Day: November 10, 2008

Obama's Senior Adviser David Axelrod's defense of patronage

Little surprise that President-elect Obama named David Axelrod to be his Senior Adviser in the White House. Axelrod has been a fixture around Chicago politics for over two decades, spending much of that time serving as chief political consultant to Mayor Bill Daley.
Mr. Axelrod has expressed support for political patronage as a means of running government. In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, Axelrod drew lessons from corruption convictions of Daley staffers who awarded city jobs based on political favors. Political reporter, Steve Rhodes published this op-ed, removed from the newspapers archives, on his NBC Channel 5 blog. For those looking for insight into how an Obama administration will run Washington, DC, this is must reading.

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
Many years ago, when I was a City Hall reporter at the Tribune, I flopped down in a chair across from an editor I greatly respected to complain about the tawdry state of politics in Chicago.
Disgusted by the excesses I had seen, I argued vehemently, with all the surety of youth, that the best thing for the city would be the complete abolition of political patronage.
The editor, who was no stranger to government, listened respectfully to my fulminations. But when I was through, he surprised me with another view.
“The egregious abuses of the system should go,” he said. “But to some degree, patronage is the grease that makes government work.
“The ability of a mayor, a governor, a president to do favors is one of the political levers through which they get things done. Political organizations provide a discipline that allows you to pass your program. You take politics completely out of the process and you may not like what you see.”
I left the editor’s office shaking my head, shocked that a man of his depth and experience would have kind words for a system I regarded as corrupt and contemptible.
I found myself thinking about that conversation after the tsunami created by U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald’s recent indictments of some mid-level city workers, who were paraded before the cameras as executors of a “conspiracy” to place political workers in city jobs.
No one can or should defend the test rigging, document shredding or some of the other acts alleged in Fitzgerald’s complaint. If proven, they are crimes and deserve to be treated as such, reflecting a system in need of reform.
Better-qualified applicants should not be passed over for lesser, politically-sponsored appointees. Public promotions should not be conditioned on political work. (Nor should well-qualified applicants be excluded because they come recommended by a political figure.)
Indeed, the decades-old Shakman federal consent decree proscribes hiring and firing for political reasons. But as I listened to Fitzgerald’s news conference after the government brought charges against the city workers, I realized he was saying something much more.
Fitzgerald proclaimed his vision of a day when the recommendations of elected officials, business, labor and community leaders will no longer count – a day when we entirely remove politics from government. And he seemed to be declaring his intention to use the criminal code to enforce that vision.
It is this system, free of political influence, I had envisioned as a young man. But after a lifetime of observing government and participating in politics, I wonder if such radical “reform” is really desirable.
The democratic process is often messy. Diverse constituencies fight fiercely for their priorities. Their elected representatives use the influence they have to meet those needs, including sometimes the exchange of favors – consideration for jobs being just one.
When a congressman responds to the president’s request for support for a judicial nominee or a trade deal by replying that he’d like the president’s backing for a new bridge in his district, he’s fighting for his constituents. If the money for that bridge is approved over a worthier project elsewhere, should the deal between the two officials become a crime?
How do presidents, governors and mayors govern without the ability to help those upon whom they are counting to support their programs? Is this a prescription for reform, or gridlock?
It is the meshing of often-conflicting interests through the political process, using the levers of power afforded to elected officials, that has characterized our experiment in democracy for the last 229 years. And, it has worked reasonably well.
Fraudulent acts such as test-rigging are one thing. But if hiring of a qualified worker who comes recommended by a politician is treated as evidence of a criminal act, then Fitzgerald’s approach will ensure that only applicants without political involvement are considered.
No mayor would subject his or her appointees to possible indictment for accepting the recommendation of prospective workers by political, business, labor or community leaders. Unless those workers – even those seeking the most menial of jobs – scored the highest on objective tests, the city would be subject to the charge of political hiring. Even those who did well in subjective interviews or offered some other, compelling qualification would be suspect if they had political ties.
That reality will lead in coming months to radical change. Although the nature of that change will be defined by the city and the courts, the effect will be the same: no recommendations, no favors, no politics.
Now, hiring likely will be up to independent bureaucrats armed with computers who, through some arithmetic equation, will determine the best potential laborers and librarians.
Will that produce a better and more responsive bureaucracy? Will it improve basic services like trash and snow removal?
I hold no brief for politically-connected workers who coast on their public jobs. But there are many others who go the extra mile because they know the quality of services they provide citizens reflects on their political sponsors.
We have an idea of what the alternative looks like. The federal bureaucracy, sheltered from politics by law, has not always been known for its responsiveness and efficiency. Yet that seems to be where we’re headed in Chicago.
A quarter century after my conversation with that editor, we are about to achieve the government I longed for.
Why am I not thrilled?

Now there is a political slogan that wouldn’t have gotten Obama very far: Support my judge and you get a bridge.
Can you hear the stump speech? “The American people are tired of business as usual. They want change in Washington. They want a President who makes deals with legislators for political favors. We don’t want the best person for the job, or the most worthy project to get your hard earned tax dollars. We want those tax dollars given out to districts where Washington insiders know how to play the game. That’s the change we need!”
Why am I not thrilled?

Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1

Many bloggers have been aware of the challenge to Barack Obama’s citizenship from Philip Berg, Hillary Clinton supporter and attorney from Philadelphia. I have not followed the situation much because to me, it seems improbable that any merit can be established for the claims. And recently, some blogs are reporting that Obama has until December 1 to produce his “real” birth certificate. What is accurate is that the Supreme Court via Justice David Souter has given President-elect Obama, the DNC and other defendants until December 1 to respond to the court case dismissed by the Third Circuit in late-October.
Here is the Docket entry from the Supreme Court website:

No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
——————————————————————————–
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. Berg
Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

I called the number listed on the Supreme Court website: Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, and asked the person who answered if the Obama camp had until December 1 to produce a birth certificate. She said she could not verify the specifics of the case but said Obama has until December 1 to produce a Brief in response to the Third Circuit case No. 08-4340.
UPDATE: Scott at the SCOTUS PIO recommended this document which provides the press with an understanding of stays and writs of certiorari. Most such applications are denied but this one is pending. From the document:

There are several possible scenarios for the disposition of an application:
• A Justice may simply deny without comment or explanation.
• If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.
• A Justice may call for a response from the opposition before reaching a final decision. Such responses are usually due by a date and time certain. The Justice may grant an interim stay pending receipt of a response.
• A Justice may grant. If an application is granted by an individual Justice, or if the full Court acts upon one, its disposition is indicated by a written order or sometimes, an opinion. An order granting an application will indicate how long the order will remain in effect—usually until the Court acts on the petition for writ of certiorari. In fairly standard language, the order will often go on to state that if the petition is denied, the stay will automatically terminate, but if the Court grants full review, the stay will remain in effect until the Court hands down a decision on the merits and the mandate or judgment is issued.

Point three appears to be the category of this case. The Obama camp may or may not respond. If the court grants the writ of certiorari, then one might expect to see more reporting about this case.
UPDATE – 12/2/08 – Lisa Liberi from Philip Berg’s office wrote to say that the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission. Obama, and the DNC have separate counsel but the Court has had no response from them. According to Liberi, SCOTUS was waiting a week in case the responses had been mailed. A conference date with the full Court regarding the certiorari petition will be scheduled after the week passes. She also noted that Berg has a petition in the works to prevent Electors from casting Obama votes in the Electoral College.
UPDATE: 12/8/08 – Berg today filed an application with the SCOTUS for a stay of the Electoral College vote. A quick check of the docket shows it reflects this filing.
UPDATE: 12/10/08 – Late yesterday, Justice Souter denied Berg’s request to stop the Electoral College from voting for Obama.
Related Posts
Berg vs Obama: A brief update
Berg vs Obama: Dept of Justice Waives Right to Respond to Petition
Berg vs Obama: Update and current status
Donofrio vs Wells: NJ Obama citizenship case slated for SCOTUS conference
UPDATE: 1/2/09 – Add the following events and planned SCOTUS conferences to the above docket:

Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

Apparently, Berg will get his two days in court (1/9 & 1/16).

Bill Ayers speaks about the 2008 campaign

Late last week, Bill Ayers published an article with his reflections on the 2008 election in the far left In These Times.
The article raises more questions than it answers but hints that his relationship with Obama was minimal. He attacks McCain-Palin but doesn’t really address the issues they raised. He repeats the now questionable charge that someone at a Palin rally shouted “Kill him” about Obama.
He begins:

Whew! What was all that mess? I’m still in a daze, sorting it all out, decompressing.
Pass the Vitamin C.
For the past few years, I have gone about my business, hanging out with my kids and, now, my grandchildren, taking care of our elders (they moved in as the kids moved out), going to work, teaching and writing. And every day, I participate in the never-ending effort to build a powerful and irresistible movement for peace and social justice.
In years past, I would now and then—often unpredictably—appear in the newspapers or on TV, sometimes with a reference to Fugitive Days, my 2001 memoir of the exhilarating and difficult years of resistance against the American war in Vietnam. It was a time when the world was in flames, revolution was in the air, and the serial assassinations of black leaders disrupted our utopian dreams.
These media episodes of fleeting notoriety always led to some extravagant and fantastic assertions about what I did, what I might have said and what I probably believe now.

The victim card comes out – ‘I was just minding my own business and then all these people began fussing about me and bombing things.’ If the assertions are so fantastic, Mr. Ayers, then how about setting the record straight? I am not sure why he writes this stuff to In These Times readers since most of them know his background.

During the primary, the blogosphere was full of chatter about my relationship with President-elect Barack Obama. We had served together on the board of the Woods Foundation and knew one another as neighbors in Chicago’s Hyde Park. In 1996, at a coffee gathering that my wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and I held for him, I made a donation to his campaign for the Illinois State Senate.
Obama’s political rivals and enemies thought they saw an opportunity to deepen a dishonest perception that he is somehow un-American, alien, linked to radical ideas, a closet terrorist who sympathizes with extremism—and they pounced.
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign provided the script, which included guilt by association, demonization of people Obama knew (or might have known), creepy questions about his background and dark hints about hidden secrets yet to be uncovered.
On March 13, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), apparently in an attempt to reassure the “base,” sat down for an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. McCain was not yet aware of the narrative Hannity had been spinning for months, and so Hannity filled him in: Ayers is an unrepentant “terrorist,” he explained, “On 9/11, of all days, he had an article where he bragged about bombing our Pentagon, bombing the Capitol and bombing New York City police headquarters. … He said, ‘I regret not doing more.’ “
McCain couldn’t believe it.
Neither could I.

How about the Annenberg Challenge? Perhaps, he didn’t intend this to be an exhaustive list of his affiliations with Mr. Obama. At any rate, he minimizes the connection as he leaves unanswered what attracted them to host a coffee for the young Illinois state Senator in the first place.
Ayers attacks Hannity but does not address the substance of Hannity’s narrative.
As close as he gets to a characterization of his relationship with Obama is here:

Obama has continually been asked to defend something that ought to be at democracy’s heart: the importance of talking to as many people as possible in this complicated and wildly diverse society, of listening with the possibility of learning something new, and of speaking with the possibility of persuading or influencing others.
The McCain-Palin attacks not only involved guilt by association, they also assumed that one must apply a political litmus test to begin a conversation.

I am sensitive the guilt-by-association tactic, as gay activists have played it against me in far less important battles. However, I think it is fair to ask questions about these relationships and expect that people will judge you by the company you keep when you are a relatively unknown quantity. And it is fair to provide an explanation of appearances. Obama’s initial explanation of his relationship with Ayers was not helpful (“just a guy in the neighborhood” “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood…”), and he had to be forced by narrators like O’Reilly and others to extract more.
There is irony, some would say hypocrisy exposed in this article. On one hand, Ayers recounts the article on 9/11 where he says he should have done more to stop the war in Vietnam (more than bombing government buildings), and then calls the police to defend him against those who were upset by his lack of repentance. Bomb the police, call the police; is it all the same to Ayers?
He may well turn out to be a footnote on the campaign. Like so much about those who have recently taken power, we will have to wait to find out.