A Jack/Jeri Ryan Story W/O Sex Clubs

Nick Gillespie | June 28, 2004

Now that I've got your attention, allow me to point to an interesting and overlooked angle on the highly entertaining story of the Star Trek Sex God and the Man Who Would Enter Cubicles With Mattresses on the Floor:

Ryan was running for a Senate seat being vacated by a one-term incumbent, Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.). Given the nearly 100 percent return rate for incumbent senators, why on Earth would the guy be leaving the World's Greatest Deliberative Body and Brake Shop? Radley Balko supplied an interesting answer awhile back on Foxnews.com. In brief, it's because Fitzgerald ran afoul of the GOP by being a man of principle, especially when it came to federal pork-barrel spending in the Land of Lincoln. Writes Balko:

Fitzgerald�s crowning achievement in his brief career was his opposition to the federalization of a planned expansion of Chicago�s O�Hare International Airport (search)....

He was the only senator in the U.S. Congress to vote against the $15 billion airline bailout [post 9/11], despite the fact that United Airlines is based in Illinois and American Airlines has a major hub at O�Hare.

Fitzgerald next earned the wrath of fellow Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert....Fitzgerald and Hastert first tangled over Fitzgerald�s refusal to support Hastert�s efforts to secure a glut of federal funding for the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, located in Illinois. Hastert pulled rank to secure the money, and Fitzgerald criticized him publicly for it....

Sen. Fitzgerald�s final sin was to nominate someone outside the state of Illinois to serve as U.S. Attorney for the northern district of Illinois, based in Chicago.... Instead of rewarding an aspiring local attorney for his political support with the nomination, as is custom in the U.S. Senate, Fitzgerald was more concerned about the ongoing investigation of then-governor and fellow Republican George Ryan, and wanted to be sure an aggressive prosecutor independent of local politics was assigned to the case. So he went out of state and nominated prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), who indicted Ryan on corruption charges last December.

Whole thing here. And for a list of the Top 10 Conservative Idiots (spoiler: Jack Ryan is No. 3) go here.

Comments

|6.28.04 @ 2:15AM|#

A link to the Democratic Underground might represent the lowest point yet for Reason's steadily-descending credibility. Not long ago, it was my favorite magazine.

|6.28.04 @ 2:18AM|#

Gillespie: LINO (Libertarian In Name Only)?

|6.28.04 @ 2:28AM|#

That last link is a little baffling.

But as for the main article, that guy sounds almost too good to be true:

"the mere fact that a project is located somewhere in Illinois does not mean that it is inherently meritorious and necessarily worthy of support.�

Amen. Too bad people like that tend not to get re-elected. A shame he didn't tough it out and take on the challenge of running again.

|6.28.04 @ 2:31AM|#

Guess the humor is lost on poor little Anon.

|6.28.04 @ 2:36AM|#

Fitzgerald had support until the O'Hare noise commission mayors all bailed on him when they got good deals elsewhere. Some call it principled, some call it naiive... Still, he did more good than harm IMO.

(Balko's article does contain this inanity: "The state of Illinois has 19 congressional districts. According to the Washington Post, Hastert�s district...is home to just 5 percent of the state�s population." Which mathematically is just about what it should be!)

|6.28.04 @ 2:49AM|#

Fitzgerald had his own money and was always independent of the Illinois Republican party.

Similarly, Jack Ryan had his own money, and was not the favorite candidate of the GOP leaders. Now, a panel of leaders will select the senate candidate.

It's not very surprising that Republicans were so central in digging up this dirt.

Jesse Walker|6.28.04 @ 3:18AM|#

A "new low"?

Boy ... if the worst thing Reason has ever done is to include a link to something on a site that doesn't meet the standards of conservative political correctness, I must be working for the best magazine in the history of the world.

|6.28.04 @ 3:28AM|#

Russ D,
Balko was pointing out that 43% of the loot for 5% of the population is disproportionate - not that Hastert's district was small. If the state had two or three Representatives, a 43% share would not have seemed out of line. Most people probably wouldn't do the math to notice that the proportion of loot is out of line based on the number of districts.

|6.28.04 @ 3:33AM|#

Now I see why I never fit in as a Republican, I am more loyal to the principle than I am to the party.

|6.28.04 @ 3:39AM|#

My favorite quote from that DU nonsense: Last week John Kerry was forced to interrupt his campaign and return to Washington in order to cast an important vote on funding health care benefits for veterans.

Hahahahaha! Yeah, given that he's only managed to show up for 14 out of 130+ votes, I guess forcing him is the only way to ensure that he, you know, does the job that Massachusetts taxpayers pay him for.

|6.28.04 @ 4:02AM|#

Jesse,

OK, "A new low" might be hyperbolic... I haven't charted them all. But it's the latest in a series of disappointements from what I did used to think might have been the best magazine in the history of the world.

And it has nothing to do with "conservative political correctness." If Jonah Goldberg wrote a column called "Top 10 Liberal Idiots" it would be just as out of place here. But at least Goldberg is usually halfway civil about his anti-libertarianism.

|6.28.04 @ 4:09AM|#

Yeah, you know, I wish political discourse were more civil. That would really be nice.

|6.28.04 @ 4:21AM|#

Kent,

Yes, but Balko was making the 43-5 disproportion sound unusual, which, sad as it is, is actually common in almost every state. The rich getting the pork ain't news.

|6.28.04 @ 4:27AM|#

Go fuck yourself.

Jesse Walker|6.28.04 @ 4:44AM|#

Anon: But your objection, in your original comment, wasn't to the content of the piece (which Nick didn't actually endorse); it was to the very fact that he'd linked to Democratic Underground. That's what I meant by "political correctness."

I grant you that DU is generally a pretty awful site, but that doesn't mean we should never direct readers to anything it contains.

|6.28.04 @ 7:20AM|#

Meh, I prefer the sex club stories.

|6.28.04 @ 10:39AM|#

Anon,

Reason including H&R, tends to assume a high level of sophistication among its readers. That assumption is not common to most of the political blogosphere. For instance; on Eschaton, in the rare instance when it links neutrally to a conservative or libertarian publication, Atrios feels compelled to add a qualifier to the effect of "these guys really suck but...".

Nick could have done the same and been spared your umbrage, but he probably didn't think that it was necessary.

As for your cheap shot: "Reason's steadily-descending credibility"; I think that it should be given as much credence as the number of illustrative examples that you offer...zero.

|6.28.04 @ 11:04AM|#

I've never encountered the Democratic Underground before, but it seems representative of much of the thoughtless left. I found their hits against the Senate Republicans and Arnold Schwarzenegger really insipid.


They Call Me RINO:

"I am more loyal to the principle than I am to the party."

If the principle is limited government, it's usually the folks that lack it who are labeled "RINOs".

|6.28.04 @ 11:47AM|#

Rick,
Said sophistication is exactly why I object. A link from Reason lends them credibility they don't deserve.

As for my cheap shot. it's true. If you're not already inclined to agree then you won't find my bald assertion convincing. But I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way. And convincing those who don't is a lot to ask of a two sentence post in the comments section of a blog entry, don't you think?

|6.29.04 @ 2:02AM|#

>We may go on to the forums section of DU and introduce a
>libertarian perspective (I will do it for sure, now that I brought
>it up. Will you as well?)

Oy... Best of luck, Rick, you're more patient than I...

|6.29.04 @ 2:39AM|#

Why all the complaints about DU? They hate Republicans running the government just as much as people here hate the government - so they are 50% in agreement with most Reasonoids right out of the starting gate. They think that the war in Iraq was ginned up to boost corporate profits, benefit zionist bankers and so forth - a lot of posters here would agree with that, the only difference being the DUers disapprove, whereas a good libertarian would approve of war profiteering...

So see? We reallly do have a lot in common with DU. In fact, maybe a strategic partnership is in order here.

|6.29.04 @ 9:17AM|#

Anon,

We'll find it convincing when you can point us to something substantive.

|6.29.04 @ 9:49AM|#

Stephen,

Good libertarians only approve of war profiteering when the war is good, which is pretty rare.

"so they are 50% in agreement with most Reasonoids right out of the starting gate."

An unwarranted leap.

"benefit zionist bankers"

Stephen, I believe that you have somewhat of a fixation.

|6.29.04 @ 12:38PM|#

Anon,

A praising link from Reason would lend DU credibility that they don't deserve, but the neutral way that Nick linked to them does not.

Also, exposing us to them can also result in exposing them to us. We may go on to the forums section of DU and introduce a libertarian perspective (I will do it for sure, now that I brought it up. Will you as well?)

Even hardcore lefties can be shown that their affection for state power is misplaced and that it can, in fact, work against the realization of many worthy goals.

|7.1.04 @ 9:15AM|#

Nick

Why deprive your "libertarian" readership of other
"humor"ous sites like bartcop and buzzflash.

Balko's article was informative, and I appreciate having it pointed out, but finding a DU link is like finding a cockroach in my oatmeal.