1
   

Good Grief! An ethical politician?

 
 
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 10:39 am
Senator minces no words on GOP
Fitzgerald says party in Illinois is in shambles
By Rudolph Bush
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
Published September 19, 2004

WASHINGTON -- As he prepares to retire from the U.S. Senate and Illinois GOP politics, Sen. Peter Fitzgerald is leaving a party in such deep disarray that he believes it cannot survive in its current form.

Though he holds the highest elected office of any Illinois Republican, Fitzgerald has long been estranged from the state party leadership and blames it for now bringing the GOP low by focusing on profit and political gain at the expense of public service.

"The Republican Party cannot survive if we are not perceived as the more ethical party," because Democrats have a strong numerical advantage in the state, Fitzgerald said. "We have to throw the money changers out of our party, and its leadership must come from the ranks of those who are in politics for principled reasons."

For Illinois Republicans recent years have been dark, from the licenses for bribes scandal that brought down Gov. George Ryan to the 2002 election that left them with only one state office and finally a battle to retain the Senate seat being vacated by Fitzgerald that has been fraught with embarrassments and controversy.

Throughout, Fitzgerald has been critical, slamming the party for ethical failings even as GOP leaders tried to pull the pieces together.

Many top Illinois Republicans are pleased to see Fitzgerald leave office. During his tenure he has drawn the ire of state GOP leaders from Chairman Judy Baar Topinka to Republican National Committeeman Robert Kjellander and even U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Many in his own party have publicly dismissed him as an inflexible ideologue unwilling to compromise even to better the interests of the state.

Last year, when he announced his decision to not seek re-election after one term, Fitzgerald told supporters it had become difficult for Republicans to win in an increasingly Democratic state. But in an interview last week, however, he said the party can succeed as long as it fields candidates perceived as rising above the "money talks" tradition of Illinois politics.

That stance steams many Illinois GOP leaders, who question why Fitzgerald decided not to run if he now contends that he is the very model of the kind of Republican who can win big elections in the state.

"It's disingenuous for him to talk about a fractured party when he has done nothing but divide it with his verbal assault," said Topinka's spokesman Jason Gerwig. "Basically what you have is somebody who took their ball and went home."

Topinka declined to comment personally, saying she doesn't intend to dignify Fitzgerald's remarks.

Several GOP leaders wondered why Fitzgerald cares about the party at all, saying he plans to permanently settle in Virginia after he leaves the Senate. A spokesman for Fitzgerald said the senator hasn't yet decided whether he will return to Illinois.

Fitzgerald acknowledges he has been marginalized in the party, in part because he has called attention to a "pay-to-play" mentality he says emerged during Ryan's administration.

"We have too many people in and around our party's leadership solely to make money," he said. "The money makers ... really came into their own during the George Ryan administration. Big contributors were rewarded with big contracts, with big leases, with no-bid deals that fleeced the taxpayers."

The indictments and trials that exposed corruption within the party left it so weakened that Republicans splintered, with moderates more and more frequently supporting Democratic positions, he said.

"The problem is there really is only one party in Illinois; it's the Democratic Party and there are Republicans who quietly and tacitly ally themselves with Democrats," he said.

But it was the treatment of Senate candidate Jack Ryan, he believes, that exposed the party's weakness. When embarrassing details of Ryan's divorce came to light, Topinka didn't defend him publicly, and he finally abandoned the race, saying he couldn't fight both Democrats and his own party.

Fitzgerald believes Topinka didn't support Jack Ryan because she wanted her own political supporter, wealthy Republican rainmaker Ron Gidwitz, to be the party's candidate.

It was a choice of money over party, and was based on Topinka's own interest in running for governor in 2006, Fitzgerald charged.

When Gidwitz fell through as a candidate, Republicans were spurned by a long list of other possible replacements until conservatives prevailed upon the party's leadership to go out of the state and import Maryland radio talk show host Alan Keyes.

Passionate in his opposition to abortion and for his desire to mix religion and government, Keyes has set a deliberate course of inflaming controversy and made several in the party squirm over impolitic comments about everybody from Democratic opponent Barack Obama to the gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Fitzgerald said he doesn't know how Keyes ultimately became the party's candidate, but he believes his selection says a great deal about what is happening within the GOP.

"It just shows there are two completely different wings of the Republican Party," Fitzgerald said.

The wings aren't the two sides of the abortion debate as the candidates seem to suggest, but "it's instead between those who are in politics for reason of principle and those who are in politics for the reason to make money."

The party's leadership is interested in retaining power and believes it can do that by offering up moderate candidates who can find common cause with Democrats, he said.

Kjellander dismissed Fitzgerald's entire assessment, saying that while the party was damaged by Ryan's administration, Topinka has pulled it together.

"Over the last year there have been a lot of polls that put Republicans in a very good light," he said.

President Bush is narrowing the gap with Sen. John Kerry in Illinois, and Topinka looks to fare well in a head-to-head matchup with Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2006, Kjellander insisted.

He notes that Topinka has raised $18 million for the state party, and Republicans can afford to push the president's come-from-behind campaign in Illinois and support statewide candidates.

"When we put forward good candidates we're in the game," he said.

Fitzgerald and Kjellander agree that one strong candidate for governor in 2006 could turn the party around. Of course, they disagree who that might be, with Kjellander and other state GOP leaders backing Topinka and Fitzgerald pushing state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin).

It's a race that Fitzgerald believes will determine whether the party can ever separate itself from George Ryan's legacy and emerge from the depths it finds itself in.

"We're going to have to regain the advantage on ethics and integrity," he said.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,274 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 06:48 am
BBB,

Chasnge a few specific details and you have the story of Zell Miller and the Democrat Party. Do you consider Zell also to be an ethical politician?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:23 pm
Zell Miller is an oppertunistic politician who ran as a democrat because he knew he couldent be elected as a republican. His politicle views are too the right of Gengas Kauhn.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:26 pm
Zell was appointed to his current position and has no plans of running in the next election.

I agree with George in wondering if BBB considers Zell to be an ethical politician.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 09:39 am
George
George, I have always considered Zell Miller (while a Democrat or a Republican) to be a religious fanatic. I don't much cotton to fanatics of any stripe, but especially those religious, whom I consider to be a serious threat to the nation. We have examples around the world to illustrate why they are so dangerous---even if they appear to be ethical on the surface.

BBB
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 04:50 pm
How do you know Senator Fitzgeralt isn't also secretly religious? For that matter how do you know that Miller is a zealot? What level of religious motivation is required, in your book, to disqualify an individual from being considered "ethical"?

I can't recall the nane of the Republican Senator from Vermont who switched sides a couple of years ago and gave the Democrats control of the Senate in return for a guaranteed committee chairmanship. Was he ethical?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 06:08 pm
It is most perplexing these days that, in the eyes of the neolibs, the most damning indictment against any politician is that he be religious. It hasn't been so long ago that being religious was a prerequisite for election.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 09:28 pm
Foxfyre
Foxfyre, at least respond in an ethical manner by not trying to change my statement. You very well know that I said religious fanatics, not religious in general. There is a big difference between faith and fanatic faith.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 09:37 pm
BBB I didn't change your statement or even refer to it. The fact is, if a politician professes any faith at all these days, he is generally immediately branded a religious nut or fanatic. Just check out many many many posts here on A2K for verification of that. You won't find many, if any, flattering comments praising a politician for his religious convictions. Since you bring it up, however, do you honestly believe it is fair to brand Zell Miller as a religious fanatic? What has he said or done that would create that impression for you?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 10:14 pm
George
George, I must have been in a cranky mood when I labeled Zell Miller a religious "fanatic." I've been doing some research on him and find that I may have misspoke in applying that label to Miller.

I'm probably more put off by Miller's fanaticism regarding his belief that one is unpatriotic to challenge the policies of our government.

I'm having crow for dinner tonight---what are you eating?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 10:39 pm
Well I'm not George, but the thing you like least about Miller is what many others like the most. He's not afraid to stand up and say flat out that it is wrong to weaken the president in a time of war and he believes it puts the troops at higher risk than they otherwise would be. He has never to my knowledge said its wrong to challenge the policies of government--he certainly does it often enough. But I think he is correct to draw the distinction between constructive criticism and destructive bashing.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 10:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well I'm not George, but the thing you like least about Miller is what many others like the most. He's not afraid to stand up and say flat out that it is wrong to weaken the president in a time of war and he believes it puts the troops at higher risk than they otherwise would be. He has never to my knowledge said its wrong to challenge the policies of government--he certainly does it often enough. But I think he is correct to draw the distinction between constructive criticism and destructive bashing.


My, my, I seem to recall that was what the "good Germans" thought and practiced toward Hitler.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 10:50 pm
BBB wrote:
Quote:
My, my, I seem to recall that was what the "good Germans" thought and practiced toward Hitler.


Sigh. Okay. I don't want to play with the Hitler card out there.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 08:51 am
BBB,

Thanks -- No crow required. I felt at once you were overstating the case and likely had his admittedly impassioned speech at the republican Convention in mind when you wrote your comment. Believe it or not I too have overstated a thing or two.

Zell Miller actually has a good record as a canny and effective politician. Even his impassioned speech at the convention at least had the merit of focusing on selected items from the central tendency of John Kerry's voting record in the Senate, instead of the less impassioned, polite-sounding, but rather vicious personal attacks that infect so much politicaL dialogue on both sides. Reasonable ideas and arguments can be offered in a passionate style, just as vicious, deceptive slanders can be clothed in high-sounding nice words and phrases. It is all too easy to confuse the two.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 09:46 am
Getting back to Peter Fitzgerald.

He's right that the Illinois Republican Party is in a complete state of disarray. Of course, one of the reasons for this is Pete Fitzgerald, who has used his personal wealth to buck the GOP establishment in Illinois for most of his political career. His campaigns have disrupted the party organization, and he has, since being elected to the US Senate, done nothing to repair the damage. He has terrible relations with the state GOP, and his decision not to seek reelection (ostensibly because he wanted to spend more time with his family) was, no doubt, inspired by a well-founded fear that the party establishment would run a bruising primary challenge -- which he would have finance with his own money -- and then, if he survived, he would face a serious Democratic opponent in an ever-increasingly Democratic state. Millionaires don't become millionaires because they throw huge amounts of money at losing causes (Fitzgerald earned his millions the old-fashioned way: he inherited them), and this looked like a sure loser for Fitzgerald.

So Fitzgerald decided to leave the sinking ship that he helped to sabotage, hurling a few choice insults at the captain on his way to the lifeboats. Some people around here call him a principled politician. I call him a typical politician.
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 11:13 am
How don't you know?
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 11:19 am
How can you not know Zell Miller's bias? How can you miss difference between a guy who can do equitable math and a guy who learned math from Herbert Hoover?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 11:26 am
Fox et al,

I'll quote from Theo Roosevledt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

I couldn't agree more. Note that he didn't mention anything about holding one's tounge during a time of war.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 11:29 am
"Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

So tell me about those forged documents...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2004 11:45 am
"No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war. --Theodore Roosevelt (From a speech when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy at the Naval War College in 1897; Roosevelt fervently and successful advocated a war with Spain; he subsequently became a hero in that war.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Good Grief! An ethical politician?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:45:54