A Profile in Cowardice

Dems have foot right up in mouths

A coward is someone with no principles. A coward bends this way and that and always checks to see which way the wind is blowing. Many Illinois and a few national stars of the Democratic party fit that definition and many are finding themselves in the position that cowards often find themselves: with foot in mouth. Much light has been shed because of the recent release of tapes in which Senator Roland Burris offers to indirectly buy his Senate seat.

The biggest coward of all is Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Reid, at first, utterly refused to seat anyone selected by scandal-ridden Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill Barak Obama's vacated Senate seat. It made sense to take this position. Blagojevich was, after all, under investigation by federal authorities for many crimes, including his offering of that very Senate seat to the highest bidder. Reid called Blagojevich's eventual selection as "unfair" and "regrettable."

What is truly regrettable, though, was Reid's cowardice when Burris pushed his way into the Senate, backed by former Black Panther and current Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush. Rush, who once vehemently opposed the idea of the governor making any appointment, had a change of heart and wanted to make it clear that the Congressional Black Caucus was very interested in having African-American representation in the Senate. Rush threatened Harry Reid and chided Reid and Senate Dems not to "hang or lynch" Burris because of Blagojevich's scandals. Burris and Blago, it seemed, were not above playing the race card.

This pressure, history will write, is the reason Illinois Senator Dick Durbin who once also promised to deny Burris the seat, turned around and saw it Burris' way. It is the reason, history will note, that Reid followed suit. It is the reason Burris was allowed to take his seat in the Senate. History, as usual, is forgetful...

History forgot that the people of Illinois were overwhelmingly demanding an election to fill the Senate vacancy. It has been all but forgotten that there was a strong movement to petition the people. It would have been only a fitting gesture and a rightful bow to democracy, since the people of Illinois had taken a backseat to the power politics and games of Governor Blagojevich and the ruling Democratic party in Springfield. The people wanted democracy, but the Democrats couldn't bare the thought of bringing democracy into the process. After all, "the people" do not matter to Illinois Dems.

The Senate, at Burris' election, was split in such a way that Senate Republicans would be able to hamper Obama's initiatives by enacting filibusters. With one more Democratic vote, the Dems would be able to stop any filibuster and continue with the institution of Obama's "changes." If the seat were left to an election, there was a chance, a slight chance albeit, that the scandal-wary people of Illinois, might elect a Republican. It was petty politics, not race, that led to Reid's decision to seat Burris. Consideration for the electorate was not a priority. So democracy took a back seat and Dems hoped Burris wouldn't be too big a disappointment.

They questioned him in Springfield to be sure of it. The state impeachment committee, headed by State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, questioned Burris on the relationship he had with Blagojevich. They did not question his run for governor a decade back, which assured Blago the victory over rival Paul Vallas. When Republican rep Jim Durkin decided to get specific, Burris refused to answer and was defended by fellow Dems on the committee. Burris sat in front of the state legislature an lied and lied and lied.

After taking his Senate seat he "adjusted" his testimony to avoid perjury charges. Questions resurfaced and then slowly the matter was buried in the fantastic story of the impeachment, removal, and indictment of Governor Blagojevich.

Only yesterday, it resurfaced after the feds released several minutes of recorded phone conversations between Burris and the governor's brother. In the tapes Burris is asked for financial support and he insists that he wants the Senate seat. When the governor's brother asked for a "donation" and upped the ante by explaining that there were other buyers in the market, Burris explained that he did not want his donation to appear as payment for the Senate seat. Then his ego got to him. Burris, who's self-styled mausoleum heralds him as an Illinois "trailblazer," could not refuse the bait any longer. He finally concocts a plan to send money to the governor through his lawyer.

Disgusting. The Democrats sold the Senate seat to the highest bidder, denied the democratic process, knew about pay-to-play corruption, worked to sweep it under the rug of time, and now they want us to forget their involvement in the whole sordid affair. I remember though.

The good, hard-working people of Illinois were denied by Dick Durbin. We were rejected by Harry Reid. Our voice was silenced by Currie and Madigan. We were ignored and laughed at by Bobby Rush. We were kicked to the curb by Roland Burris. And we were bent over backward by Rod Blagojevich.

So why do we keep voting for these people? I do not understand this madness. Are we happy now that we have a scandal-ridden Senator to add to our long list of indicted governors and jailed politicians in Illinois?

And how are we thanked? We are thanked by people like Currie, who in an intense talk with my students this week, asked where she was supposed to get the $12 billion needed to correct the out-of-control Illinois budget if not from further taxation of the people. While she conceded that times were tough, she insisted that taxes were going to be raised this week to meet state "obligations." Many of my students asked me why she was blaming the deficit on them. They felt personally upset that Currie's lack of sound decision-making and inability to control spending was being blamed on them.

The unelected governor, Pat Quinn, meanwhile lobbied Springfield to accept a huge 50% increase in the state income tax. He and Currie point out that Illinois, among states that tax income, has very low taxes. They would have us believe that we need to pay our fair share. They want this to be our fault.

Well, it isn't. It is their fault for not governing and we should on the whole reject them and vote in a new legislature. Democracy, I do believe, is the only way for Illinoisans to defend themselves from these criminals. (And when I say criminals, I am not blowing anything out of proportion.) As Currie herself told my students: "Show me the votes. Show me the votes and things will get done."

So let's show these cowards the votes. Let's reclaim Illinois.

The only legislator who met with my students and who talked of cutting spending in these tough times was Republican Michael McAuliffe. The only state rep interested in asking tough questions to Burris was Republican Jim Durkin. The only people worth their salt in Springfield right now are the endangered Republicans.

P.S. Just a little story. When a fellow teacher brought some students to Washington to meet our new Senator he posed for a group shot with them. He directed the students to smile and then said, "MONEY!" (Instead of "cheese.") He chided the students for not following suit and it was done again until the bewildered kids followed him in his mantra.

Nazis, Witches, and Herrings... Oh my!

They hope we don't notice...

Facing 29000 counts of murder

John Demjanjuk, a naturalized U.S. citizen and retired Cleveland auto-worker, was deported on May 11th to Germany where he faces 29,000 counts of murder for war crimes he committed as a guard at several Nazi concentration camps. The U.S. Supreme Court made a wise decision upholding the revocation of his citizenship and deportation. There is no place in America for war criminals like Demjanjuk. While we have no room for him, it is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy for the German courts to pursue tens of thousands of murder counts against the man.

Demjanjuk worked for the German government and did exactly what he was ordered to do. His treatment of the prisoners in the camps and the Polish people he arrested was disgusting and inhumane, but was not extraordinary for S.S. guards working for Hitler's Reich. Demjanjuk was a German official participating in the business of the German people. He did not break any German law.

He might be guilty of the 29,000 murders he has been accused of, but he should not be tried alone. The entire population of Germany should be tried for pursuing a policy of murder. This is a national crime and it is time for the German people to acknowledge their part in it.

The German government has been very apologetic. Just last week, the German ambassador to the U.S. made an apologetic speech at the dedication of the Holocaust museum in Skokie, Illnois. Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany, and it is true that few people deny the Holocaust. They just wish the world would move on. The people of Germany are sick of the word Germany being a synonym for genocide. This is why Demjanjuk is being tried. He is the scapegoat for a crime committed by millions. He will pay the price for the sins of the German people.

Many histories explain it away by saying that Hitler had extraordinary speaking powers and was a persuasive individual who knew how to manipulate the media. He is portrayed as a hypnotizer. In history books, the sins of the Holocaust are the result of one man's anti-Semitic projections. The masses of German people were simply cogs in the Hitler machine.

This common interpretation of history is flawed. It is the work of historians who cannot comprehend that a fully industrialized country like Germany would or could sink to such barbaric levels. It took something or someone supernatural to make this happen. It is an abnormality. These historians fail to see the barbarity and inhumanity interwoven in the fabric of the modern nation-state. These states, pushed forward by, what Eisenhower called, the military-industrial complex, think nothing of individuality and freedom. Human life is a commodity and is not sacred.

The modern state is also democratic. Hitler's rose to power in a democratic Germany. He went from out-of-work veteran and struggling artist to world conqueror because the people of Germany chose him. He reflected them. He was the embodiment of their vicious world view. He was not the cause. He was the effect.

American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that "in every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty." Emerson explained that there is no such thing as genius. No one is considered a genius, as Hitler was during his hey-day by the Germans, unless he reflects the minds of the people who revere him.

Demjanjuk makes a suitable scapegoat and example for the German people, especially because he is not a German. He is a Ukrainian. This denial of responsibility should not go unnoticed.

The German people, not Hitler, bear the burden of the sin of the Holocaust. They will do so for generations and should accept the judgement of the world. It was not Hitler, and it certainly was not a lowly S.S. guard like Demjanjuk. If anyone should stand trail for 29,000 murders, it should be the German people.

Witch Children of the Congo

Nightline on Thursday featured a disturbing report on a serious child abuse epidemic in the Congo and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It seems that it has become common practice in the Congo for families, undergoing tough times and facing myriad problems in an effort to simply survive, to accuse their own children of witchcraft.

A Congolese government official told the ABC reporter that he believes children can be witches is they "have distended bellies or dark eyes." Many children with developmental or psychological diseases have also been identified by locals of witchcraft. The AIDS deaths of relatives are said to be caused by the dastardly deeds of these little witches. Of course, we know that distended bellies are not the result of a secret union with the devil, but the result of malnutrition. Listless eyes, perhaps the "dark eyes" identified by the Congo official, can often be found in the malnourished and diseased.

Many Congolese parents have begun to take their children to exorcists. These hucksters purport to be pastors- men of Christ- and set up shop performing magic tricks to make it seem they are doing something to cast out evil spirits. They were taped pouring hot candle wax on children, burning them, and then pretending to pull the wax out of the body of the children. It is, according to them, the skin of demons. The pastors also poke things in the children's eyes, blinding them. Pastors, men of God, stab, abuse, and maltreat children. They do all of this for a hefty fee from the struggling families.

70% of Congo's homeless children have been accused of witchcraft. It seems to be an excuse for parents who cannot afford another mouth to feed. These "witches" roam the villages as outcasts, starving, afflicted, and with no human dignity. While the pastors would have us believe it is demons causing all of this affliction, it is obvious that poverty is the real demon. We can exorcise that demon if the U.S. finally takes leadership and the initiative to be a voice for justice and health in Africa. President Bush's PEPFAR program was a great start. It is time for Obama to make Africa a top priority. I cannot stand to see the continuance of this hopeless poverty, a poverty that is the result of Western ignorance.

While this is an issue, what disturbs me most is that criminal snake-oil salesmen are claiming to be pastors. They are committing the worst of sins. Taking the name of God in vain is a one-way trip to hell. Making yourself the object of worship, particularly for profit, is faithless and far more evil than any witchcraft. Their sin is particularly malodorous when one considers the poor families they take advantage of. The Christian Churches should stand up and strongly and forcefully reject these quasi-pastors who claim to speak in God's name.

Cheney wants us to look the other way

One of the worst things about the Bush administration and one of the reasons he was eventually rejected by most Americans was that torture was used in our war on terror. Torture surely leads to hostile feelings toward the U.S. around the world. It is true that attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq increased dramatically with the release of photos of prisoner abuse at the Abu-Gharib prison. Torture makes us unsafe. If it has any effect on terrorism, it is not the effect we might want.

The policy, before being fully implemented, was researched by an army of lawyers headed by America's worst Vice-president Dick Cheney. (Good veeps should do nothing but sit around and wait for the president to die... like Dan Quayle always did.) Cheney wanted Bush to have nearly unlimited powers to collect information to fight the terror threat. If it meant sacrificing freedom of even American citizens, it was okay with Cheney. If his actions made a mockery of the Constitution, so be it. It is all for your safety.

It is no surprise then that Dick Cheney's lifelong political ally, Donald Rumsfeld, headed a military that made torture part of its policy toward prisoners. Cheney, himself, said that the president would fight this war from the shadows, "the dark side." When the Abu-Gharib torture news shocked the nation, it was only a matter of time before Rumsfeld took the hit for his friend Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, and resigned.

Rejection of torture was a central part of John McCain's message in the 2008 election. McCain, a victim of torture while serving as naval officer in Vietnam, time and again criticized his fellow Republicans Cheney and Bush for allowing such a damaging policy. He rightly stated that such action would lead to more terrorism and would focus the aim of terrorism against the people of the United States.

This is why to hear Dick Cheney attack President Obama's decision to reassess America's treatment of prisoners today was very disturbing. It has been centuries since a former administration so publicly criticized the administration that followed them.

Despite Cheney's obvious involvement in the matter, conservatives in the media today spent the last week attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi denied that she knew anything about torture, but CIA officials have testified that she was completely briefed on the methods being used by American interrogators. It is easy to catch Pelosi in lies like these since she lies so often, but making her the center of attention at this time is a red herring. She will not lose her seat as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity hope. She has lost the last few shreds of credibility she had, but she will keep her seat.

Pelosi knew about the torture. Cheney and CIA friends like Cofer Black administered the torture. Who should we criticize most for engaging in activities that did not reflect the will of the American people? Who put the American people more at risk?

Get real.

I can't afford Chicago Democrats right now
Hypocrites rob from the poor and give to themselves as economy tanks

Word on the street is that the U.S. is in the middle of a recession. Struggling businesses are laying people off. Ten percent of Americans are reviewing their budgets and cutting their spending because they are facing unemployment. They are going without the movies and trips to Six Flags. Tough times call for responsible spending.... that is, unless you are a Chicago Democrat. When they have trouble making ends meet, they just tap into that "never-ending" pot of money that comes from taxes.

The Democratic party considers itself the defender of the poor and downtrodden. The voice of the weak. The modern-day Robin Hood. A few weeks ago, in a presentation to my students at Taft, our Congressional representative Jan Schakowsky used some very Robin Hood-like rhetoric.

When asked by my student about the economy, she responded that it was high time there was "an evening out" of wealth. Perhaps, that rhetoric is more Marx than Robin Hood, but, whatever the case, all it is is rhetoric and nothing else. In action, she and her fellow Chicago Dems are a bunch of hypocrites and crooks. I will not waste my time delving into the specifics of Schakowsky's lobbyist husband's years in prison for fraud. That kind of corruption costs us a lot of money and I cannot afford it.

Mayor Daley is too expensive.

I cannot afford Mayor Daley and his paternalistic approach to governing this city. I am just sick of it. He has made a mockery of his responsibility and has time and time again sold out his duties. He has been looking for a buyer for our city-run airports. He sold every parking meter in the city to an outside agency and has installed more cameras at intersections to monitor and automatically ticket. (What about when I demand my constitutional right to question my accuser. Will the camera come to court and SPEAK?) He has doubled fees for city stickers and has signed into law a water bottle tax of five cents per bottle. (That adds up, when you buy a case.)

His Renaissance 2010 plan has been a nightmare. Almost $50 million of state funding goes to the Civitas CICS charter schools in Chicago, which consider their private schools when teachers ask to unionize. When Daley and CPS dole out the money, the CICS schools become public schools. Recently an overcrowded grade school in Albany Park was about to be relieved by the building of a new, bigger building. When the new school opened, it was not offered to the community in need, but to another private charter school company. It is still closed off to the neighborhood.

Daley backstabs his constituents almost daily. When challenged, he throws around flippant remarks and snickers with reporters. It is all a big joke to him that his people are leaving the city. It is not important that the people who made Chicago great are having to leave their neighborhoods, often to intruding wine-sipping yuppies from out of state in search of "something authentic." (There is little authenticity to the suburban blandness they grew up with.) The hard-working, beer drinking Chicagoans have to get out of the way. We do not tip as well as these intruders.

Daley has sold out the city. This weekend, he drove me up the wall, when it was reported that the city was going to install new parking meters at $1 per hour in the city parks, most notably in Lincoln Park. Failure to keep up with the meters results in a $50 ticket. But, don't worry, the mayor is going to install credit card machines.

What makes Chicago unique is that its park stretches for miles and miles along the cool lakeshore. This was part of our city charter in 1833 and was realized by Burnham's plan in 1909. This is in our city's design and is part of its spirit.

People go down to the lake to escape the heat and soul-crushing of the city. They spend the day and swim and play and cook out. This is especially true of the poor in Chicago who find relief in the parks and live amiably there with their more wealthy neighbors. So who does this new tax hit the hardest? Who is most prevented from enjoying the park? That's right. The poor. The people the Dems claim they defend.

And Mayor Daley's response? With a self-assured, cocky smile, he explained that this would free up parking so more people could enjoy the park. He did not mention the millions of dollars that he would reap as a result, mostly on the backs of the already struggling poor. Disgusting.

Mike Madigan and Pat Quinn are too expensive.

Even more problematic for the Chicago taxpayer is the corrupt and monolithic state government in Springfield. Now that their corrupt, bribe-taking embarrassment of a governor is gone, they have installed a new embarrassment named Pat Quinn. Quinn used to be a reformer who spoke often of the people and claimed to represent the voters. (It is an easy thing to do when you have no power.) As governor, he has been nothing more than a puppet for the Dem machine run by powerful Michael Madigan.

He says we need to raise "funds", "revenue", and "capital" to balance the budget in Illinois. (He never calls them "taxes.") He claims it is the responsible thing to do. The government, he explains, is piling up debt since we are spending more than we are taking in.

It is not hard for some people to understand that when times are tough, one should try to spend less. But Quinn has taken the Dem approach and has decided to call for major tax increases across the board. He says it is high time since we have not raised taxes in years. So the defender of the voter has gotten started offering up Doomsday scenarios and urging for an orgy of tax and spend. With no opposition party to speak of in Illinois, he will get his way and the poor, once again will pay the most.

Dems responded by considering a state tax on alcohol, an item already heavily taxed at the local level. The poor, once again, will bear the brunt of this tax. They also are considering legalizing video poker machines to pay for schools. (Never mind that the state lottery was supposed to do that years ago.) These "amusement-only" machines, it is well-known, are operated by the Outfit. Syndicate reps come by to collect the money, splitting proceeds with the bartender who offers payouts from under the counter. A big time mob bookie in Chicago applauded the legalization and promised that he would give the state theirs as soon as he collected his portion.

This sort of collusion is unacceptable considering the already shady relationships that exist between mobsters and state politicians like state treasurer and former Syndicate banker Alexi Giannoulias. It is a disgusting way of governing, but they will do anything...

We cannot afford Obama and Pelosi

Chicago Dems reach far now that one of their own is president of the United States. Obama has been pushing for a partial state takeover of the private healthcare system. The American healthcare system is the strongest and most effective in the world, so it must be fixed right away.

One option for paying for this that was discussed enthusiastically by Senate Dems was an excise tax on sugary drinks. It is believed that sugary drinks like pop or beer or juice lead to diabetes, heart disease, and other unhealthy lifestyles. The demonized high fructose corn syrup, used to sweeten drinks in America, is fully subsidized by the government that now wants to tax it in an effort, they say, to modify behavior. They know we have no choice. They know what we are going to drink. Sometimes there are few other choices, especially true for the poor. So they are going to tax it.

And where has this money gone? The lobbyists who run our country made sure that $1.6 trillion dollars went straight to the banks. The defenders of the downtrodden, the Democratic party called it a bail-out. They said they were fixing the economy when they took the money out of the meager paychecks of the poor and send it along to the CEOs and big wigs in America's crooked banking industry.

And while they did it, Obama complained that the taxes benefited the rich. He said that he would be sure to give the poorest people in this country a break. And as he said it and offered them his "hope", his friends in Congress slipped their hands into the wallets of these same, poor Americans.

I cannot afford ignorance

We pay the highest gas prices in Illinois because of local taxes. We pay the highest parking fees in Chicago because of taxes. We pay the highest sales tax in the nation. Our road tolls recently were doubled. The list of taxes we pay is never ending and is growing now that the Dems have little opposition from the Republicans in Chicago, Springfield, or D.C.

Does anyone care? Does anyone remember what freedom was like? Is anyone interested? Will they vote in an opposition to stop this madness or do they buy the line the Dems are selling? That the Republicans have been destroyed, that they have no interest in the working man, that the G.O.P. is a collection of antiquated racists and yokels who miss W, a prty of intolerance. Why do Republicans jist sit there and take such abuse?

The day has come for real protest, like the April protests against taxes by thousands of citizens across America. (An exercise of First Amendment rights that Schakowsky called "despicable.") It is time to do what Americans do and get out our tar and our feathers and go to town on lobbyists, political puppets, and the bankers who took our money. It is time to take back our parks and to tear out the parking meters and throw rocks at the cameras that patrol our streets in place of cops. It's time to get on that phone and that Internet and call for change.

It is time to vote! Vote out the criminals who take our money in our time of most need and who sell us out. Vote out those who call freedom of speech when directed against them, "despicable." Show them who really runs things in our republic.

Stroger did not try to kill Peraica
But he has tried to kill democracy


I want to make this very clear: I am in no way suggesting that Todd Stroger had anything to do with the attempted murder last Wednesday of his political rival Tony Peraica. Stroger had nothing to do with the drive-by shooting that hit Peraica's neighbor's house in upscale Riverside. That would be libel. Yes, the shooting was probably planned by one of the many countless residents of Cook County that enjoy paying the highest sales tax in the United States, especially during this economic downturn.

Stroger could not have planned such a brazen and orchestrated crime. He is, after all, out of his mind. If you need evidence, note his veto today of the legislation passed through the county board to cut the sales tax 1%. The tax cut passed the board on a 12 to 3 vote. This cut would eliminate Stroger's tax hike, causing him and the Board to find ways to trim the bloated county budget and create a streamlined and more efficient county government.

The people of Cook County were behind the tax cut. 94% of people polled recently by the Chicago Tribune supported the tax cut. The people have seen drastic reductions in the value of their homes. Nearly ten percent of them are unemployed. Many residents leave the county to avoid the sales tax. The poorest people in the county, those with no easy way out to buy staple goods, are forced to pay the 10% sales tax and bear the heaviest burden. Stroger failed to hear the people's clamoring. He failed to consider the will of the people because his constituents are not the tax-payers of Cook. He does not represent them. Stroger represents the family members he puts in high-paying non-essential county posts. He represents do-nothing government employees and he represents waste and fraud, nepotism and all that is disgusting in Chicago politics.


Some members of the Board, many who originally voted for the tax but changed their mind, DO, in fact, represent the will of over-taxed county residents. Many board members have heard the people, have opened their mail, and have seen the writing on the wall. Instead of cow-towing to political hacks, they have decided to do their job. Tony Peraica, painted as insane and a nutcase by opponents during the last couple elections, it turns out was reflecting the will of his contituency all along. Eleven board members voted for the cut and alongside the "nutjob" who led the charge against it for the past year... Mr. Peraica. The margin of victory was a source of deep embarrassment to the county president. When several townships, inlcluding Peraica's, voted to secede from the county and to take their tax dollars with them, some began to listen.

Peraica is not wishy washy. He is among the most honest men in Illinois politics. He tells you exactly what to expect of him and always has an ear for the people he represents. He is not Larry Suffredin, a county board member, who voted for the tax hike and then decided to vote against it only when the noise against it was too much to avoid. Peraica is not like member Joan Murphy, who voted for the cut, then against it, and who is considering supporting it once again. Peraica is not like Forrest Claypool, who wears the cloak of a reformer, but remains loyal to a political party that routinely lies to the people of the county, a Democratic party with no opposition, and no pretense of democratic decision-making.

This Cook County Democratic party that has sold out the trust of its supporters by funding non-union charter schools and doling out their responsibilities to the highest bidding private companies.... this party that sold the right-of-way on the streets and the meters that regulate them to a foreign company... this party that has tried to sell off the airports and county hospitals.... this party that raises taxes to support unqualified bureaucrats in useless posts.... this Democratic party that knows better what to do with your money than you.... the party that gave rise to the impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich and his friend, and business associate (through Tony Rezko), President Barack Obama. This Cook County Democratic party that tells county residents to "eat cake" when we call for lower taxes.

When county commissioners of that party, in a split second of sanity, finally stood up for reason, Stroger called it "grand-standing."

Peraica is firm and has been firm in his position. He has been firm in the people's position. And this is why someone took shots at his house, their bullets instead ripping into the living room of his neighbor. Some people hate it when they are listened to by their representatives. By "some people," I am in no way including Todd Stroger. he had nothing to do with the attempted murder of Tony Peraica.

While Stroger is a tyrant who cares nothing for the will of the people, he is not a murderer. He did not try to kill Peraica. But when he vetoes a bill that properly reflects the will of the people, he will be guilty of taking a few shots at democracy.

The Republican Party is Not Dead

It's just a rebuilding year... like the Cubs are always having.

Rahm Emanuel is a master of the art of using words to get what you want. He must have been the force behind all those Clinton lies that piled up. (Not that I'm saying Emanuel or his trusty Dems have cornered the market on lies.) Emanuel's philosophy, the Rahm Doctrine, we'll call it, seems to be that if you keep saying something over and over again, it becomes true.

I am not sure how he has done it, but it seems that the media is biting too. The latest lie that Rahm is turning into truth is that the Republican party has died. The word on the street (and in Time) is that it is no longer relevant and does not speak to the American people. Rahm would like us to know that in four years it will cease to function as an American institution and we will have no choice but to blindly follow the plan for "change" that his boss has lined up for us.

It is amazing to read the headlines. It seems that even quasi-conservative talking heads like David Brooks are biting. Only George Will seems to have a firm grasp on reality, and, as usual we can look to history for some guidance on this issue.

The Republican party has been around since before the Civil War and has survived many presidential administrations that calmer heads might even label as worse cases than the last eight years of W. Ulysses Grant's administration was covering up crimes by cronies. Hayes all but bought the election of 1876. Harding was a travesty as president. The G.O.P. even survived the dastardly deeds of Herbert Hoover, who Dems would have you believe, caused the worldwide Great Depression that began ten years before he took the oath of office. And let's not forget Nixon and Watergate. How could the G.O.P. survive all of this?

Because it took time to redefine itself.

The last time the G.O.P. was declared dead was in 1964. Barry Goldwater ran a disastrous presidential campaign, winning only five states. If Johnson, the Democratic candidate, wanted to, he probably could have challenged the results in Arizona, Goldwater's home state, which was very close. The Republicans and conservatism were declared dead. It was a triumph for big government.

And then Johnson went on his spending spree and expanded the size of government. No one could stop him. Like Obama, he had near total control of the legislative branch. He introduced his Great Society programs and threw America waist deep in Vietnam. And four years later, the supposedly "dead" Republican party, behind Richard Nixon, won the presidency.

1964 Results

1968 Results

Nixon and the G.O.P. redefined themselves as national party. They spoke of the "silent majority" and vowed to bring law and order to the troubled country. They took a moderate approach and vowed (as they always do, vainly) to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. 12 years later, despite the disaster of Watergate and ineffective leadership of Gerald Ford, the conservative message continued to be a force, as Ronald Reagan and then George Bush took their seats in the Oval Office. In fact, when Clinton ran for president in 1992, he had to sel himself as something like a conservative.

But I thought conervatism died in 1964?

So, as Dr. Phil says: "Get real!"

Don't get too excited over your exciting victory, Dems. Remember the past. The G.O.P. will be there and people will be sure to stand behind it again. Unfortunately for Rahm Emanuel, our two-party system is fully functioning. Americans do not like big, wasteful, and ineffective government. If O delivers all the change he promised, there will be a backlash and there will be some brave, open-mouthed Republican will be riding the wave of that backlash.

Here are some people who offer different approached the party can take in the future.

7 Republicans I like nationally

If only there were someone who had all their super powers... the party would be resurrected and be a strong force against change I cannot believe in. These people, although I like something in each of them, could probably not stand each other for five minutes.

1.) The Moderate Crusader: Christine Todd Whitman. Her time has come. Her political opponents within the party, namely Cheney and Rumsfeld, are in the ashheap of history. She is outspoken advocate of good government and sound energy policy and a founding member of the Committee for Responsible Government. Sounds like a good idea to me.

2.) Face the World: Colin Powell. I miss him and think he made a major mistake by not standing up to Cheney and Bush. I hope it did not do him in. Powell has a firm shot at reshaping the party if he is up to the task. Many Republicans miss his balanced approach to foreign affairs. See, though, some people answer the call to serve and others look the other way because they are too tired. He may be too tired.

3.) Principled: Bobby Jindal. Democrats attacked him months ago because Jindal is a threat. He bravely rejected Obama stimulus money because it would make him a slave to the feds. He was right, when one considers what Obama did to GM’s president.

4.) The Angry Voice: Newt Gingrich. He will never be elected because of the backlash against many of his decisions in the 1990’s (good decisions), but he has been rising up, in my opinion, to be a formidable critic of Obama’s New Age and the spokesman for the conservative movement.

5.) Hedging his bets: Mitt Romney. He could run in 2012 and, depending on the economy, might not do too badly. A lot of Republicans regret choosing McCain over this guy… who has business experience and a solid conservative pedigree. I am not predicting any wins and see him carefully slipping into the background watching events unfold. This is a smart move.

6.) The Elder Statesman: John Danforth. He is an Episcopal priest who wants to keep the government from dirtying up religion and wants to keep the Lord’s name from being uttered in vanity, as so often happens in the G.O.P. He is also a former Senator, an accomplished diplomat, and elder statesman. I can think of no one better qualified to be president or chief justice. But, alas, he is over 70 years old.

7.) The Libertarian: Ron Paul. I loved Ron Paul when I was in college and always wanted to vote for him. When I got my chance in 2008, I chose not to do so. He is not popular, will never be president, is painted as a nut-job for defending the Constitution. He speaks the truth and is a strong advocate for classic American political philosophy.

8.) Other Republicans I like: Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, John Roberts, Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman

9.) Republicans I do not like, but who Democrats do like: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Michael Steele

3 Republicans I like in Illinois

Now here is some change I can believe in. And since the Dems have made a mess of things here in Illinois, it seems the pendulum must swing the other way. Here are some choices...

1.) For Senate: Mark Kirk. The most honest, promising, and firm Republican in the state. He would make a masterful Senator and leader of the G.O.P. in Illinois. He is in the armed forces as a reservist, has foreign relation experience in the House, and is level-headed. He can also work with both parties, which is key in Illinois.

2.) For Governor: Tom Cross. Probably too crass to be elected to governor or Senator, but a mad dog who can bite the knees off his opponents. He is the Rahm Emanuel of the Illinois G.O.P. and I wonder why he is not foaming at the mouth more. Good governor candidate, especially against Alexi.

3.) For King: Patrick Fitzgerald To the people, he is a minor god of Illinois politics, because he puts people who deserve it behind bars. I know his staff does that work, but he is the man in front of the camera… the boss. He does a great service to the people of Illinois working exactly where he works now, but would be a shoe-in no matter what office or party he chose to run for and under.