A Note from Jerry Clarke, Campaign Manager
Friend
The busy Fourth of July weekend is just around the corner, and Bill's campaign for lower taxes, less spending, and real jobs is heating up!
Here's the latest from our campaign:
BradyforIllinois.com has launched!
Today, we're proud to launch BradyForIllinois.com. Our new website serves as a virtual campaign office that provides supporters like you with a host of cutting edge, easy to use tools to help you organize your friends and family, and take action in support of Bill's campaign for a clean break from politics as usual in Illinois.
The new site includes a fully integrated companion mobilization platform BradyFor.me. "Brady for Me" offers new, personalized tools to help support Bill, and share your own web pages with friends and fellow supporters. Facebook users can login to BradyFor.me using your own account information, and even organize supporters using the site's innovative social media tools.
We'll be upgrading our new site and adding even more features in the coming weeks, so take a look and tell us what you think!
Wal-Mart Proposal Moving Ahead!
As you know, Bill is a leader in the fight to bring relief to "food deserts" - under served communities without enough grocery stores and even fewer jobs. After drafting legislation last year to help bring more jobs and opportunity to these struggling neighborhoods, a proposal to bring a new Wal-Mart to the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago is one step closer to reality.
Yesterday, Bill held a news conference on Chicago's South Side highlighting his support for this proposal, which estimates show could bring as many as 10,000 jobs and 500 million in sales and property tax revenues.
Unfortunately, while Bill is fighting for new jobs, Governor Quinn is standing on the sidelines, placing the special interests before the needs of our communities, even as unemployment soars under his watch. That's a key difference in this election - Bill puts jobs before politics, not the other way around.
Jeb Bush Endorses Bill!
Last week, Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush endorsed Bill, citing his "commitment to limited government and enthusiasm for free markets." The Former Governor joined Bill in Bloomington, Peoria and Chicago to support Bill's plan to make state government more accountable to taxpayers, not the politicians.
Our campaign is growing stronger every day because of supporters like you. For more information about new ways you help Bill become the next Governor of our great state, remember to visit www.bradyforillinois.com.
We look forward to seeing you on the campaign Trail!
Sincerely,
The Brady/ Plummer Team
Friday, June 25, 2010
Gallup: Twice As Many Conservatives As Liberals
Posted by Kyle Trygstad
Since 2008, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as conservative has risen 5 percentage points to 42 percent, while the number of liberals has dropped 2 points to 20 percent, Gallup reports this morning. If that figure remains through the end of the year, "it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992."
The number of moderates, conservatives and liberals remained fairly stable through the 1990s. In 2002, conservatives increased before dipping again after 2004. At that time, the number of liberals grew to 22 percent. Following 2008, liberals and conservatives again began moving in opposite directions.
Those who consider themselves independents increasingly view themselves as conservative. In 2008, 30 percent of independents called themselves conservative; so far in 2010, that number is 36 percent.
Since 2008, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as conservative has risen 5 percentage points to 42 percent, while the number of liberals has dropped 2 points to 20 percent, Gallup reports this morning. If that figure remains through the end of the year, "it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992."
The number of moderates, conservatives and liberals remained fairly stable through the 1990s. In 2002, conservatives increased before dipping again after 2004. At that time, the number of liberals grew to 22 percent. Following 2008, liberals and conservatives again began moving in opposite directions.
Those who consider themselves independents increasingly view themselves as conservative. In 2008, 30 percent of independents called themselves conservative; so far in 2010, that number is 36 percent.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Parolees disappear after being released early
June 24, 2010
SPRINGFIELD - Dozens of parolees, including one imprisoned for his part in a 2008 murder, have disappeared after they were set free as part of a secret early release program, according to documents acquired by The Associated Press.
The parolees were let go as part of the "MGT Push" plan that Gov. Pat Quinn shut down in December after The Associated Press revealed it. While the public has not been told when they take off, the agency said Wednesday it would change that.
MGT Push has embarrassed Quinn as he runs for re-election, although the Democratic governor has tried to blame corrections director Michael Randle, saying he didn't know Randle was going to release violent offenders. The administration ordered parole agents in January to begin "intensive compliance" checks on the released prisoners.
More than 50 MGT Push parolees are on the lam, according to documents from the Department of Corrections obtained under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and analyzed by The Associated Press.
While many who go astray are picked up within days, some absconders have been gone for months. Those on the list have been missing an average 136 days, or 4.5 months, according to the AP analysis.
"Our teams are working full-time to apprehend these offenders," Corrections Department spokeswoman Sharyn Elman said.
Corrections seeks help from local and federal police in tracking down the convicts, although most are found by parole agents. The public has not been told they are missing, and the agency's Web site lists their status as "parole" - the same as for the thousands of parolees whose location is known.
"It's dangerous. People could be hurt," said Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, a crime victims' advocate with IllinoisVictims.org.
Elman initially said the list changes too rapidly for the agency to be able to accurately report parolees who are on the run. Then Wednesday, she said the agency was developing a way to update parolees' status.
Quinn's office would not comment.
The secret MGT Push plan was meant to reduce the prison population by giving discretionary good-conduct credit - known as "meritorious good time" - to offenders as soon as they arrived at prison. They were rewarded for good conduct even before they had a chance to show they could follow the rules.
Hundreds of violent criminals were among 1,745 released weeks early. Some spent as little as seven days in prison.
When the "intensive compliance checks" started, many of the people released under MGT Push were sent back behind bars for minor rule-breaking: Failing to make a daily telephone check-in, having beer in the house, not being home twice on the same day when agents came knocking, documents show.
But dozens are missing.
They include Curtis Nelson, 21, who was released three months early on a three-year sentence for mob action. Unarmed, he accompanied two armed men in a June 2008 shootout in Sauk Village that killed a 20-year-old man, according to the Cook County state's attorney's office.
Nelson has been missing since April 24, when he bolted a community treatment center where he'd been enrolled because of his continued drug use.
Among a dozen other missing parolees with violent histories is Michael Watkins, 53, absent since Feb. 5. Watkins was set free six months early on an 18-month stint for aggravated drunk driving. In the mid-1980s, he was sentenced to nine years for attempted murder, home invasion and burglary.
The number of absconders probably is greater than 50 because the AP data is two weeks old, and Corrections doesn't automatically report when an inmate goes missing.
Also, it doesn't include parolees who have been deported or turned over to immigration authorities because they are suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could deport or release them, the agency doesn't automatically notify Corrections, so prison officials consider them missing unless they get calls from the parolees.
Some on the list may have been apprehended but are being held in county jails; the agency doesn't report them as in custody until they're in state prison.
Lawmakers sent legislation to Quinn last month that would require information on parolees to be posted on the Internet within three days of their early release.
It should have included a requirement that missing parolees be labeled, said Rep. Dennis Reboletti (R-Elmhurst), minority leader of the House Judiciary Committee for criminal law.
"Victims have a right to know where these people are, and the public isn't being made aware of that," Reboletti said. "The governor doesn't want the embarrassment of the public finding out that the people he released early and put on parole are missing."
AP
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2427440,062410secret.article
SPRINGFIELD - Dozens of parolees, including one imprisoned for his part in a 2008 murder, have disappeared after they were set free as part of a secret early release program, according to documents acquired by The Associated Press.
The parolees were let go as part of the "MGT Push" plan that Gov. Pat Quinn shut down in December after The Associated Press revealed it. While the public has not been told when they take off, the agency said Wednesday it would change that.
MGT Push has embarrassed Quinn as he runs for re-election, although the Democratic governor has tried to blame corrections director Michael Randle, saying he didn't know Randle was going to release violent offenders. The administration ordered parole agents in January to begin "intensive compliance" checks on the released prisoners.
More than 50 MGT Push parolees are on the lam, according to documents from the Department of Corrections obtained under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and analyzed by The Associated Press.
While many who go astray are picked up within days, some absconders have been gone for months. Those on the list have been missing an average 136 days, or 4.5 months, according to the AP analysis.
"Our teams are working full-time to apprehend these offenders," Corrections Department spokeswoman Sharyn Elman said.
Corrections seeks help from local and federal police in tracking down the convicts, although most are found by parole agents. The public has not been told they are missing, and the agency's Web site lists their status as "parole" - the same as for the thousands of parolees whose location is known.
"It's dangerous. People could be hurt," said Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, a crime victims' advocate with IllinoisVictims.org.
Elman initially said the list changes too rapidly for the agency to be able to accurately report parolees who are on the run. Then Wednesday, she said the agency was developing a way to update parolees' status.
Quinn's office would not comment.
The secret MGT Push plan was meant to reduce the prison population by giving discretionary good-conduct credit - known as "meritorious good time" - to offenders as soon as they arrived at prison. They were rewarded for good conduct even before they had a chance to show they could follow the rules.
Hundreds of violent criminals were among 1,745 released weeks early. Some spent as little as seven days in prison.
When the "intensive compliance checks" started, many of the people released under MGT Push were sent back behind bars for minor rule-breaking: Failing to make a daily telephone check-in, having beer in the house, not being home twice on the same day when agents came knocking, documents show.
But dozens are missing.
They include Curtis Nelson, 21, who was released three months early on a three-year sentence for mob action. Unarmed, he accompanied two armed men in a June 2008 shootout in Sauk Village that killed a 20-year-old man, according to the Cook County state's attorney's office.
Nelson has been missing since April 24, when he bolted a community treatment center where he'd been enrolled because of his continued drug use.
Among a dozen other missing parolees with violent histories is Michael Watkins, 53, absent since Feb. 5. Watkins was set free six months early on an 18-month stint for aggravated drunk driving. In the mid-1980s, he was sentenced to nine years for attempted murder, home invasion and burglary.
The number of absconders probably is greater than 50 because the AP data is two weeks old, and Corrections doesn't automatically report when an inmate goes missing.
Also, it doesn't include parolees who have been deported or turned over to immigration authorities because they are suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could deport or release them, the agency doesn't automatically notify Corrections, so prison officials consider them missing unless they get calls from the parolees.
Some on the list may have been apprehended but are being held in county jails; the agency doesn't report them as in custody until they're in state prison.
Lawmakers sent legislation to Quinn last month that would require information on parolees to be posted on the Internet within three days of their early release.
It should have included a requirement that missing parolees be labeled, said Rep. Dennis Reboletti (R-Elmhurst), minority leader of the House Judiciary Committee for criminal law.
"Victims have a right to know where these people are, and the public isn't being made aware of that," Reboletti said. "The governor doesn't want the embarrassment of the public finding out that the people he released early and put on parole are missing."
AP
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2427440,062410secret.article
Smears Against Mark Kirk are Just Another Attack on the Military
A friend of mine, who is involved in grassroots politics, called to tell me a close friend was being asked to be the Chairman of Catholic outreach for the Illinois Republican party. She said she was going to write a column about how GOD has chosen this as a test for him; would he do the right thing or would he allow himself to be used to get Catholics to support Mark Kirk?
I asked her who she would choose between Kirk and Ginnoulias. Her answer seems to be what allot of conservatives are thinking; there are two maybe three candidates running as independents she said, that in a year like this could win. To prove her point she referred to a poll that said a majority of voters want neither candidate. I asked if she really believed that the next United States Senator from Illinois would be an Independent? Her answer was “That’s why I said God was using this as a test and I believe that God can create miracles”. I had to say “Not in Illinois politics he can’t”.
How things have changed in this Senate race and how well the media and yes even the Kirk, campaign itself has done to separate Kirk from the GOP base. It looked like Alexi was on the ropes with all of his Broadway banking troubles; then Ed Marshall the producer at WBBM TV, publicly let Alexi off by telling Kirk “We’re really not going to cover the Senate race if it is consistently, only in your terms, is about Broadway Bank. Alexi’s been pilloried!”
Marshall made it clear Congressman Kirk had to find something else to talk about. Can you believe that? Giannoulias, in his campaign for Treasurer, used the fact that he was the executive director of a growing neighborhood bank as his bona fides. Kirk shouldn’t talk about a twenty something banker, who gave questionable loans to mobsters, and in 2006 while he was in charge, allowed Tony Rezko to kite $450,000 in bad checks?
The fact that the bank failed, cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and Alexi and his family absconded with millions of dollars after his father died isn’t worth mentioning anymore? I wonder if Mr. Marshall will call for the same ceasefire for Mark Kirk now? I mean Ginnoulias is harping on Kirks misstatements about his real life military career. Will Marshall say “What is your campaign going forward Alexi? What are the issues you are going to tell the voters why should they vote for you?” quoting his admonishment of Kirk.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Democrats and their allies in the media chose to attack someone’s military record. Of course they’re against the wars and don’t support the people in the military who are risking their lives, or their mission. For over two weeks now in the middle of two wars, Ginnoulias and his protectors in the media, have the nerve to attack someone who is actually serving in the military. The fact that his commanding officer said the honor was directed at Kirk, and was because of the work Kirk did, didn’t change the tone of the attacks. Now even Dick Durbin the hysterical whiner who when describing what a few Americans had done to prisoners in Iraq, said “you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others” Had the nerve to attack Kirk.
You would think that Durbin would have learned his lesson from his comparison that had him on the floor of the US Senate in tears asking for forgiveness. Now we know they were crocodile tears. He and his Democrat cohorts have used their antimilitary stands to take control of the country; this attack on Kirk is just a continuation of that same strategy.
I read a poll where only 17% now believe Kirk is telling the truth; about what? To allow anti-military knuckleheads like Durbin and Alexi to smear anyone who has served or still is serving during war time is criminal. I wouldn’t care if it was just a private who was kicked out after boot camp at least they tried to serve their country. Instead of allowing them to get away with this, people should be asking what they have done for the country, they should be embarrassed for their behavior.
My Republican friends where was the conservative running against Dick Durbin? I went to many meetings to find a candidate, none came forward. Dr. Sauerberg ended up as the candidate and Durbin with all of his baggage got over 68% of the vote. Where were all of you bloggers then? All of you saying you couldn’t vote for Kirk apparently didn’t vote for Sauerberg either. I would rather have Dr. Sauerberg than Dick Durbin and I don’t even have to think twice about that. Yes there were good candidates in the last primary but none had the money, charisma or the foresight to get out early and build a statewide organization Mark Kirk won. So now we should ask for Kirk to step aside? Why? Because some snot nosed millionaire is attacking him for his service?
Alexi Ginnoulias is as far left as Obama, he will vote 100% for the Obama Socialist agenda and what’s more important, to make either Dick Durbin or Chucky Schumer the next Majority leader in the Senate. (I take for granted Harry Reid will lose). The one vote that we can count on Mark Kirk making is for Majority leader, if the GOP does not win Obama’s old seat we can’t take back the Senate it is just that simple. The GOP needs every seat to get to nine. Even if Harry Reid and Barbra Boxer lose and even with the huge victory of winning the Kennedy seat the Democrats will still run the Senate if Kirk loses. One more vote on the Supreme court and the 2nd amendment is a goner and any hope of reversing Roe for another generation is gone as well we need to take back the Senate.
To Mark Kirk and his campaign; you had better wake up and do some grassroots outreach. You need to find some common ground with the GOP base and apologize for being so arrogant. It should have been your campaign that put this forward, and the reasons to vote for your candidate, not someone like me from the outside. You need to do a few mea culpas and ask for help. You might be surprised with the answer. If you do it now.
**
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/smears-against-mark-kirk-are-just-another-attack-on-the-military/
I asked her who she would choose between Kirk and Ginnoulias. Her answer seems to be what allot of conservatives are thinking; there are two maybe three candidates running as independents she said, that in a year like this could win. To prove her point she referred to a poll that said a majority of voters want neither candidate. I asked if she really believed that the next United States Senator from Illinois would be an Independent? Her answer was “That’s why I said God was using this as a test and I believe that God can create miracles”. I had to say “Not in Illinois politics he can’t”.
How things have changed in this Senate race and how well the media and yes even the Kirk, campaign itself has done to separate Kirk from the GOP base. It looked like Alexi was on the ropes with all of his Broadway banking troubles; then Ed Marshall the producer at WBBM TV, publicly let Alexi off by telling Kirk “We’re really not going to cover the Senate race if it is consistently, only in your terms, is about Broadway Bank. Alexi’s been pilloried!”
Marshall made it clear Congressman Kirk had to find something else to talk about. Can you believe that? Giannoulias, in his campaign for Treasurer, used the fact that he was the executive director of a growing neighborhood bank as his bona fides. Kirk shouldn’t talk about a twenty something banker, who gave questionable loans to mobsters, and in 2006 while he was in charge, allowed Tony Rezko to kite $450,000 in bad checks?
The fact that the bank failed, cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and Alexi and his family absconded with millions of dollars after his father died isn’t worth mentioning anymore? I wonder if Mr. Marshall will call for the same ceasefire for Mark Kirk now? I mean Ginnoulias is harping on Kirks misstatements about his real life military career. Will Marshall say “What is your campaign going forward Alexi? What are the issues you are going to tell the voters why should they vote for you?” quoting his admonishment of Kirk.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Democrats and their allies in the media chose to attack someone’s military record. Of course they’re against the wars and don’t support the people in the military who are risking their lives, or their mission. For over two weeks now in the middle of two wars, Ginnoulias and his protectors in the media, have the nerve to attack someone who is actually serving in the military. The fact that his commanding officer said the honor was directed at Kirk, and was because of the work Kirk did, didn’t change the tone of the attacks. Now even Dick Durbin the hysterical whiner who when describing what a few Americans had done to prisoners in Iraq, said “you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others” Had the nerve to attack Kirk.
You would think that Durbin would have learned his lesson from his comparison that had him on the floor of the US Senate in tears asking for forgiveness. Now we know they were crocodile tears. He and his Democrat cohorts have used their antimilitary stands to take control of the country; this attack on Kirk is just a continuation of that same strategy.
I read a poll where only 17% now believe Kirk is telling the truth; about what? To allow anti-military knuckleheads like Durbin and Alexi to smear anyone who has served or still is serving during war time is criminal. I wouldn’t care if it was just a private who was kicked out after boot camp at least they tried to serve their country. Instead of allowing them to get away with this, people should be asking what they have done for the country, they should be embarrassed for their behavior.
My Republican friends where was the conservative running against Dick Durbin? I went to many meetings to find a candidate, none came forward. Dr. Sauerberg ended up as the candidate and Durbin with all of his baggage got over 68% of the vote. Where were all of you bloggers then? All of you saying you couldn’t vote for Kirk apparently didn’t vote for Sauerberg either. I would rather have Dr. Sauerberg than Dick Durbin and I don’t even have to think twice about that. Yes there were good candidates in the last primary but none had the money, charisma or the foresight to get out early and build a statewide organization Mark Kirk won. So now we should ask for Kirk to step aside? Why? Because some snot nosed millionaire is attacking him for his service?
Alexi Ginnoulias is as far left as Obama, he will vote 100% for the Obama Socialist agenda and what’s more important, to make either Dick Durbin or Chucky Schumer the next Majority leader in the Senate. (I take for granted Harry Reid will lose). The one vote that we can count on Mark Kirk making is for Majority leader, if the GOP does not win Obama’s old seat we can’t take back the Senate it is just that simple. The GOP needs every seat to get to nine. Even if Harry Reid and Barbra Boxer lose and even with the huge victory of winning the Kennedy seat the Democrats will still run the Senate if Kirk loses. One more vote on the Supreme court and the 2nd amendment is a goner and any hope of reversing Roe for another generation is gone as well we need to take back the Senate.
To Mark Kirk and his campaign; you had better wake up and do some grassroots outreach. You need to find some common ground with the GOP base and apologize for being so arrogant. It should have been your campaign that put this forward, and the reasons to vote for your candidate, not someone like me from the outside. You need to do a few mea culpas and ask for help. You might be surprised with the answer. If you do it now.
**
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/smears-against-mark-kirk-are-just-another-attack-on-the-military/
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tom Roeser- Dan Sugrue a Super-Star Debater is One of the GOP’s Best Kept Secrets
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thoughts While Shaving: Dan Sugrue a Super-Star Debater is One of the GOP’s Best Kept Secrets…Big Deal—Why Did Burge Name His Boat Vigilante?
Segrue in Illinois 59th.
As one whose been either covering politics or involved in it as a staffer, assistant cabinet officer and private sector lobbyist for a total of 57 years, I rarely enthuse about any novice candidate: for good reason. Usually no matter how bright and articulate they are, candidatorial novices who get into radio or TV debates for the first time usually have a lot to learn…and it’s almost always a case of their handlers telling them afterward, “Listen, you did okay for a first time. Keep on practicing, keep on debating and you’ll nail it down in ample time. All you need is a little more experience and you’ll be fine.
But that advice doesn’t apply to Dan Sugrue the young lawyer from Green Oaks (Lake county) who I off-handedly picked for my radio show on Father’s Day. My heavyweight Dem contender was Bob Creamer who is one of the national Democratic party’s best debaters. When I picked Sugrue I thought I’d have someone entirely different on the opposite side but that someone bowed out and in desperation I called…at the last minute…Creamer who is CEO of the Strategic Consulting Group, husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowky and who since the demise of Saul Alinsky has carved out a reputation as being the premier strategist of national progressive politics. My conservative friends hate it when I say this but he is one of the most accomplished debaters and advocates of the Left in this city.
Now don’t flood the emails telling me this and that about Creamer—that he’s no good, evil, a bounder, etc. I’ve heard from several of you and frankly you don’t get it. As the host of a program going into its 20th year, my first responsibility is to field good debaters—and Creamer is one of the very best on the liberal-progressive side. The reason the program has been on so long is that I stay out of the fray and “moderate” the show. Which means I’m a referee…making sure that both sides don’t usurp the time and make their points without repetition.
As it is, the listeners to my show are mostly conservative and usually fill all 10 phone lines with good debating points. So the liberal-progressive who’s on my show has to fight two battles…one with his opponent in the studio and one with a highly intelligent conservative audience on the phone.
Some guy wrote me after the show condemning me for not weighing in against Creamer as well. My point is that if I am to serve as host and referee…as a football referee…it is overbalanced to have me zing the liberal along with everyone else. Believe me as a guest for many years on Bruce DuMont and Callaway I’ve zinged plenty. But not here. It’s as if you watch a football game and lo and behold the referee runs out onto the field and tackles the guy with the ball. Everybody has a right to say “Wha?”
But of course this guy exceeded the limit and accused me of being “soft” on Creamer…meaning that if I don’t whack somebody on the head with a meat cleaver as in the 3 Stooges, I’m a crypto liberal. He’s forgiven: he just doesn’t understand the dynamics of the show.
But I digress. I signed up Sugrue for the show Sunday and hoped he’d do okay. Well, for those who heard it, he did far more than okay. He turned out to be a powerfully good forensic debater at least as good as Creamer who’s been doing this for 40 years. In fact, he’s as good as I have ever seen in the contemporary Republican party…and that includes the late Henry Hyde, Everett Dirksen and the very much alive Mike Huckabee.
Now remember, I’m not in the business of consulting candidates and frankly didn’t know Sugrue well until he walked into the studio—so I have no axe to grind in all this. He’s not paying me. I’m just telling you what I think.
So let me by means of this blog put in a word with state Republican leaders to fund Dan Sugrue. Believe me, if he gets some money he’s going to win easily over his Democratic opponent who has not been elected to her post but is appointed and is not very well known. The 59th district has been leaning Democratic in the past but with these changing times is veering Republican. It will stay so I believe by watching Sugrue. The district takes in much of suburban Lake county including Vernon Hills, Prairie View, Lake Bluff, Green Oaks, Gurnee, Waukegan, Indian Creek, Lincolnshire, Mundelein, North Chicago, Park City, Riverwoods, Wheeling and Northbrook.
In the past it was represented by Democrat Kathy Ryg (who has been on my show) but she resigned her post to become head of Voices for Illinois Children. Appointed to the seat was Democrat Carol Sente (pronounced sen-tee).
Sugrue, in his early 40s, the son of Irish immigrants, was born in Oak Lawn, went to Catholic schools, graduated from the U of I in Champaign with a bachelor’s in economics and political science and got a law degree from Chicago Kent. He made a run before and was under-funded against Ryg. He practices law by himself and has taught real estate at the College of DuPage. He’s married to Margo whom he met when both were teaching inner-city kids in Chicago. They have three kids: Kevin 10, Vivian, 6 and Sean 4.
Well, I’m shilling him because he’s a terrific debater. He kept Creamer busy I’ll tell you that. When he left the studio, Creamer knew he had been in a fight.
Jon Burge.
Because much of Chicago media are infected with the Carol Marin virus…in the absence viable eternal verities why not adopt a religion of the here-and-now which means sanctimonious liberalism…it did not strike them as odd, strange and exceeding eccentric when the prosecution demanded to know from retired police commander Jon Burge whether he named his boat Vigilante because he really savors extra-curricular lynching and beatings.
Believe me if that’s one of the major things they have to go on, Burge is going to walk. So far I don’t think they’ve laid a glove on him. Decorated veteran of Vietnam who doesn’t like cop killers. That according to modern nihilistic liberals is enough. So far nothing has eventuated in the trial that shows complicity but still Burge is convicted in the eyes of scribes who have embraced the canons of ever-changing political liberalism as a substitute for a higher cause.
You can write the articles of that perverted liberal faith down: support the underdog no matter what, even if the facts aren’t there—it’s good to blister police authority: makes who missed the civil rights days feel good…America is a great big fat exploitive country while the poor in the Third World have a kind of expressive nobility…hey, just like the blue people in Avatar had a quiet nobility while we Big Exploiters roll in power through their exploitation…why can’t a gay nun be Pope? What’s wrong with that? Christ Himself would approve!
Here’s hoping Jon Burge pulls it out.
http://blog.tomroeser.com/2010/06/thoughts-while-shaving-dan-sugrue-super.html
Thoughts While Shaving: Dan Sugrue a Super-Star Debater is One of the GOP’s Best Kept Secrets…Big Deal—Why Did Burge Name His Boat Vigilante?
Segrue in Illinois 59th.
As one whose been either covering politics or involved in it as a staffer, assistant cabinet officer and private sector lobbyist for a total of 57 years, I rarely enthuse about any novice candidate: for good reason. Usually no matter how bright and articulate they are, candidatorial novices who get into radio or TV debates for the first time usually have a lot to learn…and it’s almost always a case of their handlers telling them afterward, “Listen, you did okay for a first time. Keep on practicing, keep on debating and you’ll nail it down in ample time. All you need is a little more experience and you’ll be fine.
But that advice doesn’t apply to Dan Sugrue the young lawyer from Green Oaks (Lake county) who I off-handedly picked for my radio show on Father’s Day. My heavyweight Dem contender was Bob Creamer who is one of the national Democratic party’s best debaters. When I picked Sugrue I thought I’d have someone entirely different on the opposite side but that someone bowed out and in desperation I called…at the last minute…Creamer who is CEO of the Strategic Consulting Group, husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowky and who since the demise of Saul Alinsky has carved out a reputation as being the premier strategist of national progressive politics. My conservative friends hate it when I say this but he is one of the most accomplished debaters and advocates of the Left in this city.
Now don’t flood the emails telling me this and that about Creamer—that he’s no good, evil, a bounder, etc. I’ve heard from several of you and frankly you don’t get it. As the host of a program going into its 20th year, my first responsibility is to field good debaters—and Creamer is one of the very best on the liberal-progressive side. The reason the program has been on so long is that I stay out of the fray and “moderate” the show. Which means I’m a referee…making sure that both sides don’t usurp the time and make their points without repetition.
As it is, the listeners to my show are mostly conservative and usually fill all 10 phone lines with good debating points. So the liberal-progressive who’s on my show has to fight two battles…one with his opponent in the studio and one with a highly intelligent conservative audience on the phone.
Some guy wrote me after the show condemning me for not weighing in against Creamer as well. My point is that if I am to serve as host and referee…as a football referee…it is overbalanced to have me zing the liberal along with everyone else. Believe me as a guest for many years on Bruce DuMont and Callaway I’ve zinged plenty. But not here. It’s as if you watch a football game and lo and behold the referee runs out onto the field and tackles the guy with the ball. Everybody has a right to say “Wha?”
But of course this guy exceeded the limit and accused me of being “soft” on Creamer…meaning that if I don’t whack somebody on the head with a meat cleaver as in the 3 Stooges, I’m a crypto liberal. He’s forgiven: he just doesn’t understand the dynamics of the show.
But I digress. I signed up Sugrue for the show Sunday and hoped he’d do okay. Well, for those who heard it, he did far more than okay. He turned out to be a powerfully good forensic debater at least as good as Creamer who’s been doing this for 40 years. In fact, he’s as good as I have ever seen in the contemporary Republican party…and that includes the late Henry Hyde, Everett Dirksen and the very much alive Mike Huckabee.
Now remember, I’m not in the business of consulting candidates and frankly didn’t know Sugrue well until he walked into the studio—so I have no axe to grind in all this. He’s not paying me. I’m just telling you what I think.
So let me by means of this blog put in a word with state Republican leaders to fund Dan Sugrue. Believe me, if he gets some money he’s going to win easily over his Democratic opponent who has not been elected to her post but is appointed and is not very well known. The 59th district has been leaning Democratic in the past but with these changing times is veering Republican. It will stay so I believe by watching Sugrue. The district takes in much of suburban Lake county including Vernon Hills, Prairie View, Lake Bluff, Green Oaks, Gurnee, Waukegan, Indian Creek, Lincolnshire, Mundelein, North Chicago, Park City, Riverwoods, Wheeling and Northbrook.
In the past it was represented by Democrat Kathy Ryg (who has been on my show) but she resigned her post to become head of Voices for Illinois Children. Appointed to the seat was Democrat Carol Sente (pronounced sen-tee).
Sugrue, in his early 40s, the son of Irish immigrants, was born in Oak Lawn, went to Catholic schools, graduated from the U of I in Champaign with a bachelor’s in economics and political science and got a law degree from Chicago Kent. He made a run before and was under-funded against Ryg. He practices law by himself and has taught real estate at the College of DuPage. He’s married to Margo whom he met when both were teaching inner-city kids in Chicago. They have three kids: Kevin 10, Vivian, 6 and Sean 4.
Well, I’m shilling him because he’s a terrific debater. He kept Creamer busy I’ll tell you that. When he left the studio, Creamer knew he had been in a fight.
Jon Burge.
Because much of Chicago media are infected with the Carol Marin virus…in the absence viable eternal verities why not adopt a religion of the here-and-now which means sanctimonious liberalism…it did not strike them as odd, strange and exceeding eccentric when the prosecution demanded to know from retired police commander Jon Burge whether he named his boat Vigilante because he really savors extra-curricular lynching and beatings.
Believe me if that’s one of the major things they have to go on, Burge is going to walk. So far I don’t think they’ve laid a glove on him. Decorated veteran of Vietnam who doesn’t like cop killers. That according to modern nihilistic liberals is enough. So far nothing has eventuated in the trial that shows complicity but still Burge is convicted in the eyes of scribes who have embraced the canons of ever-changing political liberalism as a substitute for a higher cause.
You can write the articles of that perverted liberal faith down: support the underdog no matter what, even if the facts aren’t there—it’s good to blister police authority: makes who missed the civil rights days feel good…America is a great big fat exploitive country while the poor in the Third World have a kind of expressive nobility…hey, just like the blue people in Avatar had a quiet nobility while we Big Exploiters roll in power through their exploitation…why can’t a gay nun be Pope? What’s wrong with that? Christ Himself would approve!
Here’s hoping Jon Burge pulls it out.
http://blog.tomroeser.com/2010/06/thoughts-while-shaving-dan-sugrue-super.html
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The president is well-intentioned but can't walk the walk on the world stage
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010
President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.
Yet, the Iraq war lingers; Afghanistan continues to be immersed in an endless cycle of tribalism, corruption, and Islamist resurgence; Guantánamo remains open; Iran sees how North Korea toys with Obama and continues its programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles; Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening; and the Palestinians and Israelis find that it is U.S. policy positions that defer serious negotiations, the direct opposite of what the Obama administration hoped for.
The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.
Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.
Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.
Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy." Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an "NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches." In other words, he talks the talk but doesn't know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.
In his Cairo speech about America and the Muslim world, Obama managed to sway Arab public opinion but was unable to budge any Arab leader. Even the king of Saudi Arabia, a country that depends on America for its survival, reacted with disappointment and dismay. Obama's meeting with the king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with
Les Gelb wrote of Obama, "He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion." Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn't—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, "There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don't know how to play that game."
Recent U.S. attempts to introduce more meaningful sanctions against Iran produced a U.N. resolution that is way less than the "crippling" sanctions the administration promised. The United States even failed to achieve the political benefit of a unanimous Security Council vote. Turkey, the Muslim anchor of NATO for almost 60 years, and Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America
, voted against our resolution. Could it be that these long-standing U.S. allies, who gave cover to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions, have decided that there is no cost in lining up with America's most serious enemies and no gain in lining up with this administration?
The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism. This was startling and clear when he chose not to publicly support the Iranians who went to the streets in opposition to their oppressive government, based on a judgment that our support might be counterproductive. Yet, he reaches out instead to the likes of Bashar Assad of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab world, sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it continues to rearm Hezbollah in Lebanon and expands its role in the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance.
The underlying issue is that the Arab world has different estimates on how to deal with an aggressive, expansionist Iran. The Arabs believe you do not deal with Iran with the open hand of a handshake but with the clenched fist of power. Arab leaders fear an Iran proceeding full steam with its nuclear weapons program on top of its programs to develop intermediate-range ballistic missiles. All the while centrifuges keep spinning in Iran, and Arab leaders ask whether Iran will be emboldened by what they interpret as American weakness and faltering willpower. They did not see Obama or his administration as understanding the region, where naiveté is interpreted as a weakness of character, as amateurism, and as proof of the absence of the tough stuff of which leaders are made. (That's why many Arab leaders were appalled at the decision to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. After 9/11, many of them had engaged in secret counterterrorism activities under the umbrella of an American promise that these activities would never be made public; now they feared that this would be the exact consequence of an open trial.)
America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, "We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends."
The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America's economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur.html?PageNr=3
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010
President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.
Yet, the Iraq war lingers; Afghanistan continues to be immersed in an endless cycle of tribalism, corruption, and Islamist resurgence; Guantánamo remains open; Iran sees how North Korea toys with Obama and continues its programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles; Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening; and the Palestinians and Israelis find that it is U.S. policy positions that defer serious negotiations, the direct opposite of what the Obama administration hoped for.
The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.
Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.
Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.
Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy." Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an "NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches." In other words, he talks the talk but doesn't know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.
In his Cairo speech about America and the Muslim world, Obama managed to sway Arab public opinion but was unable to budge any Arab leader. Even the king of Saudi Arabia, a country that depends on America for its survival, reacted with disappointment and dismay. Obama's meeting with the king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with
Les Gelb wrote of Obama, "He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion." Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn't—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, "There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don't know how to play that game."
Recent U.S. attempts to introduce more meaningful sanctions against Iran produced a U.N. resolution that is way less than the "crippling" sanctions the administration promised. The United States even failed to achieve the political benefit of a unanimous Security Council vote. Turkey, the Muslim anchor of NATO for almost 60 years, and Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America
, voted against our resolution. Could it be that these long-standing U.S. allies, who gave cover to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions, have decided that there is no cost in lining up with America's most serious enemies and no gain in lining up with this administration?
The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism. This was startling and clear when he chose not to publicly support the Iranians who went to the streets in opposition to their oppressive government, based on a judgment that our support might be counterproductive. Yet, he reaches out instead to the likes of Bashar Assad of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab world, sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it continues to rearm Hezbollah in Lebanon and expands its role in the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance.
The underlying issue is that the Arab world has different estimates on how to deal with an aggressive, expansionist Iran. The Arabs believe you do not deal with Iran with the open hand of a handshake but with the clenched fist of power. Arab leaders fear an Iran proceeding full steam with its nuclear weapons program on top of its programs to develop intermediate-range ballistic missiles. All the while centrifuges keep spinning in Iran, and Arab leaders ask whether Iran will be emboldened by what they interpret as American weakness and faltering willpower. They did not see Obama or his administration as understanding the region, where naiveté is interpreted as a weakness of character, as amateurism, and as proof of the absence of the tough stuff of which leaders are made. (That's why many Arab leaders were appalled at the decision to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. After 9/11, many of them had engaged in secret counterterrorism activities under the umbrella of an American promise that these activities would never be made public; now they feared that this would be the exact consequence of an open trial.)
America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, "We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends."
The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America's economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur.html?PageNr=3
Friday, June 18, 2010
A Snakebit President -Peggy Noonan
The president is starting to look snakebit. He's starting to look unlucky, like Jimmy Carter. It wasn't Mr. Carter's fault that the American diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran, but he handled it badly, and suffered. He defied the rule of the King in "Pippin," the Broadway show of Carter's era, who spoke of "the rule that every general knows by heart, that it's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart." Mr. Carter's opposite was Bill Clinton, on whom fortune smiled with eight years of relative peace and a worldwide economic boom. What misfortune Mr. Clinton experienced he mostly created himself. History didn't impose it.
But Mr. Obama is starting to look unlucky, and–file this under Mysteries of Leadership–that is dangerous for him because Americans get nervous when they have a snakebit president. They want presidents on whom the sun shines.
It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors.
The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"
The right didn't like the speech either.
As for the center, Nielsen reported that 32 million people watched the speech, as compared to 48 million viewers that watched the State of the Union. Ronald Reagan once said you should never confuse the reviews with the box office. This was the box office voting with its clickers.
No reason to join the pile on, but some small points. Two growing weaknesses showed up in small phrases. The president said he had consulted among others "experts in academia" on what to do about the calamity. This while noting, again, that his energy secretary has a Nobel Prize. There is a growing meme that Mr. Obama is too impressed by credentialism, by the meritocracy, by those who hold forth in the faculty lounge, and too strongly identifies with them. He should be more impressed by those with real-world experience. It was the "small people" in the shrimp boats who laid the boom.
And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty.
Throughout the speech the president gestured showily, distractingly, with his hands. Politicians do this now because they're told by media specialists that it helps them look natural. They don't look natural, they look like Ann Bancroft gesticulating to Patty Duke in "The Miracle Worker."
The president could move his hands because he was not holding a hard copy of his speech. Normally presidents have had a printed copy of the speech in their hands or on the desk, in case the teleprompter freezes or fails. Mr. Obama's desk was shiny and empty. A White House aide says the director of Oval Office operations had a hard copy just off camera, and was following along as the president spoke so that if the prompter broke he'd be able to give it to the president at the spot he left off.
But that would look a little startling, an arm suddenly darting into the frame to hand the president a script. And the pages could fall. If one were in the mood for a cheap metaphor one would say this is an example of the White House's tendency not to anticipate trouble.
There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault.
Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there.
And seems so snakebit, so at the mercy of forces. When you're snakebit you get some sympathy, and some will come. With all the president's woe there will be some counter-reaction among commentators, journalists and others. There will likely be among the Democratic leadership, too. "Love him or not he's what we've got, and he's what we have for the next two years. Help the guy, cool the criticism, punch back for him." But it's also true that among Democrats—and others—when the talk turns to the presidency it turns more and more to Hillary Clinton. "We may have made a mistake. She would have been better." Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012. A hunch: She won't really want to. Because she has enjoyed being loyal. She didn't only prove to others she could be loyal, a team player. She proved it to herself. And it has only added to her luster.
As for the president, the great question is what you do when you start to feel snakebit. Maybe he'll start to doubt his own moves and instincts. Maybe not. Jimmy Carter didn't. He fought hard for re-election in 1980, and until near the end thought he'd win. He trusted the American people, and in an odd way he trusted his luck
But Mr. Obama is starting to look unlucky, and–file this under Mysteries of Leadership–that is dangerous for him because Americans get nervous when they have a snakebit president. They want presidents on whom the sun shines.
It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors.
The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"
The right didn't like the speech either.
As for the center, Nielsen reported that 32 million people watched the speech, as compared to 48 million viewers that watched the State of the Union. Ronald Reagan once said you should never confuse the reviews with the box office. This was the box office voting with its clickers.
No reason to join the pile on, but some small points. Two growing weaknesses showed up in small phrases. The president said he had consulted among others "experts in academia" on what to do about the calamity. This while noting, again, that his energy secretary has a Nobel Prize. There is a growing meme that Mr. Obama is too impressed by credentialism, by the meritocracy, by those who hold forth in the faculty lounge, and too strongly identifies with them. He should be more impressed by those with real-world experience. It was the "small people" in the shrimp boats who laid the boom.
And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty.
Throughout the speech the president gestured showily, distractingly, with his hands. Politicians do this now because they're told by media specialists that it helps them look natural. They don't look natural, they look like Ann Bancroft gesticulating to Patty Duke in "The Miracle Worker."
The president could move his hands because he was not holding a hard copy of his speech. Normally presidents have had a printed copy of the speech in their hands or on the desk, in case the teleprompter freezes or fails. Mr. Obama's desk was shiny and empty. A White House aide says the director of Oval Office operations had a hard copy just off camera, and was following along as the president spoke so that if the prompter broke he'd be able to give it to the president at the spot he left off.
But that would look a little startling, an arm suddenly darting into the frame to hand the president a script. And the pages could fall. If one were in the mood for a cheap metaphor one would say this is an example of the White House's tendency not to anticipate trouble.
There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault.
Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there.
And seems so snakebit, so at the mercy of forces. When you're snakebit you get some sympathy, and some will come. With all the president's woe there will be some counter-reaction among commentators, journalists and others. There will likely be among the Democratic leadership, too. "Love him or not he's what we've got, and he's what we have for the next two years. Help the guy, cool the criticism, punch back for him." But it's also true that among Democrats—and others—when the talk turns to the presidency it turns more and more to Hillary Clinton. "We may have made a mistake. She would have been better." Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012. A hunch: She won't really want to. Because she has enjoyed being loyal. She didn't only prove to others she could be loyal, a team player. She proved it to herself. And it has only added to her luster.
As for the president, the great question is what you do when you start to feel snakebit. Maybe he'll start to doubt his own moves and instincts. Maybe not. Jimmy Carter didn't. He fought hard for re-election in 1980, and until near the end thought he'd win. He trusted the American people, and in an odd way he trusted his luck
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Last of the Chaplains on Iwo Jima Dies
In the bloodiest days of Iwo Jima , he spoke the last words over fallen Marines and Navy corpsmen as they were buried in the island’s black sand. On 20 May 2010, Marines, sailors and soldiers returned the favor to the late Rev. E. Gage Hotaling of Agawam MA, sending the old Navy chaplain on to join his comrades with military honors.
Hotaling was the last surviving chaplain who served ashore with the Marines at Iwo . He joined the Chaplain Corps at age 28 in 1944 because he didn't feel he could preach to the WW II generation unless he knew what they had endured, so he found himself with the 4th Marine Division on Iwo Jima. Some of his experiences on Iwo Jima are included in the book, “Flags of Our Fathers,†which tells the stories of the men who raised the American flag during the battle of February 1945.
Rev. Hotaling's first sermon was delivered at a Manton, Rhode Island church on November 19, 1933. At that time the country was in the depths of the Great Depression. Rev. Hotaling was 17 years old and had promised his father, who was dying of cancer, that he would carry on the work of ministry.
Hotaling, 94, died Sunday 16 May 2010 in a Springfield hospital, 65 years after the iconic battle for the Pacific island. In a 2007 documentary, he talked about the grim task he faced as Marines fell in bitter combat against the dug-in Japanese enemy. Of the 6,821 Americans killed, Hotaling believed he buried about 1,800.
We would have four Marines with a flag over each grave. And while they were kneeling with the flag, I would stand up and I would give the committal words for each one, he told the filmmakers.
He said he took up smoking to overcome the stench of decay.
I did it not as a Protestant, Catholic or a Jew, but as a Marine, the Baptist minister said. Every man was buried as a Marine. And so I gave the same committal to each one.
A Marine Corps honor guard stood by as family members and other veterans paid their respects yesterday at Massachusetts Veterans™ Memorial Cemetery in Agawam .
He was a man of God, a man who comforted people and a Sheppard to his flock, said son Kerry, 57, of Ludlow . He brought comfort to the fighting Marines who were on the island.
Thanks should go to Massachusetts State Trooper Mike Cutone, an Army vet, who was on a prisoner watch at Mercy Hospital when he learned from an old Marine that Hotaling was dying down the hall. Cutone made some calls and saw to it Hotaling was attended at his bedside by Marines in dress blues in his last days, just as he had tended to them in theirs in dirty, bloodstained dungarees.
"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have made a difference in the world. Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Reagan , 1985
Semper Fidelis,
Gerald T. Pothier
Capt. USMC (Ret)
1951-1988
Mustang
Lest we forget! JL
Hotaling was the last surviving chaplain who served ashore with the Marines at Iwo . He joined the Chaplain Corps at age 28 in 1944 because he didn't feel he could preach to the WW II generation unless he knew what they had endured, so he found himself with the 4th Marine Division on Iwo Jima. Some of his experiences on Iwo Jima are included in the book, “Flags of Our Fathers,†which tells the stories of the men who raised the American flag during the battle of February 1945.
Rev. Hotaling's first sermon was delivered at a Manton, Rhode Island church on November 19, 1933. At that time the country was in the depths of the Great Depression. Rev. Hotaling was 17 years old and had promised his father, who was dying of cancer, that he would carry on the work of ministry.
Hotaling, 94, died Sunday 16 May 2010 in a Springfield hospital, 65 years after the iconic battle for the Pacific island. In a 2007 documentary, he talked about the grim task he faced as Marines fell in bitter combat against the dug-in Japanese enemy. Of the 6,821 Americans killed, Hotaling believed he buried about 1,800.
We would have four Marines with a flag over each grave. And while they were kneeling with the flag, I would stand up and I would give the committal words for each one, he told the filmmakers.
He said he took up smoking to overcome the stench of decay.
I did it not as a Protestant, Catholic or a Jew, but as a Marine, the Baptist minister said. Every man was buried as a Marine. And so I gave the same committal to each one.
A Marine Corps honor guard stood by as family members and other veterans paid their respects yesterday at Massachusetts Veterans™ Memorial Cemetery in Agawam .
He was a man of God, a man who comforted people and a Sheppard to his flock, said son Kerry, 57, of Ludlow . He brought comfort to the fighting Marines who were on the island.
Thanks should go to Massachusetts State Trooper Mike Cutone, an Army vet, who was on a prisoner watch at Mercy Hospital when he learned from an old Marine that Hotaling was dying down the hall. Cutone made some calls and saw to it Hotaling was attended at his bedside by Marines in dress blues in his last days, just as he had tended to them in theirs in dirty, bloodstained dungarees.
"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have made a difference in the world. Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Reagan , 1985
Semper Fidelis,
Gerald T. Pothier
Capt. USMC (Ret)
1951-1988
Mustang
Lest we forget! JL
Monday, June 14, 2010
New Black Panther party walks because of friends in Obama Administration
Friends in High Places
The Obama Justice Department went to bat for the New Black Panther party—and then covered it up.
BY Jennifer Rubin
June 21, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 38
The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses—one of the poll watchers was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” A Panther told him he would be “ruled by the black man.” The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.
The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.
The Panthers like to tout their “victory” and parrot the Obama Justice Department’s line that the case was unmeritorious. The party held a national convention in Atlanta over Memorial Day weekend (sponsored and attended by the once mainstream Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a grab bag of socialist and anti-Semitic figures). Its website boasts: “The New Black Panther Party has been embroiled in a battle between Republican Congressmen and the U.S. Department of Justice over a ‘voter intimidation’ scandal for the last 18 months. During these 18 months right wing and Republican Newspaper and Electronic media have gone to exhaustive lengths to discredit and slander the New Black Panther Party and its Chairman and Attorney Malik Zulu Shabazz.”
But on June 4, J. Christian Adams, a veteran lawyer in Justice’s voting section and a key member of the trial team, resigned. His reasons were spelled out in a letter that also noted that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which was investigating the dismissal, had subpoenaed him and Coates, but their superiors, in violation of federal law, had ordered them not to testify. He noted that “the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. . . . Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions [by Justice Department officials] that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them.” Coates, too, has left the Voting Section, moving to South Carolina to work in the U.S. attorney’s office. Last Friday, the civil rights commission’s general counsel, David Blackwood, announced that he had received an email from Christian Adams’s attorney stating that Adams is now available to provide information to the commission. Commissioner Todd Graziano said they would schedule Adams’s appearance at a public hearing as soon as possible as the commission had been seeking his testimony for many months.
With Adams’s resignation and letter, a clearer picture is finally emerging of what led to the dismissal of the case, the actions of DoJ political appointees, the department’s misrepresentations about the case, and the Obama administration’s approach to civil rights enforcement.
Based on documents obtained by The Weekly Standard and interviews with Justice personnel, we now know far more about the sequence of events surrounding the dismissal. The then-acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Grace Chung Becker, signed off on the case as the Bush administration was leaving office in January 2009. She confirms that the decision to file the case was an easy one. In response to my questions, she was emphatic that this was a serious case of voter intimidation. The trial team, which also included attorneys Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, conducted its investigation and on January 8, 2009, filed suit against the NBPP. As the Panthers did not respond to the lawsuit, the department had a slam-dunk victory.
The trial team was poised to enter a default judgment in late April 2009. An order for a default of judgment was drafted and sent to the voting section management. On the morning of April 29, the acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, Steven Rosenbaum, sent an email to Coates about the case. It was the first indication by any department official that something was amiss. “I have serious doubts about the merits of the motion for entry of a default judgment and the request for injunctive relief,” Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, wrote. “Most significantly, this case raises serious First Amendment issues, but the papers make no mention of the First Amendment.” Rosenbaum asked Coates a series of questions—whether “the defendants make any statements threatening physical harm to voters or persons aiding voters,” for example, and what was the “factual predicate for enjoining the Party, as opposed to individual defendants”—which indicated that he was not familiar with the case and had not read the detailed memorandum accompanying the draft order.
The trial team was surprised by the email and answered Rosenbaum point by point in a response sent that same evening. They corrected his misstatements and explained in answer to his First Amendment concerns, “We are not seeking to enjoin the making of those (or any) statements. We plan to introduce them as evidence to show that what happened in Philadelphia on Election Day was planned and announced in advance by the central authority of the NBPP, and was a NBPP initiative.” They pointed out that dressing in military garb did not raise First Amendment concerns when “used with the brandishing of a weapon to intimidate people going to the polling station.” They concluded: “We strongly believe that this is one of the clearest violations of Section 11(b) [of the Voting Rights Act] the Department has come across. There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station. If the conduct of these men, which was video recorded and broadcast nationally, does not violate Section 11(b), the statute will have little meaning going forward.”
The trial team assumed that Rosenbaum was simply confused about the applicable law. The notion that this was a problematic case would have been outlandish. With video evidence, multiple witnesses, and clear case law, it was one the easiest cases on which any of the trial team attorneys—who had more than 75 years of collective experience—had worked.
After sending the response, Coates and Robert Popper met with Rosenbaum and the then acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Loretta King. People familiar with the discussions describe “two days of shouting.” The trial team now knew that DoJ political appointees were serious about undermining the case by using whatever arguments they could dream up, including First Amendment concerns. The team prepared a detailed memo dated May 6 explaining the factual and legal basis for the case. In 13 pages, the attorneys meticulously analyzed the law and the facts and rebutted any notion that the First Amendment could insulate the Panthers. The memo made clear that Rosenbaum’s and King’s arguments for dismissing the case were spurious. Rosenbaum and King, for example, argued that legal precedent involving protestors at abortion clinics would undermine the case. The trial team pointed out, however, that these cases were either inapplicable or actually supported the issuance of an injunction when there was a significant government interest (such as the protection of voting rights) at stake.
The arguments continued after the May 6 memo was submitted. During one meeting in a conference room on the 5th floor of the Main Justice building, Coates became so exasperated he threw the memo at Rosenbaum who had admitted not reading the trial team’s detailed briefing on the issues.
Rosenbaum and King sent a request to the appellate section asking their opinion of the case. The appellate attorneys sided with the trial team on May 13. Coates announced this to his team with the words “Good news.” They all agreed it would be unthinkable for their superiors to nix the case. They were wrong. On May 15, Coates received an order to dismiss the case against everyone but the baton-menacing Shabazz. And they were ordered to scale back the injunction against him to cover only the display of a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place until 2012. (No other behavior was enjoined.)
The actions of King and Rosenbaum were unprecedented in the collective experience of the trial team. They were not alone in that assessment. A former associate attorney general for the civil division Greg Katsas testified before the civil rights commission on April 23, 2010, and termed the Panthers’ actions a blatant case of voter intimidation. He said it was a “straightforward and overwhelmingly strong case” and that the Panthers’ conduct was “egregious and intentional.” As for the party itself and its leadership, Katsas said that under “general principles of agency law” they were liable.
From the onset, Justice has denied that any political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the case. This line was repeated in multiple letters to and face-to-face meetings with Republican representatives Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith and in statements to the media. We now know that this is incorrect. In interrogatory answers supplied to the civil rights commission, the department acknowledged that Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the decision to dismiss the case and that the number three man in Justice, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, was consulted as well. Katsas testified, “Certainly DoJ’s decision to abandon all claims against the party, Malik Shabazz, and Mr. Jackson [the second polling place intimidator], despite their refusal to even defend the case, would have qualified as important enough for the leadership of the Civil Rights Division to raise with [Perrelli].” The same is true of the decision to seek only a narrow injunction against the billy club-wielding defendant. He notes that the filing of the case may have been routine, but the decision to dismiss it was so extraordinary that someone of Perrelli’s rank must certainly have played an “active role.”
The department is, moreover, trying to characterize King and Rosenbaum, who instructed the trial team to dismiss the case, as “career attorneys with over 60 years of experience.” It is true that they both served in career positions at Justice in the past. But under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, as soon as someone is appointed to fill a political position—as Rosenbaum and King were early in the Obama administration—they are political appointees.
Neither King nor Rosenbaum has directly worked on a voting rights case since the mid-1990s and both have received sanctions of hundreds of thousands of dollars by federal court judges for bringing unmeritorious cases and for failing to respond to court orders. In January 2010, a federal court judge in Kansas fined King and Rosenbaum for failing to respond to interrogatories in a housing discrimination case. Former civil rights division attorney Hans von Spakovsky has written: “That particular sanction is also very unusual—I have never seen a sanction order directed at individual lawyers that specifically says their employer is not responsible for paying the costs. . . . During the Bush administration, when liberals claim there was politicization going on in the division, I am not aware of a single such sanction.” King and the Justice Department were also ordered to pay $587,000 in attorneys’ fees and fines for bringing an unmeritorious claim during the Clinton administration in Johnson v. Miller. (In that case the court also took DoJ and King to task for allowing the ACLU to unduly affect the litigation decisions of the department.)
The administration’s internal investigation also appears to have been fraudulent. Under ongoing pressure from Representatives Smith and Wolf, an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was finally ordered to commence in July 2009. Until a few days before Adams’s resignation, however, none of the trial team had been interviewed by OPR investigators.
Furthermore the department has been less than candid in congressional testimony. In December 2009, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, and he either did not understand the case fully or chose to disregard the documentation the trial team had put together. Perez said, for example, that Shabazz had received the “maximum penalty.” An experienced voting rights lawyer scoffs at the statement. “The maximum penalty is Leavenworth.” Perez then suggested that the attorneys on the trial team might have violated Federal Rule 11, which prohibits lawyers from bringing frivolous actions. The trial team was angered at the public insinuation that they had been derelict in their professional responsibilities.
In written responses to the civil rights commission, the Justice Department has claimed there was no evidence of involvement by outside groups—specifically the NAACP. Yet there is substantial reason to doubt this assertion. An attorney for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, has admitted that she spoke to department attorneys about the case and shared the complaint with others. (In a deposition she also said that a department lawyer sent her news clippings of the case.) She spoke to a voting section attorney Laura Coates (no relation to Chris Coates) about the case at a Justice Department function. Clarke asked Coates, who she assumed was sympathetic, when the Panther case was going to be dismissed. The comment suggested that the NAACP had been pushing for such an outcome, and Coates reported the conversation to her superiors. Under oath in a deposition with the civil rights commission, however, Clarke denied six times that she had any conversations with Justice Department attorneys. When shown an email from a department attorney to her calling a Washington Times report on the NBPP case nothing but “lies” and declaring “This is CC’s doing” she incredibly denied (despite her long association with him) that she understood the reference was to Chris Coates.
While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites. In a farewell address to his colleagues before his reassignment to a U.S. attorney’s office, Coates spoke about this widespread sentiment and why it was antithetical to the department’s mission to seek equal enforcement of federal laws.
Former voting rights attorneys confirm that the belief is omnipresent in the Justice Department. DoJ attorneys openly criticized the Panther case, objecting not to any lack of evidence or to the legal arguments but to the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants. There are instances of attorneys refusing to work on cases against minority defendants. In 2005, for example, Coates pursued, filed, and won a case (upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in 2009) of egregious voter discrimination by black officials in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Colleagues criticized Coates for filing the case and refused to work on it.
Liberal civil rights lawyers argue that because “a history of official discrimination” can be one subsidiary factor in voting cases it “wipes out every other factor” and prohibits cases from being brought against blacks. And further, that since “socio-economic” factors can be considered in determining whether voting discrimination has occurred, these cases cannot be brought against black defendants until there is economic parity between blacks and whites. Such attorneys use phrases like “traditional civil rights cases” and “traditional civil rights victims” to signal that only minority victims and white perpetrators concern them. Justice sources tell me that career attorneys have been “assured” that cases against minority defendants won’t be brought. In testimony before the civil rights commission, Thomas Perez denied he was aware of any such conversations or sentiments.
To date the Democratic Congress has exercised virtually no oversight over either the Panther case or the department’s civil rights enforcement approach generally. The OPR investigation shows no sign of completion. Neither Holder nor Perrelli has been questioned in depth about his participation in the case or about the allegations that Justice attorneys don’t intend to enforce civil rights laws against anyone other than white defendants.
Smith and Wolf, who just this week fired off two-dozen questions to Attorney General Eric Holder, continue to pursue the case, but without Democratic support they cannot subpoena either witnesses or documents. That may change after the November election. If the House of Representatives or Senate flips to Republican control and new committee chairmen decide to engage in actual oversight, Perrelli and Holder may find themselves forced by subpoenas to tell the complete NBPP story and explain why Obama’s Justice Department believes the civil rights laws exist only to protect citizens of certain races.
The Obama Justice Department went to bat for the New Black Panther party—and then covered it up.
BY Jennifer Rubin
June 21, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 38
The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses—one of the poll watchers was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” A Panther told him he would be “ruled by the black man.” The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.
The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.
The Panthers like to tout their “victory” and parrot the Obama Justice Department’s line that the case was unmeritorious. The party held a national convention in Atlanta over Memorial Day weekend (sponsored and attended by the once mainstream Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a grab bag of socialist and anti-Semitic figures). Its website boasts: “The New Black Panther Party has been embroiled in a battle between Republican Congressmen and the U.S. Department of Justice over a ‘voter intimidation’ scandal for the last 18 months. During these 18 months right wing and Republican Newspaper and Electronic media have gone to exhaustive lengths to discredit and slander the New Black Panther Party and its Chairman and Attorney Malik Zulu Shabazz.”
But on June 4, J. Christian Adams, a veteran lawyer in Justice’s voting section and a key member of the trial team, resigned. His reasons were spelled out in a letter that also noted that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which was investigating the dismissal, had subpoenaed him and Coates, but their superiors, in violation of federal law, had ordered them not to testify. He noted that “the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. . . . Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions [by Justice Department officials] that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them.” Coates, too, has left the Voting Section, moving to South Carolina to work in the U.S. attorney’s office. Last Friday, the civil rights commission’s general counsel, David Blackwood, announced that he had received an email from Christian Adams’s attorney stating that Adams is now available to provide information to the commission. Commissioner Todd Graziano said they would schedule Adams’s appearance at a public hearing as soon as possible as the commission had been seeking his testimony for many months.
With Adams’s resignation and letter, a clearer picture is finally emerging of what led to the dismissal of the case, the actions of DoJ political appointees, the department’s misrepresentations about the case, and the Obama administration’s approach to civil rights enforcement.
Based on documents obtained by The Weekly Standard and interviews with Justice personnel, we now know far more about the sequence of events surrounding the dismissal. The then-acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Grace Chung Becker, signed off on the case as the Bush administration was leaving office in January 2009. She confirms that the decision to file the case was an easy one. In response to my questions, she was emphatic that this was a serious case of voter intimidation. The trial team, which also included attorneys Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, conducted its investigation and on January 8, 2009, filed suit against the NBPP. As the Panthers did not respond to the lawsuit, the department had a slam-dunk victory.
The trial team was poised to enter a default judgment in late April 2009. An order for a default of judgment was drafted and sent to the voting section management. On the morning of April 29, the acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, Steven Rosenbaum, sent an email to Coates about the case. It was the first indication by any department official that something was amiss. “I have serious doubts about the merits of the motion for entry of a default judgment and the request for injunctive relief,” Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, wrote. “Most significantly, this case raises serious First Amendment issues, but the papers make no mention of the First Amendment.” Rosenbaum asked Coates a series of questions—whether “the defendants make any statements threatening physical harm to voters or persons aiding voters,” for example, and what was the “factual predicate for enjoining the Party, as opposed to individual defendants”—which indicated that he was not familiar with the case and had not read the detailed memorandum accompanying the draft order.
The trial team was surprised by the email and answered Rosenbaum point by point in a response sent that same evening. They corrected his misstatements and explained in answer to his First Amendment concerns, “We are not seeking to enjoin the making of those (or any) statements. We plan to introduce them as evidence to show that what happened in Philadelphia on Election Day was planned and announced in advance by the central authority of the NBPP, and was a NBPP initiative.” They pointed out that dressing in military garb did not raise First Amendment concerns when “used with the brandishing of a weapon to intimidate people going to the polling station.” They concluded: “We strongly believe that this is one of the clearest violations of Section 11(b) [of the Voting Rights Act] the Department has come across. There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station. If the conduct of these men, which was video recorded and broadcast nationally, does not violate Section 11(b), the statute will have little meaning going forward.”
The trial team assumed that Rosenbaum was simply confused about the applicable law. The notion that this was a problematic case would have been outlandish. With video evidence, multiple witnesses, and clear case law, it was one the easiest cases on which any of the trial team attorneys—who had more than 75 years of collective experience—had worked.
After sending the response, Coates and Robert Popper met with Rosenbaum and the then acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Loretta King. People familiar with the discussions describe “two days of shouting.” The trial team now knew that DoJ political appointees were serious about undermining the case by using whatever arguments they could dream up, including First Amendment concerns. The team prepared a detailed memo dated May 6 explaining the factual and legal basis for the case. In 13 pages, the attorneys meticulously analyzed the law and the facts and rebutted any notion that the First Amendment could insulate the Panthers. The memo made clear that Rosenbaum’s and King’s arguments for dismissing the case were spurious. Rosenbaum and King, for example, argued that legal precedent involving protestors at abortion clinics would undermine the case. The trial team pointed out, however, that these cases were either inapplicable or actually supported the issuance of an injunction when there was a significant government interest (such as the protection of voting rights) at stake.
The arguments continued after the May 6 memo was submitted. During one meeting in a conference room on the 5th floor of the Main Justice building, Coates became so exasperated he threw the memo at Rosenbaum who had admitted not reading the trial team’s detailed briefing on the issues.
Rosenbaum and King sent a request to the appellate section asking their opinion of the case. The appellate attorneys sided with the trial team on May 13. Coates announced this to his team with the words “Good news.” They all agreed it would be unthinkable for their superiors to nix the case. They were wrong. On May 15, Coates received an order to dismiss the case against everyone but the baton-menacing Shabazz. And they were ordered to scale back the injunction against him to cover only the display of a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place until 2012. (No other behavior was enjoined.)
The actions of King and Rosenbaum were unprecedented in the collective experience of the trial team. They were not alone in that assessment. A former associate attorney general for the civil division Greg Katsas testified before the civil rights commission on April 23, 2010, and termed the Panthers’ actions a blatant case of voter intimidation. He said it was a “straightforward and overwhelmingly strong case” and that the Panthers’ conduct was “egregious and intentional.” As for the party itself and its leadership, Katsas said that under “general principles of agency law” they were liable.
From the onset, Justice has denied that any political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the case. This line was repeated in multiple letters to and face-to-face meetings with Republican representatives Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith and in statements to the media. We now know that this is incorrect. In interrogatory answers supplied to the civil rights commission, the department acknowledged that Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the decision to dismiss the case and that the number three man in Justice, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, was consulted as well. Katsas testified, “Certainly DoJ’s decision to abandon all claims against the party, Malik Shabazz, and Mr. Jackson [the second polling place intimidator], despite their refusal to even defend the case, would have qualified as important enough for the leadership of the Civil Rights Division to raise with [Perrelli].” The same is true of the decision to seek only a narrow injunction against the billy club-wielding defendant. He notes that the filing of the case may have been routine, but the decision to dismiss it was so extraordinary that someone of Perrelli’s rank must certainly have played an “active role.”
The department is, moreover, trying to characterize King and Rosenbaum, who instructed the trial team to dismiss the case, as “career attorneys with over 60 years of experience.” It is true that they both served in career positions at Justice in the past. But under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, as soon as someone is appointed to fill a political position—as Rosenbaum and King were early in the Obama administration—they are political appointees.
Neither King nor Rosenbaum has directly worked on a voting rights case since the mid-1990s and both have received sanctions of hundreds of thousands of dollars by federal court judges for bringing unmeritorious cases and for failing to respond to court orders. In January 2010, a federal court judge in Kansas fined King and Rosenbaum for failing to respond to interrogatories in a housing discrimination case. Former civil rights division attorney Hans von Spakovsky has written: “That particular sanction is also very unusual—I have never seen a sanction order directed at individual lawyers that specifically says their employer is not responsible for paying the costs. . . . During the Bush administration, when liberals claim there was politicization going on in the division, I am not aware of a single such sanction.” King and the Justice Department were also ordered to pay $587,000 in attorneys’ fees and fines for bringing an unmeritorious claim during the Clinton administration in Johnson v. Miller. (In that case the court also took DoJ and King to task for allowing the ACLU to unduly affect the litigation decisions of the department.)
The administration’s internal investigation also appears to have been fraudulent. Under ongoing pressure from Representatives Smith and Wolf, an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was finally ordered to commence in July 2009. Until a few days before Adams’s resignation, however, none of the trial team had been interviewed by OPR investigators.
Furthermore the department has been less than candid in congressional testimony. In December 2009, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, and he either did not understand the case fully or chose to disregard the documentation the trial team had put together. Perez said, for example, that Shabazz had received the “maximum penalty.” An experienced voting rights lawyer scoffs at the statement. “The maximum penalty is Leavenworth.” Perez then suggested that the attorneys on the trial team might have violated Federal Rule 11, which prohibits lawyers from bringing frivolous actions. The trial team was angered at the public insinuation that they had been derelict in their professional responsibilities.
In written responses to the civil rights commission, the Justice Department has claimed there was no evidence of involvement by outside groups—specifically the NAACP. Yet there is substantial reason to doubt this assertion. An attorney for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, has admitted that she spoke to department attorneys about the case and shared the complaint with others. (In a deposition she also said that a department lawyer sent her news clippings of the case.) She spoke to a voting section attorney Laura Coates (no relation to Chris Coates) about the case at a Justice Department function. Clarke asked Coates, who she assumed was sympathetic, when the Panther case was going to be dismissed. The comment suggested that the NAACP had been pushing for such an outcome, and Coates reported the conversation to her superiors. Under oath in a deposition with the civil rights commission, however, Clarke denied six times that she had any conversations with Justice Department attorneys. When shown an email from a department attorney to her calling a Washington Times report on the NBPP case nothing but “lies” and declaring “This is CC’s doing” she incredibly denied (despite her long association with him) that she understood the reference was to Chris Coates.
While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites. In a farewell address to his colleagues before his reassignment to a U.S. attorney’s office, Coates spoke about this widespread sentiment and why it was antithetical to the department’s mission to seek equal enforcement of federal laws.
Former voting rights attorneys confirm that the belief is omnipresent in the Justice Department. DoJ attorneys openly criticized the Panther case, objecting not to any lack of evidence or to the legal arguments but to the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants. There are instances of attorneys refusing to work on cases against minority defendants. In 2005, for example, Coates pursued, filed, and won a case (upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in 2009) of egregious voter discrimination by black officials in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Colleagues criticized Coates for filing the case and refused to work on it.
Liberal civil rights lawyers argue that because “a history of official discrimination” can be one subsidiary factor in voting cases it “wipes out every other factor” and prohibits cases from being brought against blacks. And further, that since “socio-economic” factors can be considered in determining whether voting discrimination has occurred, these cases cannot be brought against black defendants until there is economic parity between blacks and whites. Such attorneys use phrases like “traditional civil rights cases” and “traditional civil rights victims” to signal that only minority victims and white perpetrators concern them. Justice sources tell me that career attorneys have been “assured” that cases against minority defendants won’t be brought. In testimony before the civil rights commission, Thomas Perez denied he was aware of any such conversations or sentiments.
To date the Democratic Congress has exercised virtually no oversight over either the Panther case or the department’s civil rights enforcement approach generally. The OPR investigation shows no sign of completion. Neither Holder nor Perrelli has been questioned in depth about his participation in the case or about the allegations that Justice attorneys don’t intend to enforce civil rights laws against anyone other than white defendants.
Smith and Wolf, who just this week fired off two-dozen questions to Attorney General Eric Holder, continue to pursue the case, but without Democratic support they cannot subpoena either witnesses or documents. That may change after the November election. If the House of Representatives or Senate flips to Republican control and new committee chairmen decide to engage in actual oversight, Perrelli and Holder may find themselves forced by subpoenas to tell the complete NBPP story and explain why Obama’s Justice Department believes the civil rights laws exist only to protect citizens of certain races.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A PATRIOTIC COUNTRY HEARTLAND
Pro-Life Victory PAC
A PATRIOTIC COUNTRY HEARTLAND
PIG ROAST !
Come and meet Pro-Life candidate for Governor Bill Brady and other candidates!
Honorary Chairmen:
Irene Napier and Bonnie Quirke
Dear Pro-Lifers,
Please join us for a PATRIOTIC COUNTRY HEARTLAND PIG ROAST.
Sunday, June 27, 2010 1:00pm - 5:00pm
Roast Pig, hamburgers & all the "fixins", Karaoke & More!
$50 per couple, $35 individual, $10 for kids
PLEASE REGISTER NOW, SPACE IS LIMITED.
Click here to download a flyer and registration form.
Or
Register & pay at our website: www.prolifevictory.com
Location:
Irene Napier's Valley View Farm
5706 Valley View Rd. Crystal Lake, IL
Contact: McHenry: 815-459-3849
Lake: 847-644-8456
www.prolifevictory.com Irene Napier
Right to Life McHenry County
A PATRIOTIC COUNTRY HEARTLAND
PIG ROAST !
Come and meet Pro-Life candidate for Governor Bill Brady and other candidates!
Honorary Chairmen:
Irene Napier and Bonnie Quirke
Dear Pro-Lifers,
Please join us for a PATRIOTIC COUNTRY HEARTLAND PIG ROAST.
Sunday, June 27, 2010 1:00pm - 5:00pm
Roast Pig, hamburgers & all the "fixins", Karaoke & More!
$50 per couple, $35 individual, $10 for kids
PLEASE REGISTER NOW, SPACE IS LIMITED.
Click here to download a flyer and registration form.
Or
Register & pay at our website: www.prolifevictory.com
Location:
Irene Napier's Valley View Farm
5706 Valley View Rd. Crystal Lake, IL
Contact: McHenry: 815-459-3849
Lake: 847-644-8456
www.prolifevictory.com Irene Napier
Right to Life McHenry County
Brady campaign update
A Note from Jerry Clarke, Campaign Manager
Friend
Bill's Lead Grows: A new independent poll released by Rasmussen Reports shows Bill's lead over Governor Quinn is growing. The poll shows Brady leading 47 to 36 percent, a four-point boost over the same poll taken in April, which showed Brady over Quinn 45 to 38. "I am heartened by the outpouring of support for our growing campaign to clean up government and to make a clean break from politics as usual in Illinois," Bill said.
Had Enough: The beginning of disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich's criminal trial is a stark reminder to voters that too many Illinois politicians have long placed the special interests before the people's interests. But we can't change Illinois by electing politicians like Governor Pat Quinn, who publicly stated that Rod Blagojevich - whom he served alongside - is an "honest" politician with "integrity." Enough is enough - we need a clean break.
Welcome to Patty Schuh: As the campaign gears up, Bill has brought on a new press secretary who's going to help get the word out. Patty Schuh, veteran Republican spokeswoman, joined the Brady team this week. Patty most recently served as the spokeswoman for Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno and the Republican Caucus. A former newspaper and radio reporter, Patty has worked for the Senate GOP since 1985 and been its top spokesman since 1995. She was spokeswoman for Senate President James "Pate" Philip and Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson in her years in the State Capitol. Patty is a Chicago native and mass communications graduate of Illinois State University.
More Tough Economic News: The respected Moody's bond rating firm downgraded the state's rating, citing a lack of leadership. Bill spoke out, saying, "This is yet another independent voice proving the failed economic policies of Governor Quinn has driven our state into the ground. The decision by Moody's to further downgrade our credit now gives Illinois the dubious distinction of having the same rating as California. While the Governor continues to blame others for his failures, Moody's cited a 'chronic failure of political will' for this downgrade. That's why we need a clean break in Illinois."
P.S.: Remember to follow our campaign on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Have a great weekend, and congratulations to the Blackhawks!
Friend
Bill's Lead Grows: A new independent poll released by Rasmussen Reports shows Bill's lead over Governor Quinn is growing. The poll shows Brady leading 47 to 36 percent, a four-point boost over the same poll taken in April, which showed Brady over Quinn 45 to 38. "I am heartened by the outpouring of support for our growing campaign to clean up government and to make a clean break from politics as usual in Illinois," Bill said.
Had Enough: The beginning of disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich's criminal trial is a stark reminder to voters that too many Illinois politicians have long placed the special interests before the people's interests. But we can't change Illinois by electing politicians like Governor Pat Quinn, who publicly stated that Rod Blagojevich - whom he served alongside - is an "honest" politician with "integrity." Enough is enough - we need a clean break.
Welcome to Patty Schuh: As the campaign gears up, Bill has brought on a new press secretary who's going to help get the word out. Patty Schuh, veteran Republican spokeswoman, joined the Brady team this week. Patty most recently served as the spokeswoman for Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno and the Republican Caucus. A former newspaper and radio reporter, Patty has worked for the Senate GOP since 1985 and been its top spokesman since 1995. She was spokeswoman for Senate President James "Pate" Philip and Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson in her years in the State Capitol. Patty is a Chicago native and mass communications graduate of Illinois State University.
More Tough Economic News: The respected Moody's bond rating firm downgraded the state's rating, citing a lack of leadership. Bill spoke out, saying, "This is yet another independent voice proving the failed economic policies of Governor Quinn has driven our state into the ground. The decision by Moody's to further downgrade our credit now gives Illinois the dubious distinction of having the same rating as California. While the Governor continues to blame others for his failures, Moody's cited a 'chronic failure of political will' for this downgrade. That's why we need a clean break in Illinois."
P.S.: Remember to follow our campaign on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Have a great weekend, and congratulations to the Blackhawks!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Rasmussen 2010 Illinois Senate - June 7, 2010
Illinois Survey of 500 Likely Voters
Conducted June 7, 2010
By Rasmussen Reports
1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?
39% Strongly approve
17% Somewhat approve
7% Somewhat disapprove
37% Strongly disapprove
0% Not sure
2* How would you rate the job Pat Quinn has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?
8% Strongly approve
34% Somewhat approve
23% Somewhat disapprove
34% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure
3* 2010 Illinois Senate Race
June 7, 2010
April 28, 2010
April 5, 2010
Mar 8, 2010
Feb 3, 2010
Mark Kirk (R)
42%
46%
41%
41%
46%
Alexi Giannoulias (D)
39%
38%
37%
44%
40%
Some Other Candidate
7%
5%
8%
5%
4%
Not sure
12%
12%
13%
10%
10%
4* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.
Candidate for the IL Senate Race
Very Favorable
Somewhat Favorable
Somewhat Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
Not sure
Kirk
13%
35%
24%
15%
13%
Giannoulias
9%
30%
23%
23%
15%
5* A proposal has been made to repeal the health care bill and stop it from going into effect. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a proposal to repeal the health care bill?
42% Strongly favor
12% Somewhat favor
6% Somewhat oppose
36% Strongly oppose
4% Not sure
6* How closely have you followed news reports about Mark Kirk and his military service?
27% Very closely
35% Somewhat closely
18% Not very closely
16% Not at all
3% Not sure
7* In terms of how you will vote this November, how important are Mark Kirk’s misstatements about his military record?
27% Very important
36% Somewhat important
21% Not very important
11% Not at all important
4% Not sure
8* Which is a bigger problem in Illinois today—that voters are unwilling to pay enough in taxes or that the politicians are unwilling to control government spending?
19% Voters are unwilling to pay enough in taxes
71% Politicians are unwilling to control government spending
10% Not sure
9* Is this year’s Senate campaign in Illinois more positive than most, more negative than most, or about the same as most recent elections?
7% More positive
18% More negative
68% About the same
7% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Conducted June 7, 2010
By Rasmussen Reports
1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?
39% Strongly approve
17% Somewhat approve
7% Somewhat disapprove
37% Strongly disapprove
0% Not sure
2* How would you rate the job Pat Quinn has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?
8% Strongly approve
34% Somewhat approve
23% Somewhat disapprove
34% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure
3* 2010 Illinois Senate Race
June 7, 2010
April 28, 2010
April 5, 2010
Mar 8, 2010
Feb 3, 2010
Mark Kirk (R)
42%
46%
41%
41%
46%
Alexi Giannoulias (D)
39%
38%
37%
44%
40%
Some Other Candidate
7%
5%
8%
5%
4%
Not sure
12%
12%
13%
10%
10%
4* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.
Candidate for the IL Senate Race
Very Favorable
Somewhat Favorable
Somewhat Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
Not sure
Kirk
13%
35%
24%
15%
13%
Giannoulias
9%
30%
23%
23%
15%
5* A proposal has been made to repeal the health care bill and stop it from going into effect. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a proposal to repeal the health care bill?
42% Strongly favor
12% Somewhat favor
6% Somewhat oppose
36% Strongly oppose
4% Not sure
6* How closely have you followed news reports about Mark Kirk and his military service?
27% Very closely
35% Somewhat closely
18% Not very closely
16% Not at all
3% Not sure
7* In terms of how you will vote this November, how important are Mark Kirk’s misstatements about his military record?
27% Very important
36% Somewhat important
21% Not very important
11% Not at all important
4% Not sure
8* Which is a bigger problem in Illinois today—that voters are unwilling to pay enough in taxes or that the politicians are unwilling to control government spending?
19% Voters are unwilling to pay enough in taxes
71% Politicians are unwilling to control government spending
10% Not sure
9* Is this year’s Senate campaign in Illinois more positive than most, more negative than most, or about the same as most recent elections?
7% More positive
18% More negative
68% About the same
7% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Pearson Report June 8, 2010 ISRA
We've known this all along...
Sorry about being a little late getting this issue of the "Pearson Report" out to you. With the spring session of the General Assembly coming to a close, things got a little hectic in my corner of the world. But, there is a silver lining to this cloud. Since I last wrote to you, a whole lot of things happened in the gun rights arena that certainly deserve discussion.
But, before I get to a discussion of current events, I'd like to thank all of you who came out to the ISRA Legal Assistance Committee banquet back on the 28th. We all had a wonderful time and a bunch of lucky people walked away with some great guns and other prizes. Thanks again for making this event such a great success!
As many of you know, the U.S. Supreme Court is only weeks, or even days away from rendering their decision in the McDonald v. Chicago lawsuit. As luck would have it, no fewer than three incidents occurred in the past couple of weeks where every day Chicago citizens used illegal handguns to put a stop to criminal activity on their property.
The first of these three incidents began tragically with the cold blooded murder of an off duty Chicago police officer by a gang of thugs right in front of his father's house. In response to the attack, the victim's father drew his own handgun and fired on the thugs - killing one. It doesn't take much of a stretch to say that the father's actions probably saved the lives of good guys.
The second, and very well publicized event, pitted an 80 year-old Korean War veteran against a gun-toting thug who was breaking into his house. The home owner used an illegal handgun to dispatch the career criminal as he came through a window. Again, the quick thinking of the armed citizen saved the lives of innocent people - namely the homeowner's wife and their great grandson.
Just days later, a criminal fleeing from the police dove through a window of a home in Chicago, only to be met on the other side by a citizen armed with an illegal handgun. You all know what happened next.
Each of these three stories illustrates well something we have known all along - the armed citizen is the best defense against criminal mayhem. Apparently, that same sentiment is fairly strong within the city as well. In a copyrighted story appearing in the the June 6 edition of the "Chicago Tribune," reporter Duaa Eldeib cites an independent estimate that as many as 100,000 otherwise law-abiding homes have handguns in violation of the city ordinance. Evidently there is a whole slew of Chicago citizens who subscribe to the old adage that, "...it's better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six."
The public response to these three incidents of self defense has been pretty much one-sided. The case involving the Korean War vet generated world-wide interest with news here at home overwhelmingly positive. The image of an 80 year-old man successfully defending his family from a thug with a long history of violence is certainly a study in courage and heroism. Publicly attacking a hero for daring to own a handgun in violation of a city ordinance doesn't do much for one's credibility. Thus we haven't really heard a peep out of the gun control movement other than some vague references to a debunked study claiming that having a firearm in your home makes you 43 times more likely to be murdered.
The near silence on the part of the gun control movement shows only that they are smart enough to know that there was no way they could spin the story in their benefit. It would certainly be tough to argue that the vet and his family if he had been unarmed. We could have heard the tired anti gunner message that neither one should have had a gun - but is it really a good idea for an 80 year-old to go hand to hand with a 30 year old? No, we heard nothing from the gun-grabbers because they know nobody would listen to them. It's becoming abundantly clear that growing numbers of citizens have come to realize that the gun control movement's campaign is morally bankrupt - a sham.
Probably the most entertaining gun-related event in recent weeks was Mayor Daley's press conference calling for more gun control. As most of you know already, a reporter asked the mayor to comment on the seeming ineffectiveness of the city's gun ban. In response Daley threatened to insert the barrel of a prop gun into the reporter's rectum and fire a round.
All Freudian implications aside, the Mayor's outburst give us clearer insight into the Mayor's view on firearms and those who own them. It's evident that Daley sees firearms as tools of intimidation, domination and violence and, thus, firearm owners are violent people who seek to intimidate and dominate those around them. Well, at least that is what he would like the media to believe about firearm owners.
When it was all said and done, Daley's "up your butt" comment seriously backfired. From here on out, it will be difficult for anyone to take him seriously when he starts talking about guns - which is fine with me.
One last thing before I let you go. Please mark June 26th on your calendar and plan to attend the ISRA Range Open House! This will be our 8th Open House and we are doing everyhting we can to make it the best ever. As in the past, we'll have reps from all the major firearm manufacturers on hand so there'll be plenty of great guns for you to try out. So, make a date to come on out to the range on the 26th. The fun begins at 10 and things wind down at 4. For further information, please visit the ISRA web site at http://www.isra.org See you then!!
Sorry about being a little late getting this issue of the "Pearson Report" out to you. With the spring session of the General Assembly coming to a close, things got a little hectic in my corner of the world. But, there is a silver lining to this cloud. Since I last wrote to you, a whole lot of things happened in the gun rights arena that certainly deserve discussion.
But, before I get to a discussion of current events, I'd like to thank all of you who came out to the ISRA Legal Assistance Committee banquet back on the 28th. We all had a wonderful time and a bunch of lucky people walked away with some great guns and other prizes. Thanks again for making this event such a great success!
As many of you know, the U.S. Supreme Court is only weeks, or even days away from rendering their decision in the McDonald v. Chicago lawsuit. As luck would have it, no fewer than three incidents occurred in the past couple of weeks where every day Chicago citizens used illegal handguns to put a stop to criminal activity on their property.
The first of these three incidents began tragically with the cold blooded murder of an off duty Chicago police officer by a gang of thugs right in front of his father's house. In response to the attack, the victim's father drew his own handgun and fired on the thugs - killing one. It doesn't take much of a stretch to say that the father's actions probably saved the lives of good guys.
The second, and very well publicized event, pitted an 80 year-old Korean War veteran against a gun-toting thug who was breaking into his house. The home owner used an illegal handgun to dispatch the career criminal as he came through a window. Again, the quick thinking of the armed citizen saved the lives of innocent people - namely the homeowner's wife and their great grandson.
Just days later, a criminal fleeing from the police dove through a window of a home in Chicago, only to be met on the other side by a citizen armed with an illegal handgun. You all know what happened next.
Each of these three stories illustrates well something we have known all along - the armed citizen is the best defense against criminal mayhem. Apparently, that same sentiment is fairly strong within the city as well. In a copyrighted story appearing in the the June 6 edition of the "Chicago Tribune," reporter Duaa Eldeib cites an independent estimate that as many as 100,000 otherwise law-abiding homes have handguns in violation of the city ordinance. Evidently there is a whole slew of Chicago citizens who subscribe to the old adage that, "...it's better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six."
The public response to these three incidents of self defense has been pretty much one-sided. The case involving the Korean War vet generated world-wide interest with news here at home overwhelmingly positive. The image of an 80 year-old man successfully defending his family from a thug with a long history of violence is certainly a study in courage and heroism. Publicly attacking a hero for daring to own a handgun in violation of a city ordinance doesn't do much for one's credibility. Thus we haven't really heard a peep out of the gun control movement other than some vague references to a debunked study claiming that having a firearm in your home makes you 43 times more likely to be murdered.
The near silence on the part of the gun control movement shows only that they are smart enough to know that there was no way they could spin the story in their benefit. It would certainly be tough to argue that the vet and his family if he had been unarmed. We could have heard the tired anti gunner message that neither one should have had a gun - but is it really a good idea for an 80 year-old to go hand to hand with a 30 year old? No, we heard nothing from the gun-grabbers because they know nobody would listen to them. It's becoming abundantly clear that growing numbers of citizens have come to realize that the gun control movement's campaign is morally bankrupt - a sham.
Probably the most entertaining gun-related event in recent weeks was Mayor Daley's press conference calling for more gun control. As most of you know already, a reporter asked the mayor to comment on the seeming ineffectiveness of the city's gun ban. In response Daley threatened to insert the barrel of a prop gun into the reporter's rectum and fire a round.
All Freudian implications aside, the Mayor's outburst give us clearer insight into the Mayor's view on firearms and those who own them. It's evident that Daley sees firearms as tools of intimidation, domination and violence and, thus, firearm owners are violent people who seek to intimidate and dominate those around them. Well, at least that is what he would like the media to believe about firearm owners.
When it was all said and done, Daley's "up your butt" comment seriously backfired. From here on out, it will be difficult for anyone to take him seriously when he starts talking about guns - which is fine with me.
One last thing before I let you go. Please mark June 26th on your calendar and plan to attend the ISRA Range Open House! This will be our 8th Open House and we are doing everyhting we can to make it the best ever. As in the past, we'll have reps from all the major firearm manufacturers on hand so there'll be plenty of great guns for you to try out. So, make a date to come on out to the range on the 26th. The fun begins at 10 and things wind down at 4. For further information, please visit the ISRA web site at http://www.isra.org See you then!!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Military chiefs split with Mullen on gays
By Rowan Scarborough
The debate over gays in the military has driven an extraordinary public wedge between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and the four service chiefs who collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.
The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen's move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.
In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who opposes lifting the ban, said he has never seen such a significant public split between the chiefs and the chairman.
"The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president," said the former four-star officer, who directed the 1991 air war against Iraq. "He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons."
Asked whether he had ever witnessed such public disagreement with the four-star officers who run the military, Mr. Horner answered, "No, I have not."
On Thursday, Democrats in the House and on the Senate Armed Services Committee ignored the service chiefs and voted to repeal the gay ban, likely assuring a bill will reach Mr. Obama's desk this year.
The breach began in February. Adm. Mullen went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and endorsed repealing the military's ban, telling Congress it was forcing gay service members to live a lie. Some in the Pentagon were struck by Adm. Mullen's enthusiastic endorsement, although the Joint Chiefs chairman acknowledged he did not know how lifting the ban would affect combat readiness.
Then came the service chiefs' congressional testimony. They pointedly refused to endorse a repeal of the 1993 law that led to a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
The chiefs said they wanted to await the Dec. 1 study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said he had "serious concerns" about what a policy of open homosexuality would do to military readiness. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said he was flatly opposed to lifting the ban.
As repeal advocates worked to line up floor votes before the November elections, an even deeper split emerged. Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen had written to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, stating that they "believe in the strongest possible terms" that the impact study should be completed before any votes.
That position put them in line with the service chiefs. But then came the Gates-Mullen flip-flop.
Pressed by the White House, the two leaders endorsed legislation from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, to vote now, with a delayed start date for letting homosexuals serve openly.
To advocates of the ban, the so-called White House "compromise" was in fact an end run around the service chiefs' wishes, because once the ban is repealed, it reduces the importance of what the troops say in Mr. Gates' ongoing study.
"I am concerned that the men and women of our military will view this pre-emptive political action as a deep sign of disrespect and unwillingness to consider their views," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who led the fight to keep the ban.
The service chiefs revolted after Adm. Mullen and Mr. Gates abandoned their no-vote-now stance. Each sent a letter to Mr. McCain on the eve of Thursday's vote asking lawmakers to wait.
Gen. Casey said he thinks "repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward."
Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief, said, "I believe it is important, a matter of keeping the faith with those currently serving in the armed forces, that the secretary of defense-commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal."
Adm. Gary Roughead, the Navy chief, wrote: "My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters."
Democrats ignored those pleas and voted anyway. Their concern was that if they waited until the Gates study is complete, after the November elections, Republicans could pick up enough seats to block repeal in 2011.
Perhaps the biggest affront was the fact that the White House, Mr. Gates, Adm. Mullen and Democrats settled on a compromise without allowing the four service chiefs to see it or comment.
Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, endorsed the official compromise on May 24 in a letter to Rep. Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat, sponsor of the repeal legislation. Vote now on the amendment to repeal, Mr. Orszag said, and the military can later add policies to regulate it, based on the Gates review.
The next day, in a reflection of how the chiefs were shut out, Gen. Casey said he had not seen the compromise language.
Capt. John Kirby, Adm. Mullen's spokesman, told The Washington Times that the chairman told the chiefs on May 21 that there probably would be an amendment to repeal the ban.
Capt. Kirby said Adm. Mullen wanted to speak with the chiefs on May 24 about the exact language. "But it was not possible to do so, due to scheduling conflicts," Capt. Kirby said. "This meeting was held Tuesday the 25th."
The next day, the chiefs sent Mr. McCain their letters opposing the compromise.
"There was a clear expression of the chiefs, and Congress disregarded that because of a budget director," said Elaine Donnelly, whose Michigan-based Center for Military Readiness supports the ban. "The White House chef would have as much credibility on this issue."
Adm. Mullen said on "Fox News Sunday" that he and Mr. Gates will take a methodical approach in deciding exactly when and how the repeal takes effect.
"What I don't want to do is electrify the force at a time when they're going through two, in the time of two wars, the length of time that we've been at war," Adm. Mullen said. "And when we get to a point, we get through the review, we'll understand what it takes to implement it. … I, with the secretary of defense and the president, would certify that we're ready for implementation at the time that that really should take place."
Gen. Horner, a former fighter pilot, said he supports the ban because he fears military readiness will suffer if open homosexuals are allowed to serve, "particularly given the land forces, the way they have to live and operate."
Asked how an Air Force fighter wing will accept openly gay personnel, he said: "There's a lot less prejudice nowadays against people who are gay, but that does not necessarily mean that people want to live side by side with them."
The debate over gays in the military has driven an extraordinary public wedge between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and the four service chiefs who collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.
The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen's move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.
In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who opposes lifting the ban, said he has never seen such a significant public split between the chiefs and the chairman.
"The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president," said the former four-star officer, who directed the 1991 air war against Iraq. "He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons."
Asked whether he had ever witnessed such public disagreement with the four-star officers who run the military, Mr. Horner answered, "No, I have not."
On Thursday, Democrats in the House and on the Senate Armed Services Committee ignored the service chiefs and voted to repeal the gay ban, likely assuring a bill will reach Mr. Obama's desk this year.
The breach began in February. Adm. Mullen went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and endorsed repealing the military's ban, telling Congress it was forcing gay service members to live a lie. Some in the Pentagon were struck by Adm. Mullen's enthusiastic endorsement, although the Joint Chiefs chairman acknowledged he did not know how lifting the ban would affect combat readiness.
Then came the service chiefs' congressional testimony. They pointedly refused to endorse a repeal of the 1993 law that led to a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
The chiefs said they wanted to await the Dec. 1 study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said he had "serious concerns" about what a policy of open homosexuality would do to military readiness. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said he was flatly opposed to lifting the ban.
As repeal advocates worked to line up floor votes before the November elections, an even deeper split emerged. Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen had written to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, stating that they "believe in the strongest possible terms" that the impact study should be completed before any votes.
That position put them in line with the service chiefs. But then came the Gates-Mullen flip-flop.
Pressed by the White House, the two leaders endorsed legislation from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, to vote now, with a delayed start date for letting homosexuals serve openly.
To advocates of the ban, the so-called White House "compromise" was in fact an end run around the service chiefs' wishes, because once the ban is repealed, it reduces the importance of what the troops say in Mr. Gates' ongoing study.
"I am concerned that the men and women of our military will view this pre-emptive political action as a deep sign of disrespect and unwillingness to consider their views," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who led the fight to keep the ban.
The service chiefs revolted after Adm. Mullen and Mr. Gates abandoned their no-vote-now stance. Each sent a letter to Mr. McCain on the eve of Thursday's vote asking lawmakers to wait.
Gen. Casey said he thinks "repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward."
Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief, said, "I believe it is important, a matter of keeping the faith with those currently serving in the armed forces, that the secretary of defense-commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal."
Adm. Gary Roughead, the Navy chief, wrote: "My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters."
Democrats ignored those pleas and voted anyway. Their concern was that if they waited until the Gates study is complete, after the November elections, Republicans could pick up enough seats to block repeal in 2011.
Perhaps the biggest affront was the fact that the White House, Mr. Gates, Adm. Mullen and Democrats settled on a compromise without allowing the four service chiefs to see it or comment.
Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, endorsed the official compromise on May 24 in a letter to Rep. Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat, sponsor of the repeal legislation. Vote now on the amendment to repeal, Mr. Orszag said, and the military can later add policies to regulate it, based on the Gates review.
The next day, in a reflection of how the chiefs were shut out, Gen. Casey said he had not seen the compromise language.
Capt. John Kirby, Adm. Mullen's spokesman, told The Washington Times that the chairman told the chiefs on May 21 that there probably would be an amendment to repeal the ban.
Capt. Kirby said Adm. Mullen wanted to speak with the chiefs on May 24 about the exact language. "But it was not possible to do so, due to scheduling conflicts," Capt. Kirby said. "This meeting was held Tuesday the 25th."
The next day, the chiefs sent Mr. McCain their letters opposing the compromise.
"There was a clear expression of the chiefs, and Congress disregarded that because of a budget director," said Elaine Donnelly, whose Michigan-based Center for Military Readiness supports the ban. "The White House chef would have as much credibility on this issue."
Adm. Mullen said on "Fox News Sunday" that he and Mr. Gates will take a methodical approach in deciding exactly when and how the repeal takes effect.
"What I don't want to do is electrify the force at a time when they're going through two, in the time of two wars, the length of time that we've been at war," Adm. Mullen said. "And when we get to a point, we get through the review, we'll understand what it takes to implement it. … I, with the secretary of defense and the president, would certify that we're ready for implementation at the time that that really should take place."
Gen. Horner, a former fighter pilot, said he supports the ban because he fears military readiness will suffer if open homosexuals are allowed to serve, "particularly given the land forces, the way they have to live and operate."
Asked how an Air Force fighter wing will accept openly gay personnel, he said: "There's a lot less prejudice nowadays against people who are gay, but that does not necessarily mean that people want to live side by side with them."
Mark Kirk's Former Commanding Officer Speaks Out
Dear Friend:
Yesterday, Mark Kirk's Commanding Officer during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) released the following statement. Please share this with family and friends:
As a retired Navy Captain and Mark Kirk’s commanding officer during Operation Allied Force, there are two things that have deeply troubled me since I read the Washington Post’s story about Mark’s intelligence officer award.
First, the complete lack of a benefit of the doubt – the idea that someone could make an honest mistake has become so foreign that the immediate assumption has become – you misrepresented or worse you lied. In Mark’s case neither is factual.
And second, that an honest mistake related to the identification of a military award is the same as pretending to be in Vietnam when you were not. This also doesn’t apply to Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk served under my command in Aviano, Italy, during Operation Allied Force – the Kosovo campaign. For his exceptional service as the lead intelligence officer of a combat intelligence action team – the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation which he assembled – I nominated then Lieutenant Commander Kirk for a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award. He received both.
When I nominated Mark for the Rufus Taylor award I thought it was more specific to Mark and not his team. But the reality is, there would have been no team without Mark Kirk’s leadership and there certainly would have been no award. I can certainly understand why he would have referred to this award over the years as intelligence officer of the year – it’s how I viewed the award. And in actuality, the two awards in question are of equal stature and significance.
Mark Kirk is the finest intelligence officer I have ever served with – hands down. His wealth of knowledge during this conflict put him in a position to take charge of intelligence members from the four deployed squadrons and meld them into a combat intelligence action team.
Any suggestion that Mark Kirk did not earn or receive the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award is incorrect. I would further add, assertions I’ve seen that Mark Kirk embellished or exaggerated his record are ridiculous – he is one of the finest Naval Officers I have had the honor to work with. His intelligence, leadership skills, and keen understanding of global affairs are an asset that the Navy and, today, the Congress are fortunate to enjoy.
Captain Clay Fearnow
United States Navy (Retired)
Former Commanding Officer, VAQ-209
Yesterday, Mark Kirk's Commanding Officer during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) released the following statement. Please share this with family and friends:
As a retired Navy Captain and Mark Kirk’s commanding officer during Operation Allied Force, there are two things that have deeply troubled me since I read the Washington Post’s story about Mark’s intelligence officer award.
First, the complete lack of a benefit of the doubt – the idea that someone could make an honest mistake has become so foreign that the immediate assumption has become – you misrepresented or worse you lied. In Mark’s case neither is factual.
And second, that an honest mistake related to the identification of a military award is the same as pretending to be in Vietnam when you were not. This also doesn’t apply to Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk served under my command in Aviano, Italy, during Operation Allied Force – the Kosovo campaign. For his exceptional service as the lead intelligence officer of a combat intelligence action team – the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation which he assembled – I nominated then Lieutenant Commander Kirk for a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award. He received both.
When I nominated Mark for the Rufus Taylor award I thought it was more specific to Mark and not his team. But the reality is, there would have been no team without Mark Kirk’s leadership and there certainly would have been no award. I can certainly understand why he would have referred to this award over the years as intelligence officer of the year – it’s how I viewed the award. And in actuality, the two awards in question are of equal stature and significance.
Mark Kirk is the finest intelligence officer I have ever served with – hands down. His wealth of knowledge during this conflict put him in a position to take charge of intelligence members from the four deployed squadrons and meld them into a combat intelligence action team.
Any suggestion that Mark Kirk did not earn or receive the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award is incorrect. I would further add, assertions I’ve seen that Mark Kirk embellished or exaggerated his record are ridiculous – he is one of the finest Naval Officers I have had the honor to work with. His intelligence, leadership skills, and keen understanding of global affairs are an asset that the Navy and, today, the Congress are fortunate to enjoy.
Captain Clay Fearnow
United States Navy (Retired)
Former Commanding Officer, VAQ-209
Mark Kirk's military history: 3 views
Dennis Byrne
June 1, 2010
The views are from (1) those who believe the Illinois Republican candidate for US Senate.
Mark Kirk, has exaggerated his military record; (2) those who think that he is getting a bum rap, and (3) mine.
Here is a clarification from Kirk himself about the honors he has received from his military service.
Here is an article saying that embellishing his military record is not something new for Kirk
My view: As I've said before, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who now is running for senator, is a low-life for falsely said he served "in" the Vietnam War, when he should have said he served "during" the Vietnam War. People who misrepresent their service to the country are snakes.
Kirk comes close to the fudging that difference, but doesn't go as far as Blumenthal. Kirk's main misdeed appears to be claim to have won an individual award, when it actually went to a unit.
Kirk, however, has done one important thing that has received virtually no media attention: He has posted his fitness reports on line for all to see what kind of Naval officer he has been. Read them here. As a former Navy officer, I know that these evaluations can sometimes be brutally honest and destructive of an officer's career…
I read nothing like that in these reports. Among the glowing comments from his commanding officers:
•"Personally recognized by numerous flag, air wing and squadron commanders for providing the most comprehensive, concise Balkan intelligence picture in EUCOM theater."
•"Phenomenal performance as senior Navy Intel Officer deployed to Aviano [air base] Ital in support of Operation ALLIED FORCE. Would rank #1 of 20 if compared to all officers in this command."
•"Head and shoulders aove any other Intelligence Officer I have ever met."
•"Unmatched in knowlege of foreign capabilities."
•"A true team leader."
•"Definite command potential. A natural and charismatic leader. A superlative speaker and briefer. LCDR Kirk possesses the credentials and qualification to excel in any assignment. Confident and savvy."
•"Set the standard for tactical intelligence briefs..."
•"Promote to [commander] now!"
Imagine that, someone who's actually competent running for Congress. Uh, can we say the same about Kirk's Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Alexi Giannoulias--the guy said he knew about banking because he was a big shot in his family's banking business and then, after his bank failed, said that he was just a lower level employee. Talk about embellishing your service record. Maybe Giannoulias should release his fitness reports too. Oh, that's right, Giannoulias didn't volunteer for the military, like Kirk.
June 1, 2010
The views are from (1) those who believe the Illinois Republican candidate for US Senate.
Mark Kirk, has exaggerated his military record; (2) those who think that he is getting a bum rap, and (3) mine.
Here is a clarification from Kirk himself about the honors he has received from his military service.
Here is an article saying that embellishing his military record is not something new for Kirk
My view: As I've said before, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who now is running for senator, is a low-life for falsely said he served "in" the Vietnam War, when he should have said he served "during" the Vietnam War. People who misrepresent their service to the country are snakes.
Kirk comes close to the fudging that difference, but doesn't go as far as Blumenthal. Kirk's main misdeed appears to be claim to have won an individual award, when it actually went to a unit.
Kirk, however, has done one important thing that has received virtually no media attention: He has posted his fitness reports on line for all to see what kind of Naval officer he has been. Read them here. As a former Navy officer, I know that these evaluations can sometimes be brutally honest and destructive of an officer's career…
I read nothing like that in these reports. Among the glowing comments from his commanding officers:
•"Personally recognized by numerous flag, air wing and squadron commanders for providing the most comprehensive, concise Balkan intelligence picture in EUCOM theater."
•"Phenomenal performance as senior Navy Intel Officer deployed to Aviano [air base] Ital in support of Operation ALLIED FORCE. Would rank #1 of 20 if compared to all officers in this command."
•"Head and shoulders aove any other Intelligence Officer I have ever met."
•"Unmatched in knowlege of foreign capabilities."
•"A true team leader."
•"Definite command potential. A natural and charismatic leader. A superlative speaker and briefer. LCDR Kirk possesses the credentials and qualification to excel in any assignment. Confident and savvy."
•"Set the standard for tactical intelligence briefs..."
•"Promote to [commander] now!"
Imagine that, someone who's actually competent running for Congress. Uh, can we say the same about Kirk's Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Alexi Giannoulias--the guy said he knew about banking because he was a big shot in his family's banking business and then, after his bank failed, said that he was just a lower level employee. Talk about embellishing your service record. Maybe Giannoulias should release his fitness reports too. Oh, that's right, Giannoulias didn't volunteer for the military, like Kirk.
Morris: Obama doesn’t have a clue
By DIck Morris - 06/01/10 07:03 PM ET
Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.
America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.
The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.
All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.
Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.
And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.
And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.
America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.
Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.
Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president’s healthcare reforms.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue
Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.
America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.
The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.
All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.
Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.
And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.
And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.
America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.
Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.
Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president’s healthcare reforms.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
My Navy Service Official Record Speaks for Itself-Mark Kirk
from Mark Kirk, candidate for U.S. Senate
I was commissioned as an Ensign in the US Navy Reserve in 1989. I have now served 21 years. For the last 10 years, as a Member of Congress, I served without pay because I love the Navy, her duty, honor, country. In uniform, I served during conflicts with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Bosnia. I am proud of my service – it is the honor of my life to work with Americans who keep America safe.
Last week, I found that I misidentified a military award and corrected my biography. According to the Washington Post, their reporter worked with Alexi Giannoulias' campaign to write a story that turned out to be imprecise about the title of an award included in that biography.
The error was discovered last week by my staff. Going through my Fitness Reports for 1999/2000, we recognized that referring to an award as “Intelligence Officer of the Year” was not precise – so we corrected my biography with the official name of a very distinguished award that I am honored to have received.
My corrected biography accurately shows I received the United States Navy Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award – as the leader of an ad-hoc intelligence effort supporting four EA-6B Prowler electronic attack squadrons as part of Operation Allied Force – instead of Intelligence Officer of the Year. I accepted the Taylor Intelligence Award (named after the head of navy intelligence in World War II) as the leader of an intelligence section that I assembled and led. There is no hierarchy between these awards as the Taylor Intelligence Award is equally distinguished.
I knew Alexi Giannoulias would focus on a negative campaign – in fact, he and his consultants announced that in the New York Times. I corrected the record, but I will not let my 21 years of service in uniform be denigrated by Alexi Giannoulias, a man who chose not to serve.
Frankly, I thought it took some nerve when he ran a television ad claiming credit for what amounted to tens of millions in investment losses from the college savings of thousands of working families under Illinois Bright Start – or to follow it up with a second ad looking for sympathy after so many of his decisions ran his bank into the ground, costing the FDIC $394 million. But coming after my 21-year Navy service record just might top those.
In November, Illinois voters have a choice – so let us look at my opponent’s record – here it is. Because of that record he has made a strategic decision to attack my military service record. I understand politics is a tough business – but this attack orchestrated by Alexi Giannoulias is a disgrace.
My official Navy records speak for themselves – read them here.
http://images.kirkforsenate.com/Kirk%20-%20Fitness%20Reports%20(2).pdf
Our state and nation face serious problems - and having a veteran's military record challenged by a politician who never served and was anointed by the media as a "mob banker" is absurd.
I look forward to the contest and laying out the choice. If Alexi wants to make this race about my military record, I'm happy to have the debate. Thank you for your continued support.
Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
Member of Congress
I was commissioned as an Ensign in the US Navy Reserve in 1989. I have now served 21 years. For the last 10 years, as a Member of Congress, I served without pay because I love the Navy, her duty, honor, country. In uniform, I served during conflicts with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Bosnia. I am proud of my service – it is the honor of my life to work with Americans who keep America safe.
Last week, I found that I misidentified a military award and corrected my biography. According to the Washington Post, their reporter worked with Alexi Giannoulias' campaign to write a story that turned out to be imprecise about the title of an award included in that biography.
The error was discovered last week by my staff. Going through my Fitness Reports for 1999/2000, we recognized that referring to an award as “Intelligence Officer of the Year” was not precise – so we corrected my biography with the official name of a very distinguished award that I am honored to have received.
My corrected biography accurately shows I received the United States Navy Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award – as the leader of an ad-hoc intelligence effort supporting four EA-6B Prowler electronic attack squadrons as part of Operation Allied Force – instead of Intelligence Officer of the Year. I accepted the Taylor Intelligence Award (named after the head of navy intelligence in World War II) as the leader of an intelligence section that I assembled and led. There is no hierarchy between these awards as the Taylor Intelligence Award is equally distinguished.
I knew Alexi Giannoulias would focus on a negative campaign – in fact, he and his consultants announced that in the New York Times. I corrected the record, but I will not let my 21 years of service in uniform be denigrated by Alexi Giannoulias, a man who chose not to serve.
Frankly, I thought it took some nerve when he ran a television ad claiming credit for what amounted to tens of millions in investment losses from the college savings of thousands of working families under Illinois Bright Start – or to follow it up with a second ad looking for sympathy after so many of his decisions ran his bank into the ground, costing the FDIC $394 million. But coming after my 21-year Navy service record just might top those.
In November, Illinois voters have a choice – so let us look at my opponent’s record – here it is. Because of that record he has made a strategic decision to attack my military service record. I understand politics is a tough business – but this attack orchestrated by Alexi Giannoulias is a disgrace.
My official Navy records speak for themselves – read them here.
http://images.kirkforsenate.com/Kirk%20-%20Fitness%20Reports%20(2).pdf
Our state and nation face serious problems - and having a veteran's military record challenged by a politician who never served and was anointed by the media as a "mob banker" is absurd.
I look forward to the contest and laying out the choice. If Alexi wants to make this race about my military record, I'm happy to have the debate. Thank you for your continued support.
Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
Member of Congress
Jim Edgar strikes again, (NYT quotes Jim Leahy)
Chicago News Cooperative
Advice From a Winning Republican Governor
By DIRK JOHNSON
Published: May 28, 2010
While this state has elected governors who did not eventually face indictment or go to prison, most college students were not yet born, or are too young to remember.
As political science students at the University of Illinois-Chicago took notes, the former governor Jim Edgar delivered some good news: political corruption is not as bad is it used to be. But he also had bad news: the state is headed down the tubes.
“Hopefully none of you is owed any money by the State of Illinois,” said Mr. Edgar, who led Illinois in the 1990s, “because you might not ever get it.”
There would be no sugar coating: “At some point, universities are going to close their doors,” he said. “Highways are going to fall apart. This is not academic.”
Now a distinguished fellow at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Mr. Edgar, 63, is seemingly a voice of a Republicanism from another era, touting the virtues of bipartisanship and middle-of-the-road solutions.
He has lately ruffled some feathers in his party by breaking with Bill Brady, the Republican nominee for governor, and calling for an income tax increase favored by Governor Patrick J. Quinn, the Democratic incumbent, to help close a budget deficit of $13 billion in the coming year.
Mr. Edgar cringes at Tea Party bombast and “Obama-is-a-socialist” denunciations. He does not listen to Rush Limbaugh. “People listen to this stuff over and over, and they think it’s all true,” he said. “And they get very angry.”
For his moderate views, Mr. Edgar draws plenty of scorn from the right wing of his party. He supports abortion rights and is an advocate of helping illegal immigrants gain legal status. Jim Leahy, who writes for the conservative Chicago Daily Observer, recently implored: “Please go away Mr. Edgar.”
But if the Republicans are going to capture the governor’s office, some political experts say, they might be smart to ask Mr. Edgar for advice. In contrast to recent state Republican candidates, Mr. Edgar appealed to moderates in Chicago and the suburbs and won plenty of their votes.
When he became governor in 1991, Mr. Edgar inherited a budget deficit of about $2 billion. He raised taxes, cut spending and ultimately left the state with a surplus. In primaries in 1990 and 1994, Mr. Edgar faced challenges from conservatives. When he left office in 1999, he enjoyed approval ratings of some 60 percent. Since his retirement from politics, national party officials have urged him to run for office, especially the United States Senate, on more than one occasion.
For those Republicans who insist on running hard to the right in Illinois, Mr. Edgar suggests they do the math: Without making significant inroads in the Chicago region, where perhaps 70 percent of the votes in the state will be cast, it is difficult to imagine a Republican winning statewide.
Paul M. Green, a political analyst at Roosevelt University, notes that Mr. Edgar is one of the moderates who have been derided by some conservatives as “Rinos” — Republicans in name only. Mr. Green has his own moniker for the critics. “I call them “Raws” — Republicans against winning,” he said. “They can call Jim Edgar whatever they want. But he also has to be called a winner.”
Illinois Republicans hold no statewide offices. Democratic winning margins in Chicago have grown larger as the Republican Party has grown more conservative. In the suburbs, meanwhile, Republicans have lost Congressional offices in traditional strongholds, like DuPage County, where Melissa Bean triumphed. Republicans even lost the far west suburban district long represented by J. Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, to a Democrat, Bill Foster.
Over a breakfast of croissants and tea at the Peninsula Hotel before addressing the students, Mr. Edgar lamented the party’s drift to the right. “Most people are somewhere in the center on things,” he said. “That’s where the votes are.”
He offered tepid support for Mr. Brady in the governor’s race. “I’ll vote for Brady,” he said, “unless something happens.”
He gave Mr. Quinn points for trying to do the right thing on taxes. “I used to think he was a phony,” Mr. Edgar said. “I don’t think so anymore. I think he’s sincere. I just don’t agree with him on everything.”
In the primary, Mr. Edgar supported State Senator Kirk Dillard, Republican of Hinsdale, his former chief of staff. He said he would not be active in the governor’s race, in part because his university job calls for him to maintain some distance from politics.
He said he does intend to make campaign stops for Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate candidate. He said he was obligated to the candidate, “Because I was the one who talked him into running.” He lauded Mr. Kirk as the sort of Republican moderate who could win in Illinois by drawing Democratic votes.
Mr. Edgar’s own willingness to cross party lines and get along with Democrats goes back to his early childhood in his hometown of Charleston. Mr. Edgar said he became involved in politics as a 6-year-old in 1952 during a mock election at school. In the contest between Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, he said he chose Eisenhower, the war hero. When he went home to tell his parents about his choice, he said there were some raised eyebrows. They were Democrats.
“From that day on,” he said, “I was known in the family as ‘The Republican.’ ”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 30, 2010, on page A21B of the National edition.
Advice From a Winning Republican Governor
By DIRK JOHNSON
Published: May 28, 2010
While this state has elected governors who did not eventually face indictment or go to prison, most college students were not yet born, or are too young to remember.
As political science students at the University of Illinois-Chicago took notes, the former governor Jim Edgar delivered some good news: political corruption is not as bad is it used to be. But he also had bad news: the state is headed down the tubes.
“Hopefully none of you is owed any money by the State of Illinois,” said Mr. Edgar, who led Illinois in the 1990s, “because you might not ever get it.”
There would be no sugar coating: “At some point, universities are going to close their doors,” he said. “Highways are going to fall apart. This is not academic.”
Now a distinguished fellow at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Mr. Edgar, 63, is seemingly a voice of a Republicanism from another era, touting the virtues of bipartisanship and middle-of-the-road solutions.
He has lately ruffled some feathers in his party by breaking with Bill Brady, the Republican nominee for governor, and calling for an income tax increase favored by Governor Patrick J. Quinn, the Democratic incumbent, to help close a budget deficit of $13 billion in the coming year.
Mr. Edgar cringes at Tea Party bombast and “Obama-is-a-socialist” denunciations. He does not listen to Rush Limbaugh. “People listen to this stuff over and over, and they think it’s all true,” he said. “And they get very angry.”
For his moderate views, Mr. Edgar draws plenty of scorn from the right wing of his party. He supports abortion rights and is an advocate of helping illegal immigrants gain legal status. Jim Leahy, who writes for the conservative Chicago Daily Observer, recently implored: “Please go away Mr. Edgar.”
But if the Republicans are going to capture the governor’s office, some political experts say, they might be smart to ask Mr. Edgar for advice. In contrast to recent state Republican candidates, Mr. Edgar appealed to moderates in Chicago and the suburbs and won plenty of their votes.
When he became governor in 1991, Mr. Edgar inherited a budget deficit of about $2 billion. He raised taxes, cut spending and ultimately left the state with a surplus. In primaries in 1990 and 1994, Mr. Edgar faced challenges from conservatives. When he left office in 1999, he enjoyed approval ratings of some 60 percent. Since his retirement from politics, national party officials have urged him to run for office, especially the United States Senate, on more than one occasion.
For those Republicans who insist on running hard to the right in Illinois, Mr. Edgar suggests they do the math: Without making significant inroads in the Chicago region, where perhaps 70 percent of the votes in the state will be cast, it is difficult to imagine a Republican winning statewide.
Paul M. Green, a political analyst at Roosevelt University, notes that Mr. Edgar is one of the moderates who have been derided by some conservatives as “Rinos” — Republicans in name only. Mr. Green has his own moniker for the critics. “I call them “Raws” — Republicans against winning,” he said. “They can call Jim Edgar whatever they want. But he also has to be called a winner.”
Illinois Republicans hold no statewide offices. Democratic winning margins in Chicago have grown larger as the Republican Party has grown more conservative. In the suburbs, meanwhile, Republicans have lost Congressional offices in traditional strongholds, like DuPage County, where Melissa Bean triumphed. Republicans even lost the far west suburban district long represented by J. Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, to a Democrat, Bill Foster.
Over a breakfast of croissants and tea at the Peninsula Hotel before addressing the students, Mr. Edgar lamented the party’s drift to the right. “Most people are somewhere in the center on things,” he said. “That’s where the votes are.”
He offered tepid support for Mr. Brady in the governor’s race. “I’ll vote for Brady,” he said, “unless something happens.”
He gave Mr. Quinn points for trying to do the right thing on taxes. “I used to think he was a phony,” Mr. Edgar said. “I don’t think so anymore. I think he’s sincere. I just don’t agree with him on everything.”
In the primary, Mr. Edgar supported State Senator Kirk Dillard, Republican of Hinsdale, his former chief of staff. He said he would not be active in the governor’s race, in part because his university job calls for him to maintain some distance from politics.
He said he does intend to make campaign stops for Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate candidate. He said he was obligated to the candidate, “Because I was the one who talked him into running.” He lauded Mr. Kirk as the sort of Republican moderate who could win in Illinois by drawing Democratic votes.
Mr. Edgar’s own willingness to cross party lines and get along with Democrats goes back to his early childhood in his hometown of Charleston. Mr. Edgar said he became involved in politics as a 6-year-old in 1952 during a mock election at school. In the contest between Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, he said he chose Eisenhower, the war hero. When he went home to tell his parents about his choice, he said there were some raised eyebrows. They were Democrats.
“From that day on,” he said, “I was known in the family as ‘The Republican.’ ”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 30, 2010, on page A21B of the National edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)