously accurate “RealClearPolitics” compilation, shows Giuliani tops all of the Democratic Big 3, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Giuliani leads Clinton 48.6% to 44.8%--a 3.8% spread. He’s ahead of Edwards with a 1.7% spread; ahead of Obama with a 4% spread. (Obama made a huge gaffe last week and may be less viable as a candidate in the future: see details below).

Giuliani, who is technically a Catholic but has been married three times, is pro-abort and pro-gay rights (though not for gay marriage) but has said he will appoint federal judges of the stature of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, who are strict constructionists and pro-life. If you can swallow all that and trust him, he’s your man. If not, go to the next choice as a realist—John McCain.

McCain, a Vietnam war hero, held as a prisoner of war for five years, has been married twice, is pro-life and is a hawk on Iraq; he’s running behind Clinton 45.8% to 46.6%, a 0.8% spread. He tops Edwards 45.0% to 42.8% with a 2.2% spread. He was slightly ahead of Obama (before the Obama gaffe) 44.6% to 44.4% a 0.2% spread. One matter has dogged him—whether or not the long confinement in the Hanoi Hilton has had an emotional effect on him. At least two fellow prisoners, one Jeremiah Denton, the Senator from Alabama, told me it has an indisputable effect—on him and on everyone else so incarcerated for a long time. Would this be an insuperable problem for a presidential candidate? Not unless it manifests itself in public.

Richard Nixon said goodbye to the paintings on the wall before he left the White House after his resignation; Jimmy Carter testified he was attacked by an enraged rabbit which tried to climb into his canoe which he beat off with a paddle. Abraham Lincoln told his law partner Billy Herndon that he had been so afflicted with emotional depression that there were times he couldn’t trust himself carrying a pocketknife, fearing he would commit suicide. The Bush people tried to hang that on McCain in the primaries of 2000 and it backfired.

A more serious problem for some: McCain has strayed often from conservative dogma. He co-authored the McCain-Feingold bill which conservative civil libertarians say eviscerated the 1st amendment in curtailing free speech. He voted against certain Bush tax cuts. He has dissented on our treatment of prisoners of war. Not particularly important. One is: If elected he will be 72, pretty old for the presidential game. A plus: if you want to be sure that we don’t lose the Iraq War and emerge with our honor intact, it’s a good bet your candidate should be John McCain. Still, if he’s not right for you, go to Romney.

Romney is pro-life, married but once, has been pro-abort before—only a few years before, as governor of Massachusetts and as Teddy Kennedy’s opponent. He’s a good manager, however. He’s an enemy of gay-marriage and with a wife with multiple sclerosis both she and he oppose use of embryonic stem cells. He just formally announced and is the least known of the Big 3, running 37.% against Clinton’s 51.7% , a Clinton edge of 14%. No polls have pitted him against Edwards or Obama.

Now the Lesser Known 7. Republican pragmatists with sole interest in winning say they can’t win the general election. The list starts with Kansas senator Brownback. He’s perfect on social issues but just came out in opposition to Bush’s troop “surge”. Former Arkansas governor Huckabee, a Baptist minister evangelizer, lost 110 lbs. to run but also hiked taxes. Tommy Thompson, a former Wisconsin governor, favors federal embryonic stem cell research, anathema to social conservatives; Jim Gilmore is a former Virginia governor and a good one but that was long ago, before George Allen, and Gilmore is a kind of vestige from the past.

Cong. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is a one-note Charlie, campaigning solely against immigration; Cong. Duncan Hunter of California, former armed services chairman, termed “right on all the issues” by a number of traditional conservatives including Phyllis Schlafly and Howard Phillips, has been called an earmark connoisseur. Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker, is brilliant but, Henry Hyde’s estimation, erratic.

Winning-at-all-costs Republican pragmatists tend to say, judging from the polls, that the ideal ticket for winning would be McCain for president and Giuliani for vice president, giving Giuliani time to burnish social conservative credentials and be ready to succeed McCain after one term when he will be 76. That doesn’t mean in this topsy-turvy world of politics any of the Lesser Known 7 can’t make it: it’s just not likely.

At the same time, the Dems’ Big 3—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards-- may be cut down to the Big 2. Obama made a gaffe last week that could very well reduce him from a major candidate to a minor one when Lady Hillary’s surrogates (certainly not she herself) taunt him in Iowa and New Hampshire. And certainly by Republicans if he gets through the net. In a catastrophic stumble during a speech in Iowa last week, he said the Iraq war “should never have been authorized and should have never been waged and on which we’ve now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted [italics mine].”

Dismissing the lost lives of American troops during wartime as having been wasted ranks is just about the all-time most catastrophic statement a presidential candidate can make. Saying the dead have died in vain is not only opposite to Abraham Lincoln (with whom Obama wants to be compared), it is a lethal dose of strychnine from which no ordinary candidate could be expected to recover. If Obama can make use of his blackness to overcome his slur, he would be seen as a true political wonder-worker. Chicago’s David Axelrod, his media guru, should be promptly elevated to the canonical status of the all-time great cosmeticians, the Democrats’ Jim Farley who sold the patrician FDR as a regular guy and the Republicans’ Mark Hanna who packaged William McKinley, the pal of the Wall Street plutocrats as the workingman’s friend. .

But having specified these things, remember that politics is a sport that knows no rules. Seventy-five years ago the Democrats came to their convention in this town with a fist-full of conservative candidates for president including the Catholic Al Smith, “Cactus Jack” Garner the Texas speaker of the house and a residue of others including the ultra-conservative president of this city’s First National Bank, Melvin Traylor who stood up against a crowd demanding withdrawals of their money from his bank on the very day 37 other banks folded including the bank owned by the GOP Nobel prize-winning wonder-worker, Charles Dawes (Traylor agreeing to refund them and still saving his bank which got him national recognition).

It was two conservative Democrats, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph P. Kennedy who engineered a switch to a nice-speaking New York governor who impressed them as a moderate, get-along-go-along guy. And another conservative Democrat, Jim Farley, who got conservative Sam Rayburn to importune conservative John Garner to fold his cards and come out for a man whom Kennedy, Hearst and Farley felt was also a conservative in his heart. How wrong they were. Franklin Roosevelt changed the equation of politics forever with his economically radical New Deal.

Many years ago I interviewed Farley, Franklin Roosevelt’s campaign manager, a conservative Catholic who was buddy-buddy close to him. “We didn’t know the Chief at all, as it turned out,” Farley told me calling him by the name FDR most preferred. “He went into the presidency and immediately listened to the most radical advisers he could find.” Farley later quit over the third-term nomination and ran for president himself against his old boss, losing, of course.

There’s no way of discovering what a candidate will really do if and when he gets in. FDR was a revolutionary; Harry Truman, regarded as a conservative, pioneered national health care. Dwight Eisenhower whom people feared would get us into war because he was a general, wisely kept us out of Vietnam. John Kennedy, an isolationist’s son, got us into Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson, who was the errand-boy of Georgia right-wing segregationist Dick Russell, became the originator of the War on Poverty and patron saint of affirmative action. Richard Nixon the anti-communist tinkled wine glasses with Mao Tse Tung.

More: Gerald Ford who, if he knew anything, was supposed to understand defense policy like the back of his hand having served on House military appropriations for 25 years, unaccountably announced in a debate with Jimmy Carter that eastern Europe was free of Communist domination. Carter the Southern Baptist who taught in Sunday School that we should revere our ties with Israel because the Jews were chosen antecedents to Christians, ended up being called—as he is today by many Jewish leaders—an anti-Semite for criticizing undue deference to Israel in our foreign policy.

Still more: Ronald Reagan whom they said would get us into Armageddon with the USSR, didn’t but laid the groundwork for its dissolution; George H. W. Bush the former pro-abort who got the nickname “rubber George” (vernacular for male contraceptive) because in the House he was always introducing amendments to bills that would mandate federal monies for birth control devices to 3rd world nations, named the most definitively pro-life conservative justice to the high court—more conservative than even Antonin Scalia—Clarence Thomas. Bill Clinton, regarded as a southern moderate who in the 1992 campaign assailed radical black leaders like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Sister Soljah, became revered by African Americans as the “first black president.” And George W. Bush?

Remember in the presidential campaign when he inveighed against “nation-building”? Now he sees our destiny as extending democracy throughout the world.

And so it goes. Good luck in making your choice.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Personal Aside: The Cone of Silence has Descended.

getsmart

Cone of Silence.

The official cone of silence has descended on the liberal media to underscore the prediction made here that the Obama statement about the lives of dead servicemen in Iraq being wasted will not receive coverage as a protection for the candidate. The “Tribune,” always solicitous that somehow it may not be considered an establishment publication, made sparing reference to it. If it was in “The New York Times, “ I didn’t see it in my Midwest edition. It is a very great tribute that Lynn Sweet in the “Sun-Times” did give it much attention, in line with the fact that while her interests are deeply on the side of Obama, she is too good a journalist to allow this to pass.

However there should be no concern that this is the last you will hear of the astounding gaffe. The speech has been filmed and is in the can. It is in the possession of the Hillary people as well as the Republicans and you will be hearing and seeing it again and again if the need arises…in the same manner that the Swift Boats turned the tide in the last election.

Flashback: Two Events Change the Course of the 1932 Democratic Convention—and of the United States—to Install Liberalism as the Party’s Official Philosophy…a Philosophy that is With Us Yet.

William-Randolph-Hearst
JosephKennedySr
The most recent…and by all odds the best…exposition of the two climactic steps taken to ensure the nomination of Franklin Roosevelt at the Chicago Democratic convention of 1932…is contained in the book Happy Days Are Here Again by the late Steve Neal. One step was taken without Jim Farley; the second by his intervention. The theory is intact that conservative Democrats unwittingly delivered their party to liberalism—a theory I tried out on Farley years ago and which he did not exactly deny.He did agree that the number strength Roosevelt had was weak and that if a deadlock continued, that number would start drifting off. One of the first to spot the weakness was the newly-elected Speaker of the House, John Garner. On the eve of the convention, he said to friend, “He [Roosevelt] will have a majority but not two-thirds. Al Smith will have around 200 delegates and they will hold out until the last against Roosevelt. Ritchie will have some and they will be against Roosevelt all the way. Senator Lewis [J. Hamilton Lewis of Illinois] will not be a candidate and Cermak [Mayor Anton Cermak of Chicago] will hide out his anti-Roosevelt votes behind Melvin Traylor.”

The step taken without Farley was by Joseph P. Kennedy, a tall, red-haired Boston financier known as one of the very few Wall Street speculators to get out of the Crash before the market collapsed…the reason being that while he was having his shoes shined one morning, the shoe-shine attendant compared his stock-buying with him. Kennedy immediately withdrew his holdings believing that if a shoe-shine attendant was in the market it was precariously over-serving and that a crash was imminent. Kennedy, the patriarch of the dynasty, was a thorough conservative and anti-globalist, a deadly enemy of the philosophy of Woodrow Wilson. As with many others, he was a Roosevelt man not knowing the full extent of FDR’s proclivity to listen to radicals. Kennedy told Arthur Krock of “The New York Times” that “Roosevelt was a man of action. He had the capacity to get things done…I knew what he could do and how he did it and I felt that after a long period of inactivity we needed a leader who would lead.”

In Krock’s presence, Kennedy called William Randolph Hearst who was backing John Garner and told him that a continued deadlock would cause votes to drift away from Roosevelt and go to Newton Baker, the liberal candidate for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy told Hearst: “If you don’t want Baker, you better take Roosevelt—because if you don’t take Roosevelt, you’re going to have Baker.” Hearst asked, “all right. Is that my choice? Could I get Ritchie?”—referring to the conservative governor of Maryland. Kennedy said, “No, I don’t think so. I think if Roosevelt cracks on the next ballot it’ll be Baker.” “All right,” said Hearst, “I’ll turn to him [Roosevelt].”

Hearst called his aide at the convention and told him to find George Rothwell Brown, the chief Hearst Washington correspondent and tell him this: “He wants you to go to Speaker Garner and say to him that he is very fearful that on the next or some subsequent ballot delegations will desert Roosevelt. Mr. Hearst is fearful that when Roosevelt’s strength crumbles, it will bring about either the election of Smith [former New York governor Al Smith] or Baker. Either would be disastrous.” (Note: Brown’s and the “Tribune’s” George Tagge play essentially—not in all particulars but many-- the same role Lynn Sweet plays at the “Sun-Times” since her political sagacity is without peer at the newspaper). That was the decisive action made without Farley.

Farley had come to the same determination as Joe Kennedy. Surreptitiously, he arranged a meeting with Garner’s protégé Rep. Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and proposed Garner for vice president with Roosevelt. Rayburn was noncommittal but said, “we’ll see what can be done.” Rayburn got on the phone with Garner and Garner agreed to switch to FDR. He came back with no objection but with the proviso that Farley himself place Garner in nomination for vice president so afraid was Garner of treachery. Farley agreed.

Even though Garner agreed to the switch, Rayburn had a great deal of trouble with the Texas delegates who wanted to hang firm with Garner. It was an uproarious meeting of the delegation between those who wanted to stay with Garner and those who wanted to follow Garner’s advice and switch to FDR. There was a call to poll the delegation. Garner had to agree. The vote to switch from Garner to FDR was 54 to 51. Thus by only three votes was the switch made in the Texas delegation which got Roosevelt closer to the nomination.

As the tide started to turn, William McAdoo who hated Smith worse than poison—and Baker as well—wanted to be on hand at the Chicago stadium to cast California’s votes from Garner to Roosevelt. He hopped in his official limousine and sped to the Stadium but midway there, on the Near West Side, his limo unaccountably ran out of gasoline (McAdoo always believed that gasoline from the car, supplied by the Cermak hospitality committee, had been siphoned). Stalled in the middle of the street with the traffic horns honking, McAdoo flagged a Chicago policeman who offered him a ride on the back seat of his motorcycle.

McAdoo rode for a while but his long legs were dragging on the street, so the cop hailed a taxi and with McAdoo inside the cop led the way with siren wailing. McAdoo secured recognition from the chair and said “the great state of Texas and the great state of California are acting in accordance with what we believe is the best, first for America and next for the Democratic party…California casts 44 votes for Franklin D. Roosevelt!” The stampede was on and the favorite son states—Illinois led by Cermak—dumped their candidates and went for Roosevelt.

But the fact remains that if Hearst, a conservative, had not given up on Garner, another conservative and McAdoo, a relative conservative, had not tumbled from Garner in obedience to Hearst and if Garner, a conservative, had not tossed in his cards for Roosevelt, the Democratic party would have had either Garner or Governor Ritchie, either one of whom would have been elected president. The likelihood is great that the New Deal and all its machinations would not have been born. Nor the presidential impetus much later to involve us in the second World War.

“Fundamentally, that’s a correct assumption,” said the conservative Farley to me. The conversation was part of a paper I delivered at Harvard in 1977, a year after Farley’s death. The other portion of the paper was compiled after an interview with Farley’s opposite, radical economist from the University of Pennsylvania who was kicked out of his faculty position because the university believed he was a communist-- Rexford Guy Tugwell, enemy of Farley, one of the liberal brains-trust of the New Deal, a stormy petrel of the administration who later was FDR’s governor-general of Puerto Rico.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Personal Aside: `Bye-bye `Bama!’

baracktalking
`Bye-bye `Bama?’

It was the worst mistake a candidate for president can make —telling a crowd during wartime that American lives lost in the war in behalf of the United States were “wasted.” And although the cosmetics brigade of the guilt-ridden white media will cover for him, if sufficiently capitalized upon by surrogates of his opponents—notably Hillary--the speech in Durham, New Hampshire by Barack Hussein Obama should be enough to relegate his campaign to minor status. There is no way that a blunder of that magnitude should not be turned against him in the fight for the Democratic nomination and, even further down the road in the general election as a rebuke to those who have not repudiated it. Obama’s instinctive evasion of a full apology, then followed by a full apology, makes it worse—and doubly certain that his candidacy is George Clooney radicalism unvarnished. If this were to be the view of a president—even if apologized for—it would signal that for the first time the holder of this office were not a patriot.

It was not misspeak…like the incompetent telling of a bitter joke aimed at George W. Bush by John Kerry which made it sound like Kerry believes only the dumb ones go to Iraq… or the tongue-gone-wild gaffe that afflicted poor garrulous Joe Biden but unmistakable evidence that compassion…support for men and women who gave their lives and their families…has eluded this rock-star candidate who has been idolized for color not competence far beyond his capacity to assimilate it. In the end, the coolness he seemingly showed was symptomatic of an astounding inner coldness: inexplicable coldness to the needs of families who lost loved ones. We shall see if the affirmative action administered by his media friends will explain this egregious failure to appreciate noble sacrifice for country.

Let the comparisons with Abraham Lincoln end now. The cruel view made during wartime sounds—indeed may be—not only cold but unpatriotic. No one before has had the temerity to tell Americans that their lost children’s lives—even in conflicts that failed such as Bull Run, Chancellorsville and Pickett’s charge at Gettyburg…not to forget lives lost at isolated defeats at the Alamo, Bataan, Corregidor and Vietnam were wasted. All the cosmetic stitching and bruise-repair work David Axelrod can do will not be sufficient. Obama will still be beloved by the full moon white liberal Left and a segment—not all--of the black community…to them…but as for getting the nomination, he should be history.

So much for the excitable, heads-over-heels-in-love jumping teen-aged girl “Sun-Times” over-aged adolescent duo…Carol Marin and Jennifer Hunter…who accompanied the cool-headed old pro Lynn Sweet to the unveiling in Springfield. So much for the ensconced liberal media Greek chorus…the f-word spewing Chris Matthews et al… that sacrificially froze their stones Saturday…which was a delight to see… in hopes of even touch the hem of this falsely perceived cardboard icon. And so the orchestral symphony of a falsetto candidate ends with the discomfiting equivalent of a rude intestinal-based noise. Axelrod has already passed the word to those who are supposed to write today’s history…er, it never happened: ignore it. Not to do so is racist. Of course.

I have been ruminating from the past to see how this enormous blunder rates with those of prior presidential contests. Answer: it’s the worst. Worse than Biden’s appropriation not just of Neil Kinnock’s words but his resume…George Romney’s “brainwashing” statement showing how easy it would be to mislead him if president when he was mis-led by the generals whom he visited Vietnam. Dwight Eisenhower’s answer when asked what Nixon had contributed to his administration (“if you give me a week, I’ll probably have the answer”), Thomas E. Dewey’s insult to the engineer of his campaign train, calling him an “idiot” with the engineer saying, “it’s okay, I’m not going to vote for him anyhow,” Herbert Hoover’s “prosperity is just around the corner”—probably you have to go back beyond “rum romanism and rebellion” to John Adams’ description by Benjamin Franklin (“He means well for his country but… some times and in some ways gets absolutely out of his senses” which was used by Jefferson to help defeat the 2nd president).

Even then most of these are words said about a candidate not by him. The solution for the Obama campaign: treat the cold insult to dead soldiers and their families with silence. Which the lefty blog bund decided to do without waiting for Axelrod’s orders. We shall see what the Left does now. The Left that so hates the president it wishes defeat for the country…the Left, whose prime candidate has declared what he and the left inwardly have always felt--that heroes’ sacrifices made in behalf of America in Iraq are wasted.

The unpatriotic Left that cannot wait to see America punished and fail.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Personal Aside: Now for Another Review of the “Tribune’s” Gutsy Editorials.

tribunetower


The cancer vaccine debate is a not-too-bad meander of pros-and-cons concerning the vaccine against two strains of human papillioma-virus (HPV) which concludes that parents should ask their pediatricians about the vaccine but that it should not be made mandatory under state law. Deft skirting of the moral side of the equation and abstinence as the 100% failsafe remedy. A gentlemanly C.

Exposing the faux O’Briens is a predictable whinny in support of a bill signed by Governor Blagojevich that would mandate the phrase “formerly known as” to go along on the ballot with name change for political benefit…with a late plug for the all-editorial-board favorite chestnut, merit selection. D: a rewrite from the League of Women Voters boilerplate.

Falling to earth—a trite rehash of the plight of female astronaut Lisa Nowak—concludes that the higher one goes in prominence the farther one has to fall. Insightful, huh? F.

France’s surrender to Iran? relates President Jacques Chirac’s inept statement that if Iran drops a nuclear bomb on Israel, it would lead to the instant destruction of Tehran concluding with two prosaic observations: one, that it’s not much comfort for Israel and second that a country that builds one bomb doesn’t stop there which means that there should be no acceptance of Iran doing such a thing. Ho-hum: D.

The 40GB menace deals with a story that a Colorado teenager was hospitalized after being stuck by lightning while mowing the law and listening to his IPod. A lawmaker introduced a bill for a $100 fine for persons listening to IPods while crossing the street. However “self-regulation” is best. Brilliant observation worth a D.

That’s as much excitement as this writer can stand. More reviews soon.

EYEBALL TO EYEBALL WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OVER ABORTION, THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS BLINKED IN 1980 ELECTION

bishops
Fearful of losing its favor with the Dems’ big honchos and Federal goodies as well, when the Dems said “shove it,” timid Prelates changed the subject and haven’t regained their footing since.

[A column for The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest Catholic weekly, updated since publication].

By Thomas F. Roeser

CHICAGO—If you come from the same Cro-Magnon pre-modern political era as I, you remember the days when pop folklore had (a) Democrats as the protectors of the little guy and (b) Republicans the watch-dogs of vested interests, the rich and the High and Mighty. I can never forget how Hubert Humphrey extolled (time after time in the `50s while I covered him as a Minnesota newsman) the Democrats as defenders of those who “are in the dawn of life, those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” If he had perceived that the danger of legalized abortion were threatening, it’s a cinch he would have added “unborn” to the sentence. But that was when the Catholic vote meant something because bishops stood for principle.

You could be pardoned if you wondered what the Republicans were doing to help the helpless. In that Paleolithic age the mightiest blue-collar, largely white, religious ally the Democrats had was the Catholic Church. Well do I recall my marble-layer Irish Catholic Democratic grandfather telling me, “you can say all you want but the Republicans were always for those who have got power-- not those who are weak.”

How, then, has it come to be that we now see the Democrats actively supporting the tearing-up…cutting into segments…and the sucking out of the brains of the unborn? Indeed His Messiah-ness, Barack Hussein Obama, endorsed by Mayor Richard M. Daley, voting down measures as a state senator to supply emergency nutrition and prompt care to live, lingering and pitifully suffering babies in the last throes of agony after having been born following botched abortions? How did of all people the bankers’ friends, the stuffy Republicans come to be —not 100% but mainly--the refuge of those who oppose abortion and infanticide?

Did it happen after the Democrats milked the last drop of political value out of the special interests? When feminist refugees from the bar scene of Star Wars like 250-lb Bella Abzug in her witch-hat and Mammy Yokum look-alike man-hating, pipe-smoking Molly Yard strode into the Democrats’ special interest carnival rousing them to save women from death by clothes-hangers in back alleys?

Nope, women feminists didn’t do it. Men did.

Now comes a valuable article in The Human Life Review by George McKenna, emeritus professor of political science at City College [of New York] which caused me to read it thoroughly after it was excerpted in Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ excellent magazine First Things. For one thing, the Equal Rights amendment was a Republican thing, a feature of the party’s 1940 platform. Feminism (though not abortion) which sprang from the temperance battles was a GOP staple, pushed by upper class women Susan B. Anthony and Frances Willard of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (all early suffragettes bitterly opposing abortion, Anthony describing it bitterly as “a vile exploitation of women.”).

In contrast, Dems were the party of the guys, the drinkers, the wets, the unions, the workingmen who believed in a man’s right to take a drop or two—and the Church, as the haven of immigrants, was right with them. So it went for decades: the Church was with the Dems, not the fems. So it was with pro-life—for a time.

Right down to 1971, none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy to declare in 1971 that “the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.” George McGovern, though pro-abort himself, spurned attempts to put support of abortion in the 1972 platform. He rallied Democrats against it. Why? He didn’t want to antagonize the Dems’ historic ally, the Church. Even in 1976, three years after Roe v. Wade, Kennedy was saying “abortion is morally wrong. It is not a legitimate or acceptable response to any problem of society. And if or country wishes to remain true to its basic moral strength, then unwanted as well as wanted children must be unfailingly protected.”

Originally, women were far from the front-lines of the abortion rights movement. Betty Friedan never mentioned it in her 1963 bible, The Feminist Mystique. The “statement of purpose” she wrote to launch the National Organization of Women (NOW) in 1966 says nothing about it. pro-abortion feature of feminism began with men: two men—Lawrence Lader, an east Harlem organizer for Cong. Vito Marcantonio, a member of the American Labor party, the closest member of Congress to being an official Communist (not just a radical liberal but quite possibly an order-taking member of the Soviet-led party). Lader teamed up with a gynecologist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Nathanson believed he was doing a social service by removing women’s concern with unwanted pregnancies (he repented his early advocacy, became a pro-life activist, Catholic convert and author of several books that tell how the pro-abortion movement began).

Lader and Nathanson held a meeting with Friedan in 1966. They offered her a deal: if she would put a pro-abortion plank in her 1967 NOW platform, they would publicize the horror of “back alley” abortions in the mainstream media. Friedan reluctantly agreed. She gave the issue only secondary mention in the platform. Lader and Nathanson then collaborated on the fictionalizing of a synthetic “horror.” They invented the term “back alley abortion.” Nathanson’s big contribution was imagining a home-made abortion procedure using wire coat-hangers--a fact he admits in his book Aborting America. Moreover, to magnify the issue to national proportions, the two connived to make up the number of deaths from abortions each year, inflating a figure they guessed at by at least a factor of ten.

Armed with this colorful imagery, the two pushed stories in Newsweek and The Saturday Evening Post. By 1968 Friedan made legalized abortion her issue number one. Lader’s facility at devising simple explanations for scientific subjects led to widespread publicity for the practice and his writings were cited eight times by Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Other men who made the selling easy were Garrett Hardin, a libertarian Republican, who wrote a 1968 pop environment article in Science warning that a tidal wave of population growth down the road would make living with scarcity a reality for all of us. His pop science led to the `60s-`70s best-seller, The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich.

Others who helped pave the way for popular acceptance of legal abortion included Colorado Dick Lamm, a Democrat (not a Republican as McKenna and Fr. Neuhaus erroneously list him). And there were a number of Republicans—Sen. Charles H. Percy (R-IL) who once took to the Senate floor to calculate the savings to the federal budget through the snuffing out of numberless lives through abortion; Sen. Robert Packwood (R-OR) who was forced to resign after condemnation by the Senate Ethics committee after a good number of his women Senate staffers and others—a total of 29--accused him of aggressive harassment and abuse.

The big GOP population-controller and pro-abort was former vice president Nelson Rockefeller of New York who, as governor, after leaving his wife of 32 years, convinced a married woman with four children, to leave her husband and marry him (whereby she was denied custody of her children), Rockefeller ultimately dying in flagrante delicto at the age of 71 in the arms of yet another woman, his staffer, age 27.

California Governor Ronald Reagan’s signing of a permissive abortion law was a step on the road to Roe v. Wade although he repented sorely and in a discussion with me in 1979 blamed his father-in-law, Dr. Royal Davis, for misinformation that led him to affix his signature to the bill. While there is enough bipartisan blame to go round, the Democrats now are largely the abortion party; the Republicans have supported pro-life since Gerald Ford’s time. Richard Nixon’s final biographer, Monica Crowley, herself a pro-abort Catholic, personally told me after Nixon’s death that he was pro-abort although he did not speak publicly on the issue.

What were the dynamics that led the bishops of the Roman Catholic church in America from a position of unalterable opposition to one which, under Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, watered it down stunningly to one of a few important issues? A desire of many ex-`60s JFK devotees still active in the church to keep pace out of loyalty with the Democratic party’s leftward move. They gloried in the “cool” nature of the first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy who, while a church member, was not “too Catholic.”

Here I feel McKenna doesn’t finish the evaluation. One was certainly the weakening of catechetics; another undeniably misinterpretations that grew about “the spirit of Vatican II” (which was appropriated for any change regardless of reason). McKenna cites the growth of a trendy but mystifying New Age cult associated with the French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin in his book The Phenomenon of Man, a catchall of nihilistic optimism leading to a goofy so-called “noosphere” of expanded human consciousness—although if many were like me, they ditched the tedious book after the first chapter. .

McKenna concentrates on the old JFK Catholic fans. “The young Catholic students who cheered Kennedy in 1960 were in their thirties now. They had gone into business, medicine, law, academia, the media and…the clergy. In a few more years some of the priests would be bishops and even now some were staff members and advisors to bishops and cardinals. There were nuns with doctorates who were professors and college deans and presidents…None would forget the struggles of the `60s and the friends they made across religious lines.”

Now the bishops: At the outset, the Catholic bishops were strongly in opposition to abortion; in 1976, in fact, came the bishops’ “most conspicuous muscle-flexing” when Catholics were courted by both sides—President Ford favoring his support for a constitutional amendment and Jimmy Carter emphasizing for the first time his “personal opposition” to abortion which translated meaninglessness once he was elected and was surrounded by pro-aborts.

Appropriately, McKenna draws a two-faced portrait of Archbishop Joseph Bernardin. The Bernardin of 1976, then representing the National Council of Catholic Bishops, was a strong anti-abortion advocate. Bernardin’s testimony before the House Judiciary committee where he refuted Mario Cuomo’s rationalization of abortion was the “high-water mark” of the bishops’ opposition. Then, in 1980 with Carter’s drive for reelection, the Democratic party officially became the party of abortion endorsing the license in its platform while the Republicans who nominated Reagan turned into the party of pro-life.

Writes McKenna: “The Democratic party was now the abortion party and, in case the bishops had any objection, there was an implied response: stuff it.” Meaning that the Dem pols felt the bishops would cave faced with the animosity of their once favored party. He says as result of the Dems’ tough approach “the bishops were literally dumbstruck.”

From that tough-minded response of the Democrats, “abortion was thrust right in the bishops’ faces and they said nothing—not that year, not for the next three years. And when they finally did speak, abortion was no longer their main topic.” The self-same Bernardin and his colleagues backed down from confrontation. Not long thereafter, the word was passed informally that the bishops were still palsies with their historic good friends the Democrats for old times sake. It was too politically tough to break ranks with the famous old Irish names of the past.

That was where, with few notable exceptions, the collective spine of the Catholic bishops fluttered and parsing semantics took the place of intransigent advocacy. McKenna doesn’t elucidate why—a major weakness of the article, but as one who saw it first-hand, it’s easy for me to document since I saw it happen in Chicago and elsewhere. Eyeball to eyeball between a key tenet of the Faith and pragmatism—threatened loss with high status with big-name Irish pols—the Kennedys, the Bidens, the Daleys. Moreover, fear of eroding support, money and favors, from the graying band of old JFK fans, worry about punishment in the Congress and legislatures with loss of school aid and federal social service goodies--the bishops blinked. McKenna skips by it for what reason I know not. More than anything else, as I can testify, having worked in the legislative arena of two states and a governor, it had to do with gelt—the German word for money: money for hospitals and other Catholic institutions that is conveyed on a public-private belt by those with hallowed old Democratic connections.

What he does say is that between November of 1976 and August of 1980 was “the breakdown of the Democratic party’s immune system”—subverted “from within by liberal Catholics who could not put aside the friendships they had formed in the 1960s” without further elucidation. Then the thunderclap was the election of Ronald Reagan who by strongly opposing abortion enraged Catholic liberals. It hit the august marble temple where the Catholic bishops meet as a wannabe UN security council very hard. Now McKenna details a truism for anyone who has watched the snail-like deliberations of ultra-cautious bishops in action—or rather inaction. Here McKenna is very good:

“Anyone who thinks that the bishops operate independently, handing down decrees and getting those below to obey, has it almost exactly backwards. The bishops’ pronouncements well up from currents of thought circulating among people below them…Not from the pews, though. From Catholic seminaries, from Catholic journals and theological associations…from the staffers of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The overwhelming majority of those occupying these seats of influence are Democrats and some are Democratic activists.”

So frightened by the Dems’ rebuff, the bishops changed the subject which, intentionally or not, courted the Dems. It came in the form of a “long-winded” document, written largely by Bernardin and his staff, The Challenge of Peace. It recommended a list of popular liberal goodies: nuclear freeze, mutual disarmament, a comprehensive test-ban treaty and talks with adversary nations. It meshed “perfectly with what congressional Democrats were proposing that year and what the Mondale presidential campaign would offer in 1984.” Only near the end of the long tract was a plea to end abortion.

It was at that precise time that while in Washington I bumped into former vice president Walter Mondale, then the Democratic presidential nominee opposing President Reagan. The elevator door opened at the Madison hotel and in trooped Mondale, whom I had known collegially many years earlier when we worked across the hall from each other in the Minnesota state capitol. He greeted me with a friendly but unmistakable taunt: “Roeser, you old sonuvagun Republican. Glad to see you! As a Catholic you will be interested to see that your own bishops say I am more pro-life than Reagan—judging from your own bishops! Here’s the scorecard!”

It was the lovely creation of “consistent life ethic” as devised by that superb pragmatist Archbishop Bernardin, soon to become archbishop of Chicago and a cardinal. Mondale courteously held the document in his hand, pointing out his plus votes with his forefinger. If the “seamless garment” wasn’t a bailout for the Democratic party to spare it from giving way on abortion—a capitulation of venal bishops to the Democratic party-- I’ve never seen one. McKenna and Fr. Neuhaus are too gentle to call it that.

From that time on, thanks to the cue that came from the Bernardin tract, Democrats followed what McKenna calls “the shopping cart defense” before Catholic audiences: “look at my votes against cutting welfare, standing up for the hungry and the homeless and the undocumented immigrant. Look at my votes on tax policy, employment generation [through federal hiring, sic] welfare, nutrition and feeding programs, health care, the nuclear arms race. Then they point their finger at their opponent’s shopping cart, noting he had voted `wrong’ on all these `quality of life’ issues.”

In 1998 the bishops tried to recapture their lost ground. They “finally remembered the reply to this ruse” by reminding politicians that abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide “can never be justified no matter how many meritorious programs are thrown into the cart.” To McKenna “there are grounds for hope, at least within the ranks of the Republicans…The Catholic-evangelical coalition of pro-life activists remains active, which is one important reason why Christine Todd Whitman was never talked of as a Republican presidential candidate, why Arlen Specter never had a chance of becoming Senate majority leader and why pro-abort Catholic Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will never become co-chairs of the Republican platform committee. They are in the Republican `big tent’ but nearer the exit-flaps than the center.” While the Democrats have some pro-life adherents in Congress, they vote o.k. but shut up about it.

Fr. Neuhaus comments that the bishops at least had a high-point in opposing abortion before they backed down due to the Dems’ forceful refusal to assent. I suppose you can look at their strength before the ultimate sell-out as a sign of hope. But I must say it’s a sanguine, unrealistic assessment. Many bishops recognize that Cardinal Bernardin was lionized in the liberal secular media for being a broad-minded prelate i.e. “recognizing the distinction between church and state” and media adulation is a sublime reward for wishy-washyness.

As one who went—and still goes--to the Illinois state capitol often, Bernardin’s lobbyist, Jimmy Lago, (“Jimmy” is his formal first name just as his brother’s is “Timmy”), proud that he had marched with Cesar Chavez, laughed haughtily when an evangelical minister-lobbyist asked if Lago would support him on key social issues of pro-life and anti-gay rights. Lago’s interests were far more important to the real world of mammon: fatter subsidies for education and charities. He was a chief implementer of Bernardin’s wishes.

The good news is Lago (pronounced “la-GO”) is no longer the archdiocese’s lobbyist. A far more aggressive pro-lifer is. But stay for the answer. The bad news is instead, Lago is now chancellor of the archdiocese, holding the highest rank a layman can possibly hold, appointed and with a term extended by Francis Cardinal George in response to those who pointed out that he, thanks largely to Lago, missed the boat on the vital issue of safeguarding children from clerical abuse.

What of the future? Is the majority of bishops standing tall, nose-to-nose with the reigning Democrats? Is the Speaker-ess, Mme. Nancy Pelosi, the pro-abort Dem, supporter of partial birth abortion with all the ramifications, feeling any heat? Wasn’t that the giddy retired Washington, D. C. prelate Theodore Cardinal McKerrick pictured glad-handing Ted Kennedy and John Kerry like long-lost fellow buddies as the Dems took over Congress? No prelate luxuriates as prize tame puppy in the Democratic party’s charmed circle more than McKerrick. Also, wasn’t that the current archbishop of Washington, Donald Cardinal Wuerl trying to edge into the picture?

By all means read the article in Human Life Review; it’s good--but don’t buy for a minute the idea generated by it and First Things that we’ve won the war, or even a recent significant battle against abortion with this team of bishops on the basis that before the sell-out there was strength. The smiling faces under the miters have changed but the faint-hearts which trembled when the Dems said “shove it” (in McKenna’s words) are still palpitating, still hoping to please the one-time party of the working-man, now the party of unconscionable decadence in social policy. They will only revert to their old Democratic ways if they are reminded of the bishops’ one-time courage—and see no more of the current namby-pamby pragmatism.