EXTRA: Does endorsement hurt Topinka?

What does it say for Judy Baar Topinka that she is the lone Republican who got the support of the leading labor union that represents state government employees?

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees local that covers state government workers made public their endorsements, and much attention is being paid to the fact that the union picked Alexi Giannoulias for U.S. Senate, but chose to back nobody for governor.

CONSIDERING THAT ILLINOIS Comptroller Dan Hynes has been counting on the notion that organized labor will boost his campaign to victory in the Feb. 2 primary, that has to hurt (particularly when combined with the fact that a Chicago Tribune poll shows Hynes getting his butt kicked by Gov. Pat Quinn.

But the endorsement for Topinka was the one that caught my eye.

Like most labor unions these days, they tend to prefer Democrats in elective office (similar to how the business-oriented groups all want Republican officials).

All of the AFSCME endorsements made public this weekend are for Democratic officials (although no political observers are getting excited about the idea that the union wants Bobby Rush to win another term in Congress).

EXCEPT FOR TOPINKA.

The lady from Riverside who always has been considered something of a loose cannon by her GOP colleagues received the endorsement of the AFSCME in her bid for Illinois comptroller.

What makes it interesting is that the union also gave an endorsement to the bid of state Rep. David Miller, D-Lynwood, who wants the Democratic Party’s nomination for Illinois comptroller.

So the labor union is telling us that this would be the one campaign where it might be permissible to consider voting for a Republican.

IT HAS ME wondering if some Democrats are conceding that it is highly unlikely they’re going to continue to win every single state constitutional office, so this is the post they’d be willing to sacrifice.

After all, Topinka as a state senator and as Illinois treasurer has a record of being as reasonable as any Republican can be – at least as far as Democrats are concerned.

But I wonder how long it will be until Topinka’s Republican primary opponent, Jim Dodge of suburban Orland Park, starts letting us know about this endorsement. For having a perception of being sympathetic to the interests of organized labor can be the literal kiss of death for a Republican candidate.

Did AFSCME unintentially do some serious harm to the Topinka camp by giving her their support?

WILL THOSE SAME Republican supporters who hated the idea of Topinka as their political party’s gubernatorial nominee in 2006 use this as a reason to deny her a political comeback?

Considering that this is a political campaign where the conservative ideologues are convinced that the name “Blagojevich” means they don’t have to compromise anything when it comes to picking candidates for the general election, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

For those of you who want to think that the electorate has enough sense to see through such a shallow logic, consider that these are the same people who got fooled by that video clip four years ago of Topinka dancing with George Ryan.

This could easily be twisted into something equally "sordid" in the logic of electoral politics.

-30-

Only a Grinch sees a "war" between Christmas and other holidays

On the surface, it seems like a gesture of respect and equal time -- the giant menorah erected in Daley Plaza just a few dozen feet from the city's official Christmas tree.

For eight days, anyone passing through Chicago's unofficial public square can share in spirit of celebrating the Maccabees, who through a miracle of sorts managed to have their lamps with enough oilk for one night burn brightly for eight days.

IT'S NOT JUST Chicago that gives this conciliatory gesture to Jewish people.

Just this week, officials with the park district in Naperville approved the erection of a giant menorah next to the Santa House that is a local tradition. Park district officials gave in to the menorah even though their attorneys (according to the Daily Herald newspaper of Arlington Heights) were telling them there was some legal grounds for keeping the Santa House grounds Christmas-only.

So it won't just be downtown Chicago wehre people can share in the concept of Hanukkah. Others will be abel to watch in confusion or in anger as the various lights on top of the "candles" light up each night.

I suspect many people will be engaged in the hustle and bustle of the commercial aspects of the holiday season to pay these public menorahs much attention. Except for the few people who will perceive them as a "War on Christmas" because they'd rather everybody be forced to pay exclusive attention to the Christmas holiday.

THEY'RE THE ONES who probably remember fondly the episode of "The Simpsons" where Krusty the Klown's non-denominational winter holiday special told us to have a "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Crazy Kwanzaa, Solemn and Dignified Ramadan and a Tip-Top Tet."

Yet I can't help but wonder about these giant menorahs and what point they really serve, other than to force certain political people to accept the fact that not everyone in this nation is of a Christian religious denomination.

I still remember a discussion I had a couple of decades ago with a co-worker who was Jewish. She told me she found the whole concept of a giant public menorah to be somewhat gaudy.

After all, the whole point of the menorah and the lighting of the candles on each of the eight days of the holiday (which this year began at sundown Friday and continues through the end of next week) is to create a moment in a Jewish household when everybody engages in the requisite prayers in Hebrew (even though for some Jewish people, those prayers are the only Hebrew they know) and pays a few moments tribute to the thought of the Maccabees of thousands of years ago who struggled to survive under odds that would have wiped out anyone else.

PUTTING UP THE large-scale versions of a menorah does border on crass. It's almost as tacky as some of those Santa Claus holiday displays erected in the name of Christmas -- in mid-October.

Does this mean that the true point of a public menorah is that some Jewish groups are showing us they can celebrate their holiday in as tacky a manner as some Christians do with Christmas?

I'd hate to think that is the case. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

So as much as I can appreciate the concept of "equal time" and also enjoy the rage that some of these "War on Christmas" types express when they get all worked up over not having their "holiday" reign supreme at this time of year, I'm not sure I see the point.

SO THIS IS what will be going through my mind this weekend, as I'm likely to spend some time with my father and step-mother, who is Jewish. That also means the bulk of my nieces and nephews are being raised Jewish (and are likely to make out this weekend with presents as much as any Christian kid the morning of Dec. 25).

In my own way, I'll even be partaking in Hanukkah (we're gathering Sunday for a holiday party that will include the moment of truth at the menorah). The rest of the week will consist of just a few moments of reflection by my stepmother and whichever of her grandchildren happen to be on hand -- as she tries to pass along the custom to the next generation.

It seems to be to be a more dignified act than anything involving a trip to a public place to look at a giant menorah at the exact moment that another "candle" is lit.

And come Christmas Day, I'm likely to spend a good portion of the day with my mother and other family in holiday celebration.

SO IF FOR me it seems like the whole idea of dueling holidays is just a tad absurd, you'd be correct. There's no reason that there has to be a holiday conflict this time of year. Unless you happen to be the disagreeable type who is looking for a reason to be upset.

In which case, you're just a Grinch.

-30-

Foundations the new news trend -- for now

On the surface, Chicago-area news junkies ought to be celebrating these days.

At a time when some people are getting all worked up over the expected demise of newspapers and wondering where the information will come from (since most other mediums for distributing information rely heavily on newspapers to do the actual work of reporting information), there are two new organizations getting involved in the local news business.

ONE IS THE Chicago News Cooperative, which has gained a visible position for itself by producing two pages worth of stories twice a week for the New York Times. It gives the "Grey Lady" a way of claiming it is offering more local news in the editions of the Times that are sold in the Chicago area -- without having to produce it themselves.

Just a couple of weeks later, we got our introduction to Illinois Statehouse News, which is offering up coverage of activity at the Statehouse in Springpatch, along with state government activity in Chicago.

Both of these outfits have websites that they plan to use eventually to disseminate the stories they are reporting. For the time being, they're using the old medium of the printed page -- the news coop turning up in the Times and the statehouse news offering its stories to any newspaper that wants to publish them.

Their website literally tells publishers to "steal our stuff," so long as credit is given to the Illinois Statehouse News. Thus far, I have seen their stories published in Chicago's Southwest News-Herald and in the Times of Northwest Indiana (a Munster, Ind.-based publication whose circulation area spills over into Illinois -- including Chicago's 10th Ward).

BOTH OF THESE outfits are receiving financial support from foundations to help them cover the cost of paying a few reporter-types to actually dig up stories that don't rely on rewriting what is already in the newspapers (which is what most weblogs that claim to be news oriented actually amount to).

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is funding the statehouse news project, and some critics already are accusing the outfit of being created to put some sort of conservative spin on the information coming out of the Statehouse - although the group itself claims to be non-partisan and the people whom they have hired to work for them thus far have been experienced Statehouse reporters who aren't going to be inclined to go along with writing political propaganda passing for news.

The news cooperative is working, for now, as a partnership with WTTW-TV, Chicago's PBS affiliate, and is one of the many worthwhile causes receiving funds from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

They even have received some pro bono legal assistance from the prominent law firm of Winston & Strawn (which also provided downtown Chicago office space for the news coop in its early days of existence). These aren't exactly outfits being run off of a laptop computer set up on someone's kitchen table).

THE TWO OUTFITS thus far have done competent work. The statehouse news project has produced daily stories that adequately fill the space in newspapers around the ads, while the news coop drew some attention to itself by getting an interview with Cook County Board President Todd Stroger that helps illustrate how weak a grasp the man has these days on political reality.

Now as someone who has worked in the newsgathering business for the past couple of decades and who hopes to remain as a reporter-type in some fashion for the remainder of my working life, I find it encouraging that someone is willing to get involved in the funding of a news organization or two.

The reality is that the whole appeal of advertising on the Internet is that the ads are dirt cheap. It is highly unlikely that a website devoted to offering up serious news reporting would ever be able to survive on the income from ads (particularly if they are of the pop-up variety that most readers go out of their way to ignore).

I just wish the funding sources were a little bit more long-term than these charitable or ideological foundations.

FOR THE REALITY is that these are the kind of groups that are likely to offer up money for a year or two before deciding to move on to other projects.

Which means that the people who gave up jobs elsewhere (in particularm, the news coop is staffed with many people who gave up Chicago Tribune gigs to work there) had better hope that someone is developing a plan for financing in future years, or else they run the risk of seeing their "revolutionary" news organizations go down the toilet -- and unemployment in their future a couple of years from now.

Then again, sticking with their respective newspapers might also have been a risk if the printed publications continue to lose advertising revenue due to the struggling economy and the papers' websites remain incapable of replacing the revenue with its own advertising.

Either way, it's a crap shoot -- although I found it interesting in recent days that the Chicago Sun-Times stole a sports columnist from the Chicago Tribune, only to have the Trib sports section snatch away a beat writer who was covering the Chicago Bears.,

SOME PEOPLE HAVEN'T given up on the print product, which in some ways is a superior medium for the presentation of news. Seriously, reading a long story on a single printed page is much easier than scrolling through copy on a computer screen and having to jump from file to file to get to the end.

I don't know wht the future will hold, particularly after learning that the long-time trade journal of the newspaper industry (Editor & Publisher) is going out of business. I only find it encouraging that some people are trying to figure out the solution, rather than just assuming that something will naturally replace the printed word.

Otherwise, there will be a lot of empty websites in the future for those people who are determined to read their news off a screen rather than paper. That would mean a lot of seriously uninformed people.

-30-

What warrants the Peace Prize, and what do the next three years hold for Obama?

Two years ago, Barack Obama was an obscure Illinois official who some people argued should not be considered a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States.

Now, he's the president who has escalated a war in Afghanistan who some people argue should not be considered a legitimate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

THE SAME PARTISAN criticism that came up a few months ago when the Nobel recipients were announced is going to recur Thursday, as this is the day that Obama is in Oslo to receive the gold medal and the prize worth about $1,400 in U.S. currency (he says he's giving the money to charity).

To people who don't like to have to think very much, Obama's circumstances make him an oddity to receive a peace prize -- even though Obama himself has justified his recently announced increase of troops by 30,000 in Afghanistan as part of an effort to end U.S. involvement in that conflict against extremists who claim to be motivated by Islam by the year 2011.

If Obama truly can pull off the idea of a brief increase followed up by a withdrawal of troops within two years, then perhaps we'd have to acknowledge that he really did bring an end to the war triggered by George W. Bush's desire to be a "wartime" president.

But as I have written before, I don't think this conflict is going to end so quick. I wouldn't be surprised if troops remain on Inauguration Day 2013,.

SO WHAT SHOULD we think of Obama as we listen to him give a speech acknowledging receipt of the medal with the image of Alfred Nobel engraved on it?

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Obama fully intends to use his speech to address the so-called paradox of a man who escalates a war effort receiving a prize meant to reward world peace.

Obama's press secretary, Joe Gibbs, told the newspaper that he will address the issue head on, although he wouldn't say what would be said by Obama -- in large part because those words may very well be worked on and polished literally up to the moment Obama gives the speech in Oslo.

I'm wondering if Obama's address is going to amount to some sort of explanation that war and conflict are occasionally necessary in order to bring under control some force that threatens the peace of people at-large on Planet Earth.

IN SHORT, DEFEATING the Taliban, Al Qaida, or any force that believes the Koran justifies the violent means often employed by these groups to try to bring some sort of Islamic image to their society could be some sort of higher moral concept that should be supported.

I don't know how much I agree with that idea, although I will be the first to admit that if such forces ever did gain support or control within the United States, I'd probably be one of the first people to want to oppose them in large part because of the extent to which they try to control public thought (and rein in opposition).

But we have to keep in mind the fact that the people who voted to give Obama the Peace Prize did so in large part because they want to give him the moral high ground as he tries to impose his "vision" of a better society.

Could it be that that gives Republicans and Al Qaida something in common? Both have their qualms about what Obama would like to accomplish, and would gain politically if Obama were to fail.

A FUTURE OBAMA success would wind up making those Nobel people look like geniuses. And if he were to fail, it would set the stage for his opponents to get much of the blame for shooting down a vision that could have brought about a better society for all.

I will be waiting for word Thursday of what Obama has to say to justify his prize in part because it wouldn't be his only success of recent days.

Just this week, Democrats in the Senate made it known that they think they have reached a deal on a bill related to health care reform that they could vote on and approve in coming days.

That would then set the stage for the "conference committee," the process by which a House of Representatives' version of health care reform that was approved last month would be matched up with the Senate version, and the differences between the two would be ironed out.

THAT WOULD THEN result in a final version of health care reform being approved by Congress, and sent to Obama for his final approval.

In short, the partisan tactics of the Republicans would have failed to prevent Obama from getting something enacted into law that would try to significantly reduce the number of people living in our country without some form of health insurance.

When combined with the fact that he got a Supreme Court nominee of his choice approved by the Senate, and also received that Nobel Prize, it could turn out that the first year of an Obama presidency was somewhat successful.

So much for those whose ideological beliefs are such that they want us to believe that Obama has been a failure as a president.

IT MUST ALSO seem like quite a hectic year for Obama, considering that just two years ago he was the Illinois legislator who some people thought couldn't win a single primary -- considering that he was going up against names such as "Clinton," "Edwards" and "Richardson." Even I must confess to wondering in those days before the Iowa caucuses whether the Obama campaign was merely the 21st Century equivalent of Paul Simon's bid for the presidency in 1988 (taken seriously nowhere except Illinois).

It makes me wonder how chaotic the next three years will be -- and if things will be crazed enough to make this first year seem downright tame.

-30-

Reforming reapportionment not easy task

I have no doubt they're well intentioned, but the proposals being put forth by the League of Women Voters and other activist groups to reform the way in which legislative and congressional district boundaries are drawn isn't going to change a thing.

The problem isn't with procedures. It's with people. And in the end, partisan greed will overcome many people who get involved in any way with the political process.

THE ACTIVISTS, WHO have the support of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins (the guy who has George Ryan as a notch on his prosecutorial belt), are pushing for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution.

They're going the route of bypassing the Legislature. If they can get a substantial number of valid signatures on petitions, they can put a question on the ballot for the Nov. 2, 2010 elections on whether their proposed reform should become the new way in which districts are drawn.

To use the good government rhetoric, the drawing of political boundaries would be put in the hands of "independents" (a.k.a., those people to wishy washy to just admit their ideological leanings make them a Democrat or Republican).

These people would work together in a bipartisan manner to draw districts that would not be obsessed with clumping together voters sympathetic to the interests of the incumbent legislators.

THAT ULTIMATELY IS their motivation. They look at the statistic saying that 98 percent of incumbent legislators win on Election Day, and see something abhorrent. I see so many other advantages incumbents have that I doubt this one point would make much of a difference.

The only real way we could ensure significant turnover would be if our legislatures and Congress were to follow the lead of Mexico when it comes to picking presidents -- one six-year term, and you're out. No re-election possible.

I don't think any sane person in our country would want to go that route, because there is some benefit to experience -- particularly when it comes to weaving one's way through the legislative process.

My real problem with this so-called reform is because is relies supposedly on political "independents." Like I hinted earlier, I have always been wary of people who go out of their way to attach an "I" to their name, rather than a "D," an "R," a "G" or any other "third-party" label.

IT USUALLY TURNS out that these people have some pet issue that they want to put above all else, and the candidates they pick in various elections are usually of the same political party. The number of people who truly are independent of the current two-party political set-up we have in this country is so small as to be insignificant.

So the reform consists of putting reapportionment of political districts into the hands of people who are likely to favor officials supportive of their pet causes. It's only human nature. I don't think this panel would be any more worthy of putting together political maps than the current people -- the Illinois General Assembly, under the guidance of the Illinois Constitution.

Under the current set-up, the Legislature every decade redoes the map for Congressional districts and their own districts. They get to decide what boundaries will look like, and legislative leaders are known for trying to protect the interests of their own partisan bases.

The idea is that Democrats come from Chicago, with Republicans from the rural area. It used to be thought that suburban areas also were the province of the GOP, but in recent years Democratic legislators have been able to win in those areas.

WHICH IS WHY Republican officials like to draw districts that isolate the suburbs as much as possible from the city so as to protect their interests, while Democratic officials like to stretch the city influence into the suburbs as far as possible out of the theory that it's all one metropolitan area.

The issue that seems to irritate the reformers the most is the "lottery" that takes place in cases where the Legislature is unable to come up with a map and their own bipartisan commission makes no progress.

That is when both parties get put into a bowl (or once, a hat once worn by Abraham Lincoln himself), and the one that gets picked by the Illinois secretary of state gets to stack the commission to draw a map in accordance with its political wishes.

That is why the 1980s were a good decade for Democrats, while Republicans were able to gain influence in the 1990s, only to lose it in this decade.

BY 2012, WE'RE going to go through this process again, if there is no change as a result of next year's electinos.

The problem is human nature. Remember that when the drawing was written into the Illinois Constitution in the 1970s, it was seen as a "reform" measure. It was thought that political people would be so fearful of an all-or-nothing drawing that could leave their political party with "nothing" that they would break down and work together to draw a "fair" map.

Instead, what we have is a situation where our political people have partisan greed -- they see they have a chance to get "everything" and leave their political opponents with "nothing." It's too much of an opportunity to pass up to waste time on "bipartisan cooperation."

Like I wrote earlier, I wonder if the so-called independents would wind up bringing their own special concerns to the table. I don't trust them on this issue any more than I trust the political people.

IT ALSO INTRIGUED me to read a commentary published elsewhere earlier this week denouncing this proposal on the grounds that it really is a Democratic plot to seize control of the Legislature while under the disguise of "good government."

This conspiracy theory is based on the idea that the state Supreme Court would break a tie if an eight-member bipartisan board of independents truly couldn't come up with a map. As things stand now, the state's high court is majority Democratic and the chief justice is the former chief judge of the Cook County criminal court.

I don't know that I buy that, because the court goes out of its way to rotate its leadership around its members, meaning that the GOP also gets its moments of influence.

But it does reinforce the idea (accurately, I think) that the concept of "independent" can be deceptive.

IN THE END, there may not be any way to seriously overcome the influences that people have in their lives if they were asked to draw the political boundaries. Some of you may go so far as to suggest that computers be programmed to draw maps that spit out legislative districts of equal population without regard to who would represent those people.

As far as I'm concerned, forget that idea. Because then we have to get into the ideological pinnings of the people programming the computers.

What may sound harmless to some is downright radical to others.

-30-

Feds want a conviction, any conviction

It was with interest that I read the news item published Monday by the Chicago Tribune's website -- federal prosecutors are likely to come up with a new indictment against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to try to ensure that the "guilty" verdict they are desperately seeking will not result in a case that the Supreme Court of the United States has to reject.

Blagojevich and his fans (they are few, but I must admit I am not as negative about his behavior the way that some in our society seem to be these days) have encouraged talk of "honest services" crimes that they say unjustly crinminalizes government behavior.

THEY WANT TO create the perception that any conviction against Blagojevich that might arise from his trial (likely to occur during the late summer and early autumn of 2010 -- right before Election Day) is inherently unjust.

I'm not sure how much this idea should be applied to Blagojevich's actions, but I must admit to seeing cases in recent years where government activity that didn't seem to meet someone's ideological beliefs wound up being criminalized when a prosecutor was willing to get involved.

At worst, people are being punished for not living up to a criminal prosecutor's ideological beliefs. At best, people are being punished for having their government incompetence classified as criminal.

It was along this very issue that federal prosecutors on Monday said they plan to file a written explanation of how they plan to address the "honest services" issue in Blagojevich's case.

THAT NEW FILING could result in a new indictment. In short, different charges that Blagojevich must go on trial for.

Some people might say that this is merely a prosecutor clarifying the criminal charges against a defendant -- which isn't unusual. Charges whose substance was weak might be tossed out, or reduced to charges for which the evidence more clearly justifies a vote to convict by whichever dozen citizens ultimately wind up losing a couple months of their lives in order to determine whether or not former Gov. "Milorod" is "guilty" as charged.

What caught my attention, though, was the claim by prosecutors that this change in charges, should it occur, will not throw off their schedule one bit.

They still say they want to begin the process of picking a jury for Blagojevich by June, even though the former governor has tried legal maneuvers (unsuccessfull, thus far) to get any trial delayed a few months.

PERHAPS UNTIL AFTER Nov. 2?

Could it be that Blagojevich isn't in the mood to have his life's legacy become that he was the guy whose name got used as a campaign tactic by Republicans across Illinois to try to snatch votes away from Democratic opponents?

I would think any change in charges would be reason enbough to cause a delay in trial. But prosecutors seem determined to get this process going. They want to be able to ratchet up another conviction onto their prosecutorial records.

For those who think I'm being cynical about their motives, all I can say is that I have encountered enough prosecutors at both the state and federal levels to know that the ones who aren't serving a couple of years as an "ASA" or "A-USA" to give themselves a line on the resume to bolster their future campaigns for elective office are doing so because they have the "fighter pilot" mentality -- they like compiling a list of convictions.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE a batting average for prosecutors -- "Prosecutor A" has XX convictions on his record, just like a fighter pilot would tell you how many "enemy" airplanes he has shot down.

I'm sure someone within the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago will gain professionally from a Blagojevich conviction. Just look at what the conviction of former Gov. Otto Kerner did for his prosecutor -- James R. Thompson went on to become Illinois governor himself, kicking off a string of 26 straight years of GOP governors in Illinois that didn't end until Milorod came along in 2002.

What also makes this intriguing in the timing.

For the Supreme Court of the United States is going to hear arguments related to the "honest services" issue on Tuesday in Washington.

THERE ARE SEVERAL cases pending before the nation's high cvourt (including the appeal of the conviction of former Chicago Sun-Times owner Conrad Black) where someone is arguing that the idea of criminal punishmenbt for someone because their business venture was not successful is unjust.

This possible restructuring of Milorod's criminal charges amounts to trying to keep a serious substantive issue from interfering with a prosecutor's ability to get a criminal conviction due to Blagojevich's boorish behavior.

Ultimately, the minds of many people are going to be satisfied only by a conviction against Blagojevich -- not that it matters much to them what the conviction is for. So long as Blagojevich has several more years of legal appeals in his future filedd from within a prison somewhere, they will be happy.

And if the tone of that statement comes across like I think Blagojevich's critics are a little too tightly wound for their own good, you'd be correct.

-30-

We're back!

The technological glitches that managed to knock my laptop computer out of whack and make filing copy for the Chicago Argus and its sister weblog, The South Chicagoan, such a difficulty appear to have been resolved.

In short, I dug into my wallet and coughed up the cash for a new laptop (my first in over seven years).

SO NOW, I mourn the death of my Toshiba Satellite model 1405, which served its purpose well in terms of my being able to grind out readable copy for many different news outlets and publications. I'm still trying to adapt to my new machine (a Gateway).

But the bottom line is that I should now be able to resume my daily schedule of commentary and analysis of the events of the world, as perceived from the shores of Lake Michigan between Whiting, Ind., and Evanston, Ill.

Thank you for your patience in putting up with my erratic posting schedule of recent weeks, although as best I can tell the readership at this site was not significantly impacted. For that, I am grateful.

-30-