The senator told me exclusively that he is using the Freedom of Information Act to pry the plan from an unwilling federal bureaucracy. If the Daley-conjured expansion goes through, the cost will be at least $15 billion, he told me, of which the federal government will pay just a fraction. He said the balance will be paid through bonding by the airlines, which could hike landing fees at O'Hare, "amounting to $30 per passenger" and threaten the economic viability of O'Hare. The steep bonds, which would come when United Airlines is in financial straits, could well cause airlines and passengers to bypass Chicago in favor of cheaper airports like Dallas, Detroit, Minneapolis or St. Louis.

In a Jan. 20 letter to FAA administrator Marion Blakey, Fitzgerald wrote: ''In my opinion the FAA's position in this case is untenable. FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] exemptions are to be very narrowly construed . . . to favor disclosure over secrecy. . . . For the FAA to even infer that the FAA and the city are one and the same would undermine the independence'' of the FAA.

If he is successful in blasting out the full plan for O'Hare expansion, Fitzgerald would go 3 for 3: fighting against Republicrat opposition to an out-of-state U.S. prosecutor who indicted former Republican Gov. George Ryan; filibustering against conversion of Springfield's Lincoln museum into a patronage dump, which transformed it instead into a nationally known research haven for the 16th president -- and now saving Illinois from an ill-considered public works outlay that can well cost lives and tens of billions in waste. (Full disclosure: I live near O'Hare, so my interest is personal, but I believe the facts -- and the details of the hidden O'Hare expansion program -- speak for themselves.)

Earlier this week, Fitzgerald called attention to a study by former acting FAA administrator Joseph Del Balzo. Del Balzo reported that the narrowly spaced runway configuration proposed by Chicago would be insufficient and would add to future delays at O'Hare. Supporters of the expansion scoffed at Del Balzo, a paid consultant to communities affected by expansion, but now he is joined by two aviation experts who are unpaid: former FAA administrator David Hinson and Jonathan Howe, former president of the National Business Aviation Association and the Airports Council International. Del Balzo, Hinson and Howe declare that the $6.6 billion figure estimated by Chicago ''fails to disclose the full cost of the proposed expansion.'' A revised figure ranging from Fitzgerald's $15 billion to their $20 billion would be, they say, more ''than has been spent on any other project in airport development history. To put this in perspective, the entire Denver International Airport that was constructed in the 1990s cost only about $5 billion."

Hinson and Howe cite Del Balzo in stating that the O'Hare modernization project ''will require a very large number of active runway crossings. Critical crosswind runway capabilities will be eliminated,'' and the project ''will barely meet minimum, or require exceptions to, many FAA safety standards.'' The Del Balzo report asks whether airlines and their passengers will ''remain at Chicago in the face of such costs.''

In response to Fitzgerald's news conference, the executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Plan, Rosemarie Andolino, said criticisms were made to the original expansion plan, which has since been revised. But the plan is a secret, with the City of Chicago and the feds sitting on it. Fitzgerald told me that the city's so-called expert ignored air space saturation at O'Hare. He added, ''I doubt that they have corrected these deficiencies'' in the revised plan.

In earlier battles, Fitzgerald won over a powerful combination of political, business and labor interests in Illinois -- a double-headed donkey and elephant hybrid of Demi-publicans. Ironically, he may be the most effective Illinois senator in modern times because, not seeking re-election, he doesn't care where the chips fall. Now, can he beat not just City Hall but bureaucrats in D.C.?

My guess is that once the public sees the cost and the threat to its safety, Fitzgerald will come out on top again.

1. Small businesses that create jobs should receive a job creation tax benefit.
2. Cut capital gains taxes
3.Control and scale back discretionary spending
4.Reduce burdensome government regulation
5.Force a real filibuster in the Senate for an up or down vote on judicial nominees.
6.Expand tax cuts generally
7.Investigate and correct the causes for failures of the National Security and Intelligence apparatus.

A few points of differentiation amongst the candidates.

1. Oberweis-Took the most forthright stand on curbing illegal immigration with his support of the CLEAR Act and his dissent with the Bush Administration Guest Worker plan. Oberweis favors Canadian prescription drug importation to lower drug costs. Is in favor of vouchers and the No Child Left Behind act. Would cut spending for NASA. Would eliminate tobacco subsidies.

2. Kathuria- Would structure the Iraq grant as a loan. Feels NASA is an inspirational spur to technological advancement. Would adopt a diminishing vote rule to end the senate judicial "filibuster". Maintain an independent US attorney for Northern district of Illinois. Tap into the Asian and Hispanic community as an untapped source of votes for the GOP.

3. Ryan-Enforce free Trade Agreements. Thinks No Child Left Behind is somewhat clumsy but a good first step toward education reform. Use unmanned missions to cut NASA costs. Cut corporate welfare. Opposes the new democrat party created requirement of a super majority for an up or down vote on judicial nominees.

4. Borling-Only PRO CHOICER in field. Begin change to hydrogen fuel cell based economy. Called NASA the next "manifest destiny" of human exploration. Not troubled by the failure to find WMD, said Intel failure may be inevitable part of the fog of war, but favors Intelligence revamp. The country should decide whether to make a fuller military and societal mobilization in the War on terror. Wants to end the vituperative atmosphere in Foggy Bottom and create an environment conducive to good government. Enact budget act provisos to balance budget.

5. McKenna- End corporate welfare. Bring dollars to Illinois so as to take advantage of the numerous research facilities and advanced learning institutions here. Feels No Child Left Behind is too burdensome, encompassing, and a violation of the principle of local control of education. Split the difference between more NASA spending and pursuit of further related technological advancement. Favors more HUMINT to augment technological means of intelligence gathering.

6. Rauschenberger- Wants to challenge some presidential social spending. Up or down vote on federal agency reorganization. Allow more state experimentation with funded and unfunded mandates. Create a better-educated and prepared workforce. Disagrees with Prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind Act. Social services need structural reform. NASA is great visionary ideal, but spend cautiously. Reform Illinois GOP and hold Democrats more accountable for their state stewardship in view of their all but total control of state government.

I felt that all the candidates appeared qualified to assume this position. Three candidates appeared to particularly raise their profile. Jim Oberweis appeared to be very well prepared and confident in his position on the immigration issue and his confidence in the historical judgment of the Iraq war as a positive moral good.

Dr. Kathuria impressed me so much with his refreshingly sunny and guileless adoption of the classic American ideal of opportunity, preparation, and hard work being rewarded with success that I have now bothered to learn to say his first name. He ended his presentation with a stirring quote from Robert Frost that summed up his personality. (Miles to go before I sleep}

While I could never support a pro choicer with a viable alternative in sight, I found Borling presented his positions with the forthrightness and masculine energy that one expects of a general officer. He even challenged folks to a push up contest in the parking lot.

Sen. Rauschenberger was folksy and disarmingly humorous as he reminded us of the breadth of his state legislative experience.

I am aware that there are many who will find much to criticize the candidates for, and I am one of them. In the aggregate, I think that this is a field that all Illinois Republicans can support with a reasonable assurance that we can face ourselves in the morning after we vote.

America suffered the worst attack in our nation’s history and we are engaged in a global war on terror. We will either go forward with confidence and resolve, or we will turn back to a false sense of security while America’s enemies plot further attacks.

Our economy was heading into recession even as the president was sworn into office. And then corporate scandals from the 1990s came to light, undermining public confidence in our markets. While yesterday’s recession is today’s recovery and public confidence is being restored, America must decide whether we keep the recovery moving forward or turn back the momentum of growing prosperity.

When the president came into office, studies showed that one out of three white, two out of three African-American and 58 percent of Latino fourth graders couldn’t read at a fourth grade level. The president responded with the No Child Left Behind Act ushering in high standards and accountability. Will America maintain these high standards and accountability so that every child is learning, or will we turn back?

And this past year, we heard the pleas of America’s seniors for prescription drug coverage and the need to modernize Medicare. The president made history by signing into law a Medicare reform that provides prescription drugs. This election will decide whether America will continue this reform, or turn back.

President George W. Bush and the American people have answered history’s calling. Through forward looking policies, America confronted difficult tests. And with four more years of President Bush’s leadership, the American people will transform today’s tests into tomorrow’s opportunities.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 were not the first time terrorists struck our nation. More than 200 Marines were killed in Beirut 20 years ago. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. Our embassies in east Africa were attacked. And the USS Cole was struck off the coast of Yemen.

Back then, many viewed these attacks as unique criminal incidents and left them for law enforcement to investigate.

George W. Bush understood that these attacks were not individual incidents. As he returned to the White House that awful evening of September 11 and flew over the still-burning Pentagon, the president turned to those aboard Marine One and said, “you are looking at the face of war in the 21st century.”

America will be safer and more secure tomorrow because of this administration’s policies today.

As long as George W. Bush is president, the front lines in the war on terror will be Baghdad and Kandahar, not Boston and Kansas City. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will help keep policemen, firemen, EMTs and nurses out of harm’s way. President Bush is taking the war on terror to where the terrorists gather.

We are treating terrorists and those who support, harbor, finance and assist terrorists the same. All are being brought to justice. The butcher of Baghdad is now a prisoner of war, the Taliban hide in caves, and Al Queda’s top commanders are either dead or in custody.

America is leading global efforts to break the links between dangerous regimes, weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations. We will work with other nations to accomplish this mutually important goal. But we will not ask for a permission slip before defending our nation from harm.

And, finally, we are confronting terror with hope, fear with freedom.

At home, the president proposed and Congress passed the Patriot Act to provide law enforcement with the same tools against terrorists that for years have been used to bring drug dealers to justice.

And the president transformed the federal government, creating a Department of Homeland Security committed to protecting our borders, securing our airports and coordinating federal, state and local efforts.

In addition to leading a global campaign against terror and strengthening the American homeland, the president is working for a more prosperous America.

By insisting on passing a tax cut every year, including two of the three largest in history, a recession is now a recovery. We must go forward and make these tax cuts permanent.

Next week, the president will send Congress a budget that limits non-defense, non-homeland security spending to less than one percent growth.

Frivolous lawsuits cost jobs, make health care unaffordable and doctors unavailable. President Bush is committed to discouraging frivolous lawsuits.

The American Dream has always rested on the twin pillars of ownership and opportunity. Our president has an agenda to accomplish both: closing the gap between minorities and non-minorities in home ownership, promoting small business development, allowing younger workers to own a portion of their retirement if they choose, allowing seniors to own their own healthcare.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that the president “…has confounded Washington and his media-Democratic critics…He means to accomplish big things, he is risking his capital to persuade the country to support him…” Columnist Mona Charen has described the president as “a profound and great leader who will reshape the world for the better…”

President Bush’s agenda to move America forward is not the only alternative. Americans have a choice on November 2, 2004.

While Senator Kerry leads the Democrat field today, he faces stiff competition from Governor Howard Dean, General Wesley Clark, and Senators John Edwards and Joe Lieberman.

We’re not yet sure the name of our opponent on Election Day, but already we know that Americans will have a clear choice.

That’s because our opponents agree on an agenda that can best be summarized by one of the two front runners for the nomination, Governor Howard Dean: they want to take America back—backward!

As our economy finally recovers from a recession, war, scandal and attack, every one of our opponents would take us backward 20 years to the economic plan of Walter Mondale. Each of them has pledged to raise your taxes.

As we work to bring democracy and stability to Iraq, our opponents would deny our troops the support they need to finish the job.

Howard Dean has said that America’s military will not always be the world’s strongest. Senator Kerry’s voting record would make Governor Dean’s vision a reality.

We salute Senator Kerry’s honorable and heroic service in Vietnam. But we question his judgment in consistently voting to cut defense and intelligence funding critical to our national security.

Even after the first World Trade Center bombing, Senator Kerry voted to gut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. In 1996, he voted to slash defense spending by $6.5 billion. Both bills were so reckless that neither had any co-sponsors willing to endorse his plans.

When Kerry first entered the Senate, he sought to cancel the very weapons systems that are winning the war on terror and maintaining our military strength. He opposed Ronald Reagan’s efforts to fight communism in our hemisphere and opposed the first Gulf War.

Some of our opponents believe that the American commander in chief must receive a signed permission slip before committing troops to defend our national security.

By ignoring real threats abroad and weakening America’s defenses, they’d take America backward to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.

Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Clark also agree on the need to weaken The Patriot Act, which simply seeks to give our law enforcement officers the same tools to fight terrorists that they have to fight organized crime.

Our opponents, including Senators Kerry and Edwards who supported the No Child Left Behind law, now oppose its high standards and accountability to parents and kids. Our opponents unanimously opposed the bipartisan Medicare reform law and the ban on partial birth abortion, also passed with bipartisan support.

Our opponents are not just united in their plans to take America backward to failed policies and false illusions. Without a positive agenda or vision for tomorrow, each of the Democrats has waged a negative campaign of vicious and unprecedented personal attacks on the president.

They’re not running for president to safeguard America’s homeland and bring peace throughout the world. They’re not running to grow jobs and improve the economy. They’re not running to reform education or to provide health care for America’s seniors. They’re not running to take America forward. The singular rationale for each of their candidacies is to beat our president.

Folks paid a lot of attention to the holler that was heard from the Hawkeye state the night of the Iowa caucuses. But while Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards may not raise their voices as loudly, their rhetoric is every bit as hostile. While our troops were at risk in Iraq, Senator John Kerry compared the commander in chief to Saddam Hussein, calling for regime change in the United States.

Senator Edwards called the president a “phony” and just last night said the president couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Both Edwards and Kerry regularly divide our country, with yesterday’s class warfare rhetoric of two Americas. And these are the Democrats who claim to be running positive campaigns.

That’s not all: Wealthy liberals, led by billionaire currency trader George Soros, have plotted ways around the campaign finance law to spend more than $400 million in negative ads attacking the president and for a massive get out the vote effort.

Press reports say they’re already half way there. And, ten months before the election, one of the leading groups, moveon.org, publicized two web ads comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler.

But, we must take on their anger, their money, and their challenge. Just as we stood together four years ago to ensure that George W. Bush would lead this nation, we must work to move America forward.

This will not be easy.

We enter this election from a stronger position than we did in 2000. In addition to transforming our nation and world, President Bush’s leadership has transformed American politics.

Since Election Day 2000, the red states have turned redder while the blue states have turned purple.

We made historic gains in 2002: the first time a president’s party gained seats in the Senate and the second time a president’s party gained seats in the House in our first midterm.

For the first time since 1952, the 4 largest states have Republican governors. And for the first time since 1954, there are more Republican than Democrat state legislators.

According to Gallup and Pew, more Americans identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats for the first time in years.

We mobilized our base, brought new voices and faces into the party, cut the gender gap in half and we achieved historic support among Latinos. We also strengthened our grassroots, expanded our 72-hour effort, and we returned to person-to-person campaigning.

But despite this progress, the country remains closely divided. We must expect an election where we will be behind at certain points, particularly after the Democrats settle on their nominee and hold their convention. Our opponents understand the president’s transformational leadership in moving America forward and they want to hold us back.

When we consider the leadership that President Bush has shown over the past three years, the words of Robert Frost come to mind:

"They would not find me changed from him they once knew. Only more certain of the things I thought were true."

We’ve faced incredible challenges and changes over the past three years. But these challenges and changes haven't changed our president. He is just as optimistic today as he was in 2000 of the principles that can keep America moving forward. . . and make the world safe: freedom, opportunity, security.

He's doing his part. Now we get to do ours. It's up to all of us to ensure that this good man remains in office to pursue these great principles.

Nine months from now, we will make a choice.

Between victory in Iraq or insecurity in America.

Between more money in the pockets of families or more power in the halls of government.

Between a nation that respects innocent life and reaffirms the sanctity of marriage or activist judges who legislate from the bench.

And nine months from now, we will choose between a leader of principle who will take America forward or a politician of protest, pandering and pessimism who will take America backward.

After all we’ve been through these past three years, the choice will be ours. Will we keep going forward or will we turn backward? Have we come this far to leave our work unfinished?

While the choice will be ours, the legacy will belong to our children. What kind of world will we leave them? What kind of America will they inherit? Under President Bush's leadership, they will find the world a much better place and America a much stronger nation

==> John Quincy Adams