austin mayor's memory attic

Karl K: Pitchfork security is job he was born to do -- Chicago Tribune

2008-07-22T06:06:00.000-07:00

From your Chicago Tribune (emphasis added):

Pitchfork security is job he was born to do
By Jason George, Chicago Tribune reporter
July 21, 2008

In his 18 years in concert security, Karl K has pulled plenty of contraband out of people's pants, including a pocketknife, a live frog and a dead squirrel.

His quarry at this year's Pitchfork Music Festival?

Red Bull.

"People aren't supposed to bring it in, so they cram it in their bags and down their shorts," he said Friday afternoon, just moments after he asked a rep with the energy drink to stop handing out free cans near the festival's main entrance. "I don't particularly like being hit over the head with cans."

Not that such an experience would be his worst: Karl has been pelted over the years with batteries, coins and more.

That ability to spot concealed Red Bull cans and roll with the punches—sometimes literally—are just two reasons those who know Karl K will tell you concert security was the job he was born to do.

"He's my No. 1 draft pick," said Mike Daciolas, his supervisor at S3 Inc., the firm that handles security for most major Chicago-area entertainment events. "He can clear a problem just by looking at it."

And look he does. Before taking his place at the main stage for Public Enemy's performance, Karl, who abbreviates his last name, walked the grounds, his eyes in constant motion. Along the way he stopped kids from sneaking in and looked, without success, for a woman's lost wallet. He made sure a fan in a wheelchair was comfortable and asked a group of women to stop smoking some herb that smelled not of tobacco.

"I worry about everything," he acknowledges.

Growing up in suburban Burbank, Karl, 45, knew he wanted some part in the music industry after the 6th grade, when he fell in love with rock 'n' roll, motorcycles and the mullet he still sports.

"It's actually an ulta-mullet," he corrects, stroking his long ponytail.

It's that haircut, combat boots, a belt-holstered flashlight and handcuffs that make Karl look a bit like Dog the Bounty Hunter.

"I only have one tattoo, though," he says of art that stretches from his right ankle to his waist.

His "one tattoo" contains symbols for loyalty, strength and honesty —attributes Karl earnestly advocates for in life and at work. At 9 p.m. Public Enemy takes the stage, and Karl's easygoing attitude vanishes. Pacing the alley that separates the crowd from the stage, he gives directional hand signals to his staff and scans the crowd, looking for fainting fans and injured bodysurfers.

"The mosh pit is dying; it makes me sad actually," he says.

Being at almost every major concert in the Chicago area for the past 18 years, Karl gets greeted by all sorts of people. Few could tell you, though, that his preferred recreational activity is not music but relaxing at an Indiana nudist resort.

"I just love it, dude," he explains.

In fact, Karl rode his Harley Heritage Classic straight there following Friday's show. (He says he wore clothes the entire 90-mile journey.)

The concert had gone off without a hitch—no injuries and no real problems.

That's something he'll celebrate every time.

Keith Olbermann on Stephanopolis the Puppet

2008-04-18T06:34:00.000-07:00

Great Shark Hunt (Gonzo Papers, Vol. 1) by Hunter S. Thompson p. 185

2007-11-30T18:36:00.000-08:00

Durbin on Roskam: "I think there's a lot of hope for Peter Roskam; He's a person who is thoughtful and tries to do what's right."

2007-11-27T11:18:00.000-08:00

What do colleagues think of Roskam?
By Marni Pyke | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 11/7/2007 12:18 AM

As expected for someone with strong views, there's few lukewarm opinions on Peter Roskam.

The conservative Republican from Wheaton was elected to Congress one year ago and already is being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as the 2008 election approaches.

Democratic Party officials launched a radio ad campaign recently criticizing Roskam for voting against a health insurance plan aimed at needy children, saying he was in "lockstep" with President Bush.

But when asked to evaluate his performance, his Democratic colleagues in the House were elusive.

One staff member put it down to the Thumper Principle, also known as "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

Republicans including moderates such as U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk of Highland Park and Judy Biggert of Hinsdale, however, said Roskam had hit the ground running.

Kirk said Roskam's background as a state senator eased the learning curve. And while, the two voted differently on issues such as funding for stem cell research, Roskam was a valuable ally on local concerns, Kirk noted.

"I need folks to work for the home team, who care about how to fix security at O'Hare or the loss of ash trees. The great thing about Peter is that he's not lost his local connections," Kirk said.

The one lone Democrat to comment on Roskam was Rep. Danny Davis of Chicago, who recalled the difficulty of rising out of the ranks during a first term.

"I think he's done all right," Davis said. "Peter is solid and involved and engaged."

Few people know more about poverty issues in the 6th District than Mary Ellen Durbin, director of the People's Resource Center in Wheaton, which runs a variety of services for the needy.

While crediting Roskam for helping the resource center in the past, Durbin said she was disappointed in his votes on children's health care and wants him to become more of an advocate for affordable housing.

Still, "I think there's a lot of hope for Peter Roskam," Durbin said. "He's a person who is thoughtful and tries to do what's right."

Regarding the health insurance plan, Roskam said he supports the concept but is concerned the bill would steer benefits to illegal immigrants, an argument which is disputed by Democrats.

"Scroogled" by Cory Doctorow

2007-10-19T09:31:00.000-07:00

This story originally appeared in the October 2007 issue of RADAR magazine and at RadarOnline.com.

Scroogled
Google controls your e-mail, your videos, your calendar, your searches… What if it controlled your life?
By Cory Doctorow

"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." —Cardinal Richelieu

"We don't know enough about you." —Google CEO Eric Schmidt

Greg landed at San Francisco International Airport at 8 p.m., but by the time he'd made it to the front of the customs line, it was after midnight. He'd emerged from first class, brown as a nut, unshaven, and loose-limbed after a month on the beach in Cabo (scuba diving three days a week, seducing French college girls the rest of the time). When he'd left the city a month before, he'd been a stoop-shouldered, potbellied wreck. Now he was a bronze god, drawing admiring glances from the stews at the front of the cabin.

Four hours later in the customs line, he'd slid from god back to man. His slight buzz had worn off, sweat ran down the crack of his ass, and his shoulders and neck were so tense his upper back felt like a tennis racket. The batteries on his iPod had long since died, leaving him with nothing to do except eavesdrop on the middle-age couple ahead of him.

"The marvels of modern technology," said the woman, shrugging at a nearby sign: Immigration—Powered by Google.

"I thought that didn't start until next month?" The man was alternately wearing and holding a large sombrero.

Googling at the border. Christ. Greg had vested out of Google six months before, cashing in his options and "taking some me time"—which turned out to be less rewarding than he'd expected. What he mostly did over the five months that followed was fix his friends' PCs, watch daytime TV, and gain 10 pounds, which he blamed on being at home instead of in the Googleplex, with its well-appointed 24-hour gym.

He should have seen it coming, of course. The U.S. government had lavished $15 billion on a program to fingerprint and photograph visitors at the border, and hadn't caught a single terrorist. Clearly, the public sector was not equipped to Do Search Right.

The DHS officer had bags under his eyes and squinted at his screen, prodding at his keyboard with sausage fingers. No wonder it was taking four hours to get out of the god damned airport.

"Evening," Greg said, handing the man his sweaty passport. The officer grunted and swiped it, then stared at his screen, tapping. A lot. He had a little bit of dried food at the corner of his mouth and his tongue crept out and licked at it.

"Want to tell me about June 1998?"

Greg looked up from his Departures. "I'm sorry?"

"You posted a message to alt.burningman on June 17, 1998, about your plan to attend a festival. You asked, 'Are shrooms really such a bad idea?'"

The interrogator in the secondary screening room was an older man, so skinny he looked like he'd been carved out of wood. His questions went a lot deeper than shrooms.

"Tell me about your hobbies. Are you into model rocketry?"

"What?"

"Model rocketry."

"No," Greg said, "No, I'm not." He sensed where this was going.

The man made a note, did some clicking. "You see, I ask because I see a heavy spike in ads for rocketry supplies showing up alongside your search results and Google mail."

Greg felt a spasm in his guts. "You're looking at my searches and e-mail?" He hadn't touched a keyboard in a month, but he knew what he put into that search bar was likely more revealing than what he told his shrink.

"Sir, calm down, please. No, I'm not looking at your searches," the man said in a mocking whine. "That would be unconstitutional. We see only the ads that show up when you read your mail and do your searching. I have a brochure explaining it. I'll give it to you when we're through here."

"But the ads don't mean anything," Greg sputtered. "I get ads for Ann Coulter ring tones whenever I get e-mail from my friend in Coulter, Iowa!"

The man nodded. "I understand, sir. And that's just why I'm here talking to you. Why do you suppose model rocket ads show up so frequently?"

Greg racked his brain. "Okay, just do this. Search for 'coffee fanatics.'" He'd been very active in the group, helping them build out the site for their coffee-of-the-month subscription service. The blend they were going to launch with was called Jet Fuel. "Jet Fuel" and "Launch"—that would probably make Google barf up some model rocket ads.

They were in the home stretch when the carved man found the Halloween photos. They were buried three screens deep in the search results for "Greg Lupinski."

"It was a Gulf War–themed party," he said. "In the Castro."

"And you're dressed as...?"

"A suicide bomber," he replied sheepishly. Just saying the words made him wince.

"Come with me, Mr. Lupinski," the man said.

By the time he was released, it was past 3 a.m. His suitcases stood forlornly by the baggage carousel. He picked them up and saw they had been opened and carelessly closed. Clothes stuck out from around the edges.

When he returned home, he discovered that all of his fake pre-Columbian statues had been broken, and his brand-new white cotton Mexican shirt had an ominous boot print in the middle of it. His clothes no longer smelled of Mexico. They smelled like airport.

He wasn't going to sleep. No way. He needed to talk about this. There was only one person who would get it. Luckily, she was usually awake around this hour.

Maya had started working at Google two years after Greg had. It was she who'd convinced him to go to Mexico after he cashed out: Anywhere, she'd said, that he could reboot his existence.

Maya had two giant chocolate labs and a very, very patient girlfriend named Laurie who'd put up with anything except being dragged around Dolores Park at 6 a.m. by 350 pounds of drooling canine.

Maya reached for her Mace as Greg jogged toward her, then did a double take and threw her arms open, dropping the leashes and trapping them under her sneaker. "Where's the rest of you? Dude, you look hot!"

He hugged her back, suddenly conscious of the way he smelled after a night of invasive Googling. "Maya," he said, "what do you know about Google and the DHS?"

She stiffened as soon as he asked the question. One of the dogs began to whine. She looked around, then nodded up at the tennis courts. "Top of the light pole there; don't look," she said. "That's one of our muni WiFi access points. Wide-angle webcam. Face away from it when you talk."

In the grand scheme of things, it hadn't cost Google much to wire the city with webcams. Especially when measured against the ability to serve ads to people based on where they were sitting. Greg hadn't paid much attention when the cameras on all those access points went public—there'd been a day's worth of blogstorm while people played with the new all-seeing toy, zooming in on various prostitute cruising areas, but after a while the excitement blew over.

Feeling silly, Greg mumbled, "You're joking."

"Come with me," she said, turning away from the pole.

The dogs weren't happy about cutting their walk short, and expressed their displeasure in the kitchen as Maya made coffee.

"We brokered a compromise with the DHS," she said, reaching for the milk. "They agreed to stop fishing through our search records, and we agreed to let them see what ads got displayed for users."

Greg felt sick. "Why? Don't tell me Yahoo was doing it already..."

"No, no. Well, yes. Sure. Yahoo was doing it. But that wasn't the reason Google went along. You know, Republicans hate Google. We're overwhelmingly registered Democratic, so we're doing what we can to make peace with them before they clobber us. This isn't P.I.I."—Personally Identifying Information, the toxic smog of the information age—"It's just metadata. So it's only slightly evil."

"Why all the intrigue, then?"

Maya sighed and hugged the lab that was butting her knee with its huge head. "The spooks are like lice. They get everywhere. They show up at our meetings. It's like being in some Soviet ministry. And the security clearance—we're divided into these two camps: the cleared and the suspect. We all know who isn't cleared, but no one knows why. I'm cleared. Lucky for me, being a dyke no longer disqualifies you. No cleared person would deign to eat lunch with an unclearable."

Greg felt very tired. "So I guess I'm lucky I got out of the airport alive. I might have ended up 'disappeared' if it had gone badly, huh?"

Maya stared at him intently. He waited for an answer.

"What?"

"I'm about to tell you something, but you can't ever repeat it, okay?"

"Um...you're not in a terrorist cell, are you?

"Nothing so simple. Here's the deal: Airport DHS scrutiny is a gating function. It lets the spooks narrow down their search criteria. Once you get pulled aside for secondary at the border, you become a 'person of interest'—and they never, ever let up. They'll scan webcams for your face and gait. Read your mail. Monitor your searches."

"I thought you said the courts wouldn't let them..."

"The courts won't let them indiscriminately Google you. But after you're in the system, it becomes a selective search. All legal. And once they start Googling you, they always find something. All your data is fed into a big hopper that checks for 'suspicious patterns,' using deviation from statistical norms to nail you."

Greg felt like he was going to throw up. "How the hell did this happen? Google was a good place. 'Don't be evil,' right?" That was the corporate motto, and for Greg, it had been a huge part of why he'd taken his computer science Ph.D. from Stanford directly to Mountain View.

Maya replied with a hard-edged laugh. "Don't be evil? Come on, Greg. Our lobbying group is that same bunch of crypto-fascists that tried to Swift-Boat Kerry. We popped our evil cherry a long time ago."

They were quiet for a minute.

"It started in China," she went on, finally. "Once we moved our servers onto the mainland, they went under Chinese jurisdiction."

Greg sighed. He knew Google's reach all too well: Every time you visited a page with Google ads on it, or used Google maps or Google mail—even if you sent mail to a Gmail account—the company diligently collected your info. Recently, the site's search-optimization software had begun using the data to tailor Web searches to individual users. It proved to be a revolutionary tool for advertisers. An authoritarian government would have other purposes in mind.

"They were using us to build profiles of people," she went on. "When they had someone they wanted to arrest, they'd come to us and find a reason to bust them. There's hardly anything you can do on the Net that isn't illegal in China."

Greg shook his head. "Why did they have to put the servers in China?"

"The government said they'd block us otherwise. And Yahoo was there." They both made faces. Somewhere along the way, employees at Google had become obsessed with Yahoo, more concerned with what the competition was doing than how their own company was performing. "So we did it. But a lot of us didn't like the idea."

Maya sipped her coffee and lowered her voice. One of her dogs sniffed insistently under Greg's chair.

"Almost immediately, the Chinese asked us to start censoring search results," Maya said. "Google agreed. The company line was hilarious: 'We're not doing evil—we're giving consumers access to a better search tool! If we showed them search results they couldn't get to, that would just frustrate them. It would be a bad user experience.'"

"Now what?" Greg pushed a dog away from him. Maya looked hurt.

"Now you're a person of interest, Greg.You're Googlestalked. Now you live your life with someone constantly looking over your shoulder. You know the mission statement, right? 'Organize the World's Information.' Everything. Give it five years, we'll know how many turds were in the bowl before you flushed. Combine that with automated suspicion of anyone who matches a statistical picture of a bad guy and you're—"

"Scroogled."

"Totally." She nodded.

Maya took both labs down the hall to the bedroom. He heard a muffled argument with her girlfriend, and she came back alone.

"I can fix this," she said in an urgent whisper. "After the Chinese started rounding up people, my podmates and I made it our 20 percent project to fuck with them." (Among Google's business innovations was a rule that required every employee to devote 20 percent of his or her time to high-minded pet projects.) "We call it the Googlecleaner. It goes deep into the database and statistically normalizes you. Your searches, your Gmail histograms, your browsing patterns. All of it. Greg, I can Googleclean you. It's the only way."

"I don't want you to get into trouble."

She shook her head. "I'm already doomed. Every day since I built the damn thing has been borrowed time—now it's just a matter of waiting for someone to point out my expertise and history to the DHS and, oh, I don't know. Whatever it is they do to people like me in the war on abstract nouns."

Greg remembered the airport. The search. His shirt, the boot print in the middle of it.

"Do it," he said.

The Googlecleaner worked wonders. Greg could tell by the ads that popped up alongside his searches, ads clearly meant for someone else: Intelligent Design Facts, Online Seminary Degree, Terror Free Tomorrow, Porn Blocker Software, the Homosexual Agenda, Cheap Toby Keith Tickets. This was Maya's program at work. Clearly Google's new personalized search had him pegged as someone else entirely, a God-fearing right winger with a thing for hat acts.

Which was fine by him.

Then he clicked on his address book, and found that half of his contacts were missing. His Gmail in-box was hollowed out like a termite-ridden stump. His Orkut profile, normalized. His calendar, family photos, bookmarks: all empty. He hadn't quite realized before how much of him had migrated onto the Web and worked its way into Google's server farms—his entire online identity. Maya had scrubbed him to a high gloss; he'd become the invisible man.

Greg sleepily mashed the keys on the laptop next to his bed, bringing the screen to life. He squinted at the flashing toolbar clock: 4:13 a.m.! Christ, who was pounding on his door at this hour?

He shouted, "Coming!" in a muzzy voice and pulled on a robe and slippers. He shuffled down the hallway, turning on lights as he went. At the door, he squinted through the peephole to find Maya staring glumly back at him.

He undid the chains and dead bolt and yanked the door open. Maya rushed in past him, followed by the dogs and her girlfriend.

She was sheened in sweat, her usually combed hair clinging in clumps to her forehead. She rubbed at her eyes, which were red and lined.

"Pack a bag," she croaked hoarsely.

"What?"

She took him by the shoulders. "Do it," she said.

"Where do you want to...?"

"Mexico, probably. Don't know yet. Pack, dammit." She pushed past him into his bedroom and started yanking open drawers.

"Maya," he said sharply, "I'm not going anywhere until you tell me what's going on."

She glared at him and pushed her hair away from her face. "The Googlecleaner lives. After I cleaned you, I shut it down and walked away. It was too dangerous to use anymore. But it's still set to send me e-mail confirmations whenever it runs. Someone's used it six times to scrub three very specific accounts—all of which happen to belong to members of the Senate Commerce Committee up for reelection."

"Googlers are blackwashing senators?"

"Not Googlers. This is coming from off-site. The IP block is registered in D.C. And the IPs are all used by Gmail users. Guess who the accounts belong to?"

"You spied on Gmail accounts?"

"Okay. Yes. I did look through their e-mail. Everyone does it, now and again, and for a lot worse reasons than I did. But check it out—turns out all this activity is being directed by our lobbying firm. Just doing their job, defending the company's interests."

Greg felt his pulse beating in his temples. "We should tell someone."

"It won't do any good. They know everything about us. They can see every search. Every e-mail. Every time we've been caught on the webcams. Who is in our social network...did you know if you have 15 Orkut buddies, it's statistically certain that you're no more than three steps to someone who's contributed money to a 'terrorist' cause? Remember the airport? You'll be in for a lot more of that."

"Maya," Greg said, getting his bearings. "Isn't heading to Mexico overreacting? Just quit. We can do a start-up or something. This is crazy."

"They came to see me today," she said. "Two of the political officers from DHS. They didn't leave for hours. And they asked me a lot of very heavy questions."

"About the Googlecleaner?"

"About my friends and family. My search history. My personal history."

"Jesus."

"They were sending a message to me. They're watching every click and every search. It's time to go. Time to get out of range."

"There's a Google office in Mexico, you know."

"We've got to go," she said, firmly.

"Laurie, what do you think of this?" Greg asked.

Laurie thumped the dogs between the shoulders. "My parents left East Germany in '65. They used to tell me about the Stasi. The secret police would put everything about you in your file, if you told an unpatriotic joke, whatever. Whether they meant it or not, what Google has created is no different."

"Greg, are you coming?"

He looked at the dogs and shook his head. "I've got some pesos left over," he said. "You take them. Be careful, okay?"

Maya looked like she was going to slug him. Softening, she gave him a ferocious hug.

"Be careful, yourself," she whispered in his ear.

They came for him a week later. At home, in the middle of the night, just as he'd imagined they would.

Two men arrived on his doorstep shortly after 2 a.m. One stood silently by the door. The other was a smiler, short and rumpled, in a sport coat with a stain on one lapel and a American flag on the other. "Greg Lupinski, we have reason to believe you're in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act," he said, by way of introduction. "Specifically, exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information. Ten years for a first offense. Turns out that what you and your friend did to your Google records qualifies as a felony. And oh, what will come out in the trial...all the stuff you whitewashed out of your profile, for starters."

Greg had played this scene in his head for a week. He'd planned all kinds of brave things to say. It had given him something to do while he waited to hear from Maya. She never called.

"I'd like to get in touch with a lawyer," is all he mustered.

"You can do that," the small man said. "But maybe we can come to a better arrangement."

Greg found his voice. "I'd like to see your badge," he stammered.

The man's basset-hound face lit up as he let out a bemused chuckle. "Buddy, I'm not a cop," he replied. "I'm a consultant. Google hired me—my firm represents their interests in Washington—to build relationships. Of course, we wouldn't get the police involved without talking to you first. You're part of the family. Actually, there's an offer I'd like to make."

Greg turned to the coffeemaker, dumped the old filter.

"I'll go to the press," he said.

The man nodded as if thinking it over. "Well, sure. You could walk into the Chronicle's office in the morning and spill everything. They'd look for a confirming source. They won't find one. And when they try searching for it, we'll find them. So, buddy, why don't you hear me out, okay? I'm in the win-win business. I'm very good at it." He paused. "By the way, those are excellent beans, but you want to give them a little rinse first? Takes some of the bitterness out and brings up the oils. Here, pass me a colander?"

Greg watched as the man silently took off his jacket and hung it over a kitchen chair, then undid his cuffs and carefully rolled them up, slipping a cheap digital watch into his pocket. He poured the beans out of the grinder and into Greg's colander, and rinsed them in the sink.

He was a little pudgy and very pale, with the social grace of an electrical engineer. He seemed like a real Googler, actually, obsessed with the minutiae. He knew his way around a coffee grinder, too.

"We're drafting a team for Building 49..."

"There is no Building 49," Greg said automatically.

"Of course," the guy said, flashing a tight smile. "There's no Building 49. But we're putting together a team to revamp the Googlecleaner. Maya's code wasn't very efficient, you know. It's full of bugs. We need an upgrade. You'd be the right guy, and it wouldn't matter what you knew if you were back inside."

"Unbelievable," Greg said, laughing. "If you think I'm going to help you smear political candidates in exchange for favors, you're crazier than I thought."

"Greg," the man said, "we're not smearing anyone. We're just going to clean things up a bit. For some select people. You know what I mean? Everyone's Google profile is a little scary under close inspection. Close inspection is the order of the day in politics. Standing for office is like a public colonoscopy." He loaded the cafetière and depressed the plunger, his face screwed up in solemn concentration. Greg retrieved two coffee cups—Google mugs, of course—and passed them over.

"We're going to do for our friends what Maya did for you. Just a little cleanup. All we want to do is preserve their privacy. That's all."

Greg sipped his coffee. "What happens to the candidates you don't clean?"

"Yeah," the guy said, flashing Greg a weak grin. "Yeah, you're right. It'll be kind of tough for them." He searched the inside pocket of his jacket and produced several folded sheets of paper.

He smoothed out the pages and put them on the table. "Here's one of the good guys who needs our help." It was a printout of a search history belonging to a candidate whose campaign Greg had contributed to in the past three elections.

"Fella gets back to his hotel room after a brutal day of campaigning door to door, fires up his laptop, and types 'hot asses' into his search bar. Big deal, right? The way we see it, for that to disqualify a good man from continuing to serve his country is just un-American."

Greg nodded slowly.

"So you'll help the guy out?" the man asked.

"Yes."

"Good. There's one more thing. We need you to help us find Maya. She didn't understand our goals at all, and now she seems to have flown the coop. Once she hears us out, I have no doubt she'll come around."

He glanced at the candidate's search history.

"I guess she might," Greg replied.

The new Congress took 11 working days to pass the Securing and Enumerating America's Communications and Hypertext Act, which authorized the DHS and NSA to outsource up to 80 percent of intelligence and analysis work to private contractors. Theoretically, the contracts were open to competitive bidding, but within the secure confines of Google's Building 49, there was no question of who would win. If Google had spent $15 billion on a program to catch bad guys at the border, you can bet they would have caught them—governments just aren't equipped to Do Search Right.

The next morning Greg scrutinized himself carefully as he shaved (the security minders didn't like hacker stubble and weren't shy about telling him so), realizing that today was his first day as a de facto intelligence agent for the U.S. government. How bad would it be? Wasn't it better to have Google doing this stuff than some ham-fisted DHS desk jockey?

By the time he parked at the Googleplex, among the hybrid cars and bulging bike racks, he had convinced himself. He was mulling over which organic smoothie to order at the canteen when his key card failed to open the door to Building 49. The red LED flashed dumbly every time he swiped his card. Any other building, and there'd be someone to tailgate on, people trickling in and out all day. But the Googlers in 49 only emerged for meals, and sometimes not even that.

Swipe, swipe, swipe. Suddenly he heard a voice at his side.

"Greg, can I see you, please?"

The rumpled man put an arm around his shoulders, and Greg smelled his citrusy aftershave. It smelled like what his divemaster in Baja had worn when they went out to the bars in the evening. Greg couldn't remember his name. Juan Carlos? Juan Luis?

The man's arm around his shoulders was firm, steering him away from the door, out onto the immaculate lawn, past the herb garden outside the kitchen. "We're giving you a couple of days off," he said.

Greg felt a sudden stab of anxiety. "Why?" Had he done something wrong? Was he going to jail?

"It's Maya." The man turned him around, met his eyes with his bottomless gaze. "She killed herself. In Guatemala. I'm sorry, Greg."

Greg seemed to hurtle away, to a place miles above, a Google Earth view of the Googleplex, where he looked down on himself and the rumpled man as a pair of dots, two pixels, tiny and insignificant. He willed himself to tear at his hair, to drop to his knees and weep.

From a long way away, he heard himself say, "I don't need any time off. I'm okay."

From a long way away, he heard the rumpled man insist.

The argument persisted for a long time, and then the two pixels moved into Building 49, and the door swung shut behind them.

American Airlines "American Way" interview with Jeff Tweedy

2007-07-11T05:54:00.001-07:00

Jeff Tweedy’s Sweet Home

http://tinyurl.com/2fa4ut

Chicago has a rich musical past, so it only makes sense that Wilco’s Jeff Tweedy, the owner of perhaps the richest musical presence around, makes his home there.
By Bob Mehr

“I think this might be the toughest interview I’ve done,” Jeff Tweedy offers with a chuckle.

It’s a somewhat surprising comment, coming from the well-traveled Wilco front man. In addition to being the subject of a major biography (Greg Kot’s Wilco: Learning How to Die) and of a feature-length documentary (Sam Jones’s I Am Trying to Break Your Heart), Tweedy has been the focus of countless articles and press inquiries over the years.

That kind of critical support has helped grow the 39-year-old singer-songwriter’s original small cult of fans (from his days in the alt-country combo Uncle Tupelo) into a legion of diehard Wilco-heads, even as Tweedy has continually challenged both his audience and himself musically. A somewhat reluctant rock star, he’s managed to toe the fine line between underground respect and mainstream success and has become one of contemporary music’s most compelling and revered figures in the process.

A native of tiny Belleville, Illinois, Tweedy has called Chicago home for the past 13 years. He arrived in the early 1990s, ostensibly to be with his girlfriend, who is now his wife, Sue Miller. She was a co-owner of the much-beloved and now long-defunct rock club Lounge Ax. Longtime North Side residents, the Tweedys have two sons, Sam, seven, and Spencer, 11; the latter, already following in his father’s footsteps, is a member of kiddie rock band the Blisters.
Tweedy’s group, Wilco, meanwhile, has just released its sixth studio album, Sky Blue Sky (see page 48). Recorded in the band’s loft studio rehearsal space, the disc finds Tweedy once again exploring a stylistic shift — the album luxuriates in the sweet sounds of ’70s FM radio and has a warm, rootsy bonhomie.

A proud and passionate Chicagoan, Tweedy offers his insights on the city’s music scene, his favorite family dining spots, the best places to pick up a guitar, and where to see a show. And he also tells why he doesn’t do much record shopping anymore.

Being a native Midwesterner, did you spend a lot of time in Chicago when you were a child?
Well, I grew up about five hours south of Chicago, near St. Louis, so I didn’t really come here as a kid — it would’ve been like going to Mars. [Laughs]

The first time I really came to Chicago was with Uncle Tupelo in the late ’80s. We started playing at a club called the Cubby Bear and then at the Lounge Ax, which is where I met my wife, Sue. We were dating, but it was hard to consider ourselves a real couple unless we lived in the same city. So when Uncle Tupelo broke up and Wilco started, that kind of seemed a good time to make a change, so I moved to Chicago.

Did anything surprise you about the city when you arrived, in terms of coming from a smaller town like Belleville?
By the time I moved to Chicago, I’d certainly had my eyes opened to the rest of the world, just from touring so much. But the thing that struck me the most when I spent time in Chicago was the sense of community among musicians here. The rock community was really vibrant, and the fact that there were so many people happily coexisting with each other surprised me, I guess. I’ve never really been much of a scene guy, and I don’t think I am now, but it was nice to see that there was a real thriving element to the way people were living with each other and making music.

It’s a place that has always had a tremendous legacy as a musical city.
Chicago has an unbelievable history through the years. Things that stick out in my mind immediately are Howlin’ Wolf and Hubert Sumlin, Mavis Staples — people like that. All these artists who made their home here form a huge part of my record collection.

It continues to be a great place for musicians — and not just for rock or pop musicians. There’s an unbelievably vibrant improvised music scene here centered on clubs like the Empty Bottle. Chicago is really the center of the universe for that kind of music. I don’t even think any cities in Europe can compare to what we have here.

Do you think that being in Chicago — as opposed to being in New York or in Los Angeles — has been helpful to your music and career?
Chicago is pretty great for a lot of reasons, in my mind. If you’re in a band, there are tons of places to play. Compared with other major cities, you can live reasonably well without a lot of money. And there are a lot of people who are very good at recording — there are great studios all over town, like Electrical Audio and Soma [Electronic Music Studios].

Even for us, having our own place to record at, it’s very helpful to have someone just a couple of blocks away who can lend you a reel of tape or come over and help troubleshoot if your machines aren’t working. There’s a great support system in that way. I feel very comfortable here, very taken care of and nurtured as a musician. It makes it an easy environment to be creative in.

You’ve played at pretty much every major venue in town — from small clubs to big theaters. Do any of them stand out to you, whether you performed there or were an audience member?
The Auditorium Theatre, where we’ve played a bunch of times now, is such an unbelievably gorgeous building to get to see a show in. I would highly recommend that to anyone if they have a chance to see something they like there. It’s a pretty historic concert venue for Chicago as well. The Who played there, as did Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin. Frank Zappa played there a lot — I think he played every Halloween for a number of years. When it first opened [in 1889], I think it was one of the tallest buildings in Chicago. [Architect] Louis Sullivan built his offices in a sky cottage above the dome of the building to prove that it could withstand being that high. I guess people doubted him at the time. So there’s a real cool history that goes with the place.

Another favorite, as far as a smaller venue goes, is the Hideout. It’s an old bar and club in this kind of industrial part of town. It’s a great, friendly place for people to see music in a more intimate room.

In the past few years, Chicago seems to have exploded as a place for summer music festivals.
I think Chicago is the best city in the world for festivals now. All summer long, there is a constant stream of really exciting music events happening here. You have the Pitchfork Music Festival and Lollapalooza, and last year, there was the Touch and Go festival. Wilco’s not actually doing Lollapalooza this year, but my son’s band, the Blisters, is playing two days of the festival, so hopefully I’ll be there just to roadie.

That’s not even mentioning all the local neighborhood street festivals in the summer. I don’t have any idea why it happens so much here culturally, but it is a fact of life in Chicago that every weekend someone’s going to think of some excuse to blockade the streets, serve beer, and have bands play. [Laughs]

You play a really nice selection of guitars onstage. Do you have a particular place where you find instruments?
One place I’ve shopped at a lot over the years is Midwest Buy and Sell, which is a pawnshop that specializes in musical equipment. I think their philosophy is to stock really great instruments, but ones that aren’t “perfect” in a collector’s sense. They want to put them in the hands of people who are going to play them and use them.

What about record stores?
Well, unfortunately, I don’t find music shopping environments to be very comfortable. I do way more shopping online than going to record stores. If I’m on the road and it’s a day off, I can do it sometimes. In general, it can be a little tough here.

I suppose you at a record shop in Chicago must be a little like the pope in Rome.
I wouldn’t go that far. [Laughs] Even if it’s only one time in 10, it’s those few encounters I’ve had where people have wanted to talk to me — and they’re nice people — but it changes the experience. At one point in time, going to a record store was like going to church for me. So it’s something that I’ve always associated with a certain amount of introspection and solitude, ironically.

Are you less recognized in bookstores?
I think I am. Well, people tend to have their heads down a little bit more in bookstores. [Laughs]

Are there any that stand out for you?
I love going to Quimby’s Bookstore in Wicker Park. I can’t ever get enough stuff to read. So I go in there, maybe once a month, and spend way too much money. I don’t buy super-esoteric stuff like obscure xeroxed fanzines, but I do like thumbing through them, and there’s definitely more of a chance of finding something like that at Quimby’s than anywhere else. Plus, the other stuff they keep in stock is much more to my taste.

Let’s talk a little bit about food. In Chicago, you have to start with hot dogs. Where do you go for yours?
Easy: That’d be Superdawg. If there’s anybody visiting from out of town, we end by making a trip there. It’s been around forever; it’s still a carhop. You pull up, and they bring these delicious, massive hot dogs right to your window.

And where do your loyalties lie on the pizza question — deep dish or thin crust?
Thick. I think that Lou Malnati’s is the best pizza in the world, by far. I just love the stuff. I get it plain, just cheese, and they don’t cut it. You cut it when you get home, and the crust stays crisp that way. I don’t think there’s pizza anywhere else like it.

You have a family, so I know that’s always a consideration when you’re going out to eat.
That’s true. There are a few places we like to go. For breakfast, it’d be Lou Mitchell’s. That’s a stop you have to make. It’s an old-style diner. When you come in in the morning, they give the kids and the wife a box of Milk Duds, and the husband gets the check — that’s what they tell you when you walk in. It’s one of those places where they’re kind of rude to the dad but nice to everybody else. [Laughs] They bring you a prune before you eat your main course, and they serve these amazing egg dishes that come in burning-hot skillets. Everything is really delicious there.

There’s also Feed, a great home-cooking, soul-food place that’s pretty kid friendly. They do great barbecue, chicken, collard greens — it’s Southern-style cooking. It’s a great environment, a very comfortable and fun place to go for the family.

In general, we try to support some of the places in our neighborhood, Old Irving Park, and nearby. There’s a really good Middle Eastern place called Shiraz. And I think Tank in Lincoln Square has the best sushi in town.

Everyone assumes musicians aren’t outdoor types, but you try and take advantage of the parks in Chicago, right?
Yeah, I run all the time on the trails by Lake Michigan. The waterfront in Chicago is just another aspect that makes the city so special. To have such a beautiful waterfront in a Midwestern city is a strange but amazing thing.

The parks in Chicago are great, and not just for the physical beauty but because of all the stuff you can do. If you look at what the Chicago Park District offers in terms of classes, almost anything you can think of or want to try and do, they have.

Also, in the summer, a lot of the parks here do movie nights, when they’ll show films on big screens outdoors. So you go hang out with your kids and your neighbors on the grass. I just think that stuff is really lovely.

What about musical activities for the family?
The Old Town School of Folk Music, for sure. It’s a pretty amazing thing to have in a community; anyone — not just kids — can go learn how to frail a banjo or to do African dancing or whatever. They have music camps in the summer, as well, and our kids have gone to those.

Also, a place like the Hideout, which I mentioned — they do a lot of matinee shows for kids. Jon Langford and Sally Timms of the Mekons have put on plays for kids there. There’s a really good group of people in Chicago doing shows for kids that aren’t dumbed down, which I really appreciate. I like the fact it’s not just Barney on Ice. [Laughs]

You’re a pretty good salesman for the city.
Yeah, I’m feeling like I should get a job as spokesman for the Chicago tourism department. But, you know, Chicago has a really strong civic spirit; it’s really kind of cool. I never knew anything like that growing up, even in a small town. That’s one of the reasons why I love it here.


	He Said… Jeff Tweedy’s essential Chicago spots Dining Feed, Southern, inexpensive to moderate, (773) 489-4600 Lou Malnati’s Pizzeria, Italian/pizza, moderate, multiple locations, www.loumalnatis.com Lou Mitchell’s, diner, inexpensive, (312) 939-3111, www.loumitchellsrestaurant.com Shiraz Restaurant, Middle Eastern, moderate, (773) 777-7275, www.shirazrestaurante.com Superdawg, hot dogs/burgers, inexpensive, (773) 763-0660, www.superdawg.com Tank, sushi, Japanese, moderate to expensive, (773) 769-2600, www.tanksushi.com Clubs/Venues Auditorium Theatre of Roosevelt University, (312) 922-2110, www.auditoriumtheatre.org Empty Bottle, (773) 276-3600, www.empty bottle.com Hideout, (773) 227-4433, www.hideoutchicago.com Shopping Midwest Buy and Sell, (773) 545-2020, www.mwbuynsell.net Quimby’s Bookstore, (773) 342-0910, www.quimbys.com Attractions Chicago Park District, (312) 742-7529, www.chicagoparkdistrict.com Lollapalooza, (888) 512-7469, www.lollapalooza.com Old Town School of Folk Music, (773) 728-6000, www.oldtownschool.org Pitchfork Music Festival, (866) 468-3401, www.pitchforkmusicfestival.com Studios Electrical Audio, (773) 539-2555, www.electrical.com Soma Electronic Music Studios, (773) 342-9964, www.somastudios.com We Said… Our essential spots in Chicago Lodging Days Inn Lincoln Park — North, inexpensive, (773) 525-7010, www.lpndaysinn.com. We don’t often recommend specific locations of major chains, but this budget-friendly Days Inn branch is just too conveniently located to pass up. Smack in the middle of Lincoln Park, it’s within walking distance of great restaurants, Wrigley Field, the zoo, and more. Plus, guests get free passes to the Bally’s health club next door. Dining Spacca Napoli Pizzeria, moderate, (773) 878-2420, www.spaccanapolipizzeria.com. Jonathan Goldsmith, a former social worker and real estate developer, is the artist behind the apron at this increasingly popular pizzeria. His authentic Neapolitan pies are cooked in a 13,000-pound oven that he carted home from Naples. Nightlife Green Dolphin Street, (773) 395-0066, www.jazzitup.com. The upscale eats at this pleasant supper club on the banks of the Chicago River are noteworthy, but we go specifically for the jazz jams by red-hot artists like Lynn Jordan and Reuben Wilson. Schaller’s Pump, (773) 376-6332. This popular pub is not only a hangout for high-powered politicos with offices nearby — its adjacency to U.S. Cellular Field makes it a stomping ground for rabid White Sox fans. Talk about strange bedfellows. Outdoors Kayak Chicago, (630) 336-7245, www.kayak chicago.com. A lot of nature lovers get a feel for the city by jogging or walking around the 18-mile lakefront path, but another way to go is to rent a sea or surf kayak and paddle your way past the stunning sights and scenery.


	Wilco Sky Blue Sky (Nonesuch) Change, it seems, has been the one consistent component in the continuing adventure of Wilco. Following the recording of the band’s last studio album, 2004’s A Ghost Is Born, front man Jeff Tweedy went through a major personal renewal, kicking pills and panic attacks, while the group endured another lineup shift, adding guitarist Nels Cline and multi-instrumentalist Pat Sansone. Since then, the group has toured heavily and released a live album, and Tweedy has put out a solo acoustic DVD. Many expected that the new Wilco effort would further explore the artier direction of Ghost — perhaps owing to Cline’s impressive avant-garde background — but the record is actually something of a stylistic left turn. It’d be easy to characterize it as a throwback to the sound of early roots-oriented Wilco platters like A.M. and Being There, but the disc is actually closer in spirit to the more recent work of Tweedy’s side band, Loose Fur. Milking the sweet sounds of ’70s FM pop — everything from the blues-tinged balladry of Badfinger to the knowing jazzy grooves of Steely Dan — Sky Blue Sky is an inviting, almost-soothing sonic reprieve from the fractured, frazzled music and lyrics of Ghost. Having fashioned an album of subtle, understated beauty, Tweedy is sure to be castigated by a certain segment of fans and critics for abandoning the vaulting musical ambition of his last few releases. With the exception of one or two tracks, this is a fairly straight set of singer-songwriter folk tunes that manages to incorporate influences as disparate as Miles Davis, Harry Nilsson, midperiod Pink Floyd, and Abbey Road–era Beatles. Lyrically, Tweedy sharpens his recent crypto-poetic word exercises into linear narratives that are more personal in nature — and more potent for their introspection. Frequently soulful, occasionally inspired, and always enjoyable, Sky Blue Sky isn’t a major musical statement, but that doesn’t make it any less worthwhile a listen. — B.M.


	Bob Mehr is the music critic at the Commercial Appeal in Memphis. He’s also a former critic for the Reader, in Chicago, where he used to live down the block from Jeff Tweedy.

Juxtapoz: Art thief Todd Goldman "admits copying"

2007-04-29T18:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.juxtapoz.com/jux//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=883&Itemid=50
Dave Kelly/Todd Goldman Update
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Some updates on our Todd Goldman story from last week: Mike Tyndall set up a page of examples of art used by Todd Goldman and David & Goliath, his t-shirt & accessory company, which has been copied from other artists. The images to the left are a side-by-side comparison gleaned from Tyndall's post of "Todd's" work next to their original counterparts. He also posts the press release issued by Todd Goldman's publicist two days after our editorial. Todd Goldman admits copying a drawing that was submitted to him without checking who created it. Dave Kelly, the artist whose work Todd Goldman used that generated the controversy is offered payment or the choice to donate the proceeds from the sale of work bearing his art to charity. www.miketyndall.com More posts, updates, and comments on www.fleen.com

Wired: Art Thief Todd Goldman is an "extensive" and "accomplished plagiarist"

2007-04-29T18:52:00.000-07:00

http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2007/04/todd_goldman_th.html

Dave vs. Goliath: Shameless Art Thievery, Ahoy

Once upon a time, I was strolling with two people down at the Grove shopping complex in Los Angeles. We passed a gallery with giant windows, a gallery packed to the gills with the most insipid, offensively dull paintings we had ever seen. We stood in awe that this person had conned someone into giving them an entire retail space to soil. There were paintings of lamps that looked as if they had been done by "getting old ain't so bad" greeting card illustrators. Mr. Bill-like cartoon faces, with no perceivable expression or appeal, stared sightlessly off white canvas. Seemingly random depictions of household objects bore zany witticisms scrawled atop.

"Jesus wept," someone said, "this shit is TERRIBLE."

Instantly, he was upon us. The artist himself, lurking at a nearby cafe table and supervising the reactions of the gallery's passerby, leapt to his feet and verbally laid into us. Sputtering and red, he demanded to know what we had said about him, if we knew who we were dealing with, and who the hell we thought we were. We pointed and laughed at the poor crazy man who couldn't draw, and went to a movie.

I have just found out that the shouting hack was none other than Todd "Goliath" Goldman, renowned "artist" and accomplished plagiarist. He's ripped off designs from sources as far ranging as ancient Windows animated cursors, Threadless t-shirt company, spooky comics scribbler Roman Dirge, and most blatantly, internet cartooning legend Dave "Shmorky" Kelly. As the panel at right illustrates, one of Todd Goldman's recent paintings is a near-exact trace of a panel from Kelly's "Purple Pussy" webcomic.

Todd Goldman's publicist has released that his client has vowed to cease any and all marketing of the stolen design, and to forward the proceeds already collected either to Kelly or the charity of his choice. However, Todd Goldman's other plagiarism is extensive, and unredressed.

Now that he's been called on his bullshit, and the Internet vs. Todd Goldman onslaught has begun in earnest, the man has retreated to slander, hacking, and douchebaggery to make his point:

The girl who originally reported the theft of Shmorky's artwork also had her MySpace hacked. Some of the MySpace pages were replaced with an image saying TODD WAS HERE. (Note that the image is hosted on Todd Goldman's website, indicating it is either Todd Goldman or an employee with access to his webserver)

This is one example among many. What can be done about it, besides spurting reams of textualized nerd rage into every venue that will tolerate it? Shmorky's got the original design up for sale on a shirt. And one can always Digg, of course. Otherwise, I encourage the perusal of the following links, so that you may familiarize yourself with his myriad offenses and be able to hold forth on the subject at parties, whist drives, and strawberry teas. Do it for ART.

Holy cow, Todd (Goliath) Goldman ripped me off! [Something Awful Forums]
Todd Goldman: Art Thief [Mike Tyndall]
Todd Goliath Goldman, Art Thief [Digg]

Posted by Eliza Gauger 11:09:00 AM

Publisher's Weekly: Art Thief Todd Goldman is "an obvious rip-off artist."

2007-04-29T17:31:00.000-07:00

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/04/11/todd-goldman/

Todd Goldman

We’re beginning to be pretty fascinated by this Todd Goldman guy, because he’s such an obvious rip-off artist, but has managed to make a pretty good living at taking other people’s ideas and gussying them up a a bit. For instance check out this blurb from Animation Art Gallery:

New, hip, modern, and cool are some of the words used to describe Todd Goldman’s artwork. The playful and child-like nature of his characters pair strikingly with the very adult humor of the words which tell a bitingly whitty truth about life. One can not help but laugh out loud. His art instigates an emotional shock response which makes it all the more enjoyable. His art has been rising in popularity and even Jessica Simpson purchased her very own copy of “You Say I’m a Bitch Like It’s a Bad Thing.”

New, hip, modern and cool to the tune of $90 million in 2004, the Wall Street Journal claims. Although he’s widely portrayed as someone from the fine art world, as near as we can tell from Googling, the galleries he’s in are those kind of “chain” galleries you find in Las Vegas casinos and malls…the ones with the Erte prints and paintings of gangsters and so on. Middlebrow, but very profitable in other words.

Somewhere along the way — and sadly we didn’t bookmark it, and now can’t find it in all the links we’ve looked at — the victim, “Schmorky”, as he is known, said (and we paraphrase) “I never really wanted to make money licensing my work.”

Isn’t that the tragic dichotomy here, and really every where that IP is exploited. The Kellys of the world create, quietly and unencumbered by the shameful desire to actually make a living at what they do best.

The Goldmans of the world have the gene the Kellys are missing, with a keen eye for the marketable, and the charisma and salesmanship to convince everyone that they are the auteur, the ones with the vision. Let’s face it, it would have been a lot harder for Todd Goldman to set up a legit LICENSING company that licensed the work of all these talented but sometimes eccentric creators. Ripping them off was easier for everyone.

We sincerely hope that Todd Goldman gets whats coming to him because of this — if that letter slandering Kelly is really from him, he’s an even lower scumbag than most ripoff artists of his kind. But it won’t stop more people like him from trying to get away with this kind of thing. The internet is making it a lot harder, however, and that’s one small blessing in the age of the homage, tribute and digital download.

2007-04-18T19:40:00.000-07:00

Tribune: Chicago Tribune interview with Sam Zell

2007-04-04T07:28:00.000-07:00

Chicago Tribune interview with Sam Zell
Tribune staff report
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403zell-q-and-a,1,5637225.story?coll=chi-news-hed
April 4, 2007, 1:05 AM CDT

The day after Chicago real estate tycoon Sam Zell and Tribune Co. announced their deal to take the Chicago-based media concern private, Zell sat down with Chicago Tribune business reporters and editors for his first in-depth interview. This is an edited transcript.

Question: I think we want to start by asking when you first got interested in Tribune Co., what was it you saw? What was it that made it seem like a good idea.

Zell: I think that the first time we looked at the Tribune was right after the announcement that you were going to hire bankers to pursue value or something. We looked at it and kind of kept it on the back burner. We just put it on hold.

Q: What changed?

Zell: The impending end of the process didn't really produce a rational solution. One of the people involved called and said 'Sam, nobody is getting anywhere. This is crazy. You're the guy. Take a look at this." So we did. In the process, we remembered we had seen this particular structure in another deal we had proposed.

Q: Which one?

Zell: Covanta. We kind of went back and forth and concluded and under those circumstances we could see doing a transaction. In the process of us buying Covanta, one of the options for the previous ownership was to do something like this, which is what triggered us to think about this.

Q: When you were thinking about what attracted you, what seemed most attractive.

Zell: I don't think we thought "Oh my God there's a gold mine or here's the answer." Basically we looked at all the businesses. We compared to other companies in similar businesses. We thought, just as Mark Twain said, 'stories of my death are greatly exaggerated,' we felt the same way about the newspaper business. People were beating it up and predicting its demise. And we didn't see it that way. We thought there was a lot of future in the newspaper business.

Q: There seems to be something going on with the newspaper business.

Zell: Oh, without question. The question is, 'is it a 5 -11 alarm fire or is it a brush fire?' If it's a 5-11 fire we're in big trouble. If it's a brush fire, we're going to figure out how to put it out or make its impact so minuscule as to not to impair the rest of the opportunity.

Q: Do you have a sense of the hose needed to put it out?

Zell: I think I have various ideas. I think my people have various ideas. But frankly, we've been to this movie before. And so we know the first thing we have to do is, no matter what your opinion is, is to listen. Our goal in the near term is to listen to everything that's going on. And hopefully reach some conclusions and then match them up with our own opinions.

Q: The issue over here is the job cuts and the cost cutting. Are there going to be job cuts, do you think? And how do you feel about the amount of cost cutting that's gone on?

Zell: First of all, I really am not in a position to comment on what's happened in the past. I just don't know. I've never been involved in any situation where there wasn't any kind of cost cutting that wasn't either terrible or worse in the opinion of the people who worked in the company. I'm a great believer in a meritocracy. It's really simple, my whole goal in life is to build businesses and to build jobs and to create thriving enterprises. And my standard is that they just got to perform. And the $64,000 question is, 'How do we up the revenue? How do we in effect make this into a much more viable business?' That's our focus. To be honest with you, I don't know anything about job cuts. I don't, and I think that's all in the realm of (Tribune Co. Chairman, CEO and President Dennis FitzSimons) and the CEO. My focus is not to look at this thing and see how we can eliminate one more table leg. Because frankly, eliminating this or eliminating that isn't going to make this work. What's going to make this work is raising revenue and that's the goal.

Q: In the newspaper business, raising revenue means either raising advertising rates or raising circulation or a combination of both. At first blush, which of those makes more sense. How do you do that?

Zell: This is for sure an amateur guess at this point. But I would think the biggest single issue is circulation and circulation penetration. And I think the issue is what if, how do we do this, what's our cpm? And how can we lower that cpm to make us more competitive with other forms of media. Those are the kinds of questions that I think are relevant. I think the answer is probably we have to find ways to increase circulation and to increase penetration. (But) you know what, I'm the first one to tell you, I don't know. .. I'm perfectly happy if someone says to me, but you're wrong. I've been wrong before. So it's OK. Our job is to ask the questions. And I can assure you we're going to do that.

Q: Another point of concern is your view on the what's the value of editorial excellence and are editorial excellence and profits mutually exclusive?

Zell: If they are, we're all in a lot of trouble.

Q: Talk about the value of what we do as journalists.

Zell: If you are relevant, people are going to buy a newspaper…If people buy a newspaper, circulation is going to go up. If you're not relevant, people will stop buying newspaper and stop buying advertising. Somehow or another we have to define how we service customers. I don't have an opinion, believe it or not, on what you write other than what you write has to be truthful and relevant. And if it is, I think the ultimate customer for you is there and that translates into viable businesses.

Q: There's been a lot of discussion on what's relevant is the Internet. There's been a lot of talk on whether to shift resources to the Internet.

Zell: I'm aware of those conversations and it is a little early for me to opine on it. But I think you raise what for me is a very important point, which is allocation of resources. If we're going to grow revenue you have to look at that question. I don't have an opinion today other than we do that with every company. We look at how are we allocating capital? What are we achieving? Are we producing the product?. Are we competitive? Those are the relevant questions. And I think they are as important to the newspaper business, the TV business, the barge business or any other business.

Q: When you look at the stock price, and the value of the Internet is not reflected in the stock price. When you look at the mix of businesses, what do you feel is not being correctly valued on Wall Street.

Zell: I'm not sure that Wall Street's valuation is necessarily incorrect. We think that, or so it appears to us, there are pieces of this company, that may be worth more or less than what the street thinks, but overall I don't think we have any massive dispute with the valuation of the street.

Q: I've heard you say that a company like the Tribune doesn't have an owner. What do you mean by that?

Zell: That means there is a need for someone to step back from 20,000 feet and say, this is the domain, how should it be allocated, how should it be run? And what risks are willing to be taken. The problem with the street and the public is that the public doesn't have one voice. In my experience, an owner is having someone whose role is to create direction. It's the mental set of being responsible. We're going to do an ESOP here. I'm going to be responsible to all those employees. I take that responsibility very seriously. I'm an owner and I'm an owner for that as much for myself. My experience is that the companies that perform the best have owners, someone in a position to say, 'Here's where we should go,' or 'follow me,' or 'go for greatness.' In this situation, that's the opportunity for me and hopefully I can fulfill it.

Q: A lot of those roles are traditionally the CEO's.

Zell: My answer to that is, I'm not sure I endorse the traditional approach. I think you get a second guy and it's someone that the CEO can talk to. I once hired a guy 20 years ago … he looked at me and he said to me, Do you understand the role you play? If you're a the CEO of a large company, you have no one to talk to. Ultimately, you don't have anyone you can sit across from and let your hair down. That's the role I'm talking about. It's creating the ability for the CEO to be able to vet his ideas and to vet his crises.

Q: That implies there was a vacuum for that kind of leadership here.

Zell: I think this company was not different from a lot of very large companies. And I think what I'm espousing is not the norm. I believe it is the formula that works.

Q: A lot has been made of you being a maverick. This is an institution that's conservative. How do you view the culture issues in terms of you and the Tribune.

Zell: I guess what I would say is that I really think that the board believed that bringing in some outside influence to this company was a definite positive. That taking it private and off the roller coaster was beneficial to the company. This is not necessarily a new thing. I just look at things, and historically, looked at things differently.

Q: Is questioning conventional wisdom always appropriate? Is it always something that pays off?

Zell: Questioning always pays off. That doesn't necessarily mean that questioning it means taking the opposite direction, but questioning it, always. Because that's the way you formulate opinions and that's the way you are able to take a position here and reach a conclusion. In the end, I really view myself as extraordinarily simple and if I had one great skill, it's historically to take complex situations and make them very simple.

Q: When you look at a company like this and wonder how it strayed off course, what typically is your opinion does that? What do you see here in that sense? Where do you think the Tribune needs to adjust itself to bring itself back in line?

Zell: I'm sure there are answers to that question, I don't think that at this stage of the game I'd be doing you a service if I answered it. From my perspective, I'll make a date with you in six months and you can ask that question and I'll have a definitive answer for you.

Q: How familiar are you with what has been going on at the LA Times?

Zell: More familiar than I'd like.

Q: Obviously a lot of subtexts are going on there that really encapsulate what's going on in the business. Could you talk about your version of what you think has happened and how would you fix a problem like that.

Zell: I don't know how much of what I've read is valid. I've read the L.A. Times and the New York Times, as well as the Tribune, on this particular subject. I don't know whether it's the old story, from the L.A. Times perspective, of the fish that swallowed the whale and there's a lot of resistance to that. I think there's some Midwest-coastal scenarios going on. I'm not familiar enough with the personalities involved…I can't tell you if someone went down on their sword to make a point. I don't know all the facts. Ask me in three months and I'll have a much more definitive answer.

Q: Did you mention that someone at the Tribune reached out to you (about buying the company)?

Zell: One of the bankers that was involved.

Q: To the extent that the (LA Times situation) could be viewed as an insurrection, how do you look at that? What do you do about that?

Zell: I have the benefit of having no history and obviously one of the first things we're going to want to understand is the history of what you're talking about. We dealt with other situations in the past of varying natures. I think we understand the cultural issues. But I wouldn't in any way venture any opinion today unless I had a lot more data.

Q: Is it OK for a (top) manager to say, 'I don't want to do what you want me to do?'

Zell: No. He has the opportunity. He has the job. Whatever the terms of the job are, he has to live by them. All I can tell you is that, I am your boss and I tell you to do something that is not unethical, but is in line with some big corporate program or directive or philosophy, you've got a choice. You can play or you can go work for somebody else…Everybody's entitled to an opinion. But once you've chosen to work with somebody and the lines of the story are clear, I don't know how you could operate a business if you lay out a strategic plan and then have 20,000 people opt out.

Q: What is the optimal relationship, between directors and chairman and their executives, and how do you create that relationship?

Zell: I'm a great believer in the philosophy that the definition of power is never having to take a vote. In other words, if I have a view and I can't convince everybody that that's the right direction, then I have no ability to execute. I have to be a good enough salesman and trust people enough to be able to reach a consensus decision that also doesn't contradict whatever direction I think we're going. There's no tyrannical relationship. If anything, my goal is--the CEOs of the companies I'm responsible for, I want them as strong and independent as possible. There are times when I'm unhappy that something didn't get done that I wanted to…My philosophy is don't kill the messenger. I have an office. The doors of my office haven't been closed in 30 years because my goal is as open an environment as possible, and closed doors are indicative of various forms of conspiracy. My philosophy is the enemy is without. Internally, you've got to be as open and accessible as possible and have everyone participate and share in the decision-making process.

Q: How does someone, the one guy on the jury, convince the rest of the group?

Zell: One of my favorite terms in that circumstance is, 'Take me on. Here's what I think, take me on. Why is this not relevant?' And you know what, sometimes they're absolutely right and I'm dead wrong, and that's OK. That's OK. I don't have some kind of monopoly on the details. I for sure don't have a monopoly on intelligence quotient. I for sure try to surround myself with the smartest people I can find and use them. My board of directors in all these companies are cheap consultants. If you want to be a board member, you've got to contribute. If you contribute, then you're going to be a cheap consultant, and that's how it works.

Q: When you talk about contribution, what kinds of people need to be on your board?

Zell: I want to add talent to the board. I want to find people who in one form or another are cheap consultants. I'm not kidding. Newspapers, TV, the Internet--What do we do? What do we do? Those are the three areas…How do we bring somebody to the board room who maybe has experience in other arenas that fit our world. I promise you, I have no monopoly on ideas. In fact, whatever ideas I have are not enough.

Q: But the ESOP isn't going to have a seat on the board. Why not?

Zell: The idea was that two of the independents would be run by the ESOP. But in the end, it was all about alignment of interests, and nothing else matters. I'm putting $315 million into this deal, cash. I don't get a nickel return unless the deal is a success to the stockholders. We are tied in the pot together. I think that is a pretty serious commitment that I believe is going to work. I believe the economics of this transaction are an extraordinary opportunity for the Tribune employees and (they) truly will tremendously benefit from their position and their contributions.

Q: What can we expect 10 years from now?

Zell: I bought Anixter Jan. 1, 1987. Twenty years later, I've still got the same position in Anixter that I had 20 years ago. Why? I think it was a good investment. It's a good company. It produces. It's relevant. Every day that I don't sell a company, I'm buying it. The biggest challenge somebody like me has is finding great value. If 10 years from now, the Tribune has turned into this wonderful investment, what could be better than to keep the thing going? In this world, you guys keep writing about private equity. You know, one of the greatest limitations is time frame. KKR raises $10 billion, and the terms call for an investment period of four years and a liquidation period of three. That means seven years from now, you've got to be out. I don't have a time line. I'm one of these horrific generational thinkers and investors. But that's the way I think. I don't have a time frame. This isn't like I'm going to invest for 10 years. The answer is that if this is a terrific investment, I'm going to keep it going.

Q: What about going public again? Is that something you've thought through?

Zell: I think we've thought about this thing that we're going into a 10-year investment, at a minimum. We haven't thought at all about a liquidation strategy, and I don't think one is required.

Q: You look at Tribune as a business just like any other one?

Zell: You guys come up with extortionist theories about everything. You think I think about my barge business the same way I think about the waste-to-energy business? Every business is different, OK? But if it isn't based on economics, there is no business. Businesses that fail to learn that lesson don't exist any more.

Q: But there's not another business like a business that's full of reporters?

Zell: You ever been in the department store business? They make reporters look good. And that's really hard to say. How is a newsroom any different today than it was 50 years ago or 100 years ago, or 50 years from now.

Q: The difference is the Internet.

Zell: Now we're on to the issue of relevance. And the question is, if Harry is a great reporter and in fact he ends up being a blogger on the Internet for the Tribune or the L.A. Times and that creates revenue, that's the name of the game. What I'm saying to you is it's all about relevance. It's all about contribution. I feel very strongly that that core thesis permeates everything.

Q: People talk about journalism and the public trust. Obviously, we take that very seriously. But relevance and the public trust don't always match up perfectly. That gets back to editorial excellence.

Zell: I really believe that you can be relevant and you can be editorially spectacular. And I think you can be irrelevant and be editorially spectacular. And the name of the game is the former and not the latter. Do you think I would put my name on anything that is short of excellent? Certainly not on purpose. The most valuable asset I have is my name. Sure I've got a couple of dollars here or there, but the real deal--and, by the way, very relevant in the Tribune transaction--is my name. I've attempted to be associated with excellence in everything I do. Excellence is my middle name. I can assure you, I have no interest in being a rich charlatan. I don't need to do this.

Q: You've said you don't need to do this. Then why do it?

Zell: The true test of an entrepreneur is someone who spends his life constantly testing the limits. The definition of an idiot is someone who has reached his goals. So, possibly, the answer is, this is a great challenge. It's a great opportunity. It's not going to change my lifestyle. It's likely to change yours. But it's not going to have any impact on mine. Everything I do is motivated by doing it best, doing it different, answering the questions that no one else could.

Q: If we wrote up a profile of you that just got under your skin and made you mad....

Zell: You already did, you already did.

Q: But you weren't chairman of the company.

Zell: It wouldn't make any difference. You'd still (tick) me off.

Q: What can we expect if that were to happen?

Zell: The same thing that happened the last time--Nothing. Do I look naïve enough to think I have any influence about what people write? What you wrote about me in the magazine is a perfect example. There is a question about honesty and correctness, but I have no control nor do I expect to have any control. In fact, I will accept that your writing on me in the future is going to be--hard to believe--worse than it has been up until now.

Q: What can we expect in terms of your getting involved with the company? How is this transition going to unfold?

Zell: I think you need to ask me that question in a couple months. I promise you that I don't make a $315 million commitment lightly. And I promise you that I'm not one of those guys who makes a deal and then forgets about it. The answer is, sure, my influence will be felt. Hopefully, in the most positive sense. I have no objectives here other than to make this the best media company in the world.

Q: People have been pretty hard on Tribune management. There are some people who feel they have to get out. They're staying. How do you view that?

Zell: I hope our transaction puts all the issues to bed. I think it's unfair to totally judge Tribune's management on the events of the last three or four years.

Q: Why?

Zell: Because I think the external distractions….dramatically impacted the company's ability to function.

Q: By external distractions, you mean the Chandlers?

Zell: I think if you read the board minutes from the last four years, there would probably be a lot more on governance issues and other things than on how do you make this a better company.

Q: Would you consider a partnership with David Geffen for the LA Times?

Zell: It's a question I couldn't possibly answer. No. 1, I don't know David Geffen well enough. I had dinner with him once but that's not enough to have an opinion other than that he's a delightful character. I don't know how to answer that question. I can tell you I wouldn't consider a deal with Burkle and Broad but that's a different story.

Q: Have you ever done business with the Tribune before?

Zell: I once had the Tribune pension fund as an investor in one of my funds in 1990….In February of 1996, they passed the Telecom Regulation Act. I saw that as a once in a lifetime extraordinary opportunity. I called the management of Jacor and I called the Tribune. I told them how I saw the opportunity and they concluded they didn't (want in).

Q: Why do you think they didn't do it?

Zell: To be honest with you, the only person at the Tribune I had ever met, was that guy. I don't know what happened.

Q: Had the Tribune been too conservative about that kind of thing?

Zell: There are people who suggested that. I think we're still formulating an opinion.

Q: Why did you wait so long to get into the auction?

Zell: I really thought it would end up being a big vanity game. I thought people would be motivated by the Cubs. It just didn't make any sense and it was only when I got that phone call (from the banker) and the guy basically said "this isn't going anywhere."

Q: Do you think newspapers will continue their downhill slide or have they hit bottom?

Zell: I don't know. But I do believe that this is going to be a spectacular investment for us and for the employees.

Q: You talk about being relevant. What is relevant in the media landscape?

Zell: That is the $64,000 question. And I sure don't have the answer to that other than you need relevancy. You can write the best editorial in the world and nobody reads it, I question its relevancy. On the other hand if you write pieces that attracts people's attention, that's relevant.

Q: How do you get your information? Do you read newspapers? Do you read online?

Zell: I've never read online. I don't have a Blackberry. I read five newspapers a day, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA Times, Financial Times. And I read everything. I read Forbes, Fortune, Business Week.

Q: Can you talk about Sunday (Tribune's negotiations with Burkle-Broad)?

Zell: I think on Sunday, we believed the board was in a position where it probably favored our deal because at that point it was certain. It's probably true that the Burkle Broad letter put them against the wall. In the end, we compromised on a whole bunch of things.

Q: What about the history of ESOPs and the question of employee representation?

Zell: I think if you move away from the United Airlines scenario, there are lots and lots of successful ESOP scenarios that have been going on for years. There have been many successful ESOPs. And this business lends itself to ESOPs because you have a lot of people, at least in theory, who are intelligent.

Q: There's been some talk about Wrigley Field not being mentioned as part of the Cubs.

Zell: I think the Cubs could be sold with Wrigley Field and without Wrigley Field. I don't know. There's certainly no conspiratorial thesis….The Cubs in the hands of someone who really wants to own them and pay for it is a much more intelligent solution than for a company like this to own them.

Q: What about the Freedom Center?

Zell: It's a spectacular piece of land. It comes down to what are the economics. If the cost, for instance, that moving the plants is such that it took away from the value of the land, then it's an exercise in futility. I suspect there's real estate value everywhere (within the company).

Q: Were there people who approached you who wanted to be part of the deal (to buy the Tribune Co.)?

Zell: Sure, Eli Broad. He called me, the day before he wrote the letter. He said I want to be your partner. I said when the deal is done, I'd be glad to talk to you. And the next day he wrote the letter. If someone calls me one day and says I want to be your partner and then the next day tries to stick a knife in my back, tell me again why I would want to do business with him?

Q: Did anyone else approach you?

Zell: A lot of people approached me.

Q: Do you plan to have an office here?

Zell: The only place I want is a slot to put my motorcycle when I come here.

Tribune interview conducted by Tribune reporters Michael Oneal, Phil Rosenthal and David Greising and Associate Managing Editor/Business Jim Kirk. Interview transcribed by Tribune reporter Nancy Ryan.

The New York Review Knows The Magic Word

2007-03-20T07:55:00.001-07:00

from: The New York Review of Books
to: austin.mayor@gmail.com
date : Mar 15, 2007 11:24 PM

subject: austin mayor's memory attic

Please do not reproduce the text of articles from The New York Review
of Books on your blog. While we appreciate your interest in the Review,
this material is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission.

Sincerely,

Matthew Howard
The New York Review of Books
1755 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10019

***

from: So-Called Austin Mayor
to: The New York Review of Books
date: Mar 16, 2007 8:06 AM

subject: Re: austin mayor's memory attic

Mr. Howard,

Because you said "please," the text in question has been removed.

Have a good day,
-- SCAM

Sun-Times: New CEO Did Banana Business With Terrorists?

2007-03-20T07:31:00.000-07:00

Ad drop creates wider loss at Sun-Times Media Group
(http://www.suntimes.com/business/300857,CST-FIN-stmg17.article)

March 17, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter

The parent company of the Chicago Sun-Times reported a sharply wider loss in 2006 as advertising declined, especially in the fourth quarter.

Sun-Times Media Group Inc. said Friday its 2006 loss totaled $56.7 million, or 66 cents a share, vs. a 2005 deficit of $11.6 million, or 13 cents a share. Revenue declined 9 percent to $418.7 million.

The loss for the fourth quarter totaled $34.6 million, or 43 cents a share, compared with a profit for the fourth quarter of 2005 of $31.6 million, or 35 cents a share. Revenue for the period fell 6 percent to $109.8 million.

Cyrus Freidheim Jr., the company's chief executive, said a new management team has a "mandate to create a revitalized business out of what is a great journalistic product and the No. 1 source of news in the greater Chicago area."

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freidheim addressed the federal investigation of payments banana producer Chiquita Brands International Inc. made to a group the U.S. has identified as Colombian terrorists. He told the company that he hasn't been advised he is a subject of the investigation but that he is a part of a group of current and former Chiquita employees that would be subject of the investigation, should the investigation continue.

Freidheim led Chiquita from 2002 to 2004. Chiquita disclosed the payments, which they said were made to assure employees' safety.

Chiquita on Wednesday agreed to a $25 million fine over payments made from 1997 to 2004. Sun-Times said its board would review the matter.

Friday's financial results were in a regulatory filing that also contained a minor earnings restatement covering 1999 to 2005. The restatement was based on a review of stock-option grants and resulted in an increase of $5.6 million in total options expense covering those years.

Sun-Times Media Group, which also owns the Daily Southtown, Post-Tribune and other large regional papers, said it will present business plans for 2007 and 2008 in a Webcast April 4.

© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group

Sun-Times: Obama's Faith Too Complex for Simple Label

2007-01-19T09:06:00.000-08:00

Evangelical? Obama's faith too complex for simple label
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/217455,CST-NWS-fals19.article)

January 19, 2007

BY CATHLEEN FALSANI Religion Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times

While on the presidential campaign trail 30 years ago, someone asked Jimmy Carter a rather indelicate public question:

Are you born again?

Carter said he was. And the next thing he knew, various media creatures were accusing the Southern Baptist peanut farmer of implying that his political aspirations had a divine imprimatur.

"I truthfully answered, 'Yes,' assuming all devout Christians were born again, of the Holy Spirit," Carter wrote in his 2005 book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis.

In 1976, most reporters didn't know born-again from over-easy. But times have changed and so has the public conversation about politics and religion. Terms such as "fundamentalist," "evangelical" and "born-again" are part of the media vernacular.

That doesn't mean, however, that such terms are particularly helpful by themselves in describing, much less defining, anyone -- be they politicians, presidential candidates or private citizens.

Perhaps that's why, back when I interviewed Barack Obama about his faith in spring 2004 a few days after he'd won the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, I didn't ask him something I've remained curious about since:

Does he consider himself an evangelical?

Candid answers

Nearly three years ago, before his famous keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, before he spoke to the spiritual "progressives" at Call for Renewal or to Rick Warren's congregation at Saddleback, before he became a household name outside of Illinois, when people who knew him still were whispering about whether -- some day -- the young state senator from Chicago might run for president, Obama sat with me in public at a cafe on South Michigan Avenue and talked about his faith.

He didn't hesitate. No one coached him. He didn't choose his words carefully or tailor his responses. He shot from the hip, giving me candid and complicated answers to my inquiries about his religious history, beliefs and doubts.

At the time, Obama said he was a Christian, that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that he reads the Bible regularly and prays constantly. He described his conversion experience in his mid-20s, how he walked the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ one Sunday in a public affirmation of his private change of heart. But we didn't talk labels, I didn't ask him for one, and he didn't offer.

A few weeks ago, during a visit to the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board, I had a chance to ask Obama that lingering question:

"Are you an evangelical?"

'I'm not sure'

Surrounded by members of the editorial board, editors, our publisher, and a couple of his own aides, this was Obama's answer:

"Gosh, I'm not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations. I came to Christianity through the black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means.

"Does it mean that you feel you've got a personal relationship with Christ the savior? Then that's directly part of the black church experience. Does it mean you're born-again in a classic sense, with all the accoutrements that go along with that, as it's understood by some other tradition? I'm not sure."

He continued his answer: "My faith is complicated by the fact that I didn't grow up in a particular religious tradition. And so what that means is when you come at it as an adult, your brain mediates a lot, and you ask a lot of questions.

"There are aspects of Christian tradition that I'm comfortable with and aspects that I'm not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, 'Ya know, I'm not sure about that,'" he said, shrugging and stammering slightly.

A work in progress

It would have been easier for the senator-cum-president to answer, simply, "Yes," to the evangelical question.

But for Obama, as for many of us, faith is complicated, messy, a work in progress.

And, if we're honest about it, the standard labels just don't fit.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/217455,CST-NWS-fals19.article

Harpers: Obama Inc., etc.

2006-11-20T08:48:00.000-08:00

[SCAM note: Be aware there may be typos, etc. in the Harper's article. It was apparently scanned in by a fellow copyright infringement enthusiast, so it is subject to the usual vagaries of OCR.]

"Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington Machine"
reprinted from Harpers Magazine
by: Ken Silverstein

In July, on a typically oppressive summer day in Washington, D.C., roughly a thousand college students from across the country gathered at a Marriot hotel with plans to change the world. Despite being sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a moderate think tank founded by one of Bill Clinton's former chiefs of staff, John Podesta, the student group -- called Campus Progress -- leans decidedly farther to the left. At booths outside the main auditorium, young activists handed out pamphlets opposing nuclear power, high pay for CEOs, excessive profits for oil companies, harsh prison sentences for drug users, and Israeli militarism in Gaza and the West Bank. At one session, Adrienne Maree Brown of The Ruckus Society--a protest group whose capacious mission is to promote "the voices and visions of youth, women, people of color, indigenous people and immigrants, poor and working class people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, gender queer, and transgendered people"--urged students to "break the fucking rules." Even the consummate insider Podesta told attendees, with unintended ambiguity, "We need more of you hanging from trees."

Around noon, conference participants began filing into the auditorium; activists staffing the literature booths abandoned their posts to take seats inside as well. The crowd, and the excitement, building in the hall was due entirely to the imminent arrival of the keynote speaker: Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Having ascended to political fame through a stirring and widely lauded speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama, the U.S. Senate's only African-American member, is now considered to be the party's most promising young leader-especially among those who, like the student organizers present, are seeking to reinvigorate its progressive wing. In terms of sheer charisma, Obama is certainly the party's most magnetic leader since Bill Clinton, and perhaps since Robert F. Kennedy.

The senator was running a bit late; but when he finally glided into the auditorium, escorted by an assortment of aides, he was greeted by a tremendous swell of applause as he took to the stage. Dressed in a brown jacket and red tie, Obama approached the podium, flanked by two giant screens enlarging his image, and began a softly spoken but compelling speech that recalled his own days, after his graduation in 1983 from Columbia University, as a community organizer in poor neighborhoods of Chicago. "You'll have boundless opportunities when you graduate," he told the students, "and it's very easy to just take that diploma, forget about all this progressive-politics stuff, and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. But I hope you don't get off that easy. There's nothing wrong with making money, but focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition."

Obama complained of an American culture that "discourages empathy," in which those in power blame poverty on people who are "lazy or weak of spirit," and believe that "innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes halfway around the world are somebody else's problem." He urged the assembled activists to ignore those voices, "not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate than you, although I think you do have that obligation...but primarily because you have that obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. It's only when you hitch yourself up to something bigger than yourself that you realize your true potential."

It was a rousing speech, and Obama is probably the only member of Congress who could have delivered it with any conviction or credibility. When he left the stage and headed toward the hotel exist, he was trailed by a pack of autograph seekers, picture takers, and glad-handers.

Despite its audience and ostensible subject matter, however, Obama's speech had contained just a single call for political action. This was when he had introduced Mark Pike, a law student who then came bounding across the stage in a green one-piece mechanic's outfit. As part of a campaign called "Kick the Oil Habit," Pike was to depart directly from the conference and drive from Washington to Los Angeles in a "flex-fuel" vehicle. "Give it up for Mark!" Obama had urged the crowd, noting that Pike would be refueling only at gas stations that offer E85--Which Obama touts as "a clean, renewable, and domestically produced alternative fuel."

Although the senator did not elaborate, E85 is so called because it is 85 percent ethanol, a product whose profits accrue to a small group of corporate corn growers led by Illinois-headquartered Archer Daniels Midland. Not surprisingly, agribusiness is a primary advocate of E85, as are such automobile manufacturers as Ford Motor Company, which donated Pike's car. The automakers love E85 because it allows them to look environmentally correct ("Live Green, Go Yellow," goes GM's advertising pitch for the fuel) while producing vehicles, mostly highly profitable and fuel-guzzling SUV and pickup models, that can run on regular gasoline as well as on E85. Obama had essentially marshaled his twenty minutes of undeniably moving oratory to plump for the classic pork-barrel cause of every Midwestern politician.

In an election season, when Americans of all political persuasions can allow themselves to imagine--even if for just a few unguarded moments--how matters in this country might improve if its leaders did, it is worthwhile to consider the path so far of Senator Barack Obama. A man more suited to the tastes of reform-minded Americans could hardly be imagined: he is passionate, charming, and well-intentioned, and his desire to change the culture of Washington seems deeply held and real. He managed to win a tremendous majority in his home state of Illinois despite rhetoric, and a legislative record, that marked him as a true progressive. During his first year in the state senate-1997-he helped lead a laudable if quixotic crusade that would have amended the state constitution to define health care as a basic right and would have required the Illinois General Assembly to ensure that all the state's citizens could get health insurance within five years. He led initiatives to aid the poor, including campaigns that resulted in an earned-income tax credit and the expansion of early-childhood education programs. In 2001, reacting to a surge in home foreclosures in Chicago, he helped push for a measure that cracked down on predatory lenders that peddled high-interest, high-fee mortgages to lower-end home buyers. Obama was also the driving force behind legislation, passed in 2003, that made Illinois the first state to require law-enforcement agencies to tape interrogations and confessions of murder suspects. Throughout his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama called for social justice, promised to "stand up to the powerful drug and insurance lobbies" that block health-care reform, and denounced the war in Iraq and the Bush White House.

Since coming to Washington, Obama has advocated for the poor, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and has emerged as a champion of clean government. He has fought for restrictions on lobbying, even as most of his fellow Democrats postured on the issue while quietly seeking to gut real reform initiatives. In mid-September, Congress approved a bill he co-authored with Oklahoma's arch-conservative senator, Tom Coburn, requiring all federal contracts and earmarks to be published in an Internet database, a step that will better allow citizens to track the way the government spends their money.

Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama's senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama's top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politician's campaigns--and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.

Already considered a potential vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Obama clearly has abundant political ambitions. Hence he is playing not only to voters in Illinois--a reliably Democratic and generally liberal state--but to the broader national audience, as well as to the Democratic Party establishment, the Washington media, and large political donors. Perhaps for this reason, Obama has taken an approach to his policymaking that is notably cautious and nonconfrontational. "Since the founding, the American political tradition has been reformist, not revolutionary," he told me during an interview at his office on Capitol Hill this summer. "What that means is that for a political leader to get things done, he or she ideally should be ahead of the curve, but not too far ahead. I want to push the envelope but make sure I have enough folks with me that I'm not rendered politically impotent."

The question, though, is just how effective--let alone reformist--Obama's approach can be in a Washington grown hostile to reform and those who advocate it. After a quarter century when the Democratic Party to which he belongs has moved steadily to the right, and the political system in general has become thoroughly dominated by the corporate perspective, the first requirement of electoral success is now the ability to raise staggering sums of money. For Barack Obama, this means that mounting a successful career, especially one that may include a run for the presidency, cannot even be attempted without the kind of compromising and horse trading that may, in fact, render him impotent.

The walls of Obama's office on the seventh floor of the Hart Senate Office Building are decorated with images from the canon of liberal icons. There are photos of Martin Luther King addressing a civil rights rally, Gandhi sitting cross-legged, and Obama with Nelson Mandela; a painting of Thurgood Marshall, and, above a framed pair of red boxing gloves signed by Muhammed Ali, the famous photo of a scowling Ali standing over Sonny Liston after knocking him out during their second fight, in Lewiston, Maine.

When I interviewed him this summer, I had my eleven-year-old daughter in tow, because her outing with a friend had fallen through just as I was leaving home. Obama, who is married and has two young daughters of his own, asked her a few questions; when she told him she was starting seventh grade in the fall, he told her that at her age, "I was such a terror that my teachers didn't know what to do with me." He draped his gray jacket over his leather desk chair and urged her to have a seat. For the next hour, she contentedly twirled on the chair while we spoke across the room, Obama on a tan sofa and me on a chair to his right.

I asked Obama how he was adjusting to Washington and the city's peculiar political culture. "I have not had to partake of the culture much," he replied. "My family lives in Chicago, and I'm usually here on Tuesday through Thursday. I rarely meet lobbyists; it's one of the benefits of having a good staff." Nor has he had to devote much time to fund-raising. "The first $250,000 that I raised was like pulling teeth," he recalled. "No major Democratic donors knew me, I had a funny name, they wouldn't take my phone calls. Then at a certain point we sort of clicked into the public consciousness and the buzz, and I benefited from a lot of small individual contributions that helped me get over the hump...and then after winning, the notoriety that I received made raising money relatively simple, and so I don't have the same challenges that most candidates do now, and that's pure luck. It's one of the benefits of celebrity."

Obama sat with his arms and legs crossed, one foot tapping the air. Progressive candidates generally have a harder time raising money, he said, and at times some of them will "trim their sails" on behalf of the people who are financing them. "When I say that," he was hasty to add, "I want to make sure I'm not saying all the time. I'm just saying there are going to be points where donors have more access and are taken more into account than ordinary voters." The solution he supports is some form of public financing for campaigns, combined--since big donors "are always going to find a way to get money" to candidates--with some reduction in the cost of running for office; for example, by providing candidates with free political advertising.

Personally, though, Obama felt that he had not trimmed his own political sails to make himself palatable to the political center. His primary obstacle, he said, is simply that the G.O.P. controls the White House and Congress. "My experience in the state legislature is instructive. The first seven years I was there I was in the minority, and I think that I passed maybe ten bills; maybe five of them were substantive. Most of the bills that I did pass were in partnership with Republicans, because that was the only way I could get them passed. The first year we were in the majority party I passed twenty-six bills in one year." While Washington "moves more slowly than the state legislature," Obama said he had no doubt that if the Democrats controlled Congress, it would be possible to move forward on important progressive legislation.

The alternative, until then, is to be opportunistic and look for areas where he can get enough Republican support to actually get a ball passed. That, he said, "means that most of the legislation I've proposed will be more modest in its goals than it would be if I were in the majority party." Obama gave an example: although he is a strong supporter of raising fuel-economy standards, proposals to do so have gone nowhere for years. In 2005, Congress overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to the energy bill that would have required cars, minivans, and SUVs to get 40 miles per gallon on average by 2016. This year, Obama and Indiana Republican Richard Lugar introduced a bill that would require fuel-economy targets to rise 4 percent annually unless federal regulators specifically blocked that step. Obama recruited as co-sponsors four senators who had voted against the 2005 amendment--Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republicans Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania--and although this bill might not pass either, it has a better chance than past efforts.

I asked Obama a question about pork-barrel spending. Did he feel pressure to deliver federal money for home-state interests? "Pork is in the eye of the beholder," he said. "The recipients don't tend to think it's pork, especially if it's a great public-works project." He said he felt "pretty good" about projects he had sought in last year's transportation bill and "unashamed" about getting them in. House Speaker Dennis Hastert had praised Obama for his efforts in helping win Illinois its $6.2 billion in the massive, earmark-larded 2005 transportation bill. (Illinois's most extravagant project funded by the bill was the Prairie Parkway, a controversial regional highway that would run through Hastert's district and, in fact, has significantly increased the value of real estate he owns along the proposed route.)

An aide came in and told Obama that Congressman David Dreier was on the phone to discuss legislation to aid the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country that Obama was planning to visit as part of a trip to Africa. After taking the call at his desk, Obama returned to the couch and took up the pork-barrel question again. He gave as an example President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative, which he described as a difficult decision. After examining the legislation, he determined that it would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act, yet the administration claimed it would help the coal industry, a major economic force in southern Illinois. In the end, he opposed it because he decided it would have been more beneficial to western coal producers, not those in Illinois. "That kind of vote is a tough vote, not so much on the merits as it is on the politics," he said. "I then have to spend a lot of time with my constituents in southern Illinois, explaining to them why I did not think it was actually good for them." Even so, he took heat at home, with one southern Illinois newspaper editorial saying that he was less interested in looking out for the interests of the state's coal industry than he was in voting with the interests of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton.

And what if he had determined that the Clear Skies Initiative would have aided Illinois coal? I asked. In that case, Obama said, "It would have been more difficult for me... If I thought that it would have significantly helped Illinois coal but would have been a net minus for the environment, then you've got your classic legislative dilemma."

Obama said that the "blogger community," which by now is shorthand for liberal Democrats, gets frustrated with him because they think he's too willing to compromise with Republicans. "My argument," he says, "is that a polarized electorate plays to the advantage of those who want to dismantle government. Karl Rove can afford to win with 51 percent of the vote. They're not trying to reform health care. They are content with an electorate that is cynical about government. Progressives have a harder job. They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals."

Before he addressed the 2004 convention, Obama was virtually unknown nationally, and even in Illinois his was far from a household name. Just four years earlier, he had been defeated by a significant margin when he tried to unseat Chicago-area Congressman Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary. But following the speech, which was universally hailed--even the National Review called it "simple and powerful," conceding that it had deserved its "rapturous critical reception"--Obama became a national celebrity. Less than two months later, he won election to the Senate with 70 percent of the vote.

If the speech was his debut to the wider American public, he had already undergone an equally successful but much quieter audition with Democratic Party leaders and fund-raisers, without whose support he would surely never have been chosen for such a prominent role at the convention. The early, if not overwhelming, favorite to be the Senate nominee from Illinois had been Dan Hynes, the state comptroller, who had twice won statewide office and had the support of the state's Democratic machine and labor unions. But by September 2003, six months before the primary, Obama was winning support from not only African Americans but also Chicago's "Lake-front Liberals" and other progressives. He was still largely unknown in Washington circles, but that changed the following month when Vernon Jordan, the well-known power broker and corporate board member who chaired Bill Clinton's presidential transition team after the 1992 election, placed calls to roughly twenty of his friends and invited them to a fund-raiser at his home.

The event marked his entry into a well-established Washington ritual--the gauntlet of fund-raising parties and meet-and-greets through which potential stars are vetted by fixers, donors, and lobbyists. Gregory Craig, an attorney with Williams & Connolly and a longtime Democratic figure who, as special counsel in the White House, had coordinated Bill Clinton's impeachment defense, met Obama that night. "I liked his sense of humor and the confidence he had discussing national issues, especially as a state senator," Craig recalled of the event. "You felt excited to be in his presence." Another thing that Craig liked about Obama was that he's not seen as a "polarizer," like such traditional African-American leaders as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. "He gets respect from his adversaries because of the way he treats them," Craig said. "He doesn't try to be all things to all people, but he has a way of taking positions you don't like without making you angry."

Word about Obama spread through Washington's blue-chip law firms, lobby shops, and political offices, and this accelerated after his win in the March primary. Mike Williams, vice president for legislative affairs at The Bond Market Association and a member of an African-American lobbying association, had been following the race in Illinois and was introduced to Obama through acquaintances in Washington who had known him at Harvard Law School. "We represent Wall Street firms," Williams said in recounting his first conversation with Obama. "A big issue for us since 2000 is predatory lending. He worked on that issue in Illinois; he was the lead sponsor of a bill there. I talked to him about that. He had a different position from ours. There's a perception out there that the Democrats are anti-business, and I talked to him about that directly. I said, There's a perception that you're coming at this from the angle of consumers. He was forthright, which I appreciated. He said, I tried to broker the best deal I could." Williams still had his differences with Obama, but the conversation convinced him that the two could work together. "He's not a political novice and he's smart enough not to say things cast in stone, but you can have a conversation with him," Williams said. "He's a straight shooter. As a lobbyist, that's something you value. You don't need a yes every time, but you want to be able to count the votes. That's what we do."

Williams subsequently set up a conference call between Obama and a group of financial-industry lobbyists. That, too, went well, and in June of 2004, Williams helped organize "a little fund-raiser" for Obama at the Bond Market Association. "It wasn't just the financial community. There was a broad cross-section," he said of the 200 or so people who turned out. "There was overwhelming support, not just people from associations giving $2,000 but from individuals who just wanted to meet him, giving smaller contributions."

Tom Quinn, a senior partner at Venable and widely considered one of the top lobbyists in town, got a call from Williams and attended the fundraiser. "I'm on the list. Pretty much everyone in political fund-raising circles knows me," said Quinn, who works closely with the Democratic National Committee and has been a party power broker since the late 1960s, when he worked on the presidential campaign of Hubert Humphrey. "Every day I get ten or fifteen solicitations. I contribute if I like the candidate and think they have a chance to win." He was impressed when he heard that Obama had been president of the Harvard Law Review--"That jumped out at me. It showed he had absolute intelligence"--and even more impressed after meeting him. "He's got a nice personal touch and the ability to kid around a little bit too," he said. "He's got star quality." Quinn contributed $500 to Obama at The Bond Market Association event, and later made calls to people he knew and asked them to donate money as well.

Robert Harmala, also a big player in Democratic circles and a colleague of Quinn's at Venable, attended the association's event as well. He had been invited by Larry Duncan--an African-American lobbyist for Lockheed Martin, a Venable client--who helped Williams organize the affair. Harmala liked what he saw and continued to be impressed by Obama. "There's a reasonableness about him," he said. "I don't see him as being on the liberal fringe. He's not going to be a parrot for the party line." Like Quinn, Harmala donated $500 to Obama and made calls to a number of political donors ("Some usual suspects in California whom I've worked with before") and urged them to support Obama's campaign. Other fund-raisers were soon organized - one at the Four Seasons hotel, another at a Dupont Circle restaurant, yet another at the Clintons' home off Embassy Row. "He was hitting his stride. There were people clamoring to help," said Williams. "It wasn't just one person who put the events together and it wasn't all about raising money - people wanted to meet him and talk to him."

It's not always clear what Obama's financial backers want, but it seems safe to conclude that his campaign contributors are not interested merely in clean government and political reform. And although Obama is by no means a mouthpiece for his funders, it appears that he's not entirely indifferent to their desires either.

Consider the case of Illinois-based Exelon Corporation, the nation's leading nuclear power-plant operator. The firm is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy proects. The loan guarantees were called "one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation" by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.

In one of his earliest votes, Obama joined a bloc of mostly conservative and moderate Senate Democrats who helped pass a G.O.P.-driven class-action "reform" bill. The bill had been long sought by a coalition of business groups and was lobbied for aggressively by financial firms, which constitute Obama's second biggest single bloc of donors.

Although The Bond Market Association didn't lobby directly on the legislation, Williams took note of Obama's vote. "He's a Democrat, and some people thought he'd do whatever the trial lawyers wanted, but he didn't do that," he said. "That's a testament to his character." Obama has voted on one bill that was of keen interest to William's members: last year's hotly contested bankruptcy bill, which made filing for bankruptcy more difficult and gives creditors more recourse to recover debts. Obama voted against the bill, but Williams was pleased that he did side with The Bond Market Association position on a number of provisions. Most were minor technical matters, but he also opposed an important amendment, which was defeated, that would have capped credit-card interest rates at 30 percent. "He studied the issue," Williams said. "Some assumed he would just go along with consumer advocates, but he voted with us on several points. He understood the issue. He wasn't close-minded. A lot of people found that very refreshing."

As of this summer, Obama had raised nearly $16 million for his original Senate run and for his 2010 reelection war chest. He has taken in an additional $3.8 million for the Hopefund, his leadership PAC. Such PACs are subject to fewer restrictions on raising and spending money than general campaign funds. Over a six-year term, a senator can raise a maximum of $4,200 per individual donor; the same donor can give as much as $30,000 to the senator's leadership PAC during that same period. Traditionally, leadership PACs were established by veteran members of Congress, but now they are set up by anyone who hopes to work his or her way up through party ranks. Last year, the Hopefund took in more than any other leadership PAC except for those of Bill Frist, John McCain, and John Kerry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In several primaries, Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable "moderates"--even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers. Most conspicuously, Obama backed Joe Liberman over Ned Lamont, his Democratic primary opponent in Connecticut, endorsing him publicly in March and contributing $4,200 to his campaign. The Hopefund also gave $10,000 to Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot in the National Guard who lost both legs in Iraq and who is running for the seat of retiring G.O.P. Congressman Henry Hyde in Chicago's western suburbs. Despite her support from the party establishment, an enormous fund-raising advantage, and sympathy she had due to her war record, Duckworth won the primary by just 1,100 votes over a vocal war opponent named Christine Cegelis. (When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, "There is a good and bad in everything.")

The calibration of Obama's own political rhetoric has been particularly evident in regard to the war in Iraq. At an antiwar rally in Chicago in October 2002, when Obama was still a state senator, he savaged the Bush Administration for its by then obvious plans to invade. "I don't oppose all wars," he said that day. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own idealogical agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Since taking office, Obama has become far more measured in his position. After Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha called for withdrawal from Iraq last fall, Obama rejected such a move in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, saying the United States needed "to manage our exit in a responsible way--with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future." His stance won him praise from Washington Post columnist David Broder, the veritable weather vane of political convential wisdom. Murtha's was "not a carefully reasoned analysis of the strategic consequences of leaving Iraq," Broder wrote, whereas Obama was helping his party define "a sensible common ground" and had "pointed the administration and the country toward a realistic and modestly hopeful course on Iraq." Obama continues to reject any specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, even as public opposition to the war grows and as the military rationale for staying becomes less and less apparent.

For the past several decades, the two senators from Illinois have held a weekly meeting on Thursday mornings called the Constituent Coffee, where visitors from the Prairie State can meet and ask questions of their elected officials. Traditionally, the coffees have been low-key affairs, but since Obama took office they have been moved to a larger room--often on the top of the Hart Building, which looks out on the Capitol dome--that can accommodate the crowds they now invariably attract.

Obama and Richard Durbin, Illinois's senior senator and the Democrats' Senate minority whip, are a winning team. At one coffee I attended this summer, Obama noted in introducing Durbin that his colleague had recently been selected by Time magazine as one of the ten best members of the Senate. "Only ninety senators disagree," said Durbin in rejoinder, adding, "I haven't done the cover of Newsweek or won a Grammy. There's a pretty important junior senator from Illinois too." (Obama won a Best Spoken Word Grammy this year, for his reading of his autobiography.) At another coffee, Durbin mentioned to the crowd that Obama had thrown out the first pitch at a Chicago White Sox game last year; this, he noted, had sparked a long winning streak, at the end of which the team won its first World Series in eighty-eight years. Later, a student at the University of Illinois asked Obama if he might also throw out the first pitch for the perennial sad-sack Cubs, in order to impart similarly good luck. "My arm," Obama deadpanned, "is only so good."

By 8:30am on July 13, when that week's coffee was scheduled to begin, about 150 people had filled the seats and several dozen more were standing at the back. The top-floor space at Hart was not avaliable that day, so the coffee had been moved to a large hearing room in the basement of the neighboring Dirksen Building. A few stragglers huddled around a table near the entrance, picking from a platter of dough nuts and filling cups of coffee from a shiny metal urn. "The dough nuts are the main reason people come," Obama joked, opening the affair from a podium at the head of the room. In fact, it was clear that many in attendance--especially among the sizable contingent who weren't actually from Illinois, including many congressional interns and pages--had turned up just to see Obama.

Although Obama and Durbin did field some questions on foreign policy, especially on Israel's conflict with Hezbollah, the audience seemed more interested in domestic issues--health and education and basic pocketbook worries. What, one middle-aged woman asked pointedly, was Congress planning to do about the soaring price of gasoline?

Like the natural politician he is, Obama packaged his reply to appeal to the broadest spectrum of opinion. Energy, he said, was not just an economic issue but a national-security issue ("We now are dependent on the most volatile regions of the world for running our economy") and an environmental issue as well ("There are a lot of farmers in the room whose croplands could be impacted by global warming"). President Bush, said Obama, had finally acknowledged the need to break America's addiction to foreign oil, "but with the twelve-step program there are eleven other steps after you acknowledge your addiction." One step, he said, in bringing the issue home to Illinois interests, was to support biofuels such as ethanol, which are "a terrific way for us to start cutting down our use of imported oil."

Obama's support among traditional Democratic constituencies was apparent in the audience members, a number of whom worked for low-income housing, civil rights, and pro-choice groups. Grateful representatives of big-money interests were on hand as well, in the form of officials from the Illinois Soybean Association and the Illinois Corn Growers Association. "We appreciate the relationship and the help," said the latter, who was in town as part of a lobbying blitz called the Corn Congress.

And indeed Obama has delivered for his constituents--for social activists, but also for business groups whose demands are invariably more costly. Although this is not the place to review the full history of ethanol, it's beyond dispute that it survives only because members of Congress from farm states, whether liberal or conservative, have for decades managed to win billions of dollars in federal subsidies to underwrite its production. It is not, of course, family farmers who primarily benefit from the program but rather the agribusiness giants such as Illinois-based Aventine Renewable Energy and Archer Daniels Midland (for which ethanol accounts for just 5 percent of its sales but an estimated 23 percent of its profits.) Ethanol production, as Tad Patzek of UC Berkeley's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering wrote in a report this year, is based on "the massive transfer of money from the collective pocket of the U.S. taxpayers to the transnational agricultural cartel."

Since arriving on Capitol Hill, Obama has been as assiduous as any member of Congress in promoting ethanol. He has introduced a number of measures that benefit the industry--such as the "Obama Amendment" that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building stations that offer E85 fuel-and voted for the corporate-welfare-laden 2005 energy bill, which offered billions in subsidies to ethanol producers as well as lavish incentives for developing cars that run on alternative fuels.

Meanwhile, Obama, Durbin, and three other farm-state senators opposed a proposal this year by the Bush administration to lower stiff tariffs on cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil and other countries. To lower such tariffs, the senators suggested, would leave the nation dangerously dependent on foreign ethanol. "Our focus must be on building energy security through domestically produced renewable fuels," wrote the senators in a letter to Bush. That Obama would lend his name to such an argument-with its dubious implication that Brazilians ethanol is a national-security liability comparable to Saudi crude-indicates that he is at least as interested in protecting domestic producers of ethanol as he is in weaning America from imported petroleum.

I recall a remark made by Studs Terkel in 1980, about the liberal Republican John Anderson, who was running as an independent against Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter: "People are so tired of dealing with two-foot midgets, you give them someone two foot four and they start proclaiming him a giant." In the unstinting and unanimous adulation of Barack Obama today, one wonders if a similiar dynamic might be at work. If so, his is less a midgetry of character than one dictated by changing context. Gone are the days when, as in the 1970s, the U.S. Senate could comfortably house such men as Fred Harris (from Oklahoma, of all places), who called for the breakup of the oil, steel, and auto industries; as Wisconsins William Proxmire, who replaced Joe McCarthy in 1957 and survived into the 1980s, a crusader against big banks who neither spent nor raised campaign money; as South Dakota's George McGovern, who favored huge cuts in defense spending and a guaranteed income for all Americans; as Frank Church of Idaho, who led important investigations into CIA and FBI abuses.

Today, money has all but wrung such dissent from the Senate. Campaigns have grown increasingly costly; in 2004 it took an average of more than $7 million to run for a Senate seat. As Carl Wagner, a Democratic political strategist who first came to Washington in 1970, remarked to me, the Senate today is a fundamentally different institution than it was then. "Senators were creatures of their states and reflected the cultures of their states," he said. "Today they are creatures of the people who pay for their multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. Representative democracy has largely been taken off the table. It's reminiscent of the 1880s and 1890s, when senators were chosen by state legislatures who were owned by the railroads and the banks." Accordingly, as corporate money has grown increasingly important to candidates, we have seen the rise of the smothering K Street culture and the revolving door that feeds it--not just lobbyists themselves but an entire interconnected world of campaign consultants, public-relations agencies, pollsters, and media strategists.

All of this has forged a political culture that is intrinsically hostile to reform. On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a "player." The lobbyist added: "What's the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?"

Senator Obama's Office Responds to Misleading Harper's Magazine Story

The latest issue of Harper's Magazine contains a piece titled "BARACK OBAMA INC. The birth of a Washington machine." The story is unfortunately filled with a selective presentation of the facts, innuendo and a cynical assumption of bad faith in our leaders.

While we do not doubt the integrity or the intelligence of the piece's author, Ken Silverstein, we feel that our side of the story was not fairly presented. Below are some misleading passages from the piece, and some facts we believe will help tell the full story.
Misleading Claim #1: Iraq

Harper's Magazine says Obama has changed his rhetoric on Iraq. Silverstein wrote, "The calibration of Obama's own political rhetoric has been particularly evident in regard to the war in Iraq...Since taking office, Obama has become far more measured in his position." [page 38]
Fact:

Obama has been consistent. He opposed the war from the start, but decided that once we were in Iraq, we needed to plan our withdrawal carefully. Frank Rich of the New York Times puts it succinctly: "On one true test for his party, Iraq, (Obama) was consistent from the start. On the long trail to a hotly competitive senatorial primary in Illinois, he repeatedly questioned the rationale for the war before it began. . . .. He judged Saddam to pose no immediate threat to America and argued for containment over a war . . . . He hasn't changed. In his new book, he gives a specific date (the end of this year) for beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. . . ' [New York Times 10/23/2006].

Misleading Claim #2: - Favors to the Nuclear Industry

Harper's Magazine implies that Obama voted to protect loan guarantees for energy technology on behalf of the nuclear industry. [page 37].
Fact:

Obama voted with 75 other Senators to promote a wide array of innovative energy technologies. The Sununu amendment in question would have eliminated loan guarantees to encourage emerging clean-energy technologies. These guarantees encouraged a wide array of renewable fuel. Besides nuclear energy, the guarantees can be used for solar and wind power, hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel cells, carbon sequestration, coal gasification and other technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama voted against the Sununu amendment because he supports emerging technologies and believes many companies would not pursue advanced research without financial support. In the end, 76 senators opposed the amendment.

Misleading Claim #3: Support for Other Democrats

Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats, failing to note that Obama has donated to every Senate Democrat running for office in 2006. Harper's says "Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable 'moderates'-even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers." Harper's cites as examples Obama's political donations to Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, and Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegelis. [page 37]

Fact:

Obama donated to every Democratic Senator running for reelection and then contributed to Ned Lamont after he won the primary. Harper's takes exception to Obama's decision to donate money to Senator Lieberman, but fails to note that Obama endorsed Ned Lamont and gave him $5,000 the day after Lamont won the nomination. Obama also donated money to every Senate Democrat up for reelection and to every Democratic challenger in a closely contested Senate race, including Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar. Harper's also fails to note that in the most recent polls, Tammy Duckworth is defeating her GOP opponent, while Christine Cegelis only garnered 43 percent of the vote in 2004, a year when Alan Keyes was at the top of the Republican ticket in Illinois. John Kerry received 47 percent of the vote in that district.

Harper's Magazine misrepresents Tammy Duckworth's position on Iraq. Harper's also implies that Duckworth is a pro-war candidate, noting "When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, 'There is good and bad in everything.'" [page 37-38] Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran, says on her website "invading Iraq was a mistake."

Misleading Claim #4: Ethanol

Harper's Magazine implies that Obama has supported ethanol production because the country's largest ethanol producer, ADM is based in Illinois. Harper's also argues that from a conservation standpoint it is potentially better to drive a standard gasoline car than a flex-fuel vehicle. [page 32].
Fact:

Senator Obama supports ethanol production because it is a clean, efficient, and domestically produced alternative to oil from the Middle East. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, E85 fuel produces fewer total toxins and lower levels of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds compared to gasoline. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined that ethanol production is efficient, creating 1.67 times the energy it takes to produce it. Argonne National Laboratory reports that by switching to ethanol and biomass fuels in our passenger cars and light-duty trucks, drivers can potentially reduce the use of petroleum by at least 68 percent. Blending ethanol with gasoline just at a 10 percent level will translate to savings to consumers of $3.3 billion a year according to independent researchers at LECG (based on 2002 prices).

[Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4]

Senator Obama wants to enable more entrepreneurs and small businesses to develop ethanol. Senator Obama supports a renewable fuels standard that would encourage ethanol production by expanding demand for renewable fuels and further diversifying the ethanol industry, thereby ensuring much greater competition in the U.S. liquid fuels market in the future.

Misleading Claim #5: Democratic Convention Speech

Harper's Magazine suggests that Senator Obama was chosen to speak at the Democratic National Convention only after he had received the blessing of Washington lobbyists and fundraisers. "If the speech was his debut to the wider American public, he had already undergone an equally successful but much quieter audition with Democratic Party leaders and fund-raisers, without whose support he would surely never have had been chosen for such a prominent role at the convention." [page 36]
Fact:

The decision to choose Senator Obama was made by Senator John Kerry's campaign, not by lobbyists. After Obama's selection as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Senator Kerry's aides were very clear about their rationale. According to the Chicago Tribune: "For the Kerry campaign, the choice of Obama has great meaning as officials try to dispel criticism that they have done a poor job of reaching out to African-American voters. Kerry began to focus on Obama, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Illinois, for a role at the convention after meeting him for the first time and listening to him speak at a gala fundraiser in Chicago in April. The next day, Kerry and Obama toured the Greater West Town Community Development Project, visited a bakery, and held a town hall meeting together. An aide to Kerry said the Massachusetts senator was struck by Obama's 'passion, eloquence and charisma.' [Chicago Tribune, July 15, 2004]

Misleading Claim #6: Private Jets

Harper's Magazine wrongly says that Obama stopped taking privately subsidized air travel because of bad press. "[A]fter some atypically bad press for accepting flight, Obama imposed a ban at his office on privately subsidized travel." [page 40, footnote]
Fact:

Obama voluntarily chose to reimburse the full fare for private flights - not just the first-class fare as Senate rules require - because he felt it was right. Obama voluntarily chose to reimburse full fare on private flights despite less stringent Senate rules because he thought it was the right thing to do. Obama's decision actually garnered Obama favorable press coverage. "Senator Barack Obama flew at least nine times on corporate jets last year...each time, he reimbursed the plane's owners at first-class rates, as Senate rules require. But Mr. Obama, freshman Democrat from Illinois, felt queasy about this perk of Senate life, so he said he gave it up. 'This is an example where appearances matter,' he said." [New York Times, March 8, 2006]

Misleading Claim #7: Organized Labor

Harper's Magazine suggests that Obama's hiring of a former staffer for Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin makes him susceptible to policies that hurt organized labor. Harper's writes, "[Obama] hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector". [page 33]
Fact:

Obama has a strong pro-labor voting record. Obama voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and has said that NAFTA should be renegotiated. Obama has cosponsored many important bills to help workers, including: an increase in the minimum wage, and the Employee Free Choice Act. He also championed efforts in the Senate to help air traffic controllers engaged in a labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration

Misleading Claim #8: Calling to Action

Harper's Magazine criticizes Obama for calling on students only to strive for energy independence during a speech in July. "Obama's speech contained just a single call for political action. This was when he had introduced Mark Pike, a law student who then came bounding across the state in a green one-piece mechanic's outfit. As part of a campaign called 'Kick the Oil Habit,' Pike was to depart directly from the conference and drive from Washington to Los Angeles in a 'flex-fuel' vehicle. 'Give it up for Mark!' Obama had urged the crowd, noting that Pike would be refueling only at gas stations that offer E85-which Obama touts as 'a clean, renewable, and domestically produced alternative fuel.'" [page 32]
Fact:

Obama was specifically asked to touch on only two themes in his speech. The group that organized the event - the Center for American Progress - specifically asked Obama to touch on two themes in his speech, 1) what inspired him to go into politics, and 2) briefly the importance of energy independence.

A Bit More on Barack

Senator's office criticizes Harper's story
reprinted from Harper's Magazine
By: Ken Silverstein

The November issue of Harper's Magazine is just hitting newsstands everywhere, and I've received quite a few comments about my story on Senator Barack Obama. That tally includes several lengthy conversations with a staffer in Obama's office, who graciously but firmly rejected some of the article's contentions. Late Monday, Obama's office issued a press release that challenged parts of the story.

The staffer—and some readers—took issue with my statement that Obama had “established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on.” But if you examine Obama's campaign finance records carefully, it's hard to reach any other conclusion. Here are some additional details that were not included in the article.

Since announcing his candidacy for the Illinois Senate seat, Obama has raised the astonishing sum of nearly $21 million and has built close relationships with a number of traditional fat-cat donors. For example, one of Obama's leading career patrons is Skadden, Arps ($53,271, according to the most recent disclosure filings), a leading corporate law firm and one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.

Several of the firm’s lawyers donated money to Obama and also helped raise money for him as well. That includes Christina Tchen, a corporate litigator at Skadden who has represented major financial firms in consumer class-action suits. (Tchen is on the board of trustees of the University of Chicago Hospitals, where Obama’s wife, Michelle, is vice president for community and external affairs.)

In November of last year, three other Skadden attorneys helped organize a fundraiser for Obama's Leadership PAC, the vehicle he uses to support other Democratic candidates, and to boost his own political profile and gain support within the party. They were: Vivenne LaBorde, a former aide to Congressman Chaka Fattah and a senior attorney in the firm’s Mergers & Acquisitions department; Toni Cook Bush, a former senior counsel to the communications subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee and now a representative for cable, satellite and telephone companies; and Vaughn Williams, whose practice “emphasizes securities and corporate litigation, including class action litigation,” according to the firm’s website.

Others who have helped raise funds for Obama's Leadership PAC include John Gorman of Texas-based Tejas Securities, a major funder of Senate Democrats (and of the Bush presidential campaigns) and Winston & Strawn, the Chicago-based law and lobbying firm. Individual contributors to Obama include some of the best-connected lobbyists in town, including Jeffrey Peck (whose clients include MasterCard, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Rich Tarplin (Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers).

In the magazine article, I asserted that Obama is not a mouthpiece for his donors; neither does his voting record mirrors the wishes of his contributor list. But, as I suggested, it's naïve to think that he's completely unaware of who's footing the bills. Exelon, a leading nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois, is a big donor to Obama, and its executive and employees have given him more than $70,000 since 2004. The Obama staffer pointed out that the senator pushed for legislation that would require nuclear companies to “inform state and local officials if there is an accidental or unintentional leak of a radioactive substance,” according to an office press release. Obama took a stand on that issue following reports that a plant operated by Exelon had leaked tritium several times over the past decade.

But Exelon is probably not entirely unhappy with Obama. At a 2005 hearing at the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, of which Obama is a member, the senator—echoing the nuclear industry's current campaign to promotes nuclear energy as “green”—said that since Congress was debating “policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable—and realistic—for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.” He was immediately lauded by the industry publication Nuclear Notes, which said, “Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of ‘common sense solutions.’ And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind.”

To anyone who thinks Obama is blissfully oblivious to the fundraising imperative, consider the following: in one of his earliest votes as a senator, Obama helped pass a class-action “reform” bill that was a long-standing and cherished goal of business groups. (The bill was the focus of a significant lobbying effort by financial firms, who constitute Obama's second-biggest single bloc of donors.)

The bill was also heavily championed by high-tech firms. Shortly after the vote, dozens of big-donor executives affiliated with a PAC called TechNet came to Washington for an annual lobbying trip. The agenda was top-heavy with White House officials and congressional Republicans, but Obama was picked to address the PAC’s policy lunch, and a draft of the speech was posted on his website. “None of us expect or want the government to lead the next technological revolution,” Obama told the assembled contributors, “but I believe that we can provide the spark that fuels America’s innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. We can do better than burdening businesses with cases of class-action abuse, and that’s why I cast a tough vote in favor of reform the other week.”

Obama has said that's he's considering a presidential bid. He has a lot of attractive qualities and a pretty solid record, but that kind of ambition requires deep pockets and good connections. The magazine article was intended to explore the conflict between those two sets of facts and to examine the obstacles that it may present.

As to Obama's press release, I had my say in the magazine and I think the senator's office is entitled to its reply. There's much I disagree with in the press release, however, particularly in the way that my own article was summarized.

To take one — and only one — example, the press release says that I suggested that Obama's “hiring of a former staffer for Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin makes him susceptible to policies that hurt organized labor.” I said no such thing — and I agree that Obama has a generally strong record in support of organized labor. I mentioned the hiring of Karen Kornbluh only to note that Obama's political team, from advisers to funders, is mainstream and conventional and his choices don't indicate a strong desire to take on entrenched interests.

I could go on for quite awhile here, but you can judge for yourself by reading the article in the magazine and the press release issued by Obama's office.

The New Republic: Denny's Deal is Worse than FoleyGate

2006-10-08T16:37:00.000-07:00

Denny Hastert's dodgy real estate deals.
by Norman Ornstein & Scott Lilly
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 10.06.06

Until last week, the broad image of House Speaker Dennis Hastert was of an affable, even grandfatherly figure. But Hastert's response--or lack thereof--to the Mark Foley scandal has suddenly put him in the hot seat, requiring even President Bush to defend him. The Speaker's reputation has taken a serious hit. Still, the image remains of an amiable guy, whose sins are more of sloth than malevolence.

Speaker Hastert, however, is no passive figure. When it comes to running the House, Hastert has, in fact, been an aggressive partisan. Recall, for instance, that he personally fired the chairman and two Republican members from the House Ethics Committee after they had the effrontery to rebuke Tom DeLay for misconduct. And when it comes to real estate, he has been a downright wheeler-dealer. Virtually overnight, the speaker's net worth went from approximately $300,000 to at least $6.2 million--thanks, in no small part, to an earmark he authored.

Hastert's real estate transactions have been reported extensively in the Chicago press and picked apart in a June report issued by the Sunlight Foundation. But they have been largely ignored in the national media. A careful examination of the facts in the case, however, leads to the conclusion that there are compelling reasons beyond the Foley case to call for the speaker's resignation from the post.

Here are the essential facts: In August, 2002, Hastert bought 196 acres of land in rural Kendall County, Illinois for $2,125,000. According to the Chicago Tribune, Hastert bought the plot in two separate transactions. The first deal gave him a house, barn, swimming pool, and 17 acres of land for $1.2 million. In the second deal, he obtained an additional 179 acres on an adjacent property for a little less than $5,200 per acre. The least valuable portions of the second deal were two fields, separated from the rest of the farm by a stream and inaccessible by road.

That was a big deal for a life-long politician and wrestling coach like Hastert, but harmless enough. Eighteen months later, however, Hastert's purchase took a new direction. The speaker entered into a real estate agreement with Dallas Ingemunson, the chair of the Kendall County Republican Party, and a campaign contributor named Tom Klatt. The three men formed a real estate trust and purchased an additional 69 acres of land adjacent to Hastert's two inaccessible fields. The trust paid $1,033,000 for the land, or about $15,000 per acre--more expensive turf than Hastert's plot in part because of its access to a road.

And here's where the deal first begins to acquire a pungent odor: The trust then added Hastert's two fields to the jointly acquired parcel and credited Hastert with 62 percent ownership apparently on the presumption that Hastert's $5,200 land was equal in value to his partners $15,000 land.

These deals coincided with a protracted battle in Congress sparked by the expiration of the 1998 highway bill. Hastert's purchase of his new home and the additional 179 acres of land took place the same month that the House Transportation Committee prepared for its first hearings on a new highway bill--a bill that would be rife with opportunities for members of congress to bring new roads to their districts in the form of earmarks, changes in infrastructure that could have a major effect on real estate values.

A new highway bill, however, didn't neatly wend its way to the president's desk. Members tacked literally thousands and thousands of earmarks to the legislation, wildly inflating its costs and provoking prolonged opposition from the administration. As the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget warned: "The proliferation of congressional earmarking comes at a cost, in wasted dollars and in unfairness, as when a grant applicant who played by the rules and earned a place at the front of the funding line gets shoved backwards."

There was no better object lesson in the case against earmarks than the Prairie Parkway Corridor, pushed by none other than Denny Hastert. This new highway, designed to connect the counties west of Chicago to the metropolis itself, had neither the support of the public nor the Illinois Department of Transportation. Their objection: Rigid requirements in the highway bill would force the diversion of state funds that might have been used for the widening and improvement of existing roads--an approach, according to opinion polls, favored by a majority of the area's residents--or for more efficient transportation corridors to Chicago. But the Prairie Parkway did offer one important convenience: It was located just over a mile from the property owned by Hastert's trust.

Squabbling over the ballooning cost of the bill might have prevented this highway from ever coming to fruition. But Hastert played an unusually active role in shepherding the legislation, a more aggressive role than he played at any other point in his speakership. His dominance of the process was noted by an Illinois highway official, who remarked, "I think it's truly a recognition of the leadership of Speaker Hastert. Speaker Hastert was able to deliver a bill that made it through Congress that the president could sign, rather than a bill that would make it through Congress that the president would veto." Hastert himself explained at one point in the process that the negotiations had become so intense that he was no longer dealing with White House staff and had begun working directly with the president. When the bill finally passed in the summer of 2005, President Bush also recognized Hastert's efforts by traveling to his district for the bill signing ceremony. Bush also mentioned the Prairie Parkway which he said," is crucial for economic development in Kendall and Kane counties."

It was, we now know, crucial to the speaker's own economic development. In December of 2005, four months after the signing of the new Federal Highway Bill containing the $207 million inserted by Hastert for construction of the nearby Prairie Parkway, the 138 acres held by the trust were sold to a developer as part of planned 1600 home housing development. The trust received $4,989,000 or $36,152 an acre for the parcel of which 62.5 percent or $3,118,000 went to Hastert. Klatt and Ingemunson also did well. Their profit equaled 144 percent of their original investment. Hastert, however, received six times what he had paid for his investment, a profit equal to 500 percent of his original investment.

The Hastert earmark not only provided money for Parkway construction but mandated that the construction take place on the portion of the Parkway nearest his recently purchased property. While the money contained in the highway bill was sufficient to build only about one-third of the entire 36-mile road, the speaker insured that the right third would be selected by also earmarking funds for construction of a interchange in that portion of the proposed thooughfare.

The decision by the developer to build a subdivision in an area proximate to Hastert's farm had financial implications for the speaker that ran well beyond the $2.5 million profit he reaped on the sale. The Tribune has calculated that the remaining 125 acres he still owns is now worth about $4.5 million. Even counting the mortgage on the property, Hastert's net worth, according to the Tribune, appears to be more than $6.2 million. An estimate that Hastert's office does not dispute, probably because it is extremely conservative.

Hastert has responded forcefully to the allegations of venality. "I owned land, and I sold it, like millions of people do every day." The speaker's office has painted a portrait of a guy who just happened to be driving past a house he liked; he bought it and subsequently, in a straightforward transaction, sold some of the land that came with it for a profit.

The speaker hasn't exactly helped his case with his accounts of the transaction. His office has, for instance, described the Prairie Parkway as located over five miles from his property. But U.S. Geological Survey aerial photographs clearly show it to be about four miles closer than that.

We cannot say at this juncture whether the actions taken by the speaker are illegal. We can say that they do not meet the standards we expect--or should expect--from a member of Congress. And they certainly do not meet the standards we expect from the speaker of the House.

Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back On Track. Scott Lilly is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Esquire: 6th District Knife Fight

2006-09-25T12:27:00.000-07:00

Esquire, October 2006

A National Knife Fight: Illinois Sixth Congressional District

Click Image to Magnify

Click Image to Magnify

Roskam: Poured from the old “Leave It to Beaver,” Eddie Haskell mold

2006-09-24T00:02:00.000-07:00

Voters will judge these episodes from Roskam’s past

Eric Krol, Daily Herald
Posted Friday, September 22, 2006

Republican Peter Roskam cuts a smooth figure as he campaigns to succeed retiring Rep. Henry Hyde.

The veteran state lawmaker wants 6th Congressional District voters to send him to Washington, D.C., the planet’s capital of wheeling and dealing. Given that, there are a couple of wheeler-dealer episodes from Roskam’s past they might want to consider.

Not surprisingly, both cases involve Wauconda’s Al Salvi — Roskam’s longtime law partner, conservative confidant, and, like Roskam, a politician who sometimes comes across as poured from the old “Leave It to Beaver,” Eddie Haskell mold.

The first example involves the Sir Thomas More Justice League. Sounds like an organization of Catholic superheroes. But the justice league was a campaign fund-raising scheme devised by Salvi and Roskam in the mid-’90s to capitalize on their planned votes against limits on pain-and-suffering damages in civil lawsuits.

As their thinking went, state House members who dared vote against the measure would be cut off from typical GOP fund-raising sources. So the duo hit up fellow trial lawyers for campaign cash, telling them they wouldn’t vote for tort reform.

Problem was, they included in their sales pitch three other Republican House members, including Rep. Rosemary Mulligan of Des Plaines. And in Mulligan’s case, the duo did so after she told them no and blasted the fund-raising plan as “unethical.” To some, promising to vote a certain way while simultaneously soliciting campaign checks looked an awful lot like selling your vote.

In the end, Roskam bit the bullet and voted for tort reform while Salvi voted present. As a result, they had to refund some of the $70,000 that rolled in.

The other Roskam wheeler-dealer example comes courtesy of Salvi’s failed 1998 bid for secretary of state.

Roskam asked the Illinois comptroller’s office for a list of the names and addresses of more than 3,600 secretary of state employees. “I just wanted to look at the list to find out about the nature of the office,” Roskam claimed to the Chicago Tribune in 1998.

But Roskam also admitted he gave the list to the Salvi campaign, of which he was chairman. Team Salvi used the list to send numbered $50 campaign fund-raising tickets to secretary of state employees. The numbering made it easy for Salvi to track which employees ponied up and which employees didn’t. One ethics watchdog at the time blasted the move as “classic Illinois political prostitution with a twist.”

The twist being that Salvi wasn’t even the boss yet but, using the list Roskam gave him, was asking the workers for money.

As you might recall, then-Secretary of State George Ryan’s top aides also hit up their workers for campaign fund-raising tickets. Many of that crew, including Ryan himself, have been to jail, are currently in jail or are headed to jail after New Year’s Day.

I wanted to ask Roskam if he now regrets either political move, but he didn’t call me back. A campaign operative said “there was nothing worthy of an official inquiry or investigation eight years ago.”

It’ll be up to voters to decide what they think of that answer. Roskam’s opponent, Democrat Tammy Duckworth, has been raising the ethics issue, trying to tie him to scandal-plagued former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

One gets the sense those charges haven’t really stuck — I imagine not too many people in the 6th District know who DeLay is — but these Illinois-based examples could become a different story. After all, probably close to 100 percent of voters in the district are aware of the wheeler-dealer techniques Ryan employed.

While it’s a stretch to link Roskam to Ryan outright — they weren’t politically close — being viewed as a politician prone to wheeling and dealing probably isn’t a positive in this fall’s electoral climate.

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=230423

Frank Rich: Rumsfeld's Dance With the NAZIS

2006-09-03T22:56:00.000-07:00

September 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis
By FRANK RICH

PRESIDENT BUSH came to Washington vowing to be a uniter, not a divider. Well, you win some and you lose some. But there is one member of his administration who has not broken that promise: Donald Rumsfeld. With indefatigable brio, he has long since united Democrats, Republicans, generals and civilians alike in calling for his scalp.

Last week the man who gave us “stuff happens” and “you go to war with the Army you have” outdid himself. In an instantly infamous address to the American Legion, he likened critics of the Iraq debacle to those who “ridiculed or ignored” the rise of the Nazis in the 1930’s and tried to appease Hitler. Such Americans, he said, suffer from a “moral or intellectual confusion” and fail to recognize the “new type of fascism” represented by terrorists. Presumably he was not only describing the usual array of “Defeatocrats” but also the first President Bush, who had already been implicitly tarred as an appeaser by Tony Snow last month for failing to knock out Saddam in 1991.

What made Mr. Rumsfeld’s speech noteworthy wasn’t its toxic effort to impugn the patriotism of administration critics by conflating dissent on Iraq with cut-and-run surrender and incipient treason. That’s old news. No, what made Mr. Rumsfeld’s performance special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day. An on-the-ropes White House plans to stop at nothing when rewriting its record of defeat (not to be confused with defeatism) in a war that has now lasted longer than America’s fight against the actual Nazis in World War II.

Here’s how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler’s appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?

Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator’s use of torture — “beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks” — on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had “disappeared.” American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

According to declassified State Department memos detailing Mr. Rumsfeld’s Baghdad meetings, the American visitor never raised the subject of these crimes with his host. (Mr. Rumsfeld has since claimed otherwise, but that is not supported by the documents, which can be viewed online at George Washington University’s National Security Archive.) Within a year of his visit, the American mission was accomplished: Iraq and the United States resumed diplomatic relations for the first time since Iraq had severed them in 1967 in protest of American backing of Israel in the Six-Day War.

In his speech last week, Mr. Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill: Appeasing tyrants is “a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.” He can quote Churchill all he wants, but if he wants to self-righteously use that argument to smear others, the record shows that Mr. Rumsfeld cozied up to the crocodile of Baghdad as smarmily as anyone. To borrow the defense secretary’s own formulation, he suffers from moral confusion about Saddam.

Mr. Rumsfeld also suffers from intellectual confusion about terrorism. He might not have appeased Al Qaeda but he certainly enabled it. Like Chamberlain, he didn’t recognize the severity of the looming threat until it was too late. Had he done so, maybe his boss would not have blown off intelligence about imminent Qaeda attacks while on siesta in Crawford.

For further proof, read the address Mr. Rumsfeld gave to Pentagon workers on Sept. 10, 2001 — a policy manifesto he regarded as sufficiently important, James Bamford reminds us in his book “A Pretext to War,” that it was disseminated to the press. “The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America” is how the defense secretary began. He then went on to explain that this adversary “crushes new ideas” with “brutal consistency” and “disrupts the defense of the United States.” It is a foe “more subtle and implacable” than the former Soviet Union, he continued, stronger and larger and “closer to home” than “the last decrepit dictators of the world.”

And who might this ominous enemy be? Of that, Mr. Rumsfeld was as certain as he would later be about troop strength in Iraq: “the Pentagon bureaucracy.” In love with the sound of his own voice, he blathered on for almost 4,000 words while Mohamed Atta and the 18 other hijackers fanned out to American airports.

Three months later, Mr. Rumsfeld would still be asleep at the switch, as his war command refused to heed the urgent request by American officers on the ground for the additional troops needed to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in Tora Bora. What would follow in Iraq was also more Chamberlain than Churchill. By failing to secure and rebuild the country after the invasion, he created a terrorist haven where none had been before.

That last story is seeping out in ever more incriminating detail, thanks to well-sourced chronicles like “Fiasco,” “Cobra II” and “Blood Money,” T. Christian Miller’s new account of the billions of dollars squandered and stolen in Iraq reconstruction. Still, Americans have notoriously short memories. The White House hopes that by Election Day it can induce amnesia about its failures in the Middle East as deftly as Mr. Rumsfeld (with an assist from John Mark Karr) helped upstage first-anniversary remembrances of Katrina.

One obstacle is that White House allies, not just Democrats, are sounding the alarm about Iraq. In recent weeks, prominent conservatives, some still war supporters and some not, have steadily broached the dread word Vietnam: Chuck Hagel, William F. Buckley Jr. and the columnists Rich Lowry and Max Boot. A George Will column critical of the war so rattled the White House that it had a flunky release a public 2,400-word response notable for its incoherence.

If even some conservatives are making accurate analogies between Vietnam and Iraq, one way for the administration to drown them out is to step up false historical analogies of its own, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s. In the past the administration has been big on comparisons between Iraq and the American Revolution — the defense secretary once likened “the snows of Valley Forge” to “the sandstorms of central Iraq” — but lately the White House vogue has been for “Islamo-fascism,” which it sees as another rhetorical means to retrofit Iraq to the more salable template of World War II.

“Islamo-fascism” certainly sounds more impressive than such tired buzzwords as “Plan for Victory” or “Stay the Course.” And it serves as a handy substitute for “As the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” That slogan had to be retired abruptly last month after The New York Times reported that violence in Baghdad has statistically increased rather than decreased as American troops handed over responsibilities to Iraqis. Yet the term “Islamo-fascists,” like the bygone “evildoers,” is less telling as a description of the enemy than as a window into the administration’s continued confusion about exactly who the enemy is. As the writer Katha Pollitt asks in The Nation, “Who are the ‘Islamo-fascists’ in Saudi Arabia — the current regime or its religious-fanatical opponents?”

Next up is the parade of presidential speeches culminating in what The Washington Post describes as “a whirlwind tour of the Sept. 11 attack sites”: All Fascism All the Time. In his opening salvo, delivered on Thursday to the same American Legion convention that cheered Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush worked in the Nazis and Communists and compared battles in Iraq to Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal. He once more interchanged the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center with car bombers in Baghdad, calling them all part of the same epic “ideological struggle of the 21st century.” One more drop in the polls, and he may yet rebrand this mess War of the Worlds.

“Iraq is not overwhelmed by foreign terrorists,” said the congressman John Murtha in succinct rebuttal to the president’s speech. “It is overwhelmed by Iraqis fighting Iraqis.” And with Americans caught in the middle. If we owe anything to those who died on 9/11, it is that we not forget how the administration diverted our blood and treasure from the battle against bin Laden and other stateless Islamic terrorists, fascist or whatever, to this quagmire in a country that did not attack us on 9/11. The number of American dead in Iraq — now more than 2,600 — is inexorably approaching the death toll of that Tuesday morning five years ago.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/opinion/03rich.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fFrank%20Rich

SunTimes: Immigrants flock to the suburbs

2006-08-31T18:36:00.000-07:00

Immigrants flock to the suburbs

August 30, 2006

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter

The melting pot is bubbling over in the suburbs of Chicago.

The number of foreign-born U.S. citizens jumped by nearly 38 percent in the suburbs over the last five years -- leaping almost 50 percent in DuPage County alone and doubling in Will and Grundy counties, according to an analysis of Census information by a pro-immigrant group.

Calling it "a fundamental sea change of where immigrant citizens are living," the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights argues the changes have far-reaching political ramifica- tions.

"We're riding the crest of a tsunami," said Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the group and author of the report.

"Immigrants in Illinois are achieving the American dream of learning English, becoming American citizens and settling in the suburbs with their children.

"Immigrants are the new swing voters, the new soccer moms and NASCAR dads."

The coalition plans to formally release a report on the trend today. It's based on an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau's latest estimates of population changes since 2000.

More becoming citizens

The group found that between 2000 and 2005, the state's total immigrant population -- including both undocumented residents and naturalized citizens -- rose by 177,000, an influx larger than the population of Aurora, the state's second largest city.

And while Chicago is often heralded as a city of immigrants, its total foreign-born population actually dipped 5 percent in the last five years, the first such drop during the wave of immigration that began in 1965.

Most important politically is the rise in the number of immigrants who have become U.S. citizens, making them eligible to vote. In the last five years the number of naturalized citizens in Illinois rose 23.1 percent, to 736,161.

But the real growth has been in the suburbs.

While Chicago only experienced a 4 percent increase in naturalized citizens of voting age during the period, the suburbs saw a boom of 37.5 percent.

The 48.2 percent rise in DuPage County means that 14.4 percent of its voting age population are naturalized citizens. In Will and Grundy counties, the number of adult naturalized citizens doubled, making them 6.3 percent of the total voting age population.

Which party will they help?

The report does not break down the immigrants by country of origin but notes that more than 100 nations are represented, with Mexico, Poland and India the top three.

"The political significance of this is that suburban communities that were traditionally Republican strongholds are now competitive for Democrats," Hoyt said.

Some studies have shown that Latinos and Asian Americans are more likely to vote Democratic, but Hoyt argues the diverse backgrounds of the immigrants make them fertile political ground for either party.

"The immigrant voters are a real swing constituency," Hoyt said. "They are attracted to the racial big tent of the Democratic Party and its stand on economic issues, but they are also attracted to the social conservatism and the entrepreneurialism that they identify with the Republican Party.

"But the most important thing is when they feel under attack, they will vote against the party they feel is attacking them."

That's a dig at Republicans, who have made curtailing illegal immigration a hot political issue. The coalition is one of the groups that helped organize the pro-immigration marches in Chicago this year.

'Faces that look like me'

As part of its efforts to mobilize the new citizens and realize the "today we march, tomorrow we vote" slogan, the coalition has 18 young people working to register immigrants to vote in suburban areas. Hoyt said they have registered 7,000 since mid-July.

Melissa Garcia, 21, a Harper College student, estimates that 75 percent of the roughly 400 people she has signed up in DuPage County have been immigrants, primarily from Mexico, Central America, South America or Asian countries.

But she said she saw the changes long before this.

The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she grew up in Hanover Park in one of the only households in the area that "was anything other than Anglo."

"Now, my neighbors are Hispanic," she said. "Tons of people are moving in the whole area itself. The percent of immigrants is just rising. I can just see it by looking down my street and seeing more faces that look like me."

'They're all welcome'

Illinois Republican Chairman Andy McKenna Jr. said he is not worried that the changing demographics will hurt the GOP, noting that Bush won 45 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide.

"I think families of every ethnic makeup in suburban communities care about schools, about jobs and pocketbook issues," McKenna said. "And we have a good story to tell on all of those."

Kane County Clerk Jack Cunningham said Hispanics will continue to gain political power as their numbers grow, as the Irish did before them.

But Cunningham, also a Republican, said it will take a few elections to figure out which party fares better.

"They're all welcome and [I] hope they make the right choice when they vote."

sfornek@suntimes.com

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi?getReferrer=http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-meltpot30.html

"Pork Barrel" Peter Focuses on Tax Cuts

2006-08-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

Roskam focuses on tax cuts

BY PAT CORCORAN | STAFF WRITER
pcorcoran@pioneerlocal.com

GOP congressional candidate and state Sen. Peter Roskam wants to steer the election dialogue toward a conservative stand-by -- cutting taxes.

During an Aug. 2 campaign stop at the Bensenville offices of Central States Trucking, Roskam said that the starkest contrast between himself and Democratic nominee Tammy Duckworth is his pro-growth approach to tax policy.

The state lawmaker has pledged to eliminate the inheritance tax, also known as the "death tax," and said Duckworth needs to clarify to voters her position on taxes.

"I have a record now of almost 13 years in the General Assembly as a tax fighter and I have said unambiguously that I am in favor of making the tax cuts permanent," he said. "My opponent has been very ambiguous on that issue."

The stop in Bensenville coincided with the release of a Roskam campaign mail piece that claims Duckworth would make Illinois families pay higher taxes. The flier targets Duckworth's middling position on the Bush tax cuts, which she supports, but only in part.

Both candidates agree on the portion of the Bush plan that provide families with per-child and child care tax credits. They also agree that income tax rate cuts and the repeal of the marriage penalty should be made permanent.

Duckworth has repeatedly called for an end to tax subsidies for the oil industry and tax relief for middle-class -- but not wealthy -- families. For example, she disagrees with Roskam's position on the inheritance tax. Currently, the tax hits only those individuals with estates valued at more than $2 million.

Duckworth cites statistics that say a full repeal of the it would add more than $300 billion to the federal deficit and benefit only 8,000 U.S. families.

The exemption level is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million in 2009. At that level, only 3 of every 1,000 people who die will have an estate large enough to owe any tax, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"There's different ways to be fiscally responsible while helping middle-class families and reigning in the budget. The Bush administration has stood by while costs for middle-class families such as tuition, health care and costs at the fuel pump have gone up," Christine Glunz, Duckworth spokeswoman, said.

By one U.S. Treasury Department estimate, the nation is $3.5 trillion in debt and rapidly heading toward $4 trillion thanks in part to paying for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Glunz called Roskam's talk of fiscal restraint out of place considering a Republican-controlled Congress oversaw years of excessive spending.

"I think it's obvious to most people that Congress has gone from having a hefty surplus to hundreds of billions of dollars in debt ... putting our economic security at risk," she said.

Roskam acknowledged the need for spending cuts and pointed to his record in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly as evidence that he can push for them in Congress.

"What we've seen in Illinois is an economy that is simply lagging ... compared to our border states," he said. "Why is that? Because of a lack of discipline, a lack of discipline on spending on programs like All Kids. I've been a critic of (Gov. Rod Blagojevich) for three years on the Senate floor in my role as the whip."

All Kids is Blagojevich's program to provide medical insurance to children whose parents cannot afford it.

Roskam, who was joined by U.S. Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said long-term, the deficit issue will be addressed in part by the Bush tax cuts which will rev up the economy leading to increased tax revenues and improved employment and wage levels.

"Think about a company when taxes are cut. What will they typically do? They reinvest in the company," he said. "The trend line has shown us over and over again that when you cut taxes, things are dynamic and exciting and vibrant."

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/mp/08-24-06-1010755.html.printable?paper2=mp

The Economist:: Rahm offers some “Big Ideas for America”

2006-08-23T19:09:00.000-07:00

Rahmbo's Plan

Aug 17th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The House Democrats' chief enforcer offers some “Big Ideas for America”

RAHM EMANUEL, a congressman from Illinois, is often compared to Newt Gingrich. The head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is clever, energetic and utterly determined to win back the House of Representatives in November. He is also, like the man who led the Republicans to just such a triumph in 1994, somewhat abrasive. He once sent a rotting fish to a pollster who irked him. When he was only 32, his aggressive fundraising helped Bill Clinton win the presidency. At a dinner afterwards, while others celebrated, he snatched up a steak knife and started plunging it into the table, naming his political enemies and yowling “Dead!” after each stab.

Some say Mr Emanuel learned to act tough to pre-empt the jeers he might otherwise have attracted as a schoolboy ballet dancer in Chicago. (He was good—his mother was apparently upset when he turned down a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet school.) Be that as it may, his style seems to work. “Rahmbo”, as he is known, is skilled not only at squeezing money out of donors (if the pledge is too small, he lets them know), but also at making sure that the candidates who get it campaign effectively. He makes them sign agreements specifying how many appearances and fund-raising phone calls they will make. He approaches his job “with the sensibility of a Mob bookie”, gushed a profile in Rolling Stone last year.

Next week Mr Emanuel will publish his answer to Mr Gingrich's “Contract with America”, the small-government manifesto that helped Republicans capture the House in 1994. It is called “The Plan: Big Ideas for America”, and is co-written with Bruce Reed, an old chum from the Clinton White House. It has signs of being written in a hurry. Was America in the 1950s and 1960s “a land of opportunity and certainty”, as he tells us on page 31? Or has it “always been a land of opportunity, not certainty”, as he says 11 pages later? The obligatory Bush-bashing is stale and waffly: “Bush inherited the longest economic boom in history and gave the middle class the highest anxiety in memory.” But the Plan itself is solid and mostly sensible.

Probably the main reason wages have not risen much in recent years is that health-insurance premiums, which many American employers shoulder, have soared. The Plan lists ways to curb them. Doctors, rather than being paid for every test and injection they provide—an arrangement that inevitably leads to over-doctoring—should be paid by results. Patients should be given better incentives to stay healthy: insurers, for example, should push them to take free physical exams to spot ailments early. Better use of information technology could supposedly save $162 billion a year. If the system is made more efficient, Mr Emanuel thinks coverage can be extended to all American children. But he concedes that a nation as individualistic as America will probably never accept a European-style national health service—and he should know, having worked on Hillary Clinton's doomed health project in the 1990s. He argues, however, that maybe, some day, every American might receive a voucher for basic health services from the insurer of his or her choice.

Mindful of the teachers' unions, he avoids the V-word when discussing education. But he has some sensible ideas. Subsidies for those who cannot afford to go to college are currently too complex; he would replace the five main schemes with a single $3,000-a-year tax credit. Teachers should be paid for performance, not just credentials. And schoolchildren should take shorter holidays. (The Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate Clintonian body, made the same proposal last month.)

Americans are not saving enough for retirement. Well, some are. Mr Emanuel, after six years as a White House aide, earned $16m in two and a half years as an investment banker. For those who lack his quick wits and fat Rolodex, however, he proposes other ways to build up wealth. Employees should automatically be enrolled in 401(K) pension schemes unless they object. The middle class should be exempt from capital-gains tax. And families with an income of less than $100,000 a year should surrender no more than 10% of it to the taxman. As a congressman, Mr Emanuel has proved himself something of a tax wonk, co-sponsoring a plan to do to the tax code's complexities what he once fantasised about doing to his political enemies.

Perhaps the most arresting part of the Plan concerns national security, the Democrats' perennial weak spot. Again echoing Senator Clinton, he wants 100,000 more soldiers for America's overstretched army. He also wants an elite agency to fight domestic terrorism, like Britain's MI5. Of George Bush's Department of Homeland Security, he scoffs: “[It] has 180,000 employees. The London bombings in July 2005 were the work of four men with backpacks. Whose organisation chart would you rather have?” Most radically, he wants all Americans aged 18-25 to undergo three months of compulsory disaster-training.

Oh come, come, Emanuel

Wouldn't it be more efficient to hire more professionals—paramedics, firemen and so forth? Not in Mr Emanuel's view. He does not want merely to prepare for future disasters; he thinks his “universal citizen service” will bring youngsters of all backgrounds together and teach them what it means to be American. “The French abandoned the idea [of national service] a decade ago, and now watch their young people riot in the streets,” he says. This is a feeble explanation for the French riots. And Mr Emanuel's scheme will remind many Americans that the Democratic Party likes social engineering more than they do.

As a whole, the Plan will help rebut the charge that the Democrats have no ideas. And if they win in November, they can always ditch the more radical parts. A Plan is less binding than a Contract, and Mr Emanuel is not the Democrats' leader in the House. At least, not yet.

Daily Herald: Roskam Defends Federal Pork Support

2006-08-23T16:59:00.000-07:00

Roskam defends federal pork support

By Eric Krol
Daily Herald Political Writer
Posted Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Republican congressional hopeful Peter Roskam, who’s always billed himself as a fiscal conservative, tried to walk a political tightrope Monday by embracing an oft-criticized budget tactic for securing federal funding for local projects.

The 6th Congressional District GOP nominee said he’d support continuing the so-called practice of “earmarks” if elected to Congress to make sure projects like fixing the dangerous railroad crossing at Irving Park and Wood Dale roads continue to get funded.

“I don’t think we should leave it to a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., who’s in a gray building and goes to sleep in the suburbs of Virginia every night and has never been to Wood Dale making fundamental decisions about the life and health and safety of Wood Dale,” said Roskam at Wood Dale city hall.

Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth has vowed to end earmarks, calling the practice wasteful and corrupt in an era of record budget deficits. Duckworth’s campaign, which puts out a news release every week highlighting pork projects, criticized Roskam.

“He’ll continue more of the same in Congress,” Duckworth spokeswoman Christine Glunz said. “He’s trying to defend himself on an issue he’s clearly weak on.”

When asked how Duckworth would bring home the proverbial bacon for the 6th District, Glunz said projects like the railroad crossing would get funded on merit.

Roskam said he would back a change to make earmarks more transparent, requiring the sponsoring congressman’s name to be listed.

The Wood Dale intersection has had 128 crashes in three years, making it the most accident-prone railroad crossing in Illinois. Retiring Congressman Henry Hyde has secured $11 million to create an underpass, but the project costs $65 million, officials said.

Physician Lanny Wilson, who lost his 14-year-old daughter Lauren in a 1994 accident at a Hinsdale crossing when his son tried to outrun a train by going around the crossing gates, said it’s crucial the project be completed.

In other 6th District race news, the National Republican Campaign Committee recently reserved $2.3 million worth of TV ad time for the final weeks before the Nov. 7 election. The move matches an earlier Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reservation of $2.3 million of campaign time. If history holds, both parties will spend that money to air negative attack ads about the other party’s candidate.

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=218930

And the Amazing Technicolor Mailer

2006-08-23T09:33:00.000-07:00

More DeLay Ties for Roskam

2006-08-19T01:10:00.000-07:00

Congressional race starts getting nasty
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/illinoisstory.asp?id=217841

By Eric Krol
Daily Herald Political Writer
Posted Friday, August 18, 2006

The first bit of political nastiness in the 6th Congressional District race surfaced Thursday about the ethical pasts of key campaign staff for both Republican Peter Roskam and Democrat Tammy Duckworth.

The Duckworth campaign initially criticized Roskam for allowing the national GOP to send in veteran operative Jason Roe, pointing to his past work for indicted ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and involvement in an ethics investigation about a prescription drug vote.

“I think it’s clear that the alarm bells have gone off about Peter Roskam’s campaign,” Duckworth spokeswoman Christine Glunz said. “Sending in someone who has ties to Tom DeLay as well as someone who is doing dirty work, strong-arming and twisting arms on the Medicare bill.”

But the National Republican Campaign Committee was able to boomerang the ethics rap on Roe back at Duckworth, pointing out that her campaign manager, Jon Carson, was granted immunity as part of a 2001 probe into political corruption involving a prominent Wisconsin Democrat.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, called the Duckworth campaign’s criticisms “stunningly hypocritical.”

“(Duckworth) has resorted to Chicago Democrat machine-style mudslinging and dirty tricks,” Collegio said.

The charges and counter-charges amounted to “your campaign worker has more ethical baggage than our campaign worker.”

Roe worked three weeks on DeLay’s 2004 re-election campaign helping with get-out-the-vote efforts. DeLay since has lost his majority leader position amid scandal, but Roe is not involved in that.

Also, a 2004 House ethics report shows Nick Smith, then a Michigan congressman, testified that Roe told him his son who was running to succeed him could receive “substantial support” if the elder Smith voted for the federal prescription drug plan. Roe pointed out the report clears him of any wrongdoing and said he only was responding to Smith’s question about the ramifications of a vote.

Carson briefly worked as the No. 2 staff member for then-Wisconsin Senate Democratic leader Chuck Chvala, who was eventually sentenced to nine months for political corruption. Carson, who was not accused of any wrongdoing, was granted immunity from prosecution and paid his own legal bills.

From: Think Progress

2006-05-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore

By Faiz on Radical Right-Wing Agenda

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls “global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.” The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, is being released just a week before the May 24th opening (in LA and NYC) of Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Who is CEI? The Washington Post explains:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a “major donor” largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Exxon documents reveal the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for “global climate change and global climate change outreach.” Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998.

CEI’s general counsel Sam Kazman said, “I think what attracted [Exxon] to us was our position on global warming.” CEI’s position? The Institute believes the dangers of global warming are akin “to that of ‘an alien invasion.’”

Exxon’s spokesperson Tom Cirigliano has explained why the company is so dedicated to funding CEI’s pushback on global warming:

We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate. … There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change that is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.

The science is not questioned because the science behind global warming is indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.”

For the oil industry, Al Gore’s film exposing the truth is perceived as a threat, and they have no shortage of funds to try to distort it.

Chicago Tribune: Apartment shortages squeeze young, poor; As units dwindle, rents march higher

2006-04-11T07:14:00.000-07:00

From your March 9, 2006 Chicago Tribune:

Apartment shortages squeeze young, poor;
As units dwindle, rents march higher

LaDonna Dennis and her 9-year-old son want to live in a safe neighborhood on the South Side. But to do that, she may have to spend more than half of her $1,400-a-month income on rent.

The 48-year-old single mother, like many other renters in Chicago and across the country, faces dramatically higher rents as the housing boom has swept away old buildings and turned others into expensive condominiums.

Cook County is losing about 3,400 rental units each year, part of 200,000 units disappearing annually across the country. The shortage was outlined Wednesday in the first comprehensive study of the U.S. rental housing market by Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. It was sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in Chicago.

Nationally, about 2 million apartments--more than 6 percent of the rental stock--were lost between 1993 and 2003, the last full year for which numbers are available.

The loss of affordable rentals is putting pressure on groups of people who can least afford to cope with the increased costs: the young and the poor.

Some 34 million households, about one-third of the nation's total, live in rental units, a fact overshadowed in recent years by the housing boom.

"We are taking one step forward and two steps back as gentrification in some neighborhoods and continued deterioration in others leads to the removal of vitally needed lower-cost rental housing," said Joint Center director Nicolas Retsinas.

In the downtown Chicago market alone, 2005 was the biggest conversion year in 25 years, according to Appraisal Research Counselors of Chicago, which only tracks buildings of 25 units or more. More than 3,800 units were converted to condos last year.

John Bartlett, executive director of Chicago's Metropolitan Tenants Organization, said the condo conversions are a "serious problem" in the city as once-affordable apartments are "turned into places that people cannot afford."

Two years ago, "there used to be lots of apartments you could find for $700," Bartlett said, "and now that's non-existent. Some of the places along the lake, they're going to be $1,200 to $1,400 for a one-bedroom apartment."

Bartlett estimated that the average price for a one-bedroom in Chicago now is about $1,100, with the average two-bedroom nearly $1,800. That's "completely out of reach. For a low-income renter, there is going to have to be some kind of subsidy" to afford it, he said.

The problem varies by neighborhood, but Bartlett's group increasingly is getting calls from people who can't afford the rent in places such as Rogers Park and the South Side's 4th and 5th Wards. "Even in the 28th Ward [West Side]--we are getting way more calls than we ever did," in an area that used to have a high density of rentals.

"Those kinds of low rentals are needed," Bartlett said. A person would need to earn about $30,000 a year to afford the current average rent, he said.

"People making minimum wage" can't do it, he said, adding that his group is seeing more doubling up of family members in one apartment, and more friends moving in together. "People can't afford to live on their own."

Garth Taylor, president of the Metro Chicago Information Center, a policy research center, said about 308,000 of the local households renting are considered rent-burdened, which means they spend 30 percent or more of household income on rent. Nearly 62,000 households are severely rent-burdened, which means more than 50 percent of income goes to rent.

Consider Dennis. She pays $500 a month, or roughly a third of her monthly income, for a two-bedroom unit in a six-flat building in the South Shore neighborhood.

Since January, the hospital worker has narrowed her search to the South Side neighborhoods of Bronzeville, North Kenwood and Woodlawn, where public housing complexes have been redeveloped into mixed-income developments. She's on a long waiting list for a new Bronzeville unit near her church.

"They've torn down a lot of Chicago public housing and they are rebuilding for mixed-income. The rents are running like $850 for two-bedrooms and $1,000 for three-bedrooms," said Dennis. "If I could find a two-bedroom for $850, I'd be happy."

Cook County has an estimated 748,000 rental units, about 39 percent of the county's housing, according to Chicago Metropolis 2020, a business-sponsored think tank that studies regional issues. This is down from 831,400 in 2000.

And by 2009, 32,000 rental units with government subsidies in Cook County are at risk as government supports expire.

Eighty percent of all households 25 years or under are renters and two-thirds of households ages 25 to 29 live in apartments, the Harvard study reported.

Median listed rent for new-construction buildings rose from $734 in 1994 to $974 in 2004. During the same period, monthly renter income rose from $2,272 to $2,348.

Illinois and the Chicago area may be especially vulnerable to those pressures, noted Frank Beal, executive director of Chicago Metropolis 2020.

The Chicago area is consistently falling behind the rest of the country in building new rentals, Beal said. The Cook County tax codes are unfavorable for large rental buildings and Illinois laws are favorable to conversions, he said. In addition, the region has 272 municipalities, which can keep out rental buildings if officials deem it in the interest of the town.

Tribune 2004 Endorsements

2006-02-27T08:25:00.000-08:00

The Tribune's endorsements
Chicago Tribune
November 2, 2004

These are the Chicago Tribune editorial board's endorsements in Tuesday's elections.

Endorsements are made only in contested races.

NATIONAL OFFICES

U.S. PRESIDENT

George W. Bush (R)

U.S. SENATE

Barack Obama (D)

U.S. HOUSE

1st District

Bobby Rush (D)

2nd District

Jesse Jackson Jr. (D)

3rd District

Daniel Lipinski (D)

4th District

Luis Gutierrez (D)

5th District

Rahm Emanuel (D)

6th District

Henry Hyde (R)

7th District

Danny Davis (D

8th District

Melissa Bean (D)

9th District

Jan Schakowsky (D)

10th District

Mark Kirk (R)

11th District

Jerry Weller (R)

12th District

Erin Zweigart (R)

13th District

Judy Biggert (R)

14th District

Dennis Hastert (R)

15th District

Tim Johnson (R)

16th District

Donald Manzullo (R)

17th District

No endorsement

18th District

Ray LaHood (R)

19th District

John Shimkus (R)

STATE OFFICES

ILLINOIS SENATE

5th District

Rickey Hendon (D)

8th District

Ira Silverstein (D)

11th District

Louis Viverito (D)

26th District

Bill Peterson (R)

29th District

Susan Garrett (D)

32nd District

Pamela Althoff (R)

35th District

Brad Burzynski (R)

38th District

Gary Dahl (R)

47th District

John Sullivan (D)

56th District

Bill Haine (D)

59th District

Ron Summers (R)

ILLINOIS HOUSE

5th District

Ken Dunkin (D)

8th District

Julie Samuels (Green)

10th District

Annazette Collins (D)

11th District

John Fritchey (D)

12th District

Sara Feigenholtz (D)

15th District

William Miceli (R)

16th District

Lou Lang (D)

17th District

Elizabeth Coulson (R)

18th District

Julie Hamos (D)

19th District

Joseph Lyons (D)

20th District

Michael McAuliffe (R)

21st District

Robert Molaro (D)

22nd District

Michael Madigan (D)

24th District

No endorsement

28th District

Michael Fredette (R)

35th District

Kevin Joyce (D)

36th District

James Brosnahan (D)

38th District

Robin Kelly (D)

40th District

Richard Bradley (D)

43rd District

Ruth Munson (R)

46th District

Lee Daniels (R)

47th District

Patti Bellock (R)

48th District

Guy Rosenthal (D)

50th District

Patricia Reid Lindner (R)

51st District

Ed Sullivan Jr. (R)

52nd District

Mark Beaubien (R)

53rd District

Sidney Mathias (R)

57th District

Elaine Nekritz (D)

58th District

Karen May (D)

59th District

Kathleen Ryg (D)

60th District

Eddie Washington (D)

61st District

JoAnn Osmond (R)

62nd District

Sharyn Elman (D)

63rd District

Perry Moy (R)

64th District

Michael Tryon (R)

65th District

Rosemary Mulligan (R)

68th District

Dave Winters (R)

70th District

Robert Pritchard (R)

71st District

Steve Haring (R)

72nd District

Patrick Verschoore (D)

74th District

Donald Moffitt (R)

75th District

Doug Hayse (R)

79th District

Kay Pangle (R)

82nd District

Eileen Lyons (R)

85th District

Brent Hassert (R)

88th District

Dan Brady (R)

92nd District

Aaron Schock (R)

95th District

Randall Hultgren (R)

99th District

Raymond Poe (R)

101st District

Robert Flider (D)

103rd District

Deborah Frank Feinen (R)

106th District

Keith Sommer (R)

107th District

Kurt Granberg (D)

108th District

David Reis (R)

109th District

Roger Eddy (R)

111th District

Steve Davis (D)

114th District

Wyvetter Younge (D)

115th District

Mike Bost (R)

117th District

John Bradley (D)

STATE COURTS

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT

5th District

Lloyd A. Karmeier (R)

ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT

3rd District

Jim Wright (R)

ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT -- RETENTION JUDGES

Vote "YES" for the following:

1st District

Thomas Hoffman

Sheila O'Brien

Mary Jane Wendt Theis

2nd District

Susan Fayette Hutchinson

3rd District

William Holdridge

Endorsements in the collar counties

These are the Chicago Tribune's endorsements in Tuesday's elections for races in Cook, DuPage, Kane, McHenry, Will and Lake Counties:

COOK COUNTY

COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY

Richard Devine (D)

COOK COUNTY RECORDER

John Cox (R)

COOK COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

Dorothy Brown (D)

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DIST.

Patricia Young (D)

Gloria Alitto Majewski (D)

Barbara McGowan (D)

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

Salyers vacancy

Michelle Jordan (D)

COOK COUNTY COURT SUBCIRCUITS

4A

Bill Kunkle (R)

12

Kay Marie Hanlon (R)

15

Catherine Sanders (R)

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT -- RETENTION JUDGES

The Tribune recommends a "YES" vote for the judges seeking retention, with the following exceptions. On these judges, the Tribune recommends a "NO" vote:

Dorothy Jones

Susan McDunn

William O'Neal

DUPAGE COUNTY

DUPAGE COUNTY BOARD

1st District

Paul Fichtner (R)

2nd District

Patrick O'Shea (R)

3rd District

Richard Moss (D)

4th District

Debra Olson (R)

5th District

Hiram Wurf (D)

6th District

Pamela Rion (R)

DUPAGE COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE COMMISSION

1st District

Marsha Murphy (R)

3rd District

Wallace Brown (R)

5th District

Carl Schultz (R)

DUPAGE CO. CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

Chris Kachiroubas (R)

DUPAGE COUNTY CORONER

Peter Siekmann (R)

18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT -- RETENTION JUDGES

Vote "YES" for the following judges:

Bonnie Wheaton

Robert Emmett Byrne

Robert K. Kilander

Rodney Equi

KANE COUNTY

KANE COUNTY BOARD

2nd District

Mary Richards (R)

4th District

Penelope Cameron (R)

10th District

Thomas Van Cleave (R)

14th District

Elaine Stern (D)

20th District

Marlena Fox (D)

22nd District

Jackie Tredup (R)

24th District

Margaret Scalfaro (R)

KANE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN

Karen McConnaughay (R)

KANE COUNTY CORONER

Charles West (R)

KANE COUNTY RECORDER

Sandy Wegman (R)

KANE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY

John Barsanti (R)

16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT

Jensen vacancy

Robert Spence (R)

Vote "YES" for the following retention judges:

James Doyle Donald Fabian

LAKE COUNTY

LAKE COUNTY BOARD

1st District

Judy Martini (R)

5th District

Bonnie Thomson Carter (R)

6th District

Lawrence Leafblad (R)

10th District

Diana O'Kelly (R)

11th District

Sandy Cole (R)

16th District

Robert Powers (R)

LAKE COUNTY CLERK

Sally Coffelt (R)

LAKE COUNTY CORONER

Richard Keller (D)

LAKE COUNTY RECORDER

Mary Ellen Vanderventer (D)

LAKE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY

Michael Waller (R)

NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT

Daniel Pierce (D)

19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT -- RETENTION JUDGES

Vote "YES" for the following:

Raymond McKoski

Henry Tonigan

Margaret Mullen

McHENRY COUNTY

McHENRYCOUNTY BOARD

1st District

Dan Shea (R)

Marc Munaretto (R)

2nd District

Marie Chmiel (R)

Lori Keller (D)

3rd District

Ann Kate (R)

Nick Provenzano (R)

4th District

John Hammerand (R)

Sue Draffkorn (R)

5th District

Virginia Peschke (R)

John Jung Jr. (R)

6th District

Richard Klasen (R)

Mary Lou Zierer (R)

WILL COUNTY

WILL COUNTY BOARD

1st District

Lee Deutsche (D)

Mary Ann Gearhart Deutsche (R)

Cory Singer (R)

2nd District

Thomas Weigel (R)

6th District

Don Gould (R)

Kerry Sheridan (R)

Deborah Rozak (R)

7th District

Kathleen Konicki (R)

Ronald Svara (R)

Jim Bilotta (R)

9th District

Stephen Wilhelmi (D)

WILL COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK

Pamela McGuire (D)

WILL COUNTY RECORDER

Laurie McPhillips (R)

WILL COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY

James Glasgow (D)

WILL COUNTY AUDITOR

Steve Weber (R)

WILL COUNTY CORONER

Patrick O'Neil (D)

WILL COUNTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Joseph Mikan (R)

The Tribune's endorsements, Chi. Trib., November 2, 2004, § 1, at 20.

Chicago Tribune: George W. Bush for President

2006-02-27T07:28:00.000-08:00

Chicago Tribune Editorial
George W. Bush for president

October 17, 2004

One by one, Americans typically settle on a presidential candidate after weighing his, and his rival's, views on the mosaic of issues that each of us finds important.

Some years, though, force vectors we didn't anticipate turn some of our usual priorities--our pet causes, our own economic interest--into narcissistic luxuries. As Election Day nears, the new force vectors drive our decision-making.

This is one of those years--distinct in ways best framed by Sen. John McCain, perhaps this country's most broadly respected politician. Seven weeks ago, McCain looked with chilling calm into TV cameras and told Americans, with our rich diversity of clashing worldviews, what is at stake for every one of us in the first presidential election since Sept. 11 of 2001:

"So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. ... All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second." If we waver, McCain said, "we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed--to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit."

This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.

One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11--but with far deadlier weapons--could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.

This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.

A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates.

But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

- - -

Bush, his critics say, displays an arrogance that turns friends into foes. Spurned at the United Nations by "Old Europe"--France, Germany, Russia--he was too long in admitting he wanted their help in a war. He needs to acknowledge that his country's future interests are best served by fixing frayed friendships. And if re-elected, he needs to accomplish that goal.

But that is not the whole story. Consider:

Bush has nurtured newer alliances with many nations such as Poland, Romania and Ukraine (combined population, close to 110 million) that want more than to be America's friends: Having seized their liberty from tyrants, they are determined now to be on the right side of history.

Kerry is an internationalist, a man of conspicuous intellect. He is a keen student of world affairs and their impact at home.

But that is not the whole story. Consider:

On the most crucial issue of our time, Kerry has serially dodged for political advantage. Through much of the 2004 election cycle, he used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security. Even now, when Kerry grasps a microphone, it can be difficult to fathom who is speaking--the war hero, or the anti-war hero.

Kerry displays great faith in diplomacy as the way to solve virtually all problems. Diplomatic solutions should always be the goal. Yet that principle would be more compelling if the world had a better record of confronting true crises, whether proffered by the nuclear-crazed ayatollahs of Iran, the dark eccentrics of North Korea, the genocidal murderers of villagers in Sudan--or the Butcher of Baghdad.

In each of these cases, Bush has pursued multilateral strategies. In Iraq, when the UN refused to enforce its 17th stern resolution--the more we learn about the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food program, the more it's clear the fix was in--Bush acted. He thus reminded many of the world's governments why they dislike conservative and stubborn U.S. presidents (see Reagan, Ronald).

Bush has scored a great success in Afghanistan--not only by ousting the Taliban regime and nurturing a new democracy, but also by ignoring the chronic doubters who said a war there would be a quagmire. He and his administration provoked Libya to surrender its weapons program, turned Pakistan into an ally against terrorists (something Bill Clinton's diplomats couldn't do) and helped shut down A.Q. Khan, the world's most menacing rogue nuclear proliferator.

Many of these cross-currents in Bush's and Kerry's worldviews collide in Iraq.

Bush arguably invaded with too few allies and not enough troops. He will go to his tomb defending his reliance on intelligence from agencies around the globe that turned out to be wrong. And he has refused to admit any errors.

Kerry, though, has lost his way. The now-professed anti-war candidate says he still would vote to authorize the war he didn't vote to finance. He used the presidential debates to telegraph a policy of withdrawal. His Iraq plan essentially is Bush's plan. All of which perplexes many.

Worse, it plainly perplexes Kerry. ("I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," he said Oct. 8, adding that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, "where there wasn't a threat.") What's not debatable is that Kerry did nothing to oppose White House policy on Iraq until he trailed the dovish Howard Dean in the race for his party's nomination. Also haunting Kerry: his Senate vote against the Persian Gulf war--driven by faith that, yes, more diplomacy could end Saddam Hussein's rape of Kuwait.

- - -

On domestic issues, the choice is also clear. In critical areas such as public education and health care, Bush's emphasis is on greater competition. His No Child Left Behind Act has flaws, but its requirements have created a new climate of expectation and accountability. On both of these important fronts, but especially with his expensive health-care plan, Kerry primarily sees a need to raise and spend more money.

The failure of either candidate to offer spending and taxation proposals that remotely approach balancing the federal budget is an embarrassment to both. The non-partisan Concord Coalition calculates the 10-year impact of Bush's proposals as a negative $1.33 trillion; the impact of Kerry's is a nearly identical $1.27 trillion. Kerry correctly cites the disturbingly expensive legacy of Bush's tax cuts--while, in the same breath, promising new tax cuts of his own.

This is a genre of American fiction that Bush, if he is re-elected, cannot perpetuate. To Bush's credit, his tax policies have had the aggregate effect of pushing Americans toward more savings and investment--the capital with which the world's strongest economy generates jobs. But he has not shown the necessary discipline on discretionary spending. Two particularly egregious examples: Medicare prescription drug coverage and an enormously expensive farm subsidy bill, both signed by Bush.

This country's paramount issue, though, remains the threat to its national security.

John Kerry has been a discerning critic of where Bush has erred. But Kerry's message--a more restrained assault on global threats, earnest comfort with the international community's noble inaction--suggests what many voters sense: After 20 years in the Senate, the moral certitude Kerry once displayed has evaporated. There is no landmark Kennedy-Kerry Education Act, no Kerry-Frist Health Bill. Today's Kerry is more about plans and process than solutions. He is better suited to analysis than to action. He has not delivered a compelling blueprint for change.

For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused--effectively--on this nation's security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II.

That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0410170332oct17,1,1802792.story?coll=chi-navrailnews-nav

Alexander Cockburn: Rahm's Candidates Fence-Straddle on the War

2006-02-25T22:03:00.000-08:00

beat the devil by Alexander Cockburn

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/cockburn

The Year of Vanished Credibility

[from the January 9, 2006 issue]

Start with Bush. Never at ease before the cameras, he now has the hunted blink and compulsive nasolabial twitch of the mad dictator, a cornered rat with nowhere left to run. Nixon looked the same in his last White House days, and so did Hitler, according to those present in the Führerbunker. As Hitler did before him, Bush raves on about imagined victories. Spare a thought for the First Lady, who has to endure his demented and possibly drunken harangues over supper. The word around Washington is that he's drinking again. At this rate he'll be shooting the dog and ordering the First Lady to take poison, which I'm sure she'll have great pleasure in forwarding to her mother-in-law.

Certainly it's hard to escape Bush's voice. Every time I turn on the radio, there he is giving a press conference, or yet another bulletin on the great triumphs in Iraq (where the recent election produced utter defeat for the United States and total victory for Iran). There's talk of a Bush bounce in the polls, though I tend to believe the usually reliable Zogby poll, which found on December 13 that after edging back up above 40 percent in November, Bush's job approval rating was once again at 38 percent. I'm sure millions of Americans yearn to approve of Bush. He's officially scheduled to be in the White House for another three years, and who wants a lemon in the garage that long? And indeed, the President does still have his die-hard fans, clustered in their places of worship in the remoter regions of the country. A mid-November poll by SurveyUSA found that in only seven states did Bush's current approval rating even hover around 50 percent. These consisted of thinly populated states where sexual relations with livestock are still commonplace: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi.

All the same, we've mishandled the situation. When Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and said, Mission accomplished, we all sneered. Wrong move. We should have applauded and said, Now leave! Same thing when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We sneered again. We should have said, Great! America's safe. Let's quit while we're ahead.

Now Bush is saying that the job will be done when Iraqis enjoy the democratic freedoms guaranteed Americans. We should say, They do! Bought news stories; secret surveillance of phone calls, e-mails and faxes; arrest without warrant; disappearances; torture--you've brought our democracies into sync. Call it a day, bring the troops home and then we can start impeaching you.

But who would do the impeaching? The Democrats have lost as much credibility as the President and the Republicans. Ever since the New York Times loitered a year late into print with its disclosure about the NSA spying program (only the latest in a sequence of unconstitutional infamies by that agency stretching back for decades, mostly against domestic political protesters), I've seen it argued that if the Times had gone with the story last year, Kerry might be President.

But if the Democrats had cared about the Constitution, they could have broken the story last year. Democratic Congressional leaders knew, because the whistleblowers from the NSA desperately tried to alert them, only to get the cold shoulder. Kerry's prime advisers on such matters--Richard Clarke and Rand Beers--knew, because they'd previously been Bush's top functionaries in the "war on terror."

We're heading into a year when the Democrats could be making hay by actually doing the right thing. If 2005 is a pointer, they never will. The latest evidence is that Rahm Emanuel, in charge of selecting Democratic Congressional candidates for 2006, is choosing millionaires and fence-straddlers on the war. He shunned Christine Cegelis, who nearly beat sixteen-termer Henry Hyde in 2004, and whom Illinois polls show to be a popular contender to succeed Hyde. But Cegelis has the disadvantage in Emanuel's eyes of not being very rich and of agreeing with John Murtha on immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. So Emanuel picked Tammy Duckworth, who embodies the cynicism of the "Democratic strategists," being a double-amputee woman Iraq veteran who is not from the district, has a hot-air position on the war and is thought to espouse a "pro-business/centrist platform."

For years Democrats have been dreaming of having a bluff, no-nonsense type, preferably draped in medals, to lead them into political battle. They picked a clunker last year, in the form of Kerry, who had a glass jaw, six houses, a silly billionaire wife and an infinite capacity for talking out of both sides of his mouth. Along comes Murtha, once a Marine drill instructor at Parris Island, who is showing how to talk about the war, how to say it's quitting time. And they flee him like a poisoned thing.

I watched Murtha put Bush away last Sunday. It was effortless.

WOLF BLITZER: Here's what the President said this past week....He seemed to be addressing you specifically...
BUSH: Setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to our most important audience, our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain.
MURTHA: This is a real war; this is not a war of rhetoric. What the troops get disappointed [about] is they don't have the equipment they need.... I found a shortage of 40,000 battle jackets that they didn't have. That's the thing that demoralizes them. And they know they're targets. I was out at the hospital the other day, and I talked to a young woman whose husband had been to Iraq twice, wounded very badly, lying there in a hospital bed. She says, You know, he enlisted to fight for America, not for Iraq. The Iraqis have to do this themselves. That's the answer to this whole situation.

So that's it for 2005: no credibility for the President, or for the Democrats, or for the New York Times, which took a year to figure out whether the Constitution is worth fighting for. 2006 should be an exciting year. Let's welcome it in.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/cockburn

Nobody Talks, Everybody Walks

2006-01-05T07:16:00.000-08:00

War protesters sue over arrests
Chicago Tribune
March 19, 2004 Friday
Chicago Final Edition

A federal lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of 16 people who took part in a huge demonstration against the Iraq war a year ago alleged that Chicago police arrested them on false charges and verbally abused them.

The suit contended that officers "trapped and pinned" demonstrators on Chicago Avenue, prohibiting most of them from leaving the area, along with many others who weren't even part of the March 20 protest. Police stopped the march when protesters tried to spill onto Michigan Avenue after overrunning several blocks of Lake Shore Drive at rush hour.

All charges against the 16 plaintiffs were ultimately dropped, said Gregory Gorman, one of the attorneys who filed the suit.

http://tinyurl.com/8ravn

Byrne: "If any Democrat deserves a crack at Roskam, it's Christine Cegelis."

2005-12-27T22:34:00.000-08:00

Illinois Democrats show signs of change

Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant

December 26, 2005

Might state and local Democrats actually be flirting with democracy?

The entrance of independent, qualified and determined candidates into the party's primaries for governor and Cook County Board president is a welcome sign that at least some Democrats are willing to challenge the established order.

Edwin Eisendrath, a former Chicago alderman, former federal housing official and current college vice president, is an excellent alternative for the many who have tired of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's empty reform promises. Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool, former chief of staff for Mayor Richard M. Daley and a reformer who took on the lakefront sinkhole known as the Chicago Park District, is equally qualified to challenge Cook County President John Stroger.

At last from Democrats we now have hope that some candidates recognize that Illinois needs a good scrubbing with the wire brush of citizen outrage, if there's any left. Every day, there's another story -- or two, or three -- about new cases, in both political parties, of corruption, graft, dishonesty, favoritism, abuse, cynicism, bossism and various creative felonious behaviors. More than school finance reform or a balanced budget, Illinois' No.1 issue is graft and corruption. It steals our money, creates flawed public policy and puts the squeeze on worthy government programs. Only in this climate would the oxymoron of "honest graft" be confused with wisdom.

On the Republican side, a few candidates, but not enough, also understand. Of course every candidate says he's for reform and against graft. Fortunately, in Illinois, we've got a good way to tell if it is true: Only trust candidates that disavow the bipartisan political establishment that runs this state: The Republican and Democratic "leadership," big business, big labor, big lawyers, big doctors and the rest of "the bigs."

That rules out Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka. Shamelessly, she sought the endorsement and money of "the bigs" as a condition of running. That included genuflecting to Republican political wonders in Washington -- the Karl Roves and also the reform-challenged Robert Kjellanders who engineered the 2004 GOP wreck in Illinois. Obviously, reform is not much on the mind of this crowd, as we watch the unfolding of a huge scandal involving indicted GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. From Topinka's perspective, kissing up to these guys makes practical sense. From ours, it's poison. Amazingly oblivious to any of this is Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who blithely predicts a GOP sweep in Illinois.

Speaking of being bought by the insider crowd, we come to Tammy Duckworth. She has entered the Democratic west suburban 6th District congressional race as a protege of liberal U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) Emanuel heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which means he has a lot of money to buy candidates and their support.

Emanuel set up Duckworth to run in the Democratic primary, with the winner facing state Sen. Peter Roskam, the GOP's unopposed candidate. But if any Democrat deserves a crack at Roskam, it's Christine Cegelis, one of the two other previously announced candidates in the Democratic primary. In 2005, she got 44 percent of the vote against retiring U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde, a GOP icon.

Emanuel has committed a bankroll to install Duckworth as the candidate of the party apparatus, even though she is a political novice who lives outside the district and whose political positions have been a mystery. So why would Emanuel run such a political nullity, when a proven candidate is available?

Because she is a war hero. Duckworth was an Illinois Army National Guard helicopter pilot who became an amputee in a crash in Iraq. Emanuel already has trotted her out as "evidence" that Democrats are patriotic and sympathetic with the military. And to inoculate Democrats against the (correct) perception that they're weak on the war against terror. Not surprisingly, her campaign was launched by media toadies, including ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who gave her undeserved exposure on his Sunday TV talk show. Of course, it had nothing to do with the fact that George and Rahm worked together for the Clinton White House.

Using her honorable service in this way is breathtakingly cynical, even for someone as practiced as Emanuel. Even in something as squalid as Illinois politics.

Thanks to the unexpectedly many Tribune newspaper and Internet readers who sent in reasoned, informed and interesting responses to last week's column on intelligent design. The gratifying response from both sides demonstrates even more the legitimacy of the ID debate, especially in schools.

----------

dennis@dennisbyrne.net

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512260154dec26,1,527532.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

Cockburn: The Year of Vanished Crediblity

2005-12-22T07:05:00.000-08:00

The Year of Vanished Credibility
by Alexander Cockburn
[from the Nation, January 9, 2006]

Start with Bush. Never at ease before the cameras, he now has the hunted blink and compulsive nasolabial twitch of the mad dictator, a cornered rat with nowhere left to run. Nixon looked the same in his last White House days, and so did Hitler, according to those present in the Führerbunker. As Hitler did before him, Bush raves on about imagined victories. Spare a thought for the First Lady, who has to endure his demented and possibly drunken harangues over supper. The word around Washington is that he's drinking again. At this rate he'll be shooting the dog and ordering the First Lady to take poison, which I'm sure she'll have great pleasure in forwarding to her mother-in-law.

Certainly it's hard to escape Bush's voice. Every time I turn on the radio, there he is giving a press conference, or yet another bulletin on the great triumphs in Iraq (where the recent election produced utter defeat for the United States and total victory for Iran). There's talk of a Bush bounce in the polls, though I tend to believe the usually reliable Zogby poll, which found on December 13 that after edging back up above 40 percent in November, Bush's job approval rating was once again at 38 percent. I'm sure millions of Americans yearn to approve of Bush. He's officially scheduled to be in the White House for another three years, and who wants a lemon in the garage that long? And indeed, the President does still have his die-hard fans, clustered in their places of worship in the remoter regions of the country. A mid-November poll by SurveyUSA found that in only seven states did Bush's current approval rating even hover around 50 percent. These consisted of thinly populated states where sexual relations with livestock are still commonplace: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi.

All the same, we've mishandled the situation. When Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and said, Mission accomplished, we all sneered. Wrong move. We should have applauded and said, Now leave! Same thing when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We sneered again. We should have said, Great! America's safe. Let's quit while we're ahead.

Now Bush is saying that the job will be done when Iraqis enjoy the democratic freedoms guaranteed Americans. We should say, They do! Bought news stories; secret surveillance of phone calls, e-mails and faxes; arrest without warrant; disappearances; torture--you've brought our democracies into sync. Call it a day, bring the troops home and then we can start impeaching you.

But who would do the impeaching? The Democrats have lost as much credibility as the President and the Republicans. Ever since the New York Times loitered a year late into print with its disclosure about the NSA spying program (only the latest in a sequence of unconstitutional infamies by that agency stretching back for decades, mostly against domestic political protesters), I've seen it argued that if the Times had gone with the story last year, Kerry might be President.

But if the Democrats had cared about the Constitution, they could have broken the story last year. Democratic Congressional leaders knew, because the whistleblowers from the NSA desperately tried to alert them, only to get the cold shoulder. Kerry's prime advisers on such matters--Richard Clarke and Rand Beers--knew, because they'd previously been Bush's top functionaries in the "war on terror."

We're heading into a year when the Democrats could be making hay by actually doing the right thing. If 2005 is a pointer, they never will. The latest evidence is that Rahm Emanuel, in charge of selecting Democratic Congressional candidates for 2006, is choosing millionaires and fence-straddlers on the war. He shunned Christine Cegelis, who nearly beat sixteen-termer Henry Hyde in 2004, and whom Illinois polls show to be a popular contender to succeed Hyde. But Cegelis has the disadvantage in Emanuel's eyes of not being very rich and of agreeing with John Murtha on immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. So Emanuel picked Tammy Duckworth, who embodies the cynicism of the "Democratic strategists," being a double-amputee woman Iraq veteran who is not from the district, has a hot-air position on the war and is thought to espouse a "pro-business/centrist platform."

WOLF BLITZER: Here's what the President said this past week....He seemed to be addressing you specifically...

BUSH: Setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to our most important audience, our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain.

MURTHA: This is a real war; this is not a war of rhetoric. What the troops get disappointed [about] is they don't have the equipment they need.... I found a shortage of 40,000 battle jackets that they didn't have. That's the thing that demoralizes them. And they know they're targets. I was out at the hospital the other day, and I talked to a young woman whose husband had been to Iraq twice, wounded very badly, lying there in a hospital bed. She says, You know, he enlisted to fight for America, not for Iraq. The Iraqis have to do this themselves. That's the answer to this whole situation.

So that's it for 2005: no credibility for the President, or for the Democrats, or for the New York Times, which took a year to figure out whether the Constitution is worth fighting for. 2006 should be an exciting year. Let's welcome it in.

Copyright © 2005 The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/cockburn

The Hill: Iraq vet faces obstacles to winning Ill.-6 Dem nod

2005-12-20T06:59:00.000-08:00

Iraq vet faces obstacles to winning Ill.-6 Dem nod
By Peter Savodnik

Local Democrats warn that, despite Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth’s popularity in Washington, she is likely to face an uphill battle in winning her party’s nomination to run for the seat now held by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

Duckworth, who officially filed yesterday to run for the House seat, lives outside the district and has entered the race barely three months before the March 21 primary.

She is also running in the primary against a woman, computer consultant Christine Cegelis, who ran last year — and gave Hyde his closest race in decades — and who has been running in the current cycle since the day after the 2004 election.

Alycia Fitz, a DuPage County Democratic official who coordinates election observers, said Cegelis has a “very loyal following.”

What’s more, Fitz said, there does not appear to be any substantive differences among Cegelis, Duckworth and Wheaton College professor Lindy Scott on Duckworth’s signature issue: the war in Iraq and President Bush’s handling of it.

Steven Kierstead, a DuPage County Democratic activist who runs a weekly e-mail newsletter sent to 1,400-1,500 local Democrats, added that the question of Duckworth’s residency — she lives just over the line in the 10th Congressional District — will hamper her efforts to win the support of party officials.

“It won’t make much difference to John and Jane average voter,” Kierstead said, “but some of the activists are very hot about it. Some of the people in the Cegelis camp already have used it.”

And this lack of so-called institutional support, Democrats add, will make it difficult for Duckworth to avoid looking like a “Washington candidate” imposed on Democrats in the suburban-Chicago district.

Florian Wasik, a retired mechanical engineer who volunteers at the Wheeling Township Democratic headquarters, in the neighboring 10th District, called Duckworth an “intrusion” imposed on the 6th District by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) who represents the nearby 5th District, in Chicago.

Wasik also said that while there are many “single-issue” Democrats in the Chicago suburbs concerned first and foremost with getting the United States out of Iraq — voters whom Duckworth is counting on — most Democrats care about a range of issues such as healthcare and the economy, matters that, Democrats added, Duckworth has yet to delve into. Wasik said the collapse of light manufacturing in the area, including tool and dye making, had exacerbated concerns about the suburbs’ economic future.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Emanuel, appear to think that Duckworth can overcome those hurdles, snag the nomination and give state Sen. Peter Roskam (R), his party’s likely House nominee, a serious race.

One of Durbin’s aides is working for Duckworth. Emanuel spoke with Duckworth on several occasions, presumably to encourage her to run for the seat. And prominent Democratic consultant David Axelrod, whose recent clients include Emanuel, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and presidential contender and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), is working for her.

Within hours of Duckworth’s campaign announcement Sunday, the candidate had a website up and running that showcased her military experience. She has taken a less barbed approach than fellow Democrat and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett, who narrowly lost a House race last summer to Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s 2nd District and who repeatedly lambasted President Bush.

Axelrod largely dismissed questions about Duckworth’s standing among local Democrats. “All I can tell you is that she’s filing 4,300 signatures today, which were collected in about a week, which is 500 more than anybody else running for this office, Republican or Democrat, filed,” Axelrod said yesterday. “I think that she has an extraordinary opportunity here.”

The consultant added that Duckworth would be getting help from two of Illinois’ leading Democrats. “I think both Durbin and Obama already have indicated that they’re supportive of her candidacy,” he said.

Joan Berman, an assistant to Democratic Committeeman Wilbert Crowley, in the 10th District, said Cegelis has an organization but predicted that, with Emanuel’s help, Duckworth would win the primary.

Berman also said that Democrats, far from being annoyed with Emanuel’s or Durbin’s getting involved in the race, would appreciate any help they can get winning a district that has supported Republicans for years.

Wasik, like other Democrats, said that portions of the 6th District are gradually shifting into the Democratic column.

Republicans, for the most part, scoff at Democratic hopes of capturing the 6th. Roskam, who worked for Hyde and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) in the 1980s, has been endorsed by Hyde and has been raising money at a rapid clip for a House contender. As of Sept. 30, the end of the last filing period, the Republican reported having raised roughly $286,000 in the third quarter, leaving him with just shy of $550,000 on hand.

A GOP source from Illinois familiar with the 6th District said that while Cegelis did relatively well against Hyde in 2004 — capturing 44 percent of the vote versus Hyde’s 56 percent — that result reflected voters’ sense that it was time for Hyde to go after having been in Congress since 1974, not growing support for Democrats.

© 2005 The Hill

Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty

2005-12-13T18:56:00.000-08:00

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty

References: (a) DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces," September 25, 1986 (hereby canceled)

(b) Title 10, United States Code

(c) DoD Directive 5200.2, "DoD Personnel Security Program," April 9, 1999

(d) DoD Directive 1325.6, "Guidelines for Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces," October 1, 1996

(e) through (h), see enclosure 1

1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Directive:

1.1. Reissues reference (a) to update DoD policies on political activities of members of the Armed Forces on active duty (AD).

1.2. Implements Section 973(b) of reference (b).

2. APPLICABILITY

This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a Military Service in the Department of the Navy by agreement with the Department of Transportation), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components").

3. DEFINITIONS

The terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure 2.

4. POLICY

It is DoD policy that a member of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as "member") is encouraged to carry out the obligations of a citizen. While on AD, however, members are prohibited from engaging in certain political activities. Subject to the guidelines in enclosure 3, the following DoD policy shall apply:

4.1. General

4.1.1. A member on AD may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.2. Make monetary contributions to a political organization.

4.1.1.3. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

4.1.2. A member on AD shall not:

4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

4.1.2.2. Be a candidate for, or hold, civil office except as authorized in paragraphs 4.2. and 4.3., below.

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.

4.1.2.4. Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.

4.1.3. To assist in applying subparagraphs 4.1.1. and 4.1.2., above, to particular situations, enclosure 3 provides guidelines and examples of permissible and prohibited political activities. The guidelines in enclosure 3 do not supersede other specific requirements and policies, such as those established in DoD Directives 5200.2 and 1325.6 (references (c) and (d)).

4.1.4. Enclosure 4 provides a summary of Federal statutes restricting certain types of political activities by members of the Armed Forces.

4.2. Candidacy for Elective Office. A member on AD may not:

4.2.1. Campaign as a nominee, or as a candidate for nomination, for civil office, except as authorized in subparagraph 4.3.3., below. When circumstances warrant, the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee may permit a member to file such evidence of nomination or candidacy for nomination, as may be required by law. Such permission shall not authorize activity while on AD that is otherwise prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2., above, or enclosure 3 or 4.

4.2.2. Become a candidate for any civil office while serving an initial tour of extended active duty (EAD) or a tour of EAD that the member agreed to perform as a condition of receiving schooling or other training wholly or partly at U.S. Government expense.

4.3. Election or Appointment to Civil Office

4.3.1. Except as authorized by subparagraph 4.3.3., below, or otherwise provided for by law, no member on AD may hold or exercise the functions of civil office:

4.3.1.1. In the U.S. Government that:

4.3.1.1.1. Is an elective office.

4.3.1.1.2. Requires an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

4.3.1.1.3. Is a position on the executive schedule under sections 5312 through 5317 of reference (e).

4.3.1.2. In the government of a State; the District of Columbia; a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States; or in any political subdivision thereof.

4.3.2. A member may hold or exercise the functions of a civil office in the U.S. Government that is not described in subparagraph 4.3.1.1., above, when assigned or detailed to such office or to perform such functions.

4.3.3. As long as they are not serving on EAD, enlisted members and Reserve officers may hold partisan or nonpartisan civil office if such office is held in a private capacity and does not interfere with the performance of military duties. Additionally, enlisted members on EAD may seek and hold nonpartisan civil office as a notary public or member of a school board, neighborhood planning commission, or similar local agency, as long as such office is held in a private capacity and does not interfere with the performance of military duties. Officers on active duty may seek and hold nonpartisan civil office on an independent school board that is located exclusively on a military reservation.

4.3.4. Unless prohibited by Service regulations, a member on AD may serve as a regular or reserve civilian law enforcement officer or as a member of a civilian fire or rescue squad. Such service shall be in a private capacity, shall not involve the exercise of military authority, and shall not interfere with the performance of military duties.

4.3.5. A member elected or appointed to a prohibited civil office may request retirement and shall be retired if eligible for retirement. If such member does not request or is not eligible for retirement, the member shall be discharged or released from AD, as determined by the Secretary concerned.

4.3.6. The separation and retirement requirements of subparagraph 4.3.5., above, do not apply if the member declines to serve in the prohibited office; if the Secretary concerned determines that the member should not be released from active duty based on the needs of the Service; or if the member is:

4.3.6.1. Obligated to fulfill an AD service commitment.

4.3.6.2. Serving or has been issued orders to serve afloat or in an area that is overseas, remote, a combat zone, or a hostile fire pay area.

4.3.6.3. Ordered to remain on AD while the subject of an investigation or inquiry.

4.3.6.4. Accused of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. chapter 47 (reference (b)), or serving a sentence or punishment for such offense.

4.3.6.5. Pending administrative separation action or proceedings.

4.3.6.6. Indebted to the United States.

4.3.6.7. On AD during a period of declared war, a national emergency, or other period when a unit of the Reserves or National Guard has been called to AD.

4.3.6.8. In violation of an order or regulation prohibiting such member from assuming or exercising the functions of civil office.

4.3.7. A member who refuses to decline to serve in a prohibited civil office after being denied separation or retirement in accordance with subparagraph 4.3.6., above, may be subject to disciplinary or adverse administrative action under Service regulations.

4.3.8. No actions undertaken by a member in carrying out assigned military duties shall be invalidated solely by virtue of such member having assumed or exercised the functions of a civil office in violation of paragraph 4.3., above.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) (ASD(FMP)) shall be responsible for the administration of this Directive.

5.2. The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall be responsible for issuance of appropriate implementing documents for their respective Departments.

6. PROCEDURES

All members of the Armed Forces on AD engaging in political activities shall follow the guidelines in enclosure 3.

7. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Directive is effective immediately.

Duckworth on Iraq War

2005-12-12T08:14:00.000-08:00

Duckworth Il-06 Bid Quite Likely....

Two campaign sources tell the Hotline that it looks very likely that Tammy Duckworth (D), a triple amputee who sustained critical injuries as a Black Hawk pilot in the war in Iraq, will be running in the IL-06 race against state Sen. Peter Roskam (R).

Duckworth has been mum about a potential campaign; she can't comment while on active duty.. but DCCC Chmn. Rahm Emanuel (D) has been actively recruiting her. Duckworth is not originally from Illinois -- she was born in Hawaii, with an undergraduate degree at the University of Hawaii and a graduate degree at George Washington University. She moved to Illinois when she was a doctoral student at Northern Illinois University. She joined ROTC there, and later served in the state National Guard in 1996 before being deployed to Iraq. And according to the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, she is presently applying for a release from active duty -- a necessary precursor to officially enter the race.

The district borders Emanuel's -- and he views this race as a key chance to pick up a seat that GOPer Henry Hyde has held since 1974. It also borders Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R) district, as well. Assuming Duckworth enters, this could easily be one of the most competitive and compelling House matchups -- a talented, aspiring Republican state senator against a genuine war hero -- with members of both parties' leadership right next door. The district leans Republican, but it's clearly a swing district that Dems can pick up. Obama won easily here, and Bush only won with 53% of the vote in '04.

Duckworth's policy views are largely a mystery. But she is likely to take a more favorable view of the war in Iraq than some of the current Dem leadership in the House. As a guest of Sen. Dick Durbin for President Bush's 2005 State of the Union Address, she said: "Getting to see this ritual of democracy in person tonight is not only a fantastic experience, it really brings home what we were over in Iraq fighting for -- this country and the freedoms that go with it."

Sounds more Lieberman-esque, than something coming from Min Ldr Nancy Pelosi. [JOSH KRAUSHAAR]

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/duckworth_il-06.html

Newsweek: The Vet Strategy

2005-12-12T07:04:00.000-08:00

The Vet Strategy
The public is unhappy. The GOP is on the run. The Dems have a secret weapon: Iraq war vets, deployed on a new field of battle.

By Richard Wolffe and Jonathan Darman
Newsweek

Dec. 5, 2005 issue - A few days after last year's presidential election, Ladda (Tammy) Duckworth was piloting her helicopter north of Baghdad when she saw a ball of fire at her knees. A rocket-propelled grenade had struck her Black Hawk at its chin bubble, close to her seat. When she awoke 10 days later, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, she found she had lost her legs, but none of her desire to serve. For the next year, as she recovered from her devastating injuries, she became one of the capital's favorite troops: an inspirational war story amid the grinding violence of Iraq. She was a senator's guest at the State of the Union and a witness before a congressional hearing on health care for war casualties. As Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson put it, she was simply "a true American hero."

She could have stayed a trophy veteran. But as Major Duckworth met with Democratic members of Congress, she talked about how she viewed politics as an extension of her service. One summer's day she invited Rahm Emanuel, the Democrats' master strategist in the House of Representatives, to the hospital to meet some recovering vets from their home state of Illinois. "We were walking down the hall and you could see the incredible response to her and her leadership," Emanuel told NEWSWEEK. "She goes to see other troops to keep their spirits up." Last week Duckworth returned home to Chicago's affluent suburbs to begin what looked like an unofficial campaign for the open congressional seat now held by retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde. Still on active duty, Duckworth cannot declare her candidacy or talk politics to the media. But according to Democratic leaders, she's their preferred candidate.

Duckworth is part of a new breed of macho Democrats, joining eight Iraq veterans who have already announced themselves as candidates in next year's congressional elections. (The party is also reaching out to veterans of wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Vietnam, as well as former CIA officers and FBI agents.) These Democrats don't offer a unified strategy on how to leave Iraq. But they represent the most visible sign of the sea change in politics over the past year. The GOP has long held an advantage on questions of national security, but that lead has steadily eroded, offering Democrats a rare opening since 9/11. Recent polls show Democrats running neck and neck with Republicans on terrorism and comfortably ahead on Iraq. For all the lack of alternatives, Democrats have gained ground as public opinion has turned against the war. With relatively few competitive seats across the country, as well as a bigger campaign war chest, the GOP is still favored to retain control of the House. But Democrats believe they have found candidates who personify what voters want: real Americans (not politicians) who represent community, service and, of course, security. The vets also represent the Democrats' best hope of burying their GOP-crafted caricature as the Mommy party of John Kerry—unable to defend the country from terrorists or themselves from political attack. "A macho Democrat is someone who isn't afraid to stand up for what they believe in, to tell their story, to fight back when they're unfairly attacked," says John Lapp, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Their opponents aren't waiting for them to suit up. The White House says it doesn't matter who the candidate is: the Democrats cannot argue from a position of strength on the war given the depth of antiwar sentiment inside their base. One senior Bush aide, who declined to be named while discussing political strategy, pointed to the Democrats' dilemma when confronted with Rep. John Murtha's calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "It took Hillary Clinton five days to respond to the Murtha statement," the aide said, suggesting that Clinton was struggling to reconcile her hawkish position on the war with the demands of the party base. "That shows the dynamic of the Democratic Party. They are always pulled to the left, the same thing John Kerry found out during the primary process." Other Republicans say the war isn't going to affect the '06 elections either way. "Local dynamics will trump everything," says Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Reynolds dismisses the Democratic veterans' strategy as "just a bunch of hoopla," saying his goal is simply to recruit the best candidates. With just one Iraq veteran on the ballot (Van Taylor, a 33-year-old former Marine who is running in the Texas district where Bush owns his ranch), the GOP has a far more modest strategy: to persuade incumbents to delay their retirement. Reynolds says they shouldn't abandon the Republican majority right now. "I tell them: stay and enjoy it," he says.

The Democrats have been here before. It was only a year ago that they pinned their hopes on Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and outspoken war critic only to watch him collapse under friendly fire from fellow veterans. Another veteran, Gen. Wes Clark, proved that unelected soldiers aren't always ready for prime time. And two years earlier, another Vietnam hero, Max Cleland, lost his Senate seat as the White House went to war in Iraq—and Republicans declared total war on Cleland.

But that was back when the GOP was still riding high in the polls. This summer, Paul Hackett helped jump-start the Democrats' faith in soldier-politicians. After a seven-month tour of Iraq as a Marine reservist, the untested Hackett entered a special election to fill an open House seat in the conservative second district of Ohio. Combining vocal criticism of Bush's handling of the war with an attack on ethics scandals plaguing the state GOP, Hackett came within 3,500 votes of an electoral upset. (He lost to Jean Schmidt, who earned scorn this month for suggesting on the House floor that Murtha—a decorated Vietnam veteran—was a coward.) Buoyed by his near miss, Hackett decided to try again—this time for the Senate seat held by Republican Michael DeWine, up for election in '06. And Emanuel began stepping up efforts to find other veterans in the Hackett mold.

He found one in Chris Carney, who is running for a House seat in northeastern Pennsylvania. Carney is a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve, but his specialty is intel and counterterrorism. That took him inside the Bush administration as a Pentagon adviser, where he argued the case that there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. As a uniformed officer, Carney defended the road to war even as he began harboring concerns about its execution—the lack of troops on the ground and the absence of planning for a possible insurgency. He decided to run—as a Democrat, his lifelong affiliation—in part to reshape policy on the war, advocating a phased withdrawal with clear targets. "For every trained-up battalion of Iraqi security forces, an American battalion should get to come home," he told NEWSWEEK.

While Carney watched the war from Washington, Patrick Murphy decided to get involved in politics shortly after returning from Iraq. A captain in the 82nd Airborne, Murphy was embarrassed by the lack of supplies and support as he helped train Iraqi security forces. If anything, Murphy—now running in Pennsylvania's eighth district northeast of Philadelphia—takes a harder line on the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq than many of his fellow vets. "To win the war on terror," he says, "we need to get the hell out of Iraq." A lifelong Democrat, he happened to vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. "At that time I believed the rhetoric that he was a compassionate conservative and that he wasn't going to start doing nation-building," he said.

Despite the national Democrats' faith in these candidates, the hopefuls aren't shoo-ins at home. Some face resistance from local pols who see them as arrivistes jumping ahead in the political pecking order. While the national party leaders love Hackett, the state party leans toward Sherrod Brown, a seven-term congressman; the two will do battle in the primary next spring. In Illinois, Duckworth's emergence has dismayed supporters of Christine Cegelis, a software engineer who won a respectable 44 percent against Hyde last year. And some of the Democratic vets are more conservative than their party's base on crucial issues like abortion and gun rights, let alone how and when to wind down the U.S. presence in Iraq.

But the war has taken its toll on party unity among Republicans, too—as rank-and-file members up for re-election begin edging nervously away from their embattled president. House Republicans cite poll numbers showing that voters may disapprove of Bush and Congress in general, but largely approve of their own representatives. That suggests the GOP should follow localized strategies for survival—or, in the words of one House Republican (who spoke on condition of anonymity about campaign tactics), a strategy best summed up as "Remember Me? You Like Me." In Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce is fighting against Democratic efforts to tie her to Bush, Iraq and the indicted former GOP House leader Tom DeLay. Pryce told one Columbus TV station she hoped voters would judge her only "on my performance and my service to them."

For his part, Bush will try once again to reshape the national debate on Iraq this week with a speech in Annapolis, Md., where he will cite a new metric of progress: the amount of territory controlled by Iraqi security forces. Bush's aides want to demonstrate advances on the ground ahead of next month's elections for a full-term Iraqi government, as well as next year's congressional elections here at home.

For many Iraq vets on the path to politics, the well-worn debate about the war — including exit strategies and the rationale for the invasion — is an emotional minefield given their concerns about their fellow troops. Tammy Duckworth, for instance, would much rather talk about veterans' issues and the need to get adequate resources to those in the field. Whether she and her fellow vets can survive the new combat zone will test something more than machismo. Politicians sent them to war. Now they must prove they can campaign — and govern — as well as they can fight.

With Holly Bailey

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219754/site/newsweek/

Residency an issue for 6th District rivals

2005-12-10T21:47:00.000-08:00

Residency an issue for 6th District rivals

December 2, 2005

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

Democratic congressional candidate Christine Cegelis said Thursday she did not understand why Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) recruited a rival to run against her who did not live in the district.

Democratic Party of DuPage County Chairman Gayl Ferraro said the residency of Army Maj. Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth "is going to be an issue with a lot of our voters, from what I've been hearing."

Duckworth, who lost her legs and suffered a badly wounded arm when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq on Nov. 12, 2004, is poised to announce her candidacy as soon as she is off active duty.

Duckworth's husband, Bryan Bowlsbey, said Thursday her paperwork to switch her status has been submitted to a medical board but that it was not clear when the Army would act.

Nominating petitions for the 2006 contests in Illinois are due Dec. 19.

Seeks seat Hyde is yielding

Once Duckworth contemplated a run, encouraged by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the House Democratic political organization), she received guidelines from her commander at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington that limited her public partisan speech, Bowlsbey said.

However, that has not kept Duckworth from quietly laying the groundwork for a bid, working with political professionals and contacting local officials about the seat now held by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who is retiring. Durbin lent a Chicago staffer, David McDermott, to help Duckworth.

Duckworth met with Ferraro on Wednesday afternoon at DuPage County party headquarters in Lombard. Ferraro said Duckworth told her she "has permission to start circulating petitions" even while on active duty.

On Monday, Duckworth phoned Cegelis to discuss the race. The conversation was brief, Cegelis said. "She just wanted to introduce herself to me, that's all," Cegelis said in a conference call with reporters.

"We didn't talk for very long. We talked a bit about the fact that she does not live in the district and that she does not intend to move to the district.''

Cegelis lives in Rolling Meadows and was the 2004 6th Congressional District Democratic nominee, gaining 44 percent of the vote in a shoestring campaign against Hyde.

Remapped out of district

Duckworth lives in the section of Hoffman Estates in the 8th Congressional District -- whose voters sent Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) to Washington.

Freshman Bean lives in Barrington, in the 10th Congressional District, represented by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.).

Bean, however, lived in the district when she first ran for the House and is just about 1,400 feet over the line, having been remapped out by Republicans looking -- unsuccessfully, it turned out -- to protect Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), whom Bean defeated in 2004.

After she was wounded, Duckworth's friends remodeled her home in Hoffman Estates to make it handicapped accessible, and as a practical matter, it would be difficult for her to move at this time. Emanuel's considerable fund-raising ability will be used to market Duckworth and diminish her residency as an issue.

Emanuel shopped around for another Democrat to run because he was not convinced Cegelis could muster a campaign to beat the likely GOP nominee, state Sen. Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton).

Ferraro -- who as party chairwoman said she will be neutral in the primary -- said Emanuel's undermining Cegelis has made some DuPage Democrats "very angry about the whole situation. They are looking at it as the DCCC coming in and telling them what to do."

"But I don't necessarily view it that way. It is anyone's right to run for the office," Ferraro said.

If Cegelis beats Duckworth and Wheaton College Professor Lindy Scott -- a long shot -- she will emerge stronger than she is now.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet02.html#

Editor & Publisher: Media Fell Short in Covering 9/11 'Report Card'

2005-12-07T15:05:00.000-08:00

Media Fell Short in Covering 9/11 'Report Card'

Has September 11 fatigue set in? A high-level report declares that the U.S., while fighting terrorists abroad, has not done nearly enough to keep us safe here at home. Surely it has dominated front pages all week? Not exactly.

By Greg Mitchell, Editor and Publisher

(December 06, 2005) -- The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001 -- you remember them. Cost nearly 3,000 American lives and haunted the families of the victims. Traumatized the nation. Damaged our economy, led to a new cabinet department and the controversial Patriot Act. Gave the new U.S. president, who was foundering in the polls, almost unprecedented power and popularity. Led directly to a war against Afghanistan and overthrow of the government there. Led almost as directly to the invasion of Iraq, then a continuing war and occupation that has cost another 2,000-plus American lives and countless billions of dollars in expenditures.

September 11 is unquestionably the major American event in recent decades and the terrorist threat to our homeland is the issue of our time. So you would think that when the official and much-respected commissioners charged with studying the tragedy and offering advice on preventing another such attack released a report card on whether the government, four years later, is fully doing its job to keep us safe, it would deserve banner headlines and massive and continuing television coverage -- especially if the grades were poor, with five “Fs” and a dozen “Ds” out of 41 categories.

Well, such a report card was released on Monday -- this may be news to some of you -- and the media response was ... underwhelming.

Yes it made the front pages in some papers, got some favored spots on network news and provoked the usual cable news chitchat for a few hours or so. But Saddam Hussein's courtroom tantrums, the latest twist in the Tom DeLay case, and the first human face transplant, of all things, got just as much, or more, attention.

Does anyone know, for example, that the bi-partisan commission, led by Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, gave the Bush administration -- which launched a war on Iraq largely in the name of reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- a "D" on its efforts to secure WMD worldwide, calling this "the greatest threat" to America's security?

"If my children were to receive this report card they would have to repeat a year. We cannot afford to repeat this mistake," said Timothy J. Roemer, one of the commission members. His colleague on the panel, James Thompson, the former Illinois governor, asked: "Are we crazy? Why aren't our tax dollars being spent to protect our lives?"

Yet an E&P survey of 40 major U.S. newspapers found that on Tuesday only six in this cross-section featured the story on their front pages. The San Francisco Chronicle had the most lavish treatment, with a huge replica of a school report card included. The others were: San Jose's Mercury-News, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The Houston Chronicle, on the other hand, carried the headline: “Concerns Over Face Transplant Grow.”

It's true that the unhappiness of the commissioners started to leak out Sunday, and some papers, such as the Boston Globe, carried front-page dispatches on Monday. But most didn't put it on the front page either day, including The New York Times.

The new CBS News blog, Public Eye, reports, "All three networks featured packages on the news, but NBC’s 'Nightly News' was the only broadcast to lead with the story. ABC's 'World News Tonight' and the CBS 'Evening News' led with stories about Saddam Hussein's trial."

But maybe I'm just over-sensitive about this. Like many in New York, I did lose a good friend in the attack on the World Trade Center.

In an online chat Tuesday at The Washington Post, a visitor asked the paper's longtime political reporter Tom Edsall, “The 9/11 report card obviously is big news here in D.C., but do you think that the average American is going to pay attention to this? And what effect will this have?"

Edsall replied: “I was surprised to see this morning that our competitor, The New York Times, played the story inside. Insofar as the press drives a story, that will diminish public reaction. I only saw the beginning of CBS News last night and don't recall an early mention of the 911 commission findings, which would also weaken the lasting power. The NYT has a wider national distribution than the Post. We gave the story top of the front page story, which I think is the correct play. All this is to say -- I don't know if the issue has legs or not. It should.”

Has legs? What 9/11 wrought certainly does have legs -- from severe budget deficits to a stretched-thin military to a continuing war in Iraq. It's the height of hypocrisy for the administration to downplay the fresh concerns about readiness while declaring that we are in a worldwide and open-ended war on terror to allegedly make the homeland safe. Newspapers share in treating this as just another issue of-the-day.

The commissioners asked if maybe we need another wake-up call. Apparently, the answer is: yes.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001615506

The New Republic: Why Barack Obama Should Run For President in 2008.

2005-12-06T11:39:00.000-08:00

WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008.
Run On
by Ryan Lizza
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 12.06.05

By my count, twelve United States senators are considering a run for president in 2008: six Democrats (Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry) and six Republicans (George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, and Rick Santorum). For Biden, Kerry, and McCain it would be their second presidential campaign.

Elsewhere in that august body, another eight senators have already run for president, failing to reach the White House but contributing mightily to the craft of colorful campaign coverage. Four Republicans who have run left behind campaign innovations such as iconic outerwear (Lamar Alexander), daring speech choreography (Elizabeth Dole), the chiropractor vote (Orrin Hatch), and the idea that voters should care about foreign policy (Richard Lugar), but they never won a primary. On the Democratic side, Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman have left us with two versions of the "favorite son" strategy, as well as Bob Shrum and Joementum, but they didn't become president.

Several other current senators have at some point been mentioned seriously as potential presidential candidates, and just about every senator at least considers running. In short, the Senate operates as both America's incubator of presidential ambitions and the retirement home of its failed candidates. The well-known curse of the Senate is that it both elevates politicians to within striking distance of the White House and burdens them with the baggage of a complicated voting record and the stench of the Beltway.

This is why Barack Obama must run for president in 2008.

Obama, you may remember, is the lanky 44-year-old from Illinois elected to the Senate last year. He is the most promising politician in America, and eventually he is going to run for president. The case for running now is not that it is the perfect moment for him to run. It's not. It is just that it may be the best chance he will ever get.

The main objection to an Obama run is his obvious lack of experience. He needs at least a full Senate term before he is taken seriously, the argument goes. On the one hand, each day spent in the Senate gives Obama more experience and stature for his inevitable presidential campaign. But each day also brings with it an accumulation of tough votes, the temptations of bad compromises, potentially perilous interactions with lobbyists, and all the other behaviors necessary to operate as a successful senator. At some unknowable date in the future, remaining in the Senate will reach a point of diminishing returns for Obama. The experience gained by being a good senator will start to be outweighed by the staleness acquired by staying in Washington.

There's no way for Obama to know when he will reach this point. That uncertainty makes 2008 look like his best opportunity. He can be certain that 2008 will be a year with a wide open primary on both the Republican and Democratic sides in which neither a sitting president nor vice president will be running, a rare event in presidential politics that lowers the bar of entry for all candidates. He can have a high degree of confidence that if he waits until 2012, he will face the historically impossible task of unseating the incumbent president of his own party, or the historically difficult task of unseating the incumbent president of the opposition party. The 2016 race would probably be his final chance. But by waiting until then he would have to bet that the Senate has not destroyed his career, or, if he has moved to the safer confines of the Illinois governor's mansion--his next chance would be in 2010--that he has not already passed his political peak.

The kind of political star power Obama has doesn't last. My favorite law of American politics is that candidates have only 14 years to become president. That is their expiration date. The idea was conceived by a very smart political junkie who happens to be a senior aide to Vice President Cheney (don't hold that against him), and the law was popularized in a column by Jonathan Rauch of National Journal. As Rauch put it, "With only one exception [Lyndon Johnson] since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president." As Rauch showed, the majority of presidents since 1900 have fallen on the low end of this zero-to-fourteen-year spectrum: zero (Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft), two years (Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt), four years (Franklin Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge), and six years (George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding). The lesson is that Obama must strike while he is hot or risk fading into obscurity.

The biggest objection to Obama running for president just four years after being elected to national office is his lack of experience on national security. But experience is an overrated asset in presidential politics. It is conventional wisdom now that only during the interregnum between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of the war on terror could candidates lacking foreign-policy credentials win the presidency (i.e., Bill Clinton and George W. Bush). But John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan all won during the cold war without significant experience in world affairs.

And besides, Obama is already making a name for himself as one of the Democratic Party's national-security leaders. He recently visited Ukraine to inspect aging stockpiles of unsecured conventional weapons and is co-sponsoring legislation with Lugar to safeguard the munitions. The program is modeled on the famous Nunn-Lugar initiative to secure loose nukes. On Iraq, Obama, who opposed the war, has also staked out one of the more mature positions within his party. "Having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq," he said in a recent speech, "we have to manage our exit in a responsible way--with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis." At home, he has become the Senate leader on preparing for an outbreak of avian flu.

In fact, with these recent policy moves, Obama, who will be 47 in 2008--one year older than Bill Clinton was in 1992--sounds increasingly like someone who is considering a run. And if he isn't, he should.

Copyright 2005, The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051205&s=lizza120605

The Hill: Cegelis, Duckworth in pre-primary maneuvers

2005-12-06T08:19:00.000-08:00

Cegelis, Duckworth in pre-primary maneuvers
By Peter Savodnik

Christine Cegelis (D), seeking the seat being vacated by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), said yesterday that she would play up her 6th District roots in the race — drawing a sharp contrast with Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, who is mulling a bid but lives outside the district.

“It’ll be about me, about how basically I’ve been a resident of this district for the last 20 years,” Cegelis said of her campaign for the suburban-Chicago seat.

“I think I’m going to take advantage of the fact that I know the people of my district,” she added. “I’ve got the organization that I have been building over the last two years.”

Cegelis ran unsuccessfully against Hyde in 2004. Her supporters have noted that she gave the Republican congressman his tightest race in decades, winning 44 percent to Hyde’s 56 percent in the GOP-leaning district.

Duckworth did not return an e-mail message.

Lori Goldberg of Jasulca/Terman and Associates, a public relations firm in Chicago that is helping Duckworth, would say only that her candidate is waiting for the Army to release her from active duty.

Duckworth, who lost both her legs while piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq, has applied to a medical review board at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to be released from duty.

She has received encouragement from leading Democrats to enter the race: She has spoken with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; one of Sen. Dick Durbin’s aides, David McDermott, is helping her. Emanuel and Durbin are Illinois Democrats.

A spokesman for Durbin said that the senator is not getting involved in the primary and that McDermott is taking vacation time to work for Duckworth. Democrats outside Durbin’s office, including Cegelis, say the senator and other Democrats in Washington support Duckworth.

Cegelis said she was “very disappointed” with Emanuel and Durbin but added that she has not spoken with either lawmaker about the matter.

“I still feel, regardless, this is going to be decided by the Democratic voters in my district,” she said. “I still believe that’s the democratic process.”

Duckworth has until Dec. 19 to file for a House bid. A source close to Duckworth said Duckworth should hear from the military about her release — a prerequisite for a political bid — within a week.

A Republican source in Illinois with extensive knowledge of the race questioned Duckworth’s strategy, noting that the “non-candidate candidate,” as some in the GOP call her, has Democratic consultant David Axelrod in her corner and has begun circulating petitions for her campaign with local officials.

“She basically has a campaign going, but she says she’s prohibited from talking about it,” the Republican said, adding that the Democrat’s actions may breach Federal Election Commission regulations.

Duckworth also has not shied away from public comment about the Iraq war; she testified this year to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. “She can’t comment on the war now that the Democrats are behind her,” the Republican said.

Ryan McLaughlin, the campaign manager for state Sen. Peter Roskam, the likely Republican contender in the House race, would not comment on Duckworth. McLaughlin said Roskam is focused on the primary and will worry about his Democratic foe when he has one. Roskam faces no opposition in the GOP primary.

Gayl Ferraro, chairwoman of the DuPage County Democratic Party, said the issue of Duckworth’s residency coupled with her outside backing could hurt her prospects.

Ferraro noted that Democrats in DuPage, many of whom back Cegelis, have been working for years to build the party despite long odds.

In last year’s presidential election, Ferraro said, approximately 180,000 Democrats cast votes in DuPage, compared to 230,000 for Republicans. In earlier races, fewer than 100,000 Democrats usually turned up at the polls.

The 6th District race, once thought to be an easy GOP hold, has garnered more attention lately.

First, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly won a House race in Ohio’s strongly Republican 2nd District over the summer. Then Duckworth signaled she might run. Then, with opposition to the war mounting, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), an early supporter of the war, called last month for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. Several Democrats who have served in uniform are now running or contemplating bids across the country.

Should Duckworth run, the general election would be one of the few contests in the country that would be truly competitive next year, Democrats contend.

Democrats in Washington have praised Cegelis as smart and likable but voiced skepticism about her chances of beating Roskam, despite routinely adding that Roskam is “too conservative” for the district.

Roskam has been endorsed by Hyde. The candidate once worked for Hyde and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

© 2005 The Hill
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/120605_story1.html

illinoisreview: Could Roskam's GOP primary threat be a ploy of the Dems?

2005-12-05T14:38:00.000-08:00

Could Roskam's GOP primary threat be a ploy of the Dems?
By IR Editor on Campaign Review

Could it be that Rahm Emanuel, former Clinton confidante and current U.S. Congressman for Chicago-area's 5th District, is clawing his way behind the scenes to fill retiring Cong. Henry Hyde's seat with a Democrat?

You decide for yourself . . .

Here's one scenario, the GOP/Conservative vision:

Long time U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde announces his retirement. The area's popular State Senator Peter Roskam jumps out of the starting gate pursuing local Republican party and conservative leaders' backing. Potential primary opponents give up when they realize the committed base Roskam has solidified.

Roskam runs alone through the 2006 GOP primary unscathed and unchallenged, meaning he has spent little money and hasn't been softened, making him tougher for a Democrat to knock off in the 2006 General.

The seat remains Republican and Roskam goes to Washington, becoming President of the U.S. in 2026.

Or the Dems' dream:

Rahm Emanuel, who heads the Democratic Congressional PAC decides the 6th is a district that can be picked up in 2006. He's done the polling and figures that show DuPage County isn't as solidly Republican as it has been in the past. So many Democrats and young professionals have moved from Chicago to the affluent western suburbs that the district is now in play.

Emanuel does all he can to discourage Christine Cegelis, who got 44% of the vote against Hyde in 2004, from running again. The district can go Democratic, Emanuel figures, and we can choke Speaker Hastert's power right in his own backyard. But Cegelis isn't the one to do it. She's just too liberal and too Democratic.

Plan B, Emanuel thinks. "We go for a sympathetic image, one that is more mainstream and will touch the hearts of soccer moms and mushy professionals.

"Yeah, we draft an Iraqi war veteran to run in the district," he strategizes, "but let's notch it up -- let's make the vet a female, and take it up one more, one who's lost both her legs while fighting what Americans are beginning to believe is an unjust war!"

Two problems remain -- Cegelis isn't ready to give up her aspirations and Peter Roskam is just a little too hungry and just a bit too popular in the district to pull off Emanuel's dream.

So, Cegelis begins to feel the squeeze. Democrats begin not returning her calls, her money stream freezes. She's left out in the cold. Finished. Kaput.

Now to soften Roskam. Emanuel sends an intermediary to a local GOP women's group leader who is passionate about the right to abort babies. That leader agrees that "ultra-conservative" Roskam can't be allowed to be unchallenged in the primary, and meets with a guy who is willing to run as a pro-abortion Republican.

Abortion becomes the issue, Roskam is veered off message and he's not as invincible as he once was.

Emanuel dumps millions of dollars into the 6th District (after all, he raised a record $70 million for Clinton's 1992 presidential bid) and the fight for Hyde's seat becomes brutal.

We speculate, you decide . . .

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2005/11/could_roskams_g_1.html

illinoisreview: Roskam race stirs increasing national attention

2005-12-05T14:36:00.000-08:00

Roskam race stirs increasing national attention

By IR Editor on Campaign Review

Looks like 6th Congressional district GOP candidate Peter Roskam may not have the easy dash to DC he was hoping for have after all . . .

Not only has another GOP candidate decided to entertain us with an attempt to drain funds and energy by entering the GOP primary (see "Could Roskam's GOP primary threat be a ploy of the Dems?") but Dem kingmaker Rahm Emanuel appears to be moving toward getting his candidate out of military active duty and pushed toward a whole new political war in the western suburbs.
The candidate has no legislative experience and hasn't officially moved back into the district yet . . . but that doesn't matter. She's a sympathetic image and a reminder of the devastation of war.

Just like the images so branded on our minds from 9-11, when the attack was on our home front.

Look for the battle to be over whether or not we should be in Iraq, not over who will represent the views of the 6th district best in D.C.

Link: Hotline On Call.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2005/12/roskam_race_sti.html

Rahm Injures Knee in Celebrity Touch-Football Game

2005-12-02T15:25:00.000-08:00

From The Reliable Source, The Washington Post, Friday, December 2, 2005; Page C03:

L.A. is a very dangerous place. If you go there, you run the risk of getting lured into a touch-football game with Tim McGraw, Faith Hill and Garry Shandling , and maybe tearing a ligament. Okay, maybe that wouldn't happen to most of us -- but it did happen to Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) when he took his family to visit his brother, agent Ari Emanuel, for Thanksgiving. The game, organized by Ari's pal, actor-director Peter Berg, also included former superagent Mike Ovitz . The congressman says he slid on one knee to catch a long pass from country crooner McGraw; on the next play, his knee just collapsed. So: football with Faith? "She's a darn good player," he said. "And McGraw's got a good arm -- I felt lucky catching the pass."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120102069.html

Hill: Emanuel kingmaker in primary

2005-12-02T15:22:00.000-08:00

Emanuel kingmaker in primary
By Jonathan E. Kaplan

ROSEMONT, Ill. — The absence of a Democratic Party organization in Illinois’s 6th Congressional District has made Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) the kingmaker in what could become a bruising Democratic primary.

“The fact that there is any race at all is the real story,” said Paul Green, a political scientist at Roosevelt University in Chicago. “This is new. In the old days, you were lucky to get anyone who wanted to run” because the district is so heavily Republican.

The district, which includes DuPage County and a sliver of Cook County, has been a long-running GOP bastion and a counterweight to the Democrats’ rule in Chicago. In the 1988 presidential election, Vice President George Bush garnered 68 percent of the vote here.

Since then, the Republicans’ grip has weakened, even though no Democrats have been elected locally. President George W. Bush won just 54 percent of the vote in 2004, and Democratic congressional candidate Christine Cegelis won 44 percent of the vote — holding Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) to his lowest vote total in 30 years. DuPage County delivers more votes to Democrats running statewide than every county but Cook County because of its high population.

Emanuel wants Ladda “Tammy” Duckworth, an Army National Guard pilot who lost her legs and suffered a broken arm when Iraqi insurgents hit her helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade, to jump into the race. According to Bill Burton, the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee’s (DCCC) spokesman, Emanuel believes her military credentials and wounds give her an edge in a district that no Democrat has ever won.

While Duckworth could tap into Emanuel’s political operation to raise money, some political operatives doubt a strategy of “nationalizing,” i.e. having national party officials involved in the midterm elections, would work.

“Congressional races are far more sheriff’s races than they are D.C. races, if they are going to be competitive,” said Mike McKeon, an independent, Chicago-based pollster. “It’s a mistake trying to run national in a congressional campaign.”

Cegelis spent last week in Washington trying to win support from several labor unions. She walked away without any firm commitments, and without a local party infrastructure she has been forced to build an all-volunteer, grassroots campaign.

“I was not cognizant of how little-organized the Democratic Party was here. I ended up doing a Google search of how to get on the ballot,” Cegelis said. “The DuPage Democratic Party has been great in helping me out, but prior to that I would not have had any clue.”

If Duckworth jumps into the race, she will have to build her own political network.

Skepticism from incumbent Democrats and the absence of a local Democratic political organization have made it hard to raise money. Cegelis had collected $153,000 as of Sept. 30, according to politicalmoneyline.com. In contrast, the likely Republican nominee, state Sen. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), had raked in more than $550,000 and has attracted support from several GOP congressional leaders as well as Hyde.

Cegelis said that Chicago Democrats, including Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.), as well as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), want to stay above the fray of primary politics. Without their support, Cegelis has had a difficult time tapping Chicago’s wealthy political donors.

“Political giving is not something people in DuPage County think about doing,” Cegelis said, adding that 600 donors won’t show up on publicly available disclosure reports because they gave such small amounts of money.

Cegelis’s campaign has three full-time staffers and has hired Greenberg Quinlan to conduct polls and MSHC Partners, a direct-mail firm.

Complicating Cegelis’s political calculus is the fact that DuPage County voters, even those likely to vote for a Democrat for Congress, are skeptical of Chicago Democrats. Cegelis said she understand that problem and has said it would not be a good idea for Emanuel to campaign in the district.

Cegelis and Duckworth also face geographical challenges. Duckworth does not live in the district and would have to establish residency there to run. So far in the race, Cegelis, a software engineer who moved to Illinois in 1986, has focused on local issues, such as expanding O’Hare International Airport and aiding the DuPage County schools.

Cegelis lives in Rolling Meadows, Ill., which is in Cook County. Cegelis said a voter once told her: “‘You already live too far north for us to like you.’”

© 2005 The Hill

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/113005.html

Time for Emanuel to support Cegelis in 6th

2005-11-29T15:35:00.000-08:00

Time for Emanuel to support Cegelis in 6th
Chicago Sun-Times, November 29, 2005

BY DICK SIMPSON

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) should quit playing games and support Christine Cegelis for Congress. Cegelis is running for the second time for Henry Hyde's seat in the suburban 6th District that includes northeast DuPage County and northwest Cook County.

As Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet reported, Emanuel courted Army Major "Tammy" Duckworth to run as the Democratic candidate. He cynically believes that people will vote for her just because she is a wounded veteran of the Iraq War. She has no political platform and no indigenous campaign organization. She is still undergoing physical therapy for her war injuries and she had to get permission from the military to run. She will leave active duty on Dec. 1 to do so.

Apparently the campaign staff and cash would be helicoptered in from Washington because there has been no base built in the district even though nominating petitions are to be filed beginning Dec. 12. David Alexrod has been picked by Emanuel to run her public relations campaign locally.

As a candidate produced a couple of weeks before petitions are to be filed in an election for which she has yet to campaign, running is neither in Duckworth's best interest nor the party's. Emanuel just wants her to run because he can control her and use her in photo opportunities for the party.

Professor Lindy Scott of Wheaton College, who is also running, has a grassroots base in the district and a political platform. He has taught Spanish and Latin American Studies at Wheaton for 10 years. His platform includes: "We should inform the Iraqi government that we will withdraw our troops over the next two years and we will submit to their precise timetable within those parameters." He has raised only $21,000 but is serious about running.

In comparison to Duckworth and Scott, who have never run for office before, Cegelis received 44.2 percent of the vote in 2004 against long-term Republican incumbent Hyde. Her election would revolutionize suburban politics by making elections between Democrats and Republicans competitive.

In talks before audiences in the 6th District over the last couple of weeks, Cegelis asserts that she is fighting to reclaim the American Dream and better opportunities for Americans. She believes the country is going in the wrong direction. Because she is a mother, she is concerned about the next generation and the country we are leaving to our grandchildren. She argues the cost of a college education is too high. She points out the No Child Left Behind federal legislation is causing primary and secondary education costs in her district to soar at the same time some suburban schools are losing funding by being placed on the state's failing school lists.

She believes we have to be smarter in fighting terrorism by better gathering and using intelligence and data which the Bush administration is failing to do. On Iraq she has consistently said: "We need to develop a timeline and an exit strategy to get out of Iraq." She is pro-choice on the issue of abortion.

This is a tough but winnable district for the Democrats. In 2004, Cegelis carried 44.2 percent of the vote; John Kerry, 47 percent, and Barack Obama, 60.

Cegelis' sin in the eyes of Emanuel is that she has raised only $160,000 this year and has only $50,000 in the bank. Washington insiders believe that only campaigns that raise $1 million win. Emanuel previously tried and failed to get some personally wealthy Democrat to jump in the race. Failing that, he is putting up a war veteran in the hope of winning the sympathy and patriotic vote despite the fact that the majority of Americans now want to get out of Iraq.

The national Democratic Party would do better to send money and support to Cegelis. She, her more than 100 campaign volunteers, and the Democrats and Republicans in the 6th District who voted for her last time, have earned the right to run this race.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-simp29.html

The Rock River Times: Iraq Dialogue With Obama

2005-11-23T13:58:00.000-08:00

From the Oct. 12-18, 2005, issue of The Rock River Times:

Editor’s note: The following letter was addressed to U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois).

I am deeply concerned about your position on the war in Iraq. You are failing to distinguish your position from that of the Bush administration, which, in my opinion, makes you a phony and useless in Washington as my elected representative. For example, why were you not visible during the recent antiwar demonstrations with your colleague Rep. Cynthia McKinney? Why are your statements miles shy of those of Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold? What good can come of another minute on the ground in Iraq?

Our Illinois schools crumble and New Orleans suffers while billions are channeled into President George W. Bush’s crony accounts. That smug man today appoints another personal confidant to run our highest judiciary. ... You must stop this. While you glad hand and bumble around like a new kid, your opinions matter to us here in Illinois. We did not elect “naive”!

It appears you are being seduced as a junior senator into wishing for that power that comes from the inner circles. Your failure is all the more disappointing because of the popularity you achieved during your election campaign. Rather than raise the promise of empowerment and leadership in the Democratic Party, you are adding momentum to its assumption into Republican Party policy. You are becoming lost as a populist representative.

I supported you because of my dear friend, GeorgeAnne Duckett. At the present rate, I would not do so again. Wake up, Obama. Get on track. Build a new America from the heartland of the Midwest that elected you.

David Stocker

Rockford

http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&id=11358

*******************

From the Nov. 23-29, 2005, issue of The Rock River Times:

Editor’s note: The following letter from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is in response to a letter from Rockford resident David Stocker. Stocker’s letter appeared as a Letter to the Editor in the Oct. 12-18, 2005, issue of The Rock River Times.

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me with your strong opposition to our policy in Iraq.

When I ran for the Senate, I opposed the resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq. The threat was not imminent. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

The Administration had no clear strategy to piece Iraq back together.

At the time, voicing opposition to the war in Iraq was not a politically popular thing to do. I spoke out because I believed it was the right thing to do. The same principle—doing the right thing—is guiding my decision-making on Iraq today.

The Administration’s handling of the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq have been badly mismanaged. This is not a partisan assessment as several leading Republicans in Congress have also been critical of the Administration’s efforts in Iraq. The best course of action for the U.S. is to bring our troops home as soon as possible, while giving the Iraqi people a reasonable chance to govern their own affairs, and preventing Iraq from collapsing into complete civil war and chaos.

During a recent hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I pressed Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice on a number of issues, including:

The length of time the Bush Administration is committed to holding that country together, if Iraq’s political parties do not form the type of government that the Administration envisions;

The issue of the shift in rationale for war from weapons of mass destruction to a much broader mission of bringing democracy to the broader Middle East, and its implications on our mission in Iraq;

The Administration’s definition of success in Iraq; and

The contingency plans (or lack thereof) that the Administration possesses in the event that the political process collapses under its own weight.

Other members of the Foreign Relations Committee questioned Secretary Rice on the Administration’s plans on Syria, a flexible timetable for withdraw from Iraq, and the ability (or inability) of the Iraqi constitution to reconcile fundamental differences between the various ethnic groups.

Secretary Rice’s response to the Committee was entirely unsatisfactory due to the lack of information about an exit strategy. The Administration continues to provide only open-ended, vague commitments without clear guideposts to whether we are succeeding or failing. Secretary Rice spoke about “conditions-based withdrawal,” but has not put forward any meaningful benchmarks or measures that outline what these conditions might be. The Administration simply cannot be given a pass on this point.

As tempting as it is to call for an immediate and complete withdrawal, I think it is important that we stage any eventual withdrawal so as to minimize the potential risk of a destabilizing civil war and widespread ethnic conflict. Not only could this result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, but it could lead to a situation where the U.S. could be forced to expand its military presence in Iraq.

I do believe, though, that after the Dec. 15th elections, the question should be when, and not if, our troops come home. If the Iraqis are serious about keeping the country together, they must arrive at the political compromises necessary to do so, and facilitate the objective of drawing down U.S. troops next year.

My main goal now is forcing the Administration to put forward specific benchmarks to do that. With ratification of the Iraqi constitution and the pending election of a new government, two major Administration benchmarks will have been met. And it will be time to tell the American people how this engagement is going to end.

Thank you again for writing. Please feel free to keep in touch with me on this and any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=4&id=11696

Area	Number	Pct. increase since 2000	Pct. of voting age population
Chicago	222,891	4.0	13.4
All suburbs	439,697	37.5	12.1
SUBURBAN BREAKDOWN
Suburban Cook	228,381	21.3	14.1
DuPage	87,072	48.2	14.4
Kane, Kendall, McHenry	41,814	73.4	7.7
Lake	54,304	56.7	12.8
Will, Grundy	28,126	100.3	6.3