Présidentielle américaine/2012: Le père Noël était une ordure et nous le savions ! (In a nation of children, Santa Claus wins)

Mitt Romney and his family would have been the essence of exactly what this country needs. But what was Romney’s recipe? Romney’s recipe was the old standby: American route to success, hard work. That gets sneered at. I’m sorry. In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins? And say what you want, but Romney did offer a vision of traditional America. In his way, he put forth a great vision of traditional America, and it was rejected. It was rejected in favor of a guy who thinks that those who are working aren’t doing enough to help those who aren’t. And that resonated. The Obama campaign was about small stuff. War on Women, binders, Big Bird, this kind of stuff. The Romney campaign was about big things, was about America. (…) One of the greatest misunderstandings in this country, if you boil all this down, is what creates prosperity. The Romney campaign was essentially about that, and the Romney campaign was devoted to the traditional American view and history — vision, as well — of what creates prosperity. The old capitalism, the old arguments of hard work, stick-to-itiveness, self-reliance, charity, helping out in the community. All of these things that define the traditional institutions that made this country great, that’s what the Romney campaign was about. It was rejected. That way, or that route to prosperity was sneered at. That route to prosperity was rejected. The people who voted for Obama don’t believe in it. They don’t think it’s possible. They think the game’s rigged. They think the deck is stacked against them. They think that the only way they’re gonna have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them. Santa Claus! And it’s hard to beat Santa Claus. Especially it’s hard to beat Santa Claus when the alternative is, « You be your own Santa Claus. » (…) There is no rising to responsibility. There is no accepting responsibility. There’s just a demand that the gravy train continue, and we have an administration that’s promising an endless gravy train. All you have to do to stay on that gravy train is vote. Rush Limbaugh

We have never quite had the present perfect storm of nearly half not paying federal income taxes, nearly 50 million on food stamps, and almost half the population on some sort of federal largess — and a sophistic elite that promotes it and at the same time finds ways to be exempt from its social and cultural consequences. For an Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, or Feinstein, the psychological cost for living like 18th-century French royalty is the promotion of the welfare state for millions of others who for now will be kept far away, in places like Bakersfield or Mendota. The solution, I fear, may be near-insolvency along the Wisconsin model, and self-correction after some dark Greek-like years, or, in contrast, in extremis blue politicians having to deal with the consequences of their own policies. In the manner that an Obama can vastly expand drones and renditions without a whimper of liberal angst, so too someone like him will have to deal with bounced Medicare reimbursements or free cell phones that can’t be replaced when they break, or long lines in federal health clinics emptied of doctors who have gone elsewhere. The laws of physics ultimately prevail. In Michigan in September I had a talk with a retired auto worker who did not care that the bailout cost $25 billion, was not sustainable, shorted the legal first-in-line creditors, shorted politically incorrect managerial pensioners, or ensured the Volt debacle. He simply said to me, “Obama saved my son’s job and I don’t care about much else.” That’s the rub in the short term that seems to the norm in at least the past and future few years. It means that the Republicans, without a once-in-a-lifetime Reagan-like perfect candidate — or some sort of national crisis in the manner that Iran once derailed Jimmy Carter, or Ross Perot once caused incumbent George H. W. Bush to implode — can’t quite get that extra 2 to 3 percentage points they need on the national scene to succeed. Victor Davis Hanson

Barack Obama n’avait (…) pas hésité à jouer sur la peur d’un retour au pouvoir d’un parti républicain particulièrement rétrograde sur des questions de société tels que les droits des femmes ou encore le mariage gay. L’enjeu était d’autant plus important que, en plus de l’élection présidentielle, se tenaient les élections législatives ainsi qu’une série de votes par référendum dans plusieurs Etats sur des sujets tels que l’euthanasie, le cannabis ou l’union homosexuelle (qui) de leur côté ont également donné des résultats qui, hors période d’élection présidentielle, auraient fait la une des journaux nationaux. Les militants de la dépénalisation du cannabis ont en effet pu célébrer les résultats des votes dans les Etats du Colorado et l’Etat Washington dont les électeurs ont voté en faveur d’une proposition visant à légaliser l’usage récréatif. Concernant les droits des homosexuels, les électeurs des Etats du Maine, de Washington et du Maryland ont été les premiers à approuver par référendum le principe du mariage, créant ainsi une énorme brèche dans ce débat au niveau national. Autant que la réélection de Barack Obama en elle-même, ces différentes victoires ont contribué à créer un véritable sentiment de renouveau progressiste. Pour le site Buzzfeed, nous pourrions même assister à l’avènement de « l’Amérique libérale ». (…) grâce à ces différentes victoires, Barack Obama pourrait même endosser le rôle historique de leader idéologique d’une nouvelle ère progressiste, comme son prédécesseur Ronald Reagan l’avait fait pour les conservateurs dans les années 80. Le Nouvel observateur

Je rêve que mes quatre petits enfants vivront un jour dans un pays où on ne les jugera pas à la couleur de leur peau mais à la nature de leur caractère. Martin Luther King

Si Obama était blanc, il ne serait pas dans cette position. Et s’il était une femme, il ne serait pas dans cette position. Il a beaucoup de chance d’être ce qu’il est. Et le pays est pris par le concept. Geraldine Ferraro (ex-colistière du candidat démocrate de 1984 Walter Mondale et proche d’Hillary Clinton, Daily Breeze, 07.03.08)

En 1984, si je m’étais appelée Gerard Ferraro au lieu  de Geraldine Ferraro, je n’aurais jamais été choisie comme candidate à la vice-présidence. Cela n’a rien à voir avec mes qualifications. Geraldine Ferraro

Ma propre ville de Chicago a compté parmi les villes à la politique locale la plus corrompue de l’histoire américaine, du népotisme institutionnalisé aux élections douteuses. Barack Obama (Nairobi, Kenya, août 2006)

Though Obama, the son of a Kenyan immigrant, lagged in polls as late as mid-February, he surged to the front of the pack in recent weeks after he began airing television commercials and the black community rallied behind him. He also was the beneficiary of the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history, when multimillionaire Blair Hull plummeted from front-runner status amid revelations that an ex-wife had alleged in divorce papers that he had physically and verbally abused her. After spending more than $29 million of his own money, Hull, a former securities trader, finished third, garnering about 10 percent of the vote. (…) Obama ascended to front-runner status in early March as Hull’s candidacy went up in flames amid the divorce revelations, as well as Hull’s acknowledgment that he had used cocaine in the 1980s and had been evaluated for alcohol abuse. The Chicago Tribune (17.03.04)

Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had  »worked aggressively behind the scenes » to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. The NYT (01.04.07)

One lesson, however, has not fully sunk in and awaits final elucidation in the 2012 election: that of the Chicago style of Barack Obama’s politicking. In 2008 few of the true believers accepted that, in his first political race, in 1996, Barack Obama sued successfully to remove his opponents from the ballot. Or that in his race for the US Senate eight years later, sealed divorced records for both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked by unnamed Chicagoans, leading to the implosions of both candidates’ campaigns. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of public campaign financing to reject it, or that he was also the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general, and from BP and Goldman Sachs in particular. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in recent memory not to disclose either undergraduate records or even partial medical. Or that remarks like “typical white person,” the clingers speech, and the spread-the-wealth quip would soon prove to be characteristic rather than anomalous. Few American presidents have dashed so many popular, deeply embedded illusions as has Barack Obama. And for that, we owe him a strange sort of thanks. Victor Davis Hanson

La condamnation de M. Blagojevich met une fois de plus la lumière sur la scène politique corrompue de l’Etat dont la plus grande ville est Chicago. Cinq des neuf gouverneurs précédents de l’Illinois ont été accusés ou arrêtés pour fraude ou corruption. Le prédécesseur de M. Blagojevich, le républicain George Ryan, purge actuellement une peine de six ans et demi de prison pour fraude et racket. M. Blagojevich, qui devra se présenter à la prison le 16 février et verser des amendes de près de 22 000 dollars, détient le triste record de la peine la plus lourde jamais infligée à un ex-gouverneur de l’Illinois. Ses avocats ont imploré le juge de ne pas chercher à faire un exemple avec leur client, notant que ce dernier n’avait pas amassé d’enrichissement personnel et avait seulement tenté d’obtenir des fonds de campagne ainsi que des postes bien rémunérés. En plein scandale, M. Blagojevich était passé outre aux appels à la démission venus de son propre parti et avait nommé procédé à la nomination d’un sénateur avant d’être destitué. Mais le scandale a porté un coup à la réputation des démocrates dans l’Illinois et c’est un républicain qui a été élu l’an dernier pour occuper l’ancien siège de M. Obama. AFP (08.12.11)

C’est un système pourri, une toile d’araignée qui organise sa survie en nommant ses amis à des postes clés de l’administration en échange de leur soutien politique et financier.  Anthony Peraica

Selon le professeur Dick Simpson, chef du département de science politique de l’université d’Illinois, «c’est à la fin du XIXe siècle et au début du XXe que le système prend racine». L’arrivée de larges populations immigrées peinant à faire leur chemin à Chicago pousse les politiciens à «mobiliser le vote des communautés en échange d’avantages substantiels». Dans les années 1930, le Parti démocrate assoit peu à peu sa domination grâce à cette politique «raciale». Le système va se solidifier sous le règne de Richard J. Daley, grande figure qui régnera sur la ville pendant 21 ans. Aujourd’hui, c’est son fils Richard M. Daley qui est aux affaires depuis 18 ans et qui «perpétue le pouvoir du Parti démocrate à Chicago, en accordant emplois d’État, faveurs et contrats, en échange de soutiens politiques et financiers», raconte John McCormick. «Si on vous donne un permis de construction, vous êtes censés “payer en retour”», explique-t-il. «Cela s’appelle payer pour jouer», résume John Kass, un autre éditorialiste. Les initiés affirment que Rod Blagojevich ne serait jamais devenu gouverneur s’il n’avait croisé le chemin de sa future femme, Patricia Mell, fille de Dick Mell, un conseiller municipal très influent, considéré comme un rouage essentiel de la machine. Le Figaro

Dans ce contexte local plus que trouble, Peraica affirme que la montée au firmament d’Obama n’a pu se faire «par miracle».«Il a été aidé par la machine qui l’a adoubé, il est cerné par cette machine qui produit de la corruption et le risque existe qu’elle monte de Chicago vers Washington», va-t-il même jusqu’à prédire. Le conseiller régional républicain cite notamment le nom d’Emil Jones, l’un des piliers du Parti démocrate de l’Illinois, qui a apporté son soutien à Obama lors de son élection au Sénat en 2004. Il évoque aussi les connexions du président élu avec Anthony Rezko, cet homme d’affaires véreux, proche de Blagojevich et condamné pour corruption, qui fut aussi le principal responsable de la levée de fonds privés pour le compte d’Obama pendant sa course au siège de sénateur et qui l’aida à acheter sa maison à Chicago. «La presse a protégé Barack Obama comme un petit bébé. Elle n’a pas sorti les histoires liées à ses liens avec Rezko», s’indigne Peraica, qui cite toutefois un article du Los Angeles Times faisant état d’une affaire de financement d’un tournoi international de ping-pong qui aurait éclaboussé le président élu. (…) L’équipe du président élu «n’en est pas moins très embarrassée par le scandale», affirme le politologue Ola Adeyoje, spécialiste de la politique locale à Chicago. Les écoutes téléphoniques révèlent en effet un gouverneur persuadé d’être en contact et en négociation quasi directe avec Barack Obama pour la désignation d’un successeur au Sénat. Sentant venir la polémique, le nouveau chef de l’État a donc promis de passer au crible les discussions que son entourage aurait pu avoir avec Blagojevich. À ce titre, le directeur de cabinet d’Obama, Rahm Emanuel, est dans la ligne de mire des républicains car il apparaît qu’il a été en contact avec le gouverneur sur ce thème, selon le Chicago Tribune. Lundi, les deux chambres du Parlement de l’Illinois se sont rassemblées pour décider d’une éventuelle procédure de destitution du gouverneur, qui ne se presse pas de démissionner. La plupart des leaders démocrates jugent impensable qu’il puisse rester à son poste et décider de la nomination d’un nouveau sénateur. Mais une procédure de destitution d’un gouverneur, phénomène rarissime dans l’histoire des États-Unis où cela ne s’est produit qu’en Californie et au Dakota du Nord, risque de durer des mois… empoisonnant le climat politique, de Chicago à Washington. Le Figaro (décembre 2008)

Invalidations systématiques, dès son premier casse électoral de Chicago de 1996  pour les sénatoriales d’état, des candidatures de ses rivaux sur les plus subtils points de procédure (la qualité des signatures) jusqu’à se retrouver seul en lice …

Déballages forcés,  quatre ans plus tard aux élections sénatoriales fédérales de 2004, des problèmes de couple (un cas apparemment de violence domestique) ou frasques supposées (des soirées dans des club échangistes) de ses adversaires, que ce soit son propre collègue Blair Hull aux primaires ou le Républicain Jack Ryan à la générale de manière à se retrouver sans opposition devant les électeurs …

Tentative de rebelote, lors des primaires de 2008, contre sa rivale démocrate malheureuse Hillary Clinton …

A l’heure où, quatre ans après le holdup du siècle et devant la remontée de son adversaire républicain et les millions d’Hollywood, l’Imposteur en chef de Chicago nous ressort, après le coup du « mariage homosexuel » et celui de la « surprise d’octobre » sans compter le manque de motivation républicain, le 2e casse du siècle …

Comment ne pas repenser, avec Rush Limbaugh (merci sil) et tous les petits mais à terme coûteux cadeaux du nouveau réélu aux minorités, homos et autres amateurs de drogues récréatives, à la stratégie père Noël qui avait permis il y a cinq mois à une « gauche champagne«   alliée avec une extrême gauche ouvertement totalitaire  de faire passer pour victoire l’auto-sabordage d’une droite divisée  par le plus violent des terrorismes intellectuels ?

Mais aussi à la formidable imposture entretenue (comme toutes proportions gardées pour notre François Hollande national) depuis quatre ans par nos journaux et médias de révérence, sur la réalité de la tristement fameuse machine politique de Chicago dont est issu, comme il l’avait une fois reconnu lui-même, l’auteur du 2e casse du siècle et squatter renouvelé de la Maison Blanche ?

Dans les bas-fonds politiques de Chicago

Laure Mandeville, envoyée spéciale à Chicago

16/12/2008

Rod Blagojevich, aujourd’hui accusé de corruption, prête serment lors de sa prise de fonction en tant que gouverneur de l’Illinois en août 2007. Pour la plupart des commentateurs, Barack Obama a su naviguer à travers la politique locale «sans se compromettre».

Le scandale de corruption qui frappe le gouverneur de l’Illinois Rod Blagojevich révèle le système de connivence et de passe-droits niché au cœur du fief politique d’Obama.

Des manches de chemise re­troussées. Une courte barbe grise. Des lunettes qui laissent entrevoir des yeux scrutateurs et malicieux. Voici donc John McCormick, le fameux journaliste dont le gouverneur de l’Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, voulait la tête. Celui qu’il rêvait de faire limoger du comité éditorial du Chicago Tribune. En échange de la mise à l’écart de plusieurs éditorialistes critiques, «Blago» se proposait de donner son feu vert à l’octroi d’une aide financière de 100 millions de dollars au propriétaire du journal, Sam Zell, pour que ce dernier puisse procéder à la vente du terrain de base-ball de Wrigley, et éponger ses dettes. «Je constate surtout que cela n’a pas marché !, précise John, en riant. Je me sens plutôt honoré d’être mis en balance avec 100 millions de dollars. Et surtout reconnaissant à mon employeur, si les allégations portées par le procureur Patrick Fitzgerald sont réelles.»

Dans les étages supérieurs d’une tour néogothique inspirée de Notre-Dame de Paris, qui abrite depuis plus de cent cinquante ans le vénérable journal, «l’enc… de journaliste», dont les éditoriaux irritaient le gouverneur, est en plein travail. Depuis que le scandale a rattrapé Rod Blagojevich, accusé par le procureur des États-Unis Patrick Fitzgerald d’avoir tissé une véritable toile de corruption autour de son poste, le journal est mobilisé vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre. «J’ai sept pages débats à boucler», explique McCormick, chef adjoint du comité éditorial. Il dit avoir reçu un coup de fil d’un ancien professeur de journalisme. «Elle m’a dit :“100 millions ? Je n’aurais pas misé deux dollars sur toi !”», raconte-t-il en riant.

«Je veux faire de l’argent»

Le scandale qui a éclaté mardi dernier a provoqué un véritable séisme aux États-Unis, chassant de la une des journaux les questions liées à la transition Bush-Obama. Il est vrai qu’outre l’affaire des journalistes, dont John McCormick est devenu le héros involontaire, de graves accusations ont été portées par le procureur Fitzgerald sur la manière dont Blagojevich entendait négocier son pouvoir exclusif de désignation du successeur d’Obama au Sénat. Les écoutes téléphoniques menées par le FBI, et consignées dans un rapport de 76 pages dont Le Figaro a obtenu copie, révèlent son obsession d’arracher un poste lucratif pour lui ou son épouse. «Je veux faire de l’argent», lâche-t-il carrément au téléphone. «C’est du p… d’or», insiste-t-il. Le caractère vulgaire et brutal de ses conversations a choqué l’opinion américaine. Dans le bus qui promène les touristes à travers les hauts lieux mafieux de l’époque de la prohibition, un retraité confie sa stupeur devant tant de grossièreté, car «nous aimons à penser que nous sommes dirigés par des gens de haute tenue». «C’est surtout un imbécile, note le guide de l’excursion. Comment a-t-il pu parler de son désir de vendre un siège de sénateur alors qu’il faisait l’objet d’une enquête fédérale ? Al Capone était plus intelligent !»

Mais est-ce vraiment de la stupidité ? Ou ce mode de fonctionnement paraissait-il si naturel à Blagojevich qu’il en est venu à perdre le sens de la réalité ? Ce qui frappe dans le rapport du FBI, c’est qu’il accuse le gouverneur d’avoir usé de telles pratiques dès son arrivée aux affaires, en 2002, alors qu’il s’était fait élire sur une plate-forme de chevalier anticorruption. L’accusation révèle que le gouverneur aurait systématiquement monnayé sa position d’influence, levant des fonds privés pour l’organisation «Les amis de Blagojevich» en échange d’octrois de contrats ou de privilèges. Les multiples témoignages d’hommes véreux, condamnés depuis à la prison ferme, ajoutent au tableau une crédibilité dérangeante. Même si Blagojevich reste présumé innocent, les charges réunies dessinent les contours d’un monde incroyablement obscur et corrompu. «C’est la machine politique de Chicago», résument les journalistes locaux. Dans son édition de dimanche, le Chicago Tribune attaque carrément : «Il y a une raison pour laquelle l’Illinois a une longue histoire de scandale, dénonce le quotidien à la une. La machine politique carbure à l’argent.»

«Cela s’appelle payer pour jouer»

Selon le professeur Dick Simpson, chef du département de science politique de l’université d’Illinois, «c’est à la fin du XIXe siècle et au début du XXe que le système prend racine». L’arrivée de larges populations immigrées peinant à faire leur chemin à Chicago pousse les politiciens à «mobiliser le vote des communautés en échange d’avantages substantiels». Dans les années 1930, le Parti démocrate assoit peu à peu sa domination grâce à cette politique «raciale». Le système va se solidifier sous le règne de Richard J. Daley, grande figure qui régnera sur la ville pendant 21 ans. Aujourd’hui, c’est son fils Richard M. Daley qui est aux affaires depuis 18 ans et qui «perpétue le pouvoir du Parti démocrate à Chicago, en accordant emplois d’État, faveurs et contrats, en échange de soutiens politiques et financiers», raconte John McCormick. «Si on vous donne un permis de construction, vous êtes censés “payer en retour”», explique-t-il. «Cela s’appelle payer pour jouer», résume John Kass, un autre éditorialiste. Les initiés affirment que Rod Blagojevich ne serait jamais devenu gouverneur s’il n’avait croisé le chemin de sa future femme, Patricia Mell, fille de Dick Mell, un conseiller municipal très influent, considéré comme un rouage essentiel de la machine.

Anthony Peraica, un immigrant croate, débarqué aux États-Unis à l’âge de 13 ans, qui a fait de brillantes études de droit avant de se lancer en politique, affirme être bien placé pour raconter le système. Originaire du district de Bridgeport, le cœur de la machine Daley, ce conseiller régional républicain du comté de Chicago dit avoir été lui-même happé par le Parti démocrate avant de le quitter «écœuré» par les passe-droits qu’il y avait découverts. «C’est un système pourri, une toile d’araignée qui organise sa survie en nommant ses amis à des postes clés de l’administration en échange de leur soutien politique et financier», accuse-t-il. Anthony Peraica, qui a raté de peu la présidence du conseil régional du comté, affirme que seule l’intervention d’un syndicat ayant mis des millions de dollars dans la bataille médiatique pour le discréditer l’a empêché de gagner. «Les donateurs privés que je sollicite ont peur de me financer car ils craignent pour leurs avantages», poursuit-il. «Il n’y pas de système bipartisan ici, c’est une autocratie», dit le républicain, qui affirme que des inconnus ont plusieurs fois forcé ses bureaux d’avocat, dans la partie sud de Chicago, «sans doute pour m’intimider». «La seule chose qui pourrait changer le système, c’est un financement public des campagnes à l’européenne, et des temps d’accès aux médias réglementés.»

Dans ce contexte local plus que trouble, Peraica affirme que la montée au firmament d’Obama n’a pu se faire «par miracle».«Il a été aidé par la machine qui l’a adoubé, il est cerné par cette machine qui produit de la corruption et le risque existe qu’elle monte de Chicago vers Washington», va-t-il même jusqu’à prédire. Le conseiller régional républicain cite notamment le nom d’Emil Jones, l’un des piliers du Parti démocrate de l’Illinois, qui a apporté son soutien à Obama lors de son élection au Sénat en 2004. Il évoque aussi les connexions du président élu avec Anthony Rezko, cet homme d’affaires véreux, proche de Blagojevich et condamné pour corruption, qui fut aussi le principal responsable de la levée de fonds privés pour le compte d’Obama pendant sa course au siège de sénateur et qui l’aida à acheter sa maison à Chicago. «La presse a protégé Barack Obama comme un petit bébé. Elle n’a pas sorti les histoires liées à ses liens avec Rezko», s’indigne Peraica, qui cite toutefois un article du Los Angeles Times faisant état d’une affaire de financement d’un tournoi international de ping-pong qui aurait éclaboussé le président élu.

Rahm Emanuel dans la ligne de mire

La plupart des commentateurs, dont John McCormick, ne souscrivent pas à cette analyse. Pour eux, le président élu a su naviguer à travers la politique locale «sans se compromettre». Il s’est dissocié de Rezko avant sa dernière campagne. Il est aussi celui qui a fait passer une législation éthique qui devrait mieux contrôler les donations privées à partir du 1er janvier 2009 dans l’Illinois.

L’équipe du président élu «n’en est pas moins très embarrassée par le scandale», affirme le politologue Ola Adeyoje, spécialiste de la politique locale à Chicago. Les écoutes téléphoniques révèlent en effet un gouverneur persuadé d’être en contact et en négociation quasi directe avec Barack Obama pour la désignation d’un successeur au Sénat. Sentant venir la polémique, le nouveau chef de l’État a donc promis de passer au crible les discussions que son entourage aurait pu avoir avec Blagojevich. À ce titre, le directeur de cabinet d’Obama, Rahm Emanuel, est dans la ligne de mire des républicains car il apparaît qu’il a été en contact avec le gouverneur sur ce thème, selon le Chicago Tribune. Lundi, les deux chambres du Parlement de l’Illinois se sont rassemblées pour décider d’une éventuelle procédure de destitution du gouverneur, qui ne se presse pas de démissionner. La plupart des leaders démocrates jugent impensable qu’il puisse rester à son poste et décider de la nomination d’un nouveau sénateur. Mais une procédure de destitution d’un gouverneur, phénomène rarissime dans l’histoire des États-Unis où cela ne s’est produit qu’en Californie et au Dakota du Nord, risque de durer des mois… empoisonnant le climat politique, de Chicago à Washington.

Voir aussi:

In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins

Rush Limbaugh

November 07, 2012

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Hey, any of you guys in there want to come sit in my chair today? Anybody? Nobody wants to come sit in my chair here? None of you? I mean, I’m giving you a golden opportunity to speak to, what, 50 million people.

(interruption)

I can handle it. Okay, all right. So nobody wants to come sit in my chair today. Greetings, my friends. What happened? That’s what we’re going to try to find out. We’re not gotta be able to explain this away in one day. We’re gonna get close. We are not gonna be able to come up with all the answers and solutions in one day, but I want to try to take you through the night for me last night, various thoughts that I had as things happened, beginning with my getting and receiving the exit polls at five o’clock.

But first, let me tell you, small things beat big things yesterday. Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus.

Now, everybody is jumping on Romney’s chain today, getting in his chili. Look, he may have not been the most optimal candidate, but he’s a fine man. He would have been great for this country. Mitt Romney and his family would have been the essence of exactly what this country needs. But what was Romney’s recipe? Romney’s recipe was the old standby: American route to success, hard work. That gets sneered at. I’m sorry. In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins? And say what you want, but Romney did offer a vision of traditional America. In his way, he put forth a great vision of traditional America, and it was rejected. It was rejected in favor of a guy who thinks that those who are working aren’t doing enough to help those who aren’t. And that resonated.

The Obama campaign was about small stuff. War on Women, binders, Big Bird, this kind of stuff. The Romney campaign was about big things, was about America. It’s mind-boggling to go through these exit polls. You want to hear a statistic that is somewhat surprising? Romney received two and a half million fewer votes than McCain did. Now, who would have called that? Who in the world would have? I think Obama’s vote tally was down ten million from 2008, and we still lost. We lost 50 to 48 nationally. We were not able to build a turnout model that looked like 2004. Very puzzling.

Something else. Just stream of consciousness here. The usual suspects are out, and they’re saying, « Rush, we gotta reach out now to the Hispanics and reach out to the minorities, blacks. » Okay, let me remind you of something. Just ask you a question. And we will be getting your phone calls of course today, you weigh in on this, 800-282-2882 is the number. Let me take you back to the Republican convention. We had Suzanne Martinez, female Hispanic governor, New Mexico. We had Condoleezza Rice, African-American, former secretary of state. Both of those people imminently qualified, terrifically achieved. They have reached the pinnacles of their profession.

We had Marco Rubio. We had a parade of minorities who have become successful Americans. And they all had a common story: up from nothing, hard work, their parents sacrificed for them. Now, why didn’t that work, folks? The answer to that is our future. Why didn’t it work? Some people say, « Well, Rush, we pandered. » No, we didn’t pander. Everybody says that we need to reach out to minorities. We have plenty of highly achieved minorities in our party, and they are in prominent positions, and they all have a common story. They all came from nothing. Their parents came from nothing. They worked hard. They told those stories with great pride. Those stories evoked tears. It didn’t work. And don’t tell me that people didn’t watch the convention or people didn’t see it. I mean, there’s a reason it doesn’t work.

I went to bed last night thinking we’re outnumbered. I went to bed last night thinking all this discussion we’d had about this election being the election that will tell us whether or not we’ve lost the country. I went to bed last night thinking we’ve lost the country. I don’t know how else you look at this. The first wave of exit polls came in at 5 p.m. I looked at it, I read the first two pages, and I said to myself, « This is utter BS. » And I forwarded the exit poll data that I had to three or four people, and my message to each of them, « This is utter BS, and if it isn’t, then we’ve lost the country. » Let me take you through some of it.

Based on early exit polls, Obama is locked in a tight race with Governor Romney. Nationally we believe the race to be as tight as it could be, and to the extent that Obama is running strong and can win, it is because they see him as someone who cares about people like them. They feel he did a very good job in the response to Hurricane Sandy. When I saw that, I thought this thing is starting to read like a Democrat campaign speech, this exit poll data. Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath and the way Obama handled that, what did Obama do? He showed up one day, he bear hugged Chris Christie, and then he left. The situation on the ground is devastating, and yet Obama triumphs in the exit polls with that.

He successfully painted Romney’s policies as caring primarily about the rich. He successfully convinced roughly half the country that his policies will favor the middle class. Now, measure that against reality. The reality is that the economy of this country is crumbling. The unemployment situation is worsening. The debt situation is worsening. Everything for the very people who think Obama’s gonna help them is getting worse, and yet they told the exit poll people that they thought Obama’s the best guy to handle

Obamacare.

A majority of people like Obamacare in the exit poll. That goes against everything we’ve ever heard in any poll. Voters trust him more than Romney in an international crisis. What? How in the world can that be? In a rational, intelligent world, how can that be? « He’s running very strong with African-Americans, Latinos, and women. If he wins, this data will be consistent with stories about the changing nature of US demographics. »

And I saw this next one. This is the one that made me think this exit poll was BS. I just, intellectually, had trouble with this one. « More than half the people who voted yesterday said that they still blame Bush for the economy. » More than half the people who…? After four years! Well, now, what is the answer to this? How in the world do you deal with this? There are ways, and we didn’t do them. There were too many assumptions made about what the American people thought, about what they knew.

Too many assumptions were made. But look, I don’t want to nitpick the campaign today. That’s not the point. There are larger things here at work. « Roughly half voters want the health care law as it is or expanded, and they are voting for Obama. » Really? I haven’t seen a poll like that anywhere. Every poll — every poll! — I have seen on Obamacare features a majority and close to 60% who don’t like it, but this is an exit poll of people who voted.

« People who say they are looking for a strong leader and someone who has more of a vision for the future support Romney. Romney even wins among voters voting for ‘a candidate who shares my values.’ Voters believe the economy’s weak and Romney will be better able to manage the economy. » Now, this is for people the exit pollers say, this is the reason if Romney wins. This is why. Well, obviously, those people were vastly outnumbered, which is where we are today.

We’re outnumbered.

One of the greatest misunderstandings in this country, if you boil all this down, is what creates prosperity. The Romney campaign was essentially about that, and the Romney campaign was devoted to the traditional American view and history — vision, as well — of what creates prosperity. The old capitalism, the old arguments of hard work, stick-to-itiveness, self-reliance, charity, helping out in the community.

All of these things that define the traditional institutions that made this country great, that’s what the Romney campaign was about. It was rejected. That way, or that route to prosperity was sneered at. That route to prosperity was rejected. The people who voted for Obama don’t believe in it. They don’t think it’s possible. They think the game’s rigged. They think the deck is stacked against them.

They think that the only way they’re gonna have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them. Santa Claus! And it’s hard to beat Santa Claus. Especially it’s hard to beat Santa Claus when the alternative is, « You be your own Santa Claus. » « Oh, no! I’m not doing that. What do you mean, I have to be my own Santa Claus? No, no. No, no, no. I want to get up every day and go to the tree. You’re the elves, » meaning us.

You throw Hurricane Sandy in here. I must admit, I am genuinely puzzled that Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath helped Obama and hurt Romney. But it did. According to the exit polls. I mean, what they say is what they say. The polls were right on the money, as it turned out. But until people understand why and how big government reduces prosperity for all, they’re gonna continue to be fooled by little things.

By marketing, by smooth talkers, by faux compassion. So we’ll see what happens with the economy as we go forward. Some people think, « Hey, Rush, the economy is resilient in this country, and it’s gonna naturally rebound. No matter what. » There are people today scared the economy is going to rebound despite what’s happening in the stock market today and Obama’s policies are gonna get credit for it.

A bunch of libs are salivating over that. They think the economy is gonna come back no matter what, and that Obama’s big government is going to end up being the explanation for the rest of our lives as to how that happened. Just like in Japan, just like in Greece. But look, you bring up Greece and you bring up Europe, and they’re where we’re headed. Their problems are acute.

The difference is that none of those European countries are anywhere near the leading economy of the world like we are. The world depends on what happens here. The world does not depend on what happens in Spain or Greece or Italy. Not to put them down. But regardless, wherever you go… Look at Greece. Whenever necessary austerity measures are proposed, what happens?

« No, you don’t! You’re not taking it away from me! » There is no rising to responsibility. There is no accepting responsibility. There’s just a demand that the gravy train continue, and we have an administration that’s promising an endless gravy train. All you have to do to stay on that gravy train is vote. But it doesn’t matter.

The thing that’s mind-boggling is that there is no new prosperity in America. There is no improved standard of living. It’s all going down. « But Obama cares. He really cares! He cares much more than Romney. He really, really cares. In fact, he cares so much, we’re gonna give him a do-over. We’re gonna give him a second term to do what we know he wanted to do in the first term but wasn’t able to for whatever reason. »

Voir également:

Three Ways of Explaining Defeat

Victor Davis Hanson

The National Review online

November 7, 2012

Conservatives are divided, acrimoniously so, over three schools of explaining The Defeat.

1. The Near Fatalists. Some are terrified that we are witnessing the final establishment of the long-feared dependency majority, where half the country is not paying federal income taxes and are on the receiving end of government largess and expect “them” to pay their fair share to pay for it;

2. The Should’ve, Could’ve, Would’ve What If-ers. The disappointed tacticians believe that should/would/could Romney have run differently (e.g., hit harder on Benghazi, mixed it up in the second and third debates, organized a Contract with America as a broad-based conservative crusade, etc.) he could have gotten the necessary 1 to 2 million extra votes in the swing states. Similarly, had the storm not arisen, or had Christie just been civil rather than going gaga over Obama/Springsteen, Romney’s momentum would not have been lost the last week;

3. The Big Tenters. The strategic centrists will now call for compromising on social issues, abortion, illegal immigration, fiscal policies, etc., to widen the tent in order to bring in young women, blacks, Latinos, gays, etc. and build “a new conservative majority.”

Not all these three positions, of course, are mutually exclusive. But I am not convinced by explanation (2): Romney was a good, and good enough, candidate to win. None of the other primary candidates would have done as well, and would have been far more easily Axelrodded. An especially well-informed Romney did well in the debates and spoke better each week. He raised lots of money, and he seemed presidential in comparison with a shrinking, Big Bird Obama. Similarly, while there were lots of Benghazi, Hurricane Sandy, and Chris Christie what-if moments that might have been better massaged, so were there for Obama as well: He blew the first debate; he needlessly lost his cool with stupid comments like bulls**tter, “revenge,” “you didn’t build that business,” etc. Biden was an unhinged disaster on the campaign trail. All these foul-ups would have been cited as what-ifs had Obama gotten 2 million votes less in key places and lost.

The problem with diagnosis (3) is that there were plenty of good minority kingpins in the party –Condoleezza Rice, Marco Rubio, and an entire new generation of Hispanic and Asian governors and senators. Allen West lost despite being black and because he was conservative. An independent, successful Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin is hated more than stay-at-home liberal housewives. Race matters, but not without ideology. For now, voting conservative is considered “acting white” or “docile,” and minorities and young women will only be considered legitimate when they vote for big government, which for many brings logical dividends.

Moreover, if Republicans would deal on illegal immigration, and propose paths to citizenship for the law-abiding who were brought here as children, the Latino leadership would still not, in turn, allow deportation for the felons and those not working and entirely on public assistance, or agree to close the border with finishing the fence, fining employers, and cross-checking federal documents. And why should they? A forever-blue California is their model, and many activists think it soon can be replicated in the American Southwest with sufficient cycles of open borders and cyclical euphemistic amnesties. As far as young unattached women, or the youth vote in general, the argument was made to them on economic terms (e.g., you are unemployed or underemployed and crushed by student loans in an ossified economy), and it went largely nowhere. Moreover, what does one do with a lily-white and well-off place like Washington, or the Connecticut suburbs, or the California coast, where blue counties of upscale yuppie married couples went overwhelmingly for Obama?

Instead, I fear exegesis (1) is, with each year, more telling. We have never quite had the present perfect storm of nearly half not paying federal income taxes, nearly 50 million on food stamps, and almost half the population on some sort of federal largess — and a sophistic elite that promotes it and at the same time finds ways to be exempt from its social and cultural consequences. For an Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, or Feinstein, the psychological cost for living like 18th-century French royalty is the promotion of the welfare state for millions of others who for now will be kept far away, in places like Bakersfield or Mendota.

The solution, I fear, may be near-insolvency along the Wisconsin model, and self-correction after some dark Greek-like years, or, in contrast, in extremis blue politicians having to deal with the consequences of their own policies. In the manner that an Obama can vastly expand drones and renditions without a whimper of liberal angst, so too someone like him will have to deal with bounced Medicare reimbursements or free cell phones that can’t be replaced when they break, or long lines in federal health clinics emptied of doctors who have gone elsewhere. The laws of physics ultimately prevail.

In Michigan in September I had a talk with a retired auto worker who did not care that the bailout cost $25 billion, was not sustainable, shorted the legal first-in-line creditors, shorted politically incorrect managerial pensioners, or ensured the Volt debacle. He simply said to me, “Obama saved my son’s job and I don’t care about much else.” That’s the rub in the short term that seems to the norm in at least the past and future few years. It means that the Republicans, without a once-in-a-lifetime Reagan-like perfect candidate — or some sort of national crisis in the manner that Iran once derailed Jimmy Carter, or Ross Perot once caused incumbent George H. W. Bush to implode — can’t quite get that extra 2 to 3 percentage points they need on the national scene to succeed.

Voir encore:

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign

Story Highlights

Sen. Barack Obama used the rule book to win first race for Illinois state Senate

Democrat challenged opponents’ petitions and forced them off the ballot

Opponent says Obama’s move « wasn’t honorable »

Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston

CNN

30.05.08

(CNN) — When the Democratic National Committee meets Saturday on the thorny issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations at its August convention, party officials will have to fashion a solution that satisfies supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton and presidential nominee front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.

It may take a Solomon-like decision to appease both candidates.

Clinton has argued that the primary results of two of the nation’s largest states should count because, otherwise, millions of voters are being disenfranchised. Obama has said he is willing to work out some compromise.

But he is insistent that the primary results are invalid because the two states failed to follow party rules and that the rules are the rules.

The DNC has not seated the Florida and Michigan delegates because the two states violated party edicts in holding their primaries early.

Although neither candidate campaigned in the two states, Clinton won about 50 percent of the Florida vote, compared with 33 percent for Obama. She won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan, where Obama’s name was not on the ballot.

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

« That was Chicago politics, » said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. « Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice. » Watch how Obama shut out challengers in his first race »

Obama’s challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago’s Better Government Association. Although records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.

« He came from Chicago politics, » Stewart said. « Politics ain’t beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you’re pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that’s what was necessary at the time, that’s what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not. »

The Obama campaign called this report « a hit job. » It insisted that CNN talk to a state representative who supports Obama, because, according to an Obama spokesman, she would be objective. But when we called her, she said she can’t recall details of petition challenges, who engineered them for the Obama campaign or why all the candidates were challenged.

But Will Burns does. Now running himself for a seat in the Illinois legislature, Burns was a young Obama volunteer during the presidential candidate’s first race.

Burns was one of the contingents of volunteers and lawyers who had the tedious task of going over each and every petition submitted by the other candidates, including those of Alice Palmer.

« The rules are there for a reason, » Burns said.

He said that challenging petitions is a smart way to avoid having to run a full-blown expensive race.

« One of the first things you do whenever you’re in the middle of a primary race, especially in primaries in Chicago, because if you don’t have signatures to get on the ballot, you save yourself a lot of time and effort from having to raise money and have a full-blown campaign effort against an incumbent, » Burns said.

Burns said he believed that Obama did not enjoy using the tactic to knock off Palmer.

« It was not something he particularly relished, » Burns said. « It was not something that I thought he was happy about doing. » Watch Burns describe how Obama used the rules to his advantage »

But Obama did it anyway, clearing the field of any real competition.

Obama’s staff would not comment on what the senator thinks about that petition challenge now. Instead, they referred CNN to this 2007 comment made by Obama to the Chicago Tribune.

« To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up, » the senator is quoted as saying in the Tribune. « My conclusion was that if you couldn’t run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be. »

But in that same newspaper story, Obama praised Palmer.

« I thought she was a good public servant, » he said.

Palmer, who has campaigned for Clinton, told CNN that she did not want to be part of this story.

Obama supporters claim that Palmer has only herself to blame because she indicated she would not run for the 1996 state Senate and instead aimed for Congress. After losing in that bid, she returned to running for the state Senate seat, a move Obama supporters claim amounted to reneging on a promise not to run.

But Palmer supporters, who did not want to be identified, said that she never anointed Obama as her successor and that the retelling of the story by Obama supporters is designed to distract from the fact he muscled his way into office.

One other opponent who Obama eliminated by challenging his petitions, Gha-is Askia, said he has no hard feelings today about the challenge and supports Obama’s presidential aspirations.

But back at the time he was running for state Senate, Askia said, he was dismayed Obama would use such tactics.

« It wasn’t honorable, » he said. « I wouldn’t have done it. »

He said the Obama team challenged every single one of his petitions on « technicalities. »

If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn’t properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out.

Askia came up 69 signatures short of the required number to be on the ballot.

Kass, the Chicago Tribune columnist, said the national media are naive when it comes to Chicago politics, which is a serious business.

He said they have bought into a narrative that Obama is strictly a reformer. The truth, Kass says, is that he is a bare-knuckled politician. And using the rules to win his first office is part of who Obama is.

« It’s not the tactics of ‘let’s all people come together and put your best ideas forward and the best ideas win,’  » Kass said. « That’s the spin; that’s in the Kool-Aid. You can have some. Any flavor. But the real deal was, get rid of Alice Palmer.

« There are those who think that registering people to vote and getting them involved in politics and then using this tactic in terms of denying Alice Palmer the right to compete, that these things are inconsistent. And guess what? They are. They are inconsistent. But that’s the politics he plays. »

And this weekend, DNC delegates will have to decide what kind of rules it will invoke in helping choose its next candidate.

 Voir enfin:

Ryan quits race

State GOP scrambles to find replacement to face Obama

Republican Senate nominee cites fixation on divorce files

Liam Ford and Rudolph Bush, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporters Christi Parsons, Ray Long, John Chase, David Mendell and Rick Pearson contributed to this report

June 26, 2004

Beleaguered Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Jack Ryan ended his campaign Friday, leaving his party scrambling to find a replacement with enough money and magnetism to mount a serious challenge against Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Ryan had been under attack by a wide range of party leaders for a lack of candor following the release this week of previously sealed records from his divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan, giving rise to what one prominent Republican called « buyer’s remorse. »

Jack Ryan had fought the release, insisting he was trying only to protect his son and not to hide embarrassing information. But the files showed Jeri Ryan had accused her ex-husband of taking her to sex clubs and trying to pressure her into having sex in front of others.

Ryan met with staff Friday morning to inform them of his decision to quit the race. Later, he issued a statement explaining he was stepping down because a fixation on the divorce charges meant that a « debate between competing visions and philosophies » could not take place in the Senate race.

« What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign–the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play, » Ryan said.

Republican pressure on Ryan to step aside began Monday with the release of the files, including one document in which Ryan vigorously denied the allegations of his ex-wife.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider released the information as the result of motions filed by the Chicago Tribune and WLS-Ch. 7.

Calls for Ryan’s withdrawal intensified throughout the week as party officials–saying Ryan misled them about the extent of his ex-wife’s allegations–warned of the damage he could do to an already struggling party’s chances in November.

On Thursday, U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Plano and state GOP chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka called U.S. Sen. George Allen, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They asked him to pull the plug on Ryan’s campaign, according to a GOP source who spoke frequently with top Ryan campaign staffers.

Ryan held out until Friday, as U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, whom Ryan was seeking to replace, and some other GOP senators urged him to fight on. Even before the release of the court files, Ryan had trailed Obama by a wide margin in public opinion polls, and his decision to quit came after his campaign commissioned yet another poll to gauge public response to the growing divorce file controversy, the Republican source said.

The results arrived Friday morning and convinced Ryan that he had been too damaged by the revelations to recover, the source said.

On Friday, Topinka said Ryan’s « decision was a personal one. » She denied that the state Republican Party pressured Ryan to drop out, saying state leaders recently backed off to ensure Ryan felt it was his decision alone.

« He had a lot of great ideas, but they probably would have been overshadowed by this controversy, » Topinka said. « We appreciate what he did for the greater good of the party. »

Meanwhile, Obama, a Democratic state senator, praised the work Ryan has « done as a teacher and as a civic leader throughout the state. »

« What happened to him over the last three days was unfortunate, » Obama said. « It’s not something I certainly would wish on anybody. And having said that, from this point forward, I think we will be continuing to talk about the issues. »

Republicans will move quickly to replace Ryan, Topinka promised. The party’s 19 central committee members should « reach out » to constituents and try to have a replacement candidate within three weeks, she said.

But with its top ranks decimated by scandal and widespread electoral losses in 2002 that handed almost total control of state government to Democrats, the party may have difficulty finding a high-profile candidate with as deep pockets as had Ryan, whose personal fortune is estimated at up to $95 million.

Two former governors mentioned as possible candidates, James R. Thompson and Jim Edgar, have both indicated they will not run, said Topinka, who also ruled out her own candidacy. A leading contender who has not said no is Ron Gidwitz, 59, a wealthy businessman and the former chairman of the state Board of Education, according to several Republican sources.

On Friday, U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo also was making an open pitch for state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin), one of several candidates who lost to Ryan in the primary.

« Steve entered the primary against three millionaires, and two more weeks [of campaigning] and he would have won it, » Manzullo said.

U.S. Rep. John Shimkus said Ryan’s departure has led to « a sense of relief and a little bit of excitement, » at moving past the scandal.

State Sen. Kirk Dillard, chairman of the DuPage County Republican Party, said calls to his party headquarters were almost unanimously against Ryan staying in the race.

« It wasn’t really over the substance of what he did or did not do with his wife, » Dillard said. « It was, they thought that he deliberately withheld information before the March primary and we had a lot of buyer’s remorse. »

Ryan’s demise came after years of groundwork carefully laid by the Wilmette native, who several years ago began attending Republican party Lincoln Day dinners throughout the state to gauge reaction to his entering the political arena.

Ryan entered the race more than a year ago, weeks after Fitzgerald said he would not seek re-election. A former investment banker who took a job as a teacher at Hales Franciscan High School on the South Side, Ryan had also been courted by the national GOP as a possible opponent for U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin in 2002. Ryan opted not to make that run.

The divorce file issue first surfaced for Ryan during the March primary campaign as an outgrowth of a flap that sank the once front-running campaign in the Democratic Senate primary of millionaire Blair Hull. Under pressure, Hull released sealed divorce files which showed one of his ex-wives had accused him of abusive behavior.

Unlike Hull, Ryan refused to release his files, assuring state party officials that there was nothing embarrassing in them and to do so would only hurt his 9-year-old son.

As he exited the race Friday, Ryan singled out the Tribune for criticism because it went to court to force release of the custody files.

« The media has gotten out of control, » Ryan complained. « The fact that the Chicago Tribune sues for access to sealed custody documents and then takes unto itself the right to publish details of a custody dispute over the objections of two parents who agree that the re-airing of their arguments will hurt their ability to co-parent their child and will hurt their child is truly outrageous. »

Conservative backers, including Fitzgerald, were dismayed by Ryan’s announcement. Fitzgerald lashed out at the state Republican leadership for abandoning Ryan. « The piranhas were circling, » he said. « It was not the Democrats; it was the Illinois party brass. »

But the state’s Republican national committeeman, Robert Kjellander, said Ryan’s departure frees the party to try to focus on election issues–and Obama’s record.

« Yes, it’s certainly a setback, » Kjellander said. « But it’s not one that’s fatal and both the Senate campaign committee and the president’s campaign see Illinois as an opportunity and we’re going to move ahead. »