Don't Bush it, buddy.

Ariana Huffington recently reported John McCain told her that he did not vote for Bush in the 2000 election and that he only nominally supported his run out of obligation to the GOP.

While McCain quickly denied the story, it was confirmed by several sources at the party, including, get this: two cast members from the presidential drama The West Wing. Jed Bartlet for president!

Even without confirmation, I don't know that I would've denied the story so quickly. Bush's campaign made some shockingly nasty attacks on McCain and his family in the run-up to that election including accusing him of being crazy and fathering an illegitimate black child. Talk about putting swiftboaters into context!

With Bush's approval ratings falling to historic lows, rejecting the current administration may be McCain's only chance.

There's a lot of talk lately that Clinton's supporters will shun the polls if she doesn't get the nomination and vice versa. Can John "McGain" from the animosity?

Let's say Clinton is Democratic nominee. How can McCain capture disaffected black voters? Well, his association with Bush isn't going to help.

"You would have to get a really finely tuned GPS to find any African Americans who approve of Bush," David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Economic Studies, told me.

In fact, the headline of a recent Gallup poll says it all: "Bush May Be as Harmful to McCain as Wright is to Obama."

And what about the more likely alternative of Obama being the blue candidate?

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women wrote in a recent "Below the Belt" column:
"What if we end up with a Bush sequel that looks frighteningly like the last eight years? If Sen. John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, he will carry on Bush's tradition."

Considering she refers to the Bush administration as the "Conservative Misinformation Network," it's safe to say she'll make it to the polls for the Dems even if Clinton isn't the nominee.

It may turn out to be impossible for McCain to remove himself from the Bush hook.

"The Democrats have no intention of letting him put any distance between himself and Bush," said Bositis. Not only that, Bush lovers may be McCain's only chance. "If he doesn't have their support, he doesn't have any at all."

However, this alliance may a "what have you done for me lately?" case.

As I've written previously, the "campaign finance candidate" is in a fair amount of campaign finance trouble. Not the Clinton kind of trouble, mind you. Quite the opposite, McCain might have too much money. The FEC is due to rule on whether McCain can eschew the public funds he asked for when his campaign was desperate for money.
The FEC hasn't been able to rule on it, however, because they didn't have enough members to reach a quorum. McCain appealed to Bush to restock the FEC so that the matter can be resolved. Bush complied, with a cherry on top: he dumped chairman David Mason, who had indicated he didn't see things the way McCain would like.

If Bush can't get McCain any votes in the electoral college, perhaps the FEC is the next best thing?

Well, let's just say the FEC is no Florida.

"This election is going to be about a referendum on George Bush and Bushism," said Bositis. "And it's going to be a negative verdict."

Rezko Schmezko

The lobby of the Dirksen Federal Building in downtown Chicago has a little cordoned-off area for cameramen hoping to catch a balding Syrian man on trial for soliciting kickbacks, supposedly on behalf of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

For those who don't know, Rezko is accused of gathering illicit funds from companies seeking government contracts and individuals wanting to be appointed by the Gov. to state boards. The Feds caught on to his pal Stu Levine's rampant drug use and questionable "private behavior," so they wired the guy up and sent him after Rezko in exchange for a reduced 5-year sentence. My out of state pals may know him as "that guy giving fodder to Clinton and other anti-Obamans," as he has been described as a friend of our IL senator-cum-presidential candidate.

I've been in court watching the proceedings thrice since the trial began late last month and I have to say I've enjoyed myself. Since I'm new to Chicago, this whole corruption thing hasn't gotten old yet.

I thought I'd share some of my scribblings from the past few weeks for all those judicial junkies out there. First, to orient you, here's the newspaper-y piece I did on Thomas Beck's testimony on March 12:

"Friends in high places"

Jurors in the Antoin "Tony" Rezko case got to hear Stuart Levine's stammering voice for the first time Wednesday, though the prosecution's chief witness wasn't in the court room.

During the testimony of Thomas Beck, former Cook County comptroller and chair of the Illinois State Health Facility Planning Board, a recording of an FBI wiretap between him and Levine was played in court. Beck, now a consultant in Glenview, testified under immunity.

Though the jury was riveted by the playback of the conversation, Beck's testimony was more illustrative of the way Rezko was able to control the inner workings of planning healthcare in Illinois. Rezko is a politically connected former fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

According to Beck, everything from his board appointment to the opening of new hospitals went through Rezko. Though Beck had originally been appointed to the board by Gov. Jim Edgar in the 1990s and retained by Gov. George Ryan, he told prosecutors that when he wanted to be reappointed after Gov. Rod Blagojevich's 2003 shake-up of the board, he called Rezko.

"The newspapers and the word on the street was that Tony was close to the governor," Beck testified. "I thought he could be helpful to me."

He said he made an appointment with Rezko and brought a $1,000 check made out to Friends of Blagojevich. Soon after, Rezko asked him to serve as chair of the Health Facility Planning Board.

Beck identified three newly appointed doctors whom, in addition to Levine, Rezko could count upon to vote the way the governor wanted: Glenview pathologist Imad Almanaseer, Kankakee neurosurgeon Michel Malek and Winnetka podiatrist Fortunee Massuda. Beck described introducing himself to them at the board orientation in 2003.

"[I told them] 'I believe we have a mutual friend in Tony Rezko,' and they said, 'Oh, yes, he's our friend," Beck testified.

The "mutual friends" of Rezko were also Friends of Blagojevich. Dr. Malek donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, the same day that Foot & Ankle Clinics of America (based in Chicago and run by Dr. Massuda at the time) contributed an identical amount. The contributions were received just weeks before Gov. Blagojevich named the two doctors to the board. Levine donated $1,900 to Friends of Blagojevich in 2003.

Beck said he always met with Levine before the board's monthly meetings because Levine "never read anything he had received" regarding the agenda.

"[Levine] wanted to know what Tony wanted him to do," Beck testified.

Beck's communication with the three doctors was more complex. He said he wrote instructions on index cards for each of them.

"I would give one to each of the doctors [and say] 'these are of interest to our friend,'" Beck said.

The conversation played in court was taped by the FBI April 19, 2003, two days before a scheduled board meeting. Beck and Levine talked about a Mercy Health System proposal to build a new hospital in McHenry County. The proposal had been denied six months before the April meeting and needed to be reconsidered soon, per board rules.

At the time of the meeting, the Mercy application was unacceptable to the board. Beck testified that he told this to Rezko, but was told to pass it anyway.

"I got my marching orders," Beck told Levine. "Our boy wants some help."

Beck detailed a way to make the board seem like it was being fair to all three hospitals being considered at that meeting. He told Levine to tell Mercy's lawyer that the board would formulate new questions for each hospital to answer, necessitating extending the board's six month deadline for resubmitting a proposal.

Mercy's $81 million proposal was ultimately approved and the hospital continues to operate in Crystal Lake.

###

Here's what it's like for all the reporters who show up late to Judge Amy St. Eve's courtroom to cover the proceedings and get shuttled to the overflow room:

Despite the black velvet curtain around the big screen TV in the overflow room for the Tony Rezko trial, observers there were less than solemn.

Stuart Levine, the prosecution's key witness, continued his testimony from yesterday in a packed courtroom today. In the overflow room, reporters laughed over Levine's flippant answers to objections filed by the defense over the specificity of the location of meetings between Levine and Rezko.

Besides that, the testimony was rather dull.

Levine's answers to the prosecution's questions about his relationship with Rezko were blunt, but not surprising.

"I felt that Mr. Rezko and I could make a lot of money together," he said, referring to "illegal deals" he said he could bring regarding the two boards he served on: the Illinois Teachers' Retirement System and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

Observers could be seen doodling, yawning and playing hangman. Empty Dunkin' Donuts cups littered the courtroom tables. The door was never closed for more than a minute or two; people kept coming and going. One guy passed time picking his nose.

The view might be shitty (the camera shot catches the least interesting part of the courtroom, leaving out the evidence projection and the witness stand. And, I don't know about everyone else, but I am plain sick of looking at Tony's bald spot), but at least you can't be found in contempt of court.

During the morning break, one reporter said the former fundraiser "thought he was the next Gary Hart," referring to Levine's testimony that Rezko believed Gov. Blagojevich was going to run for president.

Other, less confident reporters checked quotes against their neighbors notes during the break. Someone went to go get more coffee. Judge Amy will never know.

Bleeding ears

I was reading the New York Times editorials yesterday and saw an interesting section where readers wrote in with what they wanted to hear the Democratic presidential hopefuls say (as opposed to the current vitriol being spewed).

I especially liked the advice from George Waldstein to Obama's speech writers:

“My fellow Americans: I hope to become the Democratic nominee in this election. But if Senator Clinton becomes the nominee, I will enthusiastically support her, and she will be an excellent president and will undo the wide damage caused by the Bush administration and its chief enabler, John McCain..."

Apparently, Obama's been reading the NYT, too. Here's what he told CNN after his Mississippi victory:

"I've been careful to say that I think Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. I'm not sure we've been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

Ok, so a little extra snark in there for good measure, but it's better than sicking famous campaign staffers with racial innuendos on one's opponent.

Former vice presidential candidate and Clinton consultant Geraldine Ferraro says Obama's victory is unfair:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Yeah. I'm sure we can all agree being a black man in America means you got it easy. Not that being a woman in America is any easier, but whining about it will get us nowhere. That's how feminism became a dirty word, remember?

Instead of chastising Ferraro, Clinton stood behind her.

Maybe Clinton should be reading the NYT. Or at least listening to what Americans want to hear.

What's up, doc?

I was in a doctor's waiting room today when a couple came in inquiring about adoption counseling. I watched from behind a newspaper as they got a serious run-around and ended up leaving in frustration.

I thought about when I was sixteen, just having seen that awful video in health class of the woman giving birth. I got totally grossed out and vowed never to get pregnant. My health teacher was glad to hear it, I'm sure, but asked me what would happen if I wanted children later in life. I said I could always adopt. And the reply was, "no, you can't always adopt."

While any idiot can get pregnant, adoptive parents have to endure a battery of tests and monitoring by health professionals of every stripe in order to "have" a baby.

Being a parent is an important job, to be sure.

However, being president is arguably the most important job in the country, and the only test is whether you're approved of by the American people. Don't get me wrong, I dig representative democracy and all its wacky implications. And I don't mean to imply that any idiot can become president. But I do think the American people should be given more tools with which to judge the suitability of their future president and I'm not the first to suggest it.

McCain, if elected would be the oldest person to be inaugurated as president. He hasn't released medical records since 1999, the last time he ran for president. I'd imagine even the healthiest septuagenarian's health could change quickly, and anyone's bound to be a quite different person after more than eight years of political life.

Also, McCain's been treated for skin cancer and takes medications for high blood pressure, heart attack prevention and allergies.

In an interview on 60 Minutes McCain said he'll release his medical records within the next two months. Why the wait? He's already the nominee. He's already been to the doctor; why can't his campaign release the results now?

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign didn't respond to my two press requests for information on the subject. Too busy redacting?

Another note: yes, I want to see Hillary's tax returns, too. But what about her medical records? And how about the less and less transparent Sen. Obama? He could explain his friendship with "T.R." at the same time and save us all a truckload of speculation.

WWJVF?

This week, John McCain accepted the endorsement of San Antonio televangelist John Hagee.

The president of The Catholic League said Hagee has "waged an unrelenting war" on the Catholic Church. That may seem a little extreme, but Hagee did call the church a whore and a cult and associates it with both Hitler and the anti-Christ. McCain said, while he doesn't endorse Hagee's views, he'll take the endorsement. This is a marked departure from Obama rejecting Farrakhan's help.


I was raised Catholic and made it (begrudgingly) to confirmation. I'm admittedly non-practicing. But I wondered, if things were different, would the Catholic Church have the answer to this burning question: who would Jesus vote for?

I called The Catholic League and they told me they don't endorse candidates for president. Knights of Columbus has the same policy.

In the Priests for Life Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, they advise voters to "avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies."


Ok, no evil. That's good to know.

I called the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and they said that while they do not endorse particular candidates, they publish guides leading voters to the "right" candidate. This year's guide doesn't mention any candidate by name. However, Catholic Online insisted that Mike Huckabee fits the Bishops' description best, expressing surprise that the "best Catholic running for the highest office in the land seems to be the best Evangelical too."


See, there? We can all get along! Until Huckabee drops out, that is.

I grew up in a family of Democrats, but recently all my aunts, uncles and cousins have switched allegiances to the Bush/Cheney machine. I was going to call them up for a quick poll, but I have a feeling it's easier to get an answer from The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At least they don't have my church attendance record on file. And they haven't been at the table for Christmas dinner. They also have never called me a devil-worshipping communist. Thankfully, my immediately family is still quite liberal and I don't hold grudges.

The Gray Lady turns yellowish

Let me just first acknowledge that I subscribe to two newspapers. Not that those are the only ones that I read, but they are (supposed to be...) on my doorstep every morning. The Chicago Sun-Times, with its cultivated populism gives me the local gossip. I balance my beloved Chicago rag with the generally venerable New York Times. This week, however, I have been distinctly disappointed with its campaign coverage.

First, the NYT reported Obama's "plagiarism" of his pal Gov. Deval Patrick's speech.

In fact, the senator had disclosed the provenience of those remarks previously, but not every time he appropriated them. Gov. Patrick backed up Barack. Personally, I blame Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod, who worked on Patrick's campaign, too. Axelrod should know better, though, being a former newsman and long-time politico.

Then, Sen. Clinton, feeling like she looked a bit petty for attacking Obama, said it was the NYT, not her campaign who exposed the so-called plagiarism. Which is, in a word, a lie(thanks, Mr. Skoglund, for the link).

A lie I would've liked to have read in the NYT. And, let me just offer that I prefer someone who borrows rhetoric instead of just making shit up. At least when were talking about, oh I donno...the leader of the free world?

But it gets worse. Today's front page insinuated the John McCain had a sordid, extra-marital affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior.

First of all: ewwwww. Lobbyists are icky.

Second of all: you needed four reporters to write a muckraking story and you couldn't even get one untainted source to go on record about Iseman?

Third of all: at least four-fifths of the article was about his role in the Keating Five scandal. McCain did his political time for that already, and I'd hope anyone considering voting for him already knows about it. His participation in a decades-old scandal does not make him more likely to sleep with a skeletal blond living in Bud Paxson's pocket.

A NYT editor defended the article saying the information was "nailed down to the New York Times' satisfaction." Well, I'm glad someone's satisfied.

I, however, am not. And I will not be until the Gray Lady goes after her own with the same tenacity with which she is attacking the opposition. Hillary needs a minor miracle or serious political collusion to get the nomination at this point, NYT, and neither one should be coming from you.