January 2008

Rezko and Obama Drudging

Over at Hillaryis44.com.
They’ve been passing on stuff pretty much word for word from the Hillary oppo shop and continue with the Rezko story, but not getting any of it right. You’d think if you are supporting a candidate who was in business with James MacDougal, you might think twice about starting this kind of attack, but hey.

Obama worked for a politically connected law firm in Chicago.

No, not really. He worked for Miner, Barnhill & Galland which concentrates on civil rights law and employment discrimination law. They certainly have political connections, but not the type of firm that typically does big political work like Mayer or Thompson’s shop.

Obama, while at the law firm (and later) helped pump tens of millions of dollars – government dollars – to his friend and benefactor Rezko via Rezko’s company Rezmar.

He worked six hours on the project according to the Sun-Times. That’s hardly a significant effort in a law firm. Also, see below, the non-profits were clients of Davis and that’s how the connection was made (she ahem, he (sorry) was a name partner then)

The tens of millions of dollars in government subsidies were for housing projects Rezko (via Rezmar) was involved in. Neither Rezko, nor his partners in the housing venture had any prior experience to in the housing field – but Rezko/Rezmar still got tens of millions in government money.

Flat out lie:

Around that time, Rezmar began developing low-income apartments in partnerships with the Chicago Urban League and two other not-for-profit community groups, both founded and run by Bishop Arthur Brazier, pastor of the Apostolic Church of God and a powerful ally of the mayor — the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., known as WPIC, and the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization.

All three community groups were clients of the Davis law firm. Davis himself was treasurer of WPIC when it went into business with Rezmar.

Why go into business with Rezmar? “We thought they were successful,” Davis said, noting that little development was taking place in Woodlawn.

At the time, Rezmar had been in business for six years and had become one of City Hall’s favored developers of low-income housing, managing 600 apartments in 15 buildings it rehabbed with government funding. Teaming now with community development groups, Rezmar rehabbed another 15 buildings, with 400 apartments, between 1995 and 1998. Each deal involved a mix of public and private financing — loans from the city or state, federal low-income-housing tax credits and bank loans.

More from Hillaryis44.

Some of the money in government subsidies went to buy tenements in Obama’s state senate district. Rezko treated the mostly African-American tenants with contempt. No heat, no hot water in at least one particulary cold winter. Rezko claimed he did not have money to provide the heat and hot water – but Rezko did have enough money to donate to Obama.

Which wasn’t known at the time and Rezko had seemingly been successful with housing before this.

As State Senator, Obama, in his official capacity, also helped pump tens of millions of more dollars to REZKO. [Obama denied doing “favors” for REZKO as a state senator but this video proves that too was an Obama lie HERE]

The only thing they can be referring to here is the a letter in support of a project in his district

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

Letters of support are pretty standard fare for most office holders so it’s hard to see how it’s a favor unless there was community opposition. There is no claim the community was against the development–and in fact, evidence there was widespread support for the effort.

More from Hillaryis44:

Obama, again with the help of Rezko donations and fundraising, was elected a U.S. Senator. Michelle and Obama, hoping to live in a house they deemed worthy of their new stature, wanted to buy a big house they could not afford. The house cost $1.65 $2.3 million. Obama made a deal with the doctor who owned the house. The seller agreed with Obama to sell the house separately from the house’s side yard. Obama purchased the parcel of land with the house at a discounted price. On the very same day, Rezko’s wife, bought the side yard at full price. Michelle and Obama got their $1.65 million house.

Lie.

In the past, the two lots had been sold as a single estate. But in 2005, the owners listed the two parcels for sale separately.

This is also wrong on another point–the house had two bids on it and Obama’s was the highest bid. The vacant land already had a bid close to asking price:

Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?

A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.

Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?

A:The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.

Q:Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller’s agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.

We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.

So, other than getting every major fact wrong, a great resource.

He is bright and he’s growing into the job in his first full term.

Apparently the Tribune thinks this is Dan Lipinski’s first term.

It is his second and he’s running for a third. He served the full term from 2005 to 2007 after his father installed him.

Before endorsing, it might be good to know the basic facts. Just a thought.

Barack Obama wins a lot of support around the country with a message that he will ease the shrill partisanship that has gripped Washington and work with those who disagree with him. Meanwhile, back home in the 3rd Congressional District, the best-financed opponent to Rep. Dan Lipinski argues that the problem with Lipinski is … he works too well with Republicans.

And Barack Obama is against telecom immunity and for a definite withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq. The same as Mark Pera.

The Trib brings up the bill Lipinski joined on to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations, but the thing is–it doesn’t do anything. Nothing except ask the President to think about maybe changing things. It’s bipartisanship without a point.

But more than that, the only thing Lipinski has been known for while being in Washington is the weird hobby horse of the right wing—pushing for ala carte pricing on cable.

Good Overview of Seals versus Footlik

Over at JTA

On the national level, the wonks watching this race are not giving Footlik much of a shot, as polls in October showed Seals winning big.

“He is personable, articulate, smart. He is the kind of guy, who when you sit in a room with him, you go, ‘Wow. He is thoughtful,’” Stu Rothenberg, who publishes the national newsletter The Rothenberg Report, told JTA. “He is Barak Obama without the Kenya connection.”

And in a sit down with JTA on Wednesday at his campaign headquarters in a strip mall in Deerfield, Seals lived up to that reputation.

Seals, whose father played pro-football for the Chicago Bears, spoke warmly about his childhood experience as a non-Jew attending a JCC camp. “Until then, I thought a dreidel was just a top,” he said.

Seals deftly threw out Jewish political keywords such as “tikun Olam.” And he said that Jews tend to get “short shrift” because they are so often viewed as a one-issue demographic, that issue being Israel.

Sounding like Obama, he said that he would not engage in any bashing of Footlik, though he was dismissive of his rival’s chances.

One resident of the district told JTA before the debate at Stevenson that he heard that Seals has refused to spend any money so far in his race against Footlik because he does not view him as a challenger.

Some Democrats are angry at Footlik for challenging Seals, according to a local party activist who wished to remain anonymous. The fear, according to the activist, is that in comparison to Footlik, Seals will look weak on Israel –- a potential problem down the road against Kirk, in a district where Jews could end up accounting for an estimated 30 percent of the votes cast.

Read the whole thing, but I don’t want to copy too much.

My read is that Jay is a great guy and a good candidate, but given Seals is well liked by Democrats in the District and most understand you need to run twice to win, most of the reasons for supporting Jay aren’t catching with people. Jay’s campaign would argue he’s stronger in a general, but I’m not sure that the greater burden of building up name recognition wouldn’t make it just as difficult. Last time, it was a seven point difference with virtually no national help for Dan.

I like Jay and would like to see him run for something another time, but I don’t see a compelling case as to why Seals shouldn’t get a second shot given how well he did without national support last time.

And if the national pundits could stop comparing Seals and Obama it would be nice. I think they can both stand on their own two feet, but the kind of articulate black man thing is getting a bit old and while I think Seals is a great candidate, he’s not Barack Obama.

He Knows How to Beat Seals?

Hysterical:

When asked about Daniel Seals and Jay Footlik, the two Democrats who will face off in the Feb. 5 primary to see who will run against him, Kirk said that he is not worried about a challenge from Seals.

“I won in the toughest year ever last year for Republicans and I
defeated Seals by a 7 percent margin,” he told me before he spoke to the Norpac crowd. “We know Dan Seals the best, and we know how to beat him.”

Actually, all signs show a worse cycle in 2008 with potentially Barack Obama on the ticket. So that’s some hubris that I hope he really believes. I think Seals or Footlik can take the guy especially if Obama is on the ticket.

But let me point out something else from Rich’s post about early voting:

[T]he previous high for first-day balloting during Early Voting in Chicago was 890 ballots cast before the Nov. 2006 election. The daily average for that election was 1,378 ballots during Early Voting.

Today, the first day of Early Voting for the 2008 General Primary, an unofficial total of 3,990 ballots were cast in the City of Chicago. Historically, the lowest counts of ballots have been the very first few days and on weekends.

That sound you heard was incumbents all over the city gulping very hard. Barack Obama’s candidacy may be a blessing to some, but his very powerful “change” message might prove fatal for a few entrenched incumbents who have thought for months that their reelections are in the bag.

That’s an energized Democratic base.  If Mark Kirk thinks last year was bad….

Oberweis on Iraq: A Whole Lot of Nothing

From the Daily Herald story on Lauzen and Oberweis Iraq policy:

The Oberweis campaign did not return phone calls seeking expanded comments on Iraq, but in a questionnaire completed for the Daily Herald, he expressed agreement with Gen. David Petraeus that troop withdrawal can begin now.

“I don’t want to see U.S. combat troops in Iraq any longer than they have to be,” Oberweis wrote.

What’s he gonna do when there’s no Bush to tell him what to think?

The Real Problem With Bob Johnson:

Errr…he’s a right wing hack:

Robert L. Johnson came to the Bush administration’s attention when it needed him most. The cause of the White House’s duress was an annoyingly munificent collection of millionaires, headed by Bill Gates Sr., who had banded together to oppose President Bush’s plan to abolish the estate tax. In newspaper ads and press conferences, they held forth on the obligation of the wealthy to give back to society. So effectively did they seize the moral high ground that even the most fervent opponents of the estate tax resigned themselves to it. “$(I$)t is looking increasingly doubtful,” reported The Wall Street Journal a week later, “that large estates will escape federal taxation altogether.”

Evidently this didn’t sit well with Johnson, the billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), whose family stood to gain millions if Bush succeeded. Johnson is not a man with a deep sense of social obligation. Not long ago, when an interviewer prodded him for his views on philanthropy, Johnson scoffed, “$(B$)eing a very wealthy person is not something that I wake up in the morning and say, ‘Gee, I got all this money. How do I give it away?'” There is, however, an important exception to this every-man-for-himself ethos: society’s duty to aid extremely wealthy African Americans. This social obligation Johnson takes very seriously.

So Johnson did what he often does when his interests are at stake: He played the race card. Johnson gathered a collection of black business leaders and demanded an end to the estate tax. Taking out newspaper ads of their own, Johnson’s group attacked the tax for draining wealth from the black community. Unlike “very wealthy white Americans” who supported the tax, he declared, “We as African Americans have come to our wealth on a different path, a different road than they have.” Gates and his friends, Johnson implied, were not really promoting the common good; they were trying to keep the black man down. All of a sudden, it was not so clear who held the moral high ground. Estate tax repeal had become a civil rights issue.

=======================

Fortunately for Johnson, and even more fortunately for his heirs, estate tax repeal subsequently passed into law. But Johnson’s campaign to abolish the estate tax was more than just a way to save a few million bucks. It was the beginning of a political partnership between the CEO of BET and the president of the United States, one that has now turned its attention to an even grander cause: the privatization of Social Security. On May 2, Bush appointed Johnson to his commission charged with transforming the popular program. Once again, Johnson has racialized a long-standing conservative crusade. We must turn Social Security into a system with individual investment accounts, he argues, because the existing program unfairly shortchanges blacks. Social Security overhaul is Bush’s most radical–and most politically perilous–aspiration. That the administration has entrusted Johnson with this task, despite his lack of expertise (and, indeed, his lack of any history of public interest in the issue), is a measure of the ideological reliability with which it now regards him. Johnson, according to one analyst, “is trying to position himself as Bush’s go-to guy in the African American community.” And it looks like he’s succeeding.

One issue that continues to baffle me is that while Obama uses poor language to say Social Security is in crisis-it’s not, it has issues at best, he has a clear plan that is quite progressive to deal with it–a plan that solves the problem beyond any reasonable estimation from the actuaries.

However, Clinton wants to turn over the decision to a pane of villagers in DC–people who think there is a crisis and wanted to buy into Bush’s privatization scheme.  There’s a clearly better answer here–and one more transparent and Hillary Clinton doesn’t have it.

SCAM on Rich’s Liability Given the Announcement the Governor May Run Again

God help us all:

Rich,

You are treading on thin ice:

To establish a right to recover for the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in Illinois, four elements must be proved:

(1) Extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant;

(2) Intent by the defendant to cause, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;

(3) Severe or extreme emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff, and

(4) An actual and proximate causation of emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.

To say that this is emotionally distressing would be an understatement!

– SCAM

Head Exploding

The Governor intends to run for reelection.

Potential candidates to beat him in the primary please start your netroots outreach now.

Lisa?

Dan?
Alexi?

Dick Devine? For the love of God man I hear you don’t really want to be Governor, but someone has to step up to the plate.

Vallas?

Anyone….please save us–and no I’m not talking to you Eisendrath.

The Amendatory Veto

Is coming under a lot of flak right now, and Eric Zorn makes the most complete argument about the issue:

What makes him think he can do that?

A: A passage in Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 allows a governor to make “specific recommendations for change” to any piece of legislation, then send it back to be OK’d. The informal name for this is an amendatory veto.

Q: Can the legislators reject such changes and pass a bill in its previous form?

A: They can. But they need a  three-fifths vote in both houses to do so. To accept the changes, however, they need only a majority vote.

Q: Do all U.S. governors hold such a mighty club?
A: No. Illinois is one of seven states where the governor has amendatory veto powers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Q: Whose idea was that?

A: “It was mine, I’m almost embarrassed to say,” said former  state Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, now a Northwestern University law professor. She was a delegate to the 1969-70 Constitutional Convention and wrote the proposal that advanced the amendatory veto.

Q: What was she thinking?

A: That it was an efficient way for the governor and part-time legislators to tweak bills as needed and speed them along. “A governor can use the power with discretion and in appropriate circumstances and not abuse it,” Netsch said, and then she laughed merrily.

Dawn Clark Netsch is smarter than she is giving herself credit for. This is a bad use of the power, but it is often small changes that are essential for good government that get caught in the amendatory vetoes.

Some of the best examples actually come out of the controversy over Obama’s present votes.  In one particular case, the juvenile justice bill passed under Edgar had nearly unanimous support in the Senate with the two exceptions being Barack Obama and Ricky Hendon. Close pals those two from what I here.

The point they were making was to point out that making it too easy to try an adolescent as an adult severely harmed an otherwise decent bill, but their colleagues were too afraid to vote against it.  So the Governor took the heat and everyone went along happy and a better bill was composed.

It worked just as Dawn Clark Netsch wanted and it still can.

I’m not one to say that better people can fix government in general, but when you have someone so craven and awful as the current Governor, we have a tool to deal with him. Impeachment.  Apparently no one has the balls to do it in Springfield and that’s a shame.  There is a cure to the problem, however.

Most of the Governors since 1970 have used the power responsibly since the 1972 court ruling and as such there’s no need to throw out that part of the Constitution.  There is good reason to throw out the Governor.