Category: politics

Was Obama candid when he said, "I had no contact" with Blago?

Blogs and news sites are giddy with the news that Obama cleared his incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, of any wrongdoing secondary to Emanuel’s contacts with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who said he did no wrong in his contacts with Team Obama or with anyone else for that matter.
So everybody is in the clear?
On December 9, Pres-elect Obama said this about the Blagojevich matter:

“I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.”

Today, George Stephanopoulos reports that he has been briefed on the report and that some contacts occured, writing on his blog:

The sources add that the report will show Emanuel also had four phone calls with Blagojevich Chief of Staff John Harris. During those conversations, the Senate seat was discussed. The pros and cons of various candidates were reviewed, and the sources say that Emanuel repeatedly reminded Harris that Blagojevich should focus on the message the pick would send about the governor and his administration.
Sources also confirm that Emanuel made the case for picking Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett during at least one of the conversations. In the course of that conversation, Harris asked if in return for picking Jarrett, “all we get is appreciation, right?” “Right,” Emanuel responded.

Reader time – Was Obama being candid in the first statement?
He did have contact with Blago’s office through Rahm Emanuel and they pushed for Valerie Jarrett to become Senator. Ms. Jarrett said later she wasn’t interested. Are we to assume that she was never interested but that Obama and Emanuel were pushing for her anyway? Or did her lack of interest develop as the result of knowledge of the investigation and/or the demands for a deal from Blago?
And what does contact mean?

Friday open forum: Auto bailout, Blagojevich, Minnesota Senate race, etc.

UPDATE: Blagojevich schedules a news conference for today at 2pm (CST). Gives me time to get some popcorn.
Just saw George Bush announce the 17.4 billion dollar loan program for the auto makers. They have three months to get their sorry act together or he says bankruptcy is coming. Problem is he won’t be there…
Coleman is only +2 on Franken. Gives me the creeps just typing it.
And Blago slows his demise.
Blago’s news conference.

Emanuel: Hey can you hold my place while I go to the White House?

It is always nice when you are in line somewhere and you have to leave the line to do something else and the person behind you says, ‘go ahead, I’ll hold your spot.’
Chicago Alderman Pat O’Connor is that kind of guy.
From today’s Sun-Times:

Emanuel was on track to become U.S. House speaker someday before accepting Obama’s offer. He has told Democratic ward bosses that he would like to reclaim the seat after a few years as chief of staff.
He was believed to be leaning toward O’Connor, in part, because the alderman might be amenable to giving up the seat at some point.

But in light of the Blagojevich scandal, probably not. Emanuel, according to a Dem operative and quoted in the Sun-Times article, has “gone underground.”
I saw this story first on Progress Illinois (I read all of those progressive sites, you know). The author there, Josh Kalven, seemed surprised Emanuel would angle for his spot back.

When rumors surfaced in mid-November that Rahm Emanuel was hoping to find a placeholder to sit on his House seat until he finished up a stint as White House chief of staff, it left a lot of folks — including myself — scratching their head. The idea that Emanuel would attempt to pull off such a maneuver amid all the intense media scrutiny on Illinois seemed a bit far-fetched.

Today’s Sun-Times article, quoted above, seems to indicate the story was more than a rumor.
Kalven says the Blago mess may have a positive effect on the 5th District race.

CQ’s Emma Dumain called me on the day of Blagojevich’s arrest to gauge the impact on the 5th Congressional District race. I hinted at the time that I thought the governor’s scandal would prevent any of the rumored manuevering from advancing and allow for a relatively clean race. Spielman’s report seems to indicate things are moving that direction. We’ll see if it lasts.

Here is what Kalven said to the Congressional Quarterly writer:

“This could actually be good news for the people of the district,” said Josh Kalven, editor of the news and commentary Web site Progress Illinois. “It creates an opportunity for a candidate who’s squeaky clean — who’s an outsider in terms of machine politics in the city and state — to have a shot at the seat.”

Dribs and drabs – Emanuel did talk directly to Blago. When the headlines say Emanuel pressed for Jarrett, read Obama pressed for Jarrett. Rahm doesn’t roll without Obama saying go. How it looks to me is that Obama wanted this to look like Blago was running the selection but was putting some pressure on behind the scenes. Nothing illegal if no quid pro quo is revealed but the reality is at odds with the portrayal. Now the seat is radioactive and will probably come to a special election — unless IL Dems can find some other way to fill the seat without putting it to a vote.

Gays groups benefit from failed mortgage company donations

Picking an unpopular target, PFOX this morning points out that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae donated thousands of dollars over the last several years to PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), HRC (Human Rights Campaign) and GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).
The news release published on Market Watch, alleges that Freddie and Fannie donated to fundraising events for the organizations. The release quotes a spokesperson for Freddie Mac:

Shawn Flaherty, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac, said she was not sure PFOX would meet the grant guidelines, adding the foundation focuses on three priorities — stable homes, foster care and adoption, and youth development.
The grants have not focused on the gay community, she said. “It’s a piece of it.”

Only the farthest right would be upset over helping needy gay people get homes. In the years leading up to the collapse, the mortgage giants were encouraged to help anyone who couldn’t get loans otherwise. Hindsight tells us that this was shortsighted, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.
What raises eyebrows is that these groups were donating money to charities for non-housing related purposes (fundraising galas?). We know these two groups donated money to politicians who regulated them over the years. Apparently, these groups wanted to curry favor with ideologically based groups as well. While I speculate that left-of-center groups were the main beneficiaries, I would have to review their records to know for sure.
It would be interesting to follow this money to find out if any of these donations were suggested by politicians regulating Fannie and Freddie.
The PFOX release says all grants are “under review.” Under review by whom? While I would like to know, I am not going to bother asking since they do not answer queries from me. My suggestion would be for them to make this more clear and to provide links to the documents from which they derived this information.
PFOX says it wants the same money. Not going to happen. I hope this is a rhetorical device and not a policy objective. I would oppose this request as I would requests from any non-housing related group. A few thousand here, a few thousand there and pretty soon, it gets to be millions and then billions. It isn’t a matter of the government related agencies funding my favorite charity; it is why are they funding anybody’s favorite charity?

Gay leaders angry over inaugural invocation by Rick Warren

Huffington Post and Politico.com have stories about this.
Here is HuffPo’s Sam Stein’s take on it:

Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, the media has been pining to write a story about liberal dissatisfaction with his transition efforts. By and large, the meme has been blown out of proportion, as the press overestimated how divisive Obama’s cabinet choices were for progressives.
The press may now have its conflict moment. And it comes in the form of the spiritual leader chosen to launch Obama’s inauguration.
On Wednesday, the transition team and Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced that Rick Warren, pastor of the powerful Saddleback Church, would give the invocation on January 20th. The selection may not have been incredibly surprising. Obama and Warren are reportedly close — Obama praised the Megachurch leader in his second book “The Audacity of Hope.” Warren, meanwhile, hosted a values forum between Obama and McCain during the general election. Nevertheless, the announcement is being greeted with deep skepticism in progressive religious and political circles.

Gay leaders are furious.

“Picking Rick Warren to give THE invocation,” wrote John Aravosis on AmericaBlog, “is abominable.”
“Let me get right to the point,” Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a harsh letter to the president-elect, “Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans.”

Just yesterday, Obama picked Chicago’s Arne Duncan as Education secretary. The same Duncan who favored an all gay high school in Chicago. Clearly, Obama is more pro-gay than pro-social conservative but this choice is especially galling because Warren supported Proposition 8 in California.
I suspect pro-choice advocates are none too happy either.
I think Obama likes Warren even though he disagrees with him on many issues. Warren clearly brings together evangelical doctrine with social compassion in a way that is attractive. I suspect Obama would like to change Warren’s mind on issues but knowing he cannot, he wants to reinforce the good he sees in Warren and those likeminded.
In any event, we all have to live together even though we disagree on how to even frame up the issues. I doubt Obama will back down on this and may use it as a means to get across a message of co-existence.
UPDATE: 12/18/08 – Sam Stein has the Obama talking points regarding Rick Warren.

• This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.
• In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world’s most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
• Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.
• As he’s said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That’s the only way we’ll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.
• The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
• And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

UPDATE: 12/18/08 – Rick Warren just issued a statement via the Christian Newswire. Here is the entire statement:

Statement by Dr. Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church Regarding the Invitation from President-elect Obama to Deliver the Inaugural Invocation
LAKE FOREST, Calif., Dec. 18 /Christian Newswire/ — “I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony.
“Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America.
“The Bible admonishes us to pray for our leaders. I am honored by this opportunity to pray God’s blessing on the office of the President and its current and future inhabitant, asking the Lord to provide wisdom to America’s leaders during this critical time in our nation’s history.”
Media Contact:
A. Larry Ross 469.774.6362
Kristin Cole 615.289.6701
[email protected]