By John F. Di Leo

What can today's patriots learn from Cato the Elder?

The year is 150 B.C.  Cato the Elder has been a Roman senator for some forty years.  He’s a good senator, and a heck of an orator.  Old he may be, but he can’t retire; he has a mission:  He must convince Rome to go to war with Carthage.  Again.

There have already been two Punic Wars, and they have been taxing for the Senate and People of Rome.  There are many reasons to go to war again, some very good, some bad.  Carthage remains a rival on the seas, a rival in trade… and Carthage still engages in the horrible practice of feeding children to a furnace, as food for their satanic “god.”  All this must stop.  But the people don’t want war; only Cato does.

So Cato has made it his mission in life.  Every speech he gives – on agriculture, on the budget, on taxes, on spending, on requisitions for the troops, on cobblestones for the roads, no matter the topic – he always ends the exact same way, with conviction: “…and furthermore… Carthage must be destroyed!”

It took years.  Years and years and years.  But eventually, Cato won.  He had to gather up all the good reasons, and all the bad reasons, and slowly win over the Senate and People of Rome to the idea of a Third Punic War.  He was dead by the time it finally took place, but at least he went to his deathbed secure in the knowledge that his life’s work was a success.  Rome would soon defeat Carthage, would win her productive lands and trade routes, and would burn the city to the ground, to ensure that its ghastly death cult – the worship of “Baal of the Furnace” – would never rise up to consume human sacrifices again.

We have such an issue in Illinois, and perhaps our battle to defeat it would benefit from a study of our Roman stateman.

Illinois’ Most Famous Crop

Illinois is a great agricultural state.  We produce corn, some wheat, oodles of soybeans... outside Cook County it’s farmland from border to border.  But our most famous crop doesn’t get popped and munched at the cinema, or ground into flour, or pressed into oil.  Our most famous crop is generated at polling places all over the state, on the first Tuesday in November, in every even year.

The Democratic Party creates votes.  No, there’s no fear of accusations of slander or libel here; it’s a well-known fact.  Everybody knows it; they’ve known it for a century or more.  The most common jokes in Illinois (besides our governors, that is) concern the stealing of elections. 

• Every Election Day, we greet our neighbors with the words “Vote Early and Often!”
• When a friend announces the birth of his newborn baby boy, the response is “Is he registered to vote yet?  Twice?”
• If Mayor Daley and three aides were stuck in a crashing plane with only one parachute and they had to vote on who gets to use it and survive, the mayor would win… twelve to six.

But it’s no laughing matter.  Vote fraud is deadly serious.  Every illegal ballot cancels out the ballot of some honest voter; a thousand cancel out a small town, ten thousand cancel out a city.  There is no way to know how much it occurs, but we do know it’s huge.  All told, hundreds of thousands of ballots are likely stolen in Illinois, using the many different methods familiar only to the practitioners.

• There are the multiple registrations – you’ve moved three times without cancelling your old registrations, and you vote two of them by absentee ballot – or unknown to you, your old registrations get voted by the old precinct captains.
• There are the faked registrations – the made-up names registered by ACORN, or the tombstone names added to the rolls by the precinct captains – so that the party can file absentee ballots on their behalf.
• There are the poor addled thousands in the nursing homes; robbed of their minds by senility or painkillers, their nursing home staffs cast their ballots “on their behalf” – whether they know it or not.
• There are the illegal aliens, and legal aliens too, who nevertheless have no right to vote, but they do anyway, casting ballots as if they were citizens.  No one dares question them at the polling place; the fear of a discrimination lawsuit, or even just the fear of being called “prejudiced,” is overwhelming.
• Even the felons get into the act.  Banned from voting by so many states, convicted felons are actually recruited in Illinois – as enforcers, as registrars, as voters.  They may not be the best-educated voters, but not to worry; there’s always somebody to show them how to vote, and for whom.  And how often.

This is of course just the tip of the iceberg; there are as many forms of vote fraud in this country as there are occupations.  And for your garden-variety Chicago pol, vote fraud all-too-often is an occupation.

Famously, the faked votes of Chicago won Illinois – and therefore the election – for John F. Kennedy in 1960. So everyone knows about it.  But what’s worse is the residual effects of this widespread fraud.  There are whole towns, even whole congressional districts, in which no Republican bothers to run, as a result.  The race would be stolen so completely, what would be the point?  So, neighborhoods, towns, even counties are full of Americans who don’t know what it’s like to have conservatives to choose from on Election Day.  These voters have never even heard a conservative position argued.

This unchallenged domination of a community makes both parties worse.  The GOP abandons these districts (no Republican ran for mayor this year, for example, in the first open Chicago mayoral race in twenty years)… and the Democrats neglect the districts as well; if you don’t have to do any work to get the votes, why work at all?

The Democrats love their system; they’re proud of it.  With their patronage army, their computer skills, their city services to divvy up and distribute like a privilege, they’re a force to be reckoned with. 

No Republican presidential candidate has made a serious play for Illinois in twenty years, though Ronald Reagan won it comfortably in 1984.  Like California, Illinois is assumed to be impenetrable, so when Republicans do win the White House, and do so without California or Illinois, why should they bother to consider the issues and legitimate desires of these states in their policies?   Without any hope of being considered in a state or locale, the savvy politician disregards it, and moves on to the desires of the next state over: the competitive one.

Tilting at Windmills

Paddy Bauler, the old Depression-era Chicago alderman, is known for only one thing: that once upon a time, he wisecracked “Chicago ain’t ready for reform.”

It’s still true, 70 years later, but so what?  Must we wait until the city is willing to face the 21st century, or can’t we strike a blow for freedom before Hell freezes over, for once?

The problem is that Illinois, and particularly Chicago, is stuck in a vicious circle:  crooked politicians won’t reform the election system, and without a reformed election system, you can’t replace the crooked politicians.  We’ve been caught in this loop forever.

But there are ways to move mountains.  Chicago reversed the course of a river, reclaimed miles of swamp to expand eastward, became the transportation hub of the nation.  Nothing is truly impossible, if you have the will, and if right is on your side.  It just might take awhile, that’s all.

The public doesn’t know how much fraud there is, so educate them.  They don’t know how many votes are stolen, so educate them.  They don’t realize that vote fraud robs the black and Hispanic districts of their rightful representation just as much as it robs the Republicans… and on that note… consider how much the blacks and Hispanics who also happen to be Republican are robbed!  Why, they’re left with nothing at all!

Anyone would say that to stand up to the problem of vote fraud in Illinois would be tilting at windmills, to recollect Cervantes’ famous image of an addled hero’s pointless effort.

But the comparison is flawed.  Don Quixote had no real enemy; his quest was imagined, so the windmills he fought were of no consequence.  Not so in Illinois, where vote fraud steals – from millions of people every cycle – the very right to share in the honest selection of our government.   Vote fraud is a worthy foe indeed.

The theft of our very republic – by precinct captains and ward committeemen, by judges and legislators – can be stopped… and therefore must be stopped.  It may not happen in a day, but it must happen someday, even if that means wearing down the opposition one by one, day by day, hour by hour.

Joining the Wave

A wave of republican principles is sweeping across the nation.  From the tea party rallies of the past two years to the stirring electoral upsets of November 2010, the nation is awakening at long last.  After a century-long slow descent into socialism, the American people are invigorated.  They’re studying the Founders, and especially the Framers.  They are learning the founding principles of our nation and realizing how much we have lost, how far we have fallen.  And they are demanding a return to those very principles.

Illinois may well be behind the times – we failed to join our neighbors in flipping the governor’s mansion or the legislatures this time.  But it can be done someday, if we eliminate the vote fraud.  That’s the critical first step.  Outside Cook County, we can be competitive already.  We may need 53 or 55 percent to win, instead of the traditional 50% plus one, but we can do it; it’s within reach.   The problem is Cook County itself; that’s where the ability to steal is nearly unlimited.  We have no prayer at an honest chance in Cook until the fraud is at least mostly contained.

And this is where the tides of time are on our side.  Wisconsin passed a Real ID requirement for voting four times in eight years, only to see it vetoed each time by its  corrupt ex-governor, Jim Doyle.  Now that he’s gone, though, it passed at last, and was signed by their new governor, the great Scott Walker.

Indiana had already enacted its Voter ID law, and had already done the heavy lifting of getting the Supreme Court’s blessing, removing one of the left’s principle excuses for opposing it: the ridiculous claim that it would be unconstitutional.  Rick Perry signed it in Texas; Nikki Haley signed it in South Carolina.  Arizona and Georgia have joined the bandwagon; Kansas has arguably accomplished the most in this cause, with the most wide-ranging protections for the honest voter.

There has been vote fraud in every state – certainly hundreds per election in some, thousands in others, tens of thousands in others.  But Illinois is likely the home of the most widespread fraud, using the most different methods from precinct to precinct, from criminal to criminal.  Illinois, one could easily argue, needs this reform the most.

Illinois has a hostile governor, hostile legislative leadership, an incredibly hostile judiciary.  Far too many of the incumbents in these offices owe their careers, their current offices, and their political futures, to vote fraud and, where it still exists, to the Chicago Machine, a complex mechanism powered by the steam engine of systematic vote fraud for as long as the city has been on the map.

But Illinois also has good politicians – conservatives in the state assembly and senate – who do the best with what little power minority status grants them.  They do rise to speak in the assembly and senate.  They do host town halls, visit civic groups, grant interviews to local papers, radio and television stations.  Our Republican politicians have the same dream that others do: remaining in office to represent their constituents, competing for higher office, making a name for themselves.

Like ancient Rome, we have plenty of issues to debate in Illinois. Agriculture, spending, taxes, the budget.  We have a pension system in crisis, a manufacturing environment that bleeds jobs like a gusher, an overwhelmed criminal justice system that leaves whole cities as war zones.  All these are important, but none will truly be solved until the right people are elected.  So breaking the stranglehold of the Democrat party’s vote fraud machine is the solution not just to some questions, but quite literally, to all of them.

When will Illinois politicians grab the ballot by the horns and make this his life’s work?  When will some Illinois representative, senator, or treasurer speak to the multi-level wickedness of vote fraud in his speeches, not just once but again and again and again, until it sinks in at last?

As in the experience of Cato the Elder, it may take awhile.  Ending every speech – every speech, press release, and op/ed – with “And furthermore, vote fraud must stop!” may not be exciting; it may even get tedious… but it is imperative to hammer this critical point home.

First we must remind the public that it is there, then inform them of the damage it does, as widespread as it is.   We have seen Silver Shovel, Operation Greylord, and so many other probes result in the conviction and imprisonment of Illinois’ officials.  How many of these crooks would ever have held office in the first place, were it not for the enabling nature of the fraud machine?  If we educate the public, remind the public, and perhaps shame just enough of the Democrats in office to cobble together a majority on the issue, it can be done!

It is time to join the 21st century.  To join the wave of honesty and patriotic fervor now sweeping our country. 

We must join the rest of our nation and cut taxes, cut spending, cut the red tape, cut the size of our overgrown bureaucracy.

And furthermore, vote fraud must stop!

Copyright 2011 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade lecturer.  A longtime precinct captain in Maine, Ela, and Palatine townships, he served as County Chairman of the Milwaukee County GOP in the mid-90s.  His semi-fictional series on vote fraud, “The Tales of Little Pavel,” has appeared in Illinois Review over the past year, in an effort to raise awareness about how widespread and varied vote fraud is in America.  Regarding the rumor that he sleeps with a copy of John Fund’s “Stealing Elections” under his pillow every night, he will say only “not every night…”

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided the byline and the IR URL are included.  Follow me on LinkedIn and Facebook!

( Tribune photo by Abel Uribe / February 22, 2011 ) Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel acknowledges the crowd during his victory rally at a Near West Side plumbers union hall Tuesday.

Following Rahm Emanuel’s election as Chicago mayor, the city has found a new definition of “them versus us.”

Used to be that “them” and “us” were racial and ethnic differences, particularly white versus black. But a look at the election results reveals new sides. On one are white liberals in the lakefront wards and African Americans on the West and South sides. On the other are the wards representing much of the old-time Chicago politics, mostly on the Southwest Side.

African American voters especially seemed to reject the threadbare race-based politics by dumping the “consensus” black candidate chosen for them by the likes of Jesse Jackson, whose head still is in the old time politics of the ‘60s. Good riddance to them.

I suppose we'll have to wait for polling to find out why, but I'll hazard a guess. As the old divisions have faded, new divisions are being created along lines of substantive issues. As the Harold Washington racially based foolishness has abated, Chicagoans are more interested in fixing things--not in the old sense (as in the "fix is in') but in the sense of finally digging into the massive problems bedeviling the city.

So, if the old-style parochial blinders have been set aside, what explains Emanuel's victory? Some guesses:

His style. Some credit Emanuel's display of control and calmness during his grueling questioning at an elections board hearing as the turning point in his campaign. All doubts raised about his legendary temper were cast aside; Emanuel demonstrated that he can govern. But I demure. From the beginning, the people who wanted to change how the city does business understood that they needed someone tough enough to stand up to the usual interests. They weren't fooled by Emanuel's display of equanimity. Under it, they knew boiled the blood of a determined--dare I say? --reformer.

The issues. While all the candidates discussed issues, Emanuel went in the direction that his constituency may have wanted. Challenge the public employee unions, most of all. But, quite frankly, clean up the mess that departing Mayor Richard M. Daley and his rubber stamp City Council have created. The reality of Emanuel's direction was confirmed for those who weren't convinced when some of the toughest public employee unions started saying nasty stuff against the him.

Those unions knew what they were facing. If Emanuel's promises of reform are to be taken seriously and not as empty clichés, everyone in city government will indeed "share" in the pain necessary to right city government.

Particularly encouraging is his promise to conduct a forensic audit of all city departments. By definition, it's an investigation into corruption and criminality--something that shouldn't be so hard to discover. I'd be more impressed with a functional audit that goes beyond corruption and into why we even have this or that department. What are its goals? How effective is it? Are the resources sufficient or is the department bloated with retainers and political appointees?

Viewed nationally, Emanuel's victory may represent, as Carmeron Joseph said in the National Journal, "...underscores the changing politics and demographics of a city famous for its racial and ethnic divisions." As the New York Times called it, "Chicago, City in Transition, Picks a Big Personality."

Chicago abandoning racial politics? Perhaps, and, if true, that change was coming for a long time. More earth shattering though, is the possibility that Chicagoans themselves yearn for a real change, not just in politics, but also in government. Though politics and government are linked, they are really two different things, you know. 

Got to hand it to him, for being the first to get out a video of him pushing a car out of the snow. Of course, he's not the first to do it. Newark Mayor Cory Booker did the same thing about a month ago. Political stunts? I suppose so, but kudos for getting out in the mess.

I think I want to vote in Chicago's mayor election, even though I live in the suburbs.

Why not? Now that the Illinois Supreme Court has determined to intending to live in the city can help you get on the ballot, why isn't it good enough for me to become a Chicago voter?

See, I was born and raised in Chicago. Went to school there. Worked downtown for decades. Maybe someday I'll move back. Buy one of those condos that are going abegging. At least that's my intent. Sort of. 

Credit for this idea goes to Paul Sassone, a columnist with the suburban chain of Pioneer Press newspapers, a member of Sun-Times Media. He reasons that what Chicago does has a lot of impact on the suburbs. (I'd note that destroying the peace and tranquility of the suburbs or wiping them out entirely by expanding O'Hare Airport is one of those impacts.) Besides, he has to put up with their incessant TV ads.

This is bound to anger the Chicagoans who insist that I have no business writing about Chicago stuff for the Chicago Tribune. Good.

  But the matter -- probably quickly -- is now headed to the Illinois Supreme Court. There, perhaps the swing vote may be held by Justice Anne Burke, wife of Chicago Alderman Ed Burke (14th), who has endorsed another candidate: Gery Chico.

That would suggest a political decision (what!? You mean that the Illinois Supreme Court would do such a thing?)

But here's something from the Appellate Court decision that strongly suggests that the high court already has established a precedent that it might be tough to overthrow:

In its decision, to determine whether the candidate met the

Municipal Code's requirement that he have "resided in" the

municipality for one year, the Board applied the test for residency

that has been used for voter qualification under the Election Code.

This approach is supported by several appellate court decisions

that, without discussion, equate residency requirements imposed on

voters with requirements that a candidate "resided in" his or her

political unit. See e.g., People ex rel. Madigan v. Baumgartner,

355 Ill. App. 3d 842, 847-48, 823 N.E.2d 1144 (2005) (stating only

that it would treat the terms as synonymous "because eligibility to

run for office is closely linked to the ability to vote within a

particular jurisdiction"); Walsh v. County Officers Electoral Board

of Cook County, 267 Ill. App. 3d 972, 976, 642 N.E.2d 843 (1994)

(assuming implicitly that the terms were synonymous); Delk v. Board

of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 112 Ill. App. 3d

735, 738, 445 N.E.2d 1232 (1983).

Neither the Board nor the parties have, however, referred us

to any supreme court opinion ratifying, adopting, or directly

addressing this approach. The only cited supreme court case to

No. 1-11-0033

7

approach the issue is Smith v. People ex rel. Frisbie, 44 Ill. 16

(1867), a quo warranto action decided under the presumption that

the candidate had a right to the office to which he had been

appointed and in which the court required the objectors to

establish the candidate's disqualification by "clear and

satisfactory" proof. See Smith, 44 Ill. at 24-25. We know of no

similar presumption applicable to this case, and the objectors here

bore the less stringent burden to prove the candidate's

disqualification by a preponderance of the evidence. See Board of

Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Rules of Procedure

10 ("[T]he objector must bear the burden of proving by operation of

law and by a preponderance of the *** evidence *** that the

objections are true.").

In addition, although the supreme court's discussion in Smith

was based nominally on principles of "residence," it appears from

its analysis that it actually applied concepts of domicile.

Despite the facts that the officeholder had left Illinois with his

family and had rented out his Illinois home, the supreme court

concluded, based solely on the officeholder's intent to return,

that he retained his "residence" in Illinois. See Smith, 44 Ill.

at 24-25. This intent-based analysis is the defining

characteristic of the principle of domicile, a legal status that,

once acquired, can be "retained, animo solo, by the mere intention

not to change it and adopt another." Hayes v. Hayes, 74 Ill. 2d

312, 314 (1874). Since Smith was decided, however, our supreme

No. 1-11-0033

8

court has explained unequivocally that "it is elemental that

domicile and residence are not synonymous." Pope v. Board of

Election Commissioners, 370 Ill. 196, 202, 18 N.E.2d 214 (1938).

As the supreme court further explained in Pope, the legal concept

of "residence" requires a permanent abode. Pope, 370 Ill. at 200.

Accordingly, to the extent that Smith might establish that a voter

or candidate could meet a residency requirement through intent

alone, without any permanent abode, the supreme court has since

abandoned Smith's approach. For this reason, along with the abovediscussed

reasons, we do not view Smith as controlling this case.

Here is the majority's conclusion:

We are not the first to draw the distinction between voters

and candidates for purposes of the type of exception contained in

section 3-2 of the Election Code. The exception traces to

No. 1-11-0033

24

Illinois' founding charter, which imposed a residency requirement

on state representatives but excepted those who were "absent on the

public business of the United States." Ill. Const. 1818, art. II,

§3. Illinois' next constitution, in 1848, stated the exception

three times: once for state representatives (Ill. Const. 1848, art.

III, §3), once for state senators (Ill. Const. 1848, art. III, §4),

and once for voters (Ill. Const. 1848, art. VI, §5). The 1848

Constitution thus separately delineated "business of the United

States" exceptions for candidates and for voters. Illinois' next

constitution, in 1870, retained the "business of the United States"

exception as it related to voters (see Ill. Const. 1870, art. VII,

§4), yet conspicuously omitted the exception as it related to

candidates. (The voter exception was later incorporated into the

Election Code (see 1959 Ill. Laws 2168) and was not included in our

current constitution.) This history tells us that, for purposes of

the "business of the United States" residency exception, this State

has for over 150 years recognized a distinction between voters and

candidates and has retained the exception only for voters. That

revelation, combined with our interpretation of the language of

section 3-2 and its interrelation with subsection 3.1-10-5(d) of

the Municipal Code, convinces us that section 3-2's "business of

the United States" exception applies only to voters, not to

candidates. Accordingly, it cannot avail the candidate here.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the candidate

neither meets the Municipal Code's requirement that he have

No. 1-11-0033

25

"resided in" Chicago for the year preceding the election in which

he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the

requirement.

Be sure to read the dissenting view at the same site.

Thus, a fairly straightforward provision in Chicago election law, clearly setting out residency requirements has caught the "outsider" Emanuel in its jaws. Clearly, he is as "Chicago" as the next guy who wants to be mayor and my own view is that everyone ought to be allowed into the pool.

But, as they say, "the law is the law." It is bittersweet irony that someone as connected as Emanuel get tangled up in it.

Will the Illinois Supreme Court's decision settling the issue be political, or be based on the law. Read further commentary here.

Next comes the Illinois Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats. Could be strike three for Rahm. What then? A write-in campaign? 

Read my commentary: The high irony of Emanuel's disqualification here.

Read Jack's comments below about the possibility of a write-in campaign. He says it can' happen, and I believe him.

( Alex Garcia, Chicago Tribune / January 13, 2011 ) A strong field: Chicago mayoral candidates Miguel del Valle, from left, Rahm Emanuel, Carol Moseley Braun and Gery Chico make their first appearance as a foursome Friday to field questions from the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

How's this for irony? In the rough and tumble town that Chicago is, the gritty city of big shoulders and of bone-crushers like Mike Ditka and Brian Urlacher, some leading candidates to replace Mayor Richard M. Daley are campaigning on a platform of niceness.

How did Chicago, wallowing in industrial-strength politics, sink to such depths?

Is it because the public is rallying against the Daley years by demanding that the next mayor be a nice guy or gal? Nah. Is Chicago taking too seriously the national media's obsession with turning the political arena into a cathedral of civility? Should we change the city's unofficial motto, bestowed on it by Mike Royko, from "Ubi est mea?" ("Where's mine?") to "Please, you go first."

For native Chicagoans like me, this sudden demand for graciousness is like being transported while sleeping to a genteel place. Like Milwaukee. That discovering the way to get things done in Chicago is not by banging heads, but by harmony.

The mayoral candidates themselves raised the issue in a face-off on Friday before the Chicago Tribune editorial board. Carol Moseley Braun, Gery Chico and Miguel del Valle went after Rahm "Rahmbo" Emanuel for his famously abrasive personality. Said Braun, "None of us have a reputation for sending dead fish to people ... poking people in the chest, cussing 'em out. The question is one of temperament. This is the city of big shoulders, and we're considered to be tough Grabowskis and all of that but we're not mean-spirited and nasty.

Really?

Chico accused Emanuel of bringing a Washington-like confrontational style to Chicago, saying you don't have to be a tough, brutal person here to achieve your goals. He warned that an overly confrontational style in labor negotiations could gridlock the city with CTA, garbage and other strikes.

Emanuel saw a good thing in his "passion," acknowledging that he doesn't have a reputation of go-along-to-to-get-along with the special interests. Well, his opponents responded, we've all fought passionately, but, as del Valle said, "today I'm still considered to be a nice guy."

Allow me to interrupt all this comity by suggesting that banging some heads together may be what Chicago needs to end its spoils system. Daley, as powerful as he has been, pushing through whatever he wanted (e.g. the destruction of Meigs Field), has been unable (or unwilling) to rein in the spoils system. It took a federal jury to stop what Daley should have -- a practice of awarding jobs and promotions to the politically connected. Daley's patronage chief, Robert Sorich, and three other cogs in the Democratic machine were convicted of mail fraud in connection with the practice.

Daley would have everyone believe that he knew nothing about the practice because, if he did, he would have been accountable.

But, to borrow a phrase from the mayor, "everyone knows" that the spoils system exists, and that it is costly and unfair. How can the mayor not know? Because Daley had neither the will nor the ability to confront the spoils system.

Stopping the abuses would be tough. No room here for namby-pambies. Well more than a century of spoils and corruption are ingrained into the city's culture. Sometimes a dead horse's head showing up in someone's boudoir is required.

Certain folks in this town have had it their way for far too long -- the insiders, the connected and the public employees unions whose outrageous benefits and work rules have put the city in hock. Telling them that the ride is over will take more than passion. It will take a bruiser of exceptional determination and skill.

This city operates on the principle that everyone better know someone someone sent. That the way to get ahead is to "know a guy." Making nice is for losers. That's not my code; it's the way of the Chicago spoils system. Pretty pleases won't get the job done.

So, if we elect a tough mayor, then the next question is: What will he or she be tough about? Every candidate pledges to be for the middle class, the disadvantaged and the voiceless. And against the corrupt and greedy.

We know who's tough, but who's going to do the right thing?

This column also appeared in The Chicago Tribune

At least she wasn't feeding at the public trough, and was dipping her toe into private entrepreneurship. 

might be embarrassing for someone