 |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Hot Type, For the Week of March 29, 2002--continued
He wondered, "Are we at the table influencing what's said? Do we have reporters at the papers? No. Whose fault is that? Everybody wants their kid to be a doctor in our community. "But," he said, "that doesn't excuse the media. November was Arab-American Heritage Month in Chicago, and I didn't see one story in a Chicago paper. You'd never know November was Arab-American Heritage Month, and I'm afraid if the city finds out they'll try to cancel it. We have pent-up frustrations. Nobody wants to listen to us and when they do listen to us we unload on them. We need more jokes. We're too serious -- and that's the reason fanatics and extremists have it so easy. We're so emotional they take advantage of it." Wojcik Gets the Silence Treatment Silence is no defense against people who know what you're thinking. In the recent Democratic race for an open seat in Illinois' 20th Senate District, neither candidate talked about abortion -- strange as that might sound to zealots who can't imagine having an election without it. Immigrants' rights, schools, crime, the economy -- those were the issues raised by Michael Wojcik and Iris Martinez, according to Brian Spinner, who covered the race for the neighborhood Leader newspaper. "Abortion never came up." But on the sidelines were pro-life and pro-choice organizations for whom no other issue matters. On the basis of surveys, voting records, and public statements, Illinois Citizens for Life graded candidates in every race from governor on down, from one for "fully pro-life" to four for "totally opposed to pro-life issues." Wojcik and Martinez each received a "U," for "unknown." The Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee endorsed every pro-life candidate it could find in every race; it passed on the 20th District. But the federation's pro-choice equivalent, Personal PAC, looked harder and saw deeper. President Terry Cosgrove explains that Personal PAC judges candidates by their voting records, if any, and by their reactions to a questionnaire that leaves no room for doubt. Candidates are bluntly warned: "Lack of receipt by Personal PAC of our questionnaire will result in our assuming that you are in opposition to our positions on reproductive matters." Martinez mailed her questionnaire back in. Wojcik did not. Time went by, and Cosgrove sent him another one. He even talked at one point to Wojcik's attorney. But Wojcik refused to respond. "I've been here 12 years," says Cosgrove. "Candidates who don't respond are candidates who want to hide their anti-abortion positions." So Personal PAC sent out a pamphlet endorsing Martinez for the senate. It said, "On Abortion...Iris Martinez believes you should make the decision. Michael Wojcik wants the government to make it for you. "It's a personal decison. A personal and private one. And nobody -- least of all government -- should be able to make it for you. That's what Iris Martinez thinks. But her opponent, Michael Wojcik, doesn't. Michael Wojcik opposes ALL abortions, even for victims of rape and incest. Michael Wojcik would make criminals out of women and their doctors for making private medical decisions." That's gleaning a lot from silence. Wojcik's had a rough year. At the moment he's still the alderman from Chicago's 30th Ward, but the ward was redistricted out from under him, which is why he decided to run for the senate. Unfortunately he's Polish, and the district, which runs from Logan Square up to Albany Park, is heavily Hispanic; Martinez was backed by the Hispanic Democratic Organization, which is to say by City Hall. She clobbered him. Wojcik didn't have a chance, and abortion had nothing to do with it. But he still isn't talking. I won't pretend to read his mind, but I will say that if I ran for office in his part of town and voters didn't ask, I wouldn't tell my position on abortion. I'd expect to lose votes whatever I said. Cosgrove is astonished to hear a journalist sticking up for Wojcik's right to silence. Wasn't he a candidate? he asks. Wasn't abortion an issue? Didn't the voters deserve to know where he stood on it? Cosgrove did his duty and found out and told them. He admires Personal PAC's questionnaire. "I don't know how we can put it any more clearly. We're being very fair, very straightforward. If they think they're going to hide from us, we're telling them that's not going to work." Hearing his methods questioned, Cosgrove gets a little worked up. He makes sure I understand that neither Wojcik, nor his attorney, nor any of his supporters has ever offered even "a shred of evidence that we are in any way wrong" about Wojcik's stand on abortion. He says this as if it seals his case. I see nothing wrong with Cosgrove faulting Wojcik for remaining silent, and everything wrong with logic that concludes that what Wojcik didn't say reveals what he thinks. You can give someone fair warning about what you'll assume if he doesn't answer your question, but fair warning doesn't turn your assumption into fact. Bill Whitmer, a pro-choice reader who lives in the 20th Senate District, received the Personal PAC pamphlet and was troubled by it. It was news to him that Wojcik was a pro-life absolutist. He did some research and found nothing to prove Wojcik was, and then he wrote Personal PAC. "While there are many reasons to vote for Iris Martinez," Whitmer said, "your use of slander against Michael Wojcik is not one of them." News Bites • Editorial headline no Chicago journalist could have written in earnest: "Bush stands like an oak," Sun-Times, March 25. • Since leaving the Sun-Times back in 1991, Ray Hanania has led a picaresque existence. He just dropped a note alerting me to his "Arab-American married to a Jewish wife stand-up comedy routine," at Zanies April 11. Send tips, tirades, and comments to hottype@chicagoreader.com |
|
|