President Bush is
speaking at a
Chicago event, another of his
many planned Illinois visits, hoping to win over
the Democrat powered state in November. The
purpose of his speech today was to indicate the
need for Medicare reform, but it wouldn’t have
mattered – any Bush appearance in the Midwest is
closely watched, with Illinois Republicans hoping
to regain control of what they once had before the
2002 elections.
That speech,
given to the Illinois State Medical Society, was
in June 2003. Back then, the major problem for
the Republican Party was Democrat Howard Dean and
his “Deaniac” followers. A year later, the
Democrats have a new favorite. John Kerry, while
he may not have obsessed supporters, is thought of
as a tough opponent and has now replaced Dean.
This is where Bob Kjellander comes in.
Kjellander is the
Bush-Cheney 2004 Great Lakes Chairman. His job
requires working as hard as possible to convince
people to vote Bush, a task that is much more
difficult to do in the states he’s been given.
Besides his role
in the Bush campaign, he is a Republican national
committeeman. His lobbying, which includes
receiving $800,000 last year for his work with
Bear Stearns & Company, candidate endorsements,
and view that people should do what is best for
the party rather than running “perfect”
candidates, have all created a serious
discussion. “Should he stay or should he leave
the GOP?” is the question most asked, especially
from the conservative side of the party.
“I’ve been
pro-life my entire career. I started in politics
as my high school chairman for Barry Goldwater
back in 1964. I find it humorous that some people
find me not conservative enough for their tastes,”
Kjellander says.
“My notion has
always been that the Republican Party ought to be
a big tent, and it ought to include people of all
opinions. Ronald Reagan was always famously
quoted as saying, ‘If you’re with me 80 percent of
the time, you’re my friend.’ I think, sometimes,
we lose sight of that…The litmus test ought to be
if you’re with the party on most things, but
nobody is going to be in lockstep on every single
issue.”
Q:
You’re Illinois’ Republican national committeeman
and Bush’s Great Lakes Chairman. What are you
going to do to ensure a Bush win? An important
factor in the election is trying to get a higher
voter turnout, including the youth – how do you
plan on getting young people out to vote?
A: For the last nine months,
I’ve been working with the political leadership in
the three states and the campaign staff to put
leadership teams in place for the President.
Michigan has rolled out, Wisconsin has rolled out,
and we will be rolling out Illinois in the first
week of May.
There’s a very
intensive effort on voter ID and voter
registration, and there is a strong youth outreach
element to the campaign as well. One of the
things that people have to remember is President
Bush’s senior advisor, Karl Rove, really got his
start in organizing college Republicans. In fact,
his very first paid job was organizing college
campuses in the state of Illinois back in the 1970
U.S. Senate race between Adlai Stevenson and Sen.
Ralph Tyler Smith.
Up
at the highest ashlars at the White House, people
understand the importance of involving young
people in this campaign. If you go to the
campaign headquarters out in Alexandria, most of
the people you’ll run into are under 30. Karl
understands the importance of organizing college
campuses, and there’s a very extensive college
campus program that is being implemented in target
states.
Q:
Many political analysts see Sen. Kerry as a tough
challenge. What advantages do you think Bush has
over him in the campaign, and what do you feel he
has done well during his term as president?
A: Certainly, Sen. Kerry is a
tough opponent. This is a fairly evenly divided
country. If you look into most polls, you’ll find
a lot of division on most major issues. What
people want in a president, even more than
somebody who agrees with them on the “x” issue or
“y” issue, is somebody who is a decisive leader.
I think that when you get into all the polling,
it’s very, very clear that the great majority of
people in this country view George W. Bush as a
strong leader. That was certainly emblazoned on
everybody’s minds in the days, weeks, and months
after 9-11. George Bush is somebody that the
people of this country are confident is capable of
leading us in this ongoing worldwide war on
terrorism.
Q:
Being a Republican, and with the constant
Democratic press releases, statements, and
opinions being heard every day about the wars
against terror and in Iraq, how do you justify the
President’s decision to be involved in both?
A: They’re inseparable. When
it was determined that al Queda and Osama bin
Laden launched the 9-11 attacks and were being
given refuge in Afghanistan, George Bush did what
was necessary, and he took out the regime in
Afghanistan that was harboring Osama bin Laden.
The
regime in Iraq has harbored terrorists for years.
They have used, in the past, weapons of mass
destruction on their own people to suppress the
Kurds north of Iraq, anybody who opposed Saddam.
I’m not trying to make a direct correlation
between Iraq and 9-11, because there isn’t one
specifically, but the regime in Iraq, under Saddam
Hussein, was one that encouraged and supplemented
terrorists around the world.
One
of the most important things, as we look at that:
what’s one of the other countries that was, also
like Saddam, supporting terrorists? Libya. And
guess what? Moammar al-Ghadafi got the message
from George W. Bush. He saw what happened to
Saddam Hussein. So what did he do? He has given
up his own nuclear research, his developing
weapons of mass destruction, and he has said to
the U.N. and the West, “Come in here. I want to
be clean. I want to get along. I want to change
my behavior.”
That’s a very, very important thing that, to a
great extent, has been overlooked as we have dealt
with this whole war on terror. It is all
interconnected. Everybody knows that Libya
financed various plane hijackings and bombings.
They’ve paid reparations. Now, they are
disengaging from their weapons of mass destruction
program.
You’ve got almost a domino effect, because George
Bush, the United States of America, and Great
Britain went and took out the Taliban in
Afghanistan, went and took out Saddam Hussein in
Iraq. Now, you’ve got Ghadafi saying, “I want
you to come into Libya. I’d rather make peace.
I’d rather do it on your terms. I’m destroying
these weapons, letting you come in here and see
that I’ve destroyed them.” If Saddam Hussein had
done that, there would’ve never had to have been a
war in the first place in Iraq.
There’s no question at all that Kerry is a strong
candidate, but I believe George Bush is a far
stronger candidate. Even if the majority of
people don’t agree with him on one issue or
another, they do agree that he is a strong leader,
and in these times, they want a strong leader in
the White House – not somebody like Sen. Kerry,
who, as you look at his record, has been on every
side of every issue over the years.
Q:
When not working with the Republican Party, you’re
a lobbyist. What do you say to people who might
consider that a conflict of interest? Also, some
have questioned whether you should remain a
Republican Party official. To the people asking
you to step down, how do you respond?
A: Here’s what I think: I
have been a lobbyist for over 20 years, since I
left government. Now, the lobbying statute was
changed about ten years ago. Before then,
lobbying was defined as working in the legislature
to pass or defeat bills. I was not a lobbyist.
But
then, about ten years ago, lobbyist reform
legislation was passed that expanded the
definition of lobbying to include interaction with
people in the executive branch of government.
Therefore, I had to register, because my business
– called the Springfield Consulting Group – to
this day, consults mostly major corporations on
strategies and how to deal with state government
on regulatory matters, things like that. I’m not
a lobbyist in the traditional sense, but when they
changed the law, I then became a registered
lobbyist.
I
don’t believe that there is any conflict. I don’t
contribute to Democrats. You can go through my
contribution lists. I give to Republican
committees and Republican candidates only. There
is no inherent conflict of interest.
As a
matter of fact, three of the last five chairs of
the Republican National Committee including the
current chairman, Ed Gillespie, are or were
lobbyists. That also includes the immediate past
chairman, Mark Racicot, who is today, the National
Chairman of Bush-Cheney ’04. And it includes a
guy named Haley Barbour, who is today, the
Governor of Mississippi.
I
don’t have any difficulty saying, as far as I’m
concerned, there is not a conflict of interest.
If somebody wants to use it in a race against me,
that’s perfectly fine. This is America; it’s a
free country. But when I was first elected to
this job, everyone knew I was a lobbyist, and I’ve
been reelected unanimously on two subsequent
occasions. Everybody knows what I do for a
living, and I’m not ashamed of it. I do a good
job. I have a blue chip list of clients. I’m
proud to be associated with all those companies,
and I think they’re happy with the job that I do
for them.
The
people who are asking me to step down are the Jack
Roesers of this world. I don’t call him a
conservative; I call him an extremist. Back in
1994, the Republican Party had its greatest
triumph in state elections. We elected all
statewide constitutional officers, plus the
General Assembly. He ran against Jim Edgar in the
primary. Again, it’s a free country; he’s
entitled to do what he wants to do.
He
was an avid supporter of Pat O’Malley in the 2002
gubernatorial primary, and Pat O’Malley never did
endorse Jim Ryan in the general election. As a
matter of fact, I think he [O’Malley] was quoted
the week before the election, saying that Jim Ryan
was the lesser of two evils between Ryan and
Blagojevich.
Roeser’s the one who is leading this crusade –
Jack Roeser, by the way, also supported Jesse
White, Democrat, over Al Salvi, Republican. These
people like Jack Roeser have kind of a “rule or
ruin” mentality. If they’re not in charge of the
Republican Party, they would rather see it fail,
so that they can say, “I told you so.” I will
simply call him an extremist who is so consumed by
bigotry and hatred.
Q:
What is your favorite part of being involved with
the GOP? People know who you are as a
Republican. Who are you outside of politics?
A: It’s the people. I enjoy
the interaction with the people. I do a lot of
public speaking, I enjoy that. I enjoy working on
the national committee [RNC] with my peers from
the other states.
One
of the things that I’m most proud of on the
national committee was, back in January 2000
before the first primary or caucus – I organized a
press conference at the winter meeting of the
national committee. Working together with the
Bush team, we got 95 members of the national
committee to stand at the press conference and
endorse George Bush. Now, the interesting thing
about that was, there was no incumbent. There are
165 members of the national committee. Party
bylaws in many states prohibit, particularly state
chairmen and, in some states, national committee
members, from taking a position on the
presidential race.
Of
the 165, only 110 were eligible to make an
endorsement. We got 95 out of that 110 to stand
up for George Bush that day. That was an exciting
day. It really got the primary season off to a
good run. That interaction with folks from all
over the country, to me, is a very enjoyable
experience.
What else do I
like to do? I am an avid reader. I enjoy
movies. I’ve got two dogs. My children are both
grown, both out of the house, so my wife and I are
empty nesters. A lot of our spare time is put
into politics, and we also enjoy traveling.
Q:
Next month, delegates at the state convention will
decide whether you should be reelected as
committeeman. Why do you think you should stay?
What do you feel you’ve achieved and want to do in
the future for the Republican Party?
A: I think that I’ve done a
very good job for the Illinois Republican Party.
Let me go back to your earlier question about
lobbyists and turn it around. Quite frankly, the
job of the Republican national committeeman, in my
view, is to be a lobbyist in Washington for the
state party. That’s my job. My job is to go to
Washington and get resources for the state of
Illinois.
Much
has been made of the role that I played in ousting
Gary MacDougal as state party chairman after the
2002 elections. Let’s go back to the summer of
2002. Everybody was working together. Gary was
going out to Washington, and he tried to get
funding from the RNC to pay for the absentee
ballot program, which is a key thing that the
state party does in every election cycle. It
accounts for thousands and thousands of Republican
votes. Gary went out to Washington, he came back,
and he said, “I didn’t get anywhere with anybody.
Could you give it a try?”
The
next week, I went to Washington, and I came back
with $300,000 from the national committee to fully
fund the absentee ballot program for the state of
Illinois. Now that’s what a national committeeman
should do. That’s his job.
You
don’t get that by simply getting elected and
having a title. You have to work at it, as I
explained the role I had in putting the Bush
endorsement together. I’m one of the Bush team
leaders on the national committee. Everybody
knows that. That helps when I go looking to get
resources for Illinois. This job really is about
lobbying. It’s about getting resources for the
state, and I think that I do a very good job at
that.
What do we need
to accomplish here? Well, we’ve got a lot of very
important things we’ve got to accomplish in the
next six months. That is the coordination of the
President’s reelection campaign with what’s going
on in the state party and with what’s going on in
the U.S. Senate race. George W. Bush makes a big
point of saying that, in this election, he does
not want to have a lonely victory. He wants to
carry in with him as many additional Congressmen,
U.S. senators, and governors as possible.
He
showed that in 2002, when he went out, beat all of
the historical precedents, and made gains for the
Republican Party in the midterm election. He
wants that to happen, and we are working to
accomplish that in our Great Lakes region of the
country.
I’m
upbeat about it. I don’t think that any state has
been written off here yet. I think that we’re
going to show people some real surprises between
now and November, so I’m real excited about this
opportunity. I’m looking forward to it, because
things are happening in the Illinois Republican
Party.
We
have all these naysayers, and yes, the Republican
Party has been through some tough times. The
scandals of the last couple years have been very,
very difficult for the party to deal with. But
we’ve got a new day. We have new candidates. We
have an exceptional president in George W. Bush.
We have a very impressive Senatorial candidate in
Jack Ryan. The state party is really enjoying a
renaissance under the leadership of Judy
Baar-Topinka.
She
and a top notch financial committee, headed by Ed
Brennan, the chairman of American Airlines, and
Ron Gidwitz, the former chairman of Helene Curtis,
have spearheaded a fundraising effort that is
zeroing down on, I think, $2 million total.
That’s unprecedented. What’s really unprecedented
is what’s being done with that money. Chairman
Topinka has hired a field staff. We haven’t had
field people in the state party since Ogilvie was
governor back in the 70’s.
For
the last several months, these field people have
been working on phone banks, voter identification,
and voter registration. These are the nuts and
bolts. This isn’t sexy stuff. This isn’t the
stuff that makes headlines, newspaper stories, or
TV stories. This is what we have to do to rebuild
the Illinois Republican Party. Judy Baar-Topinka
and her staff are working very hard on that, and
the President’s campaign is tickled to death to
see the state party’s depth, detail, and
commitment. That’s what keeps Illinois in play
here.
I’m
really excited about that, because it’s got a lot
of potential. It will build us a crescendo. In
conjunction with the Bush campaign nationally, we
will be doing the 72-hour turnout task force that
will actually make sure that all those Republicans
and George W. Bush supporters who were identified
actually turn out in November. It’s an exciting
time, and as you can tell, I’m excited about
participating in it. I’m hopeful that – now that
we’ve gotten through the primary, all the county
chairs were elected, we’ll have our state
convention in Collinsville in a month – everybody
is pulling on this together, because we’ve got
important work to do.
Q:
How is it working with Judy Baar-Topinka and other
IL GOP officials? At the end of the long campaign
day, how do you best describe this era of
Springfield politics?
A: I work real closely with
Judy. She has more energy than any other three
people I know, and she’s a team player. We work
together closely, and the other key party leaders
similarly: Frank Watson, the Senate Minority
Leader; Tom Cross, the House Minority Leader.
Judy, Tom, and Frank meet frequently. Everybody
is pulling together. Everybody knows that we have
limited resources and that we’re all better off
working together rather than across purposes.
This
is what makes the time that we have to spend
dealing with the extremist element that’s
epitomized by Jack Roeser so debilitating, because
they don’t want to win. All they want to do is
make trouble. Virtually everybody else in the
party leadership understands that we’ve got
important work to do here for President Bush, Jack
Ryan, and the House and Senate caucuses.
I
think the other element of that is Speaker
Hastert, whose commitment to the state party is
wonderful to behold. The resources that his
political operation puts into the state are
remarkable and very helpful. So this coordination
of effort between the state party, Speaker, and
the legislative caucuses – I’m very upbeat about
what we can do.
Election
2004
Bob
Kjellander