March 2008

Fun With Ferraro

Because she just cannot shut up:

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said today that she objected to the comparison Sen. Barack Obama drew between her and his former pastor in his speech on race relations Tuesday.

In the speech, Obama sought to place the inflammatory remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a broader context, in part by placing them on a continuum with Ferraro’s recent remark to the Daily Breeze that Obama is “lucky” to be black.

“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro said today. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.”

Ferraro, the only woman to ever run on a major party presidential ticket, sparked a controversy when she told the Breeze that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

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

Ferraro said she had “no clue” why Obama would include her in his speech, and said Obama’s association with Wright raises serious questions about his judgment.

“What this man is doing is he is spewing that stuff out to young people, and to younger people than Obama, and putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say `Goddamn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people,” she said. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”

Ferraro also said she could not understand why Obama had called out his own white grandmother for using racial stereotypes that had made him cringe.

“I could not believe that,” she said. “That’s my mother’s generation.”

I know, who could ever think women of that generation might just harbor a couple racist thoughts?  I mean my grandparents were terribly progressive when it came to race…. And my parents…</snark>

The thing is Ferraro leaves one of the biggest tells in her response:

 putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say `Goddamn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people,” she said. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”

One wonders where Wright said it was OK to beat up on white people since he’s long been an advocate of non-violence and even in the ‘hate’ filled sermon, there were no calls to violence.  But Ferraro heard that it was OK to beat up white people.

Fascinating.

The common theme is that somehow Wright was spewing racism. He wasn’t though and no one can point to a racist statement from the video clips. They are divisive in the notion that racism is worse than misogyny, but that’s not racist.

Pointing out the United States has a long history of racism, bigotry, and oppression of black people isn’t racism.   Saying God Damns America for its sins with racism isn’t racism.  Calling the United States of America the United States of the KKK is definitely divisive, but not racism.

He said some dumb things in his statements about AIDS, but that isn’t racism. It’s factually wrong.

No where does Wright suggest that whites are inferior to blacks or anything of the sort.  He says that whites have mistreated blacks in the United States.  That is true.  And most of his examples are true.

Even if someone makes a wrong statement when accusing someone of racism, that isn’t racism.  It might be stupid, it might be unethical, and it might be wrong, but it’s not racism.

And saying that it isn’t God Bless America, but God Damn America isn’t telling people it’s okay to say Goddamn America, it’s saying that the United States is a nation with sin on its hands and, in fact, the original sin of the United States has long been called racism and slavery.  The euphemism of the South was that it was a peculiar institution suggesting it was benign.  That is our original sin.

The problem with the clips of the sermon is that like many sermons, all the negative doesn’t tell us much about the whole meaning of the sermon.   With original sin also comes redemption and that is also what Wright preached for decades.

De Tocqueville wrote of the effects of slavery in the 19th Century:

The legislation of the Southern states with regard to slaves presents at the present day such unparalleled atrocities as suffice to show that the laws of humanity have been totally perverted, and to betray the desperate position of the community in which that legislation has been promulgated. The Americans of this portion of the Union have not, indeed, augmented the hardships of slavery; on the contrary, they have bettered the physical condition of the slaves. The only means by which the ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; the Americans of the South of the Union have discovered more intellectual securities for the duration of their power. They have employed their despotism and their violence against the human mind. In antiquity precautions were taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day measures are adopted to deprive him even of the desire for freedom. 

The ancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but placed no restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and they acted consistently with their established principle, since a natural termination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave might be set free and become the equal of his master. But the Americans of the South, who do not admit that the Negroes can ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them, under severe penalties, to be taught to read or write; and as they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes.

A French aristocrat from the 19th century would, in the same essay, predict the problem of freeing slaves in the American South to a degree current historians could only aspire to describe.

The practical effect of that system is what produces a very angry Jeremiah Wright who says God damns America for its sins towards our black citizens.  Anyone who honestly is Christian and thinks about this seriously should understand the context in which Wright speaks.  It’s not that America should be damned, but that without redemption, we are all damned.

Wright is not arguing for black superiority.  He is arguing for black equality and the redemption that comes with such equality.  It’s uncomfortable to hear, but it is not racism.  It is a clear-eyed look at an imperfect nation and its sins.

Rezko Primer Update

—Updated 3/19/08

Since Rezko has become an issue in the Presidential race, I am creating a sort of primer for the relationship between Obama and Rezko over the years. It will only touch on the issues with Rezko and his indictments as related to Obama as I don’t have nearly the time it would take to show Rezko’s involvement with Blagojevich and others.

I. Early Connections–Job Offer

II. Donations to Campaigns

III. Legal work on projects Rezko was involved

IV. Letters of Support for projects Rezko was involved

V. Intern-son of Rezko ally/Obama donor

VI. House Purchase

VII. Land Strip Purchase from Rezko

VIII. Landscaping and Property Maintenance Arrangement

IX: Lot History and Loose Ends

Chicago Tribune on the 3/14/08 Interview on Rezko:

Full Transcript

Audio

Kass

Story

Editorial

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko — including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama’s explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama’s bumper.

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

***

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we’ve been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 — shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama’s house purchase — that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him — and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday’s session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama’s critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn’t happened.

Obama said Friday that voters who don’t know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, “see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing … and who they can trust.” Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.

Obama tries to live by “high ethical standards,” he said. Although “that doesn’t excuse the mistake I made here.”

Obama should have had Friday’s discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn’t, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it’s like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information — too eager to “control the narrative.”

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

Chicago Sun-Times on the 3/14/08 Interview on Rezko:

Full Transcript

Audio

Story

Mark Brown

Mary Mitchell

Carol Marin

Lynn Sweet

The best synopsis of the Obama Rezko relationship was done by the Trib on January 23rd:

Both men declined to comment on their once-close friendship. Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko and has insisted that he never used his office to benefit Rezko.

Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko’s recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.

But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.

Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it “boneheaded” because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time. And Obama has given to charities $85,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions, including $40,035 last weekend following a published report suggesting that Rezko funneled a $10,000 donation to Obama through a business associate. Aides to Obama say the senator had no knowledge of any such scheme.

Rezko is tied to nearly every major politician in Illinois over the last couple decades going back to Jim Edgar under whom he received his first state contract. Rezko’s reputation as a slumlord largely got started after Obama was not practicing law full time and was largely dealt with by the City of Chicago and not state government entities.

It’s fair to say Obama used poor judgment in buying the strip of land from Rezko, but of the many ties to Rezko in Illinois, a two key things stand out:

  1. Obama did no favors such as providing money from a Member Initiative to Rezko
  2. Obama did not receive any personal benefits from Rezko

The dumbest thing about the relationship from Obama’s standpoint is that one of the most squeaky clean pols in Illinois didn’t think before buying a 10 foot strip of land for above assessed value from a guy about to be indicted. In Illinois that’s amazing, in the Presidential race, it’s the best personal record of any of the candidates.

Rezko Primer IX: Lot History and Loose Ends

While the major issues of the Obama Rezko relationship are dealt with in the first 8 posts, there are a number of allegations out there that are bizarre and need to be addressed simply to provide a simple repository for crap.

One of the more ludicrous claims from a MyDD diary that made several false claims:

It helps to have friends at City Hall. Among other positions, Michelle was appointed twice to sit on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks for two consecutive terms. Michelle maintained this board seat from 1998 to March 2005, although normally a member only serves one 4 year term.

Flush from the success of Barack’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the Obamas decided it was time to find a residence more fitting for their anticipated new status. Barack’s 1995 autobiography Dreams of My Father soared, and they knew Alan Keyes was no threat to their future success in the US Senate elections.

Sitting on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks board, Michelle knew of a permit, waiting for review and approval to sell, for a designated Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar owned by a doctor in Kenwood. The Commission is supported not only by donations and taxes but also by charges for permits.  It’s a pretty extensive process, and they want a complete history of the house and property when a permit is requested. Once the Board approves a permit, the application goes to the city planning or zoning commission if more than a simple sale is involved.

The doctor who owned the Kenwood home wanted more than the Obamas could afford. As Barack has stated in numerous press interviews, buying the home would be a stretch.  Barack contacted his patron Tony Rezko, despite knowing he was under investigation at the time, in order to see what could be done so the Obamas could afford their dream house.  Sub-division was likely the agreed-on solution. In order to divide the lot, which the doctor purchased as one entity, he would have to:

I replied why this was incorrect here:

There are several problems with this including that the properties were listed separately before they ever went on the market.

More than that, if one looks at the Recorder of Deeds records, one finds that the two lots were sold at the same time to the University of Chicago physician, but have two distinct property identifiers.  I’m not listing those here because it makes finding the property a little too easy given the concerns over a Presidential candidate and his family’s safety.  The lot in 2000 appears to have been sold for $414,00 and the house sold for  $1.65 million which is as the reports in the Sun-Times and Trib have reported given that the owners wanted to sell the house for what they paid for it.

It also means that the selling price of $414,000 in 2000 indicates that $625,000 for the vacant lot 5 years later in that neighborhood is pretty reasonable.

The two lots have been sold together going back to at least 1985, though they were separate lots.

The person pushing this story is making it up wholecloth and needs to STFU.

 

The very simple answer is that the home and the lot had been sold separately since the 1980s.

Additional Information:

 More from the story at MyDD

Sitting on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks board, Michelle knew of a permit, waiting for review and approval to sell, for a designated Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar owned by a doctor in Kenwood. The Commission is supported not only by donations and taxes but also by charges for permits.  It’s a pretty extensive process, and they want a complete history of the house and property when a permit is requested. Once the Board approves a permit, the application goes to the city planning or zoning commission if more than a simple sale is involved.

This isn’t true.  Landmarks does not approve sales at all.  They only approve changes to the property and have no control over the zoning or ownership. They would have some influence over what is built on the new lot, but they are not capable of blocking a sale of property that is listed as two separate lots.
From Landmarks FAQ 

Q.Q.   When is a building permit required and for what kind of work?When is a building permit required and for what kind of work?

A.A.   No additional City permits are required for Landmark buildings.  The Commission simply reviews permits as part of the normal building permit process. The Commission annually reviews more than 1,800 permits for Landmark properties, most of which are approved in one day. Routine maintenance work, such as painting and minor repairs, does not require a building permit. Under the City’s Rehabilitation Code, there is also a special historic preservation provision that allows for greater flexibility in applying the Building  Code to designated landmarks in order to preserve significant features of such buildings.  More information on getting a permit is available from the Landmarks Division.
Q.Q.   How does the Commission evaluate proposed changes to How does the Commission evaluate proposed changes to existing buildings or the design of new construction?xisting buildings or the design of new construction?

A.A.  The Commission has established criteria to evaluate permit applications for both renovations and new construction. These criteria and the Commission’s review procedures are published as part of the Rules and Regulations of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks (pages 27 through 33). The basis for the criteria is the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Commission also has adopted policies regarding many aspects of rehabilitation work, and these polices are detailed in Guidelines for Alterations to Historic Buildings and New Construction, available from the Landmarks Division.

Q.Q.   Does the Commission have jurisdiction over zoning?Does the Commission have jurisdiction over zoning?

A.A.   The Commission has no jurisdiction over zoning. The Commission can, however, recommend reductions in the depth of required setbacks in certain instances to ensure that the character of a Landmark District is maintained.

Q.Q.   How does landmark designation affect property values?How does landmark designation affect property values?  Will landmark designation affect property taxes?Will landmark designation affect property taxes?

Both of the above are frequently asked questions. As far as the value of property is concerned, the factors  affecting value are quite varied and depend on the individual property, its location, etc.; in the eyes of some buyers, landmark designation is regarded as an asset, and both real estate advertisements and real estate agents often tout this as a selling point. Studies on the effect of landmark designation on property values have generally shown that it does not have a negative impact on property values. As far as real estate taxes  are concerned, neither the valuation of property by the Cook County Assessor’s Office nor the tax rate is affected directly by landmark designation.

Also from comments:

The Landmarks Commission is not involved in property sales at all, only building permits. And it’s not supported by donations. It’s supported by taxes and permit fees in the sense that the money from taxes and permit fees goes into the city budget, and the Commission’s operating expenses get paid out of the city budget.

Other things that are BS: “Parking on the street in that type of neighborhood is prohibited by zoning and fire safety laws”. Neither zoning nor fire regulations (other than the obvious not parking by a fire hydrant) restrict street parking.

“Obama most likely either edited or personally wrote the legal documents for his sub-division and the fence.” I’ll bet money he didn’t write them, because he would leave it to his real estate lawyer – somebody who knows what he’s doing and does it all the time. A real estate lawyer would just assemble form documents and do it cheaper and quicker than Obama could.

The subdivision of the lot is no big deal. From the pictures it’s obviously a double lot. There would be no zoning or landmarks issue with dividing this.

Commenters also want to make a big deal out of Obama’s and Rezko’s purchases closing on the same day. Anyone who thinks this is significant is a fool or a shill. It would be extraordinary if they *didn’t* close both transactions on the same day, at the same closing. Nobody in their right mind does two closings instead of one. Nobody in their right mind would do a deal where half a property transfers one day and the other half transfers another day. As the seller, you want everything to be done and all the papers signed before anybody leaves the table, you don’t want to have to come back and you don’t want to create the opportunity for half the deal to fall through.

Just Angry Black Men Cannot Say It

Remember this from the ‘Values Voter Debate?’

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/X77R_prkCkg" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Lyrics:

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she isWhy should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sin and heal our land

The courts ruled prayer out of our schools
In June of ‘62
Told the children “you are your own God now
So you can make the rules”
O say can you see what that choice
Has cost us to this day
America, one nation under God, has gone astray

Why should God bless America?
Shes’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

In ‘73 the Courts said we
Could take the unborn lives
The choice is yours don’t worry now
It’s not a wrong, it’s your right

But just because they made it law
Does not change God’s command
The most that we can hope for is
God’s mercy on our land

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

(Reading from 2nd Chronicles 7:14) If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land

God have mercy on America forgive her sins and heal our land

What a Black Man Cannot Say

“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

    –Tony Campolo

Obama on Wright

Not terribly happy with this:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7piGy0u43c" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

In one sense, there is no getting past the language so doing it was his primary way of getting past it.

In a larger sense, it’s a great defeat for actually discussing race.  Of all people, David Gergen gave a fairly good rundown on this last night on CNN.

That said, if the standard is to hold people accountable for ministers, this situation is exactly reverse of where it should have started.  Wright is an important clergy member in Chicago and amongst black clergy nationally.  Not small potatoes, but he doesn’t run multi-million dollar enterprises and lobbying organizations.  John McCain’s recent endorsers in Parsley and Hagee do exactly that and are significant players in DC.

In the one case we have a pastor of a church the member attends, in the other we have two political allies who are actively campaigning for the candidate.  One has to wonder if all of the Catholics in St Louis will now have to address everything the HarshBishop says–because no one on either side of the political aisle would care to do that.

In the case of Wright we have a man who says some things that are provocative, a few that I’d say are wrong in terms of interpretation and policy, but largely statements that accurately reflect the history of the United States and racism and history of supporting thugs overseas.

In the other case, two ministers who want to kill Muslims as efficiently and as soon as possible.  Hagee wants a war with Iran because he thinks it will bring about the End Times.  Parsley wants something similar arguing that the United States was created to destroy Islam.

In one case, Pastor Wright helped lead ministries to feed the hungry in Chicago.  Hagee and Parsley do some of the same, but more importantly, Hagee worked to breed a red cow to bring about the End Times faster.  I shit you not.  Parsley competes with Doug Feith as the Stupidest Fucking Man on the Planet when he devised a plan to buy slaves in Sudan where Christians have been taken into slavery frequently.  This makes sense for the first 10 seconds until think that through and realize Parsley was creating a market for selling Christian slaves.

Pastor Wright has several ministries to serve the poor.  Hagee and Parsley preach the Prosperity Gospel that says no matter how poor you are,  you should send them money to become rich and be favored by God.

Wright, sometimes naively, works for peace.  He has gone on peace missions to Libya and works for international human rights.  Parsley and Hagee work and pray for war.

Wright’s language on damning America can only be seen in the context of the metaphorical original sin of white racism and slavery in America.  We are all born as depraved sinners and are only saved by God’s grace in Protestantism.  This nation was born of the original sin of white racism.  This nation is depraved and thus damned, but for God’s grace in the metaphor from which Wright speaks.

That sermon is about damnation, but also about redemption.

This was brought up nearly a year ago in talking about Wright’s message:

Black intellectuals have often insisted that white identity itself has been built on black oppression. Moss quoted James Baldwin to me, “If I’m not who you think I am then you’re not who you think you are.” When James Cone says “Jesus is a black man” or “racism is America’s original sin,” the very vehemence of white Christians’ negative reaction shows how alive these issues still are.

But the naming of sin is never the last word in black preaching. James Baldwin also wrote in a famous letter to his nephew that “you must accept [white people] and accept them with love. . . . They are, in effect, still trapped in a history which they do not understand. . . . We cannot be free until they are free.”

Moss summarized the history of the black church this way: “We have always worshiped with one foot in the soil of our present pain and another foot in our future hope” (The Gospel Remix). After our interview, he offhandedly mentioned Sojourner Truth. “She was a slave, she was raped multiple times, she could’ve said ‘God can’t use me.’ But she didn’t.” The black church doesn’t just talk about the Exodus, or even describe the black church’s own Exodus. It relives the Exodus, right there on Sunday morning.

The American black church has always been an institution of liberation whether that be earthly or heavenly release.  To attack a black preacher for damning America for its sins is to attack the black church in its entirety.  The beauty of the black church in America is that it also believes in redemption.

Today’s Tosser: Illinois Review Goes for Two

WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!

Because Bill Foster voted for a procedural vote that blocked the Senate FISA bill–as he said he would when he was campaigning.

The real question is why won’t the President sign a bill without retroactive immunity for telecoms. The House can pass that and the Senate can pass that.  The President has promised a veto.  His argument?  Telecoms won’t cooperate if they are subject to following the law.

Errrr….of course the law is that they have to cooperate with a legal warrant so if domestic wiretapping includes a warrant, that’s a completely silly argument.

The real question is why does Jim Oberweis and the Illinois Review gang want to gut the 4th Amendment.

Seals on the Red to Blue List

Reports of his demise from this list were greatly exaggerated.

DCCC named him to the first group of challengers in Red-To-Blue 

It’s a pretty impressive list and Dan is one of the top candidates on that list with Kay Barnes, Eric Massa, Christine Jennings, and Darcy Burner.

On the other hand, the NRCC announced:

In an update on its internal review of the accounting irregularities that were revealed in late January, the NRCC said the funneling dates back to 2004 and that the situation means its cash on hand in its most recent financial report is actually $740,000 less than it initially reported.

The NRCC also says Ward, who was the committee’s treasurer from 2003 to 2007, submitted “bogus audit reports” for all five years between 2002-2006. The last year the committee had a full audit was 2001.

Ward was fired as an NRCC consultant when the irregularities were discovered.

In a release, the NRCC said it was beginning to release some of the details of its review because it could do so without compromising a federal investigation into Ward.

Ward also served as Kirk’s treasurer.  If there was any theft in that case, Kirk is the victim obviously:

The NRCC announcement last week has caused several Republican House members who employed Ward to begin reviewing their campaign accounts.

According to an initial review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, at least 10 House members and several campaign committees listed Christopher J. Ward as the treasurer of their war chests.

One of the 10 is Rep. Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.), who said he has cut ties with Ward and has begun a review of his committee’s finances.

“We have a very small PAC,” said Walsh. “I’m not sure what we are going to do with it, we’ll probably close it out…but we want to make sure everything is done correctly.”

Walsh announced he will not seek reelection last month.

Pennsylvania GOP Reps. Charlie Dent and Phil English also cut Ward loose.

“Upon hearing the NRCC news, immediate steps were taken to remove Mr. Ward as the treasurer,” said Julie Wanzco, a spokeswoman for English. “There is no knowledge of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the leadership PAC.”

Ward is listed as treasurer for Rep. Mark Kirk’s (R-Ill.) campaign account but Kirk said another individual has served in the treasurer role for the last six months.

Ward likely had no access to the actual money in Kirk’s campaign, however, as he operated as Treasurer in terms of compliance.