The Grand Old Partisan of Illinois

Halvorson's spokesman (accidentally) admits that she is part of the problem in Springfield

2008-07-09T08:47:00.004-05:00

Yesterday’s Politico story (ht to Rich Miller) about the race in the 11th District contains this stunning revelation:

“She hasn’t talked to [Governor Blagojevich] in at least a year. She’s been invited to meetings and just hasn’t gone,” said Halvorson spokesman Brian Doory. “They don’t really have anything to discuss.”

Really?!? The Senate Majority Leader doesn’t really have anything to discuss with the Governor? Maybe that explains why absolutely nothing constructive has been accomplished in Springfield lately.

Nice move, Doory. You’ve attempted to distance your boss from an unpopular figure by admitting that she’s shirking what is a fundamental component of her current position.

I don't know about you, but if I was trying to get a promotion, I wouldn't tell my boss that the reason I shouldn't be held responsible for the failures of my current work team is because I haven't even spoken to any of them in over a year.

Un-Planned Parental-consent debate in Aurora

2007-08-28T09:25:00.000-05:00

For years, pro-life advocates have argued in favor of tougher parental notification and consent laws by pointing out that it’s ridiculous for a teenage girl to need her parent’s consent to get her ears pierced or her tonsils removed, but not if she is having the highly invasive ‘medical procedure’ that is abortion. And for years, pro-choice advocates have dismissed that line of argument as silly, pointing out the obvious (and, for the purpose of their arguement, ironic) truth that abortion is hardly comparable to ‘ordinary’ medical procedures.

But, in the course of arguing that there was no reason to disclose to Aurora residents that the "medical building" being constructed by Gemini Development Corp. was really a Planned Parenthood clinic, pro-choice advocated have apparently changed their tune:

Planned Parenthood leaders have said they followed all developer guidelines -- a point on which city leaders agree -- and that the city zones for medical buildings and not for "podiatrists, general internists and plastic surgery."

Daily Herald, August 25, 2007

Since pro-choice advocates, including Planned Parenthood, have long argued - for reasons that make their operations sound more like “social services” than purely “medical” care - that abortion should not subject to standard parental consent requirements, it seems disingenuous for them to now suggest that they are merely performing “medical” services on par with podiatry or internal medicine.

Either Gemini Development Corp's application to develop a “medical building” was based on insufficient, if not downright misleading, information (in which case, the city should deny them their final occupancy permit), or Planned Parenthood is giving away the pro-choice arguement against parental consent laws. After all, if what they are doing is no different than foot surgery, than why should they not held to standard parental consent regulations.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

An early analysis of the 14 District GOP Primary

2007-07-06T11:51:00.000-05:00

From Eric Krol, in today’s Daily Herald:

A Hastert retirement would set up a likely Republican primary pitting Oberweis against Aurora state Sen. Chris Lauzen. The two conservatives would battle it out for their party’s base of support

If that's what the field looks like heading into Februrary, my prediction is that Lauzen wins.

In the 2006 Republican primary, Kane County represented 58% of the total votes in the 14th District. Kendall represented 17%. Obviously those two counties, Kane in particular, are must wins for the nomination. Oberweis' poorest showing in Kane was in 2004 (29%, compared to 56% and 40% in ’02 and ’06, respectively) when the race included a State Senator from Kane (Rauschenberger). I think the same dynamic will play out in ’08, and Lauzen will beat Oberweis in Kane.

In Kendall, Lauzen already has a base (his district includes part of the county), while Oberweis has seen his number go down from 61% in ’02 to 42% and 37% in ’06 and ’04, respectively, even though no “favorite son” was in the picture in the later two cycles. Once again, I predict a Lauzen win in Kendall. Lauzen also won most of the western counties in the district when he ran for Comptroller in '98.

If Oberweis is willing to set his sights lower than Governor and U.S. Senator in order to get elected, maybe he should skip Congress and run for Lauzen's State Senate seat.

Also posted at Illinoize

Jesse Jackson, Jr. is an idiot

2007-07-03T11:56:00.001-05:00

There’s really no other way to put it.

Perhaps the esteemed Congressman should sit down and read the Constitution before running to the nearest TV camera and declaring that the President should be impeached for committing “very serious crimes” against it.

Article II, Section 2 very clearly states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.”

It doesn’t take a law degree from the University of Illinois to understand that exercising an explicitly proscribed power is not a crime against the Constitution. So, whether you think “Scooter” should be hung from the nearest yardarm or given a ticker-tape parade, you cannot deny that President Bush was well within his Constitutional authority to commute his sentence.

Unless, of course, you are an idiot.

Also posted at Illinoize

Obama and the Illinois Guard

2007-05-14T14:39:00.000-05:00

Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax intern, Paul Richardson, linked to an AP story (via the Grand Island, NE Independent) on the concerns of several Governors regarding their states' National Guard preparedness. For good measure, the AP also threw in a quote from Democratic Senator Barack Obama, who, they report, recently wrote a letter to President Bush regarding this issue.

Now, what AP fails to mention is that none of these Governors (including our very own Rod Blagojevich) ever denied the consent required by the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 for federal mobilization and deployment of their states' guard units. Perhaps someone should remind Senator Obama that his fellow Chicago Democrat is, thus, at least partially responsible for the National Guard's equipment being “stretched thin in his home state of Illinois.”

If the Senator is really concerned about the readiness of our Guard - and not just scoring political points with his party's base - he would be writing letters to the Governor as well as the President.

Want to take bets as to whether or not he's doing that?

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Oberweis and the 14th

2007-03-06T09:30:00.000-06:00

I am starting a new job next week that will leave me with little to no time to blog, and I’ve decided to use this, my last post, as a counterpoint to my fellow partisan, Charlie Johnson, regarding the ‘virtues’ of Jim Oberweis as a candidate to replace Denny Hastert in the 14th.

First off, let me say that unlike Charlie, I feel no amount of sympathy for Oberweis. His “political mistakes” were not merely the early foibles of a “good, if often frustrated, politician.” They were, more often than not, bitter, negative and highly aggressive (and not to mention expensive) attacks that back-fired. And rather than demonstrating a “learning curve,” his series of unsuccessful campaigns revealed him to be a man looking for a powerful office (any office), not a chance to serve his fellow citizens.

While Oberweis may have had a claim to a “team player” reputation after 2004, he ruined it in 2006. Writing a check and smiling at the unity breakfast did nothing to undo millions of dollars of extremely negative ads smearing the eventual nominee. I’m certainly not saying that Judy would have won if not for Oberweis, but, on balance, what he did to hurt her (and thus the party) far outweighed what he did to “help” after the primary.

Strictly speaking, Charlie is right to say that the 14th district race could play to “all of his strengths and few of his weaknesses.” Unfortunately, Charlie fails to recognize that the few weaknesses that will be exposed are significantly more important than any financial or tactical advantage. Most important, as I alluded to above, is that while Obwerweis was getting his statewide “learning curve” on, Schmitz, Lauzen (and LaVia) were all working hard, serving large constituencies within the 14th district. You’d think that after his multi-million dollar losses to Durkin and Topinka, he would have learned that primary election voters value ‘working your way up' over walking around with a bag of money, hunting or an office to hold.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Illinois: The Land of Obama

2007-02-15T10:17:00.000-06:00

There's a a really great story over at Capitol Fax about the Governor using state letter-head to explicitly “support Senator Obama in his bid for the Presidency.” I certainly agree with Rich that this is troublesome...but perhaps not nearly as troublesome as an issue the Governor brought up while trying to defend himself. Rich says that Blagojevich’s office pointed “to the fact that the guv urged the General Assembly to pass a bill moving the ‘08 primary.” Let’s explore that point for a moment.

The Governor, as well as the Speaker, have both explicitly discussed this bill in terms of benefiting Obama. Madigan admitted that by introducing the bill, it was “rather apparent that I'm trying to help his candidacy,” and the press release from the Governor’s office in question above urges the legislature to pass the early primary bill in order to “send an early message in support of Senator Obama.” It seems to me that passage of this bill would be tantamount to a political endorsement of Obama by the Government of the State of Illinois.

Perhaps the Governor should wait until after the bill passes, then he can send out all the letters in support of Obama he wants under state letter-head. Then he can say that he's just promoting an official state program.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Why I don't trust Obama

2007-02-14T11:08:00.000-06:00

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in an interview with Rockford Register-Star columist Aaron Chambers:

“I can’t judge where there have been improprieties and where there haven’t been because I haven’t been intimately involved in what’s been happening in state and local politics over the past couple years.”

Excuse me, but doesn't endorsing and cutting commericals for a State Treasurer candidate count as involvement? Doesn't endorsing and headlining rallies for a County Board President candidate count as involvement? He did both within "the past couple of years." What about recent his endorsement of the Mayor's bid for re-election - isn't that involvement?

And what does it say about Obama that he would endorse someone for re-election despite being unable to judge whether or not they have been involved in any improprieties?

If this is Obama's idea of bold, daring new leadership, then the Senator seems poised to disappoint a lot of people.

What's in a Name?

2007-01-31T09:32:00.000-06:00

The Sun-Times reports that Governor Blagojevich signed a bill “requiring candidates who have changed their names within three years before running to have a ‘formerly known as’ under their name [on the ballot].”

It seems that a number of candidates for judicial offices in Cook County have changed their name to sound Irish, because, “candidates with Irish names…tend to sweep judicial elections.” Well now, thanks to a bill signed by the Governor and sponsored by fellow Illinoize blogger State Rep. John Fritchey, only truly Irish candidates get the benefit of such ridiculously thoughtless voting habits.

Seriously, isn’t the fact that voters are selecting judges based on ethnicity to begin with a much more disconcerting issue? Granted, I’m not sure much can be done about that. In a democracy, people are certainly free to base their vote on whatever superficial criteria they want. But how far should the state go to help them do so? Should we start including the race or religious affiliation of a candidate after their name on the ballot, in case someone wants to base their vote on that?

Also posted, with comments (and a debate with Rep. Fritchey), at Illinoize

Hastert Raises Cash and Questions with Recent Mailings

2007-01-30T10:06:00.000-06:00

A story in today’s Roll Call (subscription required) reports that former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), who is expected to retire before the 2008 election, recently sent out a mailer soliciting funds for his campaign committee. The story goes on to explore the various reasons why “the Coach” may be loading up his coffers, and the circumstances under which he may pull the trigger on retirement

Hastert is clearly positioning himself to become a power broker in both his 14th District and throughout the state. In terms of his retirement, Roll Call notes that there are concerns a special election could lead to a free-for-all, and encourage a strong Democratic candidate (not mentioned by name, but presumably Aurora State Rep. Linda Chapa-LaVia) to enter a race that would otherwise require them to risk their current positions. I think they are right, and thus my original prediction that Hastert would force a special election was based on faulty and incomplete reasoning. In regards to the Republican nomination, they speculate that Hastert could follow the example of Illinois Democrats Bill Lipinski and Lane Evans, and run through the primary only to drop out and have his organization push for his chosen successor (reportedly Batavia Republican State Rep. Tim Schmitz).

As someone who was critical of Lipinski and Evans, I’d be very disappointed to see Hastert do the same, especially when there is an effective but far less objectionable alternative available. As Roll Call reminds us, "campaign finance laws allow Hastert to give unlimited soft-money donations on the state and local level in Illinois from his campaign committee." I think it's more likely that he will use his war chest to help Schmitz in a primary by shifting funds to local and state Republican office-holders who agree to endorse him.

Coincidently, such moves could also add some muscle to Hastert’s endorsement of Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney if the Illinois primary is moved up.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Hey, Britney and Lindsay turned out alright, didn't they?

2007-01-19T15:36:00.000-06:00

From the The Wall Street Journal’s consistenly spot-on Best of the Web, January 19, 2007:

They're Called Boys
"Some Say It's OK for Girls to Go Wild"--headline, ABCNews.com, Jan. 17

Actually, many of them are called 'sex offenders.'

Possessing, buying, selling and distributing sexually suggestive images of minors are all criminal offenses under state and federal law. But according to a report by Sheila Marikar of ABC News, the creation of such images by minors themselves is a positive thing:

Your 14-year-old daughter shows up on MySpace in a bikini. Her 13-year-old friend is wearing a miniskirt that might make Britney Spears blush. Time to panic? Not necessarily. [...]
While young women may express their sexuality more overtly than they have in the past, for the most part, their behavior isn't cause for alarm. It's a necessary step in growing up.

Much of Marikar’s story is based on an interview with LynNell Hancock, who thinks that this phenomenon is merely the latest chapter in the long history of adolescent rebellion, and that parents should simply “relax.” Who is Hancock, you might ask? A respected child welfare counselor or developmental psychologist? Nope, she’s a Columbia University journalism professor who “covers the youth beat.”

Okay, let’s pretend that Professor Hancock’s opinions are relevant enough to discuss and….discuss.

Hancock:

"Adults think that kids take everything literally — if [teens] pose in a bikini, they're suddenly sexually active. It's odd that adults who are supposed to think more conceptually are thinking so concretely."

Huh? She think it’s odd that parents are thinking about the possible consequences while their children do not? (Someone, please tell me she doesn't have tenure!) Granted, it's possible that Hancock is right to suggest that there is no connection between this phenomenon and a rise in teenage sexual activity. Since the only study cited by Marikar's report was done before the launching of YouTube and MySpace, it can hardly be used to validate either parents' concerns or the professor's dismissals. Hancock’s Columbia colleague, John Broughton, a professor of psychology and education, isn’t much help. He says:

"What adults don't get is that MySpace and YouTube are very complex and really quite innovative media that have a whole set of conventions of their own, which are not really meant very seriously and not taken very seriously. It's not really as personal as it seems." (emphasis added)

No, I think adults do "get" it, professor. It’s not personal. It’s about objectification. And any decent psychologist should know how destructive a force that is, particularly in the realm of sexuality. To that end, Jaana Juvonen of UCLA raises some very interesting questions:

"It's the kind of dialogue that's missing from our schools at the moment: Have you thought about what that kind of picture does to people? What is the likely reaction for people who see that picture?"

I'd suggest that this dialogue not be limited to the classroom. Any organization that has contact with youth - including families - should find a way to address this issue. We shouldn't wait for girls to turn into statistics by ignoring this legitimately alarming phenomenon.

It appears history repeated itself

2007-01-05T13:28:00.000-06:00

Fred Barnes, speaking on Special Report with Brit Hume, December 14, 2006 (brought to my attention by commenter “District 14” on my December 22nd post to show how Republicans were trying to exaggerate and exploit the seriousness of Johnson's condition):

There is a long history of the doctors reports about politicians from the president on down about doctor's reports being untrue. You really have to be wary of them... I'm not saying we -- anybody has told an untruth about Senator Johnson, but this does happen."

From Roll Call, January 4, 2007

The office of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) disclosed late Wednesday that the veteran lawmaker has been unable to breathe regularly on his own since emergency brain surgery was conducted last month to fix a brain hemorrhage, an indication that his condition has been significantly more delicate than previously acknowledged”

The not-necessarily-final, not-necessarily-fatal role of a presidential candidate

2007-01-04T13:53:00.000-06:00

Does it matter that Barack Obama did drugs when he was in high school and college?

That’s the question that will (if not already has) come to dominate Obamamania, thanks to a Washington Post story that ran yesterday.

This, and the questions that naturally follow, are difficult to answer, and inevitably exposes almost anyone who gets into the debate to charges of hypocrisy. How can Republicans say it mattered while supporting a President who, by his own refusal to talk about it, has ostensibly acknowledged that he did drugs in his youth, as well? Doesn't the fact that Obama openly acknowledges it make it less scandalous? Does something that a person did 20+ years ago really matter today?

I’ll take the last question first. And the answer is: it depends. To me, the question can’t be generalized. Does it matter if you stole a candy bar when you were kid? If you did pot as a teen, or coke in college? What if you committed negligent homicide as a 37 year old Senator? At what age, and at what level of criminality, do you draw the line for dismissible “youthful indiscretions?”

The question of how – or if – you talk about it once you enter public life is far more important, and even more difficult. Seemingly every presidential candidate since 1992 has dealt with it in their own way. Bill Clinton didn’t inhale, and he was rightfully mocked for trying to have it both ways. George W. Bush wouldn’t discuss his youth at all, except to say that he had found redemption through Christ and changed his ways, and has been criticized for being dishonest and hypocritical. Barack Obama wrote in his memoirs that he did drugs, and then joked with Jay Leno that inhaling was “the whole point” (and, yes, made a caveat along the lines of “don’t try this at home, kids”). Will Obama’s handling of this delicate subject be as ultimately successful as that of Bush and Clinton?

My guess is that the “middle America” voters Obama is courting (and needs to win) are more like Bush. They think that even if parents did drugs in their youth, they shouldn’t tell their kids because they might get the impression that they, too can experiment and still turn out okay in the end. America is not like Illinois, where the partisan scales have tipped so far that a Democrat can successfully campaign as a champion of education while telling students how they need only be C-students to become Governor. Ridiculous as it was, there’s a reason Bill Clinton told us that he “didn’t inhale.”

Rest in Peace, President Gerald R. Ford

2006-12-27T14:33:00.001-06:00

Gerald Ford is often remembered for his distinction as the nation's only "unelected" President. I will always remember him for another: he is the only President to have been an Eagle Scout. As a fellow Eagle myself, as well as a former executive with the Boy Scouts of America, I have tremendous respect for the young men who attain this award. As an adult Ford was honored by the BSA with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award for bringing the Scout's "servant leader" attitude to the halls of government, always putting the needs and interests of country over those of self. His integrity and decency are an inspiration to anyone who believes that politics can and should be about doing the right thing, even when it's not the popular thing.

Durbin’s Schiavo/Johnson Strawman

2006-12-22T08:52:00.000-06:00

From today's Daily Herald:

It was ironic that some of the same people that were arguing for Terri Schiavo after 15 years in a somewhat vegetative state should live on, were pronouncing Tim Johnson a goner after 15 hours and brain surgery.”

Yes, that would be ironic, if only it were true.

I challenge Mr. Durbin (or his apologists) to cite one prominent advocate for continuing Ms. Schiavo’s life-support who 'pronounced' that Mr. Johnson would likely either die or be unable to return to the Senate. (Of course, I acknowledge that some did join in the rather widespread speculation of what might happen if that were to occur.)

Mr. Durbin is right to say that the Schiavo episode “had more to do with politics than it did with medicine.” But Mr. Durbin’s transparent attempt to drum up indignation over some imaginary hypocrites on the other side of the aisle doesn't make him much better. To whatever extent Congressional Republican leaders are guilty of having exploited Ms. Schiavo’s situation for their partisan gain, Mr. Durbin is equally guilty of exploiting Mr. Johnson’s for his.

Tank Johnson's "Second Chance"

2006-12-20T10:03:00.000-06:00

Shortly after noon, police responded to Roosevelt Center for Adult Education, 978 Haskel Ave., in reference to an anonymous tip regarding a student with a gun. Rodrick F. Lyke, 17, was found in a classroom.
After speaking with Lyke, police determined that he was armed with a 38-caliber handgun. Police said Lyke never displayed the weapon or threatened anyone. Lyke was charged with unlawful use of a weapon and failure to carry a firearm owner’s identification card. He was lodged in the Winnebago County Jail, where he is being held on a $50,000 bond...Lyke is suspended pending a recommendation from the Roosevelt principal for expulsion.”
- The Rockford Register-Star, December 12, 2006

Chronic misfit defensive tackle Tank Johnson, who has been arrested three times in the past 18 months (most recently for six misdemeanor weapons violations), received a slap on the wrist Tuesday from the Bears.
Amid speculation that he could be released or at least be inactivate for the remainder of the 2006 season, Johnson instead was given a one-game suspension by the team and will be back on the field for the regular-season finale Dec. 31 at Soldier Field against the Green Bay Packers. He will not be paid this week, unlike last week when he was placed on the inactive list."
- The Daily Herald, December 20, 2006

Something is deeply, deeply wrong here.

Before I say anything else, I must point out that the headline for the Daily Herald story is “Bears Give Tank a Second Chance.” Excuse me, but if he’s been arrested three times in the past year and a half, then this would be his fourth chance, by my count.

Now, I’ll admit that I don’t know if Rodrick Lyke is a Bears fan or not. And I can’t say that there is any direct link between his behavior and that of any specific celebrity or potential role model. But the juxtaposition of these articles says a lot about our society’s priorities and values.

There are plenty of ridiculous examples of zero-tolerance gone wrong in our country, but I pointedly chose Lyke’s story because it does involve a serious situation that certainly should be dealt with severely and judiciously. In my opinion it’s not only unfair, but also counterproductive, to let a school board ruin the prospects of higher education and a good career for a 17 year old but accept the Bear’s decision to simply give a slap on the wrist to a repeat-offending adult for what is ostensibly the same crime.

After all, zero tolerance, as a disciplinary policy, has a lot more to do with deterring behavior than actually correcting it. Offending students are “made an example” for others, in an effort to discourage them from pushing the envelope of acceptability. But talk about mixed (and downright unfair) messages! Imagine the impact it might have on students if they got a “second chance” from their school, but learned that the their ability to make a living with the talents God gave you could be ruined if they didn't shape up and live within the law as an adult? We might never know for certain if that would or would not discourage any kid from bringing a gun to school; but I’ve got to think that it would be more effective than the reverse, which is what we are doing now.

Cross posted at Illinoize

Vietnam or Korea? Durbin Ignores What Really Matters

2006-12-13T15:42:00.000-06:00

Last week, the Tribune’s Washington Bureau reported that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Meet the Press) took issue with President Bush’s likening of his handling of the situation in Iraq to that of Harry Truman’s in Korea. According to the story, Durbin “suggested that a more apt comparison might be to President Johnson….and the Vietnam War…” because:

Harry Truman had allies. NATO was behind him."

Let’s ignore the fact that it was actually the UN, which only consented because the Soviets were in the bathroom (or something like that) and thus couldn’t exercise their veto, and that it was principally Britain and Australia (two members of Bush’s “coalition of the willing”) who supported the U.S. led task force, and assume Durbin’s broader point actually matters: that the US had more international support in Korea. Is that the only salient difference between Korea and Vietnam? No. There is one more. One that makes Korea a significantly better analogy for Iraq: the outcome of the Korean War did have serious, long-term implications on U.S. national security.

Durbin apparently thinks that the lack of participation by our “traditional allies” (except, of course, the Brits, Aussies) is more relevant than what leaving Iraq too early might mean for our long-term security.

A Wild Week of Obama-mania "News"

2006-12-09T10:11:00.000-06:00

As I’ve said before, what bothers me about Obama-mania is the degree to which the media is not simply reporting it, but rather creating it. What evidence is there to support this? Well, consider the past week. Locally, the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board and Illinois political guru Rich Miller published editorials essentially encouraging an Obama run. Nationally, there have been stories in the Washington Post and on NPR’s All Things Considered program. None of these stories mentioned any of the numerous polls taken regarding a potential Obama candidacy. Since they won’t, I will. A quick glance at pollingreport.com shows that Obama (despite popular myth) trails potential GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. He also constantly ranks behind Giuliani, McCain, Clinton, Rice, Edwards and even Al Gore when people are asked whether or not they would like to see the above mentioned run for president.

The NPR story really got my goat, because I pride myself on being a Republican who enjoys their programming (particularly Saturday mornings) and is honest enough to admit that their ‘liberal bias’ is often overstated. But Mara Liasson’s report entitled "Barack Obama, Still on the Rise" was anything but serious, objective journalism. She claims that "some people who have met him say Obama has a powerful, even mesmerizing effect," then backs that up with a sound bite from Donna Brazile. To support the claim that there is a broad grassroots movement supporting an Obama run, she interviews a computer programmer who started a "draft Obama" website, but who has admittedly volunteered for other Democratic presidential candidates in the past. Most infuriating is Liasson’s attributing the "dismissive" assessment of Obama as a "blank canvas where people project their desires" to "a Republican" when almost the exact same sentiment and wording was used by The Nation’s David Sirota!

Perhaps there is something "special" and "unique" about Barack Obama. One thing is for certain, he definitely gets a special and unique sort of treatment from the press. If there is something "centrist" and "unifying" about Obama, don’t rely on the anecdotal evidence of adoring supporters who will be voting for the Democratic nominee whomever he or she is. Give us the facts, and let us decide if Obama really is the "real thing."

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Tribune exaggerating the "enthusiasm" Obama generates

2006-12-06T14:40:00.000-06:00

The Chicago Tribune editorial board says Barack Obama should run for president in 2008, (hat tip to Rich Miller) because "after the divisive events of the last decade, the nation may be ready for a voice that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences." They may be right, but I take issue with their singling out Obama as singularly being able to bring "an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography" to the campaign.

A recent Gallop Poll shows that more "adults nationwide" would "like to see" John McCain (56%), Rudy Giuliani (55%), John Edwards (45%) and Hillary Clinton (44%) run for President than Obama (38%). So why is Obama being championed by the Trib as an "enthusiasm" generating "centrist" while Giuiliani is dismissed as "polarizing?"

I'm not saying that the Trib is wrong to promote Obama as a possible candidate. But their promotion of him as uniquely qualified to end the bitter partisanship of the last 10 years just don't hold up to scrutiny. In many ways, the Tribune (like other media outlets) is not promoting Obama's "transcending" appeal - they are helping to create and preserve it.

Would I be complaining if it was McCain or Giuliani benefiting from this sort of editorial fawning? Probably not. But at least I'd be able to help defend it up with some facts and figures, not just the journalistic puffery of the same outlets that are doing the editorializing.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Poster's note: I didn’t want to do back-to-back Obama posts. Had I know that the Trib was going to release this editorial today, I would have held off on what I wrote yesterday for another time and finished one of the other essays I'm working on. (I don’t want to get a reputation for being “obsessed” with bringing down Obama here).

You can't spell Christkindlmarket without Christ

2006-11-28T11:05:00.000-06:00

From the AP (via the Chicago Tribune):

Worried that ads for "The Nativity Story" would offend non-Christians browsing in the traditional German Christkindlmarket in the heart of downtown, the city asked the German American Chamber of Commerce to reconsider New Line Cinema, which made the film, as a sponsor. The group then told the studio it would not be part of the bazaar that began Thursday.

Read the whole story when you have a chance, but let me give you the highlights, as well as my (admittedly unoriginal) take.

“Christkindl” literally means “Christ child” in German. So you have to wonder why the Mayor's Office of Special Events feels that advertisements for a story about the Christ child would be “insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market” named for Him (or him, if you prefer).

“Cindy Gatziolis, a spokeswoman for the Office, said the city does not want to appear to endorse one religion over another” (emphasis added). This is a City that has a public college named after Malcolm X and an expressway named after a Bishop. Apparently the city isn’t concerned about appearing to endorse the Nation of Islam or the Church of God in Christ with these taxpayer funded public properties. So why are they concerned that advertising space purchased by a private film study would appear as an endorsement of Christianity?

I think that the City's unreasoning attempt at "political correctness" is far more offensive to many more citizens than any inclusion of Christ's story in the Christkindlmarket would have been. I’d love to hear your thoughts, but I’d love even more for you to share your thoughts with the City and the GACC:

Mayor's Office of Special Events
moseinquiry@cityofchicago.org

German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest
info@gaccom.org

Team of Rivals, Redux

2006-11-22T09:58:00.000-06:00

Last October, a fascinating book was released called Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. The tome details how Lincoln, defying conventional political wisdom, turned his opponents for the Republican nomination into one of the finest Cabinets this country has ever had.

The one thing that our polarized electorate seems to agree upon is that these are perilous times. As we look towards the presidential race of 2008, I would like to submit that the Republican Party has a unique opportunity to revive this genius of Lincoln, and unify both themselves and this nation under an ensemble Administration of competent, experienced leadership.

The Republican contest is fast boiling down to a three-way race between Arizona Senator John McCain, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Each of these men would make a great President, and in the coming months I will be making a personal decision regarding which to support for the nomination. But regardless of whoever delivers the acceptance speech in St. Paul, each of the other two could and should play an important role in the next administration.

John McCain would be a natural and exceptional pick for Secretary of Defense. His credible voice in military matters would be extremely beneficial in an Administration headed by either a former Mayor or former Governor, especially in a time of war.

Mitt Romney, whose skilled leadership on the issue of healthcare in Massachusetts has earned him national recognition and attention, would be a fine pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, where he could tackle the nation’s chief domestic issue: our aging and faltering entitlement system.

Rudy Giuliani’s experience as a U.S. Attorney and 9/11 Mayor of New York would serve him well as either Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

I hope that there is a spirited, but cordial, contest between these three men over the next two years. America – and the Republican Party – wins no matter who comes out victorious.

Duckworth, Bean & AARP Dance the Social Security Two-Step

2006-11-01T13:00:00.000-06:00

One of my favorite lines from post-Sorkin West Wing comes in an episode about the policy and politics surrounding Social Security. In a one-on-one conversation, Bartlet tells Toby:

you can't save Social Security without cutting benefits or raising taxes, and this is the largest meeting in Washington where anyone's ever admitted it."

Though the show is fiction, that statement couldn’t be any truer. The only other option is to reform Social Security, and fundamentally change the structure of the program, as President Bush proposed doing last year.

If only today’s real Democrats were as honest in public as their fictional standard-bearers are in private. Tammy Duckworth is vehemently opposed to reforming or structuring the program; and, according to a recent press release, she is also opposed to raising taxes or cutting benefits. So how exactly does she plan to save it? According to her website, by “solving the nation’s exploding federal budget deficit.”

I’m sorry, but can someone please explain how that – as unquestionably worthy and necessary a step as that may be – will solve the fundamental problem facing Social Security, which is that more money will soon be going out than will be coming in to replace it. Yes, we must pay back the money borrowed from the Trust Fund. But that is an oversimplified, temporary solution that only delays the inevitable.

Given that, I’m inclined to say that, when the AARP asked in their candidate questionnaire "will you support a balanced Social Security plan to continue the program's guaranteed benefits for future generations?” Tammy Duckworth lied by answering yes. She doesn’t seem to support any such plan.

You would think that the AARP might be angered by a candidate answering yes and then renouncing any plan that resembles their own stated definition of “balanced” (which according to their website, includes “additional contributions from high income workers with modest adjustments in future benefits can maintain guaranteed Social Security benefits for future generations"). Instead, they have assisted Duckworth, and her 6th District counterpart, Rep. Melissa Bean, in backpedaling their responses - explaining how answering yes to that question doesn’t necessarily mean that they support raising taxes or reducing benefits.

With their own positions sufficiently mirky, both Duckworth and Bean, with the help of AARP are hoping that they can shout "we're for saving it and the Republicans are for dismantling it" loud and often enough to avoid giving the voters of the 6th and 8th District the straight answers they deserve before Election Day.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Chapter by Chapter Rebuttal to "The Plan"

2006-10-23T15:30:00.002-05:00

Universal Citizen Service

Emanuel and Reed lead off with a bold and noble idea: Require all Americans between 18 and 25 to serve 3 months in a new domestic service corps. Their rationale is that this will teach young Americans how to respond to a terrorist attack or natural disaster, inspire more young people to join the military, and help repair the broken bonds of community by rebuilding the spirit of common purpose.

I agree with the authors that some Republicans will find fault with this idea, but for a different reason. They contrive a hypocritical Republican strawman about the relationship between responsibility and freedom, but the real conservative argument against their proposal is that – particularly in regards to their last goal - it gives government a role in our society that it should not (and, I believe, can not) fill.

I couldn’t help but think as I read this chapter that this is simply a government funded solution to the problems that liberals created by undermining the traditional pillars of American community. Patriotism, civil service and emergency preparedness are the cornerstones of the Scouting program, which has served as one of the most reliable sources of military recruits throughout it’s history. Unfortunately, the ACLU has spent the better part of 3 decades waging war on that organization. Without irony, liberals are now proposing the establishment of a government managed program to replace an independent organization. When you hear conservatives decry "big government," this is exactly what we are talking about.

When Emanuel and Reed lament that “many aspects of our lives – neighbors, schools, popular culture, political affiliation – are simply not the common experiences they were,” they curiously omit religion. Perhaps that is because their fellow partisans and ideologues are responsible for removing church from the central place it once held in our society, while leaving nothing in its place. I never pass up a chance to remind people that the American tradition of separation between church and state originally had to do more with protecting the former from the influence of the later, not the other way around. Liberals, in the second half of the twentieth century, reversed that, with disastrous results. Now Emanuel and Reed present us with the logical end of the liberal argument: the outright replacement of religion by government as the foundation of community and society. Could this be the "fundamental change" that President-elect Obama so often spoke of on the campaign trail?

While the aims of their “universal citizen service” proposal are laudable, it unsettlingly creates an arrangement whereby the government shapes the citizen, instead of the other way around. Americans know how to build strong, stable communities. They don’t need a government manual.

Universal College Access

Why Emanuel and Reed give the accessibility of higher education prominence over the need to fix primary and secondary education systems is beyond me. If the quality of education possessed by those with high school diplomas is not increased, getting accepted by and enrolling in college will become an exercise in academic vanity as institutions of higher learning begin to lower their standards in order to make their recruitment goals (I witnessed this first-hand as a student working in my university's admissions office).

I am all for the performance based rewards and increased salaries for teachers that Emanuel and Reed propose. Carrots are great, but they work much better in conjunction with a stick. Unfortunately, the authors’ allegiance to the teachers union prevents them from endorsing any negative performance based consequences. Tenure was developed to protect academic freedom in universities, not serve as a sort of civil service protection on steroids.

All of the authors’ talk from the previous chapter about the responsibilities of citizens in the social contract is forgotten in this chapter. Education is treated as an entitlement program, a service provided to you by the government. Too many parent’s interest in their student’s education is limited to property tax bills and disciplinary activity - if even that. Every teacher I have ever talked to has told me that parental involvement is crucial to academic success – but Emanuel and Reed don’t bring it up even once. What happened to their rhetoric about how “no government program can work unless it asks personal responsibility in return?”

We need bold, innovative new ideas to reform our nation’s education system. But education is far too important to be left to bureaucrats and pandering politicians.

Universal Retirement Savings

“The first step to strengthening Social Security is to help people begin building a comfortable nest egg outside of Social Security.”

I’ve long since given up the hope that Social Security will provide the same return for me as it did my grandparents, but my 401(k) and IRA has nothing to do with the strength and solvency of Social Security. Emanuel and Reed may have inadvertently stumbled onto an interesting notion: politicians will not have to worry about grabbing onto the third rail if we take some of the power out of it. While they propose some interesting ideas fot making Americans less dependant on Social Security for their retirement livelihood, they fail to follow that with any ideas on preventing the looming shortfall crisis. They assert that “the best way to strengthen Social Security is for Washington to stop spending the family fortune on everything else.” While I certainly agree that federal spending must be brought under control, that will do nothing to fix the fundamental problem facing Social Security: the fact that very soon, more money will be going out than coming in. If that basic structural flaw is not addressed, my generation will be the first to experience a reverse transfer of generational wealth.

Emanuel and Reed seem to have forgotten the “social” part of Social Security that has essentially made the program broken from the very beginning. From the start, people have been able to collect more money than they paid in. With average lifespans lengthening and the retirement age staying the same, that problem is only going to get exponentially worse. The same was true of most traditional pension programs offered in the twentieth century, and Emanuel and Reed recognize that corporations are “straining under the weight” of such systems. To take the place of such traditional pensions, they propose that all employers be required to offer 401(k) programs that are portable, for today’s career hopping generation. As someone who has held 3 jobs since graduating college, I can fully appreciate this proposal.

401(k)’s are ideal for businesses facing an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Instead of being saddled with the fiscal nightmare of paying benefits to an ever increasing pool of former workers in perpetuity, they can help their employees prepare for retirement in a way that does not impact them beyond the current fiscal year. Instead of defined benefits that must be paid, there are defined contributions.

Unfortunately, Emanuel and Reed fail to recognize that the problems currently facing GM because of its pension obligations are almost exactly the same ones facing the government as a result of Social Security. That is why President Bush proposed the creation of personal accounts for younger workers. Sure, there will be a funding disparity that must be addressed in the short term, but the long term benefit is that we will not have to face the unpleasant task of raising taxes of cutting benefits in 40 years. If GM had made the admittedly costly investment of transferring from a defined benefit to defined contribution system 25 years ago, they might not be getting slaughtered on their bottom line today. There’s a reason that the private accounts proposal came from the first President to have an MBA.

Universal Children’s Health Care

Everyone agrees that the single largest problem with our nation’s healthcare system is the cost. Emanuel and Reed suggest five “common sense ways to cut costs and improve quality.”

First, they advocate for the use of new information technology, paying respect to the efforts of Senator Clinton and former Speaker Gingrich for their work on this issue. Second, they propose a transformation from a system that financially rewards providers on the basis of quantity of procedures to quality of results. This is an innovative idea, and their assertion that “in other industries, the notion of paying fee-for-service is as outdated as the house call” is valid, but doesn’t take into account the fact that medicine is not an exact science. The human body is an enormously complicated thing, and even the best medical experts at the Mayo Clinic can’t always provide the desired results. Does that mean they should not be properly compensated for trying, and giving it their best shot? Sometimes chemotherapy just is not enough to cure the cancer. It’s unfortunate, but someone has to reimburse the hospital for the administration of the procedure anyway.

The third idea proposed is promoting a healthcare system that helps people stay healthy in the first place. This is already being put into practice by the market-driven insurance industry (my dental insurance provider reimburses me for the purchase of a quality electric toothbrush, because they know it will save them money in the long run on fills and root canals), and it’s nice to see Democrats proposing that government provided healthcare programs follow suit.

Fourth, they assert that “effective care is the most cost-effective care,” and propose more research into the comparative effectiveness of everything from pharmaceuticals to the treatment of major diseases. Again, I think that this is a worthy idea, but the marketplace will – and already does – sort that out.

Finally, they advocate for more focus on chronic care, which is where Americans spend the plurality of their healthcare dollars. But the only specifics they convey regarding this are a restatement of number 3, as they discuss the benefits of helping emphysema patients to quit smoking.

Emanuel and Reed then move into a section on making employees health coverage more affordable for small businesses. Curiously, they completely forget to mention that the Republicans in the House have passed, and the Democrats in the Senate have blocked, a bill endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce (who’s membership is over 95% small businesses) that does just that. Instead, they promote the bill submitted by Sens. Durbin and Blanche that would create a government managed program modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Durbin-Blanche proposal, however, changes an important aspect that helps keep FEHBP so cost efficient: the exemption from state coverage mandates. Coincidently, that is the feature of the Republican backed plan that the Senate Democrats object to so much.

The authors spend a bafflingly brief amount of time discussion Medicare and Medicaid, especially considering that those are even bigger financial time bombs than Social Security. Again, their solution to the impending shortfall is: cut federal spending. And again, while I don’t disagree with that being a necessary part of the solution, it is only part of the solution.

Emanuel and Reed confess that they “don’t have a plan to secure Medicare solvency through the latter half of the twenty-first century, but we can begin now to start saving the Medicare trust fund.” My response to the latter part of that is, why bother? If the program is going to go broke in 50 years, why wait till then to take the necessary steps to address the structural flaws in the funding/spending equations? I guess Americans will have to turn elsewhere to find answers on that front.

Fiscal Responsibility and An End to Corporate Welfare (The Cost of One Party Rule)

I include that section subtitle from this chapter because that is basically what it’s all about. This is Emanuel and Reed’s chance to vent, and fire up the base with unabashedly partisan rhetoric. But blaming everything wrong with the modern relationship between politics and business is intellectually dishonest, as the examples they use to prove their point conveniently demonstrate.

Incumbency protection and gerrymandering are not new concepts. Republicans have certainly been more successful at implementing these tactics in recent years, but the Democrats’ failures are not for lack of trying. The controversial Texas redistricting plan, which the authors describe as “ruthless gerrymandering….for partisan gain,” was implemented because the post-2000 Census map drawn by the then Democratically controlled Texas legislature resulted in the vast majority of Texans being represented by Democrats despite the fact that a vast majority of Texans had voted for Republican candidates. If the party roles had been reversed, Emanuel and Reed would no doubt be praising this move as a bold defense of democratic ideals. The only thing truly controversial about it was the timing.

Turning to lobbying – the scandals surrounding which were originally going to be the Democrat’s trump card in this election until Mark Foley came out of the closet – they propose a five year lobbying ban on members of Congress, their senior staff, and senior administration officials. This is one of those ideas that is satisfying on a surface level, and might even accomplish its stated objective. However, there is a Constitutional issue to be considered: lobbying, like journalism, is protected by the Bill of Rights. Just as journalists and commentators (many of whom are paid handsomely, it should be noted) should not have their freedom of speech infringed upon, lobbyists should not have their freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances, even if they are making money by doing it on someone else’s behalf. Would Emanuel and Reed even dream of denying anyone the right to be a journalist because they had recently served or worked in Congress or the White House? My opinion is that if we truly had “a clear set of rules that protect the public interest,” which I agree we should have, then the effectiveness of a lobbyist would depend more on their ability to justify their client’s position as being in the public interests than on who they are. To be fair, Republicans have not done as much to make that a reality as I would like. But let’s not pretend that the Republicans ended some sort of golden era of honesty and accountability during 50 years of Democratic rule in the House. We will never get lobbying reform that is truly in the interests of the American people as long as it is being justified in such blatantly partisan terms.

Tax Reform to Help Those Who Aren’t Wealthy to Build Wealth

After wading through the muck of partisan, class-warfare rhetoric that punctuates this chapter, I found myself actually in agreement with much of their proposal to simplify personal income taxes. However, their proposed 35% flat tax for corporations is economic populism run amok.

First off, not all corporations are Enron, and thus they don’t all deserve to be treated like Enron, legally or rhetorically. The negative impact of a 35% flat tax on small and start-up businesses would be staggering. Right now, such businesses employ ½ of the private sector work force. Expect to see that figure go down (and the unemployment rate to go up) if Emanuel’s tax plan is put into place. I do not understand how Emanuel and Reed could spend so much time extolling the virtues of progressive taxation for individuals, but fail to carry it over to corporate taxes in order to help give already struggling small businesses a better chance to compete.

Secondly, not all business deductions are created equal. Are there some egregious loopholes that should be closed? Of course. But, just like individuals and families, businesses deserve breaks while trying to get ahead. Unfortunately, there is not much room for nuance in this oversimplified “people versus the powerful” tax reform agenda. Perhaps the best place to start would be to take the 4 “super-incentives” that the authors identify for the purposes of personal income tax, and see if there are not some legitimate incentives that can and should be offered to businesses:

College/Education – How about a tax deduction for corporations with tuition assistance programs, or scholarship funds for employees and their children? The authors are right, in the chapter on education, to point out its importance to our nation’s economic competitiveness. Businesses certainly have a stake in our public schools system, and they have a vested interest in offering their employees opportunities to continue their education and training throughout their career. Such an investment benefits the employer, employee, and the economy of the entire country. Businesses should be rewarded for making this sort of investment by being able to deduct the cost from their taxable profits.

Home/Property – An important tax incentive for businesses that was unfortunately not renewed in 2005 was the brownfields deduction, which allows corporations to deduct the costs associated with remediation for contaminated industrial sites. These sites are often in decaying urban areas in vital need of both economic redevelopment and increased environmental quality of life. Businesses that did not cause the pollution, but are willing to make the investment to clean it up deserve the assistance of the federal government through the tax code. Similarly, businesses should continue to be rewarded for making investments in energy efficient technology and retrofitting old facilities to meet modern accessibility and safety standards.

Family – Corporations that go above and beyond in providing child-care and extended maternity leaves should be able to do so without economic penalty. By making the salaries of employees on family leave 100% tax deductible, more companies might be willing and able to provide the sort of extended time that many liberals would like to see made mandatory.

Retirement – Finally, corporations that help their employees prepare for retirement by matching their 401(k) contributions should be rewarded through the tax code.

This is hardly an exhaustive list. But the point here is that sticking businesses with a 35% flat tax would not only be bad for the economy, but discourage them from being ‘good corporate citizens.’ Almost every sector or profession could probably come up with a list of 5-10 deductions that are not only beneficial for their bottom lines, but also critical to their ability to provide quality, affordable products or services to their customers. In short, helping corporations and business usually helps customers and employees, as well. (More in The Hybrid Economy)

A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror

I have news for the authors: we didn’t “splinter the world’s resolve to stamp out radical Islamic totalitarianism.” It never existed in the first place. Most other countries around the world can’t bring themselves to even acknowledge that radical Islamic totalitarianism exists, let alone is a threat worth confronting. And the leaders of those that do are derided as puppets and “poodles” of George W. Bush. Emanuel and Reed talk about “reforming and strengthening multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walking away from them,” but don’t give any insight as to what sort of reforms they think are necessary. Republicans like Senator Norm Coleman and Ambassador John Bolton have not walked away from the UN. They are the ones leading the charge to reform it and root out corruption. I am sure that both would be more than willing to make those bipartisan efforts.

Emanuel and Reed bemoan the fact that the Bush Administration has asked ordinary Americans to sacrifice so little in this war. They may have a point, but only if we limit our definition of sacrifice to financial terms. Yes, in World War II, Americans were more than willing to pay higher taxes. But Americans were also willing to accept that letters and cables between them and foreigners might be reviewed by the government, in an effort to combat spying and sabotage. I am not saying we should go back to draconian measures of FDR’s wartime administration. But it is worth noting that today’s Democrats believe an American’s right to a private conversation with someone with suspected terrorist ties is absolutely sacrosanct without a warrant. Even simply obtaining information about what phone numbers are calling what other phone numbers overseas is considered a gross violation of individual rights and freedom – an ominous intrusion by “big brother.” If we are going to start tying the intelligence community’s hands tactically, then all the money in the world won’t win this war. Republican criticism of Democrats over the war on terror has nothing to do with cynical exploitation of fear, and everything to do with a real concern that liberals only want America to fight this war as long as it doesn’t offend anyone overseas or intrude on anything other than the finances of the upper tax brackets.

The authors’ proposal to create an MI-5 style counterterrorism agency is thoughtful and worth exploration. The communication breakdowns within our nation’s intelligence apparatus were caused by barriers placed between the domestic agency (FBI) and the international agency (CIA) that were intended to prevent the latter from legally corrupting the cases of the former. An agency with the broad authority to deal with modern terrorism, which often combines domestic criminal matters and international security threats, would be an asset to our country. But Emanuel and Reed’s proposal that this agency “be given painstaking oversight by the intelligence committees of Congress” would represent as power grab by the legislature just as disturbing as any of which the Democrats have accused the Bush Administration. Congress is not a judicial body, and is ill prepared to assume the role of vanguard of constitutional rights. New rules are needed to fight this new kind of war, but that doesn’t necessitate (and I should think liberals would agree) the reordering of our constitutional separation of powers - a concept with which I would have expected the authors to agree.

The Hybrid Economy

The final chapter deals with using technology and innovation to achieve the goals of increased energy efficiency, a cleaner global environment, and a more competitive national economy. These are worthy goals in which every American has a stake. My problem with Emanuel and Reed’s approach is it’s over-reliance on government funded and directed research. In addition to the strong argument that can be made for private research being more efficient and productive, there are many reasons why the government should not be in the business of leading the charge on cutting edge technology. The current debate over stem cells highlights one of them. Call them luddites if you want, but almost every miracle of technology (particularly medical technology) has had its detractors – those who felt that the moral costs of progress were greater than the tangible return. By limiting the it’s role to providing tax incentives for private research endeavors, the government can support innovation without making any individual tax-payer feel as if they are directly supporting research that compromises their values and beliefs.

Conclusion

This is the most comprehensive agenda I have seen from the other side of the aisle since Bush took office. Some of the ideas are interesting, and worthy of further exploration. But, on balance, they are often predicated on the same failed liberal platform: government is the solution, and business interests (and those with wealth) are the problem. This is flawed logic on its very face, and has been flatly rejected by the American people for over 50 years. Any agenda that cannot move beyond that premise is doomed to keep the party that embarrasses it a recipe for disaster.

Lawyer jokes are funny, but don't make for a platform

2006-09-13T11:33:00.000-05:00

Okay, maybe one of my Democrat/liberal/progressive friends can help me out here.

Based on Tammy Duckworth’s incessant usage of “personal injury attorney” as a derogatory description of her opponent, I assume she must have passionate feelings about the issue of tort reform. I just can’t seem to find out what they are. I looked all over her website, and I don’t see one mention of it.

Now, over on Roskam’s site, I found a Daily Herald article that says she “is against limits on so-called non-economic damages for pain and suffering in medical lawsuits.” Okay - fair enough. There is a compelling case to be made that capping damages isn’t the ideal or most effective way to deal with our broken tort system. So where is Duckworth’s alternative?

Well, according to her campaign manager, Jon Carson, “the real problem in the system is frivolous lawsuits like those that Peter Roskam solicits in his Yellow Pages ads. We need to look for ways to stop these lawsuits on the front end, maybe by setting standards for the advertising."

I don’t mean to be blunt, but this is a really stupid idea based on a really stupid premise. When was the last time anyone sat down and skimmed the yellow pages without already knowing what they were looking for? The people who are seeing these ads are people who are already intent on filing a lawsuit! Sure, doing something about the advertising (either in the yellow pages or tv & radio) may hinder the filing of frivolous lawsuits, but won’t it also make it that much harder for those who deserve these unlimited non-economic damages for their pain and suffering to file a legitimate lawsuit? Don't get me wrong - I agree frivolous lawsuits are a problem. But what we need is tort reform, not advertising reform.

I don’t blame Duckworth for trying. She has an open opportunity to paint her opponent as being a benefactor of a serious problem facing this country. But that attack rings hollow when you realize that she has no serious solution for that problem herself, while the “benefactor” has supported measures that would reduce his benefit.

UPDATE: skeeter just reminded me of another good point. Duckworth also identifies Roskam as a “career politician” in the same derogatory manner. This might lead one to believe that she doesn’t plan on becoming one herself, right? So - has she taken a term limit pledge that I don’t know about? Has she promised not to pursue higher office one day? If not, how am I to know that this attack isn’t potentially hypocritical since there is nothing to counter the assumption that this is the start of her second “career?”

ICIRR: "Denounce what we just said!"

2006-09-13T11:23:00.001-05:00

Sun Times headline:

Group: GOP mailer likens immigrants to 'disease'

Wow, that’s eye catching, isn’t it?

The story, by Scott Fornek, opens:

A pro-immigrant group Wednesday called on Republican congressional hopeful Peter Roskam "to publicly denounce and repudiate" a GOP mailer that the group charges treats immigrants as "some type of disease."

Geez, after reading that headline and first paragraph, even I started to think, ‘maybe the NRCC went too far this time. That was pretty bad.’

But, wait!

I remember that our good friend, the So-Called Austin Mayor, has a copy of the controversial mailer on his blog. I've read it three times since I got to the office. I don’t see the word “disease” on it anywhere. Do you?

Interesting. Wonder why Fornek fails to mention that. I mean, he does relate a quote from an NRCC spokesperson saying that "They (the ICIRR) are trying to play politics by mischaracterizing what the mail piece actually says." Maybe that would have been a nice place for Scott to insert some background on just what the piece does say, which, whether you agree with the "path to citizenship" proposal or not, hardly likens anyone or anything to a disease.

Now, many of us in the blogosphere love to play the “why-haven’t-you-repudiated-or-distanced-yourself-from-that” game. But, really, this is a whole different game. This is the ICIRR – with the assistance of a sloppy journalist and headline writer – essentially trying to bully Roskam into repudiating and distancing himself from a quote that they just invented.

As a fan of spin and manipulation, I say to ICIRR: Bravo!

As a Republican supporter of Roskam, I say to ICIRR and the Sun-Times: Are you freaking kidding me?!?

UPDATE: It was brought to my attention by “Bridget” that the mailers in question may be these here. I took a look. Still not even a remote reference to illegal immigrants as “a disease.” So, my point still stands.
__________

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

Fact Checking the Other 20,500

2006-06-09T14:42:00.000-05:00

There have been a lot of posts on several different blogs today, including Rich’s, regarding the Governor’s job numbers statement.

Greg Blankenship of the Illinois Policy Institute fact checked, and determined that “they have the numbers right, this time." He is right, in regards to the 23,600 reported for April. But, as he says earlier in his post, "there are other aspects of these numbers, however, that one could question." Like, the 43,600 jobs supposedly created in "in the last three months."

Well, allow me.

The February and March BLS reports do not list figures for Illinois because they did not reach the “statistically significant” mark. Now 20,500 (43,600 – 23,100) divided any way over 2 months would have appeared on at least one of those reports. The lowest figures considered statistically significant in those two months were 2,000 and 3,200.

To be sure, this wasn’t an oversight by the BLS in February and March. The ‘over-the-year’ change from April 05-April 06 is 56,500, according to the BLS. That means that 33,400 jobs were created from April 05-March 06, which averages out to about 3,000 a month.

Something doesn’t add up, right? Well, remember that the Governor’s statement references “state and federal figures” (emphasis added). The only logical explanation is that the state figures for February and March differ from what the Feds counted. Isn't it reasonable to ask why? Or how?

Don’t get me wrong, 23,100 jobs is fantastic. We should be excited, and the Governor has every right to boast about it. I know I would, if I were him. But we should take a closer took at what else he is claiming, and perhaps wait a month before we get too excited or pat him on the back too much. It seems very likely that this April was a pleasant outlier in what has been a far less impressive trend. If that is the case, then it’ll be harder to argue that April was “the result of the governor's policies,” as his spokesperson has claimed.

Also posted, with comments, at Illinoize

The ACLU, the BSA, and inner city youth

2006-04-06T12:31:00.000-05:00

The Sun Times has a story today about the most recent round in the legal prize-fight between the ACLU and the Boy Scouts of America. Now, let me preface my comments by saying: (1) I am an Eagle Scout who’s family has a long history of involvement in the program, (2) I am a former employee of the Boy Scouts of America, and (3) my personal opinion is that the national organization should, if nothing else, develop a don’t ask/don’t tell policy, similar to the military.

The most important of those prefaces is #2. After graduating from college, I worked for about a year and a half for the BSA, and served a district that was disproportionately inner city, minority, and poor. The program was dying in these communities, not because of lack of interest by the boys, their parents, or even community leaders, but because the public institutions that had traditionally kept it going feared legal action by the ACLU. What infuriated me the most about this was that while I was driving around these communities, trying to organize new programs and find new sponsors, I did not run into any viable competition, so to speak. Most of the local programs that the churches and schools tried to start and manage on their own continually failed because they didn’t have the guidance or support of a national organization to help train their volunteers or provide a structure for their program (and none of them had the proven, documented track record of success in keeping kids in school, out of gangs, and on the path to responsible and productice citizenship). And there were no other national organizations, venturing into those communities to help out. There was no ‘ACLU Scouts’ beating me to the punch and signing up kids in other programs and providing the needed alternative to gangs, drugs, and violence. It was just me and my colleagues, and the people whose partnership we needed to get the job done were unable to help because of ACLU threats.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with the BSA position on homosexuality or religious piety. But it is time for the critics of the BSA to, pardon the bluntness of the expression, put up or shut up. Until a viable, competitive alternative emerges to take its place, let the BSA do the work necessary to help keep the young boys of these communities out of gangs and away from drugs. I’d hate to reopen the can of worms on the gun ban, but let me just say this one thing: banning the guns as a cure to inner city violence is like banning zippo lighters as a cure to underage smoking. Will it help reduce the frequency of the problem? I’ll admit that perhaps it would. But the kids will find other ways to light up, or light each other up, as the case may be. We need to solve the real problems, not just treat the symptoms. Would the presence of a BSA supervised program in Englewood have prevented the recent, tragic shootings there? I don’t know for sure. But, to me, there is as much evidence to suggest that as there is to suggest the Governor’s assault weapons ban would have.

So I’d like to know where the Governor stands on allowing public institutions to sponsor, or even host, BSA programs. I know the State Police would love to sponsor Explorer posts again. So why not let them, Gov?

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

(And, please, be constructive here. Regardless of what the ACLU would have you believe, the BSA does not actively preach ANY homo-phobia. Check their Handbook, or any of their program materials....the subject is not even addressed. There are many professionals and adult volunteers in the program who don’t agree with those specific policy, but see the overall value in it anyway. Please be respectful of their decision, and do not make sweeping generalizations about the tolerance or open-mindedness of all associated with the organization. UPDATE: Any comments posted that contain such generalizations will be deleted.)

Playing the Percentages

2006-01-25T12:15:00.000-06:00

This morning, Rich Miller (with a hat-tip to Archpundit) posted some more numbers from the St. Louis Dispatch/KMOV-TV poll pitting Governor Blagojevich against prospective GOP nominees Judy Baar Topinka, Jim Oberweis, and Ron Gidwtiz. This poll reveals some important facts (I hesitate to use “poll” and “facts” anywhere near each other, but for lack of a better word…..) about the “electability gap” between Ms. Topinka and her next closest rival, Mr. Oberweis (Incidentally, my spell check wanted to make this into a “delectability gap,” which might be a whole different contest altogether). Specifically, the two things that jump out at me are the gap between “independent” support of Topinka and Oberweis, and the difference in Dem support of Blagojevich depending on who his GOP opponent is.

Both Topkina and Oberweis receive support from only 5% of Dems, so crossovers may not be the strength her supporters claim it may be. However, they both receive almost the same percentage of support from Republican voters. So all the talk of the "base" (whatever that means in Illinois) staying home in November depending on what happens in March may be a little overstated. The real difference between Oberweis and Topinka seems to be their support among independents. The Governor only enjoys a 5% (45-40) lead over Topinka in this category, but his lead increases to 33% when Oberweis is the hypothetical GOP nominee (the gap between Blagojevich and Gidwitz among independents is even greater, but perhaps less relevant as his profile is still largely unknown or ignored by most voters, despite all his advertising efforts to date). Illinois is undeniably a state where Democrats enjoy a solid numerical majority over Republicans, so if the GOP nominee cannot be competitive among independents and convince a large enough portion of Dem voters that (for whatever reason) it isn't worth either voting for the Dem nominee or against the GOP nominee, then the race is really over before it begins and all the talk of crossovers or “base” mobilization become akin to debating the arrangement of the Titanic’s deck chairs.

As noted above, crossovers will probably not be a significant factor according to the poll. However, there is a 7-10% difference in Dem support for the Governor depending on who his opponent is. The lack of any other high profile/competitive race on the ticket may mean that some Democrats may stay home on Election Day if they aren't particularly wild about Blagojevich or don't find the GOP nominee too objectionable. This poll shows that a significant portion of those potentially apathetic Dem voters are more enthusiastic about (and perhaps more likely to come our and vote for) the Governor if the nominee is Oberweis or Gidwitz rather than Topinka.

Some of the more vocal Republican pundits are certainly exaggerating when they say there is no significant or salient difference between Blagojevich and Topinka – and Republican voters clearly see that. But Democrat and independent voters clearly see a difference between Topinka and Oberweis (and Gidwitz) – a difference that could give us four more years of “no more business as usual.”

Also posted at the Illinoize

2005-11-29T09:49:00.000-06:00