REACT: Organs for Sale

This is not about the kind you play on (and don’t go THERE, either). We are talking human internal organs of the type we take from the unfortunate deceased and install in needy human beings. Not much different than when we go to the auto salvage yard for a whachamacallit from a totaled car to replace the defective whachamacallit in our own car. The “vehicle” is quite different but the concept is the same.

Recently, there was yet another story of how eBay rejects individuals who want to sell their body parts online. Of course, the idea of a market in human body parts is shocking ... awful … horrifying … repugnant … and otherwise distasteful to our human sensibilities. It is also illegal. We are not about to let such practice compromise the sanctity of our human bodies, and violate some ancient medical oath.

Then again, why not? I once shared the knee jerk disgust at the idea. Then my logical brain kicked in. What’s the big wuss??

Taking a “spare” human organ from a healthy person is not something new. In fact, we often read heart rendering (no pun intended) stories about people who have donated a kidney or liver to a loved one heading to Gods’ embrace without the healthy organ. We call those donors heroes. But let a person offer that same non-critical part of their own body for much needed money, and we go nuts.

A kidney is a lot more “my” body than a fetus, since there are three claims to life for a fetus – mom, dad and self. Clearly, the Kidney is mine. I own it. No controversy on that point. So, if I want to sell it, why should society care? Donate or sell, the organ is still a gift of life. We are told over and over of the many who die waiting for a new organ.

I am not sure of the moral soundness of a society that promotes the destruction of a human fetal life at the willy nilly will of a woman, and finds the sale of an extraneous body part to save a life so darn horrific.

If a doctor's oath to “do no harm” was a real consideration, the donated organs would be no less a problem.

For eons, we have allowed people to sell their blood, even for enough money to produce a good drunken binge. We beg them to come into the local blood dealer out of the highest of humanitarian modtives. But suggest selling a kidney and we lose the rational line of thought.

Some argue that the wealthy would be able to buy up the organs, and the poor would be left to those that come on the market by conventional means – tragic death. In actuality, the poor would benefit by getting all the wealthy folks out of line ahead of them. Those with less income are more likely to get the organ they need. And keep in mind, those now getting them are above average in income. Like in all things, we just have to get over the fact that the wealthy enjoy the benefits of wealth – and communist-like notions of redistribution are doomed to failure.

Further more, that sale of organs would produce a much larger number. More lives saved – rich and poor. Apart from the humanitarian good, such practice would reduce the cost of organs (that old free-market supply and demand stuff).

It would also reduce the incentive for the black market in organs. “Stealing” organs from healthy people, and occasionally killing them in the process, is much more common that we would like to admit. Organ commerce has a seedy underside not unlike the days of prohibition. Just witness the scandal over purloined body parts in New England. Granted, a lot of those parts are not available from the living, but a lot are.

Outside of some primitive emotional taboo-like irrationality, what is so wrong with letting people sell an organ or two in a non-life threatening manner. I am not proposing direct sales over the counter. The system of organ transfer would have to be within the rules and regulations. Certainly, we would have to establish some legal guidelines, but that is a no brainer for legislators. They have done far worse with little effort and minimal guilt.

If you had a young child … a spouse … a mother … dying for lack of an organ, would you find it repugnant to put out some cash to save them?

DUH! Milosevic avoids death penality

I had to create a new category. Some news just has a person wondering where sanity has gone for vacation. This first item will show the need for "DUH!"

AOL announced the death of the "Beast of the Balkins," Slobodan Milosevic, who has been on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity. That is a euphmisim for a mass-murdering blood-thirsty miscreant. The AOL headline read; "Milosevic death ends trial." DUH! (See how that works?) Anyway, I guess there is no value in speniding millions of dollars to convict a person beyond the reach of the death penality. Maybe they would havehad to give him credit for "time served" -- in the grave. Of course he was accused of "grave" offenses. Okay ... slap my hand and make me stop making up puns over the death of another human being. I shall just stop here with a big happy grin on my face -- wishing that we could find such a swift and happy solution to the Saddam Hussein circus.

OP ED: Dan Webb, a Desperate Man

Former Governor George Ryan’s freebie lawyer, Dan Webb, is one smart attorney. He is smart enough to be desperate. The use of character witnesses, such as the doorman and out of state individuals who hardly know Ryan, is desperation. Sending the ex guv’s wife on a round of television appearances to promote the “angel of death row” defense in the public press is an extremely desperate ploy. Using the accused to “accidentally” leak to the press with sealed information about a problem juror … that is desperation.

The proverbial bloody sweat was on Webb’s brow when he used his closing argument to … encourage … beg … plead … grovel … for any juror, or two, to not change their minds in deliberation. His eyes roamed for any juror who would hold out against all evidence and closed-door arguments … who would hang the jury instead of his client.

This is not a man who expects an acquittal. This is a man who now sees no decision as his best hope. A new trial or an appeal is foremost in Webb’s mind. It is dangerous to predict the outcome of jury deliberations, but as the betting man he is, I am sure Webb would not wager his last farthing on an acquittal.

His plea for a holdout is more desperate than honest. Webb well knows that without jurors changing their minds, through deliberation, a fresh look at the evidence or fatigue, at least half the trials in the nation would end in hung juries. The entire idea of jury deliberation is to take divergent viewpoints and reach consensus – a consensus that requires any number of jurors to change their minds.

OBSERVATION: Jesse tops black popularity poll -- but it is not good news.

In a recent poll, African Americans were asked to name their most respected leaders.

It comes as no surprise that the ubiquitous Jesse Jackson topped the poll. It was very surprising, however, that he only garnered 15 percent of the vote – this despite his perma presence in press. Instead of Jackson as the anticipated dominant leader, votes were scattered more evenly over a larger group. It appears that the black community is less enamored with The Reverend than is the news industry.

Equally surprising was the number two and three spots. Of the top three leaders, as selected by the black community, two are Republicans, Condi Rice and Colin Powell. This suggests some loosening of the Democrat grip on the black populace.

Of course, the press cannot quite grasp the significance of information not aligned to its bias. There was no mention of the significance of the two GOP stars near the Jackson level. Ponder this for a moment. Rice and Powell breathing down the neck of Jackson as the most respected leaders in the black community. Hell….given the margin of error, Rice could actually be MORE respected among blacks than Jackson -- and she's not a minister of the cloth.

In some ways, this is not so surprising. Jackson has never been the beneficiary of universal black adulation. In a way, he is like China’s Mao Tse-Tung. There is a lot of official respect, -- picture on the Great Wall and all -- but behind the scenes, he is not a very popular guy. The killing millions of his own people does not rest easy on the Sino soul.

Regarding Jackson, he has never been particularly popular among the Chicago black community. Those who know him best, or were there to witness his sometimes sleazy rise to prominence, prefer to ignore him. Conversely, Jackson involves himself in surprisingly few hometown causes. His Chicago activities generally center around long harangues at convocations behind the fortress-like wall of his Rainbow Coalition headquarters – and opportunistic speak-and-run press conferences with at least two cameras.

Then there is the Martin Luther King family. Attempting to steal the national limelight while Reverend King’s body was hardly cold has been the publicly forgotten, but privately unforgiven, event that severed the cordiality and cooperation between the Jacksons and the Kings. The fact the he was denied the stage (ooops… I mean microphone) at the Coreta Scott King funeral is a pretty good indication of the family’s contempt for Jackson. This was not an oversight.

REACT: Polling puts Mayor Daley in big trouble … despite Chicago Tribune spin.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he is pleased with a recent poll that shows he has a 56 percent approval rating. So sayeth a BIG banner headline atop the Chicago Tribune. It also said that 70 percent of the people do not, for one moment, believe Daley when he says that he was clueless of the criminal activities that have taken down scores of bureaucrats, including the top people in his administration.

The Trib front page article is riddled with opinions and supposition, putting a significant “spin” on the story. Their “spin” is that the public thinks Daley IS a crook (although The Trib did not say so in so many words, but to believe he knew of the misdeeds is to believe he is culpable in the illegal activities. Prima fascia, as the lawyers say) BUT the public does not care. They conclude that the Mayor’s accomplishments outweigh his transgressions.

This is the old thinking, when the City Hall transgressions were a few loafing Streets and Sanitation workers, the public demurred. The Trib polling numbers, however, suggest a public getting weary of financially supporting multi million dollar rib offs, and the pervasiveness of the theft of taxpayer money.

Anyone in politics knows that an incumbent with barely more than a 50 percent approval rating is potentially in trouble. It would only take 3 percent of the public to switch from favorable to unfavorable to sink Daley’s rating into the dangerous lower half.

The Trib’s poll analysis does not take into consideration the firmness of the 56 percent approval rating. The fact that it is perilously close to the 50 percent fulcrum, and that 70 percent belief that the Mayor is a liar would suggest a likely weakness in the approval rating.

Despite the Trib’s historic practice of spinning polling data in City Hall’s favor, there are facts that cannot be denied. In this case, the big story is the weakness of Hizzoner. Buried near the end of the article is the biggest news of all. According to the poll, if the election were today, the Mayor would be in a dead heat with none other than Jesse Jackson, Jr. The poll gave Daley only 41 percent of the vote against 38 percent for Jackson, with 21 percent undecided. THAT is phenomenally bad news for the incumbent, and it shows why “approval ratings have to be put into context. They do not indicate how people will vote. In a three-way race, adding Congressman Louis Guttierrez, the Mayor would be forced into a runoff. Again, the all powerful Oz-like Mayor appears very weak, indeed.

The Mayor is not up for election until 2007. In the meantime, it is more than likely that additional scandals will rock the administration. There will be trials of some of his closest aides. There will be additional indictments among his inner circle – maybe even his family. The Mayor, himself, may become a “target’ of the investigation, a “person of interest,” “official #1,” or even an indicted official. No one is making any public predictions. But, no one is privately discounting any possibility.

OP ED: Ryan's character defense proves he is the bad guy we all have known

Everyone agrees that defense attorney Dan Webb is among the best of the best – a really smart guy. There is only one conclusion to draw from his strategy in the trial of former Illinois Governor George Ryan. He is desperate.

Lawyers like to win on the merits of a case. If that is not possible, they try to win on technicalities of the law. If that is not possible, they try to win on emotional appeal. And if THAT does not work, they try to win on at all cost – the equivalent of kicking the television after all rationale repairs and adjustments have failed. Webb knows when he cannot win on the merits … the technicalities… the emotions of the jury … because he is a smart guy.

During the prosecution phase, Webb employed an extremely aggressive and high-risk strategy to try to break down witness. He engaged in a number of squabbles with the prosecutors. His cross examinations seemed more emotional than thoughtful and logical.

His first defense witness was offered up to show how it was that Ryan could walk around with wads of cash he never withdrew from his bank account. The defense argument was that a portion of the money came from “gifts” Ryan received from his minions, including the janitor (who got the gift money form the Ryan campaign fund). While a sleazy practice, Webb argued it was all very legal. To mount his defense, Webb had to admit Ryan was a greedy scumbag in order to counter the prosecution’s contention that he was a CROOKED greedy scumbag. Of course, having all but stipulated that Ryan is a greedy scumbag, a jury might find it easier to believe he is crooked as well. That’s the risk.

To counter Ryan’s image problem, Webb is now resorting to a tried and usually failed tactic. Character witnesses. After months of punishing testimony on Ryan’s lack of character, the defense hopes that a few people outside the issues of the case can polish the tarnished image.

The problem is, none of the character witnesses have an ounce of knowledge of Ryan’s character outside of very limited and narrow settings. His church pastor. This is like those priests who used to bless mobsters for coming to church regularly and being generous when the collection plate was passed.

Next cometh the doorman at his Chicago apartment. Yeah. The doorman, whose only knowledge of Ryan was an occasional nod and the passing of a folded bill instead of a handshake. Then there is that actor from the old M.A.S.H. series and author of “Dead Man Walking,” who only have had a limited association with Ryan over the death penalty issue.

(At the time of the pardons, it was speculated Ryan only granted them to establish an image for the upcoming trial. The defense use of character witnesses suggests validity to that supposition. Adding to the cynicism is the fact that Ryan was NEVER seen as a humanitarian – more of a ruthless autocrat.)

It appears form the character witness list that Ryan does not have anyone how knows him really well who will stand up for his character. Either his closest friends do not think much of his character, or they are in, or on their way, to prison.

Webb’s character witness strategy is a “Hail Mary pass.” You cannot fault Webb. Of course, it is a weak defense. Of course, it is risky. But when the merits of the case are stacked against you … nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Webb is a smart lawyer. So, I suspect he and his high-priced defense team (giving millions of dollars of free legal services to Ryan, however) is spending more nights on an appeal strategy than the ebbing proceedings in the district court. If Ryan takes the stand, you can rest assured that Webb sees a conviction on the horizon -- because Webb is a smart guy.

REACT: The Saddam Insane … ooops … Hussein Circus

Okay … the Saddam “Insane” bit i a bit hooky, but I could not resist. I guess you can be a mysginist, misologist, misoneist, miso-whatever and still be technically sane.

In fact, watching the trial of the bad cad from Bagdad, you start to appreciate the sanity in the middle – you know the one that covers the heart of a phychopathic killer, but is clever and rational enough to perfectly play out the mad defendant.

As each day bring another example of Hussein’s trial-disrupting, message-sending outbursts, you have to question who is in control – and who is sane.

In an apparent attempt to show the world the new order(ly) judicial process in Iraq, the Iraqi leaders, under the guidance of the United States overseers, have made a terrific blunder. The highly publicized and televised trial is just what the middle east did not need. Forgive the Iraqis, but did the American advisors never hear of O. J. Simpson. They have made Hussein a catalyst for the terrorists and the recently disenfranchised followers of the Hussein’s Baath party. His whining about food, mistreatment and potty breaks are getting more sympathy than the victims of his Nazi like brutality.

At the time of his capture, I did not expect Hussein to make it to the jail alive. Well … maybe to the jail, where he would be severely “debriefed” and then fall victim of a jail house accident or an "official" suicide from a dozen shots to the head. But, nooooo. He survives all that only to be given the his biggest audience ever. Each day he is allowed to show his defiance and call his troops into terrorist action. He makes one political speech after another. The only difference between now and when he was in power is that he now gets more media attention when he speaks. Hussein is looking more like the head-of-state than the accused-of-state.

Of course, the many witnesses who attest to Hussein’s murderous ways get almost no attention in the press. He comes across more as the victim than the villain – especially among the Arabs and Muslims, who are quick to accept any accusation against the United States.

And what is the end game here? After a long and fair trail, the general anticipation is that Hussein will be executed. The way this is going, the dispatching Hussein to his 100 virgins will only create another event to stir the pot of lethal discontent. For growing numbers, his execution will not be the just consequence for an evil man, but the martyrdom of an Islamic hero. Even those who hated him in power will see Hussein as the personification of their own oppression.

Can you believe that sane people would have not foreseen this outcome? Is it possible to have full use of one’s faculties and still script such a counter productive scenario as this Hussein et al trail? And most importantly, is it too late for a credible … even modestly incredible … jail house accident?

My suggestions is to put Hussein and his co-defendants in a remote controlled U.S. military vehicle, festooned with reproductions of the famous Danish cartoons, and run the damn thing up and down the airport road a few times a day – until the inevitable happens.

REACT: More Gore Bore

There are no political depravities that can dissuade former Vice President Al Gore from trying to get public attention in the hope of giving his post-White House existence on earth some measure of relevancy. This time he finds a receptive audience in Saudi Arabia. As you may recall, the liberals has often criticized the Bush administration (and previous Republican administrations) for being too cozy with the Saudis. This did not stop Gore from offering his anti-American opinions to the leaders of the sheikdom.

Often members of the loyal opposition travel to international trouble spots to reaffirm American policy. (Did I say “loyal?”) It was once the rule that “politics end at the waters edge.” However, liberal Democrats will break any rule if it can give them hope of regaining power – or at least being taken seriously. Gore’s blabbermouthous in Riyadh is not likely to achieve either for the left wingers. Quite the opposite. I suspect his Arab antics will simply further convince the public of the incompetence of the liberal Demorest – and their unsuitability for public office.

You see … Gore decided to tell the Arabs, in a nation that has a significant terrorist presence among its population, that America is torturing Arabs. The there is a pogrom against Arab citizens throughout the United States.

While there may be some marginal anecdotal examples of abuse perpetrated at the local level, there is no national policy of abuse and discrimination. In making his false charges, Gore incites the extremists in the Arab populace. He undermines our national mission, and therefore our troops. In generations gone by, his action would have been treasonous. In fact, it IS treasonous – just that we do not punish treason any more.

When one ponders just how low the extreme left will go to pander for approval, you discover a new low. Well to Al Gore, I give the “Cindy Sheehan Award.” Or … do I give Cindy Sheehan the “Al Gore Award.” Or do they both get the “John Kerry Award.” In case you are not familiar with these honors, the trophies come in the shape of a boot (Texas style, Of course).

So … however we do it, I am all for giving Sheehan, Kerry and now Al Gore the boot.

OP ED: Cheney should step aside.

It is clear that Vice President Dick Cheney has become something between a distraction and a liability for the Bush administration. Much of the reason has to do with the constant, and often specious, criticism of the “bashers,” but some is due to his own style and issues.

Since the Vice President is not totally blameless in drawing the adverse attention of critics, and the painful winces of supporters, this is a reasonable time to suggest he step down.

There are many good reasons to do so. He has pretty much served out his utility. Any good advice he can provide the President can be given from outside the office. The Scooter Libby issue will only attract more clouds. He is not likely to be the most sought after campaigner for his party’s congressional candidates. His health is compromised, and he could spend more time with the family. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There are enough issues to make a resignation credible -- not seeming to be a political ploy to annoint a successor, and yet not enough scandal to have him depart in disgrace. Any more disclosures and he may have to depart by a much greater public clamor.

Perhaps the biggest reason for the resignation would be to allow the Bush administration an opportunity to rewrite the future with a fresh face -- to zap the malaise that grips the White House. To do this, Bush would nominate Condi Rice as Vice President.

Instantly, the entire perception of the Bush presidency would change. The first woman and the first African-American to hold the second highest office in the land would dramatically reconfigure the political landscape for both Bush and the Republican Party. This would place Rice in the lead for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Her competency for the office is without question, despite anticipated criticism of faux civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson. It would instantly open the GOP’s historic ties to the black community.

A Rice vice presidency would totally befuddle all the current Democrat strategists pondering the 2006 elections and the 2008 nominations. The GOP could save their majorities in Congress, and even produce some gains.

Resigning is something Cheney should do for the good of the country and the cause … and that never hurt a person’s reputation.

Note to Condi: If you are nominated in 2008, I recommend you name outsider Steve Forbes as Vice President. His strength on the domestic/financial side coupled with your foreign policy background is a winning combo. Rice/Forbes sounds like a winner. Finally, a team America could really love.

REACT: Italian Prime Minister takes "no nookey" pledge

Politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It appears to have an opposite effect in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berusconi has pledged no sex until after the April 9 elections -- and its not even Lent. This reaffirms that Italy is a country where sex and politics are very important -- and very strange.

Still … I am dumbfounded. What public policy issues … what matters of governance … would make a head of state candidate pledge to refrain from martial sex as a campaign promise to the citizens. This is doubly confusing when you consider that Berlusconi is married to a very hot former actress, Veronica Lario.

On the other hand, America might have been a much happier place if Bill Clinton had promise to ONLY have sex with his wife – before and after any one of a number of election days. If I were Berlusconi, I would not have Bill Clinton as a house guest while imposing abstinence on my sexy wife.

The article reporting the PM’s promise noted the couple have three children. So, we can assume that his withdrawal to the drawing room is a sincere sacrifice.

How will the Italian electorate know if he is keeping his promise? Are there any watch-dog groups willing to monitor the Prime Minister’s bedroom? I know a lot of scandal rags would volunteer, but only if they thought there was a good chance of catching him in a lie … or better yet, catching her with another.

Well… this is more attention than the subject deserves, but it was too weird to pass up without comment.

REACT: Cindy sells out America

Once the public spotlight has passed you by, it is not easy to get the ego boosting limelight back. This is obvious in the case of Cindy Sheehan. Her protest over the death of her war hero son seems to have brought her long-standing left wing kookiness into full public view.

Oh sure! At first, she gained natural sympathy for her sobbing appearances in the press. We were all hoodwinked into thinking she was merely overcome with grief. That was until it became apparent that she was using her son’s death rather than mourning it. Whatever were the tears of real grief, they gave way to cry-for-the-camera tactics -- and a nation took note.

It would appear now that her insatiable craving for media attention has driven her to the extreme of disloyalty to the troops she shames to acclaim. In the name of their well-being, she endangers them further by aiding and abetting their would-be killers. Sheehan is no longer a misguided grieving parent, but a traitor to both her son’s memory and this nation’s cause. She has become the international spokesperson for the murderous terrorists of the world.

Why such a harsh assessment? It is not the silly threat of taking on California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the next election. That is merely an ego-feeding publicity stunt that only adds to Sheehan’s publicity-seeking reputation. It is not even her hateful, anti-Bush remarks that only prove that free-speech is equally the right of the intelligent and articulate and those challenged in both categories.

The real offense is her recent overseas adventure that brought her mania to the edge of treason. It is that image of her in Venezuela (left – of course), smiling broadly and embraced, figuratively and literally, by President Hugo Chavez as he reiterated his pervasive enmity for the United States and his allegiance to the world anti-American alliance. She gave a “thumbs up” as he condemned the United States action in Iraq, and as he promised to help finance Sheehan’s anti war petition drives. He offered to set up a tent next to hers outside the Bush Ranch in Texas.

For her part, Sheehan endorsed and supported has-been singer/actor Harry Belafonte’s claim, perhaps senility inspired, that George Bush is “the greatest terrorist in the world.” (Perhaps his signature recording, “Yellow Bird” was more his autobiographical anthem than the charming island ditty we all thought it to be). Sheehan is not a war hater. She has now proven herself to be an America hater. Is she could find Ben Ladin, I would not be surprised to see her issuing taped threats from a cave on the Pakistani border.

I guess Sheehan noticed that meeting heads of state is a boilerplate publicity stunt for virtually all ambitious senate candidates. Someone forgot to tell her however that you are still supposed to be a loyal America. World War II’s Tokyo Rose (unbowed and incarcerated) and Vietnam’s Hanoi Jane (repentant and rich) were not seeking high office.

However, it is good to know that no matter how badly things go for Bush, he can always count on the loony left to make him look good.

Postscript: As I again looked at the Sheehan/Chavez photo, I wonder if I have totally missed something. Is that a “thumbs up?” Or is she doing a line of South American snow off her hand? Is she supporting or snorting? Now THAT would make a lot more sense than any other explanation for both her bizarre emergence from well-deserved obscurity and her goofier public antics.

REACT: Yea! For Kennedy and Kerry

I am one happy conservative today. For awhile, I feared that the dreadful duo from Massachusetts, Senators Kennedy and Kerry, would not succumb to the temptation of filibustering the nomination of Judge Alito.

While a smooth victory would be nice, the idea of watching Kennedy/Kerry lead a political suicide squad, with the almost assured limelight-grabbing support of Senators Schumer, Durbin and Biden, is like snatching the golden ring. National Democrat Chairman Howard Dean will undoubtedly be the obnoxious cheerleader screeching on the sidelines, and the team owner, Senate Minority Leader Reid will puff up with pride for his team -- at least until their field performance produces a route. I love it.

What could be better than to see the liberals take on the role of obstructionist? In one bold, and rather inept action, they will divert public attention from the political weak points of President Bush. Suddenly, the beleaguered President will have the moral and popular high ground. That's right. Despite the whining of partisans and pundits, the public is not buying the argument that Alito is a dangerous extremist -- especially since the vast majority of the public shares most of his views, and he has come across as a pretty nice guy, to boot (and I suppose that is why the liberal extremists like to boot him).

The high visibility tactic will also bring more needed attention to the usurping role of the modern courts. The more the public understands the difference between interpreting laws and making laws from the judicial bench, the better off we will all be.

I certainly hope that Alito survives a filibuster, and I suspect he will if there remain enough sane Democrats in the Senate to override the wind bags. If not, there is another wonderful outcome. K/K and company will provide the political foundation for a change in the rules -- the nuclear options as it is misnamed. It is not only NOT a nuclear option, it is a pretty good reform. Had the Democrats, in the thralls of power madness, not decided to upend 200 years of tradition on Presidential appointments, no rules change would be necessary.

Once again, the Dems will be the party lacking integrity. It was not so long ago that they pledged no filibuster except in extremely rare situations. (In previous writings, I predicted “soon” would overcome “rare.”) This nomination, supported by most of the legal community and many even liberal democrats, does not come close to warranting a filibuster. The only motivation for a filibuster is personal arrogance, playing to the provincial outdated liberalism of their hometown constituencies, and a desire to "control" the courts by rear guard actions and anachronistic rules.

Another benefit for the Grand Old Party will be a significant decline in the election stock of the Dem team. Behind the headlines trumpeting Bush's popular descent is the reality of Democrat unpopularity. As Bush's rating fell, the ratings of the Dem leadership remained in the toilet. This makes it easier for Bush to ascend in the popularity polls, since there has not been a shift in loyalty. The Dems may hold sway with the press, but that does not mean much on election day. The last time the Dems (and press) hopefully predicted great gains for the donkey team, they actually lost seats. In 2004, the press even called the election a Kerry win. Within hours, the votes produced a strong win for the President and the GOP all across the nation. One cannot underestimate the blinding power of wishful thinking.

Even if the K/K team can convince enough Senate Democrats to commit cult-like mass suicide, and if, perchance, the nomination is blocked by brutal imposition of once-honored minority protections, is there any doubt that the next nominee will be just as much a strict constructionist as Alito?

The problem with the Dem game plan to keep the left lean in the Supreme Court is that the game is over. Bush will pick the next Supreme Court justice, and it will be a strict constructionist. The Court will shift to the right. Roe v. Wade will be imperiled -- as will a lot of other stuff. In fact, the rejection of succeeding Bush appointments is not likely to result in the nomination of a pseudo-centrist. No! No! No! Growing frustration with the blockers on the Dem team will give Bush ample opportunity to see more open space on the right flank. It is not often that the final outcome is known while one of the teams is playing on the field.

I fear the K/K foolishness will be short lived. There must be enough Democrats in the Senate to salvage their party from the ruinous tactics of the real extremists in America -- the ideological Siamese twins of elitist liberalism, the not-so-honorable Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. They are truly out of touch with reality, But then again, the do hail from Massachusetts.

TIDBITS: Picking up on events while I was gone.

I am not sure if it is the effect of Chinese culture during my visit there, or the fact that America has gotten to be a stranger place in my short absence. The new year seems to be off to a good start of us right-wingers, however. For example:

Alito gets the Teflon Prize. I left with virtually every observer predicting a crushing senate inquisition of Supreme Court nominee Joseph Alito. The predicted thunderous clouds of war that, themselves, ended the bid by Harriet Miers, turned out to be nothing more than a light overcast. I assumed that the holiday season might have diminished the strident mood of the political left for the moment, but the post-season hearings fell remarkably short of their billing. In fact, the long awaited muddy-ing up of Alito not only did not happen, but the muddy missles appear to have splatted in the launcher’s own faces. Senators Biden, Kennedy, Durbin and Schummer (if vaudeville were alive today, that would be a song) appear to have made fools of themselves. Pompous, strident scurrilous and down-right dishonest, the four horsemen of the liberal apocalypse overplayed their parts, and a critical public collectively “boo’ed their performance.

Hypocracy award to Ted Kennedy. I cannot believe it. It is just to scumptiously funny. You understand that I think liberal ideologues are basically anti-democratic elitist hypocritics (and I think that only when I am in a good mood.) Occasionally, the fang of the wolf glints outside the concealing fur of the lamb. Rarely does it provoke more this-is-too-good-to-be-true laughter, however, than the recent discovery that Mr. Women’s Lib … the honorary “queen” of the lady leftists … belongs to … prepare to gasp in disbelief … belongs to … and can hardly believe it … belongs to AN ALL-MALE SOCIAL CLUB. Into the 21st Century, Teddy has kept up a 52-year membership and financial support in Harvard’s Owl Club. This did not prevent him from lambasting Judge Alito for a POSSIBLE long ago membership in Concerned Alumni for Princeton -- a group Kennedy charges with being anti-women and anti-minority. Alito does not recall the organization, and a search of the group’s files reveal no mention of the Supreme Court designee. Kennedy spokesperson says there is a big difference since the Senator’s membership is in a “social” club, and Alito’s dubious membership is in an “activist” group. To the senior senator from Massachusetts, it is less egregious to CURRENTLY AND PROVABLY belong to and support a sexist college alumni club than to be ACCUSED (by Kennedy, with no proof ) of belonging LONG AGO to another college (non-sexist) alumni club. In oxymoronic Kennedy logic, it is less of a crime to becaught today shoplifting than to be accused without evidence of shoplifting forty years ago.

If you ever doubt the vacuousness of liberal thinking, or the inherent intellectual dishonesty of its spokespersons, such examples bring the argument to closure. I suspect that what is left of the late-20th Century liberal feminists movement will rally to his defense, as they did for sexual predator-in-chief Bill Clinton -- reminding us again just how foolishly irrelevant the ladies of the left have become. (Hmmmmm. Should Bill Clinton be required to register as a sex offender? I can’t help thinking. If Hillary should ever become President, would 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue be on the national sex offender registry? Just kidding … but these days the funniest stuff is happening in real life.)

The Knock on the Noggin Award to Mayor Nagin. The liberal partisans and pundits never lose an opportunity to trash Preacher Pat Robertson when he places God’s intercessions on earthly events such as hurricanes that ravage the world or strokes that bring down Israeli prime ministers. Actually, I would not argue in Robertson’s favor. Even though we share substantial elements of political philosophy, I think he is a bit of a nut case. I am not about to take on his more messianic postulations. It is fair, however, to see if liberals dare distance themselves from the loonies in their bin. Which bring up the issue of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. You will recall many blogs ago, that I raised questions of his political sanity. I described his gang-bangeresque language on a talk show at the height of the Katrina finger pointing era as inappropriate of a person in his position. Weeeeell … seems like the Mayor is out to prove my case. In a King Day speech, and in a pandering or mocking oratorical style of a Black television minister, the Big Easy tough guy not only said that Katrina et al were God’s punishment for the war in Iraq and the low moral and ethical standards of the Black community, but that God intended … intended … that New Orleans should be a “chocolate city.” Only in liberal land, one can actually say that God intends an American city to be predominantly Black. (SIDEBAR: That reminds me of a time Mayor Daley was reported to say that Chicago needed a “white mayor.” Since I launched that bit of campaign controversy when serving as former Mayor Eugene Sawyer’s campaign spokesperson [and yes, I do like a lot of democrats], I got the inside dope on that one. Maybe someday I will write about it.) So there you have it. Mayor Daley making his city whiter and whiter, and Mayor Nagin promising to turn New Orleans to the “chocolate” (his word, not mine) capital of America. This can only happen in real life since no fiction writer would pen anything so absurd.


An Honest Abe Honorable Mention goes to television personality Stephen Colbert. A new word has entered the lexicon as the creation of Comedy Central’s jokester Stephen Colbert. “Truthiness.” As best I can tell, it defines statements, opinions, non-fiction books and resumes that claim an underlying truth regardless of the falsity of the facts. You have to understand that for liberal lies to be more widely accepted, we have to redefine truth. Like Clinton claiming that his genital hobbies were not sex. Or liberal educators creating “social promotions” as a euphemism for pushing kids from grade to grade without bothering to teach them anything. James Frey’s recent book, “A Million Little Pieces,” chronicling his recovery from crime and drug addiction, had a lamentable number of “pieces” (characters and events) that were created for heightened effect. Instead of humiliation and banishment from the ethical sanctuary, he is defended by the likes of Oprah Winfrey for what is termed “creative non-fiction.”

A newspaper columnist suggested that the “emotional” truth was as important at the “facts.” I am not even sure what an “emotional” truth is. If a guy in the padded room thinks he is Napoleon, is that an emotional truth that should be granted full parity with the fact that he is cork-screwed accountant from Pensacola? In recent years, many high visibility journalists were caught or confessed to invention in their news and feature writing. Most were ostracized from the community of scribes, as they should have been. But, methinks the standard of ethical expression is now being lowered by those who believe their opinions are more important that facts. Perhaps it is one reason such programs as The Daily Show are presented as news of the day instead of plan old fashion satirical comedy. The news feature of Saturday Night Live was offered as creative jest. Sadly, it seems to have fostered mutant programs that imply a … “truthiness.”

The lowered regard for truthFULness is seen when New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has to explain the fact that he was never recruited by the Kansas City Athletics, as his resume claimed. Does he apologize for his false claim? Nope? He said he THOUGHT he had been recruited, but was mistaken. I understand since last year I THOUGHT I was elected pope, but I was only mistaken. Is that truthiness … or delusion … our just a bald face lie?

“Truthiness” is just a more contemporary term for a long existing word to explain truths within lies. It is “apocryphal.” When we describe a statement or anecdote as “apocryphal” we simply mean that the point may be well taken, but the story is … to use the precise term … bullshit. In fact, “bullshit” is the perfect word to describe the entire controversy over the redefining of “truth.” I offer this closing thought. There is no truth in truthiness. (SIDEBAR: In terms of creating new words, I am both an advocate and practitioner. Check out http://www.acrapulate.com).

Slip of the Tongue Award to Mayor Daley (again): Chicago’s Mayor Daley follows in his father’s footsteps in terms of malapropisms and creative verbage. Daddy Daley was famous for saying that the Chicago police were not there (at the 1968 Democrat convention) to create chaos, they were there to maintain it. Well in responding to the indictment of the Chicago City clerk, Daley the Second was asked if the scandal would further tarnish the already sullied image of his political machine. He replied “Its (sic) and individual. He’s subject to his own conduct. I’M NOT.” (emphasis added). If you have heard Daley responded in the indictments of his own senior staff last year, you would know that Daley truly does not believe he is subject to his own conduct. In fact, his apologists defend him by claiming the mayor is far too busy to know what is going on around him. Of course, this is not the first time public officials have used the “ignorant” defense to ward of complicity in corruption.

SIDEBAR: Back from China

Since I do little to promote this blog (seeing it as more or less my archives of contemporary thinking, and maybe notes for a future book) I do not presume that I have been “conspicuous by my absence.” However, for those souls whose travels have brought you here by aimless Internet exploration, a click of a mislocated “arrow” or one of those inexplicable reasons a search engine delivers you to a site totally unrelated to your inquiry, let me explain my current absence from the keyboard. I have been in China, and you can read more about that if you explore www.harbex.com. It was a great trip, but now I am back. Nothing more to say.

REACT: Bye bye Berghoff's

Gads! First Chicago loses Meigs Field, then Marshall Field's ... and now the landmark Berghoff's restaurant. Chicago is fast joining the sterile homogenized urban cities that are morphing all over the world.

Sometimes the loss is sad, but understood. Many past institutions simply lost their public appeal. They could no longer survive in modern society. The old theaters that created the original "theater district" were good examples of that. The Woods. The Roosevelt. The State and Lake. We almost lost the flagship Chicago Theatre -- a close call about which I know a lot.(Check out the old news clips is you don't believe me.) Same for Montgomery Ward's.

As a guy devoted to a preservationist tradition, the Meigs/Field's/Berghoff's triple whammy is hard to accept.

I guess what really makes me ornery is the fact that we are lost these institutions because of callous decisions. The people in charge have no devotion to tradition or the feelings of those of us who paid homage (and no little money) to those traditions. We are the jilted lovers, with all the pain and anger.

As a free market conservative, I must respect the owner's right to make the decisions (except in the case of Meigs since WE are the owners, not the mayor.) In terms of Field's and Berghoff's, I have no legal recourse, nor would I want any. However, I see nothing un-conservative about never offering my patronage to Macy's nor that new catering business that will take over the Berghoff's space.

I would hope that there are enough of us jilted lovers to bring down Macy's downtown store. If you recall, I have previously expressed my hope that the Macy's takes the tube, and the building becomes a residential loft conversion. As for Berghoff's, hopefully the catering business will collapse as a response to the callous decision to close the venerable restaurant, and a new owner will re-establish some versions of the old place. Of course, that may not be possible if the heiress/owner vandalizes the place in the name of modernization.

Despite their solicitous words and sad tones, I hope the Berghoff family understands that their fame has been transformed into infamy -- and their sorrowful words are meaningless.

REACT: Kwanzaa schmanzaa

Today marks the first day of the now widely recognized holiday of Kwanzaa. Perhaps this bad idea will evolve into something good. I hope so. Unfortunately, Kwanzaa was conceived as a pseudo celebration of separation.

It was invented in 1966, at the height of the highly racist black separation movement, by a guy named Maulana Karenga, who is described as a "cultural nationalist." For those who understand liberal euphemisms, the guy was a black racist. Of course, liberals think of that term as an oxymoron, since in their view only whites are capable of racism.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not against an invented holiday. Hallmark does it all the time – and I am sure the folks at the greeting card company are thrilled with Kawanzaa.

The problem with Kawanzaa is that it is what it is -- an artificial attempt to maintain America as a two society nation. Since most blacks are people of faith, and overwhelming Christian, the imposition of this new holiday is a cynical effort to suggest that Christmas is more of a white thing. I’m dreaming of a white Christmas takes on a whole new meaning.

I would think that our strong black Baptist churches would be up in arms over trumping the Christmas season. It is sort of a reversal of the ancient times when Christians trumped Pagan holidays to eradicate them. That's how we got December 25th as the official, albeit dubious, birthday of Jesus. Now we have this neo Pagan effort to return the favor, and black pastors are either ignoring it or embracing it.

The promotion of Kawanzaa by the nation's best known, if not the most reverent, black pastor, Jesse Jackson, suggests that he values his secular role in maintaining his flock outside the mainstream more than he desires integration into a common culture. He is truly the political descendent of Mr. Karenga insofar as using accusations of racism in order to prevent assimilation.

Having said all this, I am resolved to the reality that Kawanzaa will be around, promoted by wolf-ish racists in sheep’s wool. However, since the vast majority of people celebrating Kawanzaa are good and descent, it is my hope that this holiday will, by popular celebration, rid itself of the malignant intent of the founders and early advocates. After all, Thanksgiving did not start out on such a high note, either. It was invented, and eventually made a national time of good will by Abraham Lincoln.

I think that is already happening to Kawanzaa. Maybe Hallmark will be more influential in defining This new holiday than Jesse Jackson, et al. Let’ hope so.

OBSERVATION: To whom it may concern: Merry Christmas!

Shhhh. I am about to give away a big secret. I know this will come as a shock to many people who follow current events in the media.

Okay! Here it is. Put your ear closer so I can whisper. “Christmas is a Christian holiday.” You didn’t hear that? I said … "Christmas is a Christian holiday." Not yet? OKAY. “CHRISTMAS IS A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY!!!” So there. I said it. Yep, it is also a national holiday -- even in the god-loathing season of political correctness.

We all get a lot of time off from work to celebrate Christmas. I know we have piled on Hanukah, a Jewish holiday of second or third level theological relevancy, and we even invented that silly Kwanzaa thing to make sure we maintain our segregated society. We can sort of edge in Ramadan. But still … the official holiday is Christmas. And furthermore, the brightly lit shrubbery in so many bay windows is a … CHRISTMAS tree. It is not a holiday tree any more than the Jewish Menorah is a holiday candelabra.

Frankly, I think it is cool to have a season of love and caring incorporating all the religions --- and any atheists who care to be loved (not easy).

The political correctness Nazis are doing there best to emulsify our heritages into some sort of gray blob of secular celebration – squeezing out the rich colors and nuances of our ethnic differences. The major assault has been on religion. It is still kosher (if you will) to celebrate each others traditional foods, costumes and secular customs. But when it comes to sharing each other’s religions, we act as if church-going is a criminal activity.

Political correctness makes the simple things needlessly difficult. I am Christmas guy, but like most of us, I am very okay with a little common sense and etiquette. I send “happy holiday” cards to my list because we have many friends not of the Christian faith. If I meet a fellow Christian, I offer a hearty “Merry Christmas.” If I meet a Jewish friend, I offer a “Happy Hanukah.” If I do not know, then I wish them a, “Hey, have a great holiday and a Happy New Year.”

It is not courtesy, however, that underlies the attempts to de-Christian my holiday. There is nothing inappropriate, or offensive, in offering Christian symbols – even religious ones – as an expression of the season in commercial locations and government venues. Christmas carols should be heard in any public venue, and I don’t mean just Jingle Bells and I Saw Mother Kissing Santa Claus. And not only do I not take offense at having the nativity scene stand alongside a Menorah, I think it is wonderful. It is exactly the kind of respect and sharing that creates our sense of an overarching culture, bring our differences into harmony.

The public arean was never meant to be the fallow ground that separates us, but the common ground that unites us. Political correctness? Bah! Humbug!!

OBSERVATION: Rahm Emanuel is not politically correct.

As I wrote the earlier item on congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth, I came to realize that Rahm Emanuel needs a name adjustment. Since his party is leading the fight to eradicate any traces of religiosity from the public commons, I think he needs a name change. "Emanuel," the name given to Jesus Christ as the arrival of God, seems totallly inappropriate.

Rahm may well have a messianic complex, and thinks he is God's gift to the world, but still not proper to present himself in public with such an obvious religious name -- and a Christian one to boot (which is exactly what the PC Nazis would like to do). He should not be listed on the congressional role call, least our highly vulnerable ungodly athiests have siezures.

Maybe Rahm Godless would be ok. Or, Rahm Faithless? Oh! I got it. Rahm (Happy) Holiday.

REACT: Dems have no shame.

Regarding Iraq, I suspect the Democrats are about to be, as my mother used to say, “too smart for their britches.”

They may be too quick to bury Bush, and lay their future on anti war sentiment. The enormous success of the Iraqi election and the likelihood of improved reports from that liberated nation, and maybe even a modest troop reduction, will wreak havoc on the viciously strident and ruthlessly partisan strategy reflected in such Democrat hardliners as Peolsi, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, screamer-in-chief Howard Dean, and the congressional races point man (Should I have said “person”?), Rahm Emanuel.

As the Dems political cheerleader in Congress, many of the most partisan party activists see in Emanuel a shrewd and effective money raiser and candidate recruiter. There is no question of his brittle partisanship, and his myopic ambition to win elections at all costs. The approach, could backfire --- and hopefully will.

The most prominent case in point is the “recruitment” of Tammy Duckworth to knock off the other Democrat primary candidates for the Illinois’ congressional seat being vacated by Henry Hyde. Emanuel and Durbin have successfully lobbied a female double amputee war veteran to enter the race. It took gobs of financial IOU’s, pre-programmed national exposure by the more than cooperative George Stephanopoulos, of ABC television, and whatever else Emanuel could promise within the edge of reason and law.

One can respect Duckworth’s duty to country, and the price she paid, and still reject her as a candidate on the basis of qualification and process. She is neither a resident of the district in which she plans to run, nor has she had any experience that would naturally suggest any credibility for public office. It is irrefutable that Emanuel’s only interest in her are her missing legs, and opposition to the war in which she lost them. He hopes that she will be, to use the expression, the poster child of anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment.

In her announcement, she says that only a person on the ground can understand Iraq. That is nice rhetoric, but an absurdity of the first magnitude. I will buy that when we put students in charge of the urban school systems. More significantly, it reveals that Emmanuel is going into the next election cycle with a one-issue strategy. He does not care that Duckworth is dangerously clueless on taxation, budgeting, education, and the million other issues that face the Congress.

Since this is a seat in Congress, and not a tryout for the Special Olympics, Emanuel may find that voters are not only too smart to be taken in, but totally offended by the crass cynicism and myopic vision of his political strategy. In producing the huge sign-up bonus for an experientially unqualified candidate, Emanuel insults the electorate by assuming mindless gullibility and superficiality. This is one case where the public can prove Lincoln correct when he opined that you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Consider this. Without the unfortunate injury, her selection would have been considered profoundly stupid. Emanuel, himself, would have scoffed at the idea.

SIDEBAR: McCarthy remembered

Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion.

Some of the most delightful moments I can recall were private dinners with Gene McCarthy, the former U.S. Senator from Minnesota, when he visited Chicago. His claim to public fame is much to narrow to describe him. For sure he mounted a presidential campaign that drew attention to the political vulnerability of President Lyndon Johnson – who sought refuge in withdrawing from the 1968 race.

While McCarthy’s anti-war sentiment was more on procedure than purpose, he became the personification of the anti-war, pacifist movement. He was the Pied Piper of the hippie peaceniks.

In private, he would confess that he was neither anti-war nor a zealous reformer. His opposition to Viet Nam was based on his belief that the conflict was not Constitutionally sound. He felt we entered without the proper authorization, and that the war was expanded solely by Presidential decisions without the oversight of the Congress.

On matters of reform, he was even more surprising. He completely rejected prevailing reform views found popularized in the press. While seemingly a very honest and principled politician, McCarthy was a product of the old school. I recall one particular conversation in which he rejected the reformer appellation. “You know, Larry,” he said, “if you purify the pond the lilies die.” He said there was always a need of a bit of sediment in the system.

On another occasion, McCarthy compared reformers to a priest in his home town, who urged parishioners to express their devotion by making more use of the vigil candles. He even installed additional banks of the red glass holders to accommodate more use. “Eventually,” said McCarthy, “the good farther burned the church down.”

“That is what unbridled reformers tend to do,” he added. “They will burn down the whole place.”

His descriptions of his colleagues were tinged with a certain Irish sarcastic wit. When I inquired about Jimmy Carter, he alleged that the former president learned most of what he knew in the Navy on board submarines, and unfortunately there was only room for very small books and Reader’s Digest.

He did not give a much better assessment of Ronald Reagan. He just saw him as entirely too ignorant to be president. Ditto Jerry Ford. Ditto Richard Nixon. All fell victim to McCarthy’s acerbic wit.

He lost the wit, however, when talking of the Kennedy’s. There was no gentleness, or Irish kinship, in his hatred of the Kennedy family. When talking of the Kennedy family, there was none of the poetics or humor. There was only an unabated bitterness. He blamed the Kennedys for preventing his nomination as the Democrat candidate. His loathing for Bobby Kennedy was not tempered by the New York senator’s tragic death. He considered him an unprincipled opportunist who made his play for the presidency only after McCarthy had brought down Johnson. He was not wrong.

On total, one got the impression that McCarthy held himself to be of more substantial presidential timber than any who succeeded where he had failed. And yet, there was a charming aristocratic air about the man. When talking about issues, and things other than his political colleagues, he was fascinating --- a compendium of knowledge and insightful correlations.

He was at his best, however, when he played the story teller or the poet. Whether at the dinner table with my wife and me, or before a modest audience, he was on stage. He would, at no obvious provocation, recite long verses from memory. I recall at one event, he held stage for more than forth-five minutes on a single poem.

Seeing all the press attention and adulation he received in death, I could not help by wonder where the press had been these many years as he lived in virtual public oblivion.

REACT: Congressman in GOOD scandal?

First, I have to say upfront that Congressman Bobby Rush and I come from opposite ends of the political spectrum on most issues, but I still like him as a person.

Recently I read about his financial problems, which lead to the potential seizure of his family home in Illinois and his vacation condo in Michigan. Perhaps his church project and the significant demands of office were draining too much money. However, I saw something praiseworthy where others seemed to have seen only scandal.

When you consider California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (a conservative Republican – ouch!) taking in a whopping $2.4 million in bribes and the Illinois’ “stash the cash in my bag” political culture, it is refreshing to find a public servant who is in trouble for NOT having enough money. It almost makes him a normal guy. I am sure Bobby has had his share opportunities to accept envelops filled with “Ben Franklins.” To his credit, he appears to have resisted temptation. I’ll take some temporary personal finance problems over ill-gotten gains any day. Good for you Bobby!!.

REACT: Iraqi hostages among their "friends?"

The report of a bunch of westerners associated with Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams being captured by ruthless criminal Iraqi terrorists seems to confirm the lunacy of the left these days. First and foremost, what on earth were these people doing there in the first place? There is a war going on, being waged by people who HATE westerners -- and especially hate infidel Christians. I know there are many people moved by a sense of moral mission willingly face danger, and even death, when the cause is noble. I have enormous respect for those people. They are the saints among us.

Teams is not of that ilk, however.

For whatever their stated intention, Teams appears to be part of a propaganda industry dedicated to demonizing America, its people, culture, and causes. Teams spokesperson Kryss Chupp was quoted as describing the work of Teams as purely humanitarian. “We’re not a proselytizing organization,” she alleged. Very noble, but very untrue.

The same article quoted the group’s official reaction to the kidnappings. They said, “We are angry because what had happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government (sic) due to the illegal attack on Iraq and oppression of its people.” One can only imagine what that official statement might have sounded like if they did proselytize. Their web site further supports the murders of Iraq over the liberating allied army. Yes, I said “liberating” because that is the view of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens. Teams is in league with terrorists, and in opposition to U.S./Israeli/U.N. efforts to rid the world of them.

It is particularly outrageous that they should advance the lies that this war is illegal, and the vast majority of the people of Iraq are being oppressed by America, and its allies. I have very little sympathy of anyone who would be so morally corrupted as to aid and abet the murderous terrorists, and psychopath tyrants, at the expense of our troops (including my grandson and youing cousin), and the many innocent civilian victims (Christian, Jew or Muslim) of unimaginable terrorist brutality and cruelty.

While the express humanitarian purposes, their mission is to publicize the propaganda of the enemy – to parrot the Anti-American rhetoric of the terrorist network. They now rest in the bosom of their allies. The hostages should be pleased to be “hosted” at the “invitation” of their oppressed compatriots – safe from the protection of the country they so disparage.

I sincerely hope and pray they will be rescued, perhaps by the military forces they so despise. I would revel in the irony. I also hope and pray that after experiencing the “hospitality” of their “friends,” they will see the light. Should they not survive, perhaps the lesson will be learned by others. We should be reminded that “those who will not recognize evil cannot fight against it” – perhaps they cannot even survive it.

OBSERVATION: How bad is the GOP hurting?

Taking into consideration the public opinion reports, the results in the recent state elections and the general reporting, one could easily presage big trouble for the GOP in the 2006 mid-term elections. Not as well covered by the press are the equally abysmal polling results for the Democrats. Despite the ebbing enthusiasm for Bush II, the Democrats are hard press to convince the public that they are any better. If there is any conclusion to be drawn, it is that a "plague on both houses" is the prevailing sentiment. This suggest little chance of a Democrat bust out in the by elections.

While the press made much of President Bush losing two state governorships, it failed to adequately point out the fact that both seats belonged to Democrat incumbents – and New Jersey was a long shot going in. There is not a lot to suggest that the voters were swinging away from the GOP.

The upcoming election season of 2006 may not be all that great for the GOP, but we should not place too much to emphasis on current issues. Historic trends must first be considered. If the GOP loses in 2006 far exceed "normal" off year outcomes, THEN we can begin to look at true voter shifts.

REACT: She's baaaaaack.

The good thing about Hurricane Katrina, it seemed to have knocked Cindy Sheehan off the media "must publicize" list. But, just when I was putting her non-presence on my Thanksgiving list, she re-emerged as the biggest turkey of the day. She is back in Crawford, Texas hoping to spoil President Bush's holiday dinner.

I like what George Will had to say about her. He opined that she is a Republican plant, designed to make the anti war claque look both nasty and stupid. Those were not exactly his words, but the point was made.

Outside of the media desire to bring down the President, one is hard pressed to see the news value in her crusade. Despite her national exposure and photo ops with the likes of Jesse Jackson, she is hardly able to muster enough protestors to sell out a small town high school play. Let's face it. For all the media hype it receives, the anti war movement is pathetic --- even more so BECAUSE of all the media hype. Without the benefit of much press attention, an old geezer like Billy Graham can fill a coliseum just by promising to show up.

With web sites, book deals and even talk of a movie, the mournful Cindy is the Martha
Stewart of the disloyal opposition. She even got herself arrested, too. A badge of honor to the strident left.

Like the ant at a picnic, Sheehan does not amount to much in reality, but there is an annoying pestiness about her. For me, she has one redeeming value, however. She serves as a convincing example of the liberal bias of the major news media.

SIDEBAR: Political stridency (case in point #2)

Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion.

The most recent incident of right wing political stridency run amok (previous blog item) reminded me of another incident ... or maybe several more incidences … of the damage done to good old conservatism by the extremists in our own house.

As most every knows, I am a very hard-line pro-lifer. That did not prevent me from being attacked by one of the religious vigilantes.

Several years ago, I was leading a fight to reopen Chicago's lakefront Meigs airport after Mayor Richard Daley shut it down and painted an "X" on the runway. The effort to reopen was successful, much to the chagrin of the mayor. So, five years later, Hizzoner bulldozed the runway like a vandal in the middle of the night. But, that is another story.

During the earlier battle, I received an irate call from what I had always perceived to be a pro-life friend. He screamed into the phone, threatening to never associate with me or my activities again. (Listening to him at the moment, I considered that a blessing). In fact, I have not seen nor heard from him since (definitely a blessing).

One prominent personality in my Save Meigs coalition was Richard Phelan, fromer president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Despite his Catholic upbringing, and the plea of his fellow communicants, Phelan personally ordered the restoration of abortions at the county hospital. Needless to say, I was among those who thought excommunication was not inappropriate. However, those were the days of Cardinal Bernadine, who was more interested in his civic public relations than Catholic doctrine.

I explained to the caller that Phelan was the attorney for a group of pilots how had sued the mayor over the issue. But, that was not a suitable response. Having my airport cause supported by Phelan was unacceptable, period. It apparently was my obligation to myopically confront the former board president in the most hostile manner at each and every opportunity. For the caller, society had only one issue.

Finally, in frustration, I told the caller that if he could bring evidence that they were performing abortions at Meigs airport, I would cease my campaign to have it reopened, and disassociate myself from the scorned Mr. Phelan.

As a postscript, I should add that the caller was not one of the highly visible anti-abortion activists, but a ubiquitous fellow traveler. Never the guy on the podium, but the one always yelling from the rear of the room. You know the type, I am sure.

SIDEBAR: Political stridency (case in point #1)

Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion. Don’t you just want to slap a friend around when they go stupid on you.

I was recently dressed down by a conservative colleague for my friendship with President Clinton’s former Democrat National Chairman David Wilhelm. My compliment of Wilhelm brought on a venomous attack from the erstwhile ally, a guy who does not know David at all. The irrational hatred of the former President, and the relationship between him and David, was enough to not only personally slander my friend from the other side of the aisle, but to suggest my own disloyalty to the cause for merely associating with the guy --- and even worse, liking him personally. My sin was nothing more than the temerity of saying something truthfully nice about a person on the strident right hate list – or in this case an associate of a person on the strident right hate list. I could not have been more berated if I had complimented Hitler on population planning at a Bnia Brith meeting.

Let me first clear the record. I think Bill Clinton was a morally and ethically challenged, to say the least. His only chance at a legacy is to become the First Hubby of the first woman President. There is no doubt he tarnished the very important moral authority of the White House. His foreign policy was a disaster, and he produced no great memorable programs. Clinton is doomed to be remembered in history more for his erection than his election.

He had three saving graces, however. First: He is what you might call a “charming rogue,” and we tend to like charming rogues. I always figured if Hillary did not kick him out of HER house, no reason for the country to kick him out of the White House. Perhaps that sounds heretical to my blood thirsty brethren. But as a devoted conservative, I think removal from office should be reserved only for the most heinous acts. Bad character and lying are not sufficient. I mean, how many could survive in office against such a standard? I do favor a recall method, however, since it is the people who decide, not the politicians. Then the standard of removal is no higher than public opinion as reflected in the voting booth – as was the case in California.

Second: Clinton was confronted by an overly exuberant GOP, looking less like savvy politicos and more like prune-lipped school marms. The fact that Clinton was not removed from office was more the fault of the Republican lynch mob perception than grassroots support for the Prez. Please understand, I think the impeachment was well deserved for his perjury, if not for his oval office cigar habit. The problem was the removal from office. That is where the GOP and the public departed.

(I had occasion to offer solicited advice to the House Judiciary Committee at the time. I suggested that the House and Senate GOP announce UPFRONT that they did not intend to remove Clinton, but only would impeach him as an appropriate black mark on his already questionable legacy. Without fear of removal, the public would have clamored for the impeachment. I would have removed the Dems most popular argument. Under such a scenario, I think the courts may well have gone beyond pulling Clinton’s law license and really indicted him on the perjury charge – resulting in a possible post-term conviction. But alas, my free advice was given equal value)

Third: If we conservative can get past the personal animus, we have to admit that Clinton governed more to the center than the left, except for a few egregious, and (mercifully) failed, programs pushed by the browbeater-in-chief, Lady Hillary. He did a few things we right wingers could even applaud. The manifest disappointment of the left should be our gauge on those issues.

For the most part, however, I was outspoken critic of Bill Clinton, as a President and as a person. So, what does all that have to do with David Wilhelm. That is the point. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Let me say that David is most certainly a Democrat partisan – even more than I am Republican. He and I can look at the same clock and not agree on the time of day, at least on most issues. On the other hand, David is one of the most descent human beings I have known – especially in politics. He is respectful of other opinions. A surprisingly mild and soft spoken guy. He has a heart of gold. I knew him before he was THAT David Wilhelm … and after. The experience did not corrupt him – literally or figuratively.

It bothers me that so many people see politics as a blood sport. Modern times seem to require the casting of every person into the friend or enemy camp. There are no subtleties, no nuances. You are saintly or evil. In fact, hardly anyone fits into those categories. Most people are a blend of good and evil, right and wrong – even the person you see in the morning mirror.

You may have noticed, I referred to my attacker as an “associate” and David as a “friend.” That was no accident. I much prefer the company of a good person with whom I have broad policy disagreements (and great debates) over that of a hateful ally. So the next time you may spot me having diner in a restaurant, the person across the table is more likely to be David Wilhelm than that other guy.

OP ED: Governor Ryan: The $10 million baby.

Illinois Governor George Ryan and his crew were bully politicians with a well known penchant for ruthlessly destroying the lives of the disfavored, while shamelessly enriching the lives of a rather sleazy band of insiders. Their lack of principle, absence of ethics and contempt for the public good have been established beyond any question. The only issue to be resolved is if their skullduggery rose to the level of punishable crime. In some cases, even that has been proven.

Now, we come to learn that this once powerful ne’er-do-good enjoys the pro bono (for the “public good?”) services of a major law firm at the expense of the partner’s profits, and the many clients who will have to make up some of the loss. Ryan already has consumed more than $10 million dollars in free legal services from Winston and Strawn, and the final figure is expected to be double that – not including appeals, if he is convicted. In the meantime, a lot of honorable citizens of modest means and minimal clout will find it impossible to be represented by lawyers willing to do pro bono work on their behalf.

Ryan’s attorney thinks the jury should know of his law firm's generosity, least they think the former governor has a stash of cash. The Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer wisely suggests that to give that information to the jury is to beg the question, “why?” Good question.

It will be interesting to see if the Internal Revenue Service also will give the former governor a financial gift by not seeking the taxes due on the Winston and Strawn donation of services. For commoners, the provision of such services is a taxable event. But, that is another potential news story. But, maybe the press will also give Ryan the professional courtesy of not inquiring. No end to the potential gift list.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause – even for naughty old men.

OP ED: Liberals about to lose in court.

Despite right-wing panic, George Bush knew he had nominated a solid conservative in Harriet Meirs. It did not play out that way. The lack of judicial record and experience that was believed to be a benefit backfired into a disadvantage. Instead of befuddling the opposition of both philosophic wings, it united them in fear – each thinking she would sell out to the other.

Not willing to make that mistake again, the President chose the only kind of candidate he will nominate, a strict constructionist conservative pro-lifer – currently Samuel Alito. Unless the Democrats are willing to block every Supreme Court nominee for the next three years, they have no chance of a pro-abortion justice. The Senate minority is disingenuous in saying there should be no “litmus test” while placing an absolute prerequisite on the question of one specific decision.

The battle may be long and ugly. The pledge not to filibuster is likely to be broken by desperate Democrats, and the Senate may have to change the filibuster rule to re-establish the simple majority “consent” envisioned by the founders (not a bad reform in its own right). The current Democrat position is nothing less than minority dictatorship – attempting to force the nomination of THEIR candidate by obscene obstructionism and character assassination.

Despite short term desperation tactics, the Court will soon shift decidedly to the right. The liberal allusion to “balance” is a public fraud – an arrogant euphemism for liberal dominance. The Supreme Court has nine members so that there is never a “balance” on any issue. The Court is not in balance today, it is a precariously liberal court about to become a conspicuously conservative Court – and the ramifications go well beyond the issue of abortion.

Though seemingly unrecognized, or openly confessed, abortion is not a winning issue for liberals. Most Americans disapprove of abortions, as a practice. Most Americans disfavor various extreme forms of legal abortions. Under the new court, the practice will not be extended. Via various legal challenges, it is more likely that the most egregious and unpopular abortion practices and laws will be trimmed, to say the least.

After time and legal evolution, it is even likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a restoration of moral underpinning (as it should be). One hundred and fifty years ago, the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court declared that blacks had no rights as citizens. The Dred Scott decision was eventually overturned by moral enlightenment – and Republican appointments to the Court.

Even the overturning of Roe v. Wade will not ban abortions, as fear-mongering liberals peddle the argument. It simply de-federalizes the issue, leaving the states in the business of setting legal standards based on local values. If abortion is so popular with the masses, one presumes that states would legalize the procedure. Of course, if I were a pro-abortion liberal, I would not presume the assumption … nor the outcome.

TIDBITS: What a difference a week (or so) makes

I take a bit of time away from my blog rambling, and the world turns.

1. My prediction that Harriet Miers will be confirmed is out the window. Frankly, I underestimated the zeal of a good portion of the right wing lobby in opposition. I am not sure it was warranted, but it had its effect. I am also not sure it was a good strategy in the long run. It is my belief that Bush will not sway from his intent to name a conservative strict constructionist to the Court.

2. The Sox and world champions. Even as a Cub fan, I admire the quality of the team. They reflect everything good about baseball. In a day where sports is a brutal industry, it is good to see a team who seems to think the game of baseball is just that, a game -- something to be fun for players and fans. One cannot argue that they are a high performance team, too. They dominated the season and routed some pretty good teams in post season play. This was a solid, well deserved victory by a team that played excellent baseball with great dignity. I would even dare to say that outside of NOT snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they played baseball like the beloved Cubs. Congrats from Wrigley Field.

3. Gas prices in surprise drop? Methinks it has something to do with those embarrassing high profits the gas giants are reporting. It does not take an economist (which my degree says I am) to figure out that those power powerhouses gouged the public. Katrina, Iraq and SUV's provided a good excuse, but it is now obvious that there was another significant driving force in the price surge -- greed. I am a free market guy, but we have to know that the oil oligopoly is not necessarily a free market force. Of course, if one result is the collapse of SUV sales, the world will be a better, and safer, place.

4. Some things did not change in my blog absence. I impolitely referred to Governor George Ryan's I-want-to-be-your-friend-while-I-dump-on-you protégé as a sleaze. Well, he has now completed his time in the witness stand, and he never demonstrated any other trait. Humility, veracity, honestly and dignity eluded him to the end of his tortured testimony.

OBSERVATION: Cindy who?

Despite all the controversial and sensational news of natural and political disasters, there is an underlying peacefulness in the public limelight. There is a bit of lost acrimony that is only evident by its absence.

Eureka!! I got it!! I have not seen nor heard recently from that eccentric peacenik scold, Cindy Sheehan. Could it be that her 15 minutes of fame is up? Or, does the major news press have sufficient other grist for the bias mill? Is there nothing new to report in her screeching?

Probably an element of truth in each of those considerations. Methinks, however, there is yet a more valid explanation for her disappearance from the public spotlight. It was increasingly evident that the more exposure she got the more embarrassment she caused the strident left. As the public got to know more about her oddball opinions and her lust for cameras, it became obvious she was not simply a grieving mother. As reality set in, it was apparent that she was a strident, mean-spirited, egotistical (and a bit loony) person caste unprepared and unsuited for the level of fame bestowed upon her.

Once she was no longer useful to the anti-war Bush-bashing left-wing portion of the press, they dropped her like a hot bomb over Baghdad.

Well, for whatever reason, my day is elevated by the absence of her name and face in my morning newspaper. Now, if only the press could give up ritual of daily Jesse Jackson sightings I could enjoy my morning tea and crumpet without an accompanying rise in blood pressure.

REACT: Fawell shameless

The chief prosecution witness against former Illinois Governor George Ryan is his former top staffer and alter ego, Scott Fawell. Fawell, who is spending a few years in jail for his side of the official crimes, likes to have it both ways. He provides testimony to nail his old boss, while expressing his unabated friendship and affection for the old codger. He provides damning evidence, but upon cross examination attempts to undermine his own testimony by helping the defense.

Of course, Fawell claims that his "testimony under duress" is for the love of a woman. She will not face jail time if he 'fesses up. It makes for nice theater, but I contend that it is the reduction in Fawell's OWN time in prison (which is part of the plea agreement) that drives his testimony.

Having had dealings with Fawell, it has been my long time impression that at the bottom line his only concern is Scott Fawell. The strong bond to the ex-Governor and to his paramour existed only while he was on the receiving end of the relationship. He is, and has been, a ruthless and smarmy character. His performance on the stand is a perfect example. His whiney claim, that he is only telling the truth about is knowledge and involvement in massive public corruption because of the "pressure" exerted by the feds, in and of itself attests to a guy with no sense of higher calling. He is a sleaze trying to appear noble, and you and I have no reason to buy it.

Any more backsliding on the stand, and I would hope that the feds pull him aside and tell him the deal is off. Maybe he should be rewarded like the old wanted poster promise -- a reward for the "arrest and CONVICTION" of the culprit. Under that provision, you would see a very different Fawell. He would be spinning his testimony to make sure Ryan hit the steel bar hotel. He is just that kind of a guy.

OBSERVATION: Some thoughts on the Sox winning season

1. What about those Cub fans? The Sox victory is a natural reason for Chicago to officially celebrate. Of course, it brings to a boil the long standing schism between the fans of the south side team and the fans of the north side Cubs. And that is the whole point. The Sox are a south side team, and the south side is a completely different culture than the north side. Mayor Daley looks as natural in a Sox cap as he does in a bright green tie.

The Sox are a local team. The Cubs are a national team, with fans from sea to shining sea. This is due to the fact that the Cubs are more than a team, they are a mystic. And more than a little credit for their national fame has to do with their early telecasts on a WGN-TV, which went national with the sports broadcasts.

The Sox play baseball, in some years better than others. When they are winning, more seats get filled (although it takes at least a World Series to completely fill their stark stadium. The Cubs are a sports/social phenomenon. Win or lose, a ticket to Wrigley Field is hard to come by. This is a reality that Sox fans simply cannot comprehend, and it is not easy for Cubs fans to explain it. You just have to feel it.

With the Sox heading to the Series this year, there is a lot of snubbing of the old proboscis at the ever-loyal Cubs fans. They assume that Cubs fans are frustrated or jealous. Whether the outcome of the City Series, or the number of players in the All Star Game, or the relative ranking of the teams during the year, or entrance into post season play, Sox fans are quick to boast when they are ahead and silently sulk when they trail. Their sports self esteem, like ticket sales at the tacky-named U.S. Cellular Field, rises and falls on victory alone. Cubs fans, ensconced in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field just love the game, the team, the environment in which the game is played, and the zany fans.

Cubs fans do not begrudge the Sox their victory. They simply do not care. It is like being in a restaurant seated next to a family celebrating a birthday. Good for them. We might even applaud at the end of the birthday song, but there celebration is neither a source of jubilation or chagrin. It just is.

2. The Governor is capless and Soxless. Of course, when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wrote in Sporting News that he would never wear a Sox cap, not even if they played in the World Series, I am sure he never expected the team to get there during his administration – or his life time. Not a bad sentiment for a dyed in the wool Cubs fan. Unfortunately, it was a hapless statement fraught with political incorrectness when made by the elected leader of ALL the people, and was elevated to a major faux paw by the Sox unexpected winning season.

Just what does a savvy politician do in a situation like that? Well, the Governor’s response can be seen in the post season publicity shot. Proving him to be the things politicians are made of, he parses his statement by keeping his word on the cap, but dons a Sox jacket. Now everyone can see a desperate man twisting in the wind. The look on his face tells it all. But wait! He knows there is no escaping the embarrassment of the moment, and the scorn of the south side, so he does the publicity stunt with his sweetly innocent daughter at his side. He might was well be wearing a sign that says, “Don’t pick on me because my young daughter is here.”

Now, if that is not bad enough, ponder this. The Governor’s spin meisters put out the word that his anti-Sox comment in the press was not of his authorship. It was ghost written by a reporter for the publication – although they concede that he read and signed off out the article before publication.

Having transformed a bad comment into a public relations disaster, it is now questionable if Governor Blago can even get a ticket to any of the home games. He may not even receive the traditional invitation that automatically goes to the state’s chief executive for such events. Of course, if I was Jerry Reinsdorf, and I were of a mind to zing the Governor for his comments (and that would not be beneath Reinsdorf), I would make a very very public invitation to the Governor, and watch him squirm for credible reasons not to attend, or shame him into attending, and smugly grin as he is boo’ed by assembled crowd. Sox fans are like that. In truth, if the situation was reversed, Cubs fans would do the same.

3. The rich get richer. Jerry Reinsdorf will get a nice windfall from the World Series. Seems like, when no one was looking, our politicians pulled a fast one on the public. Those of us who footed the bill for that monstrosity called U.S. Cellular Field will get none … nada … of the revenues generated by the World Series. In a move that can only be described as a “gift” to the team owners, we taxpayers agreed to relinquish proceeds from any World Series tickets. Now that was damn generous of us. Perhaps, like Governor Blagojevich, those who made that decision on our behalf assumed that a Sox World Series would never happen in our life times. So, when you Sox fans see a beaming Mayor Daley standing next to grinning Jerry Reinsdorf, you will know that the glee is brought on by more than civic pride. That is not Jerry’s arm around the Mayor, it is his hand on the public wallet in his pocket.

4. The “Sold Rush” on the south side. There are many media stories about the demand for Sox tickets. There is confusion, and a couple of predictable stories of the “unfairness” of the process. Big shots getting tickets as the faithful get shut out. Well, all this consternation should come as no surprise. We should be more tolerant of the situation. It is a bit like the lack of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. Not only is the Sox winning season a generational event, but no one in charge at … gulp … U.S. Cellular Field has ever had any experience with a situation where there where more demand for seats than seat available. They should have hired some of the Cub officials, who have to face high demand all the time.

OP ED: Dems in a pickle over Miers nomination

Despite all the apprehension on the right, President Bush has outmaneuvered the liberal Democrats with a brilliant double nomination strategy for the two overlapping vacancies of the Supreme Court.

In appointing the brilliant and super qualified Chief Justice Roberts, Bush was able to trump the Democrat’s ideological concerns with superior qualifications. This resulted in the approval of a Chief Justice as conservative as anyone the President could have chosen. With Roberts, Bush left the Senate Democrats with little to work with (or against, in this case).

In his second nomination, Bush selected a person not easily targeted as an extreme right winger. This time the Democrats are not trumped by intellect or constitutional track record, but by a confusing lack of information. The very fact that Harriet Miers is not only without a clear conservative record, but even has some "liberal" indicators in her long resume, is putting off the Democrats more than scaring the hard line conservatives.

Miers’ donation to Al Gore, and the support of some narrow gay issues, has many of my fellow conservatives armed and on standby -- and a few in full assault. In risking some conservative consternation, Bush has adroitly put the left in full disarray. The likes of Jesse Jackson are taking on the usual, and predictable, "shock and dismay" attitude. That would be the case for any appointment short of Jesse's son – and even then, the reverend would probably be suspicious of his offspring.

Senate Leader Harry Ried, however, has all but endorsed the appointment -- even taking some credit for the recommendation. Liberal as he may be, Ried is a pro life Democrat, so the litmus issue is not of great concern to him. That attack on Miers as intellectually and experientially deficient is spurious. It is coming from the strident left, as part of their package of criticisms, from judicial elitist, such as Robert Bork, who bifurcate society between their ivy-covered peers and the poor uneducated masses. Miers is as qualified as many of those who went on to great Supreme Court careers.

Oddly, this is an appointment the Democrats could defeat. If they were unified in opposition, there are enough wary Republicans to force her out of contention. Without an unbroken line of Democrat opponents, however, many wavering Republican senators will find it safer to go along with the President and the Senate leadership. Of course, the Democrats are not foolish. If they were to expend their political capital to defeat this woman candidate, they would be less likely to defeat the next, or the third, if that were to be the case. And they fully understand that the next appointments would not be fraught with doubt. They would be front line conservatives. For the Democrats, and especially for the major asses, such as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer (alluding to their party’s donkey symbol, of course), the hope in the unknown Miers is better than the certainty of those others on Bush’s short list.

Liberal America must now recognize that they have been out foxed, out flanked, out classed, out done --- and now are outside the judicial halls. They know that the "new" Court is going to be far more conservative than the old. They were not wrong to mortally fear the potential of a President George Bush in the shaping of the senior courts. Upon confirmation of the next justice, Miers or not, the battle is won by the political right. If there should be another appointment for Bush, the seminal victory will be a generational rout.

As far as her "evolution" on the Court -- the great fear of many conservatives -- I take heart and hope in the fact that as the freshman justice, she will be “evolving” under the leadership of the solidly conservative and highly persuasive Chief Justice Roberts. For all his conservative leanings, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist can best be described as the “head” of the Supreme Court, not its “leader.” Historically, he may have been among the least persuasive Chief Justices in bringing colleagues to his view.

I believe Miers will be confirmed, since the Democrats do not seem to have even a winning strategy to be implemented. And, I suspect that Justice Miers will be mostly the conservative we all hope her to be. We may not like each and every vote. But on the matter of strictly interpreting the Constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench, I think she is there -- and will stay there.

REACT: Edgar out? He was never in.

I win a number of bets, and unlimited bragging rights, for my never-wavering contention that former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar would not run (see blog item August 26). I will say it with confidence, the outcome was never in doubt. His only true deliberation was when and how to say “no.” He did it in grand public relations style -- which is his greatest talent, anyway.

I never thought of Edgar as stupid (politically, that is) or nuts. He is a cunning political operator, with a keen sense of his image and poll numbers. In terms of public policy and issues, the Ken-doll-grown-old Edgar was never considered the sharpest knife in the drawer. Truth be known, many issue activists and lobbyists on both sides of the philosophic divide thought of him as a bit … well … let’s just say under informed. (More about that some other time.)

If there was ever any doubt in my mind that Edgar would reject the petitions of the politicians, it evaporated with his arrival at the Illinois Issues forum (which I attended) just before his weepy press conference. He was not in the room more than five minutes when my original opinion was confirmed -- at least in my own mind. He passed through the crowd with his insider-known disdain for the masses. Rarely smiling, and giving all (except a few of his former syncopates) an icy brush off. This was Edgar the person without any hint of Edgar the campaigner -- who could produce a forced gregariousness every few years for the sake of votes. The aloof Edgar was not a man about to run for public office.

Since his concern for good government and the welfare of his Republican party goes no further than his own ambition and ego appeasement, there was no self-motivation for Edgar to make an early decision for a greater good. If the former governor had no intention of ever running again, why the prolonged pondering? Simple. Ego.

As I noted in that earlier blog commentary, Edgar suffers from "the phone doesn’t ring as much anymore." This is his third public pensiveness. In each case he ran the publicity mill as long as he could before giving his predetermined reply. Nyet! Nein! Nope!

This play for publicity is not an Edgar invention. Former Illinois Governor Richard Ogilvie was courted to run for mayor of Chicago every four years. He would encourage speculation and drafts, then puff on his pipe ponderously for weeks as pundits speculated, the press reported and potential candidates awaited in the wings. Every twitch of his eyebrow was the subject of speculative meaning. Again, I never lost a wager by placing my marker on “no.”

Edgar said he is through running for public office, and that IS the truth -- but don’t be surprised if yet again some season speculation arises, and the old war horse again entices the phones to ring and the reporters to write. After all, this is man who convincingly said, “I never say never.”

LMAO: Oy Vey! to oy vey … and other foolish things

LMAO #1 I love New York, oy vey.
Somehow, the borough of Brooklyn, New York convinced the state Department of Transportation to erect a huge exist sign that features the Jewish expression for disappointment or dismay -- as in “a tree just fell on my car, oy vey.” In that spirit, I am going back to my old blue collar neighborhood and ask for a similar sigh saying, “holy shit.” Maybe the exit near the high tech industrial district can say “omg.”

LMAO #2 A curse on the tax folks, the Dutch seem to be spellbound. A court in Holland recently decided in favor of granting witches a tax deduction for training and education in the occult arts. This is a nation already know for popularizing the most salacious pornography and promoting wide spread drug use as a means of recreation. Since almost all the Dutchmen I know in America are highly dedicated Christians with fundamentalist moral values, I can only assume the righteous immigrated to the United States, leaving behind the hedonists to run the country. On the other had, I would not mind learning more about the spell they put on the court. Could come in handy.