Point Counter Point Weekly Addresses

It was the dueling talking points this weekend. The president took advantage of an excellent second quarter Gross Domestic Product report to tout his economic strategy. The GDP numbers came in at -1% growth for the months of May through June. That was better than the 1.5% contraction that was the consensus. The first quarter's numbers were also revised to show a contraction of 6.4% which was a half percent higher than the previous survey. Meanwhile, Senator John Thune took nearly four minutes to attack the Democrat's health care proposal as an overhaul that would have the government take over the industry.

The president took credit for this better than expected news by touting his economic recovery plan, his foreclosure prevention plan, and the bank bailout. He then immediately went back to the talking points the White House has been preaching since they took over. The president wants a future economy that doesn't rely on constant booms and busts. That will require an economy where the populus is educated so that innovation is encouraged. It also requires an economy where families can afford health care. This has been the White House mantra since before the admin was in the White House.

The president also acknowledged that next Friday's jobs numbers would not be pretty. He appears to be learning to manage expectations better. We all famously remember the President promising that unemployment would reach 8% without the stimulus and now of course it's approaching 10%. Now, the president acknowedges the challenges that Americans have in securing a job. In this address at least, he didn't make any unreasonable predictions about job growth.

The president laid out an economic utopia in which everything is green, everyone is educated, and everyone that wants one has a job. It remains to be seen if his big government policies will achieve it. Ronald Reagan also believed that the path to economic growth was to unleash innovation. Yet, Reagan cut taxes and decreased the size of government to get there. Obama believes that the path to growth and innovation is to increase the size of government.

The president said something very ironic. He said that our economy can't be based on people using their credit cards to run up debts they can't pay back. That's ironic since that's exactly what the president is doing now with the government's credit card, the treasury bond.

Meanwhile, John Thune of South Dakota delivered the Republican responose. He talked about health care reform. Thune quoted an unnamed Democratic Senator who characterized the current Democratic proposal for health care reform as the "mother of all unfunded liabilities". Both Medicare and Medicaid are funded at both the state and national levels. The Democrats health care plan would put tens of millions more in both the Medicare and Medicaid system and that will ultimately cost some government entity a lot of money. That's what Thune meant by unfunded liability. Thune said that the current health care reform proposals would cost his state, South Dakota, about $45 million yearly. Thune rattled of Republican talking points: the Democrat's plan will increase the size and scope of government, put the government in between the patient and doctor, and increase the deficit.

Thune said that the Republicans plan for reform would include tort reform, create competition in insurance, and provide for the same tax breaks to those that get their own health insurance as those that get it through their employer. That's an allusion to health savings accounts that would credit health insurance buyers a tax credit to buy their own insurance.

Analysis:

The June employment numbers lead directly to weaker consumer confidence and dropping presidential poll numbers. It remains to be seen if the latest GDP numbers will have a similar positive effect on all of those things. Of course, GDP numbers come out a week before July's employment numbers. Those will likely have a bigger political impact than the GDP numbers. That's because people feel employment a lot more than the feel the overall growth of the economy.

On health care, the Republicans have the winds at their sails. The Democrat's plan is getting less popular each and every day. Now, they will have a full month of townhall meetings and detailed analysis of the current plans. In my opinion, the talking points are effective because they're almost entirely correct. Now Republicans have an full month of old school grass roots politicking to get that message out.

Sanford and the Other Woman (UPDATE)

We've just witnessed a truly surreal press conference. Governor Mark Sanford just admitted that he travelled to Argentina to meet with his lover of about a year. He's resigned as Chairman of the GOP Governors Association. Of course, this revelation is flat on the heels of another revelation by Senator Ensign.

Going into the press conference, we were all perplexed and disappointed that the Governor left without leaving a clear chain of command. We were all further disappointed that he appeared to be misleading as to where he was. No one expected this.

There was speculation that this episode would end his chances to run for President. I think I can say that this is no longer the case. At this point, the Governor may or may not stay as Governor, and that appears to be slipping away.



The RNC has announced that Alabama Governor, Hayley Barbour, has taken over at the RGA.

President Obama, Jim Gibbons, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In the early part of February, President Obama chided all those companies that took bailout money and then proceeded with planned company trips to Las Vegas.

On Tuesday, Las Vegas boosters lashed back at comments by Obama and other politicians who say executives at companies taking taxpayer bailout money shouldn't hold meetings in Las Vegas.

They say harsh words citing Las Vegas meetings as examples of wasteful spending threaten to undermine a business sector that brought 22,000 events, $8.5 billion in spending and directly sustained more than 43,000 jobs in 2008.

This comment drew the ire of not only Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman but Nevada's Governor, Jim Gibbons. Since then several hundred conventions were cancelled and it's estimated that the cancellations have cost Las Vegas about $100 million. Las Vegas is also ground zero for the mortgage crisis with some of the country's highest foreclosure rates.

In the middle of last week, in a move filled with political irony, President Obama made a stop in Las Vegas to headline a fundraiser for Harry Reid. In anticipation of this trip, the Governor of Nevada, Jim Gibbons, made several attempts to schedule a sit down with the President but was ultimately denied. President Obama would only arrange a handshake at the airport as Air Force One landed.

Now, let's put this into perspective. Gibbons is in fact a Republican and so a political opponent. Yet, he is also a Governor of one of the fifty states the President currently leads. This governor made several attempts to arrange a sit down meeting with Obama. Obama was scheduled to be in Vegas for 18 hours and refused even fifteen minutes for the governor.

Now contrast this with the lengths that this same president is going to in order to arrange just such a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has gone on world wide television to extend an olive branch. He has made a determination to spend much of his first year's foreign policy in order to arrange just such a meeting. Even as Iran fires of missiles, meets with the Venezuelans, and is reportedly working with the North Koreans, the president continues to make every effort to meet with Ahmadinejad.

Let's just think about that for a minute. The president stops in Las Vegas for eighteen hours and has no time to meet with the governor of that state. At the same time, he makes repeated efforts to schedule exactly such a meeting with a man that wants to wipe Israel of the earth, is developing nuclear weapons, and supporting terrorst groups all over the Middle East. My favorite Latin phrase is res ipsa loquitor. The facts speak for themselves here.

Irony and Poetic Justice for Senator Specter

Senator Specter's career as a Democratic Senator got off to a rocky start. First, he voted against the first two Democratic initiatives that were put in front of him. Then, he pronounced he was rooting for Norm Coleman to win in Minnesota though later he backtracked, likely when he realized what party he is a part of now. Then, Democrats began to announce that they weren't necessarily going to get out of the Pennsylvania primary just because Specter switched. The most recent hit is the announcement that he will not get committee seniority but rather he will be treated as a rookie.

All of this rings of poetic justice as well as irony. It appears that at least Joe Sestak will challenge Specter in the primaries. Already the netroots are against Specter. The unions are lukewarm at best. This has all happened in less than a week of him being a Democrat. So, what does it all mean? It means that the best case scenario is the Specter will win a brusing primary. At worst, he will lose in the primaries. As such, he is essentially facing the exact same options as he did as a Republican, only then he had seniority.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are in at least as good a position to win in Pennsylvania as they were with Specter. Tom Ridge is ready to put his hat in the ring. He of course would have never run if Specter was still a Republican. In effect, after all the wheeling and dealing, the Republicans are in roughly just as good a position to keep the Senate in Pennsylvania as they were when Specter was a Republican.

Meanwhile, the Democrats still don't have a filibuster proof majority. That won't happen until Minnesota is resolved. The time frame on that is still up in the air. Even assuming they do, it's unclear just how solid that majority will be. Specter is proving to be nearly as unreliable as a Democrat as he was a Republican. Meanwhile, the Republicans have just become that much more cohesive. Most votes still come down to Bayh, Nelson, Specter, Collins, Snowe, and Landrieu, only now there is one more Democrat in that field. The unions appear to be demanding a vote on card check for their support of Specter, but even that still remains unclear.

So, it is all rather ironic and full of poetic justice. Arlen Specter switched parties. Yet, everything continues to be just as muddled. Furthermore, given that his switch was entirely opportunistic, it is nothing short of poetic justice that ultimately the only thing we know for sure is that the switch cost him seniority.

The Trillion and a half Dollar Boondoggle

Way back when, while the stimulus was still being debated, I wrote this piece.

The stimulus is not an $800 billion bill. Rather it is one hundred thousand pieces of spending ranging from tens of thousands to tens of millions. In order to work, they all, for the most part, have to be spent wisely and without corruption. It becomes a leap of faith that localities like Auburn, Al. are spending on stimulative projects rather than merely boons for themselves and their friends. In order to work, these nearly one hundred thousand projects need to be puppetteered by federal, state, and local governments all working to make them stimulative. The President is confident it will work, but looking at Stimulus Watch makes me less than confident.

I surmised then that there was no way that the federal government was going to keep track of each and every penny spent. Instead, they would write checks to states, they would write them to localities, and localities would be the ones following the money. This was going to filled with potential waste and corruption. You are now relying on thousands of localities, many of them corrupt, to oversee the stimulus themselves.

Well, now we have this report from Jake Tapper.

The Government Accountability Office today issued a report on the $787 billion stimulus bill called "RECOVERY ACT: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential."

The GAO study asserts that officials from most of the states surveyed "expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff -- limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds."

Because the economic downturn has led to "fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff, limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.

So, states and localities are in charge of following the money and the feds haven't even given them enough money to be able to do this sufficiently. In other words, pretty much no one is watching the nearly $800 billion in stimulus. More interesting will be just how much other media will report on this report. Since this particular report paints the administration negatively, you can bet this will be overlooked by almost all of the MSM.

Furthermore, this report follows another report by the Office of Inspector General which also concludes that the TARP funds aren't being overseen nearly effectively enough. For instance, banks are required to disclose what they plan on doing with TARP funds, but not required to account for what they have actually done.

So, what do we have? We have an administration that promised transparency and accountability and so far it has created a $1.5 trillion boondoggle for corrupt bankers, states, and municpilaties, and the losers are the taxpayers.

Will Corrupt, Incompetent and Bloated State Governments Assure Economic Disaster

This morning my email was flooded with many local and state watch dog groups warning me that our new Governor, Pat Quinn, is planning on raising the state's income tax a whopping 50%. Cook County, the state' largest county, is already battered by the massive sales tax increase instituted about six months ago. Unlike President Obama's dubious promise, these taxes affect every single citizen. If enacted, try and imagine what a tax increase would do to the economy of the state of Illinois if it's done into the teeth of the recession.

Unfortunately, the state of Illinois is NOT the only state currently raising their taxes. More troubling is the list of large states doing it. The biggest offender is the state of California which raised several taxes amounting to a $13 billion added bill for California residents.

The revenue proposal would raise the state sales-tax rate to 8.25 percent from 7.25 percent and boost vehicle license fees to 1.15 percent from 0.65 percent of the value of an automobile. The package doesn’t include a gasoline tax increase that was included in previous versions.

It also adds 0.25 percentage points to all personal income tax brackets for two years. A resident currently taxed at 8 percent will face an 8.25 percent levy. That increase would drop to 0.125 percentage point depending upon how much money California receives under the economic stimulus measure signed by President Barack Obama. The budget anticipates at least $7.8 billion in such federal funds.

Now, just try and imagine the economy of the state of California, already ravaged, and what will happen to it once taxes are raised into the teeth of a recession. The state of New York is looking at some radical tax increases.

Gov. Paterson's proposed $121 billion budget hits New Yorkers in their iPods - and
nickels-and-dimes them in lots of other places, too.

Trying to close a $15.4 billion budget gap, Paterson called for 88 new fees and a host of other taxes, including an "iPod tax" that taxes the sale of downloaded music and other "digitally delivered entertainment services."

"We're going to have to take some extreme measures," Paterson said Tuesday after unveiling the slash-and-burn budget.

The proposal, which needs legislative approval, did not include broad-based income tax increases, but relied on smaller ones to raise $4.1 billion from cash-strapped New Yorkers.

Movie tickets, taxi rides, soda, beer, wine, cigars and massages would be taxed under Paterson's proposal. It also extends sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and removes the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110.

The state of New Jersey is looking to add a punishing income tax increase only to those making $500,000 and more. The state of Maryland is proposing to raise the tax on alcohol. Michigan plans to raise its gas tax.

On and on it goes. Most states will face a budget shortfall in 2009. Most of these states are very unlikely to cut spending. As such, they will only be able to borrow, if it's allowed, or raise taxes. So, throughout the country tax payers will have all sorts of taxes go up: income, sales, property, alcohol, gas, etc. This will affect each state in its own unique way.

One thing that no one can get around is that raising taxes into the teeth of a recession is totally counter productive. It only ecacerbates the recession. The United States is a collection of fifty states. If New York, California, and Illinois lead a host of states all raising their taxes, it is a terrible burden on the economy of the entire country. It will be very difficult to see any sort of a recovery if state governments, of most of the large states, are ensuring that their own states see their economies worsen even more into the teeth of the recession with a plethora of new taxes.

Not every state is doing it for sure. So far at least, the state of Ohio for instance has not announced any tax hikes. The state of Florida is only looking at an alcohol tax hike. The state of Pennsylvania is proposing a very modest increase in the state's cigarette tax (about 10 cents a pack), but Governor Rendell is also floating the idea of allowing counties the ability to raise their own individual sales tax. One need only go to Cook County to see what effect that has on any local economy.

Still, while this won't be seen everywhere in the country, it will be seen in a lot of places. In each of these places, for the most part, these tax increases will have a localizing effect of perpetuating the recession. Of course, it will be damn near impossible to have any sort of recovery when California, New York, and Illinois move toward economic abyss. The recovery is hard enough without an endless stream of states and localities raising taxes to make things even more difficult.

This is happening for a number of reasons. In Illinois, a combination of corruption which lead to then Governor Blagojevich simply buying votes through things like near universal health care and free public transportation for seniors contributed to this budget short fall. In California, the state was bloated with all sorts of social services not to mention a massive debt piled on by its growing illegal immigration policy. Whatever the reason, almost no state showed any fiscal restraint throughout the beginning of the decade when revenues were much higher. As such, they now all face budget shortfalls with no cushion. Furthermore, it is rare to find the politician with enough courage to propose spending cuts. As such, states all over will raise taxes on their citizens as we enter the teeth of the recession. By doing so, all these governments have just made the task of overcoming the recession just that much harder.

Blagojevich: Crazy or Crazy Like a Fox?

Only time will tell and I, personally, think that he is still mostly crazy. Yet, if he is crazy like a fox, then here is what he is attempting to do. First, on every level politically and legally, his choice of Roland Burris is one that the folks in both Springfield and in Washington D.C. will have to accept. The Huffington Post has a good break down of his solid legal footing.

Rod Blagojevich's decision to appoint Roland Burris to Illinois' vacant Senate seat, even as the governor faces intense criminal scrutiny, is being treated as a crazy political power grab. It also seems very likely to be permanent.

A legal scholar writes in to say that precedent surrounding the Senate's right to not seat certain members seems very likely to fall in Burris' favor.

"My reading of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, is that the Senate probably can NOT constitutionally block Burris from being seated," writes the constitutional law professor. "Art. I, sec. 5 gives each House the power to judge the qualifications of its own members. Powell holds (inter alia) that the qualifications to be judged are those stated in the Constitution (see Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 3 and the 17th Amendment)."

"Burris has met all of those qualifications: he's over 30, been a US citizen for 9 years, he's an Illinois resident; he was appointed by the executive authority of the state to fill a vacancy, pursuant to Illinois law."

If either someone in Springfield or in D.C. tries to stop Burris from being appointed, it will be challenged and likely heard by the Supreme Court. Legally, it appears the Supreme Court would have to side with Blagojevich. Blagojevich is Constitutionally mandated to choose the next Senator. That's what he's done. There is no evidence that the choice of Burris was untoward and so, there appears to be no legal reason to block Burris. Such a showdown would play right into the Governor's hands and hand him much needed political capital. He's already endeared himself to some elements within the Illinois African American community just by picking Burris.

Now, imagine if his choice was rejected either by the Secretary of State or by the U.S. Senate and then it was litigated in the Supreme Court which decided in his favor. Which side would look as though they are doing their Constitutional mandated duty and which side would look as though they are stepping outside of the Constitution?

Furthermore, how far is the Democratic Party willing to take this given how insulting it would be to the African American community. The reality is that the Governor needs nothing more than a political showdown he can win, and he just found it. The farther his opponents take this the bigger a victory it will be once he wins. Frankly, he has nothing to lose anyway.

We've all heard that his potential impeachment hearing is a political not criminal process. What does this mean? On one level, it means that the Illinois House and Senate merely need to find a reason that everyone will accept to remove him. They need not find any act of criminality. The most obvious reason is that the scandal has made him unfit to Govern. Yet, he has just chosen a U.S. Senate pick and that person accepted. What a political gift Burris handed to Blagojevich. Is there any better proof that he is fit to govern than doing his Constitutionally mandated duty of choosing a replacement for Barack Obama? In fact, by having every other political force near him try and take this duty away, it is they, not him, that look as though they are unfit.

Just think about it. He will make this pick. The entire political world will attempt to stop it and likely the U.S. Supreme Court will side with him. Then, Illinois legislators will say he is unfit to govern. Nothing will sound more absurd if this episode plays out as I just described.

Then, impeachment will hinge on something relating to the idea that what he is alleged to have done is so extraordinary that he can't be allowed to continue. Here, again, if Blagojevich is crazy like a fox, he will still have an angle. I have said over and over that Blagojevich knows where all the proverbial bodies are buried. In such a case, all he needs to do is turn the impeachment into a kangaroo court. What Blagojevich did maybe the most brazen act of corruption, but it certainly is not out of the ordinary. Most of the folks about to accuse him of corruption are no less corrupt, just less brazen. If he turns the tables on everyone and throws accusations back at his accusers, what we'll have is a bunch of crooks proclaiming the Governor is not fit to lead because he's a crook.

As John Kerry once said that's like having Tony Soprano lecturing us on violence. Blagojevich can argue that if he isn't fit to lead, then most of the legislature will need to go with him. If he plays it right, he could even be portrayed as the crusader finally exposing the reality of the system in Illinois. If he did some sort of a vague mea culpa in which he acknowledged "mistakes", he could say that he is ready to use this opportunity to overhaul the system, but that he will not be "lectured on honesty and integrity by the likes of Emil Jones and Michael Madigan". In fact, he will have a point. The audacious irony is that the Illinois legislature is in no position to lecture him on corruption. They are no better. An impeachment in which his alleged crimes are on display would be nothing more than that. If it came down to trying to remove him from office for his alleged crimes, you can bet that every piece of dirty laundry would be aired before he was removed. If he's crazy like a fox, that's exactly what he should do.

Blagojevich's Stunning Power Play

It appears that Governor Rod Blagojevich will stun the political world and name a successor to Barack Obama's Senate seat.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich reportedly is planning to name a replacement to fill Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat Tuesday, even though his attorney said just two weeks ago that the governor would not exercise his appointment powers in the face of Senate objections.

Blagojevich is facing federal charges and impeachment proceedings after being accused of trying to sell Obama's empty U.S. Senate seat. He plans to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to fill the vacancy, according to the Chicago Tribune and The Wall Street Journal.

If his only goal is self preservation, then this move is a brilliant piece of brazen political jujitsu. Blagojevich is fiercely maintaining his innocence and so he intends to govern. The seat needs a replacement, it's his role to replace the seat, and so he is doing it.

This simple act just made it that much more difficult to impeach him. That's because it affirms his authority. Just by finding someone to accept the nomination, he implicitly shows that he has the capability of Governing. The United States Senate still has the ability to override the pick. I can only assume that Blagojevich thinks that Reid et al don't have the stomach for that or he sees no other alternative to try and maintain his power.

Burris is the former Attorney General, Comptroller, and a product of the same political machine that produced Blagojevich himself. On that level, it shouldn't necessarily be a surprise that he accepted. He has been lobbying for the job since Blagojevich's arrest. Still, I thought that even in the swamp of Springfield no one would ever accept the job from Blagojevich himself. Burris showed that there really is no brazen, corrupt, back room deal too low for the political swamp in Springfield.

Blagojevich continues to be a gift to the Republican Party. If the Senate actually allows Burris to take the seat, that will be used by each and every Republican running for national office in 2010. If they deny Burris, it will set up a Democrat on Democrat food fight in which no one can tell just how much dirty laundry will be aired. Meanwhile, Blagojevich is acting like the political equivalent of a wounded fighter. He is desperately swinging with any political punch he can find. First, he defiantly refused to step down. Then, he demanded that multiple members of Obama's administration be subpeonad. Now, he is announcing a replacement for Obama as though nothing has happened. You can bet that his political gun is nowhere near out of ammo, and the more desperate he gets the more extreme his political moves will become.

The only winners of any of this are the Republican Party both statewide and nationally as well as political junkies like me, who will be treated to great political theater. The Democratic Party is the big loser, but the citizens of both Illinois and the nation will be treated to spectacle that no one really needs.

The Unelected Corruptors of Fort Stockton

The general consensus among those I spoke with in Fort Stockton , Texas, is that the mayor, Ruben Falcon, is an incompetent fool. In fact, it is an open secret that the money his family has gained came originally from drugs. Recently, his father died by suicide. At the funeral, during his eulogy, Falcon was heard to utter

our family is living the American dream. Look, at me I'm the damn mayor

Not very statesmanlike in my opinion, but then again, you get the government you vote for. In Fort Stockton, it's a lot more complicated than that. Like in most small towns, the mayor, along with most of the city council, is a part time position. In fact, each pays only a few hundred Dollars monthly. In fact, the mayor has little if any power.

The only real power for the mayor and the city council lies in choosing the City Manager, currently held by Rafael Castillo Jr.

The day to day decisions of the town are made by the City Manager. The manager also gets a salary that allows him to make this job his only job. For the elected officials, being a part of government is something they do for prestige, civic duty, or even some sense of power, but they must do something else to earn a living. Because all the elected officials have positions that are largely ceremonial, the town has ceded most of its power to unelected bureaucracies. There only real role is selecting the City Manager and that's it.

In this way, Fort Stockton becomes corrupted much like Chicago, Cook County and Springfield. The real decisions are made in bureaucracies beyond the eyes of the public. The real decisions are made by those that aren't answerable to the people. In Chicago, Cook County, and Springfield, this happens because those with money use it to influence those in office, and then gain power in the bureaucracies and use it to corrupt. In Fort Stockton, that process doesn't even need to occur because those in office never had any power to begin with. As such, the town is run to the benefit of those with influence. Those with business interests use their power so that the bureaucracies run the government in their favor. Much like in Chicago, Cook County, and Springfield, often this means they control the bureaucracies themselves. Even in corrupt Chicago, the citizens would never stand for Richard M. Daley ceding day to day operation of the city to an unelected City Manager. Yet, in Fort Stockton, that's exactly what's happened. Furthermore, the town's only newspaper the Fort Stockton Pioneer only comes out once weekly and so doesn't have nearly enough resources to be the proper watchdog over its city government.

There is a sort of unique political irony and opportunity here. Because Fort Stockton has a sort of shadow government, much again like in Chicago, Cook County, and Springfield, anyone with the vision has the platform to run on and turn the government over to those that are elected. With it, that individual would also consolidate more power into their own hands. There is no reason why an unelected bureaucrat would make near $100k while the mayor would barely make $2k. There is also no reason why the day to day decisions would be made by someone unelected, as it is by the City Manager, while the elected mayor is largely ceremonial.

An open government, a transparent government, and a government answerable to the people, would be run in the exact opposite way. In Fort Stockton, the government has finally made the City Council meetings accessible to all online. So what? Nothing of substance ever gets done there. There meetings are largely ceremonial and almost entirely nothing more than a debating society. If the city government were really transparent and open, the meetings held by the City Manager would be the ones open to the public. Of course, if the government were really open, the City Manager wouldn't be the one with all the real power.

Small towns like Fort Stockton don't necessarily have the money to pay for all sorts folks to run their government. Yet, it appears the town is perfectly happy having the one running it be an unelected bureaucrat like the City Manager. The platform is there for someone to point out that this is ludicrous, and move the power away from the unelected bureaucrat and into the hands of its elected Mayor. With it, that individual would also pull off some political jujitsu because with it, they would consolidate power in their own hands.

What Great Political Theater It Would Be

According to local news reports, Governor Blagojevich's lawyers are planning to subpeona several member of the Obama team in upcoming impeachment hearings.

In a dramatic development in the ongoing impeachment proceedings, lawyers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich want two key aides to President-elect Barack Obama and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to testify before the House impeachment committee.

Sources tell CBS station WBBM-TV that a letter sent by Blagojevich's lawyers to committee chairman, State Rep. Barbara Currie, asks that the committee subpoena Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Jackson.

On Tuesday, a transition official disclosed that Obama, Emanuel and Jarrett, have been interviewed in connection with the federal investigation into Blagojevich. The transition official, speaking on a condition of anonymity, also confirmed that Emanuel had been captured on wiretaps taken as part of the investigation.

While this would certainly make for great political theater, it is not great for Blagojevich's party, the state he governs, and certainly not for the President he supported. Impeachment will be a very long process. Here is how my State Rep Sarah Feigenholtz described the process.

I would like to update you about the governor and the state of affairs in Springfield. As you know, the legislature met last Monday and decided to take the first step toward impeachment by forming an inquiry committee. Click here for a link to the resolution. Consisting of 21 Democrats and Republicans, the committee is charged with reviewing evidence surrounding the governor's alleged conduct and ultimately making a recommendation regarding his impeachment. This committee, which worked all last week, continues its work today and will meet daily (except for holidays) until a recommendation is made.

If the committee ultimately recommends an impeachment hearing, the next action will be taken up by the full House where a majority vote is needed to move the process to the Senate. At that point the Senate would conduct a full impeachment trial and be responsible for making the decision to remove the governor from office.

What the Representative is describing is a process that may take the better part of a year. Furthermore, it is a process in which all sorts of "dirty laundry" will get aired, including likely by Blagojevich himself. All the while, the state's entire political apparatus will be crippled and unable to do much of anything besides impeachment.

Most politicians when they begin to lose support within their own party know their time is past. It happened with Nixon and with Spitzer more recently. With regard to Blagojevich, he is determined to hold onto power no matter how bleak the prospects for himself, his party, his state, and the nation at large. It's clear that Blagojevich has forgotten, if he ever knew, that he is a public servant. It appears the only one he is serving with everything he has done since he got into office is himself. In that respect, his most recent behavior is really not so out of the ordinary. It may all make for great political theater, but that's the only good thing that will come out of this.

The Sociopathic Politician

The other evening over at a friend's house, he had that day's Wall Street Journal. On the front page was yet another story about Rod Blagojevich. In our discussion of Blagojevich, I referred to him as a textbook case of a Sociopath...

defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: "The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder. Therefore, it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed.

In a matter of fact tone, my friend said that he felt all politicians were Sociopaths. While this maybe an overstatement, in many ways politics breeds Sociopaths. First, a politician's job is ultimately to get re elected. The art of getting re elected is ultimately as selfish a process as they get. You aren't ever necessarily doing what's right but rather what you think the most people will find suitable, acceptable, or worthy of getting their vote next time. Politicians make decisions almost always based on the politics of a situation not the policy. The politics of any situation is always based on self interest not the interest of the public at large. Such a mindset breeds the sort of selfishness that is inherent in Sociopaths.

Second, politics is in essence all about the accumulation of power. Power is is a zero sum activity. As such, the process of accumulating power involves taking power away from someone else: opponents, citizens, etc. The process of accumulating power is also inherently selfish in a way that breeds Sociopaths. Furthermore, most Sociopaths are not only charming but extremely manipulative and both of those are traits most successful politicians.

The Sociopathic politician with which I am most familiar with is an individual out of Georgia by the name of Vernon Jones. Jones is suspected in six rapes since the mid 1980's. The last of which was described to my by a source I consider very reliable in graphic detail involving a three some gone wrong. This happened Christmas a few years back.

Jones, for many years, was CEO of DeKalb County in Georgia. He used this position to get inside information on many land deals that became profitable for himself. In his role as CEO of DeKalb County, he was also responsible for choosing the members of the board of Grady Hospital. He made Robert Brown head of the board for several years. Brown then used Grady on multiple occasions as piggy bank directing business from Grady to the architecture firm he owned. Meanwhile, Grady has gone through multiple bouts of financial dire straits while members of the board, like Brown, have seen enormous wealth for themselves.

Jones also oversaw one of the most corrupt police departments in the country, the Dekalb County Police Department. In 2001, while he was CEO of DeKalb County, Sheriff Elect Derwin Brown was murdered by the outgoing Sheriff Syd Dorsey. This was the culmination of decades of corruption at the DeKalb County Police Department including nearly a decade on his watch. Jones proceeded to install Thomas Brown (no relation), one of his cronies, to replace the deceased Derwin Brown. Thomas Brown proceeded to make nothing more than cosmetic changes to the department. The jail nearly built the penthouse of prisons for Dorsey until that was discovered and broken by an investigative journalist. In 2006, his opponent for CEO of DeKalb County, Ron Marshall, was followed, had unwarranted background checks done, and eventually Marshall mysteriously wound up in the Terror Watch List.

Finally, I believe that Jones is involved in the cover up of the apparent suicide of Charles Hicks using another one of his cronies, Donald Frank, to cover up a homicide. Frank wound up serving as Jones' Homeland Security Director for DeKalb County. He did all of this while he was supposed to be running the County of DeKalb.

The behavior of Blagojevich can also be classified as textbook Sociopathic. Nearly everything he has done while in office has been for self benefit at the expense of the public. All the corruption, bribery, and quid pro quos, have been done in order to gain personal wealth, power, and influence, and all at the expense of the public he has served.

For real horror stories of what terror a Sociopathic politician can breed, we need to look at any despot around the world. Sociopaths like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein all brought terror to their own people and their neighbors for decades. All of these folks were so consumed by power that anyone that stood in their way was eliminated. Entire populations were subverted, eliminated, or put down in order so that the Sociopathic tyrant could maintain power. My grandfather got a first hand lesson in the terror of a Sociopathic politician. Joseph Stalin put my grandfather into a Siberian gulag for the better part of the next two decades on the eve of WWII. My grandfather's crimes were two 1) he was Jewish and 2)he ran a successful corner store in a small Siberian village. These two things made my grandfather a threat and a target, and Stalin felt the need to eliminate him. My grandfather paid for Stalin's Sociopathy with nearly twenty years of his life.

Everyday, citizens everywhere pay the price for the deeds of Sociopathic politicians. We pay for it with higher taxes. We pay for it with a bureaucracy that looks out for the interests of power brokers rather than the public. We pay for it by having a government full of waste, and one that looks out for special interests rather than the interests of the public at large. We pay for it by having corruption swept under the rug and overlooked. Of course, in the most extreme, citizens pay for it with their loss of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Sociopathic politician is a cancer to any political system and unfortunately the nature of the beast breeds such an individual. As such, we, the voters, must always be aware of it and be able to identify all Sociopathic politicians. Such a combination has explosive possibilities.

The Surreal Life Starring Kenilworth, Illinois

On a list of wealthiest U.S. cities, Kenilworth, Illinois is usually in the top five if not on the very top in any given year. This village of only about 2500 people had a median income of about $200,000 per family as of the last census. That's why it would surprise some that this village would be concerned that their community would fall "victim" to the rage of McMansions

McMansion is a pejorative neologism, coined by NY environmentalist Jay Westervelt[1][unreliable source?]to describe a particular type of housing that is constructed in an assembly line fashion reminiscent of food production at McDonald's fast food restaurants. The term is one of many McWords. A McMansion often denotes a home with a larger footprint than a median home, an indistinct architectural style similar to others nearby, and is often located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood.


While McMansions are certainly large, they are frankly rather small in comparision to the homes in Kenilworth. Yet, as this craze heated up, that's exactly what this town, the definition of old money, feared would happen in their neighborhood.

Apparently, the widespread craze of tearing down old buildings and replacing
them with cookie-cutter buildings that don't really fit the character and style of the neighborhood and surrounding structures is *not* limited to the city limits of Chicago. With all the hype about the ongoing socioeconomic wars between the condo developer and the struggling artist renter here in the city, we were fairly stunned to hear that the same thing is happening in the places where the condo owners' parents
live.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation named Kenilworth, a North Shore suburb, one of 11 endangered historic places nationwide in its yearly listing. Many of the homes in Kenilworth were designed by architects Frank Lloyd Wright and George Maher, and 32 houses have been torn down for new construction since 2001 and replaced with houses referred to as "McMansions". The Executive Vice-President for the trust, David Brown, was quoted as saying, "Architecturally and historically significant homes are being acquired by builders, torn down and replaced with houses that do not fit the character or scale of the neighborhoods." Hmmm. Seems like we've heard this tune before.

The political power structure had an idea that would stop the spread of McMansions in its tracks, register Kenilworth with national registry of historical places. The idea had some merit and logic. Many of the homes were designed by architectural legends like Frank Lloyd Wright and George Maher. The problem was that the power structure didn't consult with most of the folks in the town. There was some concern with turning Kenilworth into a historical landmark. Many of the town's folks feared that their property rights would erode, home sales would be adversely affected, and the tax implications were unknown.

The idea was put on the ballot for this past November 4th, however supporters of the plan didn't want to wait that long. They began making their application in the summer. Suddenly, we were in for a full out political brawl. Opponents of the plan used a sophisticated, 21st century, grass roots campaign to make the public aware of what their government was doing. Through emails, text, and other electronic correspondence, opponents built grass roots opposition to the plan. The plan was voted down overwhelmingly on November 4th. At first, proponents of the plan wanted to ignore the will of the voters and continue with their plans to make Kenilworth part of the historical registry.

On Dec. 5, the state is set to consider whether Kenilworth should be placed on the National Register of Historic Places.>

A fine and meaningful honor, if bestowed.

There's just one problem.

The majority of homeowners in this North Shore community don't want it.

In an advisory referendum on Election Day, 64 percent of voters said they didn't want Kenilworth to be placed on the national register.

Unfortunately, the train already has left the station.

The village board voted to submit its national registry application in May, five months before hearing from the public. That set the train rolling, which is why the application has a hearing on Dec. 5 before the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council. If approved, the application goes next to the federal government.

As the fight reached fever pitch, the politics of this relatively quiet North Shore suburbs reached fever pitch. The media in Chicago began to take notice and proponents knew their jig was up. So, a couple days ago, the powers that be finally scrapped the plan.

Kenilworth's attempts to have the 120-year-old North Shore community listed on the National Register of Historic Places are one step closer to becoming history. Trustees are scheduled to vote Friday to ask the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council to withdraw Kenilworth's application for the honorary designation.

The move follows this month's overwhelming rejection of an advisory referendum measure that asked residents whether the village should seek the designation.Supporters said the move would have helped protect Kenilworth from
the McMansion craze that has hit other North Shore towns.

On one level the whole thing was a study in surrealism. On another level, it also showed the best of our Democratic and media system.

Prop 11, and Some Perspective on Election 2008 and Gerrymandering

The proposition in California that received the most media attention was Proposition 8. Proposition 8 kept the definition of marriage as one man and one woman and it passed narrowly. While that proposition got all the headlines, California also passed a far more significant proposition, in my opinion. That proposition was Proposition 11.

Proposition 11 will dramatically change how we choose legislators and no longer allow them to choose us. Let me explain.

Since the founding of the state in 1850, the California Constitution has charged the legislators with the task of redrawing their district lines every 10 years and right after the U.S. Census is completed.

This was not really a problem until more recently. The process is now the poster child for gerrymandering, which is a practice of controlling the political makeup of the district in which the legislator resides with the goal of making it nearly inevitable for him or her to be re-elected.

Even when term limits are reached, the same political party wins the election. The seat is nearly "guaranteed" for one or the other of the two major political parties.

The net effect is that we are regularly electing the most ideological extremes of both parties to the Legislature. These legislators find it very difficult to work together to solve the real public policy matters for fear of losing the next election. The only thing they seem to work well on is redistricting.

Proposition 11 forces the State Legislature's districts to be drawn by an independent panel rather than the politicians themselves. In California, the people have seen up close the corrossive effect of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.

The term gerrymandering is derived from Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814), the governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812. The term first appeared in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812 (see image). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill into law that redistricted his state to benefit his Democratic-Republican party.

In California, the districts are drawn up in such a way that, for the most part, they benefit those with extreme points of view on each side. As such, the legislature is forced to compromise between far left politicians and far right. As such, the budgetary process has come nearly to a halt.

The concept of Gerrymandering gets little attention in current political coverage, and yet, I believe it is at the root of most of our political problems. Congressional re election rates have traditionally been around 95% of the time. Some of this is is due to name recognition and other benefits of being an incumbent. Most of it is due to Gerrymandering.

Whenever a political party has an opportunity to redraw districts, (usually following a census) they re draw them in their own favor. By extension, what they really do is, more often than not, redraw districts to favor incumbents in general.

Gerrymandering occurs when a party re draws districts so that as many of their folks get elected. They do this by re drawing districts so that people of like mind are kept in the same district. As such, the minimum number of diversity is kept in any district. As such, incumbents are almost always the favorites. The districts have been rigged to make it that way. Incumbents rarely get competition from their own party. The system is rigged so that the opposition is meant to lose. That's because the district is rigged so that the overwhelming number of people agree with the ideology of the incumbent's party.

Gerrymandering leads to extremism, laziness, and most importantly corruption. If a politician feels so safe in re election, that anything can go, anything does go. Almost everything that we get cynical about in politics has its roots in gerrymandering. Most Congressional veterans are hated in general everywhere but in their district. This is no accident. This happens because their district was tailor made for them.

This brings me back to Proposition 11. You may have noticed that politicians would no longer be able to re draw districts in the State Legislature. The California Congressional districts could still be re drawn by the politicians. That's because proponents of Proposition 11 feared that Nancy Pelosi et al would bring in heavy artillery against the Proposition if it also forbade politicians from re drawing Congressional districts and then the Proposition would fail.

Make no mistake. Gerrymandering as at the root of most of our political problems. This problem is perpetuated because the media ignores this corrossive problem. The politicians that rely on it for their nearly unlimited power won't let it go without a fight. With the media, in general, providing them cover, it's likely for the most part it won't go down.

The Indictment of William Cellini and Illinois' Shadow Government

Yesterday, the Federal Prosecutor for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald handed down several indictments for one William Cellini. Who is William Cellini? Even if you reside in Illinois Cellini is likely a name you weren't aware of until reading this piece. Yet, according to the indictment, Cellini, and other power brokers like Anton Rezko and Stuart Levine, made up a shadow government that really made the shots in the state government. These power brokers made decisions based on one motivation only...their own pocket books. It should also be noted that Cellini is a life long Republican. He got into bed with Democrats like Rezko and Levine to make up this shadow government that was really calling the shots behind the scenes of the Blagojevich administration.

How did all of this work? First, folks like Cellini and Rezko became top fundraisers for the likes of Governor Rod Blagojevich (and one former State Senator now on the cusp of being President). Once they became indispensable allies of the man in charge, they used that influence to influence most of the political apparatus of the state government.

For instance, one of the charges that Cellini is facing is influencing the Teachers' Retirement System. After raising millions for Governor Blagojevich, Stuart Levine, one of Cellini's associates, became a member of the board of the TRS. Then, Levine, Rezko and Cellini worked behind the scenes to put as many of their cronies on the board. Then, the TRS doled out contracts and other monies to Levine, Rezko, Cellini and their friends.

This was the modus operendi for Rezko, Levine, Cellini and other political insiders. They bought influence by becoming top fundraisers for politicians like Governor Blagojevich. Then, they used that influence to put themselves and their own cronies in as many influential places as possible throughout the State Government apparatus. Once in place, the shadow government was in a position to dole out as much State government money as possible to themselves and their friends. This Boston Globe report shows exactly how the likes of Tony Rezko used this same shadow government and its results.

The boon on this scheme for Rezko and his friends was about $200,000,000, and so was the tab to the Illinois tax payer. The result was low income housing that is no longer livable.

This shadow government even attempted starting in 2004 to remove Patrick Fitzgerald from his post. The indictment yesterday speaks for itself and should tell everyone why they were so gung ho to remove him. That's how this shadow government works. Put cronies in friends in a position of influence and power and remove all nuisance and opponents.

This sort of shadow government is not new to Cellini. Today's Chicago Tribune describes how Cellini used his influence in the Jim Edgar administration to give his own firm a sweetheart deal for a hotel/casino in Alton, Illinois. This was a deal that was a boon to his firm and wound up being wasted millions for the tax payers.

That's how it works. Get close to the top of political power in the state government by buying influence. Then, use that influence to infect as much of the government apparatus as possible with cronies and friends. Then, those cronies and friends dole out government money back to the same cronies and friends. It's like any other business. There is an investment and there is a return on investment. The investment is hundreds of thousands or even millions in campaign contributions. The return on investment is hundreds of millions, and so is the tab to the tax payers of Illinois.

Con/Con Yes/NO?

In the whole of the United States of America, the big question on November 4th will be whether John McCain or Barack Obama will be President. In Illinois, the big question maybe whether or not to have a Constitutional Convention come 2010. For instance, former Governor Jim Edgar has spoken out.



The question of whether or not a Constitutional Convention is a good idea or not is one layered in nuance and double edged swords. As such, let's lay out what is not disputable. First, the current Constitution of Illinois is a giant mess. It allows for such rights as the right to a clean environment, the right to be free from discrimination, all persons with a physical or mental handicap shall be free from discrimination in the sale or rental of property and shall be free from discrimination unrelated to ability in the hiring. As such, we have here a lot of well meaning rights that are nebulous at best and at worst a potential litigation nightmare. Just imagine any enterprising attorney suing a smoker for inhibiting on an other's right to a "clean environment".

Furthermore, the Constitution has other nebulous statements like this.

To promote individual dignity, communications that portray criminality, depravity or lack of virtue in, or that incite violence, hatred, abuse or hostility toward, a person or group of persons by reason of or by reference to religious, racial, ethnic, national or regional affiliation are condemned.

While this is a good thought, it's very unclear just how this is supposed to be enforced. Finally, the Constitution has other rights that then become totally infringed by municipalities. Let's look at this right.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

So, while the 2nd Amendment right of the U.S. Constitution is reinforced in our own Illinois Constitution, it doesn't seem to do much to stop the city of Chicago from creating a ban on handguns. I could go on and on, and I have only delved into the Bill of Rights so far. So, believe me when I tell you, the Illinois Constitution is a mess.

On other indisputable truth is that a Constitutional Convention will cost a bunch, $80 million. Furthermore, the state of Illinois is is drowning in debt.

Thus, we have layers of arguments. Is it worth it to spend $80 million to hammer out a new Constitution? Furthermore, there is another nuanced argument first given to me by Tony Peraica, the Republican candidate for Cook County State's Attorney. Illinois is currently a far left state. Creating a Constitutional Convention now will only select a plethora of new far left delegates that will likely make it even worse. Many of those opposed to the Constitutional Convention say that the problem isn't the Constitution itself but rather the current crop of politicians. Rather than a costly Constitutional Convention, they say, just vote the bums out.

Dennis Byrne, a Chicago area columnist, tackles all of these arguments.

The organized opponents of a constitutional convention—representing many of the same business, labor and political interests that have steered us to the brink—insist that constitutional change isn't what we need. The way to change government is to elect new people, they say. Sure, that has worked so well.

Then, after telling us that the way to reform government is to elect better people, the anti-con-con forces warn us a convention would be dangerous because voters would elect the same kind of convention delegates that they already elect to run state government. This argument is at war with itself. If we can't elect true reformers to a con-con, then how are we going to elect true reformers to man the helm of state government?

The anti-con-con forces could have made a better case for themselves if they had said: To reform government, we need to elect better people, and we're creating a coalition of the reform-minded to do just that. Our coalition will cross party lines and back a consensus slate of candidates for the 2010 election, in which the governor and all leading state officers are elected. That they haven't shown any interest in that demonstrates that in opposing a convention they are mainly interested in tamping down reform efforts.

Certainly, some opposition is reasonable and well-intentioned, based on fears, for example, that the convention would draft a worse constitution or fall into the hands of single-issue delegates, such as those who want to write into it protections against global warming or for traditional marriage.

After giving it some thought, I am with Byrne. Ultimately, it comes down to this. The current Constitution is bad, really bad. No one can know what a new Constitutional Convention will bring, but the threat that things might get worse is no reason to sit by and accept the status quo.

Unfortunately, from my perch inside the Chicago area politically active community, I have seen little interest in this topic. I have had no conversations about a potential constitutional convention. I have attended one grass roots meeting about a new convention, however even that was sparsely attended. While I believe a Constitutional Convention is necessary, I am not hopeful it will have enough support to happen.

Sheriff Dart Reverses Course

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has announced that he is reversing course and he will resume executing evictions on Monday.

Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart says his office will resume performing evictions in foreclosure cases on Monday, but with important new legal safeguards for tenants facing such action.

Dart said Thursday that the new safeguards were worked out with Judge Dorothy K. Kinnaird, supervisor of the Cook County Chancery Court.

Dart halted such evictions last week because deputies often found they were removing innocent people who paid their rent on time without knowing their landlords were in foreclosure.Dart says the new rules require a bank to provide the court with a detailed description of the foreclosed property and identify all its tenants.

The bank must also prove it informed all tenants of the state-mandated 120-day grace period allowing them to secure new housing before moving out.

Last week, I criticized the Sheriff for what I saw was a political stunt and grandstanding. Sheriff Dart ceased to carrry out eviction notices because too many times, in his estimation, his deputies were showing up at properties only to find renters who had made payments on time and weren't notified that the property they lived in was being foreclosed. I viewed his action as political grandstanding and a stunt to avoid having to do a thankless job.

As it turns out, Sheriff Dart will not only resume his evictions but he has set parameters in place to make sure that his deputies aren't showing up at properties where the occupant is an innocent renter that hadn't yet been notified. As such, I will say I was wrong in offering so much criticism. I still maintain that all of this could have been handled without the theatrics and grandstanding, however Dart's political gamesmanship wound up forcing a compromise that is better for everyone. As such, I will give credit where it is due and applaud Sheriff Dart for ultimately making the system work better.

Tom Dart: The Populist Sheriff

Tom Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, has a message for all banks and mortgagees behind on their mortgages. He will no longer honor eviction notices. Now, I am just a simple guy and so to me, when law enforcement picks and chooses which laws to uphold and which ones to dismiss, I see that as chaos. As such, it is good to have the enlightened powers over at the Chicago Tribune editorial board to set me straight.

Our first instinct was to tell Dart he can't take the law into his own hands—his job is to carry out the orders of the circuit court. But as we look at this, Dart has a reasonable case to make—for a short time.

This isn't simply the sheriff riding up on a white horse to protect down-and-out citizens from losing their homes. Dart understands that his office is charged with enforcing lawful evictions.

But he's tired of his deputies showing up to serve eviction papers, only to find tenants who had been paying the rent faithfully, with no clue that the building was in foreclosure and no warning that they'd have to find another place to live. In other words, he's tired of his deputies doing the lenders' grunt work and the taxpayers getting the bill for it.

State law that took effect Jan. 1 requires that renters be given 120 days notice before being forced to move by a foreclosure. But Dart says the banks often don't bother to determine who is living in the house when obtaining an eviction order. When deputies go to the house and find a tenant who isn't named on the papers, they have to halt the eviction and go back to court—at which time the banks are happy to take the names of the current occupants, add them to the order and start the 120-day clock.

You see, there is no reason for the head law enforcement person in Cook County to ENFORCE THE LAW because sometimes his department finds that enforcing the law is difficult. Dart has put an end to all evictions because on some of these evictions he finds renter who have no idea the mortgage that their landlord is paying is behind. In many of those cases, the bank has given the renter no notice. New state law provides that renters have 120 days notice to move out when their landlord is behind.

I would call this throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however, let's face it, Sheriff's win no friends enforcing eviction notices. As such, this is throwing the bathwater out with the really bad bathwater.

It appears that both the Tribune and the Sheriff Dart seem to believe that he is helpless in ever determining prior to showing up at a home whether or not that property is occupied by the actual mortgage holder. As such, he has taken the "logical" step of never showing up. I would like to help Sheriff Dart in this capacity then. Rather than simply putting a moratorium on all evictions. Maybe, the Sheriff's department should demand a copy of the Note and Mortgage from the underlying mortgage that the eviction notice is held to. This way a quick reading of the documents could determine of this property is the primary residence of the borrower or if it is an investment property. If the Sheriff's department determines the mortgage is tied to an investment property, then they can contact the bank prior to the eviction to determine if the renter has been notified.

I suppose when you work in government, rather than problem solving, grand standing is the first instinct. I really doubt that Dart's motivation had anything to do with attempting to use his office efficiently. He may not be a mortgage professional, but I doubt very much that he really thought there was no way for him to determine whether or not there was a renter or owner in a property. I believe he put this moratorium on because he didn't want to be seen as the Sheriff that is throwing folks out of their homes during a period of economic collapse.

Of course, there are all sorts of unintended consequences to law enforcement not enforcing the law. For instance, the underlying problem in this crisis is that far too many people aren't paying their mortgages back. Well, here in Cook County, mortgage holders have just been given another reason not to pay their mortgages back. What will anyone in Cook County behind on or struggling with their mortgage think of this move? Of course, it will give them even more reason not to pay their mortgages back. By doing this, Sheriff Tom Dart has made his own small contribution to pouring gasoline on the flame of our economic crisis.

Operation Link Obama and Ayers Day 3

If McCain really does have a master plan of making Obama's connection to Bill Ayers a part of the news cycle, then so far it has been implemented beautifully. Yesterday, we saw the story reach into new sub sets of the media that are crucial in order to make this a front burner issue. The most significant was that it wound up on the view.



The reason this is significant is not because McCain likely got many converts but because this moves the story into yet another sub set of the media, the morning talk show. The media today is so fragmented that in order to drive a story so that it is a part of the news cycle you really need to have it travel through each sub set. Now, it has moved from the print MSM, to the new media, to television, and now to the morning talk shows. Remember, the media doesn't move the story by what they say but rather what they cover. If a truly independent and undecided woman was watching The View, her mind was likely not moved by Liz Hasselback's argument or Whoopi Goldberg's argument. Rather, her curiousity was piqued because the topic was discussed. Now that it is out there, that woman will want to know more and our society will give her plenty of avenues to learn more.

The story continues to enjoy a great deal of success on the conservative blogs, however it has also reached out to cable news beyond Fox News. This CNN piece shows just how potentially devastating this story could be to Obama.


Since we are into day three, it is clear that McCain was effective in putting this story into the middle of the news cycle. That said, the debate is on tonight and of course, I still firmly continue to believe that it will be difficult to move the economy out of the picture.

As such, I think it is time to look at how McCain turn the media firestorm over the Obam/Ayers connection into an effective campaign strategy. First, it is not enough to throw a bunch of mud at this connection. That will only look like a smear and furthermore, up against the economic crisis, it is nothing. Second, it is not enough to roll out each and every wily character Obama has come into contact with. The way to do this is to build a narrative that ties Obama to radical characters, radical policies, and then effectively shows how those same radical economic policies will cause chaos if he is President.

Fortunately, McCain not only has time but all the ammunition necessary to do all of this. First, McCain will have a very tight rope in this debate. If he mentions Ayers too much it looks like he is desperately smearing. If he doesn't mention him at all, it will effectively move the story from the news cycle. As such, he must mention him but not too much.

By the end of the week, I would pivot away from Bill Ayers and have Palin begin to mention Obama's connection to Tony Rezko on the stump. This is especially timely since Rezko appears to be cooperating with the Feds. Rezko ties in nicely into a narrative that McCain will need to build that Barack Obama is 1) part of the D.C. politics as usual, and 2)part of the mortgage problem. That, I will talk about later. If I am the McCain campaign, I would leak again to the Washington Post or another paper of that sort, that I am planning on pivoting. While this appeared to be a foolish strategy, by telegraphing their move, the MSM tried to cut them off by running stories in advance down playing the connection. All this really did is expand the media coverage of the Ayers' story. Why reinvent the wheel? It worked once so keep it up.

I wouldn't spend more than five days trying to drive the media to talking about Rezko, when I would pivot again and simply tie Obama to the entire corrupt political establishment of Chicago, Cook County, and Springfield. Here, Sarah Palin would again be an effective attack dog. She could say something like this on the stump.

In Alaska, I fought the corrupt political establishment. You know, I thought there was no more corrupt political establishment in the country than Alaska. I was wrong. It turns out that in Chicago, Cook County and Springfield, the political home of Barack Obama, the corruption dwarfs even my own home state. Of course, unlike myself, who fought against that corruption, Barack Obama only embraced it. He calls Emil Jones his political god father. Jones is retiring this year and he is handing his seat to his son. Jones has been the only defender of Governor Rod Blagojevich in the entire Illinois political system. In 2006, Barack Obama endorsed Todd Stroger for Cook County Board President. Since then, Stroger has raised Cook County Sales taxes to the highest levels in the country while dozens of his friends receive six figure patronage jobs. This is the sort of enviroment that Barack Obama cut his political teeth in, only unlike me, he didn't battle against the corruption but embraced it.

Then, they ought to link Obama to the overall corrupt climate of Chicago and Illinois in general for about a week. He has to link Obama to all the corrupt practices patronage jobs, pay to play (which he essentially did wiht this scheme with Tony Rezko) Finally, bring up Obama's long term connection to ACORN and do this for about another week. He needs to tie Obama to their intimidation tactics, socialist ideals, and of course voter fraud.

If this is all done effectively, what McCain has done is laid the groundwork to tie Barack Obama to radicalism and corruption. This allows McCain to argue that Barack Obama comes from a culture that believes those that can't get for themselves should be given by the government. Furthermore, it is a culture that puts the powerful far too close to the politicians. The problem with D.C. is that the powerful are far too close to the politicians. While Barack Obama claims that he will clean this up, his history is the exact opposite. That's where McCain needs to pound his shady land deal, his sweetheart mortgage, and the massive contributions that Fannie/Freddie have given Obama.

This becomes a three pronged strategy. First, you muddy up Obama's character by throwing the kitchen sink of shady connections out. With eachportion of the narrative, McCain needs to have the media do enough to pique the public's interest but not so much that it gets saturated. The public isn't going to be swayed by anyone connection no matter how bad it is, but rather, they need to be swayed because there is a pattern of connections. Then, you show that those shady connections have created a sphere of radicalism and corruption. That radicalism and corruption leads to massive spending, bloated government, and not enough oversight of the powerful. Massive spending will lead to hyper inflation given the bailout in place. If we don't have a President that is willing to oversee the powerful, then we continue the same culture we have always had. There it is. It's easy on paper but it will be very hard to pull off. Watch to see how effectively McCain is able to do it.

Bullseye on Blagojevich?

Let's play the game connect the dots? Do you know how Patrick Fitzgerald was unwittingly instrumental in putting Barack Obama on the brink of the Presidency? In 2001, Peter Fitzgerald (no relation) then U.S. Senator from Illinois chose Patrick Fitzgerald to be the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. This choice upset the Illinois political establishment, on both sides, quite a lot. Why? It's because Patrick Fitzgerald was an outsider and all indications were that he was a pretty straight prosecutor. This was a problem for the entire Illinois political establishment because that meant all of their malfeasance might actually come under scrutiny. Of course, in Illinois, there is all sorts of malfeasance among politicians. After choosing Fitzgerald, Peter Fitzgerald lost the support of the entire establishment. While he was wealthy enough on his own to run again, he simply didn't have enough support without the support of his party. As such, he decided not to seek reelection in 2004. This eventually opened up the door for Barack Obama to win the U.S. Senate seat and the rest is history.

Patrick Fitzgerald has been a relatively controversial prosecutor but that's mainly because for the most part, he has been doing his job. Fitzgerald has successfully prosecuted all sorts of folks close to both Chicago mayor Richard Daley and Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. His most recent high profile prosecution was of course that of Tony Rezko. Now, latest reports have Rezko beginning to talk.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a convicted influence peddler who was once one of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s most trusted confidants, has met with federal prosecutors and is considering cooperating in the corruption probe of the governor’s administration, sources told the Tribune.

Rezko’s possible change of heart—after years of steadfast refusal—has sent ripples through a tight circle of prominent defense attorneys who represent dozens of potential witnesses and targets in the wide-ranging probe.

His cooperation would give prosecutors investigating the governor and his wife access to someone they have described as an ultimate political insider at the center of a pervasive pay-to-play scheme.

Now, there is all sorts of speculation about whether or not Fitzgerald is targeting Blagojevich, Daley, and of course in the hopes of most Conservatives Barack Obama. In my opinion, Fitzgerald isn't targeting anyone. He will go where the evidence takes him. I am not so convinced that he would find any direct wrong doing by Daley himself. I believe that Daley leaves the direct wrongdoing to his underlings. I do believe that he will find plenty of wrongdoing on the part of Blagojevich. One thing is clear. Patrick Fitzgerald is the worst thing to happen to the Illinois political establishment in a long time. Peter Fitzgerald may have paid with his political career by choosing him, but I suspect he believes it was worth it.

Obama, Jones, and the Illinois Ethics Bill

In the aftermath of the Tony Rezko fiasco, the Illinois legislature quickly moved to tighten up ethics standards with a new ethics reform. At the heart of this reform was the concept of pay to play.

In politics, pay to play refers to a system, akin to payola in the music industry, by
which one pays (or must pay) money in order to become a player. The common
denominator of all forms of pay to play is that one must pay to "get in the game," with the sports analogy frequently arising[1].

Typically, the payor (an individual, business, or organization) makes campaign contributions to public officials, party officials, or parties themselves, and receives political or pecuniary benefit such as no-bid government contracts, influence over legislation[2][3], political appointments or nominations[4][5], special access[6] or other favors. The contributions, less frequently, may be to nonprofit or institutional
entities[7]. The phrase, almost always used in criticism, also refers to the increasing cost of elections and the "price of admission" to even run[8] and the concern "that one candidate can far outspend his opponents, essentially buying the election."[9]

Much of the corruption from the Rezko happened because power players began to bribe politicians in order to get high profile contracts from the state. As such, the state legislature immediately sprung into action. It passed the House. Then, it passed the Senate.

State Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago) announced today that the Illinois House and Senate chambers have agreed on legislation that would prohibit contractors from making political contributions to statewide officeholders.

“We need this legislation now more than ever” said Senator Hunter. “House Bill 824 will prevent state contractors and potential bidders from influencing the decisions made by our statewide officeholders.”

House Bill 824 bans businesses and their owners with more than $50,000 in state contracts from making campaign contributions to the officeholders awarding those contracts. This legislation also requires all state contractors to register with the State Board of Elections and report all contributions made to political committees.

If a business violates this act, its contract with the state would become void. Furthermore, all political committees receiving banned contributions would be required to contribute their funds to the state.

House Bill 824 received bipartisan support from the beginning, and representatives from all four caucuses were present when the agreement on the bill was announced.

“This is a historic moment for the state of Illinois” added Senator Hunter “I am pleased with the collaborative efforts to eliminate pay- to- play practices plaguing our government.”

Then, the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, vetoed the bill. Blagojevich was mentioned prominently throughout the trial of Tony Rezko. In fact, some in Illinois expect that Blagojevich will soon himself get indicted on his own corruption charges.

When it rolled back through the legislature, the House quickly overrode the veto. Then, the Senate President, Emil Jones, used a political maneuver to hold up voting on it in the Senate. Jones allied himself with Blagojevich on this bill, and it appears that they are the only two politicians left in Illinois against this bill.

Jones is the political mentor of Barack Obama. In fact, he has been called by Obama as his political god father. Immediately, the Chicago area press began to demand that Obama intercede. For a few days, the Obama campaign was quiet. Then, at the beginning of the week, Barack Obama made that call.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has taken the unusual step of weighing in on a high-profile ethics bill in his home state, legislation that had been held up by his political mentor, Illinois Sen. Emil Jones.

"Senator Obama called Senator Jones today to offer his strong support for the ethics reforms pending before the Senate and urged him to pass them at the earliest possible opportunity," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

Obama is campaigning in Nevada today.

Suddenly, Jones reversed himself.

---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.

Now, there are two ways to look at this, cynically or positively. The cynic would point out that Emil Jones is Barack Obama's mentor. This is the sort of politics that he has been practicing for decades. Furthermore, Obama only got involved because this issue was threatening to become an issue in his own campaign. The positive person would point out that Obama got his old mentor to do the right thing, and this bill is now fast tracked to getting passed. I'll let the reader decide which perspective they take.