Topinka said good things about Illinois' junior senator, who has riled much of the GOP establishment with his independence, but she said she would work for his re-election in her role ''as a party activist.'' She pointedly declined to endorse him in her role as state chairman, state treasurer or even as Riverside Republican committeewoman.

We went round and round on the non-endorsement. After all, I said, Fitzgerald is at this time running without opposition in his party. Not endorsing him now would mean that she equates him with nothing, zero, zilch. Still she wouldn't budge.

After about 10 minutes of sparring on the phone we went to other topics. Another guest on my show, state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, mentioned that earlier in the day Topinka was quoted--on TV--as endorsing Fitzgerald. But if she endorsed him at, say, 9 a.m., on Sunday, she was definitely not endorsing the senator at 8 p.m. the same day.

Which leads to the conclusion that between those hours, somebody or something caused Judy Baar Topinka to change her mind.

The conclusion is pretty inescapable. U.S. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert was one of the promoters of Topinka as state chairman. There is no doubt that Rep. Ray LaHood was another. In fact, it is said that the entire Illinois congressional delegation--and that may have meant Fitzgerald himself--supported her taking over the job.

But for a state chairman not to endorse the highest-ranking officer of her own political party, when there is not a hint of scandal or embarrassing trouble about Fitzgerald, is a historic event. It can only mean that leaders of the GOP are out to defeat Fitzgerald and are so powerful that they will not allow him to be endorsed for re-election, even when he has no opponent.

Having an opponent is one thing, although it is usual for an incumbent to be endorsed by the chairman of his party, in any event. But having no opponent and still not getting an endorsement from his own state chairman is indeed the most decisive lack of confidence that can be delivered by the acknowledged top leader of Fitzgerald's own party.

It means that the party leaders are moving very quickly to push someone else to challenge Fitzgerald and do not want the state chairman to endorse him so she does not have to take that endorsement back when the mystery candidate appears.

''I'll be for him as an individual party activist,'' said Topinka. That's all. It's an object lesson for anyone who wants to get into politics. You can spend lots of your own money in getting elected, even beating a Republican opponent whom the party had picked. You can become the only Republican to unseat a Democratic incumbent in 1998. You can then become a reformer, in the mold of William Proxmire of Wisconsin. You can fight with your peers for the right--which is clearly yours--to nominate a U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois who will be from out of the state, with no connections with the strange hybrid of manipulators, Republican and Democrat, in Illinois. You can challenge the Lincoln Museum as a possible patronage haven and be proved right. You can insist that you don't see yourself as one who is out to bring back goodies to Illinois, but will serve as an independent honest broker.

All these things you can do--and you'll be slated for defeat by your own party. That, it appears, is what Judy Baar Topinka's refusal to endorse Fitzgerald on the radio means. When the heat comes on she may change, though. We'll see.

Having no opponent and still not getting an endorsement ... is indeed the most decisive lack of confidence.

We will continue our efforts to secure America, win the war on terrorism, focus on education, promote compassion, create new jobs, and ensure the economic security of all our citizens. As we move forward into the New Year, I encourage all Americans to give thanks to the Almighty for His many blessings, and to join with me in reaffirming our commitment to helping people around the world achieve peace and freedom.

At the dawn of this New Year, America is a land of justice, liberty, and tolerance. We will work together to build on our successes and embrace the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Laura joins me in sending our best wishes for a Happy New Year. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States.

An examination of the 2002 election results shows the national Republican vote for races exceeding the Democratic vote by approximately 5 percentage points. And Republican candidates in all votes cast broke the 49 percent barrier for the first time since 1994, something the Democrats have not done in ten years.

While the authors point out interesting demographic trends of which anyone in politics, including Republicans should be cognizant, their conclusion runs astray. Yes, if Republicans do not expand their constituency they will suffer at the ballot box, but the same can equally be said for Democrats. This underlines two fundamental flaws of the authors' text.

First, the authors convey a philosophy that demographics are dynamic, and political parties and candidates are static. Of course demographics and societal trends control much of the destiny of politics, but as we have seen over the last 200 years, political parties adapt and change fairly often. A perfect example is Republican ability garnering Latino votes in recent elections.

Latinos previously were a solid part of the Democratic base, and Republican candidates hoped to garner 20 percent to 25 percent of their votes. In 2002, Republicans received approximately 38 percent of the Latino vote on average. If Republicans continue to do this well in 2004, then even with the tremendous growth expected among Latinos, Republicans are, at worse in a neutral place.

Second, the book is based primarily on presidential election results. The authors utilize the 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections in arguing these results reflect the Democratic base, without stating that 1992 was more about dissatisfaction with the economy and less about voters turning from one party to another. The success of Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections demonstrated the 1992 election were not about the rising preeminence of the Democratic Party. In addition, Democrats have not captured over 50 percent in a presidential race in 26 years.

The more telling races to examine for political trends are not the "one big" race run every four years, but the 435 congressional races run every two years, and the nearly 7,400 state legislative races run every two or four years. And these results show quite a different "emerging majority."

For the first time since 1946, Republicans hold a majority of state legislative seats. In the last 12 years, when Democrats were supposedly gaining political strength, Democrats went from holding 61 percent of state legislative seats to 49 percent today.

And looking at Congressional races over the last 10 years, a similar pattern is revealed. This is not only reflected by Republicans have holding the House of Representatives for the longest sustained period since the 1920s, but in prospects for the future.

In 2002 Republican congressional candidates received more than 54 percent of the vote in 214 districts, while Democratic/Independent candidates carried more than 54 percent in 191 districts. The remaining 30 districts fell between these levels. In the 214 Republican districts there are four seats, mainly in the Northeast, where President Bush received less than 42 percent of the vote in 2000. In the 191 Democratic seats there are five districts, mainly in the South, where President Bush received more than 58 percent of the vote.

Let's assume for argument's sake that each party ultimately switches these seats — giving Republicans an additional district. So, the breakdown becomes a Republican advantage of 215-190. How do the 29 fairly competitive districts break down? In eight districts President Bush received more than 58 percent of the vote and in one district he received less than 42 percent of the vote. Let's allocate those again — leaving 20 very competitive districts, and the new breakdown is 223 likely Republican seats and 191 likely Democratic seats. Absent a major economic or foreign crisis, the prospect of Democrats recapturing a significant majority in Congress seems dim.

A word of caution, demographics and politics are each dynamic. The ability of one party to seize a stable majority is uncertain as the recent run-off results in Louisiana show, but the initial signs point to the Republicans and the 2004 election up and down the ballot should hopefully clarify things.

==>– Margaret Thatcher