Much like President George W. Bush, U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-9) is a polarizing political figure – much beloved in certain quarters, and highly reviled in others.

And much like Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Schakowsky is perversely averse to being tagged a liberal. “I don’t accept labels,” she said.

The congresswoman does, however, admit to being a “progressive.” And the standing joke in both Washington and on Chicago’s North Side is that Schakowsky is, indeed, a progressive – and that’s she’s ideologically progressing leftward from socialism toward Marxism.

“She’s so far out of the mainstream, and so radically liberal,” said Kurt Eckhardt, her 2004 Republican opponent, “that we could have Bobby Rush as our congressman, and not know the difference.” Rush, of course, is a South Side Chicago black congressman with a very liberal record, which is identical to Schakowsky’s.

Eckhardt, however, is wrong on the electorate’s reaction. The majority of voters in the 9th District like – and perhaps even love -- their congresswoman. And, in a district won by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race with 67 percent (155,529-71,064) over Bush, the electorate is far more liberal than conservative.

Back in 1998, when she was in a contested Democratic primary for the seat being vacated by the venerable 48-year incumbent Democrat Sid Yates, Schakowsky was quoted as saying that a successful candidate “can’t be defined as too far left in this (9th) district.” Taking the most liberal positions possible, Schakowsky won a tough primary against Howie Carroll and Jay Pritzker with 45.1 percent (31,443-23,963-14,256), mainly due to her huge vote in her Evanston base; and, after Republicans failed to persuade Carroll to switch parties and run against her as a Republican, she won the 1998 election with 74.6 percent.

In 2000, Schakowsky was re-elected with 76.4 percent; and, in 2002, she was re-elected with 70.3 percent. So where’s the voter outrage? According to Eckhardt, there will be outrage when voters are apprised of her voting record – which he intends to do.

When asked how far left in Congress she has become, Schakowsky equivocated, and said that she “does not want to go there. I vote on each bill as it comes (before Congress).” Although only in her third term, Schakowsky, age 60, is in the House Democratic leadership as a chief deputy whip, and as a member of the Democratic steering committee, which doles out House committee assignments. In fact, so close is Schakowsky to House Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and so assured is she of a top post in the leadership if and when the Democrats win control of the U.S. House, that Schakowsky forswore a bid for U.S. Senator in 2004.

Schakowsky got into the leadership because she had fundraising prowess. In 1998, she raised $1.4 million. In 2001, Pelosi appointed Schakowsky to head the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Women LEAD fundraising program, and Schakowsky raised $25 million over the past three years. Through her own congressional PAC, Schakowsky has raised over $10 million since being elected, and has contributed much of that to other incumbents and congressional candidates. That engenders plenty of IOUs. After Bush won the presidency, Schakowsky promised to be the “skunk in the garden.”

“I have opposed the war in Iraq,” she said. “I have opposed (the Bush Administration’s) blatant enriching of the wealthy, (and) their pandering to the agenda of large corporations, (and the corporations’) outsourcing of U.S. jobs.” Schakowsky wants to “close the gap between rich and poor, reduce the number of people without health insurance, and invest (more money) in education.”

“Need I say anything?” asked Eckhardt. “She (Schakowsky) wants income redistribution. She wants more taxes and spending. And she wants to squelch the embryonic beginnings of democracy in the Middle-East, which would be helpful to the preservation of Israel. I support the president.”

But, according to the congresswoman, the president has been “dangerous to democracy, (and) dangerous to world peace and economic security.” Schakowsky said she feels “pain because of the squandered opportunities. We could have led a mighty global force for world security. We could have used the post-9/11 goodwill. We could have used to world community to isolate terrorism.” And, added Schakowsky, the $200 billion used to fund the Iraq war and reconstruction “could have been used to feed all the needy people in the word for a year.”

Historically, over the past half-century, the 9th congressional district was Chicago’s “Jewish” district, and encompassed the north Lakefront. Yates, who was Jewish, never won by less than 2-1. But the 2001 congressional remap split the Lakefront, putting most or all of the southern part of the north Lakefront (42nd, 43rd, 44th wards) into the 5th District, now represented by Democrat Rahm Emanuel (D-5), and the northern part into the 9th District.

 The current 9th District runs north of Wellington in the 46th Ward, east of Clark, and extends northward into the 48th (Uptown) and 49th wards (Rogers Park), plus the northeast corner (Rogers Park) of the 40th Ward. It then moves north into Evanston, west into Niles Township (Skokie, Lincolnwood and Morton Grove), and further west into Maine Township (Niles, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Glenview), and then south into Rosemont, Norridge, Harwood Heights, plus those precincts in the 41st Ward north of Devon.

“At least half the district is not inclined to support her (liberalism)” said Eckhardt, a former trader at the Board of Trade, and the 48th Ward Republican committeeman. Eckhardt ticks off a litany of what he terms “objectionable” votes:

* Tax cuts. The House in September voted to make permanent the $1,000 per child tax credit, the marriage tax penalty elimination, and the 10 percent expanded income tax bracket. The tax cuts amounted to $145.9 billion, and would be apportioned primarily to middle-income earners. Schakowsky voted against the bill, claiming that “it was cloaked to help the middle-class, but actually helped the wealthy…and hurt poor people.” Given that the 2000 census puts the median family income in the 9th District at $46,531, it is curious that Schakowsky is so concerned with lower-income people. “I would have voted for the (tax) cuts,” said Eckhardt.

* Pledge of Allegiance. Several years ago, a federal court invalidated the law which required the pledge of allegiance in public schools. Schakowsky thereafter voted against a bill to bar federal funding to enforce that decision and, this year, voted against a bill to bar the U.S. Supreme Court from ruling whether the phrase “under God” should be stricken from the Pledge. “I object to any bill which strips the court (of their jurisdiction) in these cases,” said Schakowsky. “I support the ‘under God’ provisions,” said Eckhardt.

* Flag desecration. Schakowsky voted against a ban on such desecration. “I oppose any flag desecration,” said Eckhardt.

*Abortion. Schakowsky voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions, against a bill to criminalize any act which harms an unborn fetus, and for a bill which allows abortions on overseas military bases. “I am pro-life,” said Eckhardt.

* Iraq. Schakowsky opposed a recent congressional resolution which praised the nation’s response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. “It was a self-congratulatory (resolution) written by the (Bush) Administration, claiming that they did a great job, which they didn’t,” said Schakowsky. “I would have supported it,” said Eckhardt. Schakowsky also voted against the $87 billion appropriation for reconstructive funding in Iraq. “I would have supported it,” said Eckhardt.

* Gay marriage. Schakowsky opposed an amendment to ban gay marriage, which Eckhardt would have supported. “I believe in human rights and civil liberties,” said Schakowsky, “and that includes the right to be married to whomever one desires.” Schakowsky accused the Bush Administration of “cynically using it (gay marriage) as a distraction” to get those who would otherwise “vote their economic interest” to support him (Bush). Eckhardt opposes gay marriage.

* Terrorism. Eckhardt got recent headlines when he supported placing “human monitors” – so-called spies – in Islamic mosques to gather information. Schakowsky said such a plan would be “offensive…and unacceptable.”

* Israel. Schakowsky is Jewish, and Eckhardt isn’t. “I am more pro-Israel than (Schakowsky),” claimed Eckhardt, pointing to his support of the Iraq action. “We must initiate democracy in the Middle-East, and that will aid the region’s stability and, ultimately, Israel,” said Eckhardt. “It (the Iraq situation) has put Israel in more danger,” countered Schakowsky. “It has destabilized (the area) and is bad for Israel.”

One issue floating beneath the political radar screen is the March 10, 2004 indictment of Schakowsky’s husband, Bob Creamer, on 36 counts of bank fraud. According to the complaint, Creamer, as executive director of a group called Illinois Public Action, masterminded a check-kiting scheme which caused over-drafts exceeding $2.3 million in 1997. The indictment also alleges that Creamer failed to withhold $300,000 in federal income taxes for his employees, and filed false personal income tax returns – which were filed jointly with his wife.

Creamer is a longtime political organizer who was instrumental in his wife’s 1998 victory, and who worked in Governor Rod Blagojevich’s 2002 primary campaign. “The timing is curious,” said Schakowsky of Creamer’s indictment, which came seven years after the investigation. Schakowsky noted that Abner Mikva, a former federal judge, congressman, and Clinton White House counselor, called it a “political indictment” with the decision to indict made at the “highest levels.” Creamer’s trial will occur in 2005.

 The bottom line: Anonymity is helpful, and, in the insular world of Washington politics, Schakowsky is on her way to becoming a powerhouse – because of, not despite, her liberalism. In the 9th District, Schakowsky’s ideology is not that far out of the mainstream. She’ll beat Eckhardt with 68 percent.