Concerns about Alexi Giannoulias misguided

Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, taking his cues from Karl Rove, wants everyone to know that "people are concerned" about his Democratic opponent, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. One of these "concerns" that people are supposed to have is over Alexi's fund-raising prowess.

You see, Alexi only raised $1.2 million to Kirk's $2.2 million in this quarter. Kirk, of course, has benefitted greatly from his support from Wall Street firms and Big Banks, which he voted to bail out in the fall of 2008. And they are certainly rewarding Kirk for his support for the big banks.

Alexi, though, has taken a different tack. His ethical guidelines prevent him from taking money from corporate PACs, like those who have contributed more than 2 million dollars to Mark Kirk. Alexi is running to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate, not Wall Street. Kirk has already proven he'll sell his vote to the highest bidder (which rarely includes Illinois).

But, like most of Kirk's criticisms of Alexi, this one doesn't stand up, either. Alexi is squarely in the middle of Democratic Senate candidates, both incumbents and non-incumbents. No reason for concern -- unless you're Mark Kirk.

Alexi raised more money than Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector -- who's in a tight primary race right now. He raised twice as much as Democratic candidates in New Hampshire, Indiana and Ohio:

NV SEN: Sen. Harry Reid $1.75M
NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand $1.6 M
MO Sec/State Robin Carnahan ~$1.5 M
CO Sen. Michael Bennet $1.4 M
IL Treas. Alexi Giannoulias $1.2 M
PA Sen. Arlen Specter $1.16M
NH Rep. Paul Hodes $665 K
IN Rep. Brad Ellsworth $625 K
OH LG Lee Fisher $550 K
LA Rep. Charlie Melancon $543 k

So what's all the fuss about? Oh, yeah. Instead of talking about jobs, Kirk wants to attack Alexi. Instead of talking to the people of Illinois, Kirk wants to -- remember? -- attack Alexi. Whatever the question is, Kirk's answer is to attack Alexi.

The Karl Rove school of politics. Divide the nation, and suppress the vote. Sound familiar?

Democrats are supposed to be demoralized because we've nominated a bright, young, attractive reformer to be our nominee to fill Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. While Alexi Giannoulias can point to his head-of-the-pack leadership to save the jobs at HartMarx, Mark Kirk can point to... ANOTHER ATTACK on Alexi Giannoulias. Sense a theme here?

Mark Kirk thinks we're stupid. He thinks that if he can make Alexi a bad boy, Democrats will stay home, not vote or skip the race. And you can understand why. Conservatives are too fond of Kirk. Kirk's actual base may not go far outside his North Shore Congressional District. You won't see any Mark Kirk signs at a Tea Party rally (and don't say his name too loud, if you go). They aren't fans.

Alexi faces a stiff head wind. The national political environment doesn't favor Democrats. The economy is still in the dump for many of us. And Kirk is one of the most formidable candidates Republicans could offer.

But this is Illinois, and -- more importantly -- this is Barack Obama's old seat. Mark Kirk wants to make this race about Alexi Giannoulias, because he understands that Illinois would never elect him if this were about issues, if this was about who bests could represent OUR state in the U.S. Senate.

As this quarter's fundraising totals suggest, Mark Kirk has stepped-up his game. And now Alexi Giannoulias needs to do so, as well. Alexi remains an overly cautious candidate, one who stays well within his comfort zone. He's going to have to step outside that comfort zone and start pushing the envelope. But, in the end, this election is going to be about Illinois, not Alexi Giannoulias. It's going to be about who can best support our favorite son, in his Agenda for Hope and Change in Washington, D.C.

We understand that the East Coast corporate Fat Cats like Mark Kirk. There was really never any question about that. The question is, will Illinois elect someone who will carry Mitch McConnell's and the conservative Southern Republican leadership's water. Because no one expects Mark Kirk to bring an independent voice to the Senate. He's been George Bush's and Donald Rumsfeld's trooper in the House, and you can reasonably expect him to be Mitch McConnell's trooper in the Senate.

Illinois can do better than Mark Kirk, and we will...

Mark Kirk fails to answer questions (again)

Half way through the latest Congressional vacation, the AP headline said it all: Kirk won't say if he wants health care repealed. Kirk won't say -- again. Still. In perpetuity.

Mark Kirk is more than willing to talk to the New York Times and the Washington Post. He'd tell them, *if* they were interested in the Senate election here in Illinois. He's their boy. The ultimate D.C. insider, Mark Kirk is quick for a quote to the ultimate beltway insider media. But if the people here in Illinois have a question?

Mark Kirk won't say.

Mark Kirk had two weeks to spend here in Illinois. Did he sit down with the major media outlets like Alexi Giannoulias did for a whole day in the last month? Nope. Kirk couldn't be bothered.

Did Kirk spend more than a few minutes taking questions at any of his appearances around the state? Not according to any report I've seen.

Makes you wonder what Mark Kirk is hiding.

Look, I understand. Mark Kirk voted to bail out the big banks, but criticized Alexi Giannoulias for the fact that his family's community bank is in trouble. We'd like to know why Kirk wants to save the banks that have been his faithful campaign donors, but is so cavalier about banks that actually help people here in Illinios. And we'd like to know why Mark Kirk assured the conservative Club for Growth that he'd lead the efforts to repeal this historic Health Care Reform law, but has now changed his mind. Kinda sound familiar? He did the same thing with Cap and Trade. First he was for it, then he's against it. About what you'd expect from the ultimate Washington, D.C. insider.

People here in Illinois want to understand Mark Kirk's role in the GREATEST INTELLIGENCE FAILURE in our lifetime. We want to know why Mark Kirk has never stood up and voted against his very conservative leadership without their permission on a single whipped vote. We want to know why Kirk always seems to say one thing in private and another thing in public. We understand that Kirk has been dominated by powerful figures -- eg, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush -- and we are concerned that Kirk will go to the Senate and be dominated by powerful figures (like Mitch McConnell or John Coryn). We wonder why Kirk is so secretive and why he seems to know more about China than he does Illinois. Most of all, voters in Illinois are concerned that Mark Kirk is more likely to represent the hyper-conservative Republican leadership than he is the state (and voters) of Illinois.

This two-week Congressional recess should have given voters (and media) in Illinois the opportunity to get our questions answered. But Mark Kirk won't say.

These questions have been around for awhile (hence the video above). But Kirk continues to run a stealth campaign. An inside-the-beltway campaign. We get that Mark Kirk is a busy man, an very-important-person inside the D.C. beltway. But now he wants our votes to represent our state in the Senate seat formerly held by the President of the United States. Here in Illinois, we are still proud of our presidents. So electing someone who's primary goal will be to prevent our favorite son from achieving the goals that this country elected him to do doesn't exactly seem in our best interests.

But Mark Kirk won't say. Is it arrogance? Hubris? Are we an inconvenient burden for Kirk? Or has Kirk simply decided that we don't deserve to understand his thinking, or that he doesn't deserve to explain his part in our government failures?

Mark Kirk won't say, so he's attacking Alexi Giannoulias for things over which he (Alexi) had no control. Mark Kirk assured his constituents that he knew where the WMDS were in Iraq, but he won't explain why none have been found. Yet he was directly responsible for making that assurance -- assurances you can be sure he also made to the New York Times and the Washington Post in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq.

I get it. We're just little people here in Illinois. And Mark Kirk is a Very Important D.C. Insider. We shouldn't question him. We should just take the scraps that he's given us and accept them. Hey, isn't Kirk waving a flag? See! That should be good enough!

In other words, Kirk is telling us to trust him.

I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly in a trusting mood with regard to politicians. Especially Very Important D.C. Insiders. If Mark Kirk won't answer our questions, then Mark Kirk doesn't deserve our votes. Kirk represents what is wrong with Washington, D.C. He certainly hasn't demonstrated any interest in fixing the place.

Illinois Statehouse News offered another, more telling headline last week: Mark Kirk Says he won’t lead. This is a Senate seat with some history to it. Some of us would like a Senator who can lead, someone who can stand up to powerful interests (like Michael Madigan) and come away with a victory. We don't need a Senator who always says No -- there are things we'd like the Federal Government to do. We need a Senator who knows how to say Yes to Illinois, Yes to Illinois' interests and will represent them when he goes to Washington. The choice couldn't be more stark -- Mark Kirk, the ultimate beltway insider, or Alexi Giannoulias, an independent reformer who listens to the people here in Illinois and has gone out of his way to answer our questions...

Not even his supporters Trust Mark Kirk

You can't trust Mark Kirk. Even the right-wing conservative Club for Growth doesn't trust Kirk:

Now the Club for Growth, the powerful, well-funded conservative group, is ripping into Kirk for his sudden indecision, and making it clear that they expect him to live up to his promise.

“He said that he’s going to do this,” Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly just said by phone. “We expect him to live up to his pledge.”

Kirk has signed on to the Club’s repeal pledge, which states: “I hereby pledge to the people of my state to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

“He’s made a promise to the people of Illinois,” Connolly continued. Asked if failing to follow through could cost Kirk the Club’s support in a general election, Connolly said: “We’ll have to see.”

The Club's concern comes after Mark Kirk "repeatedly" refused to say "whether he wants the legislation repealed."

Mark Kirk is campaigning for Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat with a Beltway Insider strategy. He doesn't talk to Illinois voters, or local media, although he continues to take calls (and get covered) by the New York Times and Washington Post. But they don't ask him tough questions (like would he really -- REALLY? -- follow through with his pledge to repeal universal coverage, or ending denial for pre-existing conditions, or the practice of recission and lifetime limits on health coverage.

Instead, Mark Kirk dodges questions by Illinois voters and local media.

Apparently, because Kirk believes he can. Kirk's strategy in this campaign has been to attack Alexi Giannoulias for whatever he can think of. Broadway Bank followed the advice of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Attorney General's office with regards to enticing members of organized crime into disclosure and participation in the (above ground) economy? Mark Kirk won't tell you that numerous mobsters have been convicted and sent to prison (eg, Al Capone) because of the disclosure statements they gave to bankers -- because that would make his personal attacks on Alexi seem, well, ridiculous.

Nor will Mark Kirk tell you if he really means it when he promises to take away health care insurance from kids, young adults and older Americans.

The question we should ask ourselves is this: if Mark Kirk's most adament supporters can't trust him, why should we?

The dilemma Illinois voters face in contemplating their vote for U.S. Senate is this: Mark Kirk has never demonstrated any type of political courage during his service in Congress. He didn't stand up George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld when they were making decisions to invade Iraq based on the greatest intelligence failure in my lifetime. He's never stood up to the conservative Republican leadership on a whipped vote (without their permission) since he's been in the U.S. House. And now he can't stand up and admit that he's taken a controversial decision, one that isn't supported by the electorate here in Illinois or stand up to the right wing conservative Club for Growth when they are demanding that Kirk stick to his pledge.

You just can't trust Mark Kirk. He's never given us reason to trust him, and now his supporters are starting to recognize Kirk's lack of fortitude. There's no reason for Illinois to send him to the Senate. These tough times demand someone who can help bring the country forward, out of the abyss into which George Bush has driven us...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

How could public perception of the President's Health Care Bill change so dramatically since it was passed? Polls taken before the vote (eg, Bloomberg & CNN) showed less than 40 percent of those polled favored the legislation, while more than 50 percent opposed it. Yet right after the vote, the USA Today/Gallup Poll asked if respondents thought "it is a good thing or a bad thing that Congress passed this bill?" 49 percent said it was a good thing, while 40 percent thought it was a bad thing. that's a ten percent swing among results expressing favoring the bill, and almost a 20 percent swing among those who didn't (using the CNN results). How could that be?

Republican pollster Bill McInturff's analysis appears to have been right. McInturff told the Rothenberg Political Report that:

“People have a stunning amount of information about the fight over health care reform and Democratic efforts to pass a bill. There is the perception that there have been backroom deals — with Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, and with labor unions — to get support for a bill that isn’t to the public’s advantage.”

“People have come to the conclusion that it must be a bad bill, since if it were a good one, Democratic leaders wouldn’t have had to do what they did to get the votes to pass it,” McInturff continued.

I'd alter McInturff's conclusion just a bit: People seemed to have concluded that it must have been a bad bill (especially in light of all the negatives out there on both sides of the political spectrum), because if it were a good bill, Democrats would have the votes to pass it. Once Democrats *did* have the votes, the electorate flipped in its opinion about the bill.

We love our winners.


I love Art Turner. I voted for Art Turner. But I don't want the state Democratic Central Committee to vote him in as our Democratic Lt. Governor nominee.

I'd like to be able to tell you that I voted for Art Turner because he was the most qualified candidate in the race. But that's not why I cast my vote for Art. Rather, I voted for him because he was the only candidate to have asked me (personally) for my vote. I was trying to get him to come down to speak to our Team Obama group here in Flossmoor, but he was having none of it. "But will you vote for me?" Art persisted. So I did.

Art has shown that same persistence in the run-up to today's vote by the Democratic Central Committee members down in Springfield. He is the only one I know who has kept his campaign machinery intact, and used it effectively. Having said that, I don't think Art is the right person for this slot.

When Art Turner was running in the February primaries, we had no idea what the November ticket would look like. Justin Oberman was pounding Robin Kelly on television, and Robin never had the resources to answer. Raja Krishnamoorthi was on television touting his connection to Barack Obama, and David Miller was just introducing himself to the state. Outside of Lisa Madigan and Jesse White, we had no idea who would be on the Democratic ticket this November.

Now we do. We now know that three of the six positions for state government will be represented by African American Democrats. This should make us proud! No one can argue that African Americans would be demoralized by choosing someone other than Art Turner to run with Governor Pat Quinn.

No one has asked me, but it seems to me that one overriding concern and two secondary concerns should dictate who the State Central Committee chooses as our Lt. Governor nominee. First of all, who gives us the best chance for winning in the fall? This has to be the primary factor in electing a replacement for a(nother) candidate who would just have embarrassed Democrats. But a number of candidates would help Democrats win. So secondary consideration should be given to who will best help Governor Quinn and who would best help the Democratic party in Illinois?

Here's the unique aspect to this place that Democrats in Illinois have found themselves in: No downstate Democrat (meaning, no Democrat outside of Cook County) is likely to win statewide office in a contested primary. Look at what happened to Paul Mangieri of Knox County in 2006 (with the Democratic endorsement and its money) and Terry Link of Lake County in 2010. Cook County represents such a huge portion of the Democratic primary vote that it is difficult, if not impossible, for someone outside of Cook to win in a contested primary.

But this isn't the primary. Now we are talking about the general election, where Cook County is, at best, a third of the likely vote. My issue with Art Turner's selection is that this would lock Quinn and Democrats into a Chicago-centric race with an exhausted, and perhaps even demoralized, political organization being expected to turn out the votes. No political strategist wants a single pathway to victory, partially because it makes one's strategy obvious to everyone. Republicans would be handed the initiative, the ability to choose among various political strategies by which to neutralize Gov. Quinn and the Democratic ticket.

If I had my druthers, I'd have wanted a candidate out of Will County, just because it would geographically have optimized all possible paths to victory. Of course, there isn't a candidate from Will County, and hypotheticals get us nowhere.

Choosing a candidate from downstate gives the Democratic ticket not only geographical diversity, but it also gives downstate Democrats a reason to stay engaged in the party. Downstate Democrats could hope to be the next U.S. Senator -- or the next Lt. Governor. Regional diversity is just as relevant as other forms of diversity, and we shouldn't ignore it. We should also realize that there are not that many opportunities to promote regional diversity, so we should take advantage of this one while it's here.

The fact is Democrats could lose this fall. Mark Kirk is perhaps the strongest Republican on the ballot in recent memory. Rod Blagojevich will rear his ugly head this summer. Judy Barr Topinka begins her "I told you so, Illinois" tour at the same time. Republicans have targeted Democratic seats here in the Congress, in the state Senate and in the state House.

Sure, we'll still have Toni Preckwinkle, and Democrats in Cook County could very well begin a new era of Reform and Renewal under her guidance.

What Democrats of all kinds have to accept is that the Democratic Party is a BIG, F*@king tent and we don't always agree (let alone get along). We are a multicultural entity, even as we are constantly fighting for our own to get ahead. Today is the day for that tradition -- that albatross, at times -- to persist...

Our President, in "Preacher Mode"

President Obama, in preacher mode before he returns to professor mode...

Sen. Hutchinson: "We haven't been doing that for the last 25-30 years"

State Sen. Toi Hutchinson gave an impassioned speech yesterday for ending Illinois' budget crisis that has paralyzed Illinois' economy, paralyzed Illinois' social agencies, and paralyzed Illinois' future.

"We are in a crisis," Hutchinson says. "We're in a crisis right now."

Hutchinson's comment comes at a time when Illinois -- and the country -- is divided, and distrust of government is near all-time highs. But Sen. Hutchinson argues that Springfield is broken, and it's time to stand up, fix it, do the right thing and have the courage to lead.

This is not your father's Democrat.

Sen. Hutchinson is not risk-adverse. She believes in speaking the truth -- even when it's not what people want to hear (but we need to hear). Hutchinson is not only a newly-appointed state Senator (surviving a brutal nomination process), but she serves the 40th Senate District, which includes several of the most active Tea Party chapters in Illinois. A straight-shooter, Hutchinson previously wrote:

I remember all of the things I used to say about the General Assembly -- as a taxpayer, a voter, and a mom. I wanted representatives who believed in people, who could engage in meaningful and principled debate, and who weren’t afraid to fight for basic democratic principles. We need more from our legislators.

It’s a toxic political environment, which makes for pretty rough waters. But master sailors are never trained in calm seas. Leaders lead, regardless of the consequences.

That has not been the tradition in Illinois politics of late. While the 1990s saw the growth of "the Combine," the election of Rod Blagojevich toppled many of the prior assumptions in Springfield. Blagojevich's desperate need to be viewed as "top dog" (or should i say, the King) paralyzed Illinois state government long before the economy was paralyzed by the worst recession since the Great Depression.

But neither Blagojevich or his nemesis, Speaker Madigan, can be blamed for the ponzi-scheme financing that state governments undertook to achieve "balanced" budgets in the last decade or so. These accounting tricks and various sleights of hand were invented elsewhere, and utilized by all sides (Governor and legislature, Republicans and Democrats) in virtually every state to hide the true costs of government. In the 21st century, Americans expected to get everything for less, including government -- although we grumbled when that expectation effected our incomes.

That bubble has now burst. Governments at all levels have kicked the can down the road, borrowing against our futures to fund public services (like roads, public safety and education), and the bills are now coming due. More significantly, the Republican theory that charity, not government, could step in to provide the economic and social safety net that our unemployed, our poorest, our most disadvantaged citizens require has been proven wrong. Charities, non-profits and social agencies are critically threatened -- some even closing their doors -- due to the economic downturn, just as they are needed most. It doesn't help that the state is behind in its payments to the agencies that contracted with the state of Illinois to provide public services to people in need. But the economy has simply meant that fewer people are able to donate, and their donations, when they give, tend to be smaller.

Sen. Hutchinson understands. "We cannot afford to continue to do phantom economics and voodoo accounting," Hutchinson said, "and balance this budget on the backs of the people who need us most. Their backs are broken now."

Hutchinson lashed out at the Party of No that says "No to Families, No to Children, No to Social Services that keep our most vulnerable people safe, we are playing politics with people's lives."

No one wants to pay higher taxes -- everyone wants to get stuff (like services) for free. But our days of paying for government on credit or hiding its real costs have come to an end. As Sen. Hutchinson says, "Funding government is the right thing to do." Government has an important role in our society, and an important role to play in a healthy economy. Contrary to what some believe, a strong government is vital to a strong free market economy. Economies are transactional in character, amoral in nature, and require a perception among participants that those transactions are fair, transparent and above board. Weak governments tend to spawn oligarchic economies, where consumers are exploited, and socio-economic mobility is virtually unheard of. A global capitalist economy like ours requires a strong government with the ability to enforce its rules, not just here at home but abroad. There is no free market without a strong government.

For those who want to argue with examples like Hong Kong, and other free market economies that grew under the protection of the U.S. government, I merely note that, yes, we paid for their protection, too. That's what happens when one is a superpower. We're number one. But that has both costs and rewards. We must bear those costs to reap those rewards.

Illinois has fared worse than other large states because it was an anchor in our manufacturing base. Not as bad as Michigan, but bad nonetheless. So Illinois has to face the challenges of the worst economic downturn most of us have ever seen, a political paralysis that could have been a script to a Keystone Kops film, an economic engine (Chicago) that has had its own difficulties crawling into the 21st century, and a political/legislative system that has struggled to keep up with all these changes.

Sen. Hutchinson offers a vision for a better future for Illinois. Her challenge is for our political leaders to, well, lead:

I will continue to push for a solution that will result in Illinois getting back on solid financial ground because it is a fight worth fighting. There is a direct correlation between the taxes we pay and the services we provide. The state of Illinois has a responsibility to educate our children, ensure the safety of our residents, and care for our seniors and veterans. On top of all of that, and especially in this time of recession, we cannot cut services that vulnerable citizens rely on to get back on their feet. Fear, hunger, drug addiction, homelessness, aging, foreclosures, or unforeseen health challenges are all equal opportunity stressors for many people in our communities.

These are not Democrat or Republican issues. Just reality. I’m not fighting for taxes; I’m fighting for people.

That's the kind of politician we need in Springfield. A reality-based leader who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and brings a shovel when she comes to work. Because there is lots of work to do.

Hat tips to Progress Illinois and much appreciation for all the work they do!

Who Will Replace Linzey Jones as Mayor?

Olympia Fields Mayor Linzey Jones won the Democratic nomination in the Lipinski vacancy in the 15th judicial subcircuit, virtually guaranteeing him a spot on the bench next year. As a judge, Jones will vacate his position as mayor. So the question is, who will replace Jones as mayor of Olympia Fields?

Several people have suggested to me that former Trustee Al Riley would be the "best" replacement for Jones, but Riley has dual positions as state Rep and Rich Township supervisor. But most people, including the Rich Township Democratic committeeman, think that unlikely.

Others think that one of the Olympia Fields Trustees (Carolyn Gibson, Shirley Nale, Susan Ormsby, Willis Pennington, Debra Meyers-Martin and Kelvin Oliver) will replace Jones. If that is the case, then someone will have to be appointed to replace them on the Board of Trustees.

I won't speculate as to who will replace Linzey Jones as the mayor of Olympia Fields, but it is certainly something I am watching, given its impact on the rest of the South Suburbs.

Et tu, Donaldson?

Last night was the first time that I had met Mayor Donaldson of Hazel Crest. He spent about 20 minutes or so trying to convince me that he wasn't the kind of person who would try to threaten or intimidate me -- only to conclude by what can only be interpreted as an attempt to try to threaten or intimidate me.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

I was equally struck by the perverted reasoning he used. The mayor very theatrically argued that he operates off of facts alone. The fact that I was told to "stay out of Hazel Crest" (because I was organizing voters who might disagree with the mayor) or the fact that I don't particularly like being threatened -- these weren't relevant, he argued. Then he dropped the term "slander" into the conversation. Which, of course, immediately ended any discussion.

One would be tempted to have said, as Montoya did, that it doesn't mean what you think it means. Since 1964, political speech has been defined as protected by the Constitution. But Mayor Donaldson is an educated man, so he would have known this. Almost every elected official I know of does. Still, some politicians have no problem threatening opponents with slander suits. The facts -- and the Constitution -- be damned. The point is the intimidation, not the Constitution.

I've been through this before. As a child, I watched people try to intimidate my family (my parent were civil rights activists and co-founders of the Central Florida civil rights group, Bridgebuilders) from continuing their work in desegregation and racial reconciliation. After Dr. King was assassinated, I heard people in my church call me a "nigger lover" because I was the only white person pictured on the front page of the local paper in a march honoring Dr. King. In Illinois, I've been witness to more than one attempt by local politicians who tried to threaten people as a tactic to squash opposition. There has been this line that runs straight through my life, from beginning to end -- and I don't back down. To do so, seems to me, would be immoral.

Many of us who live in the South Suburbs like to think of our communities as having gotten it right. We live here, for the most part, because we've chosen to live here. We think that, to a large degree, we live in harmony with each other, black or white, purple or green. Sure, we've had disconcerting incidents in our communities, but, generally, we think we're better than that. We are better than that.

But one of the reasons I've turned my skills in organizing and politics to the neighborhood where I reside (the South Suburbs) is because the people here deserve better than what we're getting. And the politics of fear and intimidation is just too widespread in the South Suburbs to be ignored. I understand. There is so much talent here, so many people who have leadership potential, that it must be troubling to those who have achieved political power in their communities. But the competition should be fierce here, not simply because people disagree about various priorities in their villages, but because there is just too much political potential among the residents in the South Suburbs for this not to be the case.

So no one can be surprised that some people with power in the South Suburbs would do just about anything to preserve their position of authority. Politics is a fierce and bloody business, and politicians rarely rise without an ability to step over those who compete in the same arena. What I object to is when politicians abuse their position or authority, especially for purposes of personal gain (such as getting elected). So Donaldson can reasonably have assumed that I would oppose such things as raising his pay during these troubling times (when village finances are so stressed). Or his claiming that all of our communities provide vehicles for village officials, when they clearly do not. Or that I will help people organize who have a different vision, one where government service is done with a public servant's sense of duty to give back to their community. I stand against the all-too-often prevailing tendency to pursue government service for private financial or personal gain. The simple fact is that there is more than enough political talent down here in the South Suburbs that we don't need to provide extraordinary pay or benefits to entice good people into elected office. Which may be exactly why we have to endure this political culture of fear and intimidation, because those with political power in some communities can't stand to part with it. It's about them, not about us.

But it should be about us. So I got the message. I'm supposed to be intimidated, to feel threatened enough that I don't go into Hazel Crest -- but I'm not supposed to talk about it. Yeah, right. Thanks for clearing that up...

Southland Succeeds in Democratic Primary

The South Suburbs' favorite son (David Miller) and daughter (Robin Kelly) both won their respective Democratic nominations for state Comptroller and Treasurer this Tuesday. I believe it's the first time that two people from the South Suburbs has been on the general election ballot for statewide office. Robin Kelly won 38,602 votes in Thornton, Bloom, Rich, Bremen and Orland townships, while David Miller won 34,427 votes in the Southland:

Twp	Miller	Kelly
Bloom	5586	6311
Bremen	5419	6603
Orland	3113	3783
Rich	6553	9140
Thornton	13756	12765

A more interesting race shaped up in the 15th Judicial subcircuit (in the Phelan vacancy), where former Republican party leader (and Bloom Township supervisor) T.J. Somer teamed up with Olympia Fields Mayor Linzey Jones and former state Rep. George Scully to run in the three vacancies in the subcircuit. Somer was a controversial candidate, not simply because he switched political parties to run for judge, but also because his peers found him significantly less qualified for the position of judge than the other two. Somer scored a mere 40% in the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening [PDF]. The most damning evaluation came from the Chicago Council of Lawyers which wrote [PDF]:

Thomas Joseph “TJ” Somer – Not Qualified

Thomas Joseph “TJ” Somer was admitted to practice in 1991, following 14 years as a police officer in Chicago Heights. After one year working on insurance defense cases for a large firm, he set up his own general practice firm in the south suburbs. Since 1997 he has served as a Supervisor for Bloom Township and, since 2006, he has also served as corporation counsel for the city of Chicago Heights. He was also an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Chicago Heights and for Congress. Mr. Somer is reported to have good legal ability and temperament, although his practice is narrow. In addition to the narrowness of his practice, the Council is also concerned that Somer was a defendant in a law suit alleging illegal practices with respect to tax delinquent properties during the time he was the Bloom Township Supervisor. Although the trial court absolved Somer of wrongdoing, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision. Mr. Somer denies any culpability and insists that this program was appropriate and successful. The Council finds him Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Several people expressed to me their surprise that Somer did so poorly in the combined judicial screenings (both Jones and Scully scored 100%, as did the candidate winning in the Phelan vacancy, John Griffin).

Given Somer's controversial candidacy, it is no surprise that he tied himself to two other elected officials in Bloom Township. Linzey Jones has explained this alliance between himself, George Scully and T.J. Somer as a practical matter, because running for judge is so expensive. He also said that he was not that interested in raising a large amount of money, and this alliance offered the opportunity of multiple voter contacts for less money. More bang for the buck, as it were.

As I've noted earlier, the "deal" was announced at a Rich Township Democratic party monthly meeting back in August, much to the consternation of a number of people there. On Thursday, I received an email that concluded with this: "Rich Township failed TJ Somers."

Well, I disagree. I think Rich Township did exactly what it was supposed to do: help elect the most qualified and fair-minded person to the bench.

But then, I wasn't party to any deal.

Judge John Griffin won the most votes, with 11,595 fairly evenly scattered throughout the subcircuit. Mary Beth Kent Duffy came in second, with 8,133 votes. The controversial Thomas "TJ" Somer came in third, with 7,579 votes (with the greatest concentration in his home township, Bloom). Carl Evans, Jr. came in fourth, with 6,286 (with the greatest concentration in Rich township). And Nichole Patton finished the field, with 4,823 votes.


15th Subcircuit: Griffin Townships in Blue, Somer Township in Yellow, Evans Township in Red and Duffy Township in Tan

Another way to look at the results, through townships won. Judge Griffin won 5 townships (Bremen, Lemont, Orland, Palos and Worth). Duffy, Somer and Evans each won a single township. Griffin won 168 precincts, Somer won 64 precincts (primarily in Bloom Township), Evans won 41 precincts (primarily in Rich Township), Duffy won 39 precincts and Patton won 3 precincts (primarily in Rich Township).

Given this distribution, I wanted to know who really ran the table in the precincts they won. In other words, who had "breakaway" precincts where they really racked up the votes, defined as precincts where they won at least 50% of the vote (in a multicandidate race). This is where Griffin showed the strength of his campaign, and where it is obvious that Somer is a Bloom Township candidate (just as Evans was in Rich). Griffin had 43 breakaway precincts scattered throughout the townships he won, while Somer had 24 breakaways, all concentrated in Bloom.


Rich Township: Griffin precincts in Blue, Somer precincts in Yellow, Evans precincts in Red, Duffy precincts in Tan and Patton precincts in Lavender

But it was in Rich Township that the greatest variation in votes can be found. Only in Rich Township did all candidates win at least one precinct. What stands out to me is not simply the fact that Carl Evans did so well in Rich, or that TJ Somer only won one precinct in Olympia Fields (Judge Griffin also won one and Carl Evans won two), but the fact that there is this big blue (Griffin) block in vote-rich Park Forest. Griffin won 8 out of 13 precincts in the Rich Township portion of Park Forest and 1 of the 2 Park Forest precincts in Bloom Township.

The theory, as the Rich Township Democratic committeeman explained to me, was that if judicial candidates can win (big) in Bloom and Rich and stay within striking distance in the rest of the townships in the 15th subcircuit, then that is sufficient for victory. More than 38,924 people voted in the 15th subcircuit races, with Bloom accounting for at least 8,921 and Rich accounting for at least 10,759 (together 19,680 voters). That's a little over 50% of the electorate that voted in the 15th subcircuit in 2010.


Jones Townships in Yellow, Flanagan Township in Gold and Karas Townships in Pink

The theory is sound, as witnessed by the result for Linzey Jones. Jones only won Rich and Bloom Townships, and only won 4 precincts elsewhere (all in Thornton Township). But that was sufficient to win. But the lesson here is not that Bloom and Rich need be the primary focus of 15th subcircuit candidates who live on the east side of the subcircuit. No, the lesson is that well-funded qualified candidates who run from the east side, who do not substantially alienate voters and have several competent opponents who split the rest of the subcircuit, can win by primarily focusing on the east side (where they are well known).

And that's how this alliance failed T.J. Somer. Admittedly, this was probably his best chance to win a seat on the bench, but the fact is that Somer did not win both Rich and Bloom. Somer did alienate voters (by virtue of his prior party affiliation, his behavior with regards to the aforementioned lawsuit AND the attempt to monopolize the open seats on the bench in the subcircuit by eastern side committeemen). Somer clearly has a problem in Rich, one that no amount of validators can overcome in Park Forest. Rich didn't fail Somer because Rich Township will never be able to advance Somer as long as the current political environment prevails. This is unique to the candidate, and really has nothing to do with the "deal" or the others who were party to it. In the end, the die was cast by T.J. Somer's history and the political environment that he helped create...

Not Ready for Primetime

I hate being lied to, don't you?

I hate it even more when candidates who frame themselves as reformers lie to us. Aren't we supposed to be different?

So why would Justin Oberman be lying to us?

I understand. The Oberman campaign did their oppo and found that going after the losses in Bright Start was the best wedge a 35-year old wannabe politician who is campaigning behind his father's legacy could have with an accomplished reformer and leader in Illinois who has been able to bridge all the various strata of Illinois politics. I get it.

But, frankly, it's disgusting. Oberman's ad quotes Robin (who I'd like to think of as a friend, and whose campaign has specifically asked me not to blog about these issues) saying, "We lost no money" after the ad mentions that Bright Start lost $150 Million.

But that's not what she said. Robin Kelly -- and her boss Alexi Giannoulias and the entire Treasurer's staff -- is proud of the fact that the Treasurer's office has MADE MONEY from the money that the taxpayers entrust in that office (which is different than the money that it holds for taxpayers for things like education). The State Treasurer reached out to Justin Oberman to explain the apparent confusion that Oberman had -- or, at least, was evidenced on the campaign trail. But Oberman refused to take the meeting.

I suppose that it would be harder to continue to make the charges under those circumstances. As if that would preserve some kind of political integrity.

NOT!

The facts are these, as explained in detail by the terrific political blog, Progress Illinois:

Back in January, we learned that risky financial maneuvers by the Wall Street managers of Illinois' college savings program had led to a swift $85 million loss. The Prairie State wasn't alone in this situation -- Oregon, Texas, Maine, and New Mexico also included Oppenheimer's "Core Bond Fund" as an investment option for families saving for college and suffered steep losses as a result. Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who oversees the program, was the first state official to accuse Oppenheimer of investing outside of the fund guidelines and pursue legal action against them. Others have since followed suit.

In the months since he entered litigation to recoup the $85 million...

Here's what we know (bear with us on this one):

By the time Giannoulias took office in 2007, the Bright Start college savings plan had amassed 180,000 portfolios and nearly $2 billion in assets. It had also been long-criticized for its high costs and limited investment options. Intent on lowering those administrative costs, Giannoulias selected Oppenheimer to manage the portfolio through a competitive bid process that year. The investment bank suggested Illinois invest in a series of their mutual funds, including the Core Bond Fund, which was billed as one of the company's most conservative investment strategies. The treasurer's office contributed $200 million to this fund and immediately saw its fortunes rise. By April of last year, Chicago-based investment rating group Morningstar had named Bright Start one of the top five college savings plans in the nation.

Unfortunately, things took a turn for the worse later in the year. It turned out that Oppenheimer's then-Senior Vice President of Fixed Income Angelo Manioudakis had decided to roll the dice with the fund. He not only invested it in risky mortgage-backed securities, but -- worse yet -- heavily leveraged the fund.

Once the housing market seized up and Giannoulias's office realized what Manioudakis had done, they immediately transferred all Bright Start monies allocated to Core Bond to short-term U.S. treasury debt. But that wasn't before investors lost 36 percent of the $200 million originally committed to the fund. The following month, the state served subpoenas on Oppenheimer under the Consumer Fraud Act. “Core Plus’ performance is unacceptable," Giannoulias wrote in a statement earlier this year, "and even more staggering when you consider that families thought they were investing in relatively conservative portfolios as their children neared college age." Speaking on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma earlier this week, the treasurer said he is "optimistic" that the state will ultimately recoup the families' money.

The lingering question is whether the extreme risks being taken by Oppenheimer were visible to Giannoulias -- as well as the broader community of investors and analysts -- and whether the treasurer should have been expected to act faster to protect Bright Start investors from the exposure...

While Oppenheimer might have disclosed the fact that it was investing in these particular types of instruments, even the Morningstar analysts in charge of keeping tabs on this fund weren't aware of the degree of leverage being employed... [Friday April 24th, 2009, 9:07am]

For those just getting caught up, six states, whose 529 college-savings programs were exposed to Oppenheimer Funds' Core Bond fund, experienced heavy losses last year when the bond sank 38 percent in the fourth quarter. Billed as a one of the Wall Street company's most conservative investment strategies, Oppenheimer's then-Senior Vice President of Fixed Income Angelo Manioudakis decided to invest a chunk of the bonds in risky mortgage-backed securities. Worse yet, he heavily leveraged the fund, a move that analysts in charge of keeping tabs on Core Bond did not even notice. A few months after the housing market seized up and the value of the fund plummeted, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias transferred all Bright Start monies allocated to Core Bond to short-term U.S. treasury debt and began negotiating with Oppenheimer to retrieve some of the cash. In February, the state also served Oppenheimer with subpoenas under the Consumer Fraud Act. And while Giannoulias reached a "handshake deal" in June that would return $77 million to the affected Bright Start accounts, there remained one large obstacle: the state of Oregon. [Monday November 23rd, 2009, 10:17am]

Lost in the coverage, however, was the centrality of leverage in the Bright Start controversy. Shortly after the fund tanked, a Morningstar analyst called it the "chief culprit" in the fund's poor performance and acknowledged that Oppenhemier made no disclosures in any legal documents about the degree of leverage they were employing. That's why it was good to see Madigan stress this point in her release:

Oppenheimer had marketed Core Plus as a conservative investment vehicle appropriate for beneficiaries who were at or near college age. Core Plus, however, contained risky investments and was highly leveraged by its Oppenheimer management team, which, in turn, resulted in excessive losses. The management team is no longer with Oppenheimer.

While Oppenheimer did disclose its investments in mortgage-backed securities, the Morningstar analysts in charge of keeping tabs on Core Bond expressed surprise at the degree of leverage being employed, largely through $1.4 billion worth of "swaps." A Morningstar article from April explains more about Oppenheimer's use of these instruments:

At the end of March 2008, the Core portfolio carried around $400 million in securities exceeding its then $2.2 billion in net assets via transactions that were effectively akin to margin borrowing. It also had roughly $800 million in long exposure to corporate credit via default swaps -- including American International Group AIG, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia WB, Washington Mutual, and Bear Stearns. It had around $600 million in total return swap exposure to a volatile slice of Barclays' AAA rated CMBS index. By normal reporting convention, all of these positions were not included on the fund's balance sheet and, thus, not in its net assets.

By the end of September, when the market sailed off into uncharted territory, Core Bond's credit exposure to those markets totaled more than 180% of net assets on a dollar basis. In other words, for every dollar of shareholder capital in the fund, it was exposed to the credit-driven movement of more than $1.80 worth of securities.

The message here isn't that derivatives are bad, though they can be dangerous if not well understood. Rather, it is that investors had little way of knowing that the funds were piling high extra layers of market exposure. Because most of this additional market exposure came from off-balance-sheet derivatives, the funds' portfolios didn't look highly leveraged. In a conventional accounting sense of leverage -- borrowing money against net assets and investing it -- they might have looked slightly leveraged. But in a economic sense, and as a mutual funds go, they were heavily leveraged.

In a sense, Justin Oberman is caught in a huge political dilemma. If he exploits this tactical advantage, then it appears that he either does not understand Big Finance or he's lying. Oberman claims that if he's the state Treasurer, "My office will conduct thorough research into every state investment that we make to insure minimum risk and maximum return." But Oberman's comments -- and the ad he's airing at the moment -- proves just the opposite. He didn't conduct thorough research into the Bright Start issue, and he refused to meet with the state Treasurer, who would have been happy to explain it to him.

Why would we trust him to do that if he can't do it now?

Oberman claims the reformer mantle that his father held. But then he goes on TV with a politically potent, but clearly false, accusation against a real reformer, a real progressive that has been building up impressive credentials ever since Justin Oberman was born.

I don't know about you, but I'm kind of tired of the Daley brand of political slugfest (even if I appear good at it). Robin Kelly doesn't deserve this kind of treatment, and, quite frankly, Justin Oberman ought to be ashamed of himself. These kinds of fabrications on the part of politicians are more typical of machine pols than reformers. Oberman damages the reformer brand with this kind of stunt. It's just disgusting...



Alan Cottrell has provided professional services to the Kelly campaign in the past, but is not currently connected professionally to the campaign...