Obsidian Wings

Politics: Quick Links

by hilzoy

(1) Delegates: From Ben Smith:

"A pretty stunning gain out of Iowa for Obama, where an Iowa Democratic official confirmed to me just now that the county convention results will translate into a 25-14-6 edge for Obama over Clinton and Edwards.

That's a gain of nine for the Illinois senator over the results reported in January, while Clinton lost one delegate. (Edwards lost eight.)"

The numbers vary a bit: seven, ten (though Ambinder might be counting superdelegates; it's unclear.) But a gain of nine pledged delegates seems to be the most common view.

(2) Rezko: The reason I haven't written about the Rezko story is that I don't really understand it. Every so often, I think: I really must understand this, and start reading, only to find myself wondering: what is the central issue or allegation? Back when the question was whether Obama had somehow gotten a discount on his house, I thought I just couldn't aswer that question without knowing a lot more about Chicago housing markets than I do; after the sellers came forward and confirmed Obama's account, I found myself wondering what, specifically, the remaining problem was supposed to be. In any case, he sat down with the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times to answer all their questions (full interview with the Trib here.) Reporters at both papers, who have been covering this for ages, seem to be satisfied. The one who wasn't doesn't give much detail as to why not, other than saying: "I'm too old to believe in fairy tales."

Tom Maguire seems to think this is like something out of The Godfather, with Obama as the undertaker who asks for a favor and Rezko as Don Corleone. There are three problems with that analogy, though. First, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence at all that Rezko did Obama a favor: his purchase of the adjoining lot was independent of, and not needed for, Obama's purchase of his house, and he has since sold the lot and made a profit on it. Second, there have been times when Rezko actually needed Obama's help, and even if you don't believe Obama when he says that Rezko never asked for any favors, the fact that in the one case in which Obama's support might have meant a great deal to Rezko, Obama took the other side. ("But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.") Third, and most importantly: it's obviously central to the Godfather example that the person who might someday ask for a favor is Don Corleone. When he asks you for something, you don't refuse, at least not if you don't want to find a horse's head in your bed. That's why putting yourself in a position where he might someday ask for a favor is such a big deal. In this case, the allegation, as best I understand it, is that Rezko decided, unsolicited, to do a favor for Obama, and that that might mean that someday, he would be in a position to ask for a favor in return. As I said, it's unclear that he did do Obama a favor, but let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that he did, and he was hoping that someday, he might get to call it in.

If Rezko were, in fact, Don Corleone, that would be significant: when the Don asks, you say yes. When people other than Don Corleone ask for favors, though, the person they ask is quite free to say no. And if the person asking for a favor says: but I did this unsolicited good thing for you in the past, and I did it because I thought you'd be in my debt, people are free to say: well, that was your mistake. In view of the fact that Tony Rezko is not Don Corleone, is there any reason at all to suppose that if he tried to call in his alleged chits, Barack Obama would say anything other than: sorry? No, especially since, as noted above, Obama has been quite willing to oppose Rezko's interests in the past.

As far as I can tell, the land deal is the source of most people's suspicions that there is some actual malfeasance here. The claim that Obama represented Rezko is false:

"Attorneys there say Obama never represented Rezko directly. The future senator did represent community organizations that were Rezko partners in rehabilitating buildings to provide apartments for the poor.

Judson Miner, a partner in the firm, said that Obama’s role was small. He said Obama did perhaps six or seven hours of work on such projects, mainly filing incorporation papers for the nonprofit groups."

(See also here for the results of a fairly serious investigation of this ("At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004... "), and Obama's answers to questions about his legal work here.)

For the rest, I can't see any there there. (E.g.: Obama did give the son of someone associated with Rezko a month-long summer internship, to which I can only say: whoop de do.) That said, I am open to the possibility that I'm just missing something. If any of you can let me know what it is, I'd be very grateful.

As the Chicago Tribune points out, it would be nice if Clinton were this forthcoming. As I've said before, I think it's important that we be able to examine her tax returns, and the list of donors to the Clinton library and foundation, sooner rather than later. I have no idea why she hasn't done this already -- or, for that matter, why there hasn't been more pressure for McCain to release his tax returns.

(3) McCain's finances: In just a few short days, McCain (along with everyone else) will have to file and FEC report for February. I suspect it will show that he has gone past the spending limits for candidates receiving federal funds. This would mean that if the FEC is right in its interpretation of campaign finance laws, McCain is in violation of those laws. He could face jail time, though I don't know of anyone who expects anyone to send him to jail anytime soon.

That said, playing chicken with the campaign finance laws is hard to square with McCain's image as a reformer.

(4): Open Thread!

Obama And Wright: The Response

by hilzoy

Obama's response is here. An excerpt:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

(...) Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

He's also going on cable to discuss the whole thing.

I'm inclined to think this is a good response, but I'm unsure of my own instincts on this one, largely because I find the idea of being held accountable for the political views of the various ministers I had while I was Christian so baffling. What do you think?

***

Update: Wright has left Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Compare And Contrast

by hilzoy

George W. Bush, yesterday:

""I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said."

George W. Bush, back when he actually had a chance to serve in combat:

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning to fly airplanes."

Curiously, the romance seems to have been lost on him when his own life could have been on the line. It's only when he's imagining other people's lives at risk that it all seems so exciting and romantic.

Obama And Wright 2: In A Better World

by hilzoy

In my last post, I wrote about how I think Obama needs to respond to his pastor's remarks in the world as it is. In this post, I want to talk about how I understand those remarks, and Obama's relationship to his pastor. In an ideal world, I think, people would spend a lot less time parsing remarks by people other than the candidate and then demanding that that candidate disavow them; and more time trying to figure out what we can infer from a candidate's relationship to someone, if we imagine both parties as actual human beings, rather than as walking position papers who relate to each other only via agreement and disagreement on policy.

In this post, therefore, I want to try to figure out what, exactly, Barack Obama's relationship to his pastor tells us about him, not what kind of political firestorm it might create. I should say that in doing so, I will be assuming something I take to be obvious: namely, that Obama himself has not just not made the kinds of statements his pastor has made, but has tried, at every turn, to unite rather than divide, and that it is deeply unlikely that he wants to damn America, blames the US for the HIV virus, etc. Or, in short: that he disagrees with his pastor a lot, as he has repeatedly said.

Obama And Wright 1: In The Real World

by hilzoy

I didn't read this ABC piece on Obama's pastor until yesterday evening:

"Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”"

The video on ABC's page is worth watching. So is this:

In it, Wright goes on about how Barack doesn't fit the mold created by rich white people for their leaders, but Hillary Clinton does. Some of what he says is obviously true: "Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color", for instance. Some of it is obviously false: "Hillary ain't never had to work twice as hard just to get accepted". As this excellent post by FlyOnTheWall notes, "the sermon was delivered less than a week after Obama's loss in New Hampshire, but well before the Illinois primary, and his frustration is almost palpable." I can understand that frustration. But the fact remains that what Wright says is genuinely blind to the problems that women face in trying to be treated fairly and as equals. It is, in a certain way, like Geraldine Ferraro's remarks, except without any grounds for thinking that the Obama campaign approved or might profit from them.

Bottom line: I think that Obama has to do something fairly serious to distance himself from this. He has, of course, already disavowed the statements themselves. From the ABC piece:

"Sen. Obama told the New York Tmes he was not at the church on the day of Rev. Wright's 9/11 sermon. "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification", Obama said in a recent interview."

Today, he said this:

"This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.

Q: What about this particular statement?

A: Obviously, I disagree with that. Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

I don't think that that's enough. I think he needs to address this directly and at greater length, and probably to remove Rev. Wright from his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee. I hate saying that, for reasons I will get to in a subsequent post, but I think it's right.

Schadenfreude

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"In the tiny world of people who keep the books for Washington's multitude of political committees, Christopher J. Ward was considered the Republican "gold standard," in the words of a former co-worker -- one of the few people with so much expertise in election law that everyone wanted Ward's services.

The quiet workaholic is listed as treasurer for 83 GOP fundraising committees over the past eight years, according to Federal Election Commission records. In the past five years alone, he oversaw the accounting for committees that raised more than $400 million, $368 million of it at the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to a Washington Post review of those records.

But in late January, Ward, 39, was dismissed as the NRCC announced that it had found financial "irregularities" that "may include fraud." The FBI is investigating what appears to be "a significant amount of money" missing from the House Republican fundraising arm, according to a law enforcement official.

Now the dozens of GOP lawmakers who had clamored for Ward's help are apprehensively poring over his work along with FBI investigators, trying to learn more about the finances he oversaw. Several lawmakers have told Rep. K. Michael Conaway (Tex.), head of the NRCC's auditing subcommittee, that they think money may be missing from their political committees, as well. (...)

The first inkling of trouble came when Conaway took over the NRCC's auditing subcommittee in early 2007. A certified public accountant himself, Conaway said in interviews that he asked for something considered routine in the corporate world: an audit of NRCC books for the previous year by an outside firm and a meeting with the auditors.

"My expectation was that that frank meeting would take three minutes," Conaway said.

Instead, Ward kept putting him off, he said. "Okay, we'll get it for the next meeting, we'll get it for you," Ward said, according to Conaway, who became suspicious of what he described as Ward's "passive aggressive" behavior.

He said Ward avoided the issue for months, until January, when Ward told Conaway that he and GOP lawmakers would meet with auditors. But Ward canceled the meeting 30 minutes before it was scheduled to begin.

Republicans called the outside firm and found out that no audits had been done since 2003. After looking at the documents Ward had given them for each year, they determined that he had fabricated them, according to Davis and other officials with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

The NYT reports that "hundreds of thousands of dollars are missing and presumed stolen."

Tom Cole, the head of the NRCC, has tried to reassure his members that this scandal "will not adversely affect fundraising in the long term." He'd better hope it doesn't. After all, the NRCC is going to have to defend dozens of seats left vacant by all those Republicans who have decided that it's time to head for greener pastures. And besides:

"The investigation into the NRCC's finances is another in a series of blows to House Republicans. The NRCC, for the first time in any political observer's memory, raised less money in 2007 than its counterpart, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The Democrats raised $67 million to $49 million for the Republicans.

At the end of January, the DCCC had more than $35 million cash in its accounts to the NRCC's $6.4 million."

And that was before they dropped $1.2 million on their failed attempt to hold onto Dennis Hastert's old seat.

Criminality: no fun at all when you're the victim, not the perpetrator.

***

UPDATE: Oops: it seems the NRCC has restated their figures, and their cash on hand is just $5.7 million. Also, they think Ward might have stolen around $1 million. If I were a donor, this would certainly make me feel confident.

Joe's Gotta Go

by publius

I’m not exactly a huge Joe-Momentum fan. But up until now, I’ve disagreed with calls to strip him of seniority and committee assignments. As long as he cast his first vote for Harry Reid, I frankly didn’t care what he did or what he said on the Sunday talk shows. In fact, I favored giving him room to be as wankerous as he wanna be, so long as it kept him inside the tent.

But that said, actively supporting the Republican nominee for President crosses a line. If I were Reid, I would (quietly at first) tell him to knock it off. And if he doesn’t, he should be stripped of everything next term. Let his transformation to Republican become complete.

And there’s more here involved than just personal dislike for a spoiled, bitter man whose pettiness and self-righteousness knows no bounds. There’s a very real chance that John McCain will be President next year, alongside a Democratic Congress. If Dems can’t get Joe-Momentum’s crucial Oversight Committee to lift a finger against Bush, then it certainly won’t take steps against his BFF McCain.

Again, I’m not necessarily for all-out public embarrassment, yet. But Lieberman needs to understand that this choice will -- if it continues -- result in consequences. And if he bolts the party, let him bolt. It makes it easier to beat him next time around.

On an aside, maybe Jonathan Chait could weigh in to remind us why supporting Lamont was such a silly thing to do.

Incomprehensible

by hilzoy

How does someone end up doing something like this?

"A United Nations war crimes court on Wednesday upheld the war crimes and genocide conviction of a Roman Catholic priest and increased his sentence to life in prison for his part in the killings of 800,000 fellow Rwandans.

In April 1994, when pro-government Hutu militiamen were rounding up ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu for slaughter across Rwanda, 1,500 parishioners of the priest, the Rev. Athanase Seromba, took shelter in his church in the town of Nyange.

Rather than seeking to protect his flock, Father Seromba, an ethnic Hutu, had the church leveled by bulldozers and ordered gunmen to shoot any Tutsis who tried to flee the carnage, according to testimony introduced in court. There were no survivors."

Somehow, it makes it worse that these were his parishioners -- not because he was a priest, but because these were people he knew. I can dimly imagine how a person might kill a lot of strangers, people he didn't know, who were abstractions to him, or whose humanity he somehow didn't really believe in. But your parishioners?

Your Government In Action

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"After Philadelphia's housing director refused a demand by President Bush's housing secretary to transfer a piece of city property to a business friend, two top political appointees at the department exchanged e-mails discussing the pain they could cause the Philadelphia director.

"Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?" Orlando J. Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote about Philadelphia housing director Carl R. Greene.

"Take away all of his Federal dollars?" responded Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing. She typed symbols for a smiley-face, ":-D," at the end of her January 2007 note.

Cabrera wrote back a few minutes later: "Let me look into that possibility." (...)

On the date these e-mails were sent, HUD notified the housing authority that it had been found in violation of rules requiring that 5 percent of housing be accessible to disabled residents. The department later argued that because the authority refused to acknowledge it was in violation and to agree to a specific remedy, it was in violation of a broader agreement that put $50 million in federal funding in jeopardy."

TR Speaks!

by hilzoy

A couple of days ago, John McCain put out a video of which Sam Boyd aptly said that it "gives you an idea of what it’d be like to be Norman Podhoretz on shrooms." Eric Rauchway at EOTAW noticed something I missed, though. One of the many fighting white guys of history whom McCain quotes is Teddy Roosevelt:

"With all my heart and soul ... I pledge you my word to do everything I can to put every particle of courage, of common sense, and of strength that I have at your disposal. ... Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one in which we are in."

When I saw the ad, I didn't think to ask: what fight was TR talking about, I wonder? It turns out that McCain's quote is from Roosevelt's 'A Confession of Faith', in which he explains his guiding principles to the first convention of the Progressive Party (aka the Bull Moose Party.) Several of Roosevelt's concerns seem particularly important to him. One is the extent to which the existing political parties have grown detached from the needs of the people they ostensibly serve:

"Neither the Republican nor the Democratic platform contains the slightest promise of approaching the great problems of today either with understanding or good faith; and yet never was there greater need in this Nation than now of understanding, and of action taken in good faith, on the part of the men and the organizations shaping our governmental policy. Moreover, our needs are such that there should be coherent action among those responsible for the conduct of National affairs and those responsible for the conduct of State affairs; because our aim should be the same in both State and Nation; that is, to use the Government as an efficient agency for the practical betterment of social and economic conditions throughout this land. There are other important things to be done, but this is the most important thing. It is preposterous to leave a movement in the hands of men who have broken their promises as have the present heads of the Republican organization (not of the Republican voters, for they in no shape represent the rank and file of Republican voters). These men by their deeds give the lie to their words. There is no health in them, and they cannot be trusted. But the Democratic party is just as little to be trusted..."

Another is controlling the trusts. But here is a third:

"I especially challenge the attention of the people to the need of dealing in far-reaching fashion with our human resources, and therefore our labor power. (...) In the last twenty years an increasing percentage of our people have come to depend on industry for their livelihood, so that today the wage-workers in industry rank in importance side by side with the tillers of the soil. As a people we cannot afford to let any group of citizens or any individual citizen live or labor under conditions which are injurious to the common welfare. Industry, therefore, must submit to such public regulation as will make it a means of life and health, not of death or inefficiency. We must protect the crushable elements at the base of our present industrial structure.

The first charge on the industrial statesmanship of the day is to prevent human waste. The dead weight of orphanage and depleted craftsmanship, of crippled workers and workers suffering from trade diseases, of casual labor, of insecure old age, and of household depletion due to industrial conditions are, like our depleted soils, our gashed mountain-sides and flooded river bottoms, so many strains upon the National structure, draining the reserve strength of all industries and showing beyond all peradventure the public element and public concern in industrial health.

Ultimately we desire to use the Government to aid, as far as can safely be done, in helping the industrial tool-users to become in part tool-owners, just as our farmers now are. Ultimately the Government may have to join more efficiently than at present in strengthening the hands of the workingmen who already stand at a high level, industrially and socially, and who are able by joint action to serve themselves. But the most pressing and immediate need is to deal with the cases of those who are on the level, and who are not only in need themselves, but, because of their need, tend to jeopardize the welfare of those who are better off. We hold that under no industrial order, in no commonwealth, in no trade, and in no establishment should industry be carried on under conditions inimical to the social welfare. The abnormal, ruthless, spendthrift industry of establishment tends to drag down all to the level of the least considerate."

In this speech, Roosevelt stood for a living wage:

"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

He called for social insurance:

"It is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazzards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance. This should be made a charge in whole or in part upon the industries the employer, the employee, and perhaps the people at large, to contribute severally in some degree. Wherever such standards are not met by given establishments, by given industries, are unprovided for by a legislature, or are balked by unenlightened courts, the workers are in jeopardy, the progressive employer is penalized, and the community pays a heavy cost in lessened efficiency and in misery. What Germany has done in the way of old age pensions or insurance should be studied by us, and the system adapted to our uses, with whatever modifications are rendered necessary by our different ways of life and habits of thought."

In general, Roosevelt does not seem to think, as today's conservatives tend to, that the government is a necessarily inefficient and generally counterproductive force best used only in cases, like the national defense, where there is no workable alternative. He agrees with today's progressives, who tend to think that while of course the government should be made as efficient and flexible as possible, used well, it can help us to set the terms of economic activity in ways that benefit everyone, and ameliorate some problems that we, as a people, decide we should not have to live with. He seems to see government as an essential tool for achieving some collective goals; and while he seems quite clear that that tool must be used wisely and with skill, he does not seem to think that our efforts to use it will inevitably be counterproductive. To judge by this speech, he would have been baffled by Ronald Reagan's quip: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

If McCain wants to sign on to the idea of using government to ameliorate social problems, requiring employers to insure their employees against illness, unemployment, accident, and age, providing a living wage, and keeping people from falling too far into want and penury, it's news to me. If he doesn't, he should stop using this speech in his ads. And he should also consider actually reading the sources of quotes he uses, rather than finding them in Roget's Thesaurus Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (duh, thanks Christopher M) and assuming the people who wrote them are on his side.