September 2008

A Very Clever Ruse

ArchPundit September 22, 2008 No Comments

Sorry it took me so long to post on this, but I was laughing too hard:

Blagojevich accused Obama of buying into a “very clever ruse by the McCain campaign” in making a phone call Wednesday to Illinois Senate President Emil Jones that sought an expedited vote on ethics legislation. Jones, who mentored Obama in the state Senate, agreed to call senators back to work Monday to deal with the governor’s rewrite of an ethics bill.

Many lawmakers said the governor’s changes would kill the bill, not strengthen it, and accused Jones of helping Blagojevich by delaying a vote. The governor said Obama’s involvement would only hurt his reform platform in the presidential race.

Blagojevich maintained that if the Senate joins the House in overriding his changes to the bill, then “sometime in October, in battleground states, you’ll be seeing TV ads that Republicans are putting up and the McCain campaign is putting up that will start accusing Sen. Obama of coming back to Illinois to help his old friends in the Illinois General Assembly.”

A complete divorce from reality is a sign of mental illness and would be sufficient cause to impeach the man. If there was any question, there no longer is.

In fact, loony is becoming standard terminology for people discussing the Governor:

Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, called Blagojevich’s comments “delusional” and “loony.” Her group opposed the governor’s changes and asked Obama to speak with Jones.

Personal PAC Response

ArchPundit September 22, 2008 No Comments

It appears there has been some misinformation concerning Personal PAC’s involvement in political campaigns and the 17^th House district race — in particular between Dan Biss and Beth Coulson.  I hope to answer any questions people may have about our mission and work.

Personal PAC is a state bi-partisan pro-choice political action committee.  Like all other political committees that are not aligned with partisan politics (nearly all public interest groups fall into this category including civil rights and environmental groups, labor unions, gun control advocates, anti-abortion groups, anti-LGBT groups, the NRA and business groups for example).  Personal PAC supports candidates of both political parties.  Like these other organizations, when there is a 100% leader running for re-election, we support that leader regardles of his or her opponent. And we do this for several very good reasons. When a pro-choice legislator like Beth Coulson, Jeff Schoenberg, Rosemary Mulligan or Lauren Beth Gash is lobbying a colleague to vote pro-choice who is hesitant to do so, Coulson, Mulligan, Schoenberg and Gash can look them straight in the eye and say, “I’m here to tell you that the pro-choice movement never abandons its friends and will be there for you 100%, regardless of who runs against you.  I know, they were there for me and were absolutely invaluable in my getting elected and re-elected.  You couldn’t ask for better supporters at election time.”

We must hold both Republicans and Democrats responsible for being pro-choice. Our opponents are bi-partisan in their support of ALL candidates who are anti-legal abortion.  Illinois Right-to-Life endorses anti-abortion Democrats and Republicans across the state.  There are not enough Democratic votes and there are not enough Republican votes to keep abortion legal in Illinois, but there are enough Democratic AND Republican votes taken together to make some progress.  No woman who has been raped and cannot get a legal abortion will much care if it was a Democrat or Republican who cast a vote in the Illinois General Assembly to send her into a back alley for an illegal abortion.

Personal PAC and Planned Parenthood of Illinois are not the only organizations supporting Beth Coulson. Many labor unions including AFSCME, SEIU and IEA are supporting Beth, as is the Brady Campaign, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and the National Association of Social Workers-Illinois.

Personal PAC’s work, including our voter identification calls, on behalf of candidates is open and documented through filings with the State Board of Elections.  Identification of who is placing the calls and paying for them is required by a new state law that became effective on July 1, 2006 in order to ensure that anonymous so-called “push polling” does not take place. If Personal PAC did not identify itself in our calls, we would have broken the law and that is something Personal PAC does not do. If anyone believes that someone is violating the law, they should file a complaint with the State Board of Elections and initiate an investigation. Personal PAC would be more than happy to assist with this investigation

Personal PAC’s calls on behalf of Beth Coulson have said the following:  “In the race for State Representative, Elizabeth Coulson, has been a pro-choice leader in the General Assembly for many years.”  This is the same script we have used for Beth in the past three elections and this is the first time anyone has misunderstood the intent.

I hope this makes clear Personal PAC’s mission and goals. Personal PAC’s most important focus for the next 6+ weeks is to turn at least 11 House and Senate seats currently held by anti-abortion State Senators and State Representatives into those held by 11 pro-choice leaders.  We need everyone’s help to accomplish this task so we can pass a bill in Illinois that says abortion will remain legal in the state, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says in the future.  There is a 1975 law on the books that states abortion becomes illegal in Illinois on the day Roe is modified or overturned. To keep abortion safe and legal in Illinois, we need your help.  Please join us. For more information about Personal PAC, visit our website at www.personalpac.org.

Terry Cosgrove, President & CEO

Personal PAC

Clarification, Apology, and The Big Picture—Updated for Clarity and some more discussion

ArchPundit September 19, 2008 No Comments

Too many things going on at once.  First, it is not Personal PAC behind any calls that are specifically saying Beth Coulson is the ONLY Pro-choice candidate and they aren’t asking questions in their calls according to Terry Cosgrove’s comments which weren’t appearing at first. Here they are:

Nice try.  To bad all of this is a sad fabrication to raise money and gain attention.  Apparently, there are those who are unaware  of a July 1 ’06 state law that says all calls must be identified by the organization or person paying for the calls.   Personal PAC follows the law and we are using the same script we have used for Beth Coulson over the past three election cycles: Beth Coulson is a pro-choice leader.  That’s it. We identify ourselves with the calls.  Not to worry though as Personal PAC has every intention of clarifying this matter with our donors, the media and the voters of the 17th district over the next 6 weeks.
Stay tuned.  Terry Cosgove, President & CEO, Personal PAC

Next

The message you claim we are using is a fabrication, not that the calls themselves are a fabrication.
Just to be perfectly clear, we are saying Beth Coulson is pro-choice leader.  The words only and Dan
Biss are never used anywhere in our script. Terry Cosgrove

First, assuming Terry’s is accurate here, my apologies for saying Personal PAC was behind the specific calls people are receiving.

There are two or three possibilities here, but one thing is clear from who I am talking to–there are calls identified as PRC Research or Precision Research who are not identifying themselves as anything other than the firm and who are saying Beth Coulson is the ONLY pro-choice candidate.  Precision Communications is and was used by Personal PAC, but it does general work on a lot of pro-choice campaigns so I jumped the gun.  I am sorry for that. I do know that calls before September 5th were received by many people and those calls are exactly as Terry Cosgrove describes them with an identification of Personal PAC and the message that Coulson is a pro-choice leader.   The calls that don’t identify any sponsor and say she is the ONLY pro-choice candidate started about September 6th. I have no idea if there was some overlap, but that’s the reports I’ve gotten from people in the District.  That would seem to indicate someone else is making those calls according to Terry Cosgrove’s post.  Coulson’s campaign has denied knowing about or making the calls so that leaves us with the question of who is paying for the newest batch that use a different script and don’t identify the calls as the law generally requires.  We should find out in October reports.

Some of the calls seem to be asking in the form of a question which is a push poll, albeit in a very mild form.

What does this mean?  It can mean several things–on top of calls that Personal PAC is doing, someone else is calling the district with this message and not identifying themselves–that could be Coulson’s campaign or another third party. It could mean Personal PAC’s phone contractor is doing a bad job–not terribly likely to me since it’s a fairly well established firm especially in the area of choice campaigns.  It could mean Cosgrove is lying–which I don’t think is true because he’s tough, but he’s not dishonest from everything I’ve heard about Terry Cosgrove.

All this said, I’m don’t find an endorsement a big deal–that’s doing business in Springfield. I do find spending money on a race between two strongly pro-choice candidates even when one is an incumbent an incredible waste of resources and often counterproductive to large issues of women and just health care in general.

This kind of effort is exactly what gave us Senator Joe Lieberman. I wasn’t a huge Lamont guy by any means and I never thought he was perfect, but a key to Lieberman’s victory was the pro-choice interest groups backing him solely.  And what do we have now? Joe Lieberman campaigning and singing the praises of a very pro-life candidate for President.

Is Coulson going to back Brady if he is the nominee? Or Birkett? And does she give cover to right wingers? Yeah.  I get the endorsement as a political practicality, but taking dollars for a progressive cause to support a candidate over someone just as progressive is a waste and counterproductive if it keeps Republicans able to pretend having a party of moderation.

Is Personal PAC using Your Donation to Attack Progressive Pro-Choice Candidates?

ArchPundit September 18, 2008 No Comments

No, they are just using them to back fight for one pro-choice candidate over the other.  Good use of your money:

Nice try.  To bad all of this is a sad fabrication to raise money and gain attention.  Apparently, there are those who are unaware of a July 1 ’06 state law that says all calls must be identified by the organization or person paying for the calls.   Personal PAC follows the law and we are using the same script we have used for Beth Coulson over the past three election cycles: Beth Coulson is a pro-choice leader.  That’s it. We identify ourselves with the calls.  Not to worry though as Personal PAC has every intention of clarifying this matter with our donors, the media and the voters of the 17th district over the next 6 weeks.
Stay tuned.  Terry Cosgove, President & CEO, Personal PAC

Nice try.  To bad all of this is a sad fabrication to raise money and gain attention.  Apparently, there are those who are unaware of a July 1 '06 state law that says all calls must be identified by the organization or person paying for the calls.  Personal PAC follows the law and we are using the same script we have used for Beth Coulson over the past three election cycles: Beth Coulson is a pro-choice leader.  That's it. We identify ourselves with the calls.  Not to worry though as Personal PAC has every intention of clarifying this matter with our donors, the media and the voters of the 17th district over the next 6 weeks. Stay tuned.  Terry Cosgove, President & CEO, Personal PAC

So my apologies for misidentifying the source of these calls, Personal PAC is just using donations to back pro-choice candidates over other pro-choice candidates. That should make everyone feel much better.

The fabrication bit is quite funny–because many people have received the calls from a firm identifying itself as Precision Research or PRC which is the same identification that Precision Communications has used in other pro-choice call programs in Illinois and elsewhere.  So if Cosgrove wants to blame me for this post–fair enough, but to claim the calls aren’t happening is bizarre.

I just got word that it is definitely not Personal PAC.  Leaving the choices to be… more in a few minutes.

Progress Illinois covers a push poll in the State House Race for District 17 which pits Daniel Biss against Beth Coulson. The call is claiming that Coulson is the only pro-choice candidate in the race which is a flat out lie. 

Last week, Democratic state representative candidate Daniel Biss‘ campaign began fielding calls from 17th District women reporting that they had received a “push poll” intended to mislead them about his position on reproductive choice.  According to Biss campaign manager Julie Sweet, the voice on the other end first asked the voters receiving the call if they were pro-choice.  If they answered yes, the caller would then ask if they knew that incumbent GOP Rep. Beth Coulson is the “only pro-choice candidate” in the race.  Sweet said the campaign initially received complaints from voters in Wilmette, but have since heard similar accounts from women in Northbrook and Skokie. The office reported receiving about two to three complaints per night, mostly from female voters over the age of 40.

After hearing about it I asked how the callers identified themselves and it seems to be some variant on PRC or Precision Research.  So we have a little bit of information to go on–a company that does work on pro-choice candidates and has either PRC or Precision in the name.  Let’s go to the D-2s.  Of course, any current work won’t be in there until right before the election, but let’s see who has done similar kind of work before with the name Precision…

We get a whole bunch of these:

Who is Precision Communications:

A phone banking consultant for candidates. The following is on their site.

Persuasion Calls
Our persuasion calls to undecideds re-identify support for the candidate or campaign and help win tight races.

That’s the nice name for Push Polling.

And who has Personal PAC endorsed?

Beth Coulson

Now, I’m all for protecting Pro-Choice candidates, but I fail to see how an organization can choose sides between two strong pro-choice candidates. If I were a donor to Personal PAC I’d be giving them a call wondering what the hell they are doing with my money attacking a progressive pro-choice candidate–and lying about his stance to boot.

Maybe I’m wrong–but I think Personal PAC needs to explain itself.

Organization of the SEC

ArchPundit September 18, 2008 No Comments

Why does John McCain think he can fire an SEC Commissioner?

The SEC consists of five presidentially-appointed Commissioners, with staggered five-year terms (see SEC Organization Chart; text version also available). One of them is designated by the President as Chairman of the Commission — the agency’s chief executive. By law, no more than three of the Commissioners may belong to the same political party, ensuring non-partisanship. The agency’s functional responsibilities are organized into four Divisions and 19 Offices, each of which is headquartered in Washington, DC. The Commission’s approximately 3,500 staff are located in Washington and in 11 Regional Offices throughout the country.

It is the responsibility of the Commission to:

• interpret federal securities laws;
• issue new rules and amend existing rules;
• oversee the inspection of securities firms, brokers, investment advisers, and ratings agencies;
• oversee private regulatory organizations in the securities, accounting, and auditing fields; and
• coordinate U.S. securities regulation with federal, state, and foreign authorities.

The Commission convenes regularly at meetings that are open to the public and the news media unless the discussion pertains to confidential subjects, such as whether to begin an enforcement investigation.

I’m tempted to believe that having this many gaffes is a strategy to keep changing the subject from previous gaffes.

I’m Not Buying It

ArchPundit September 18, 2008 No Comments

Jones credits Obama:

SPRINGFIELD—A day after getting a phone call from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Senate President Emil Jones decided Thursday to summon senators back to the Capitol next week to tackle a high-profile ethics bill.

“I plan to call the Senate back into session to deal with the issue of ethics only at the request of my friend, Barack Obama,” said Jones, whom Obama has called his political godfather.

Jones had been criticized for saying he wouldn’t quickly call the Senate back to Springfield to consider Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to legislation to ban contributors who have or seek contracts worth at least $50,000 from giving to statewide officials who dole out the business.

I think Jones was facing a member revolt.

Wingnuttia Squared

ArchPundit September 18, 2008 No Comments

John McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann:

In this week’s interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America‘s adversaries. It’s called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world’s worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.

I did not know that a meeting the head of a NATO country with 750 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO contingent was at all like meeting an adversary of the United States.

These people are completely nuts.

I’m Surprised

ArchPundit September 18, 2008 No Comments

Eaton

After sharing a lively discussion with four other area bloggers before a crowd of 200 plus at the request of WTTW host Phil Ponce, in concluding thoughts your IR Editor proposed the five of us panelists — CapitolFax’s Rich Miller, DailyKos’ Georgia Logothetis, RealClearPolitic’s Blake Dvorak, Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn and I — should consider collaborating our radically different perspectives online. Such an effort would put Illinois out in front nationally in the new media

This breaking news just in…Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!

ArchPundit September 18, 2008 No Comments

Seriously, this is weird regardless of any interpretation I can put on it:

When asked about Spain and Zapatero, by a Spanish reporter for a Spanish newspaper, McCain responded about Mexico and Latin America. A reader suggested something that Josh had already considered, that perhaps McCain thought the reporter was talking about the Zapatistas in Mexico, the guerilla group. But that’s not possible as the reporter clearly said she was talking about Spain and Spain’s leader, Zapatero. She told McCain this twice. Let me tell you exactly what she asked McCain (per the translation):

“Senator, finally, let’s talk about Spain. If you’re elected president, would you invite President Zapatero to meet with you in the White House?”

McCain then gives this odd answer about America’s friends and America’s enemies. He also, oddly, talks about Mexico (why Mexico? The question was about Spain) and how he’d invite friendly leaders to the White House. She then asks him again, would that invitation include President Zapatero? He says again that he’d have to review relations first, blah blah. She then says again, “so you’d have to wait to see, so would you meet with him in the White House?” He again repeats his weird statement about friends and enemies. McCain also throws in, oddly, to the Spanish reporter, when she’s asking him about meeting the Spanish president, a line about the importance of our relationship with Latin America (this is now the second time he answered a question about meeting the president of Spain with an answer about Latin America). She then says to McCain one last time:

“Okay, but I’m talking about Europe – the president of Spain, would you meet with him?”

This time, there was no room for confusion. McCain then gives this very bizarre answer:

“I will meet with any leader who has the same principles and philosophy as us in terms of human rights, democracy, and freedom and I will stand up to those who do not.”

What does concern about human rights, democracy and freedom have to do with a prerequisite for meeting the president of Spain? Especially when you told the same paper 5 months ago that you’d be happy to meet with him.

McCain had no idea what was going on in the interview. She specifically told him, twice, that she was talking about Spain and the Spanish president. She’s a Spanish reporter with one of the largest, if not the largest, newspaper in Spain, El Pais. I know this paper, McCain certainly knows this paper (and it’s not like McCain’s staff didn’t tell him who he had the exclusive interview with for ten minutes). She made it clear she was asking about her own country and her own president and Mccain had no clue what she was talking about.

I don’t think he’s crazy enough to not want to meet with the leader of a NATO ally  or to claim the NATO ally doesn’t believe in democracy and human rights and yet he’s talking to the one of the largest papers in Spain so there should not be any confusion about Zapatero.  In fact, the reporter tries to clarify the issue.  And he said he’d be happy to meet with Zapatero in another interview with El Pais.

Maybe Chevy Chase isn’t breaking news to him?

As Someone Fascinated by Bureaucratic Responsiveness

ArchPundit September 17, 2008 No Comments

Atrios nails the economic issue we are dealing with:

The real issue is that you need a sensible regulatory framework to prevent financial crises from happening in the first place and criteria and practices for dealing with them when they do, along with a sensible and consistent broad social safety net for individuals and families for when crises happen to them.

It might have been the right thing to run down to the river with buckets to collect water to throw on the burning building, but it would have been much better to have better fire codes and a functioning fire department.

TPM has a good post up as well

One metaphor the Democrats don’t use, that I think of over and over when I hear Obama speak about the need for regulation: the markets operate like team sports — like say, a football game. Team sports don’t operate well without referees, and that’s exactly what’s happened under the Republicans.

They can blame Clinton all they want — the fact is, the Republicans under leadership of such brain trusts as Phil Gramm have methodically removed the referees from the games, and look what’s happened. One of the primary reasons investors shy away from putting money into third world countries is an ABSENCE OF REGULATION.

We’ve been watching the results of Phil Gramm’s policy since the Enron energy market manipulation and collapse at the  beginning of this administration.  Now we’ve moved on to oil speculation instead of electricity speculation and risky home loans that are now hitting the ARM point.

Everyone works within the rules, but they’ll game the system within the rules at a minimum.