Chicago Republicans

Tonight, for one evening, put aside your worries and fears about national healthcare and turn your attention to the threats from the  outside of this country.  Yes, Richard A. Baehr, co founder and Chief Political Correspondent for AmericanThinker.com will be speaking on "Israel and Obama:  The Iranian Nuclear Threat and the End of the Special Relationship" tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Evanston Public Library, 1703 Orrington Avenue.  No doubt that as we have been focused on domestic agenda items, much has been going on in Israel and Iran.  Mr.  Baehr is a nationally recognized expert on Israeli, Middle Eastern and Jewish/American issues and will be able to update and inform us about the developing relations and threats in one of the most important regions in the world.  Don't let healthcare and jobs distract you from recognizing the other threats to America as we know it and as it was intended.   This lecture is free and open to the public and the Republican Club of Evanston, co-sponsors of the event along with the Evanston Public Library, invite all  interested in a social gathering following the event at the Celtic Knot Public House, on Church Street across from the Library.  You can call the Library at 847-488-8600 if you need more information.  I hope to see you all there!

 

It is Primary Election Day and we as Republicans have some choices. After several months of coffees, meet and greets and cocktail parties designed to get to know the office seeking hopefuls, I have finally found my barometer for choosing a candidate: can he/she intellectualize the principles upon which his/her issues are based and articulate them clearly and persuasively? One of the pitfalls the Republican party needs to avoid is jumping on the populist bandwagon and failing to explain and apply the core principles that have defined the party. These principles include individual liberty, limited government and the security of our citizens to ensure the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. All too often, Republicans buy into straw man arguments in order to garner votes without respecting the intelligence and desire of voters to understand the issues. When we do that, we run the risk of sounding either unthinking, uncaring or just condescending. One example is the approach many have taken against Wall Street, all too willing to blame it as greedy, corrupt or uncontrolled. This approach fails to consider the nuances that are necessary for understanding our social, economic and political institutions. Human institutions are not that simple and history and economics show that Wall Street is just as important as Main Street and we need legislators who understand and can explain that with the voters. It is equally popular to bash the profit driven health insurance companies without recognizing their role in enabling the United States to be the best place on earth for health care. The point is that we are a party of ideas, not just labels and it is up to Republicans to be able to explain and persuade why we believe in the principles we do. When a candidate states that he is a "Reagan Republican" we need to ask what that means, does he believe in the principles that drove Reagan or is it meant to be a catchphrase for tax cuts, national security and statesmanship. How come no one says they are a Gingrich/Contract with America Republican? Like Reagan, Gingrich developed a philosophy and a plan based on certain principles which to its peril, Republicans abandoned. In today's election, I have seen some hope for the thinking in our party. Dan Proft (running for Governor) and Arie Friedman (for 10^th Congressional District) demonstrate the insight into issues and can relate their policies to the principles they support and provide solutions that respect the intelligence of voters. If today does not work out for either of them, I hope and pray they stay on to develop the future of our party. Let's make thinking sexy and bring the sexy back in politics!

Richard Baehr, co-founder of American Thinker and an expert healthcare consultant will be speaking tonight at the Evanston Public Library.  In a presentation entitled "Healthcare:  What Works and What Doesn't", Mr. Baehr will discuss the current issues being debated in Congress.  The presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room.  The Library is located at 1703 Orrington Avenue at the corner of Church Street.  Following the presentation, there will be a social gathering across the street at the Celtic Knot Public House.  The presentation is the first of a three part Lecture Series co-sponsored by the Evanston Public Library and the Republican Club of Evanston.   If you miss tonight's event, you can hear Mr. Baehr on the Dennis Miller Radio show tomorrow in the second hour.  The next event will be Prof. Steven Presser of Northwestern University Law School discussing "The Supreme Court:  A National Treasure in Transition" on Thursday, October 22nd at 7:00 p.m.

 

This event is free and open to the public.

 

What do sports and politics have in common? Well, outbursts and spontaneous eruptions seem to be the latest. As a fan of both tennis and politics, I thought at first it was a stretch to compare the U.S Open in New York with what happens in Congress. Then Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter opened their mouths and have launched a despicable attack by accusing Joe Wilson of being racist, based not on fact but on what they imagined he meant to say. If that isn't disgusting I am not sure what is. But back to tennis. We saw an emotional tirade from Serena Williams that was foul mouthed and ugly, but not a complete surprise given the phenom's earlier behavior and history of outbursts. It cost her the match both emotionally and technically. But then we saw a most uncharacteristic reaction by all time great Roger Federer which was nowhere as ugly as Serena's but so unusual for the cool champion that it stood out. Normally stone faced, he argued with the umpire about a late, but accurate challenge of a critical point. Serena was appropriately fined and penalized and has since apologized. Roger continued to play and lost with the generous grace that true champions seems to possess. Both outbursts demonstrated just how stressful and demanding the sport can be, where millimeters can make the difference and one lucky break can change a whole match. I didn't realize it, but politics seems to be a game of inches as well. By all accounts, Joe Wilson acted emotionally and in the heat of the moment when he spontaneously yelled out "you lie" during President Obama's speech. He was reacting to a statement regarding the exclusion of illegal immigrants that he had spent the afternoon debating in committee, which itself had failed to settle the issue. No doubt his reaction was based in part on the frustration he had just experienced on that very point, just as tennis players sometimes explode after a series of frustrating points. He recognized the inappropriateness of his shout out and immediately apologized to the President who accepted graciously. And the House rebuked him for it anyway and technically they had that right. But now Dowd and Carter have gone one ugly step further and have attempted to justify the resolution, which went right down party lines, by playing the race card. They want to paint him as a Serena rather than a Roger. They want this to look uglier, meaner and more suspect than it really is. Anyone watching the tapes can see that Wilson had a Roger moment, not a Serena one.

 

For anyone interested in exploring further the tennis/politics analogy, I would posit that some outbursts are not always spontaneous but sometimes calculated to pump one's self up or psyche out an opponent. There are some who claimed that John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors employed some of these methods. And what about the repeated attacks and name calling of President George Bush by our congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? They certainly don't appear random and they have never been forced to apologize.

Summer is over and the kids are all back in school. You would think that as a conservative who, like Rush, hopes our President's policies...don't succeed, I would have been delighted by his struggles over the last couple of months. I should have been heartened by the Democrats' failure to pass their version of healthcare reform, the strong grassroots reactions at townhalls across the country from independents, not just Republicans, the Gates/Crowley fiasco where Obama instinctively claimed that police acted "stupidly"and his failed attempt to gloss it over with beer, the outcry over cap and trade, the trillion dollar deficit and the lukewarm stimulus, the furor over his many czars culminating with the resignation of radical advisor Van Jones, and finally the innocuous back to school speech forced upon him by parents across the country outraged by the lesson plan that taught us more about group think and Alinsky methodology. I don't yet feel energized by the rapidly dropping poll numbers that only Fox News seems to report, I just feel uneasy. If this last election taught me anything, it is that this Administration will manage to do the unbelievable. I don't trust the Democratic party, run by its left wing, to let Obama fail among its constituents. They will continue to bargain ith and manipulate their moderate members in order to keep this President and his agenda as the starting point for all political discussion. I just have this feeling that Obama will get away with a lot of what he wants to do in attempting to transform our government and society. Tonight, he will use linguistics to resell his health care plan, with the overall objective being to have a government plan, whether it is called an option, a single payer system, a trigger or whatever he now calls it. Remember, a rose is a rose by any other name and the morning star and the evening star are still Venus. This summer showed me that the tactic of this Administration is not to listen to the people and to work from their concerns but to start with the most liberally ideal legislation and hope it can survive a death by a thousand public outcry cuts. Keeping the public in the dark about the text of various bills, renaming various components, pooh-poohing legitimate concerns and outright denying or lying about its contents may work over time. It takes a lot of energy to disagree and dispel something and the liberal Democrats are banking on wearing down its critics, or at least making them look like angry mobsters who only seem to cry wolf. This is the source of my discontent - can independents and conservatives maintain the momentum to keep Congress and Obama honest? With a complicit liberal media, will their outcries be heard or honestly reported? Can Republicans effectively remind the public of these failures and the reveal the smokescreens or the "man behind the curtain"?

 

The important thing is that people need to feel connected to their government and their representatives and today they do not. One thing that is clear at these townhalls is that people do not trust their government. It is up to the Republicans to translate this mistrust and disconnectedness into political action. The hurdle is that most people are focused on making a living and providing for their families rather than listening to politicians and their polls. Who can we find to connect the right dots?

Last night I attended my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky's, townhall meeting. The Tribune today said that the meeting was "heated" but I beg to differ. Although at times a little excitable, it was quite civil which may have been due to the smug assuredness of the many supporters that were bused in to take all the early seats and the calm collectedness of the "well-dressed angry mobsters" who managed to get there early despite being told to come later. I think my favorite staged presence were the supporters wearing white lab coats (to look like doctors) with "single payer option" buttons on the lapel where a real doctor's name would be. I only witnessed/experienced two ugly incidents, both conducted by supporters of the government option bill Jan is supporting. One lady complained about the Republicans standing in line in front of her who had saved places for each other (myself included) and the other was an otherwise attractive lady giving an opponent of the bill "the finger" repeatedly every time the woman tried to make a comment. Very grown up. Originally, upon looking over the people in line and upon entering the auditorium, I was disheartened by the inordinately high number of folks with "Reform Healthcare Now" stickers (provided to them in line by some interested party) and all of the SEIU members (in their T-shirts) carrying nicely printed, uniform signs. They clearly outnumbered the random individuals who had made their own signs, all opposed to the proposal. But kudos to Jan, who entered the hall gracefully after a glowing, fawning introduction by a Niles Township School Officer, looking poised, confident and in control. The meeting was well controlled and it became clear as it went on that many of the questions were not plants. Ms. Schakowsky actually called on real people. What the Tribune did not report was that more that half of the questioners (almost two to one) and at least half of the attendees did not support H.R. 3200. It made the following very clear: everybody, even conservatives, support some type of health insurance reform, however, most people want to fix what doesn't work, they do not want a complete overhaul of the health system, they do not want government to take over, or even participate in the arena, and they do not want all the bill's extras like granting the IRS and SSA access to individual private information. They want government to prove they can fix things by fixing Medicare/Medicaid first and by easing some of the costly regulations and restrictions on insurance companies to provide for portability and pricing flexibility for pre-existing conditions, healthy lifestyles and coverage choices. That is pretty much it.

 

What I learned is this:

1. Ms. Schakowsky can mislead with equal grace. She quickly brushed off conservative arguments against rationing and increasing the deficit by calling them myths. When asked about abortions under the bill, she pointedly said, twice, that no federal money would be used to cover abortions, not a dollar. Can we even say this is true today? What about all the current indirect means?

2. Democrats across the country have the same talking points and are using statistics to debunk the claims that we have the best system already and that looking like Canada or Europe will destroy this. Using World Health Organization rankings seems to play well, claiming that we are way down on the mortality and infant mortality lists. It doesn't take much to peel these apart and realize that these are based on factors that make us look bad, like excluding the effects of war or actual live births. Figures will lie and liars will figure...

3. Liberal Democrats from liberal districts are confident and fully intend on voting for the most extreme, dramatic legislation possible, including the public option. When asked if she had polled her district, she answered she didn't have to, she knows how the district feels generally and all her voters know how she feels. She came just short of daring people to vote her out. The liberal playbook, I predict, will be, vote for it, pass it and in time, your voters will forget or not feel the real impact until much later on, after re-election. They are willing to take that gamble.

4. Get ready for the new mascot: A woman next to me had a cute, blue Teddy bear with a sign on it that said "I Love Teddy Care". Awww. I actually hope they name HR 3200 after him since, like other events, it may sink and drown this country.

 

Today is an important test for the people of Afghanistan. It will test their fortitude and ability to stand up against Taliban thugs who threaten their lives as they cast votes in today's election. It will also test the strength of the American military and our willingness to fight for Afghans to exercise this precious right. And it will test the commitment of both countries to keeping Afghanistan free, democratic and pro-Western. It will be one of Obama's important indicators as the Commander-In-Chief, and whether he has listened to the boots on the ground rather than the anti-war rhetoric of his leftist patrons. I hope and pray it is a test that he passes and that he has guessed right. These days it is becoming clear, at least from the dramatically dropping poll numbers, that Americans don't think he is doing so well. The strong sentiment against nationalized healthcare and ambiguous insurance reform and now the lack of consumer confidence in the economy and the effect of the stimulus suggest that he has not solved the financial crisis and may not understand how to. It has certainly kept much of talk radio abuzz and has enabled conservatives to criticize this Administration quite intelligently and effectively. But do not underestimate the liberals' ability to go from defense to offense. The latest talking point, aimed at moderates and independents, is that conservatives cannot be trusted to be objective; it doesn't matter what Obama does, conservatives will attack and criticize and their blind hatred will cause them not only to miss but denounce his true successes. It falls just short of saying to "Hey, if Obama has missed on some big items, even a broken clock is right twice a day" and based on this, conservatives have to give him some credit somewhere. As a result, conservatives will have to find something nice to say just to defend their objectivity. My guess is that conservatives will be forced to concede that Obama is doing the right thing in Afghanistan, especially if the elections go well. But what if they do not? The argument will be that Obama has adopted the military's and Bush's surge strategies so his policy should be supported by conservatives. Will critical conservatives be accused of jumping on a purely "anti-Obama band wagon" that liberals will claim thwarts conservative intellectual integrity? Would liberals be brazen enough to make such an argument? And will conservatives have the courage to defend against such a claim?

 

My defense of "conservative criticism" is this: it is not just the actions and policies of this administration to which conservatives object, but the very principles upon which they are based. It is hard to commend someone who may accidently stumble onto success when the very intention of the action is objectionable. Yes, Kant still matters. There is a strong sense among conservatives that Obama's ultimate guiding principle is not what is right or right for this country but one of political expediency. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, or the short term peace brought on by a surge, there are serious doubts about his commitment to making sure Afghan is truly safer. You may ask then, why doesn't political expediency cause him to back off of unpopular healthcare reform? Possibly because conservatives are unsure or fear that another guiding principle is an egotistical goal of rewriting American history. Concerns about Obama's true motive and guiding principles are not unfounded and we should all be wary about his newest claim that government controlled health care is a "moral imperative". Does he even know what that means, and has he ever been guided by such? Again, we should always be free to question his motives and brush up on our Kantian ethics. Obama seems to forget clearly that morality arises not from mandates but the freedom to choose what is right.

 

I would like to remove my cynic hat for a moment and admit that I was moved by the images of the Boeing business jet landing in Burbank, CA this morning, carrying the two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee who were released from a North Korean prison yesterday. No doubt that these women were rescued from a horrific prospect of spending 10-12 years in a hard labor camp, where rapes and beatings are daily occurrences. These women were not truly prisoners but instead became hostages as the North Korean government used them to manipulate concessions from the United States. All administrations have had to deal with slimeball dictators when seeking to save American lives and no doubt have all had to make private promises or submit to some awful propaganda parade for the greater value of our citizens' lives. It is probably one of the ugly realities of being an American president, but reassuring to know that we value such lives. And I can't believe I am saying this, but what better person to submit to the task of kissing up to Kim Jong Il than the master of sweet talk, Bill Clinton. I mean this when I agree he was the right man for the job. As much as I may dislike his politics and personal choices, he can smooth talk and convince like no other politician in history, including our current President. But also, and again, I can't believe I am writing this, he was the best person to send to examine Kim up close and personally and help determine what kind of man we are dealing with. Clinton has an uncanny ability to perceive and read people and appease them, without giving up of himself. We may have just achieved some of the best intelligence on North Korea through his visit.

 

I watched the images of these women tearfully reuniting with their families and loved ones, saw the true and deep gratitude they had for those who helped in their release, and could only guess through their carefully chosen words at the horrors they faced. I was ready to turn off the TV and be grateful for the usefulness of Clinton when Ling said something that caught me. In addition to thanking Clinton and his team and her family, she pointedly thanked President Obama. It just sounded so out of place and when coupled with the image of her standing there with Clinton and her boss, former Vice-President Al Gore, I started to get cynical again. Are we really just going back to the appeasement diplomacy that served Clinton so well but fell on George Bush to clean up? Does Obama have to be credited in every success that comes under his watch? Is he to be viewed as master of all things small and large? And if it went beyond Clinton and involved Obama, what private concessions did he make that we may only discover years later? Any prisoners released? Ships with luxury (or medical) goods for the Supreme Leader allowed to deliver despite international embargoes? Was Hillary's apology and Bill's visit the only price? What will we do to negotiate the release of American hikers who wander into Iran?  No doubt it is a no-win situation, but I don't have the confidence or trust that it won't be a we-lose one either. No doubt freedom comes at a price, I would just like to know what we are truly spending to get it.

 

Tomorrow afternoon, President Obama is going to have a couple of guys over for a beer and possibly some absolution (and no, I did not mean Absolut). Many have written and commented on the President's recent gaffe regarding Sgt. Crowley's arrest of Henry Louis Gates as examples of his deep bent divisiveness, based on race and/or Democratic elitism. I see it differently. I see it as a result of the fact that Obama did not grow up as an American, with an American experience that most of us had, black and white, rich and poor, New Englander and Southerner, male and female. I see his condemnation of the Cambridge Police Department not just as an attack on presumed racial profiling (or possibly some left over bad feelings from his own Harvard days?) but a contempt for those who serve and preserve the laws and order of this country at all levels, be it local police or the military, and the class of Americans that value and promote such service.  Those of us who grew up in his generation were taught that the success and security of America depends in large part on the respect for the rule of law and those who are entrusted to protect it.

 

Let me step back for a minute. I went to grade school in the late sixties/early seventies and the years from 4^th through 8^th grade really stand out as truly formative education years. Even at the height of the Vietnam War protests, it was a time when civics and American history were taught as subjects of pride, before political correctness and apologism took over. Everyday, we said the Pledge of Allegiance, and the values of the Pledge were reinforced by the things we learned about this country's founding, growth, adaptation, expansion, spirit and willingness to fight for freedom within and beyond our borders. It was a time when we, like many other families, drove across the country to visit relatives or see sights, before air travel was easy and relatively cheap. As a result, we were taught to see America and see it for what it is, a country that is truly unique, respects the individual, encourages personal liberty and has opportunities for everyone, even if flawed. Even the mistakes and struggles of our history were taught as just that and no doubt our history has proved that we learn from our mistakes in order to better ourselves. It is this kind of experience that has made me, and many like me, patriots and proud Americans, even when I lived overseas as a teenager and in my early twenties. Obama never really had this and as a result does not comprehend what America is really all about.

 

Throughout his campaign and these early days of his Presidency, he has made comments about those Americans that make up the back bone of this country. He does not see their lives and values as the foundation of "American exceptionalism", as Rush Limbaugh puts it, but as folks who "cling to their guns and religion", or perpetuate the mistakes of bigotry or just act "stupidly". As young Americans, we were taught to respect authority and the rule of law, in order to preserve the greater freedoms afforded us under the Constitution, not just merely as a means to serve the goals of the state. We are now led by a man who believes he is first a "citizen of the world" and that the Constitution is incomplete or more of a "self-help guide" for a greedy Congress. And he apologizes for our success, forcing successful Americans to apologize for theirs through greater taxes and "spreading the wealth".

 

How different would Obama be if instead of reciting Koranic verses at an Indonesian Islamic school he had said the Pledge of Allegiance everyday? What might he have learned if he saw the miles of highway and beauty and progress our Western states have to offer or the ongoing history tragically told by all of our Civil War battle sites? American history is as much experienced as it is taught and this is the hole in Obama's education. Tomorrow afternoon may just give the President another chance to use somebody to further his political image, but I hope it offers Sgt. Crowley the chance to give our President a lesson in civics.

Julie Hamos, Democrat state rep. from Evanston, has announced that she will run for Mark Kirk's congressional seat in the 10th district.  This offers an interesting opportunity for the Illinois GOP.  The 18th district includes Evanston and Wilmette, not necessarily a guarantee for Democrats since much of Wilmette voted Republican for Kirk. 

Is this a seat the state party is just willing to let the Democrats keep?  In one sense, the race for the 18th district is an open, clean slate, a chance to start building Republican presence and regain some support in a "Republican-ish" area.  Is it a jewel close enough to Chicago that the state party would be willing to take a chance on going after it?  Surely, with the right message about Democratic spending, cronyism and corruption in Springfield, and the demonstrated Democratic philosophy of big government shown by Washington Republicans might be able to offer a viable alternative?  I think the party should explore this further and not give up the tough, but not impossible fights. 

I have to confess, for the last two weeks I have been on a "vacation" where I have been blissfully unaware of what is going on in politics both in Washington and Chicago.  No newspapers, no radio, no television and only rare internet access.  I am amazed at how much less stress I feel not keeping track of the shenanigans of our elected representatives.  I have to believe that this is how much of the rest of the country probably lives.  And yet, in a scary way, I also am beginning to realize, as I re-enter the media world, how much goes on that I am not aware of and yet will affect me dramatically.  Yes, I am talking about this whole healthcare thing.  For once, I hope Dick Durbin is right and that nothing will be decided before the August recess.  I guess I am amazed at how quickly our President wants to get this going despite the fact that there is so much ambivalence, let alone push back from the American public.  I caught only bits and pieces of his "resell" speech and apart from trying to figure out what he was trying to say, I felt like we'd already heard his prime -time pitch before.  Is it really that hard for him to believe that Americans don't actually like what is going on?  Does he really think that Americans voted for him for his ideology and his insight into what is really good for us?  As Chicagoans, shouldn't we be frightened for the rest of the country that the key players in trying to get this healthcare nightmare passed are Rahm Emanual and David Axelrod ?  Neither of whom is known for his kindness and altruism.  In many ways I feel like Rip Van Winkle and am debating:  do I go back to sleep and hope to avoid confronting this reality or do I try to wake up and face the frightening present? 

 

One thing I have noticed is all this focus on the healthcare debate seems to have overshadowed some of the horrors happening overseas, including the kidnapping of our soldiers and the bombings in Indonesia to mention  a few.  Is there any doubt that the world seems less safe today than say, nine months ago?  Obama should relish the fact that thanks to the media and the political debate, Americans are focused on healthcare, global warming, and cap and trade rather than the rapidly destablizing world.  More than anything this tells me there is much to pay attention to in the upcoming months as gubernatorial and senate candidates emerge.  More than we realize, these folks will affect our lives, even if we are unaware of it.  It makes me think that many Americans have been blissfully sleeping while the busy political mice have been scurrying away our money, security and rights.  Rise and shine and wake up!

 

The narrow margin granted to Al Franken giving him Norm Coleman's Senate seat just reminded me of why I am frustrated with not only Democrats and their tactics to secure power, but with the Republicans' inability to secure the hearts and minds of those they represent. I have to confess that I was pretty mad about the latest revelations about Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC). I think it was his "mea culpa" where he cried about how hard it was to break up with his mistress that did me in. All I could think of was "what a wimp", that he had a duty, not only to his wife, but to serve fully the people of South Carolina and lately the Republican Party. He failed on all three and so now I question whether he really has the capability to be a good governor and win back the trust of his constituents, let alone his family. Whether he was the right person, and clearly he wasn't, doesn't change the fact that in him was the hope of a resurgent Republican party that was focused on issues, fighting the expansion of the federal government and finally standing up to Democrat bullying. Republicans must now keep looking for the right messenger who can deliver that message. And now we are faced with a 60-seat-filibuster-proof-Democrat-controlled Senate secured by a comedian. And a mean one at that. The problem is that Franken hasn't really built anything, has never governed, legislated nor learned the art of compromise. He has spent a career observing, mocking those who do things, and tearing things down. He joins the ranks of our President in serving those for whom he has never really worked or achieved. On the Republican side, we have a governor whose ability to govern, despite a solid track record of improvement, is now clouded by personal issues, and we have Democrat representatives, bereft of business, commercial and government track records who are in office because of their personalities. My point is that neither situation is good. Is it too much to ask that those who serve in office, into whose hands we put our trust and public funds, be both likable and capable?

 

I ask this question because we are about to have "cap and trade" and national healthcare legislation shoved down our throats with many of us completely unaware of what our representatives are doing "on our behalf". Come the next election cycle, how many voters will hold these people accountable for what they are actually doing? Too often we send our representatives off to state capitals and Washington, DC and forget to keep track of them unless something scandalous happens. Unfortunately, these folks have the ability to really effect our lives, down to telling us what light bulbs we can use or what we can eat. We need to pay closer attention to the skills, experience and principles of those we are electing so that we can trust them to act on our behalf. To those in Illinois looking for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, has a candidate emerged that can demonstrate a certain level of achievement and proven success in leading who is also capable of delivering a solid principled message that articulates what he or she stands for? We need someone who not only understands the issues, how to articulate and defend them but also knows how to put them into action. This we are sorely missing.

 

 

 

Voting "present" is like having your cake and eating it, too; you allow things to happen without having to reveal your true position on the matter. Your inaction lets you wait to see if it was the right move. If it works, you didn't vote against it and if it doesn't, you didn't vote for it. Like it or not, President Obama has to address what is going on in Iran and North Korea. His delay in speaking up for freedom and against the violence and ruthless control in Tehran only highlights the fact that what is going on in the world is not what Obama had in his plans. How he has delayed is an insight into his instincts on these matters. The fact that right out of the gate, the greatest man in speechmaking was unable both to posit ourselves as not meddling while simultaneously standing behind those who want freedom tells us that he is not inclined to hold America as a beacon of freedom. He seems reluctant to cast his vote or take a clear position. Only in dribs and drabs and finally yesterday could he bring himself to use the words that have flowed so much more freely from other Presidents' speeches - "those who stand for justice stand on the right side of history". I am not convinced that his heart is behind those words. Given his world tour apologizing for America's role in bringing freedom to and improving the lives of others, how can we expect him to stand up for political self determination, even when it is an issue of national security. His belief that he alone can control the matters of nuclear buildup and stability, in both Iran and North Korea, through diplomacy, persuasion and apologetic politics is finally being questioned. His policies don't seem to have a plan for when that doesn't work and he lacks higher principles to give us confidence in what he might do. When questioned on his plans and principles by those such as Major Garrett of Fox News, we should be troubled by his refusal to answer or to allege that as President he cannot be questioned. There is no doubt that we need to tread carefully when it comes to Iran, that our meddling could disrupt the natural course of revolution or actually be used against the cause of freedom. There is no doubt that our actions regarding vessels carrying arms to North Korea will force our hand prematurely. But my concern is deeper than a question of tone or strategy. I think we now have a right to question our President's commitment to what America really stands for. He is using the current reluctance of this country to enter into another conflict and Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue to excuse himself from making a clear statement against Iran. We have to ask whether he would even under ideal circumstances lend real support to those who desperately want freedom. What lengths would he go to to keep us safe? Is he really a protectionist when it comes to exporting human and political rights? Given tonight's propaganda-fest on healthcare and what he intends to do with the financial industry, does he believe in freedom for Americans?

I will confess a certain train-wreck interest in watching bits and pieces of "I'm A Celebrity".  I think it was genius of both Patti and Rod to have her on the show.  She appeared normal, down to earth and almost sweet.  Rod's few appearances allowed him to appear supportive, fatherly, earnest and almost sweet.  Nice makeover for both of them.  I expected her to use every opportuntity to give her version of events and explain how the impeachment was about enemies attacking Rod for standing up for people.  However, I think I lost it when she looked right in the camera and said that she was proud to be able to show her children how to behave, to stand up for yourself and be a certain kind of person. 

Does it take being viewed by millions of people you know are watching to make you want to be a good role model?  What about showing your children how to be a good person in the privacy of your home, when no one is watching (although we now know they were listening), when talking on the phone or to your husband?  Too bad the show was not about true redemption.

 

I am writing this in the Richard J. Daley center waiting to see if I will be selected for a jury for the notorious Cook County Circuit Court. This gives me an opportunity to think about the latest Obama agenda item, healthcare. Especially since sitting in a large room waiting for bureaucrats to determine my fate might be like visiting the doctor under an Obama plan. And, eerily, the TV in the waiting room is tuned to the ABC channel. It is clear our President wants to focus completely on revamping the healthcare industry not just insurance. It is a shame that all that "internal"turmoil in Iran, the mere saber rattling of North Korea testing nukes and imprisoning U.S. Citizens, or the mischaracterization of terrorists being released from Gitmo to take up snorkeling in the tropics might distract us. But these are not the priorities on Mr. Obama's agenda who tells us that the real "ticking time bomb" is healthcare. He is so determined to scare us into believing that there is a crisis in healthcare rather than insurance that he has convinced ABC to broadcast infomercials selling his agenda. Our shepherd-in-chief has gotten very good at crying wolf. Much of what he and the Congressional Democrats are saying is illusory or misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. The rush is on not to fix the problems in existing systems but to write in a whole new one - with no evidence or assurances that it won't face the same shortcomings. Taxpayers need to ask three questions:

1. Is there a true crisis regarding the quality and delivery of health care? No doubt our insurance system is cumbersome, costly and flawed but people are not being turned away from our hospitals. We have the best medicine in the world and foreigners come here to get what their national systems cannot provide. There is a difference between being uninsured and not having access to care and this is what should be closely examined. Even by the Administration's own accounts, a new plan would only cover a third of those currently uninsured.

2. Isn't it cheaper and easier to examine and fix the problems of the variety of existing (private, federal employee, Medicare/Medicaid) insurance systems? Obama is trying to "sell" his plan by alleging that his plan will make private plans more "competitive" and will be "free" to become more efficient and provide better options. I find it amusing that he of all people is using national healthcare as a tutorial on free market principles. It is a simple fact that when the government enters into an industry where it is not bound by market prices and has unlimited tax funds to provide subsidies, it actually squelches competition. Just this week, here in Chicago at the AMA, Obama tried to sell his plan to the very folks who will live and work by its terms and they remain unconvinced. It did not help that Obama was unwilling to discuss one of the single most stifling costs to healthcare, medical malpractice caps and liability insurance. It will be his plan on his terms appeasing those interests that provide him support.

3. Are Congressional Democrats and this Administration the ones to rewrite healthcare? These are the folks that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or currently oversee Medicare and Medicaid. What makes us think that government bureaucrats are good at running these things, although if a 31 year old law student can run a car company...at least Hillary had meetings and a task force. Speaking of which, I realize that having the First Lady involved can be damaging, but currently Obama's only experience with healthcare seems to be having his wife earn $300K a year for a hospital system which has yet to be an example of reform and efficiency.

Our President has made it clear that he is determined to stay on track with his ambitious domestic agenda and nothing, not even the threat of a destabled Iran, will derail him. We all saw how he crushed the fly that got in the way of his CNBC interview. Earlier today, he just announced a revamping of the finance industry, with the typical claim that it is in the direst of straits. What is next? What I don't understand is how he can cry wolf about every domestic policy and downplay the only genuine crises to which he is constitutionally obligated. I guess it's his party and gets to cry wolf when he wants to.

 

The latest economic news has been impressive: over 150,000 jobs were "saved or created" last month; banks are starting to repay the TARP money, even at a "profit"; congressional spending will be on a "pay-go" basis. These statements are misleading at best yet the media is reporting them as signs of a desperately wished for recovery. How the White House reports on the economy is exactly how I report on my spending at home. I am the spender and my husband is the saver. Let me reveal a home budget secret - whenever I spend money outside of our budget, I don't tell my husband how much I spent, I tell him how much I saved! Even he is impressed by my ability to find a bargain, but holds firm that I am still spending By my budget rules, I can then put that savings into my "income" line. I am still trying to convince my husband of all the money I have "earned" over the years. Why are Americans willing to believe this administration's explanations? Let's look first at the latest job report. It is virtually impossible to measure how many jobs are actually saved and yet all Obama has to do is say that since job loss predictions were higher than actual losses, these jobs are saved and therefore can be counted on the plus side. Claiming that this is the worst financial crises since the Depression helps inflate the dire predictions in the first place. However, Obama promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% but the numbers are now topping 9.4%. Yet, he is arguing that this is proof the stimulus is working and we should wave the wand and ramp up the stimulus so we can "save" 600,000 more jobs. I use that same logic when I defend my budget-breaking based on all the great deals I can get now, alleging long run gains while ignoring the cost of spending money that isn't there. I am thankful that my husband understands the concepts of debt and interest.

The real magic comes when we can turn our "savings" into income. Ten banks announced they are paying back TARP funds, in large part to relieve themselves of the administration's controls. The administration has gone so far as to claim that these returns on the government's investment are turning a "profit", as if the rate of return wasn't already calculated in the original loan. Given that there is still an additional $650 billion outstanding, I don't see the profit part unless these repayments, although less than accounted for, were more than expected. The real illusion is that the repayments are not going to repay the American taxpayer, they are now going to fund the Treasury Department which will continue to administer funds and control banks. By this accounting, in my home budget, I should take what I saved, call it income and, Abracadabra! put it into a special Starbucks fund. This is all being done to convince taxpayers (voters) that the administration's plans are working.

This ability to convert "lower than expected losses" into "gains" has greater ramifications than merely being a shell game. Polls show that Americans are beginning to resist the government's insistence on increased spending and are making it clear that now is not the time to overhaul health care, let alone nationalize it. To appease these concerns, Obama announced that the stimulus budget will be based on "pay as you go" - no dollar goes out unless there is one coming in. This all sounds very responsible, if not fiscally conservative, yet it is not really about reducing spending. The trick is that as long as you can "add" income, you can argue you have more to spend. There are two ways we can appear to add income - increase taxes and other revenue or, by my own home budget magic, count savings. Presto! Changeo! now there are funds for national health care. Even I have not mastered that trick.

I wrote too quickly and optimistically.  I actually thought for a moment that the rule of law might have had a resurgence, but it turns out that the Supreme Court has lifted its stay and the Chrysler bankruptcy will go forward in its current form of subverting secured creditors.  Well, at least I don't have to add Ginsburg to my Rule of Law bobblehead collection.  Sorry for the false alarm.

 

The last time I reviewed my constitutional history, we had three branches of government intended as checks and balances on each other. Lately, we appear to have had only one as Obama expands his executive and administrative authority to control the banking and auto industries and has "czars" for everything from cyberspace, health care and now "executive compensation." But yesterday and today, I heard from another branch that might actually work independently from the administration. At least until Obama has seated his activist nominee. The Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Ginsburg (of all Justices, no less)  to stay the Chrysler bankruptcy plan and sale to Fiat suggests that the rule of law,  long established to control bankruptcy proceedings and fairness among classes of creditors, investors and risk takers, may actually be applied. This should give us hope that there is an institution dedicated to checking the overreaching by the executive branch. At least for now...

 

Dear Advice Guru,

I live in Chicago, where "hope" comes from yet I feel left out of the "riches" promised. Just this past week we had: another alderman indicted, the mayor's nephew brought before a grand jury, Springfield trying to impose a tax increase while failing to adopt true political reform, parking meters ripping us off, our impeached governor's trial delayed for a year, and his wife appearing relatively sweet among whining celebrities on an inane reality show. If I look at the nation, GM filed for bankruptcy only after the President secured the unions' and the administration's interest in controlling it, the Chinese are buying Hummer, Obama is on another apology tour, now in the Middle East, Democrats are fighting to keep an activist Supreme Court nominee from being questioned about her record, oh and let's not forget the largest expansion of government EVER including a rush to nationalize health care. What are Republicans and moderates to do? How can we make our votes matter? How did this all happen so fast?

Signed,

Hopeless in Chicago

Dear Hopeless,

Not long ago we had Republicans in power, with Edger and Thompson as governors, Peter Fitzgerald as a U.S. Senator, but somehow their legacies have slipped away. At a Republican gathering last week, I heard some depressing talk that maybe Mayor Daley controls the Republican party and the perception is that Republicans are not much of an alternative to the Democrats. It doesn't help that the media, be it the Tribune or NBC News, help perpetuate the cult of personality and refuse to question and demand answers from our leaders. The Tribune's "Corruption Watch", although a step in the right direction, has yet to go further by demanding answers and accountability. Brian Williams of NBC has his fawning, teenage crush special about a day in the life of the President. Obama and his team seem so hip and cool. This is hard to overcome.

But there is some hope. Is this for real or is it just a temporary stop-gap that merely slows Democrats? Governor Quinn did not get the tax increase he had hoped for. Poll after poll shows that Americans and Illinoisans are right of center on virtually every issue including judges, health care, spending, marriage, abortion and national security. We should be encouraged that with Supreme Court nominees, Democrats are "mis-adopting" our language in trying to sell Sotomayor to the public (even if it is meant to mislead). We need people to respond to policies on their face not their consequences. Anytime you have a politician that believes it is government's role to provide you with something, you will have to pay more in taxes. We need a message that is clear and consistent and a messenger that is incorruptible, convincing, and above all passionate. We need to convince these voices that they belong in government and stand behind them. Not doing that is why we have lost Springfield, Fitzgerald resigned paving the way for a Senator Obama, and now we have machine tactics in our White House. With the right strategy, we could easily regain our momentum, maybe without being as ruthless as the Democrats. So we should have hope. Now go and seek help!

 

What does it really mean to be a Republican? The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a perfect opportunity for Republicans to explain the core principles we are supposed to believe in. Rather than being contrary for contrary's sake, it is a time to educate the nation, the state and wavering Republicans that it is our adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law that provides for the real intellectual freedom and diversity that defines our party. This nomination can help define one of the first components of the Republican "sniff test" as we legitimately examine Judge Sotomayor's record. Unless there is some ghastly misstep, Obama will probably get his nominee through but that does not mean we can't use this opportunity to express what we stand for. Obama campaigned on the idea that judges should be persons of "empathy" who should know what it feels like to grow up poor, be a mother, be a minority, etc. and who would "actively" interpret the law to achieve "just" results. We now have a chance to confront him on what our Constitution stands for and what the separation of powers truly means. We now have a chance to act like Republicans.

"Being Republican" is an important question, not only facing the future of the party nationally but in defining our existence in Illinois. We see the debate emerging about the contrasting roles of Colin Powell and Dick Cheney. The local reaction to Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame has brought up the roles of conservatives and moderates on the issue of life and their places in the party. Cook County Democratic candidates (I have heard through the grapevine) are considering running as Republicans, not because of republican principles, but to have a better shot at winning against an incumbent Democrat (kind of a reverse-Specter). Are there certain minimum principles that one must hold to be able to be called a Republican? In Illinois, we run a real risk of abandoning our core principles when we allow Democrats to put on our hat. What are those principles that we should expect from each of our candidates? Limited exercise of government power, the rule of and equal application of the law, adherence to the Constitution, equality of opportunity (not results), protection of innocent life and a fundamental commitment to individual self-realization. When applied, we expect lower taxes, abolishing punitive measures for success, fair and honest judges and lawmakers, security both locally and nationally and the freedom to express our opinions and views. Just running on a platform on lowering taxes is not enough, otherwise our party just becomes "Democrat-lite" or worse, the Democrat alternative for those who can't run with "D" by their name.

There are many out there clamoring for Republicans to become more "moderate" and in doing so abandon some of our core principles. We see this most often in the areas of life, abortion, the environment and education. Let me tackle the elephant in the room, life, since it is the best example of how we might let perception blur our principles. There are some that accuse "pro-lifers" of marginalizing the party. This is a huge mistake and it plays right into the Democrat strategy of dividing the party. What is at the core of Republican principles is not just the protection of innocent life, but the means and process by which we do so. Putting aside the question of when does life begin and when does it acquire rights and warrant protection, Republicans believe that the means for addressing this lie in science, religion and the hands of the people not government. This is essential for Republicans on both sides to agree on. Under Democrat principles, these questions are decided in the courts, by unelected, and in some sense, undereducated judges - single individuals making decisions that effect whole communities. Or they are decided by the executive branch, either by order or through an agency or commission such as the HHS, HUD, FCC, EPA, entrusted with administering a policy or overseeing regulations. This should trouble all Republicans, even those who are "pro-choice", that those who do not represent the will of the people, who are not experts nor accountable through election are making those decisions. On this Republicans can and should be united. The anger should not be directed at those who disagree on when life begins and how it should be protected, but against those who seek to control the issue in the courts, the media, through regulation and policy, but not law. This applies not only to life, but to other "social" issues that given a diverse society will always be "debatable". Recently, our courts and the EPA, not science, have defined carbon emissions generally as pollutants. In California, it took a federal appeals court to uphold the voters' support of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, by overturning a lower activist court. This is why the review of Sotomayor's record and the questioning of her judicial philosophy is so critical to reinforcing Republican political values. We have before us a judge who has openly described her role has looking out for the consequences of her decision. Rather than applying the law, as depicted by our lady Justice who holds the Scales while blindfolded, she sees the role of a judge to use the law to manipulate a desirable result. This is in contradiction to our Constitution and violates the separation of powers defined by it. We owe it to ourselves and our nation to stand up for our principles no matter how ineffectual that task may seem.

 

Other than being Democrats, what do Patty Blagojevich, Todd Stroger, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have in common? They are all audacious. They all have an uncanny (but increasingly more common among Democrats) ability to take an otherwise embarrassing, career ending or controversial moment and turn it into a personal opportunity. It is truly artistic how they can go from defense to offense. Blagojevich, not humiliated by her potty mouth and unindicted co-conspirator status will be taking her husband's place on a low-grade reality show. Stroger has attacked opponents of his veto of the repeal of the most unpopular tax increase by interjecting race into the equation. I wonder how many services his own delinquent taxes could provide for low income families. Pelosi, banking on the country's general skepticism about some of our intelligence practices, has attacked the CIA as liars, despite the overwhelming evidence of her "mistruths" about what and when she knew about waterboarding. And finally, the master himself, Obama went to Notre Dame (perceived to be synonymous with Catholic) in the midst of the controversy surrounding his support of abortion and told pro-lifers and abortion opponents to "move on" and stop making the debate so hard. I am not saying that Republicans don't engage in wrongdoing, but when they do, almost always it becomes career ending. What have we heard from the likes of Larry Craig and Mark Foley? If former Gov. Ryan is released from prison, it will be because he has suffered and will continue to do so on the outside. Whereas Republicans, when caught in compromising situations, recognize the shame, offer mea culpas and eventually fade away, Democrats beg for quick forgiveness and begin their art of redemption.

How do they do it? The Chicago machine offers politicians a pretty simple playbook. First, change the language, the terms of the debate or the rules and make them appealing. All of a sudden "life" becomes "choice", "lies" become "non-recollections" or relative cultural truths. Secondly, appeal to personal popularity or public opinion, even if it is unfounded. Preying on people's fears or weaknesses (like fear of appearing racist, uninformed or uncaring) is a most effective form of manipulation. Democrats have used Bush's unpopularity or the public's mistrust of government to their advantage while deflecting examination of their own actions. Meaning well can get you pretty far. This all works if you can use the third step of enlisting a complicit media. As the the media moves from a role of truth seeking to agenda supporting, "truthiness" becomes a new standard for reporting. And if all of these strategies aren't enough, scare tactics and threats will work. We see this locally in Stroger's threat to close down a hospital dedicated to serving the poor and crying racism against those who support the repeal. Is it any surprise where Obama gets his plays?

Where does this confidence in seeking the "after-controversy life" come from? In many ways, the Chicago style of politics allows for and encourages this. Yes, some get caught and may even serve some time, but there is a doggedness about being in public life that continues. Not just in terms of finding a way to support one's self and family, but an attempt to get back into the center of things. Even Dan Rostenkowski has found an after life. There is no doubt that this confidence defines the politics of our President and thus affects our nation. His choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff makes it clear that politics on the offensive is the name of the game. Those seeking to understand our President would do well to study the ways of the Democratic machine here. But what does it teach Republicans? Do we need to start doing the same thing? Can we take the art of public opinion and skepticism and cloak our wrong doings with attacks on the perceived weaknesses of the otherside? Another option is to be perfect - above reproach, beyond hypocrisy, otherwise not human. As Republicans, we generally recognize our wrong doing for what it is and look for forgiveness and understanding. We let weak or imperfect messengers bring our messages down and that allows others to question our principles. We need somehow, maybe in a new Chicago style, to build our confidence about our principles and don't let the petty politics and politicians get in the way of our message. Maybe Michael Steele is on to something when he says the honeymoon is over. Do Republicans have the stomach to play this game, especially on terms we define?

 

WLS-AM Radio's Don Wade wondered the other day if we didn't live in a "banana republic". He was discussing the authoritarian role the Cook County Board president, Todd Stroger has taken with respect to the the repeal of the nation's highest sales tax rate and its relationship to shots fired at Tony Pereica's neighbor's house, but intended for him. To be honest, Mr. Wade is not off track at all. When an outsider looks at the consistent corruption, nepotism and thuggery politics in Cook County, the analogy works. I first moved to Chicago in 1996, and was amused by the weekly, if not daily headlines about some politician, fundraiser or insider that was under investigation, indicted, convicted or being sentenced. What surprised me was the "matter of factness" that seemed to accompany each of these incidents. Where is the outrage? Why do some of these folks keep being reelected? Why don't we throw all of the bums out? Then I began to think of the city as a "benevolent dictatorship". What makes such things work is that although the government is corrupt, people still feel a sense of personal freedom. I spent time living in West Africa in the mid-1980's and under some despots, as long as people were not randomly jailed, targeted or threatened by the ruling party, and citizens were free to express privately their criticisms, these dictators can last. What allows Cook County and Chicago to run under such a tight one party rule is that for most people, things "work." As long as the garbage is picked up, the streets are plowed, the schools are open and the city looks clean and pretty, there is not enough personal outrage. There may even be a strong argument for letting municipalities run as dictatorships - there is an efficiency in having one decision maker- committee rule can be cumbersome, slow and with too much compromise. Look how quickly the flowers and trees and gates went up around the city greenways, and how quickly the bulldozers chopped up Meigs Field...Well maybe that was too fast. The problem with no personal outrage is that the corruption and ineptitude can become so entrenched that when things do fall apart, it may be too late to oust those who have amassed a lot of power. Then you have a "banana republic."

The recent events involving Todd Stroger and his attempt to defy the Board's decision to repeal the very unpopular sales tax increase demonstrate how deep and powerful corruption can become. When people finally feel the outrage, it may be too difficult to override his veto because of the support he has garnered in the mean time. If nothing is done by next Tuesday, are we left with counting the days until his reelection? Will the outrage and disgust still exist in full force so that people remember to vote him and his cronies out? Unfortunately, Cook County residents and Chicagoans have been handed enough "goodies" to make their personal situations comfortable enough that they will tolerate the corruption, even if it means high taxes. At what point will the taxes be too high and affect too many people? And if we reach that point, as we are today, are we too late to change the effects of deep seated corruption and incompetency?

Todd Stroger is not the first politician in Cook County/Chicago to do this to us. We need to find, root out and expose such politicians before they get into power. We also need to connect the dots showing how deeply cronyism, nepotism, ineptitude and skimming affect all of us, even in the most subtle ways. Stroger is threatening the closure of Provident Hospital as a consequence of overriding his veto. Even if it were true that the hospital is in trouble, we need to realize this too may be due to the inefficient, nepotistic, incompetent pattern established in the hiring and management practices that have been allowed to continue and reinforced by electing corrupt overseers. We need to ask ourselves as Cook County Citizens whether it is enough that some things "work" or do we expect better. Under honest and capable stewardship, we could have some great services that not only work, but are crony-free.

 

While the media and liberal Democrats tout the brilliance and command of office Barack Obama has shown in his first 100 days, the right (through Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh especially) have not hesitated to speak out that we have a leader who is in way over his head. Our economy continues to decline, Wall Street has no confidence in his policies, Pakistan and Afghanistan grow more dangerous, even while our efforts arebeing diverted from Iraq which now risks being undermined by Iran as we start to leave. European leaders still aren't being really nice to us. Foreign dictators seem to be the only ones encouraged by our new President. His attempts to control or command an issues are done with much flourish, a big press conference and the accompanying fawning as if he were the only President to deal with so many "serious" crises. The recent swine flu "epidemic" is a perfect example. It turns out that all of this is may be much ado about nothing. Never mind the fact that health officials kept informing the public that this was no worse than any other flu, the President, his Secretary of Health and Human Services and even his head of Homeland Security made a big show of getting involved. And don't forget how his Vice President really had us worried. What is better today than it was a year ago? What has he really accomplished? It is interesting that we are being told that we might not see real results until, say, 2010 or even 2012. I am still waiting for the successes of his earlier ventures as a community organizer and educational reformer. I have often privately referred to our President as "Johnny Bravo". Remember the Brady Bunch episode where Greg was being touted as a teen idol, only to find out that it was because he "fit the Johnny Bravo suit"? His success seems to be in his timing - the left place at the left time - not in his actual accomplishments. With the handling of the Democratic Party he has managed at every stage of his career to step in only when his opponents have misstepped. Maybe we need to take a closer look at his "suit".

When will the middle or conservative Democrats wake up and at least question his efficacy? What will it take for someone who is not Hannity or Rush to point out that although he may "fit the suit", he "has no clothes"? As in the famous fable, it takes an innocent child without an agenda nor beholden to the emperor, to point out the obvious. The problem is that many are afraid. And for good reason. If you disagree and have a different political philosophy, you will be branded as an "extremist", part of the "cable chatter", being led by Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Never mind that no body actually falls into those categories, but bless those who attended all the Tea Parties. Maybe would-be critics are afraid of being singled out and attacked personally, such as the AIG executives who had ACORN protesters harassing them or demeaned as were Hannity and Limbaugh? This administration's gift for demonizing the opposition is unparalleled. Even before being elected, Obama planted the seeds of marginalization by attacking the right, not just by belittling Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News and their audiences, but also allowing his minions to yell epitaphs when they could get away with it. This modus operandi has been in full force and view lately when we look closely at what happens when a Democrat does not go along with the administration. Recently, Democratic Representative, Peter DeFazio was told by Obama, "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother" during a House Democratic Caucus meeting in late March after DeFazio failed to support the stimulus bill. And we see the recent attack on Thomas Lauria, partner at White & Case law firm and staunch Democratic supporter after he revealed that his hedge fund clients were directly threatened by the White House, which would use the its press corps to destroy their reputations if the funds opposed Obama's Auto Industry Task Force's plan for the Chrysler bankruptcy. The attacks on those on the Right and now those Democrats who dare to question fit a pattern - one promoted by Saul Alinsky whose tactic was "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." This is not hard to miss, yet many still avert their eyes from this naked deception.

No President has ever gained such adoration, support and consensus in the mainstream media - nor ever should. Yet, like the Emperor's courtiers, the media and Democrats have become too invested in the fallacy of what Barack Obama is wearing. Even if it "fits", is there really anything there? However, we eventually need to ask ourselves, who is the tailor that started all of this and why?

 

Two recent events have caused me to reflect on why Illinois and my town of Evanston are dominated by Democratic politics. Evanston, like other places in Cook County, held its municipal elections in April. And just this weekend, we mourn the death of Jack Kemp, maybe not a perfect conservative, but a strong, gracious Republican. Both events have me wondering what is it that conservatives and Republicans can do to change this overwhelming blue tide, not only locally but nationally.

The Democratic machine was in full and effective force in April. Despite the fact that the Evanston candidates did not have party affiliations, the winners campaigned sucessfully on their very public endorsement from our liberal congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, and liberal state representative, Julie Hamos. This was once Donald Rumsfeld's district. Like many liberal cities, social programs, extended government benefits, strong union support and a tolerance for many movements have blown through the budget, despite the high property taxes. But, the once Republican strongholds of Wilmette and Winnetka are also becoming increasingly Democratic. The cool factor of voting for Obama has only increased the blue wave. Have residents of once Republican suburbs really changed the principles they believe in? Generally, we have been able to distinguish ourselves as the party of limited government, greater personal and economic freedom, low taxes, and traditional family values - values that should cut across socio-economic-ethnic lines - and yet we are losing votes. Are the Democratic machine politics of Chicago radiating outward? The results in November suggest this and the tactics and ensuing results in Evanston last April demonstrate that campaign tactics trump the message. Many pundits have begun to theorize that the problem is with a Republican message that does not always offer an active tangible solution. Because our solutions depend on invisible hand, free market principles, we are not handing voters a packaged promise of specific benefits. Instead we offer people the hope and possibility of prosperity based on self determination, hard work, and the freedom of opportunity. Many of the solutions we do offer tend to be a cheap imitation, "republican" versions of a Democratic failed idea. That makes our loss even worse because we moved away from our principles. Does this mean that the messenger and organizational and communication efforts far outweigh the message?

The legacy of Jack Kemp may yet live on in the rebirth of republicanism. In the mourning of the passing of a free market capitalist, in remembering his political and personal achievements, we may find a way to bring a republican phoenix out of the ashes. Kemp is credited for creating and convincing Ronald Reagan of the most successful economic plan in decades, the tax cuts of the early Eighties. But Kemp's success was not just in convincing Republican and Democrat politicians that tax cuts will work, but in communicating his principles with compassion and reaching across economic lines. His appeal to the average working American was shared by Reagan, yet in many ways he is also a forerunner to George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism." He shared many of the values of the middle class, yet remained an intellectual. Communicating conservatism has to be done with more than a populist message and Kemp and Reagan both had that gift. His legacy as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development proved that Republicans care and can be innovative when it comes to public housing and creating inner city economic opportunities. Kemp's message was successful because he was a messenger that conveyed understanding.

As Republicans in communities where both working and higher middle classes are sharing some of the same economic worries, it might be time to look at Kemp and resurrect "compassionate conservatism." Of course the serious question to ask is can this be done without abandoning the principles of our party - limited government, equal protection under the law, and freedom of personal opportunity. The legacy of Jack Kemp may be a good start for bringing Republicans  back to the party. So what can we do in Illinois, Chicago, Evanston? We need to know what we stand for and stick to what we believe in. We need to find our messengers, those people who can communicate our principles clearly, effectively, with empathy not condescension. We need people we can trust and who will not violate their stewardship of public office for personal gain (we have seen way too much of this in Cook County). Above all, republicans need to be steady and patient and have confidence that the proven solutions - the prosperity of the Reagan years and the 1994 Republican Congress - are on our side. Once we have all that, we can start to paint these blue towns red.