Stromata Blog

The Coming Torricelli Maneuver in Illinois

Let me be the first to predict it: Just before the deadline for putting the ballot into final form, Alexi Giannoulias will withdraw from the Illinois Senate race, and the Democratic bosses will name Dan Hynes, who came within a fraction of a percent of winning the gubernatorial primary, as their replacement candidate.

Obvious when you think about it, no?

Update (3/4/10): Jennifer Rubin agrees with me.

The President of Chicago

I’ve seen four theories about why President Obama has decided that the most important task he can undertake this week is to fly to Copenhagen to lobby in behalf of the Chicago bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

The one that I would like to believe is Bill Kristol’s: that the sports junket is a cover for a surprise visit to our troops in Afghanistan. The trip could be the start of a White House effort – conspicuously absent to date – to rally public support behind the Af-Pak campaign and contradict the hints (such as his delay in authorizing new force commitments and nearly complete absence of communications with the commander in the field, not to mention Joe Biden’s vaporous “fight terrorism from 35,000 feet” proposal) that Kabul is about to go under the spacious Obama bus.

A second theory is that the International Olympic Committee has covertly made the decision to pick Chicago and that the President wants to bask in the “glory” of putting an American city over the top. If that’s the motive, it will be yet another example of our chief executive’s childish vanity. Hundreds of rank-and-file Chicagoans have devoted thousands of hours to pushing the bid. The One swoops down to claim the credit. Appalling.

For the true cynics, Jim Geraghty notes that the trip “just happens to take him out of the country the day the unemployment numbers for September will be announced”. How handy to have a big foreign story to overshadow what’s likely to be an unhappy domestic one.

Finally, and most plausibly, there’s the view of John Fund, writing in the WSJ.com Political Diary (subscription-only, and the best use of $7.95 you have this month):

Some even in Chicago question the wisdom of his lobbying trip. “To let himself be distracted by a parochial concern like this does not speak well for Obama’s judgment,” wrote Chicago Tribune columnist Steven Chapman. Not every Chicagoan shares Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for hosting the games. The latest Tribune poll shows only 47% of residents backing the city’s bid in the wake of Mayor Richard Daley’s decision to put taxpayers on the hook for any cost overruns.

But in reality President Obama’s decision makes perfect sense. Chicago’s bid for the Olympics is in jeopardy, and even though the president will have perhaps five minutes before the microphones of the International Olympic Committee, his star presence could make the difference. What’s on the line in Copenhagen is much bigger than the Olympics, at least to the parochial players who run Chicago. Mayor Daley has staked his legacy on snagging the games. The 67-year-old mayor has dominated the city for the past two decades, but recent scandals and financial strains have dented his prestige. “The mayor’s ability to continue to run the city as he sees fit could hinge in great part on whether the Olympics bid succeeds,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

That’s why Chicago sources tell me Mayor Daley pulled out all the stops to mobilize the White House to save the city’s bid. He was aided in his appeals by the fact that the White House is now stuffed with top aides who are Daley loyalists, ranging from Valerie Jarrett to David Axelrod to Rahm Emanuel.

In their heyday, the big city political machines wielded massive influence. The bosses had governors, senators and congressmen in their pockets – but never quite managed to dominate a Presidency. Richard M. Daley is generally regarded as a pale shadow of his father, Richard J. In this respect, at least, he has surpassed the old man.

Further reading: The American Spectator, “Obama’s Olympic Spirit”

Replacing Rahm

Last Tuesday, I engaged in the civic-minded and (for a Republican) futile act of voting in the Illinois Fifth Congressional District primary. My former Congressman, Rahm Emanuel, has gone off to save the country from the greatest threat facing it, viz., Rush Limbaugh, so it’s necessary to select his successor. It will, of course, be a Democrat. Republicans have held the seat for four years out of the past 110. (As an historical aside, the very first Fifth District Representative, elected in 1842, was Stephen A. Douglas.) Last time out, the GOP candidate advertised himself as “LIBERAL”, with “Republican” in tiny type. He got 22 percent of the vote.

When I arrived at the polls, shortly before 8:00 a.m., I found eerie emptiness. Two precincts share the polling place. I was the only voter for either. In the past, there has usually been a short line even for a primary. The wait last November was half an hour. Tuesday’s apathy (a turnout under 15 percent of registered voters) defied the fact that twelve Democrats were running, several of them locally prominent politicians who had advertised heavily.

The first place finisher (12,100 votes) was Mike Quigley, a Cook County commissioner best known for having quarreled with the Stroger dynasty, second only to the Daleys as fons et origo of Chicagoland corruption. That’s more than Barack Obama ever did. I have no reason to think that Mr. Quigley will be anything other than a down-the-line Pelosi loyalist. Still, I’d rather be represented by him than by the union-boss toadies who placed second and third. Further down (seventh place with six percent) was Tom Geoghegan, endorsed by Mickey Kaus, no less. He tried the novel tactic of buying ads on right-wing blogs. It didn’t work.

On the GOP side, there were six candidates, which was quite incredible. In ordinary years, there may be two, usually pretty unimpressive characters. A commentator on a primary a few years ago opined, not unfairly, that neither candidate’s IQ was as high as his age. The field this time around was a quite presentable bunch of nobodies. A minuscule electorate (4,000 voters) chose Rosanna Pulido, whose one quarter of the vote put her 150 votes ahead of the LIBERAL. The guy I voted for, who had what should have been a very helpful endorsement from local Republican star Tony Peraica, did no visible campaigning and came in fourth.

Miss Pulido is a somewhat controversial figure, as she heads the Illinois chapter of the anti-immigration zealot “Minutemen” organization. Her Web site’s choice of “featured issues” (the Second Amendment, illegal immigration, abortion and “seniors”) strikes me as not quite attuned to a moment when everybody’s attention ought to be focused on the bumbling radicalism of the Obama Presidency. When the weather was sunny, it was fine to argue about e-Verify and H1B visas. With the storm raging, let’s concentrate on stopping the guy who’s tearing the roof off the house. A campaign that quoted profusely from Daniel Henninger and Charles Krauthammer and Michael Boskin and Yuval Levin wouldn’t carry the Fifth District, but it also wouldn’t be quaint and out of touch. There are, I suspect, more than a few liberals who are starting to realize that their dwindling stock portfolios have some connection with the dithering Administration in Washington.

The Colonel’s Ghost

The Chicago Tribune’s editorial page has become such a montage of vaguely leftoid pastels that I hardly ever glance at it any more. Today, however, the ghost of Colonel McCormick seems to have possessed the editorial board, as it shouts forthrightly, “Roland Burris, Resign”:

The benefit of the doubt had already been stretched thin and taut by the time Roland Burris offered his third version of the events leading to his appointment to the U.S. Senate. It finally snapped like a rubber band, popping him on that long Pinocchio nose of his, when he came out with version four.

Let’s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama – unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor’s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn’t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

The story gets worse with every telling.

Enough. Roland Burris must resign.

The Colonel would, of course, have made more of this point:

Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), who chaired the impeachment panel, sat on Burris’ amended testimony for more than a week.

That would be the period during which ARRA (pronounced “error”) was being pushed through the Senate with just the bare 60 votes it needed for passage. How convenient that one of those 60 Senators wasn’t “distracted” by questions about his integrity. Just a coincidence, no doubt. At least, we can be sure that no one in the MSM (including, alas, the Chicago Tribune) will probe more deeply.

Meanwhile, The One has nothing to say:

I was rather intrigued that the White House press corps asks Gibbs about Burris “a couple times”, and Gibbs hasn’t gotten, or can’t get, the president’s reaction. . . . Of course this is a thorny and uncomfortable topic, and any non-mush statement would have to either give Burris the benefit of the doubt or concede the “resign now” crowd has a point. But those tough calls come with the job.

Avoiding the topic for as long as possible is kind of like... I don’t know, voting “present” or something.

I have more confidence in our President. I’m sure that he will issue a strong, unequivocal statement – just as soon as Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi fashions words to put into his mouth.

Due Process for Blago: What It Means

A Cornell professor has entered a plea in behalf of Milrad Blagojevich, arguing that the soon-to-be-ex-governor is being condemned by the Illinois legislature on weak evidence without due process of law. Dave Kopel feels the same way. Neither of these estimable figures is the sort to have a natural sympathy for Blago, and their arguments have a patina of high-minded devotion to justice. As Mr. Kopel puts it,

[T]he evidence against Blagojevich consists almost exclusively of an FBI agent affirming the authenticity of highly selective excerpts from surveillance tapes which he provided via an affidavit. Notably, Agent “Cain refused to answer whether the excerpts in the affidavit put events in ‘the proper context’ (Tr. 293) or whether he has learned anything in the seven weeks since he signed the affidavit which ‘would make any of the statements in your affidavit untrue?’ (Tr. 299).”

Put me in the camp that is reluctant to ruin someone’s life just because Patrick Fitzgerald says so.

In his round of television appearances, Blago has declared that the portions of his recorded conversations that have so far been made public are taken out of context and that, when the full truth is known, he will shine resplendent as a defender of the little guy against a conspiracy of malefactors.

Fine. He has the opportunity to present the context and explain away his seemingly incriminatory statements. He can put on a defense at his Senate trial. He can testify under oath. He can call witnesses. He can review the prosecution’s evidence in detail and expose its flaws. But he chooses instead to confine his defense to the airwaves and, reportedly, a closing statement to the Senator-Judges.

In a criminal trial, he would have the right to say nothing and compel the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Messrs. Jacobson and Kopel are essentially applying the same standard to an impeachment, and there, I believe, they go astray.

Americans have rights to life, liberty and property that can be taken away only by due process of law, a term that incorporates all kinds of safeguards for defendants. Private citizen Milrad Blagojevich can’t, and shouldn’t, be sent to prison unless the U.S. attorney can offer a case that, entirely on its own, demonstrates his guilt. I’ll grant arguendo that the prosecutors before the Illinois Senate haven’t done that.

Tenure in a high public office is not, however, a right. It is an honor and privilege. If the governor of Illinois, faced with the evidence that has been made public, can’t or won’t offer reasons why we should believe him innocent, I see no reason for allowing him to remain in office. It’s up to Blago to show why the citizenry ought to trust him to exercise executive powers – not up to us to wait patiently for the assembling of an iron-clad case against him.

In the Land of Lincoln

Received from a friend. I wish I had thought of it.

The Blago-Burris Seat

Notwithstanding the ingenious suggestions of various Volokh Conspiracy commenters, there are only two ways that the Senate can avoid seating Roland Burris. One is to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule Powell v. McCormack. That could happen, but liberals won’t be happy if it does. The rationale for the decision would almost certainly be the Political Question doctrine, the revival of which would be a severe setback for the Legal Left. I look forward hopefully to Justice Scalia’s majority opinion and to the NLG/ABA/AAJ gnashing of teeth thereafter.

The alternative is to persuade the appointee to back out, by making it clear to him that he will spend an unhappy two years as a gate crasher. The Democratic leadership has to let him take the oath of office, but they can’t be compelled to admit him to the party caucus or give him committee assignments and decent office space. Members can ignore his bills and refuse to let him co-sponsor their own. The presiding officer can overlook him when he tries to speak on the floor. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee can announce that he will get no support in 2010. Faced with the choice between a prosperous lobbying practice in Springfield and pariah status in Washington, Mr. Burris can be expected to ease himself out of the picture. Bobby Rush might call the bluff and dare Harry Reid et al. to consign the lone black Senator to the back of the bus. Roland Burris won’t.

Jennifer Rubin has a series of astute observations [links omitted]:

Harry Reid better have a more compelling argument than “fraud” to keep Roland Burris out of the senate. For starters, where’s the evidence of “fraud” and is Reid accusing Burris of some misdeed? By their brilliant strategy of opposing a special election, the Democrats have now ensured an unseemly and protracted legal and political free-for-all.

President-elect Obama is predictably “disappointed.” That, you may recall, is the officially-approved default reaction.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan whines that Blago’s pick of Burris leaves the state in a “terrible situation.” Hmmm. How could this have been prevented? Someone ask Sen. Dick Durbin.

I agree that Reid’s got a tough case: it’s not enough to say Blago is a crook and was considering a list of other people for a price. Blago’s move, in a way, is a brilliant bit of misdirection, but it does undermine any insanity defense. This is one clever pol.

My favorite quip, though, is Jonah Goldberg’s: “Roland Burris is more qualified to be undemocratically appointed to the Senate than Caroline Kennedy is.” He heads that “Stating the Obvious”, and it is.

I’ll admit to feeling pangs of sympathy for the Senator-designate. Although his persona practically defines “lackluster”, his biography is inspirational (even if he does say so himself). He grew up as a young black man in downstate Illinois at a time when racial attitudes there were only marginally more enlightened than in Alabama and was elected to statewide office on an essentially nonracial basis. It’s a pity that his career will be remembered not for those achievements but for this twilight fiasco.

Further reading: John Kass, “For Sheer Brazenness, Nobody Surpasses Rod”

A Post-Partisan Knave

Tony Rezko’s trial and conviction are, at heart, an indictment of Illinois’s major political parties. The most prominent politicians to whom he was attached were Democrats, Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama, but, as the Chicago Tribune observes, his machinations were a scandal for both parties:

The trial also provided ample fodder for cynics who see Illinois politicians as members of a cozy club motivated more by greed than altruism or ideology.

Witnesses against Rezko claimed his alleged schemes involved a host of political insiders from both major parties. Among those whose names came up repeatedly during the trial were Chris Kelly, another top fundraiser for Blagojevich; William Cellini, a veteran Republican power broker; and Robert Kjellander, the longtime Republican national committeeman from Illinois.

Slick Barry’s reaction: “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew.” Just like the Jeremiah Wright and the Michael Pfleger he didn’t know.

As the elite media will remind us incessantly, Barack Obama was not accused of participating in any of the schemes for which Rezko was being tried. Rezko was, however, one of his earliest and most generous patrons, going so far as to help him buy his house. Fixers don’t do favors for young pols out of the goodness of their hearts. Politicians with any perceptiveness don’t accept them without realizing that repayment will be called for.

Still, Senator Obama ought not to suck up all the attention. The message the Republicans ought to get – and send – is that it is past time for the Illinois GOP to purge its Thompson-era leadership. If it continues to offer the voters nothing but a different set of knaves, they’ll continue to choose the familiar Democratic crew.

Further reading: John Kass, “Rezko Is Not Just Obama's Problem - He’s the GOP’s”

Another Restrictionist Loses

Yesterday, the Republicans lost the Congressional seat in Illinois’ 14th District, an area that probably hasn’t gone Democratic since Abe Lincoln was a babe in arms. This is, of course, a difficult year for the GOP, but one factor leaps out in this particular race. The Republican candidate, a rich and so far unsuccessful political dilettante named Jim Oberweis, built much of his campaign around the allegedly urgent need to restrict immigration. In the minds of the restrictionists, that’s the issue that will fire up the demoralized Republican “base” and offset the Democrats’ fervor for defeat in Iraq. It didn’t work that way. Like its cousin protectionism, immigration restrictionism polls well, but for some reason its supporters are like the famous “Obama girl”; they talk loudly but never get around to casting votes.

Further reading: The Wall Street Journal, “Lose and Learn”:

Republicans such as Mr. Oberweis remain convinced that illegal immigration is a winning issue. And if the electorate were comprised mostly of Internet screechers and cable news anchors, they might be right. But the fact that Mr. McCain, the Presidential candidate most closely associated with immigration tolerance, has outlasted Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and other immigration hardliners, should be an indication that other issues are foremost in the minds of even GOP voters.

Blago Sets a Record!

If there were a Guinness Book of Political Records, Rod Blagojevich would have gained a spot in it today. Governors often have trouble getting their bills through legislatures, but I’m sure that none has ever before done quite so badly at it as this:

The Illinois House today overwhelmingly rejected Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s plan for a new $7 billion business tax.

Not a single lawmaker voted “yes” in favor of the plan when House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) called the resolution, which asked if they supported or opposed the governor’s proposed new tax. But 107 lawmakers voted “no” – a vote against the governor’s plan – and seven voted “present.”

The Blagojevich scheme started life as a nice piece of demagoguery: “Business” would pay hefty new taxes to finance a state-run heath care program and a big increase in education spending (allocated in accordance with the priorities of the teachers’ unions, of course). Unluckily for the governor, he couldn’t just soak the rich in the traditional Democratic fashion by mulcting high-income taxpayers. The Illinois Constitution prohibits a graduated income tax. Taxes on profitable (i. e., successful, job-creating) businesses are also constrained, because another constitutional provision limits the corporate income tax rate to 160 percent of the individual rate.

Governor Blagojevich’s alternative was a tax on gross receipts. He doubtless figured that the “business tax” label would satisfy everybody but troglodyte Republicans, of which the state legislature has fewer and fewer with every election. But the levy’s impact was so plain that Democrats needed only their customary 20/200 economic eyesight to see that it would hit not shadowy plutocrats but everybody who buys goods and services, including all of their own constituents.

One mustn’t expect too much wisdom from Illinois lawmakers, so there is likely to be some dreadful “compromise” that will squeeze the blood from different, less transparent turnips. Nonetheless, it will be pleasant in future years to recall that tally: zero to 107 to seven.