REACT: The Supreme Court was right (part 2)

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringe.”

Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

The words look simple enough, but for liberals and conservatvies they might as well be writtin Chinese and German and read by Ugandans.

For liberals, the words “well regulated Militia” jump out like a neon sign. To them, this means the Second Amendment only provides for an organized military force under the authority of the state – the National Guard. Of course. Liberals naturally see government as the essential source of almost any civic services.

Conservaitves tend to focus on the statement, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that no law is constitutional that would prevent an individual from owning a gun. Period. I see no articulated exceptions. The right to “keep and bear” shall not even be “infringed” much less taken away.

We have to understand that the Second Amendment was written when personal weapons were almost the full range of armament. I know. There were a few cannons around, but that was it. We did not have bazookas … hand grenades … rocket launchers … fighter jets … and atomic bombs. The new technology, and all the perils personal possession today presents, led to a broad public acceptance of some level of regulation. This is the slippery slope that the right and left wingers slide down in a form of free fall. The words “…shal not be infinged” seems to mean no regulation. Then, how do we rationalize regulations?

Even as a society that revers the Constitution, we are not about to allow our neighbor, sane or not, to store platoon level munitions in his basement. Although growing up, one of my neighbors did have an authentic gatling gun in his yard as a decoration.

Apart from some regulations, the Second Amendment cleary allows ownership, personal possession. We are entitled by Constitutional right to “keep” arms, as in our home, and “bear” them in open display. So, no regulation can deny us ownership. We can regulate in the absense of specific prohibitions, but we cannot use “regulation” as a vehicle to prevent us from keeping and bearing arms.

We know, with great certainty, that the founder’s did not provide for a militia as an alternative to personal gun ownership. It would take a fool, and a great distortion of history, to argue that the founder’s language even implied the creation of the militia as an opportunity to disarm the general public. They considered the gun as much a tool as a weapon. Hunting was not a sport but a from of shopping in the days before Sam’s Club. Guns were an integral part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” envisioned by the men of Williamsburg.

The liberal position loses out, I believe, because they do not recognize both rights preserved in the Second Amendment. Conseratives see the right to maintian a state standing militia as being separate from the right to personally “keep and bear arms.” Liberals say the militia language trumps the personal right, but nothing in the Amendment seems to support that theory.

Those who argue that the Second Amendment does not confer the right of individual self protection have not studied that founder’s commentaries on this subject.


"No free man shall ever be debarred for the use of arms."


"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."

Thomas Jefferson (pictured with his gun)

They viewed the gun as an essential tool of self protection in a nation were danger lurked in every corner – whether conflicts with native Americans, attacks by wild animals, family feuds and the ever-present criminal class. There is no doubt that the “original intent’ was for every citizen to be able to own and openly carry guns. They did even consider regulations, such as registration, background checks, trigger locks and owner-only hand grips. They belived in an unfettered right to own, wear and use a gun at will. Sure, we have fettered that a bit with regulation, but the fundamental right remains

Contrary to some criticism, the Court did not create new law, but strictly adhered to more limited definition of the terms and the ancient explanations of the signers of the Constitution. Critics cite the 1932 decision as conferring unlimited regulatory rights over guns, including banning and confisction. The current Court can only be accused of “judicial activism” IF you accept the 1932 decision as constitutionally correct. In a sense, the Court is correcting that past error.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that times have so changed that the Second Amendment must be amended, itself, or abolished. In the past, we changed the Constituion to allow for the income tax (BIG mistake). We changed the Constitution to prohibit the sale of demon run (BIG mistake), and then we passed another amendment to reinstate the individual right to liquor up on Friday night at the local pub (corrected BIG mistake). But, until such time as we the people change the Second Amendment, it stands -- and the Court honored its obligation to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

REACT: The Supremes ... with Guns and Robes.

The left wing progressives continue to talk like the represent America, or at least that America is coming round to their way of thinking. It has been their trait and fault for a long time. If you had judged the mood of the nation by the statements of liberal politicians, pundits, press and radio personalities, their could not have been a Ronald Reagan, a Newt Gingrich or a Chief Justice Roberts. The so-called progressive Air America would be more than a narrow cast radio network compared to the highly popular conservative talk shows.

This has not been a good week for true believers on the left. Realty has upset their fantasies -- again. First and foremost, the Supreme Court threw out a 32-year ban on guns in the District of Columbia – and threw every other local gun ban into the shadow of judicial doubt. They have finally settled the question: Do private citizens have a constitutional right to own guns – albeit with reasonable restriction? For the first time, the high court has affirmed the definition of “well regulated militia” to include the right to personally possess weaponry.

Liberals say “militia” means a government run military, such as the National Guard. The Supreme Court, however, believes that a “militia” can be a locally organized, grassroots outfit which has to rely on their own arms because there is no central procurement authority. In other words, liberals believe that even a “militia” must be a service of government. (No surprise there.) Conservatives, the nation’s founders and the current Supreme Court believe that a “militia’ can be formed even in opposition to the government. (Even by nuns with guns.) The inalienable right to rise up against a tyrannical government requires access to the means. Thus, the right to bear arms. In other words, you do not need the approval of government to form a “militia,” as defined in the Constitution -- even a well regulated one.

The liberal gabbers are whining that the new ruling breaks the precedence establish by the 1932 ruling establishing the right to regulate guns, with banning one of the assumptive options. They indignantly argue that precedents are not to be overturned. If that is the case, however, slavery would be legal, 18-year-olds would not be voting, the nation would still be dry and the Dred Scott decision would stand.

In another decision, the liberal members or the Supreme court carried the day by striking down the death penalty for child rapists. Currently, the death penalty is reserved for cases of murder. No death, no death penalty. The justices, at least five of them, were not of a mind expand the traditional death penalty coverage to non-lethal crimes.

The very liberal Barack Obama, however, disagrees with the Court, and favors the expansion of capital punishment to cover child rapists. Obama and John McCain agree on this one. That is because the Court looks at the law and other academic stuff, and the politicians look at public opinion. There is no doubt that the public would support even the most “cruel and unusual” punishments for pedophile rapists. Laws and the Supreme Court are the guardians against unbridled majority rule – the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

On the death penalty issue, Air America is hitting turbulence. They are resorting to parsing and double talk to bridge the conflict between their pleasure with the decision and their unwritten rule to never criticize Obama. I kind of enjoy the verbal squirming.

What is striking terror in the bleeding heart club is the fact that the next president could fill at least three vacancies in his first term – and all three are senior liberals. Should it play out that way, a President Obama could only preserve the ideological balance with three liberal choices. A President McCain, however, could tilt the court further to the conservative strict constructionist viewpoint even with moderate appointments – and he has pledged to follow the Roberts/Alito model. Uh, we’ll see.

The conservatives currently not only have the advantage of majority, but even Air America’s court expert noted that the conservative justices were young and energetic, while some of the older liberal jurists are hardly able to stay conscious through public proceedings.

Three more appointments on the right would create a generational conservative court. It could easily be 25 years before such a “Roberts Court” would give way to a successor.

REACT: Father Pfleger’s return to his throne … ah … pulpit?

Father Michael Pfleger is back at the pulpit. Cardinal George, who suspended the priest errant for two meaningless weeks of abstinence from the Saint Sabina sacristy, has given more evidence of his disappointing reign as the bishop of the Chicago Archdiocese.

The mini-banishment was the result of the brouhaha that followed Pfleger’s sexist and racist over-the-top performance at Obama’s former church, where “Trinity” refers to Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Michael Pfleger. The latter’s mockery of Hillary Clinton was only the vehicle for a larger rant against non-black America.

Shortly after his satirical impersonation of a black preacher hit You Tube, the very Arian looking Pfleger issued a less-than-apologetic mea culpa. I am sure Pfleger was sorry that he caused Barack Obama to resign from Trinity. I am sure he was sorry he received a personal rebuke from Obama. Even in regret, however, Pfleger never took responsibility for his actions, expressed sincere remorse, or demonstrated a firm commitment not to repeat his transgression – the three requirements for Catholic confession and forgiveness. He gave no evidence that he was sorry for the thrust of his message. His sorrow was more like the regret of a bank robber over getting caught -- not the crime. The only people who accepted his apology were those who thought he was right to do what he did, in the first place.

It should have been the last straw, but Cardinal George treated like it was a unique lapse. The punishment was less than the slap on the back of the hand that nuns applied in the days of the old Catholic Church. Perhaps he was intimidated by the lavish media praise the press traditionally bestows on religious apostasy – especially by left-of-center preachers.

Oh, Perhaps it was the zealous demonstration of support from Pfleger’s followers at Saint Sabina, who each Sunday absorb and endorse Pfleger’s homilies of racial paranoia and divisiveness. Their You Tube-captured applauds, cheers and “amens” demonstrated a disturbing resonance with Pastor Pfleger’s anti white diatribes. It would appear that those who take up the pews function more like a cult than a congregation devoted to a good and greater God. Like many other narcissistic, egomaniacal and charismatic personalities, Pfleger has his following.

That is what is so disturbing about his triumphant return. Yes, triumphant. Pfleger returned to HIS throne to the rapturesque cheers and hosannas of HIS congregation. These are clearly HIS people. There was no sense of embarrassment over Pfleger’s statements and rebukes by both Obama and George. Absent was the humility of a true penitent. So powerful is his messianic message that many “members’ of Saint Sabina are not even Catholic. They are there for the political, not the priestly, Pfleger. Every exuberant alleluia was a proverbial fist in the face of Cardinal George.

Pfleger, has been allowed to remain pastor at Saint Sabina’s for more than 25 years – well past the time church policy normally requires a move. He is a good example of why that policy is a good one. It is designed to remind the parishioners that the pastor is NOT the church. It is designed to prevent the cult-ification of a congregation. George had a great opportunity to restore Saint Sabina to the communion of the Catholic Church. Carpe Diem! The Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago failed. Though his stature outside the parish may be deservedly diminished by his antics, Father Pfleger returns to Saint Sabina the clear victor.

REACT: Obama, the symbol of what?

Just when I thought the Barack Obama thing was taking on the form of a religion, I discover he now has a “national emblem.” Every candidate has a logo, and Obama has a rather unique stylized “O” that symbolizes a rising sun over an American flag landscape.

I was not a fan of the logo at the onset, but his success (with no credit due the logo) has made the campaign symbol more powerful. If he was now only a long-forgotten also-ran, we would say the logo was amateurish and silly.

Well… as if being the messianic candidate is not enough, Obama has now introduced a new emblem reminiscent of the Great Seal of the United States (upper left). It screams out. “Obama IS the nation.” This is almost getting scary.

The whole thing made me uneasy, but my friend Henry Meers put his finger on it. He noted that the “blue eagle” was the symbol of Franklin Roosevelt’s plunge into facism with the National Recovery Administration (NRA), and agency the Supreme Court abolished as dangerously unconstitutional.

Of course, the idea for the new emblem is to make Obama look “presidential.” However, the audacity of presuming a personal national emblem tends to undermine the campaign’s egalitarian sales pitch.

The variation of the NRA theme (left), and its allusion to Roosevelt’s propensity to usurp Constitutional powers, will not help Obama with the troublesome older voters he needs to attract. We senior citizens have institutional memory of those Rooseveltian power grabs – at least as handed down by our parents, who experienced them first hand.

Since one of the Obama mantras is the abuse of constitutional authority by the Bush administration, he should not be so eager to image his campaign after the greatest Constitution abuser in American history.

“I am the state” was not good when pronounced by French King Louis XIV (being crowned by angels, left), or repeated by Nepoleon Bonaparte (on coronation day, right). If this new campaign image is to be taken seriously, we should all … as they say … be afraid, be very afraid.

REACT: The Cheneys of West Virginia??

What is wrong with Vice President Dick Cheney? I mean, really. After so many years in public life, you would think he would be more careful what he says into microphones.

Recently, the Veep noted that he has "Cheney" ancestors on both his maternal and paternal side. Then he add ... "and we don't even live in West Virginia." I mean, how stupid can a person get. Everyone knows that he should have referenced ARKANSAS. Geeez.

Maybe he never heard the one ... If a couple gets married in Arkansas, but divorced in Illinois, are they still brother and sister?

Country rooooooads, take me hoooome to the plaaaace I beloooooong ... West Virginia ... mountain momma ... take me hoooome, country roads.

Footnote: Sorry about the silliness, but this presidential election thing was getting me crazed.

REACT: Father Pfleger finally flubs (see videos here)

They applauded and cheered as Father Michael Pfleger, pastor the St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church, whooped it up as the visiting sermonizer at Trinity United Church of Christ – the one-time home of the racist Pastor Jeremiah Wright and long-time congregant Barak Obama. You would have thought they had learned a lesson about spewing hatred from the pulpit by now. But noooooooo!

Thanks to modern techonology and You Tube, the words of Father Pfleger are no longer just repeated but are available for all to hear. His message of anger and hate is no longer limited to the confines of the black church. You can see both his improper and illegal attack on Hillary Clinton -- and his admission that he is causing trouble. The "man of God" knows he is sinning.

Because Father Plfeger is a raging left winger – more interested in a political platform than the pulpit -- he has been allowed to be outrageous for years without much criticism from the fawning press. In fact, even the unavoidable criticism of his latest over-the-top stunt is tempered by the media with countervailing reporting on all the alleged good he has done through his ministry.

Methinks that he would not even now be criticized if his racist character and inappropriate comments had not turned out to be detrimental to the most important liberal sacred cow of the day, Barak Obama. This is the same song sheet the media choir have used in the past for Pastor Wright, Jesse “Hymie Town” Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the racist reverends who play partisan politics from the pulpit – flagrantly violating the laws that affords them taxpayer subsidies. You and I pay for the venomous attacks on the non-black communities.

It is reported that Francis Cardinal George (left) has had enough of the bad boy Father Pfleger. I certainly hope so. He should be summarily booted ... defrocked ... excommunicated. He is the secular wolf lurking beneath the lamb (of God) skin.

Oh sure, Pfleger has apologized – said he is sorry if his brutal, sleazy racist mocking of Hillary Clinton and all non-black people offended her … and all non-black people. If course it offended her, and most likely a lot of us non-black people. It was ugly and vicious. It was about as unChristian as you can get short of bodily harm. It offended anyone with fair judgment and honest heart. I am convinced that Pfleger apologized only when it became obvious that his partisan verbal slashing was going to backlash on his beloved Obama. When has he ever apologized in the past for his bombastic attacks on white people?

The performance on the stage at Trinity was not an exception, but the norm for Father Pfleger. For those who are familiar with Pfleger, his history of radical extremism and abuse of his pulpit privileges are historic and pervasive. Though white, he is a promoter of black liberation theology, often a theological euphemism for racial hatred in the name of God. He uses the same sort of religious contortions that had those long-ago southern white pastors (and a few still hanging around) denouncing the God-given humanity of blacks – using the burning symbol of a loving Christ to convey fear and hatred.

To add a weirdness to his viewpoints, Pfleger takes pride in mimicking the extreme edge of the flamboyant style of black ministers. His imitation is so complete, it borders on psychotic. He channels the most radical black preachers. Pfleger’s black “act” is so out of context with his white boyish looks and carefully coifed blond hair that unless you listen to the scurrilous content of his homilies you might think it a Saturday Night Live skit.

In his ethnic self hatred, Pfleger allies in common cause and friendship with the likes of Louis Farrakhan (left). Like Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger embraces and promotes the misguided Muslim minister. Instead of repudiating Farrakhan, Pfleger praises him and invites him to desecrate the sanctuary of St. Sabina's with his racist rhetoric. Pfleger finds it impossible to call out anyone who speaks ill of the white community.

I am also more than a little bothered by the reaction of the congregation at Trinity. The congregation’s chortles, guffaws and amens to Pfleger's message of racial animosity were almost as offensive as the Muslims dancing in the streets as the New York Trade Towers crumbled. After years of Pastor Wright, it would appear that those in the pews have been so drawn to, or indoctrinated by, the extreme preaching of racial victimization at the hands of the evil white majority that they cannot see the wrongness of Wright and Pfleger. It is chilling to think that until recent days the potential President of the United States was among them in holy communion.

What seems to bridge racial lines, however, are the many infamous ministers in America -- black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew – who seem to be the most out of touch with a loving God. Preachers of this ilk seem to find large congregations who prefer to have their prejudices comforted rather than challenged.

I am not sure how much harm Pfleger does to Obama. The candidate does not have the two-decade intimate relationship with Pfleger the he once claimed to have "treasured" with Pastor Wright. He did not spend Sunday after Sunday at the foot of Pfleger’s pulpit. On the other hand, they have been close friends and comrades-in-arms since Obama first appeared on the civic/political scene. Pfleger has been a donor to Obama campaigns. Until recently (post Wright flare up), he served as an official advisor to the campaign. He can be listed, along with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, as another close and influential friend who has become radio active -- who raises legitimate concern about Obama's friendships of choice.

There are a goodly number of godly black ministers, and Martin Luther King can be looked at as the role model. King preached consistently and forcefully against racial prejudice and hatred. He never found it necessary to seek justice through retribution. He never proposed inverting the scales of justice to compensate for past inequities. He never demanded special treatment as compensation for past injustice. He sought mutual respect and equality. He envisioned a true post racial world in which the color of a person's skin was irrelevant.

Credit where credit is due. Thanks to Obama, the issue of black racism and the historic politicization of the black churches has been drawn into the sunlight of public scrutiny. If there is to be a national discord on racism, this is not a bad place to start. Black racism is no longer the protectorate of political correctness. Amen, brother!

OP ED: Why is she still running?

Why is Hillary continuing to fight for a nomination most observers believe to be lost?

One of the most popular assumptions should be the first to be eliminated. It is the theory that suggests that she is driven by madness – an irrational and obsessive lust for power allowed to run wild by demented denial. Perhaps it is her formative years devotion to the Chicago Cubs that has made her believe that “all but certain” victory is never certain.

I think these are not the reasons.

Clinton & Co. is far too shrewd to become the victim of such gross self deception or unreasonable expectations -- and even if SHE has succumbed, it fails to explain the support she receives from savvy party leaders, seasoned political aides, much of the voting public and a crafty “been there/done that” husband. If it is just the matter of a crazy lady, why are there still so many super delegates withholding their daggers? There is more to Lady Hillary’s tenacious quest than personal blind ambition or unbridled optimism.

First and foremost, despite every attempt to cajole her out of the race – to seal the victory – Barack Obama does not have it yet. Close, maybe. All but certain, arguable. But still no cigar. The declarations of demise have been premature. There is still a pulse – weak and fading – but still there. There is always that long-shot possibility and SOMETHING will happen between now and the convention.

If Obama is nominated, as seems most likely, it will be by the slimmest of margins – more of a technical or circumstantial victory than a mandate of any sort. Her popular vote and delegate count are within a hair’s breath of Obama. Despite the popular consensus of inevitability, it is obvious to every politico and pundit in the world that Obama’s calculated lead languishes within the traditional margins of error. The Democrat party is a house divided. Obama is the candidate of only half the party faithful. A sea change based on some shocking disclosure is always possible – and with numbers so close, it may not take a very big shocker to crate that sea change. It would appear that out of 300 million Americans, it will only take about 150 super delegates to decide on the Democrat candidate.

Though her maladroit allusion to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy was never intended to mean that she included Obama getting knocked off as a victory strategy. It is true, however, that with months to go before the convention’s coronation, many things other than assassination can happen. Obama’s Chicago political machine background is far from fully vetted. There are other issues and other “friends” that can bring revised judgment on the junior senator from Illinois. Maybe there is a blockbuster scandal hidden beneath a rock that Clinton has uncovered.

But even that seems too little of a hope to warrant the expending of both cash and political capital at rates necessary to maintain forward motion. What makes the most sense is 2012.

In all likelihood, Clinton and her people know that she is not going to get the nomination this year. They also know that there is not likely going to be some dramatic event to pull the rug out from under Obama. Never know, but odds against.

It is safe to assume that Clinton still wants to be president, and if 2008 is not going to put her into the race, then the next best thing is to go for it in 2012. Suddenly her seemingly Quixotic campaign makes sense. She builds political infrastructure – lists, donors, endorsements, friends, knowledge, new registered voters.

She also shows political muscle. How many candidates can win primary after primary against the “inevitable” candidate. Several pundits suggest, to their bewilderment, that she is losing bargaining strength with the Obama folks. The prospects of a vice presidential nomination have diminished as she pressed on. She may have put her self out of consideration for Secretary of State of Attorney General. She may have lost Obama’s clout to make her head of the Senate – replacing Harry Reid. What these pundits fail to appreciate is that Clinton has absolutely no interest in bowing to bargain with Obama. She is going after independent political strength.

A lot of Democrats express concern that the never ending Clinton campaign is hurting Obama’s chances in the General Election. Exactly! An Obama defeat would mean an open nomination in 2012. And who would be in the strongest position to take that nomination? You got it. Lady Hillary.

I think Clinton shares my view that Obama is not electable in November – so what harm in making that a bit more certain. In fact, the more decisive the defeat, the less likely she will have to battle him again for the nomination four years hence.

Clinton knows that a signification portion of her voters are never going to vote for Obama. He is too liberal and too black. Many of those new voters she is recruiting in the latter primaries will be McCain voters with Obama heading the ticket.

If it is McCain in 2008, the next presidential election is a good opportunity. Not only will the Democrat nomination be up for grabs, but the normal second term prospects for an incumbent president are altered by McCain’s age. He could easily be a one termer.

So, methinks rather than being mad as a hatter, Clinton may be sly as a fox. While Obama campaigns for 2008, Clinton has already begun the 2012 campaign.

REACT: The passing of Titans

Within a few short weeks, two of the most senior political icons have fallen, one to the inevitability of dead and the other to the precursor of terminal illness.

Throughout his career, William F. Buckley has been the conscience and oracle of conservative ideology. He rose to prominence during the darkest days of conservative ostracization – the post Eisenhower ear of “good times” having given way to the “days of rage.” In 1964, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was the standard bearer for a presidential annihilation.

The power of Buckley’s intellect sparked the birth of the modern conservative movement that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan and the eventual Republican Congress. These were more than elections. They represented the fundament shift in American political culture to the right for the first times since Franklin Roosevelt lead the nation to the shoreline of socialism. Even as Roosevelt proffered that the only thing our nation had to fear “was fear itself,” he pandered to the fears inherent in both depression and war to drive the people to the alter of government for sanctuary.

Often seemingly the lonely voice in the wilderness, Buckley penned the epistles of individual freedom and the righteous of the free market. He did so with conviction, compelling logic and common sense. He believed in principle over politics.

His success was not only in substance, but in style. He was ever the gentleman – the powerful but polite adversary on the debaters’ platform. Though less valued today than in times past, he was a man of virtue and honor. He is almost exclusively known for his beliefs, with little notoriety drawn to his personal life.

Edward Kennedy is, and has been, the personification of the anti-Buckley. He is the iconic personality of the radical left – or progressives, as they again prefer to be called. He too, could be dubbed the lone voice in the wilderness as conservative ideology gained favor and dominance under the rubric of the “Reagan Revolution.”.

He never lost his devotion to the tax and spend policies that would make the central government the point of resolution for virtually all human plights. Though cloaked in the skin of the lamb, the bloody fangs of socialism were always evident.

Kennedy’s ideology is less about freedom and more about amassing political power and privilege -- personally and collectively. His brand of liberalism shifted the center of political gravity away from individuals to the paternalistic propensity of government. Inherent in this philosophy is a compulsion to govern -- where pragmatism takes precedence over principle. He is more Machiavelli, for whom principle bowed to power, than Mother Theresa, who believed that keeping the faith reigned over temporal success.

This tendency to place pragmatism in the fore creates a selfish notion that the ends justify the means. Principle and policy become meaningless without the acquisition of power.

In his personal life, Kennedy has historically demonstrated that same pragmatic and selfish relativism. His excessive indulgences and tragically scandalous behavior has made him more notable in supermarket tabloids than intellectual journals.

While Buckley articulated the academic underpinnings of free-market conservatism, Kennedy is a constant campaign orator – articulating the language of political advantage at any given moment. While Buckley educated on the ways and means of individual freedom, Kennedy is the salesman of the “big brother” government that he and his fellow believers would provide if given the reigns of power. While Buckley wanted a nation that would think, Kennedy looks to a nation that will only respond.

Still … no matter one’s opinion; we can all rue the end of this clash between ideological Titans. They have personified the Yin and Yang between the philosophic poles of conservatism and liberalism. It is not easy to find their eloquent replacements in the vapid political firmament of these times. Taking sides does not prevent us from mourning the loss of Buckley, or praying for the well-being of Kennedy. Apart from all else, it can be said that both were faithful to their respective causes and visions. Each leaves a great legacy over which we lesser luminaries can carry on the debate.

REACT: Creamer dreamer

If I ever want someone to write a convincing article about the existence of the Tooth Fairy, I would assign the job to liberal emoter Robert Creamer, a fellow Illinoisan. I came to this conclusion after reading his latest espousings on the inevitability of the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. I find the argument advancing the existence of the Tooth Fairy to be more compelling than Creamer’s brief on behalf of Obama’s election.

If you are not familiar with Creamer (pictured), he is a regular contributor to the Huff ‘n Puff Post … I mean the Huffington Post. He is the husband of Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowski (one of the more charming liberals), and according to his own tag line, Creamer is “a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book, Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win.” (Is “Stand Up Straight” demeaning to the gay community? Is this code language? You just cannot be too careful these days.)

Anyway … Creamer forgot to mention that he was the founder and head of Illinois Political Action, a radical left-wing advocacy group. I say “was” because he left that group when the local U.S. Attorney found a cell for him in one of those federal penal institutions. He spent half a year as a guest of the taxpayers for something to do with bank fraud, check kiting and not turning over payroll withholding money to the government -- all the while he took home a six-figure salary and enjoyed a generous expense account. He copped a plea to avoid more serious charges – as if those are not serious enough. Of course, as with most scandalized and felonious left-wingers, he remains in the highest esteem of the liberal establishment - ergo his platform on the Huffington Pest…. ooops … I mean Post.

Hailing from Illinois, Creamer is another of Obama’s good friends of dubious repute – guys who span the spectrum from controversial to criminal. Tony Rezko? Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright? This is getting more interesting all the time. I wonder if Creamer’s enthusiasm for Obama is spelled p-a-r-d-o-n.

Weeeeell … as I said … one of Bob’s constant writing themes is the inevitability of Barak Obama. He is convinced -- or at least attempting to convince – that Obama is the overwhelming people’s choice. He not only thinks Obama is going to win in November, but win big. As he puts it …

… the odds are good that Obama will win the Presidency. And if Democrats execute with precision during the campaign, the odds are good that he will win with a healthy margin.

In his recent Huffington column, ole Creamer cites a statistical model devised by the political prognosticators at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. He claims they show Obama easily carrying enough states to get 273 electoral votes, with 270 needed to win. And there are other states likely to go for Obama, according to Creamer.

I went to see what the deal was (see chart) . I found that 538 currently gives Obama an electoral victory of 270.8 – a meaningless one and a half vote victory. And what is the margin of error on this projection?

More interestingly, 538 gives the popular vote to McCain. This is a little like the nomination process, itself, where Obama could slip to second place in the popular vote (depending on your partisan calculas), but receive the nomination at the hands of the delegates.

Even more interesting in the 538 projection, Clinton swamps McCain in the Electoral College and wins the popular vote. It appeas that Hillary is the one who could “win with a healthy margin.”

Coincidentally, syndicated Columnist, Bob Novak, has done his own Electoral College analysis. He shows McCain as the winner today with the bare minimum of 270 votes. Another “who knows” result.

“The odds are good that Obama will win the Presidency.”??? What is Creamer thinking? Smoking? The only thing that can be extrapolated from these guesstimates is that we could be in for another long, long election night – or maybe days.

Of course, Creamer is an expert in the art of never being wrong, so he adds the disclaimer that his prediction could change based on new developments. Using Creamer’s logic, allow me to make my own prediction. I think that Ralph Nader will be elected president with 66 percent of the popular vote. Of course, my prognostication will be adjusted based on future data – like Nader’s failure to get out of single digit polling numbers by the last weekend of the election season.

Creamer confidently predicts that if the election were today, Obama would win. Whoa! There is a prediction as courageous as it is meaningless. Would someone take Creamer aside and explain that the election is not for another five months? Even at that, I take exception to Creamer’s opinion. If the election were today, I think McCain wins. Things seem to change when the voters have to get serious about their decision. That’s why early polls and projections are mostly wrong.
I am standing by my prediction that Obama bombs in November. I say we’re looking at a 51/48 win for McCain, minimally -- with a few votes for Nader as the Green Party candidate and Libertarian standard bearer Robert Barr.

Time -- and maybe the Supreme Court -- will tell.

REACT: Book burning Bush should be burned

According to the press, the book is a sensation. “Former George Bush loyalists turns on him,” is the generic headline.

Seems like one-time White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has poison penned a tome that scoops shovels full of insider dirt on the President and his key advisors. The book will be a HUGE success in the hands of the gleeful left wing literati and media establishment. The liberal talk show circuit will be filled with “we told you so” bleating.

Now, I know Bush is a bit of a dunce. His presidency is a failure whether you view it from the right or the left. His approval rating suggests that even his mother may be turning on him. Yep! He blew it. No question about it.

However … don’t you feel a little queasy reading McClellan’s slashing account of his former boss? There is something in the human soul (a good something) that makes us distain backstabbers.

This is a guy who got his career from the beneficence of George Bush. He was sending the Bush White House message to the world. He was their flack … their mouthpiece … their spinner. Now he writes a self-serving diatribe against his padrone.

And why? To enlighten and warn the public about the inner workings of the Bush administration in the last few months of its existence? Nooooooooo! He does it solely and selfishly for … yeah … money, and maybe another fifteen minutes in the public eye. In the old street parlance, the guy’s a ratfink.


Oh yeah! There is that other reason. Maybe a little payback for the President recognizing that McClellan was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It is also true that the high political family were not given the political status they thought they deserved.

What really galls is that he uses the tell-all format to kick a guy while he’s down. With a writer’s precision and prerogative, McClellan absolves himself of any complicity and culpability. Oh yeah! He was the oracle espousing the bull dung. But, he was misinformed by those meanies like Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. (This is where you are supposed to shed a tear for poor ole Scott).

McClellan would like us to believe that he is an honorable and truthful man, victimized by those above him. I’m not buying it. He was part of the schemer team, the key spin advisor. If the White House was dishing out bad stuff, McClellan was more than a waiter delivering it to the public table. He was at least a sous chef.

I think the sleazy nature of this guy can be seen in accusing Karl Rove and Scooter Libby or comparing notes to get their story straight regarding the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA undercover agent. McClellan says he hates to report this particular incident because he was not privy to the conversation between Rove and Libby. So, why does he write about it?

In the book McClellan says that after a senior staff meeting, Rove asked Libby to meet with him privately. Libby agreed, and they went off to another room.

That’s it. Two White House staffers, go off for a private conversation, and McClellan scurrilously surmises that they are engaging in a sinister conversation to concoct mutual alibis in the Plame case. Why else would the want to meet in private?, McClellan asks. Oh … I don’t know. But, I bet there are at least a few hundred issues of mutual interest – and that does not count personal matters like setting up a golf date. And even if they did want to discuss the Plame problem, it is not exactly illegal. In this, McClellan elevates “cheap shot” to a whole new level of meaning. No matter what you think of these guys, this is just wrong.

He still claims to respect the President. How phoney can a guy be? His words exude animus and vitriol in every paragraph.

If the Bush administration was trying to sell a bad product, McClellan was the hawker-in-chief. Perhaps it was his ability to recycle trash that provided him with the skill and the motivation to write trash. If George Bush was not exactly his role model, McClellan can always look to Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot.

REACT: Daley saves the day ... for a change

In the case of the "pate de foie graz ban bungle" it took Chicago Mayor Rich Daley almost a year to knock out the "city's silliest ordinance," as he called it.

Well, Hizzonor was not about to have to wait another year to keep his “kids” in the City Council from another silly action. This time the Mayor stepped in.

Just about the time the Council was to vote to order the White House not to invade Iran (a truly silly thing, to be sure), the Mayor politely asked them refrain from passing the legislation.

Of course, even a polite request will get immediate obedience from the submissive aldermen. They well know that if you reject even the gentlest suggestion from Hizzonor, you will be tossed under the bus – and the Mayor has lots of buses.

He said he was concerned that such a resolution would hurt the presidential candidacy of favorite son Barak Obama. He does not want to upset the first time ever the Chicago political machine will get its own president. I mean … they have had several governors and a few senators rise from the ranks of the Chicago machine, but never a president.

This is real important, too. Everyone knows that the U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has the Mayor’s brow in the prosecutorial crosshairs. Despite his promise to keep Fitzgerald, you can bet that in one of his first acts a President, Obama will sit with Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to pick a replacement – some one not so ... ah ... aggressive? Someone more inclined to restore the tradition of "selective prosecution." <-- Meaning no machine pinky rings. I am not sure if the Mayor’s reason for opposing the ban is sincere, or just an excuse. Not sure how the resolution would hurt the campaign, especially since Obama is more of an appeasement dove than a militant hawk.

My suspicion is that the Mayor is kyboshing the ban because it really is silly AND because it is really a public relationship attack on President George Bush. Remember, Daley and Bush are buds. And until he surrenders the Oval Office, good ole pal George has the power of the pardon. In the spirit of Illinois' unique brand of bipartisanship, Daley is already lobbying for clemency for the currently incarcerated George Ryan. Since springing Ryan from the hoosgow would be an incredibly bad and stupid thing, I say there is at least a 50/50 chance Bush will do it.

Whatever his motive, Delay has ended two Council sillinesses in one week. While I deplore the autocratic process, at least this time the Mayor really did save the “kids” from more silly mischief.

LMAO: Of peace and pate ...

One would think that with all the serious problems besetting Chicago, the Windy City council of aldermen would be overburdened with the serious business of municipal governance. But noooooooo. This week, the city's oversized and over stuffed legislative chamber came to grips with two issues that can only provoke well deserved public ridicule.

First the ward bases wielded their mighty power to defeat themselves. In an overwhelming vote the aldermen struck down the ban on the sale of pate de foie gras -- a ban, they themselves past only a short time ago.

The main argument against the delicacy is how the birds are fed to produce those succulent fatty livers. Somehere along the way, the anti goose viscus crowd provided a humanized example of the process (pictured). Hmmm. I wonder if the demo offended as many people as it aroused. One of those "unanticipated consequences" things. Personally, I was more ... uh ... never mind. Not saying.

Mayor Daley orderedthe booting of the ban, calling the original action "the silliest ordinance" the Council has ever passed. Considering the impressive list of silly things done by the Chicago City Council at the order of the Mayor, that is an interesting indictment.

This of course raised an obvious question. Since the Council only does what the Mayor tells them to do, how did the silliest law ever get passed in the first place? Obviously someone failed to get the Mayor's opinion on goose livers. Oh! Wait! Now I get it. The Mayor was saying that not getting his marching orders ... that was the silliest thing the Council ever did. Now it makes sense.

Since the Council has now undone the silliest thing it ever did (and this time making sure they got the directive from the Mayor), they needed another silly thing to takes it place. Being very creative, it did not take them long to come up with a resolution to forbid the United States government from taking military action against Iran.

I certainly do not know whether we should or should not use our military to preempt the Iranian mad man from having nuclear weapons. Almost everyone in the world, and even those in their own world over at the United Nations, seems to think that an atomic armed Iran is a very bad idea, indeed. But still ... personally ... I can't say. After all, I am not privy to national security briefings. I am not in on the behind the scenes international disucssions. Of course, those high-minded alderman are at least as clueless as I am. But ignorance may not be enough to stop them if making the Chicago City Council one of the few municipal governments in America ... nay ... in the world ... with a foreign policy. (Neighboring Evanston has a similarly afflicted city council, as I have noted in previous blogs. Maybe its the fluoride in the local water.)

This is not the first time the Chicago legislators went down this road. About six years ago, they passed a similar resolution forbidding George Bush and the United States Congress from toppling Saddam Hussein. You can see how much the opinion of Chicago aldermen means in Washington. Needless to say, this new foray into foreign policy will garner about the same amount of attention in the nation's capital.

I hate to disagree with the Mayor, but I think these war room decisions of the City Council may be the silliest things they ever did. If not the silliest, then certainly the most useless.

In the meantime, the Chicago Transit Authority is crumbling. The schools are producing more drop outs than graduates. Innocent people are being murdered at an alarming rate. The city faces a monumental budget crisis. The once sacrosanct parks are being auctioned off to the highest bidders. "The city that works" can't even fill pot holes.

But thanks to the City Council, the social elite will again nibble on their fancy goose liver paste, and Iran can rest easier knowing that U.S. troop are being held at bay by civic action.

FACTOID: Why is gas so expensive?

Got this in my email from Larry Hart at the American Conservative Union.

When President Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would have started domestic oil production in a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he said it was a waste of time because it would have no effect on gas prices for ten years. That was 13 years ago, in 1995 when oil was $19 a barrel. Every year since, liberals in Congress have blocked efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production, not only in ANWR but throughout the country and offshore.

The one thing Congress cannot legislate is the law of supply and demand. Obvously, they can ignore it -- but not without consequences. So, the barrel price for crude is now hovering around $110 -- a twelve-fold increase over that of a dozen years. That's what is pushing the pump price over $4. Well ... not entirely. State and municipal governments are piggy backing with tax increases of their own.

The price of crude affects the cost of ALL goods -- higher cost for growing, manufacturing, processing and shipping. Everytime you see an increase at the pump, remember that your food, clothing, entertainment, rent, doctor bills and lawyer fees will all be increasing, too.

If you want to do something about it, contact your U.S. senator in support of the "McConnell Amendment" to Senate Bill S2284. It will open up some drilling, and maybe in 10 more years we will not have the same problem.

OBSERVATION: Hillary is peddling the wrong argument

In her effort to pull the rabbit out of the hat at the convention, Hillary Clinton repeatedly advances the argument that she is more electable than Barack Obama. If this were what the super delegates were considering, she would have a chance. Unfortunately for Clinton, that is not the deciding factor for the super Ds. They already know she is the most electable of the two.

The super delegates will likely put Obama over the top, but not because they think he is the stronger candidate. They will select him under the pressure of racial intimidation. They will rather risk losing this one election than lose the lock-step loyalty of their captive black constituency over the longer run.

They fear retribution, and not without cause. Black leaders and journalist are warning (threatening?) that the failure to give the nomination to Obama could result in an explosion of pent up frustration. The implication is clear. The African-American community will go ballistic if Obama is denied the nomination in the back rooms of the convention. There is more than a hint of violent protests.

However, the super delegates are less worried about a flare up of urban rioting than the long term impact of blacks staying at home on many elections days to come – or worse yet, accepting the courtship of the GOP. Even a small percentage change in party loyalty will have an enormous impact on all future elections at all levels.

For the Dems, however, it is a bit of a Hobson’s Choice since there is every reason to believe that their “other” mainstay constituency – the non-black working class currently owned by Clinton – may slip over into the Republican column on Election Day if they are denied their candidate. The super delegates are betting that the Clinton crowd will be less angry in rejection than the Obama crowed and less likely to stray for too long -- and they are probably right.

For all the abuse she took, Geraldine Ferraro was right. Obama would not be where he is if he were not running as a black man. Instead of electabilty, Clinton needs to convince the super delegates that Obama’s nomination will be more disastrous for the party then her nomination. So, far no one is buying that.

REACT: Take me home country road ...

Hillary Clinton must be singing the West Virginia theme song these days -- hoping that West Virginia's country road will take her home to the White House. There once was an adage in presidential campaigns that claimed “as goes Maine, so goes the nation.” This year, I think the vision of things to come may be seen in West Virginia, where Clinton crushed the all-but-crowned Barack Obama by some 40 points.

How is that possible?

Pundits point out that West Virginia has a lower percentage of black votes – around five percent. There you have it. Obama is having a hard time winning over the non-black working class – and that includes Hispanics and Asians. If Obama, the perceived winner of the Democrat nomination, cannot beat Clinton in a Democrat primary, how can he beat McCain in a general election, where the demographics work against him to a far greater extent?

Ever since Obama first played the race card (and yes, as I noted in earlier blogs, he started it in order to push his margins up in the all-important primaries of South Carolina and Louisiana.) Unfortunately for Obama, you cannot rally one special interest group without alarming the other -- polarizing the general atmosphere. The more Obama pressed for racial solidarity, the more he lost non-blacks who initially gave him some benefit of the doubt on the race issue.

Obama did what he had to do to win the nomination. His strategy was brilliant, and well executed. It seems now that he has gained his victory on the field of political battle. But, like the mortally wounded general, he will leave victorious arena only to die in another venue.

West Virginia is more like the nation demographically than is South Carolina. If this had been a close election, then Obama could have claimed some appeal across the socio-economic spectrum. But, he was not only beaten, he was smooshed. How can the pre-emptive candidate explain getting beaten so-badly?

A lot has been written about Ron Paul winning descent percentages in his hopeless race against the already designated GOP standard bearer, John McCain. Paul, however, is only getting impressive percentages – no victories, and he certainly has not slam dunked McCain in any contest.

Now that Obama has played the racial card, and allowed others to respond in kind, it is inevitable that the General Election will be dominated by the race issue. Obama’s elitist white supporters will see virulent racism in any opposition. If he falls behind in the campaign, his black base will claim they are being denied their “right” to a president of their race. All this, of course, will only exacerbate Obama’s non-black, working-class problem. Now that Obama has played the race card, he cannot withdraw it. It is face up on the table to be trumped. Though they may put on a happy face, the outcome in West Virginia has to privately scare the bejeezus out Obama and his strategists.

OBSERVATION: Let's face it ...

As you know, this blog is dedicated to "truth, justice and the American way." In the pursuit of those worthy goals, I occasionally stumble across some things that just make you wounder, like ... What do the Chicago Tribune (and Chicago Cubs) new owner, gazillionaire Sam Zell, have in common with bad-boy political pundit and talking head, James Carville, and the delightfully near-sighted Mr. Magoo? Since pictures are worth a thounsand words, allow me to defer to the photographs. I am not sure why I thought this is important enough to put in my blog, or if there is any relevancy, but here it is, anyway. What should we think of this?

OBSERVATION: Revenge of the anti mom

Now that Mother's Day is over, I can get back to being a bit cranky on the feminist issues. That’s because the in-vogue contemporary liberal feminism has little to do with motherhood. Despite lip service oblation offered up to the stay-at-home ladies, the feminist movement remains largely anti homemaker, with a good measure of male bashing.

One of the bromides given to the home bound moms is and “accounting” of the commercial value of their household duties. According to this year’s public relations gimmick-imitating-research, the average homemaker should be earning $117,000 a year based on the commercial value of various services.

They price out categories of work, such as baby sitter, cook, laundress, nurse, etc. Of course the whole analysis is as ridiculous as puff articles claiming to list the sexiest women in the world. (Although, I find the latter a much more interesting gimmick-imitating-research). The whole feminist analysis falls on the free market reality that one can hire a person to do ALL the aforementioned services every day for about $25,000 per year.

I am not unfamiliar with the duties of the homemaker. For several years, I was Mr. Mom to five children. I cooked. I cleaned. I bandaged. Even now, after my wife goes off to her full-time job, I remain home to handle my consulting business and a good share of the household duties.

In these modern times, the drudgery of homemaking is gone. The success of soap operas, female subject talk shows, and bridge clubs give evidence that the stay-at-home mom has some significant personal time. Certain mothers, like fathers, have to be “on duty” 24/7, but that does not mean they are actively engaged in the “work.” Parenting is more like being a fireman. There is ample time to play poker between blazes,

If you want to play the same silly game on the other side of the coin, have you recently hired a plumber, electrician, auto mechanic, security guard or any other commercial handyman? Put that on the comparable income for dad, and you can see just how ridiculous all this really is.

Personally, I think the work of a homemaker is priceless. I was raised by one.

OBSERVATION: The mothers in my life.

On Mother’s Day, of course I reflect on all the mothers in my life. (I mean the nurturing kind, not the target of street slang.)

Of course, I have a mother (pictured left with my dad on their wedding day). She passed a way some years ago. “Have” was not a grammatical error. I think of her in the present tense. Partly because I exist as both the physical and spiritual embodiment of her. Her advice and admonitions echo in my mind. The guidance she provided still influences my actions, consciously and unconsciously.

After a stint as Rosie the Riveter during the World War II, mine returned to being the perfect stay-at-home mom. Had she been a Catholic, as were the rest of us in the family, I dare say she would have been on her way to sainthood by now.

I was married twice, and three kids meant I was the spouse of two mothers. Along the way I also acquired three teenagers who needed a home and family. Unfortunately, my first wife abandoned me AND the kids. I could readily understand her leaving me, but I never could fathom her leaving the kids behind. For almost 20 years, she has chosen to celebrate Mother’s Day estranged from her kids, who never did a thing to provoke her abandonment. In no small irony, she is now an Episcopal priest. No one said that motherhood was a uniformly perfect institution.

After her departure, Mother’s Day took on new meaning as I took on a new role, Mr. Mom. I learned to be a better cook and to check pockets before throwing jeans into the laundry. I became the only man to attend our school’s PTA meetings, and of course had to bring my “dish” to the meetings. (They always suggested I bring a salad. I am sure they figured I didn’t know how to cook. That changed when I insisted on bringing a main course of chicken breasts cooked in wine sauce with grapes and apricots.)

My role as Mr. Mom ended with a second marriage. To date she has not abandoned me or the young son, Alex, we brought into this world. God knows she has more than enough justification to abandon me, but, unlike my first wife, she would never give up our son – nor even those older children who came along with me as a package deal. Hell, she has not even given me up yet, and I know I would be the first to go. In fact, she has been a remarkably good mother to all the kids as well.

My wife and I were partners in a business with offices adjacent to our apartment in downtown Chicago. Regardless, we employed a woman to take care of our then infant son during the day. At the time we hired her, she only spoke Spanish. She quickly became much more than a nanny. For almost 10 years, she was Alex’s second at-home mother with all the mutual love that implies. That relationship endures to this day as strong as ever.

When Alex made his First Communion, the parents were to ascend to the altar, with the other relatives remaining at the foot of the stairs. The priest later told me that he often faced a child with one parent, but never had he seen a child with three. Thanks to his second mom, Alex is fluent in Spanish. On Mother’s Day, we will pay a visit to her. Alex is hoping she makes his all time favorite soup, and I am keeping my fingers crossed for the best flan in the world. I may have only one wife, but Alex most definitely has two loving and loved mothers.

Our Mother’s Day tour will include a visit to my wife’s mom and dad, happily married for nearly 60 years, and both in very good health at 79 and 81 respectively. My mother-in-law is an extremely energetic woman, with strong opinions. I have been known to be rather opinionated myself. So I have been told. Well, you can imagine the personal chemistry in those early years. I was the lighted match to her gasoline.

Let me just say that there was a period of adjustment. Once I learned to adjust, however, things got better. Actually, we have become so palsy walsy that my wife thinks I now get along better with her mother than she does. She may be right. For the last holiday party, her mother requested we bring MY honey sweet potatoes, MY cucumbers in sour cream, MY guacamole, and MY sausage stuffing. Those days as Mr. Mom were not wasted.

Or course, I had a couple mothers-once-removed – better knows has grandmas. My Polish Grandma was a 270-plus pound love machine. She would cook like the Fifth Army might drop in unexpectedly. Those were the days when you added grease to every dish. Today we skim the fat off the home made chicken soup. Grandma, on the other hand, had a tin of chicken fat, and plopped a serving spoon full into every pot of brewing broth. I was married before I realized that not all chicken soup had those fun to play with yellow fluid disks floating on top.

My Austrian grandma was about the size of my Polish grandma’s upper arm. We lived in the second floor apartment of a two-flat built by my grandfather. Grandma used to come upstairs to use our phone. They never had one. She would speak in English until the story got really interesting. Then she would switch to Austrian, leaving us hanging.

She was a great cook too. Her pies have never been surpassed – same for the strudel. Between her baking sessions, I was happy for my daily bread – a slice of buttered rye. Hmmm! I think I will go have one of those now. It won't be the same, but old habits (and memories) die hard.

So ... Happy Mother’s Day to those of you who are mothers, have a mother or know a mother.

REACT: The Illinois old guard can't stop justice -- hooray!

I noticed that former Speaker Denny Hastert’s name popped up in the trial of influence peddler Anthony Rezko. It was alleged in sworn testimony that Rezko attempted to use his influence with former White House political guru Karl Rove (thumbing his nose at reform) and former House Speaker Denny Hastert (the chubby guy on the right)to get U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (pictured left) fired. Originally nominated by then Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), prosecutor Fitzgerald wasted no time to being to justice the flagrantly illegal customs of the Illinois political establishment. Rezko could feel the laser sight on his forehead.

Whether the scheme to remove Fitzgerald was ever launched is debatable, but there is some evidence that the plot was real. Despite an amazingly impressive record as a federal prosecutor, Fitzgerald was inexplicably placed on the under achiever list by the Justice Department as part of a mass firing pogrom.

Fitzgerald apparently dodged the bullet because he was investigating the White House at the time, and his firing would have created a seismic public reaction against the President. It would be at least as damaging as Richard Nixon’s firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in the midst of the Watergate investigation. And, you know how much good that did Nixon.

There is no doubt that the Rove/Hastert combo would have sent Fitzgerald packing if they could. They had repeatedly used their influence to protect the corrupt Republican establishment in Illinois. Ironically, this backroom dealing was beneficial to the Democrats, but a disservice to the President – putting Illinois’ electoral vote beyond his reach politically.

Rove has long been the protector of Robert Kjellander, the insider bipartisan wheeler-dealer, who has made millions from his political friendships and GOP party positions – including a stint as Finance Chairman for the National Republican Committee, courtesy of Rove.

Hastert tried everything he could to derail the Fitzgerald appointment in the first place. There is every reason to believe that he would be more than happy to remove him now. Hastert failed only because he could not overcome the highly protected Senate tradition of having the senator of the president’s party pick the U.S. Attorney. The senate lock stepped behind their colleague and their valued tradition.

Reform will never come to the corruption-ravaged and hapless Illinois GOP until guys like Kjellander and Hastert retire from the scene for good -- or are taken out by Fitzgerald, the GOP’s number one reformer.

The good news is that Fitzgerald is virually untouchable now. In the last election, even the democrat cadidates for senate had to promise to keep Fitzgerald, including Barack Obama. Of course, if Obama does make it to the White House, you can bet that protecting his friends in the Chicago Democrat machine will trump any campaign promise. Let's just hope that Fitzhgerald gets in enough indictments before he is ousted for doing too good of a job.

OBSERVATION: DON’T STOP NOW, HILLARY!!!

We have all been reading a lot lately about the prolonged agony known as the Democrat presidential campaign. It is the fashion to express weariness over the pugilistic presidential match between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Ask any citizen if he or she is tired of the daily reports from the hustings, and you will get the socially acceptable answer, “yes.”

Methinks beneath the veneer of disdain lies a truer answer that comes from our delightful darker nature. As one fellow blogger confessed, “I don’t care who wins, I just want this battle to wage on.”

Exactly! This is great theater. It is the best reality show on television. No television script writer would have conjured a more thrilling plot. For sure, Republicans have the added joy of watching the Democrat party self destruct, but even without that partisan benefit, this is still great entertainment. The first serious black candidate faces the first serious female candidate. A former president is the hubby of the lady candidate. And who could have invented such supporting antagonists as the fiery race-baiting Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the unrepentant terrorist-cum-college professor William Ayers and political padrone indictee Anthony Rezko.

And what great subplots. Shuffling the primaries until they make no sense at all. Disenfranchising two of the most important states. Debate over whether one of the candidates is a Christian or a closet Muslim. A candidate who recalls a young girl presenting flowers as deadly sniper fire. You cannot make this stuff up – and we don’t have to.

On the GOP side, we have a guy who was imprisoned for five years in Vietnam, and now hopes to be the oldest – and crankiest -- man ever to run for president of the United States – and he campaigns WITH HIS MOTHER.

This makes American Idol look like an Ames Iowa community access cable show. And we want it to stop? Hillary! Please. Please. Please do not drop out. There are still more primaries. Think of all the Jeremiah Wrights, William Ayers and “bitter remarks” that can go off like land minds at any moment. Make those super delegates sweat. Better yet, make them deal like middle eastern bazaar merchants at the convention. Bring on the fight over the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations.

Maybe that’s too much to hope for, but let’s stop pretending we’re not enjoying the drama and trauma of it all.

OBSERVATON: A history making election

This year’s presidential election is a breaking every barrier. Both parties will smash a 200+ year traditions in one way or another. The Democrats will either nominate the first woman candidate or the first black candidate – well at least the first half black candidate. Apart from the debate over issues and philosophy, that is exciting.

Not to be out done, the Republicans are making history too. They have nominated the oldest white male candidate in history. Is there a clue here as to why the GOP is losing its grip on the American mainstream?