October 2005

Familiar Ring to it

ArchPundit October 28, 2005 5 Comments

From the AP August 27, 2003, Wednesday, BC cycle

When asked, Fitzgerald would not comment on whether “Official A” was Ryan.

From the Chicago Daily Herald April 3, 2002, Wednesday All

But despite branding two of Ryan’s former top aides and his campaign committee as corrupt, Fitzgerald would not say if the investigation will eventually reach Ryan. The vast majority of the corruption uncovered so far happened under his watch when he was secretary of state from 1990 until 1998. The governor has not been accused by prosecutors of any wrongdoing in the past, and Tuesday’s indictments did not include him.

“I cannot answer that question,” Fitzgerald said when asked about any Ryan involvement. “We cannot discuss people not charged in the indictment.”

Sun Times June 20, 2002

Stewart would send bills to Stanley and Doyle for bogus legal work Stewart never performed. Stanley and Doyle would “pay” for the work, when in fact they were passing along bribes through Stewart to Udstuen.

Stanley also allegedly passed bribes to Udstuen through another person, dubbed “Individual A” in the indictment, in a similar scheme. Individual A was a close friend of Udstuen’s and a social acquaintance of Stanley’s.

Points from the Press Conference

ArchPundit October 28, 2005 1 Comment

Fitzgerald from Drum

“Mr. Libby’s story that he was at the end of a chain of phone calls was not true. It was false. He was at the beginning of a chain of phone calls” that disclosed Plame’s identity. He lied repeatedly about this under oath.

Question: Will there be any more charges. Fitzgerald: “Substantial bulk of the work is completed.” This is followed by an extended baseball analogy that amounts to: Why did Libby do what he did? We needed to find out.

Question: Any evidence that Dick Cheney encouraged Libby? Fitzgerald: There are no allegations against anyone else, so we have no comment about that. That’s standard practice.

Question: So who leaked Plame’s name to Robert Novak? Fitzgerald: Sorry, we’re not going to tell you. That’s just the way it goes. If we don’t bring charges, we don’t say anything.

Question: What about Karl Rove? Fitzgerald: “We either charge someone or we don’t talk about them.” Sorry.

Question: Was it worth it to put Judith Miller in jail for 85 days? Fitzgerald: We didn’t want a fight with the New York Times. But we showed our evidence to a judge, and the judge agreed. The appellate court agreed. Can’t charge someone with perjury regarding a conversation without finding out from the witnesses involved whether the alleged conversation actually took place. If you don’t talk to the eyewitnesses, that’s “reckless.” Miller and Cooper could have exonerated Libby, after all.

Question: Did Libby know that Plame was covert? Fitzgerald: He’s not saying whether Plame was covert. Only saying that her association with the CIA was classified. Not saying anything about whether Libby leaked the name of a covert agent.

Fritchey Introduces Chris Lauzen, CPA Bill

ArchPundit October 27, 2005 0 Comment

Actually, no he didn’t, but it would have affected Lauzen’s attempt to change his name to Chris Lauzen, CPA. This is still one of the most bizarre state politics stories I’ve heard.

It’s a pretty good idea, if not of earthshaking importance. It also limits the ability of stalking horse candidates who might go to the exreme to change their name.

The Zogby On-Line Poll

ArchPundit October 27, 2005 0 Comment

Before coming down with the ear infection, I’d gotten a lot of feedback on the Zogby poll I had posted.

First, it is an online poll and thus, it’s methodology is uncertain, but if one compares it to relatively recent, but traditional polls, the numbers were similar. What I’ve noticed in following the WSJ poll is that further out, it matches well with polling, but like most of Zogby’s stuff in the last two cycles, doesn’t effectively figure out who the likely voters are closer to the election so with a lot of caveats, I think it’s a reasonable poll to pay attention to, but not hold it up as perfect.

I mentioned that Steve Rauschenberger would take his results and crow about them and use them to fundraise and raise his profile–he did–I mean what candidate wouldn’t. There were some legitimate concerns about those names not released from that report–it was unclear to some whether the field was included or not and what it meant either way.

I can report the field was included and here are the results percentage points

Source: Zogby Interactive survey of 1099 likely voters statewide, conducted Sept. 16-21, 2005. MOE +/- 3.0

Governor
Rauschenberger (R) 41%
Blagojevich* (D) 40%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 42%
Brady (R) 38%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 42%
Martin (R) 34%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 42%
Gidwitz (R) 35%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 42%
Birkett (R) 39%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 38%
Baar Topinka (R) 38%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 44%
Overweis (R) 40%

Governor
Blagojevich* (D) 42%
McCracken (R) 34%

Governor
Edgar (R) 48%
Blagojevich* (D) 36%

of the serious contenders, everyone is pretty bunched together with interesting results being Topinka increases the undecideds, but still would face a tough race as of today. Oberweis makes Blagojevich look better than anyone else.

Gidwitz does one point better than gadfly Andy Martin. More importantly, Gidwitz is keeping political operatives well fed. Someone’s got to do it (actually they don’t, but what the hell).

I think other campaigns might dispute specific ordering of the serious candidates in the match-ups, but they are all within the margin of error anyway so while I take their points well, it’s just not that big of a deal. There is also the big matchup between the Republicans, but I don’t have those numbers.

Zogby’s in the field as it is right now for the next round and everyone’s included with the exception of Edgar who has been removed. There is a list of Republicans to choose from as well for the primary as well so I’d expect the results around the 1st.

It’s not just that half aren’t implemented

ArchPundit October 27, 2005 0 Comment

It’s the type of issues not implemented:

Lack of Documentation in contract files

Use of Contractor work in developing RFP specifications

For a start—more tomorrow, but this should send the Audit Committee into orbit. Lack of documentation? WTF? How hard is basic document control and procedural standard practice?

This reads like a dysfunctional city agency that doesn’t have the capacity or expertise to perform basic accounting practices. Except, wait, this is Central Management Services that is supposed to be leading the way the Administration Changes Business As Usual (TM). CMS is supposed to show the other agencies how it is done….

From my background, I’m waiting to hear that the files are annotated with my favorite accounting practice–post it notes on the inside cover!