Davis advisor pleads guilty to fraud

Politico (Jonathan Allen):

A senior policy fellow for Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) has pleaded guilty to defrauding the government and private lenders of nearly $822,000 by using aliases to obtain student loans and more than 90 credit cards.

I had a friend blow-up at me yesterday over Danny Davis.

Apparently it's very hard for people who knew Davis during the Harold Washington era to reconcile who he has become.

People change. Being part of the system changes people.

By all accounts I've heard, Davis was a stalwart progressive and reformer... during the Harold Washington era. Now, he's a politician getting advice from a guy who rips off student loan programs.

Jim Ascot draws attention to Danny Davis' BS

questions for IL-07 candidates for Congress

Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis announced he was running for re-election. You can read the statement that got forwarded to me at the bottom of this entry.

As of Tuesday, November 10 at 1 PM the following candidates are still list as active on the website of the Illinois State Board of Elections.

• Mark M. Weiman (Republican)
• Jim Ascot (D)
• Darlena Williams-Burnett (D)
• Marshall E. Hatch, Sr. (D)
• Robert Dallas (D)
• Danny K. Davis (D)
• Joyce Washington (D)
• Sharon Denise Dixon (D)
• Clarence Desmond Clemons (D)
• Kip Robbins (Green)

I have written a letter to each of these candidates asking the following questions.

• Are you withdrawing your name from the ballot? Will you be actively campaigning for election as U.S. Representative?
• What is your reaction to Davis' announcement?
• What are three things voters should know about you?
• Are you willing to answer a more detailed questionnaire in writing?
• Are you willing to respond to questions posed by Proviso Probe's audience?
• Will you give an interview on video tape to me (Carl Nyberg)? I will post the entire video on Google videos. I will post an excerpted version on You Tube.
• What is the phone number and email address I should use to contact your campaign? What is the URL for your website?

I'm having technical difficulties with my printer, but I was able to email the letter to Ascot, Hatch, Davis, and Dixon because they have websites that allow you to contact the campaign.

Statement of Congressman Danny K. Davis Announcing his candidacy for Re-Election to Congress and withdrawing his candidacy for President of the Cook County Board Monday, November 9, 2009 For immediate Release: Contact: Tumia Romero 773-726-4479 tumia@dannykdavis.com Several months ago I announced the formation of a committee to explore the possibility of running for President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Several hundred people responded to the announcement and we were off and running. Around the same time Clerk of the Circuit Clerk Dorothy Brown announced that she was running, Alderwoman Toni Preckwinkle had already announced and it was generally assumed that President Todd Stroger would run for re-election and shortly thereafter Terrence O’Brien of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District announced that he was a candidate. I immediately began to talk about unity and unification being the best and most effective way of assuring that a moderate, liberal or more progressive candidate had a good chance of winning. I immediately had a poll conducted. The results showed that I was in a good position to win. County slate making came around and all five of the candidates presented our credentials. The Cook County Democratic Party did not make an endorsement. I commissioned another poll and this time the results were essentially the same, with me being significantly ahead of all other candidates. Filing time came around and thanks to our excellent network of volunteers and coordinators we were able to file more than fifty thousand signatures to be placed on the ballot. Notwithstanding the fact that I have filed the most signatures, have the best standing in all of the polling data that I have seen, have the broadest base of support and have the largest network of volunteers, I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for President of the Cook County Board and instead will run for re-election to represent the greatest Congressional District in America, the 7th District of Illinois. I know that some people will ask me why? (1) I like being a Congressman (2) I am good at it. I am pleased to be a part of the passage of the Health Reform Legislation that we passed out of the House on Saturday night which will revolutionize Health Care Delivery in the United States and along with my American community Renewal Act and new Markets Initiatives, my Second Chance Act, Sickle Cell prevention, Education Legislation, Suicide Prevention Bill, Postal Reform and Enhancement Act, Predominately Black Institutions and millions of dollars in appropriations and earmarks give me a foundation to go back to Congress to build upon. (3) I like representing the people of the 7th District, and; (4) I have always pushed the concept of unity and have always recognized that it would be politically dangerous for 4 candidates all from the same community and from the same political base to run for the same office, at the same time, with one (1) more conservative candidate in the race. Therefore, one could say that I am withdrawing from the County Board Race for the sake of Unity. I am a candidate for re-election to the United States House of Representatives and to volunteer or send a donation by internet at www.dannykdavis.com, call us at 773-638-1998 or visit us at 3333 W. Arthington Street, Chicago, Illinois. Again, I thank all of our volunteers and staff, Campaign Manager Tumia Romero, Coordinators Clarence Thomas, James Blasingame, Leo Webster, Jesse Davis, Kente Kizer, David Harvey, Jesse Brown, Gerard Moorer, James Flagg, Shawn Romero, Katy Hogan, Jesse Rios, Deandre Allen, Ina Cruz, and people from all over Cook County. Thank you very much and I shall be pleased to answer any questions. Office Address: 3333 W. Arthington, Suite 135, Chicago, IL 60624.

Feel free to comment on Davis' statement in the comments.

Danny K. Davis drops run for President of the Cook County Board

He is running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. See Capitol Fax Blog.

He declined to endorse one of the other candidates for President of the Cook County Board.

I asked the following question on Danny Davis' Facebook page.

Congressman Davis, what were you trying to accomplish by staying in both races (Prez of Cook County Board and U.S. Rep) as long as you did? Seriously, I'd like an explanation.

What Will Danny Davis Do?

According to The Capitol Fax Blog (Rich Miller), Congressman Danny K. Davis will announce his decision about in which elections he will run in February.

Cong. Davis will announce his election decision at a press conference on Monday, November 9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., at 3333 W. Arthington, Chicago.

He has filed for three.

• U.S. Representative (IL-07)
• President of the Cook County Board
• Democratic State Central Committeeman for IL-07

Going to Congress and being President of the Cook County Board are mutually exclusive. He can remove himself from the ballot for any and all, but he is required to either remove his name from the ballot for U.S. Representative or President of the Cook County Board.

more Qs about Davis' commitment in President race

I just got off the phone with Tumia Romero. Romero is the point of contact for U.S. Representative Danny K. Davis' campaign for President of the Cook County Board.

I was calling about the picture below which shows Davis' office in Rogers Park.

I started by asking if Davis had transferred the money from his federal account to a state/local account.

Davis is circulating nominating petitions for both re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives and President of the Cook County Board. He cannot run for both. Many people, including myself, think he is bluffing about running for President and will run for re-election.

When Davis campaigns, he claims he's running for President. He is asking for people to volunteer (and presumably contribute) to his race for President.

I started by asking about transferring the money from the federal campaign account because I had both emailed and called Romero before. After telling me she would call me back, she did not respond to either my voice mail or my text.

Romero's tone was about two parts hostile and one part defensive. She repeatedly asked rhetorical questions like, "Why don't people worry about health care? Poor people? Criminal justice?"

She went on to say, "Tell La Shawn Ford if he had enough balls he should ask himself. He's a punk."

In the interest of disclosure, I have been talking to Ford about running for Congress. I have indicated a willingness to help. Ford has never asked me to contact Davis' campaign. And I haven't offered to contact Davis' campaign to push the issue. I happen to think the race for President of the Cook County Board is important. Whether Davis is in the race or not is important.

I started blogging again to cover races like President of the Cook County Board, the IL-07 race (if it's seriously contested), Cook County Board First District, Proviso Democratic Committeeman (if it's seriously contested) and some local stuff in Proviso.

Back to what I originally called about. The photograph below was forwarded to me.



The picture was forwarded to me by someone skeptical of Davis' claim that he had opened five campaign offices as he has claimed. See Davis' campaign web site.

Davis said, “There are erroneous reports in the press that I am not a candidate for President of the Cook County Board. Nothing can be more erroneous or further from the truth. The truth is I have opened 5 campaign offices in different parts of the county, hired campaign staff, traveled from South Suburban Cook County to Northern Suburbs and the Western Suburban Cook County."

Romero said that the campaign offices were being paid for with money, not in-kind contributions. These contributions will be reported in the campaign disclosure statements although she didn't know the identity of the landlords or the rent amounts.

The picture clearly shows the office is labeled a constituent service office. When I asked about this, Romero asked me to define a "constituent service office". I explained that "constituent service offices" are funded by the taxpayers. Romero indicated this office was rented by the campaign.

Since I started writing this blog entry, Romero called me and had a contrite tone. She said she'd discussed things with the Davis and he offered to grant me an interview. She also that some of the things she said, "That was Tumia speaking for Tumia, not Congressman Davis."

I will interview Davis sometime about 3 PM tomorrow afternoon. Any suggestions what I should ask?

Davis not answering Q: has campaign money been moved from federal account to state account?

On Monday, September 7, 2009, I sent the following email to Tumia Romero. Romero is a longtime member of Congressman Danny K. Davis and Davis' campaign website (for President of the Cook County Board) lists her as the point of contact for the campaign. Davis is also circulating nominating petitions to run for re-election to Congress. He cannot run for both offices in the same election cycle.

Dear Tumia Romero,

Has Congressman Davis closed his federal campaign committee? Does he have plans to?

If he's decided to run for President of the Cook County Board, why keep a federal campaign committee active?

How much money has Congressman Davis transferred to his committee paying for his campaign for President of the Cook County Board?

Sincerely,

Carl Nyberg

This is significant because Davis can file for either office, U.S. Representative or President of the Cook County Board. Many people speculate that Davis won't file for President of the Cook County Board. He asks people to support his candidacy for President, but he's keeping the option open of running for Congress. He discussed this at the Malcolm X College candidate forum.

Under state law, Davis can move an unlimited amount of money from his federal campaign committee to his committee for a state or local office. Under federal law he cannot transfer money in the other direction. (Many types of contributions allowed under Illinois law are not allowed under federal law.)

I made a follow-up call to Romero a little before 1 PM on Tuesday. I asked her if Davis had transferred the money from a federal campaign account to a state/local account. She said she didn't know, would check and would call me back.

I left another voicemail at 9 AM Wednesday morning.

Romero has neither responded to my email or returned my phone call.

IMO, the most reasonable inference is that Davis wants to have the option of running for re-election to Congress. I think Davis would like circumstances to clear a path for him to be the Democratic nominee for President of the Cook County Board. Davis probably wants powerful Democratic Party officials (like Michael Madigan, Richard M. Daley and Dick Durbin) and heavy hitters from the Black clergy (Rev. James Meeks, the COGIC bishops, etc.) to muscle Davis through the process.

For various reasons, the power brokers aren't going to muscle Davis through the process. Today the Cook County Democratic Committeemen (Chicago and suburbs) declined to endorse any of the five candidates (Dorothy Brown, Davis, Terry O'Brien, Toni Preckwinkle or Todd Stroger).

does Davis wonder, "Could I have been a contender?"

A source who had a conversation with Mayor Richard M. Daley said Daley is annoyed at Rep. Danny K. Davis. Daley claimed strings were pulled to get Davis on the House Ways and Means Committee. The committee is considered quite powerful because of the wide portfolio which includes taxation, Social Security unemployment and Medicare.

So, Davis is kinda a ungrateful schmuck if he walks away from the House Ways and Means Committee to run for President of the Cook County Board, right?

How's the situation look from Davis' perspective?

Davis is aware that he's served on committees of low import. The most important committee project Davis got was beating back Republican attempts to undercount Blacks, immigrants and poor people in the 2000 Census. And that wasn't the kind of “bring home the bacon” project that makes him a superstar with constituents.

I heard one story... and it was just a story, not an interview, so I'm a little sketchy on the details... A guy who claimed to be in the car with Davis and Dick Gephardt, who then led the House Democrats, claimed that Davis was promised improved committee assignments after the next election. Gephardt never delivered.

From the perspective of Democratic leadership, they don't like to give plum committee assignments to members who represent heavily Democratic districts. The theory is that the best committee assignments should go to members who are vulnerable to being defeated by Republicans. So, in theory, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson and Bill Foster are more likely to get plum committee assignments than Mike Quigley, Jan Schakowsky and Dan Lipinski.

However, Lipinski did get a plum assignment from the beginning, the Transportation Committee. His father Bill Lipinski was chair of that committee.

If I may speculate, Davis probably sees the Ways and Means placement like this. Davis figures if Daley could get Davis the Ways and Means assignment now (and Dan Lipinski the Transportation Committee from the beginning), Daley was probably pulling strings to keep Davis from getting better committee assignments earlier in his career.

Now that Davis is pushing 70—and impotent to challenge Daley for Mayor—he gets a plum assignment. Gee thanks.

If Davis got a better committee assignment from the beginning, would this have elevated his profile? Could he have run for Mayor of Chicago? Did Daley make sure Davis got crap assignments to keep Davis down?

I expect every time someone reminds Davis of how good he has it on the Ways and Means Committee, he thinks about how Daley in a conspiracy aided by “White” Democrats in Congress—people Davis trusted, like Gephardt—kept Davis in shit jobs for over a decade.

From Davis' perspective he played the game by the rules and he got screwed. He was weak and ineffective in Congress because “White” people stacked the deck to keep him weak and ineffective. He trusted the Democratic leadership and they pretty much lied to him and screwed him. So he's not in the mood to be a party loyalist as one of the most junior people on an important committee.

Dear Rep. Danny Davis, please run for Lieutenant Governor

Dear Congressman Danny Davis,

Happy 68th birthday! I apologize that I'm not going to be able to attend your party, I have a scheduling conflict.

I'm sorry, but the only gift I have is to give you my two cents. Instead of running for either President of the Cook County Board or for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives, you should run for Lieutenant Governor.

Your first reaction is probably that the idea of running for Lt. Gov. doesn't make sense. Conventional wisdom in politics holds that being in Congress is better than Lt. Gov. Bob Kustra seriously considered resigning as Lt. Gov. to be a radio talk show host, right?

I challenge you to put aside the attitudes of other people and think back to why you got involved in politics. The late Paul Wellstone said that politics is about improving people's lives. I aspire that my activism will make a difference, and despite any differences I have with you, I believe you began in politics for all the right reasons. You wanted to leverage the power of politics to uplift the people.

I'm going to call it like I see it. I apologize if I snub your ego. I think you've gotten frustrated with Congress. You feel like there's not much difference you can make there. You feel like you aren't getting the respect you deserve.

You got to Congress at an awkward time. The old warhorses of the Black Caucus were established. A bunch of new members were elected as a result of the remap based on the 1990 census. They were all senior to you. And the younger Black Caucus members, elected since you arrive in Congress in 1997, have more energy and ambition. If Cardiss Collins would have retired ten years earlier you'd be much more in the leadership of the Black Caucus and in Congress.

Why Lt. Gov?

I'm impressed with your interest and focus on ex-offender reentry. You've been the leader in Congress on the issue. And the system does have a number of barriers to getting employment that aren't officially part of sentencing and punishment.

The ex-offender bill you passed in Congress probably is about as far as Congress is willing to go at this point.

But you've raised valid points about the various professional licenses that are arbitrarily denied to ex-felons. However, licensing is a state issue.

Picture yourself devoting your time to getting all those laws repealed or modified.

I once asked someone knowledgeable about politics what job he'd like in politics. He said Vice President of the United States because you can do what you like and aren't really responsible for any problems. Lt. Gov. is the same way. If it's useful to be in Springfield, go to Springfield and do what needs to be done. Otherwise you can work out of a Chicago office.

I'd also like you to apply sustained pressure to Attorney General Lisa Madigan on the issue of Taser stun guns. Are cops using them gratuitously? Are police disproportionately using stun guns on African-Americans and Latinos? Poor people? Are some police departments using stun guns much more aggressively than other police departments?

The issues facing Cook County suck. They're big. They're intractable. The President supervises a vast number of people. And s/he interacts with lots and lots of people, including a whole bunch of elected officials. Some of those people are petty, self-absorbed assholes who you won't be able to fire. It's a demanding job.

In 2006, you told the Democratic Committeemen of Cook County you wanted the job because you didn't want to travel to DC every week. Congressman Davis, being President of the Cook County Board isn't like holding a seat on the Board of Review. It's not a job for a person looking to be home for dinner every day.

You're 68 years old. You'll be 69 ½ when you assume office as President. Most of your first term will be after your 70th birthday. Do you want to be fighting with the State's Attorney over budget issues? Dealing with Cook County jail? Managing the county's legislative interests in Springfield and DC? It's a huge job. Will you have the energy to do it right?

Back to Lt. Gov.... If you run for Lt. Gov. it will be a move that will be remembered, because you let go of the more prestigious job so that you could accomplish something that will make a difference in people's lives.

I don't want to be snotty or disrespectful, but your career in Congress has been lackluster. (I mostly attribute this to 1997 being a horrible time to start and that you would have done better if you were younger when you were first elected.) You haven't made any huge gaffes, but you haven't passed any big bills either.

Run for Lt. Gov. Use it as a platform to advance issues and pass legislation that removes barriers to ex-offenders re-entering society. The work on ex-offenders is where you've made your mark. If you cap your career with major legislation at the state level, you will be remembered as someone who made a difference in people's lives. Running for Lt. Gov. will show that you had the self-confidence to resist conventional wisdom, run for the lower prestige office because that's where you could accomplish something important.

Sincerely,

Carl Nyberg

Danny Davis won't buy a car from Whites, Latinos or Asians

In this entry I will discuss what I observed about the racial politics of the candidate forum for the Black Democrats running for President of the Cook County Board. (Part 1, Part 2, Progress Illinois (Adam Doster) and Laura Washington (Sun-Times & Washington Report)).

First, I'm baffled that the media outlets that seem to relish in finding fault with current President Todd Stroger (Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times) didn't cover the event as news. Washington's coverage was an opinion piece. As far as I can tell, Chicago Defender and the other media outlets didn't cover it either. Cook County Board President is a first-tier race. It's a bunch of money, jobs and power. Why wouldn't media outlets send reporters? Seriously. According to Google Maps it's 4.3 miles by car, about eight minutes from the Tribune Building. Do the major media outlets think Malcolm X College has a “no White people allowed” rule?

Stroger's appeals for support because he's a Black man were the most in-your face.

In his concluding remarks Stroger said, “We let the major papers tear our leaders down.” He then told of shaking the hand of a Black boy at the Bud Billiken Day parade. Stroger said the boy could see, “This Black man is doing something powerful!... This is about Black people and how we are perceived.”

Stroger never called the Sun-Times or the Chicago Tribune the “White” media, but it seemed pretty strongly implied.

Dorothy Brown and Toni Preckwinkle both made appeals that on substance that would have been substantially the same in front of non-Black audiences. Brown emphasized her credentials and her success in getting $187 million out of the Illinois General Assembly. Preckwinkle emphasized her plan and generally being organized in how she presented her ideas. Preckwinkle explained what she has accomplished as alderman, but didn't come back to it. If Preckwinkle did emphasize one thing about her history it was her recognition by groups like IVI-IPO for her independence.

Stylistically, Brown and Preckwinkle differed. Brown's supporters were quite vocal. They were both loud partisans for her and willing to heckle Stroger. Brown's speaking style was also loud, indignant and in-your-face.

One of Laura Washington's commenters wrote the following of Preckwinkle.

Toni’s style definitely puts her at a disadvantage in this race. She’s trying to be the Barack Obama of Cook County. Obama’s style is why he lost to Bobby Rush in the congressional race in which they squared off. Back then, urban blacks could not relate to him, and this is part of Toni’s problem. In using “urban” I’m being polite, as there is another term that better describes the types of blacks who cheered on their candidates at Malcom X. To a lot of urban blacks Toni and Barack are “bougie.” Though, very few urban blacks would say this about barack today openly for fear of reprisals. Toni plays better with certain types of black people—they tend to be college educated and professional and want the blacks who represent them to be of the Harold Washington style.

And, instead of channeling Barack Obama, Toni needs to channel Harold Washington–before it’s too late (LOL!)!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree that Preckwinkle is trying to be Obama. I think her performance at Malcolm X was a natural continuation of her speaking style going back 20 years. (Perhaps as a new politician Obama imitated Preckwinkle. If you were an educated, light-skinned Black person looking to imitate someone successful in the Hyde Park area, who would you imitate?)

The issue of Black candidates splitting the Black vote was hammered home over and over. Cliff Kelley, the moderator, told the audience that Martin Luther King III (in Chicago to promote Olympics) said that Atlanta might elect a White mayor because four Black candidates were running. Davis referred to the split between Eugene Sawyer and Tim Evans. Davis mentioned that seven COGIC bishops were negotiating behind the scenes to get support for one Black candidate.

Danny K. Davis made one remark that I considered a bombshell. Cliff Kelley, the WVON moderator, asked about affirmative action in contracting. (Somebody from the audience shouted about companies fraudulently getting business because they have bogus owners to make them eligible for women and minority set asides. This issue wasn't addressed by any candidates.)

Kelley complained that government work in his neighborhood isn't being done by people who look like him and then asked, “How will you assure minority contracting?”

Preckwinkle gave a detailed answer of how she, aligned with other alderman including “Ike” Carothers, pushed to get set asides for minority and women owned businesses, as part of the negotiations with the International Olympic Committee.

Stroger told of the minority expo that occurred while he's been President and cited an increase from 25-34% of county contracts with minority owned businesses and an increase of from 10-16% of county contracts with women owned businesses. Stroger also attacked unnamed county officials trying to bypass minority contracting requirements by claiming “emergencies”.

Davis began with a general statement about affirmative action. Then Davis said, “If you ain't African-American don't expect to sell me no car.”

I ran this by some people who are neither Black nor White, people who like Davis, and they were taken aback.

Is Danny Davis really saying he wouldn't buy a car from an Asian or a Latino who lived in his district under any circumstances? Davis has gotten a bunch of votes in his life from people who aren't Black, and raised money from people who aren't Black. Presumably he wants to get voters from non-Blacks for whatever office he's seeking in 2010 (he's preparing for two mutually exclusive races).

What's the message Davis wanted the audience to take away from that statement? I think the message is that Black county employees will get promoted ahead of other county employees. And to the extent Davis influences who gets hired for county jobs, Blacks will get jobs ahead of others to the maximum extent allowed by the law.

There are a number of ways to talk about affirmative action and increasing opportunity for women and people who have historically been excluded. Normally liberals talk about diversity and fairness being for the benefit of everyone. The greater good of opening doors of opportunity justifies the relatively small inconvenience to people who have to wait for another opportunity.

Davis has been in in politics for decades. Even when Davis was an alderman, he didn't represent an all Black ward. There was the Island and the tres chic neighborhood on Race and Midway Park near West Suburban Hospital (where Davis lives). Since getting elected to the Cook County Board in 1990, Davis has had to appeal to a substantial number of voters who were not Black.

Davis knows how to discuss affirmative action delicately. But when asked about affirmative action, Davis reframed the discussion as one where only one salesman is going to get a commission. And Davis is going to give the commission to a Black salesman no matter how good the Latino, Asian, White or Arab salesman performs.

Is Davis losing his mental acuity? Has he always felt this way? Or was he making a cynical pitch for Black votes?

Davis boasted on his high approval ratings in suburban Cook County. It's not going to take a political whiz to take Davis saying he wouldn't buy from someone who isn't Black and create a TV ad that drives Davis' favorables down across Cook County.

Davis lamented the fracture of the Harold Washington coalition (Blacks and progressives). But Davis did his part to fracture the coalition. Progressives participate in the coalition because they want to see quality government services delivered to people who need them without a bunch of money skimmed for patronage and machine politics. What Davis seems to want is for Blacks to get the lion's share of the jobs and then Davis will float a plan to expand government services. If it passes that means more jobs for the Black political class. If it doesn't, Blacks got the jobs that were available. Poor people will just have to wait. After all, Jesus said, we'll always have poor folk.

you are invited to Congressman Davis' b-day bash!

U.S. Representative Danny K. Davis has announced on Facebook he's having a birthday party and you're invited.

Danny K. Davis invites you to my Annual Birthday Party as I kick-off my campaign for President of the Cook County Board. Sunday September 6, 2009 from 4pm to 9pm ALL IS WELCOME everything is FREE!!!! 3333 w. Arthington Homan Square Garden SEE YOU THERE!!!

Prez of Cook County Board, candidate forum, part 2

Earlier I gave a summary of what happened at the WVON forum for Black Democrats running for President of the Cook County Board.

Incumbent Todd Stroger repeatedly made appeals based on ethnic solidarity, being a victim of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and some attempts to invoke liberal populism.

Clerk of the Court Dorothy Brown emphasized her credentials and accomplishments in her current job. She used a passionate, somewhat indignant style to make her case.

Congressman Danny K. Davis had a folksy style. He spoke in general terms and sold the idea that he could create consensus amoung the seventeen commissioners and generally bring “hope” to the people.

Alderman Toni Preckwinkle had the fewest supporters in the audience, had trouble connecting with the audience, but she made the case that the Fourth Ward has become more desirable for homeowners and businesses for her having been alderman. She was also the only candidate to speak in specifics about what she would do if elected.

There were issues I felt should be covered more to do justice to want the candidates said. So, I wrote this entry and expect to write at least one more.

Moderator Cliff Kelley asked candidates who are their core voters.

Preckwinkle began by explaining her base in the Fourth Ward and on the South Side and moving outward. She mentioned aldermen she had worked with, especially the Latino caucus. She then mentioned progressives and and independent Whites and ended by mentioning women. Someone from the audience heckled Preckwinkle for not mentioning the West Side, the location of the forum.

Brown quoted a poll which had her leading with 34%, Davis with 30%, Preckwinkle with 10% and Stroger with 8%. Brown said the people were “interested in dollars and cents, not Black and White”. This resulted in heckling. Brown and Stroger supporters seemed the most organized in the audience, so I assume the heckling was from Stroger supporters. Brown finished by saying the election of Barack Obama proved that people vote across ethnic lines if the candidate is “qualified and can get the job done.”

After saying he had a strong base in the Seventh Congressional District Davis cited his own polling. Davis said he had 65-6 favorable to unfavorable rating across Cook County. Among South Side voters his favorables were 71-8; among West Side voters 65-8; in the south 'burbs 61-10. Davis said that the only politicians more popular than him were President Barack Obama and Senator Dick Durbin. Davis noted Mayor Richard Daley's popularity exceeded Davis in the city, but Davis beat Daley in suburban Cook.

Stroger began by saying, “My core voters are people who care about universal health care.... people who care about health and public safety.” He went on to draw attention to the City of Chicago's deficit ($ ½ billion) and the State of Illinois' defict ($7 billion). He emphasized, “The county is solid!”

Cliff Kelly quoted former Cook County Commissioner (now U.S. Representative) Mike Quigley saying that he was disappointed because there had not been any serious discussion of reform in the race.

Preckwinkle disagreed and said Quigley was in Congress and “has not been attentive.... [Quigley is] not as informed as he should be.”

Brown stated Quigley was “out of touch” because her campaign was about reform. Brown touted her support of citizen review commissions and noted, “Quigley did not support that idea.”

Davis said, “Reform is like beauty; it's in the eye of the beholder.” Davis then spoke about campaign financing. He advocated for limits on both contributions and spending, finally calling for publicly financed elections.

While none of the candidates praised Quigley, Stroger spoke with the most hostility. He explained Quigley's philosophy of reform as telling Stroger, “Those people you hired should be fired.” Stroger then said, “We've made change.” Stroger then equated change and reform. Stroger finished by saying of Quigley (and perhaps Commissioners Forrest Claypool and Larry Suffredin), “The only change they want? I want your job.”

Kelley asked Davis circulating why he is circulating two sets of nominating petitions (one to run for re-election as U.S. Representative and one for President of the Cook County board) if he's committed to running for President.

Davis said he had vowed not to be the candidate to split the Black vote as happened when Eugene Sawyer and Timothy Evans opposed each other for mayor. Davis said he believes he will be so far ahead in the polls the other Black candidates will drop from the contest and support him.

Stroger took the opportunity to praise Davis whom he called “a champion” of Cook County in Congress and “great counsel”. With Davis being on the Ways and Means Committee, “Now he can do even more.” This resulted in a standing ovation. “In conclusion,” Stroger said, “I support Congressman Danny Davis for the Seventh Congressional District.”

Brown drew attention to potential candidates for Congress being “disadvantaged” by Davis keeping the option of running for re-election. She also objected to Davis' polling, “I was not in his poll.” Brown said her name recognition was 80% in the city and 74% in the suburbs. She finished by saying, “A leader must be decisive.”

Davis reacted to the comment about other candidates by muttering something about how it shouldn't be a big deal for them to circulate nominating petitions for Congress if they are serious candidates.

In his concluding remarks, Davis made the following claim, “I ain't ever had a job that I didn't do better than the person before me.”

I'm going to write more on this forum later. There was a significant amount of racial politics, which I haven't wrote about yet. You can also read Laura Washington (Sun-Times) or Progress Illinois (Adam Doster).

Danny K. Davis addressed Northside DFA in early August

[I apologize for not posting this earlier. I wrote the portion pertaining to U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis and was dragging my feet about writing the portion on Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin. Once Suffredin dropped from the race for President of the Cook County Board, it didn't seem as important what he had to say.]

Thursday, August 6, 2009, night U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis and Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin made presentations to Northside DFA (a local affiliate of Democracy for America) about their desires to replace Todd Stroger as President of the Cook County Board. Two months prior Alderman Toni Preckwinkle made her presentation.

Northside DFA rules require that the organization wait one month after hearing a candidate before endorsing. Northside DFA could have endorsed Preckwinkle last month, but some members wanted to hear from Davis and Suffredin. The vote to endorse Preckwinkle was 24-12, which failed to meet the 75% requirement for endorsement. There were some members who wanted to wait until next month when Davis and Suffredin would be ripe for endorsement.

One personal observation I will share is that the room was bristling with energy. People seemed genuinely enthusiastic to be there and to be participating. Davis, who presented after Suffredin, started by noting the enthusiasm in the room and ended with a genuine compliment (paraphrasing), even if he'd never run for office he would hope for meetings like this to happen because it was the essence of American democracy.

Davis started by saying county government was going in the “wrong direction”. He noted three areas of concern for him: health care, especially for the indigent, judicial/corrections and taxes.

Davis then boasted of his ability to pass bills, even when Bush was President and the Republicans controlled Congress. He noted that he has been pushing for single-payer health care on the Ways and Means Committee.

Davis' presentation was short leaving more time for questions.

Q1, Forest Preserve District. Davis discussed the Forest Preserve District as a place where the interests of labor and environmental activists conflict with each other.

Q2, health care. When asked about access to health care Davis extolled the virtues community health centers.

Q3, ethics. Davis had an evocative answer to the question of an ethical dilemma he faced. According to Davis, when he was alderman Davis was being courted by a developer who wanted a liquor license for a storefront just a little too close to a school. Eventually the developer brought a paper bag to a meeting. Davis said, “I thought is was a hot dog.” Davis said he made sure not an ounce of liquor was sold from that storefront.

Q4, advocating for single-payer health care in Congress. The next question asked who would replace Davis as an advocate of single-payer on the Ways and Means Committee. Davis said that's a decision the people will make. He then spoke of the 29th Ward People's Assembly, an organization that existed in the past. Davis did predict the state reps would not run for the IL-07 U.S. House seat. He did not mention them by name, but different places online claim that Rep. Karen Yarbrough, La Shawn Ford and Deborah Graham all have interest in running.

Q4. The next question lamented that Davis' expertise leaving DC. Davis responded, “I love being a member of Congress and I've been quite successful.” He spoke of “critical issues” and this being a “defining moment”.

Davis then went on to say that he would “get out the vote for Democrats... I'm afraid if some population groups aren't participating as effectively as they can we won't get Democrats elected governor and senator.”

Q5, environment. Next Davis was asked about environmental issues. He praised the technological innovations that went into making energy production and industry more environmentally friendly. This was one of the few times Davis has taken a question and sounded like he was clearly relying on BS.

Q6, why not accept the appointment to U.S. Senate? There was a question that asked why Davis was running for President of the Cook County Board if he declined appointment to the U.S. Senate because he was too busy working on expungement issues. Davis explained he declined appointment to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Rod Blagojevich because he thought that would be the end of his political career.

Q7, not a question. Then a particularly obnoxious Davis surrogate was recognized. Barbara started a speech about her credentials (being from the 1st Ward and being more conservative than liberal) and praising Davis. After awhile someone asked if she had a question. She said she did. But she never asked a question and finished her speech by saying, “This is the best man for the job.” Later Barbara interrupted others and said things like, “Toni Preckwinkle can't win; she doesn't have the experience.” Somewhere along the way Barbara expressed concerns there were too many Black candidates splitting the vote in the race for President of the Cook County Board.

Q8, county jail. Davis was asked about the Cook County jail. He made the point that the United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the people incarcerated around the world. He then said, “Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart already doing the things that need to be done. He would have been the toughest guy to beat [for President of the Cook County Board].” Davis went on to say that he is on the LSC for the school serving Cook County jail. He then went into listing all the professional licenses denied to convicted felons in Illinois, including barber, cosmetology, plumber, etc.

Q9, leadership. Next a question prompted Davis to address his leadership philosophy. He started generally by talking about the importance of inspiring and motivating to bring out the best in people. He then talked about his six years as a teacher in which he said he only missed two days, one for an Army physical and one to take a lady to the Lincoln Park Zoo. He also mentioned his leadership in medical clinics before he worked in politics. He also mentioned how Cook County government needs resources and he suggested applying for grants from state and federal government.

Q10, health care bill, public option. A person asked if Davis would commit to withholding his vote on the health care bill unless it contained a public option. Davis started his answer by mentioning some of the numerous caucuses to which he belongs in Congress, including the Asian Caucus and the Pan Hellenic Caucus. He then said that the Progressive Caucus discussed withholding their votes if the health care bill did not include a public option.

Davis said that he told the members of the Progressive Caucus that, “President Obama lives too close and is too popular [for Davis to vote against Obama's bill].” He then said he hopes the President “sticks to his guns.”

Davis then meandered into a story about taxes. He said that there was a proposal to pay for expanding health coverage by taxing pop (and similar sugary drinks) at ten cents per bottle. Davis explained that he is the co-chair of the Sugar Caucus. Davis along with his co-chair Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL10) and Rep. John Lewis (D-Atlanta; GA Coke is big there) fought to kill this proposal. Davis explained the point of the sugar caucus is to “keep the cost of sugar down”. This serves the interests of Chicago businesses that manufacture candy and other products that contain sugar.

Davis concluded by saying, “I would not support a plan without a public option.”

After the presentations Northside DFA endorsed Jeff Smith, a member, for the Illinois General Assembly. Smith is an attorney running for the seat being vacated by Rep. Julie Hamos, who is running for Congress.

candidate forum, Black Dems running for Prez of Cook County Board

On Thursday, August 27, WVON hosted a forum for the four Black Democrats running for President of the Cook County Board at Malcolm X College (near West Side). Terry O'Brien, the non-Black Democratic candidate, was invited, but had a conflict. The crowd filled the seats and had people standing in the balcony. WVON's Cliff Kelley moderated.

Campaign message:

Dorothy Brown
Brown introduced herself and included the line, “We need new ideas, not new taxes.” She positioned herself as having relevant financial and management experience based on her education (JD, MBA and CPA) and her running the office of the Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court (2,100 employees). Brown repeatedly mentioned that she has saved $187 million as clerk. Brown described the county as facing a crisis, financial and management.

Danny K. Davis
Davis started by saying he believed the county and state were in need and could be in crisis. He said he wants honest and open government. He acknowledged that people want to pay lower taxes. He explained the two “essential” functions of Cook County government as being health care and criminal justice. Davis offered himself as qualified to run the health care system because he ran a health care clinic before he was an elected official and because he was a leader in the National Association of Community Health Centers. On criminal justice, Davis expressed the goal of reducing crime and recidivism and to generally give hope. Davis emphasized the role the seventeen members of the county board play and said that he would be most able to bring the board together.

Toni Preckwinkle
Preckwinkle said government has two obligations: 1) to deliver quality service, and 2) to deliver services efficiently and effectively. Preckwinkle touted her experience as alderman improving the quality of life in the Fourth Ward as proof she has the energy and vision to be President of the Cook County Board. Preckwinkle said she'd do three things as President: 1) eliminate the 1% sales tax increase over four years which would make Cook County more competitive which would increase jobs; 2) continue the independent governing board for the Cook County health care system; and 3) reduce the jail population through increased substance abuse treatment.

Todd Stroger
Stroger emphasized having three balanced budgets multiple times during the presentation. He drew contrasts with city and state budgets that have large deficits. He complained the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times unfairly attacked him. Stroger said he was on the side of the people and the people were on his side. During the evening he injected positive information about Cook County government. Stroger's supporters were quite vocal, gave him standing ovations and frequently broke into chants of, “Four more years!”
In his concluding remarks Stroger said, “We let the major papers tear our leaders down.” He then told of shaking the hand of a Black boy at the Bud Billiken Day parade. Stroger said the boy could see, “This Black man is doing something powerful!... This is about Black people and how we are perceived.”

Style:

Brown
Dorothy Brown came across as passionate and energized. There was something not quite right about the modulation for me. Maybe it was too much, too much of the time. Her supporters were about as numerous and loud as Stroger's.

Davis
Davis appeared to be the elder statesman. The moderator, Kelley, helped by being most deferential to Davis. He could connect with the audience without theatrics. Davis was often smiling knowingly as other candidates spoke in a way that made Davis seem like he was watching little leaguers learn the game of politics.

Preckwinkle
While having her ideas organized and giving details was her strength, the style of her presentation was her weakness. Toward the end Preckwinkle's forehead was furrowed. It might have been the light pointing too directly at her face. But it was easy to get the impression she was scowling because she was frustrated. Was she frustrated with Kelly, who treated the male candidates better? Was she frustrated with the audience that seemed to be more interested in style than substance? Was she frustrated that her campaign didn't muster more people for the audience? Maybe it was just the light.

Stroger
Stroger has gotten more effective on the campaign trail than he was four years ago. Four years ago he appeared amiable, if a bit hapless. At the Malcolm X forum he was indignant at be treated disrespectfully by the major media outlets. Stroger used emotion and used details to make his case. Stroger failed to state a vision for the future, but when he said he was on the side of the people he said it with conviction.

Points about county government:

Cook County government spends about $3 billion per year, of which about $882 million go to the hospital, according to Preckwinkle.
Between 2005-07 Cook County forfeited $139 million of Medicaid payments for failing to apply in accordance with federal procedure according to Preckwinkle.
Dorothy Brown was the only candidate that drew attention to the patient intake system. Patients are expected to arrive at 5 AM; the hospital stops allowing patients to get in line at 7 AM. As Brown noted, this kinda sucks if you're sick and there is inclement weather.
Preckwinkle noted Cook County is “in trouble with the federal government for overcrowding” at the jail.

Criticisms of Stroger:

In response to complaining about media coverage, Preckwinkle noted that part of the president's job is to manage relations with the media.

Brown chided Stroger about the forums organized by Cook County government to advise homeowners about mortgage and foreclosure issues. Stroger said the program was an example of Cook County government serving its citizens. Brown countered that the county spent money on something that a foundation (she mentioned the name) would have done for free.
At this point, Kelley made it the clearest that some candidates were more equal than others. Kelley modified the format to allow Stroger to respond. Stroger denied spending money. Brown said he did. Stroger said it was federal money to deal with mortgage issues. Brown countered that the money could have been spent helping people if the forums would have been done for free.
I liked how Brown handled Kelley modifying the rules to help Stroger. Brown simply said her piece and kept talking when Kelly tried to give Stroger the last word. Brown didn't complain Kelly was putting his thumb on the scale, she just took control of the situation.

Other coverage:

Progress Illinois (Adam Doster)

I didn't see coverage in the Trib, Defender or Sun-Times.

[UPDATE: I asked the National Association of Community Health Centers about Davis' experience. This is the email response I received:

Rep. Davis was instrumental in helping to start the National Association of Community Health Centers and served as President before getting elected to Congress. He is also a former employee, board member and patient of two health centers and a long time friend of the Community Health Center Movement. Health centers were started as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and today they serve 20 million people, nearly 40 percent of whom are uninsured. Congressman Davis has championed for their support and expansion as a Member of Congress, which is why he is a repeat winner of NACHC’s Health Center Champion Award.

[end UPDATE]

Davis circulating petitions for two offices?

I received a phone call tonight from someone who had previously said Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL07) was only circulating nominating petitions for Cook County Board President. S/he said that a minor paper (unknown which one) reported Davis is circulating nominating petitions for both President and U.S. Representative (Congress).

S/he followed the information with a question about whether I would still blog through February. I responded that I would. Besides the IL-07 race, I am interested in the race for the Cook County Board's First District, currently represented by Earlean Collins. I am also interested in the race for President of the Cook County Board and potentially Proviso Township Committeeman.

BTW, I was discussing various candidates for President of the Cook County Board.

• Dorothy Brown
• Danny Davis
• Terry O'Brien
• Toni Preckwinkle
• Todd Stroger
• Larry Suffredin

Comments:

Brown ran against Mayor Richard M. Daley and she's still in politics. If Brown doesn't get on board with supporting Stroger, what further punishment is she going to incur? Brown is probably annoyed at various Black ministers who are aligned with the Democratic Machine. She figures if they backed Daley against her; she can mess-up their situation by splitting the Black vote against Stroger.

Brown also has a winning move in that she can wait until it becomes clear who is the strongest candidate and throw her support behind him/her.

I expect Davis to either file for re-election to Congress or to fold his tent completely and retire from elected politics. According to people in the meeting of the Cook County Democrats in 2006 (when the party needed a candidate to replace John Stroger on the ballot) Davis made a pitch that he was tired of commuting to Washington, DC.

I don't think "I'm tired of commuting to DC" is the pitch that inspires people to stick out their necks for you. "Don't make no waves; don't back no losers," still applies in Chicago. I don't see committeemen taking a risk with someone who doesn't want to work hard. Politics may not reward virtue, but the game doesn't reward sloth and resting on yesteryear's accomplishments.

Davis is running to reconnect with people he met during his 1991 campaign for Mayor of Chicago. He gets to be in the media. And he gets to be important when he endorses Preckwinkle.

O'Brien is hoping that multiple Black candidates stay in the race and he wins based on consolidating the "White" vote. The Democratic Party presumably doesn't want an overly Irish ticket. So there are big picture factors that work against O'Brien.

Preckwinkle has made the greatest inroads into the activist community and has impressive fundraising. Being from Hyde Park is sexier than it was before Obama.

Stroger will have the support of some of the Machine and some Black voters. But the Machine values some level of competency. Stroger may reliably defend the perks and privileges of the Machine, he brings more trouble than he's worth. County government will get more scrutiny with Stroger at the helm.

Suffredin will switch to either running for re-election to the County Board or running for Cook County Assessor against Joe Berrios. Suffredin may know more about county government than the other candidates. But he doesn't connect with voters well on the campaign trail compared to more formidable politicians.

[UPDATE: A reader sent a link to the Pioneer Press (Patrick Butler) article on Davis.

"He is definitely running" for Todd Stroger's spot and will also be getting petition signatures for a race for a seventh Congressional term.

"While he can't run for both jobs at the same time, he has until Oct. 26 -- the last day for filing petitions -- to decide" which office he'll go for, [campaign spokesperson Tumia] Romero said.

[This is typical of Danny Davis. He's obviously slinging bullshit and he thinks that because he's a member of Congress we're supposed to ignore it's bullshit.

[The one angle that sorta makes sense is if Davis is trying to bluff candidates out of the IL-07 race. By circulating petitions Davis is making it difficult for most candidates to organize and raise money. Jim Ascot is the one candidate that will plow ahead whether Davis is running or not.]

Black politicians whining about Obama appointees

The Hill (Jared Allen) wrote that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is dissatisfied with President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet appointments. USA Today has a web page with all Obama's cabinet nominees.

Who was the one member of Congress quoted in The Hill article? Danny K. Davis.

“Did the African-American community probably expect more appointees at that level? Probably so,” said Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), an early Obama supporter who has expressed an interest in filling Obama’s vacant Senate seat.

Davis said he was pleased with Obama's Cabinet, but confirmed that there is some angst within the CBC.

“On balance, I’d say a great deal of thought went into the shaping of this Cabinet,” Davis told The Hill. “And he ended up with a real rainbow. But some people, sure, thought there should be a bit more color in it.”

Another senior member of the CBC who requested anonymity said more pointedly that Obama “isn’t doing enough for the black folks.”

BTW, of the eighteen nominees Obama's cabinet includes four (22%) African-Americans (Blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population), three (17%) Latinos (Latinos are about 13% of the U.S. population), two (11%) Asian Americans (Asian-Pacific Islanders are about 5% of the U.S. population) and one (6%) Arab American (Arab Americans comprise about 1% of the U.S. population).

There is no reasonable argument that Blacks or people of color are underrepresented in Obama's cabinet.

Before the 2000 Census Davis liked to talk about all the great things he was accomplishing on the subcommittee overseeing the Census. I hope Davis is aware of the demographics of the United States.

What the CBC is miffed about is not that Obama didn't appoint Blacks, but that he didn't appoint any of them. And I suspect that in addition to not appointing any members of the CBC, he didn't especially consult them about who he was going to appoint.

Issues the CBC should probably consider.

Being re-elected to Congress may impress your family, neighbors, local politicians back home and each other, but if you want a job with Obama, he expects you to be able to accomplish stuff for him.

Look at the Blacks Obama did appoint. They had jobs that emphasized accomplishing things besides getting elected.

Eric Holder "is a former Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, United States Attorney and Deputy Attorney General of the United States."

Susan Rice graduated from Stanford and was a Rhodes Scholar. She benefited from being born into an exceedingly accomplished and networked family. "Rice served on the staff of the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Bill Clinton's second term." While Rice's accomplishments don't greatly outshine a typical member of Congress, she's also 23 years younger than Danny Davis. When Rice is 67 I doubt she'll be telling stories about growing up in DC.

Lisa Jackson is chief of staff to Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ). Previously she was New Jersey Commissioner of Environmental Protection.


Ron Kirk was mayor of Dallas, Texas, ninth largest city in the country. Kirk then ran for U.S. Senator in 2002. For a Black Democrat running in Texas in 2002 he did pretty well with 43% of the vote.

If members of the CBC want to get appointed to the executive branch they should probably demonstrate skills at getting stuff done in executive jobs. Obama has at most eight years to enact his agenda. He's not going to hire people who want to validate their importance by sitting around in high office.

But the CBC also has a tarnished reputation at this point. The outgoing chair of the CBC, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) almost lost re-election to the U.S. House because she stood by her scandal-plagued son, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Rep. Charlie Rangel is in ethics trouble.

And more damning than senior members of the CBC being in trouble was when Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was caught by the FBI with $90,000 cash in his freezer, the CBC opposed the Democratic leadership stripping Jefferson his assignment to the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson subsequently lost re-election in his majority Black, overwhelmingly Democratic district to an ethnic Vietnamese Republican.

Politicians who stagnate at a certain level start thinking of ways to enrich themselves and their relatives and cronies. Much of the CBC has been stagnating too long. Obama doesn't want to waste time with the media asking about some appointee getting a sweetheart deal for someone back home.

The only appointment I can see Davis getting is an ambassadorship. If he mixes in some stories about knowing Obama in Chicago maybe people in some other country won't get too bored by his stories about growing up in Arkansas. He tells the stories really well, but I fail to see how those stories are doing anything besides endearing Davis to Blacks constituents who came North between WWII and 1975.

The country is in a mess. Obama expects public officials who can perform. I'm hoping we can replace some of our nice elected officials with people who can perform to improve our economy and public education and resolve Bush's endless Global War on Terrorism.

will Cook County State's Attorney investigate Yarbrough and Vicenik?

Here's my take on the Yarbrough-Vicenik-Davis Broadview office issue. It seems clear that Karen Yarbrough violated the provision of Illinois law that prohibits using government resources for political activities. Broadview Mayor Henry Vicenik and U.S. Representative Danny K. Davis have pretty implausible claims of ignorance.

It also seems likely that Yarbrough/Davis staffer Larry Shapiro played a role in organizing the implementing the illegal scheme.

Question: will the Cook County State's Attorney (or Illinois Attorney General) enforce the law?

I'm also curious how Cook County Clerk David Orr reacts to Yarbrough and Vicenik invoking his name as blessing the illegal arrangement. Orr was asked if the division of the state representative office and the political office was sufficiently clear that it was OK to have both offices in the same building. Orr gave the OK to the division. But I am all but 100% certain Orr was kept in the dark on the one important detail: the whole building was owned by the Village of Broadview.

So when Yarbrough and Vicenik invoke Orr as saying the arrangement was OK they are trying to confuse. Orr said the division between politics and constituent service was sufficiently clear to have two separate leases assuming a private owner of the premises.

I hope Orr registers the appropriate amount of anger at Yarbrough and Vicenik and requests the Cook County State's Attorney investigate and prosecute if a violation of Illinois law has occurred.

It will be a good chance for Anita Alvarez, the Democratic nominee for Cook County State's Attorney and the third ranking person in the Devine administration, to show that the office can investigate and prosecute crimes by people with some local political clout.

Vicenik and Yarbrough use taxpayer resources for political work

West Suburban Journal-News (L. Nicole Trottie with Kevin Williams contributing) covers the criticism Broadview Village President Henry Vicenik took over letting Rep. Karen Yarbrough and U.S. Rep Danny Davis use a village-owned property rent free.

Vicenik said the board’s decision to offer the space rent free was never a board agenda item....

Vicenik counters, the decision by the board is justified as providing a service to Broadview residents.

“I thought it would be good for the village and residents to have a state representative and congressman here as a resource for the people of Broadview,” Vicenik said Tuesday.

Having a village subsidize constituent services is at least an unusual arrangement. And unusual arrangements need more specific contracts. And contracts need to be approved by the governing boards, or they formally delegate this power.

Broadview has been in financial trouble for years. Why wouldn't it ask its tenants to pay for using village property?

IMO, Yarbrough and Vicenik are in some legal trouble, or should be, for using public resources for political activities. I assumed that Yarbrough and her organization were paying rent and that there was a contract which separated the political portion of the premises from the government part of the premises. I'm pretty sure my assumption was based on this being claimed or implied by Yarbrough. Maybe I'm misremembering.

If Yarbrough and Vicenik knew that the space was provided gratis by the Village of Broadview they both know that there should be no political activity being done there. I made a formal complaint to the Cook County State's Attorney against Eugene Moore and District 209 for a comparatively minor transgression.

h/t Proviso Insider

BTW, there is something of a back story to Trottie's interest in this building. Trottie sought to acquire use of the property for free from Vicenik. Trottie mentioned the arrangement to Yarbrough. Apparently Vicenik decided it was more advantageous to him to give the property to Yarbrough and Davis than to Trottie's newspaper which was brand new at the time.

However, whether Trottie has an ax to grind with Vicenik and Yarbrough over this property, it doesn't mitigate the wrongdoing by Vicenik and Yarbrough.

GOV, Proviso Reps oppose troop escalation in Iraq

Proviso Township is represented by four members of the House of Representatives: Rep. Danny K. Davis, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Rep. Luis Gutierrez and Rep. Dan Lipinski. All are Democrats.

This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution expressing disagreement with President Bush's plan to escalate the level of troops in Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Earlier Proviso Probe covered Davis' statement. All Proviso representatives voted for the resolution, thereby going on record as opposing the escalation.

Here's what the other representatives had to say:

Lipinski:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and in support of a new policy in Iraq. Up until this point, the Bush administration's Iraq policy over the last 3 1/2 years appears to be one of America's worst foreign policy blunders. More than 3,100 of our brave men and women in uniform have been killed and more than 24,000 have been wounded, many very seriously, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and in some cases wasted. This has resulted from the tactical mistakes, errors in judgment and other major missteps by the Bush administration.

It is painfully clear that a change in strategy in Iraq is needed now. We need a plan for bringing stability to Iraq and bringing our troops home. Unfortunately, the President's plan to add over 20,000 additional troops does not provide this, and, therefore, I must support this resolution.

I see three main flaws in the President's plan.

First, the administration has not provided convincing evidence that this surge will succeed after many similar plans have failed. After almost 4 years in Iraq, the American people are asking, why should we have faith in this plan and place more troops in harm's way?

Second, by failing to provide clear benchmarks for success or a time frame by which we can expect the surge to yield positive results, the President's plan appears to commit our country to a ``stay the course'' strategy with no clear end in sight. Aid should be tied to a deadline for progress by the Iraqi Government.

Third, and most importantly, the President continues to place too much emphasis on a military solution, when it is clear that force alone will not solve this crisis. Solutions must support broad international engagement to promote stability and reconstruction in Iraq and must address political, economic and religious issues.

Because of the need for such a plan, earlier this year I laid out a set of recommendations, and this week I introduced H.Res. 152 based on these. My proposal consists of three core recommendations.

First, encourage achievement of important goals and national reconciliation, security and governance by arranging a peace conference for Iraq's ethnic and religious factions, similar to the conference that led to the Dayton Accords. One venue for this would be El Salvador, which has shown a strong commitment to stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and has gone through its own recent history of a bloody civil war and ensuing reconciliation.

But wherever and however it is done, the political, economic and religious issues must be addressed if peace and security are to be established in Iraq. And it is essential that more pressure be put on the Iraqi Government and all interested parties in Iraq to find and accept real solutions so the American forces can begin withdrawal.

The second recommendation is to seek international cooperation to develop solutions for Iraq. This should include calling an international conference that will work on putting together a peacekeeping force and setting up an international reconstruction program.

Iraq's strategic position in the volatile Middle East, its potential to become a terrorist safe haven, its large supply of oil and the great potential for a humanitarian catastrophe make security in Iraq a critical international issue. It is time for America to engage the nations of the world to encourage them to address this international crisis.

The final recommendation is to require the administration to give Congress detailed reports on the situation in Iraq so that we can make informed decisions regarding funding for reconstruction and deciding when American forces can be redeployed. This new Congress has been vigorously conducting oversight after 3 1/2 years of congressional neglect, but we must have the full cooperation of the administration.

If the recommendations laid out in my resolution are followed, I believe American troops can begin redeployment in 2007, leaving a secure, stable Iraq.

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``The search for genuine justice and peace in Iraq requires moral urgency, substantive dialogue and new direction.'' Unfortunately, the President does not give us this. That is why his plan is discouraging to many Americans who are weary of this war.

But no one is wearier than our troops and their families. This past weekend I spoke to a soldier who spent 13 months in Iraq and will likely be returning. He told me that it is important to make sure that we let our troops know that they have our complete support. We cannot let anything in this debate be construed otherwise. If this surge occurs even after we pass this resolution, we must continue to support our troops and pray for them every day, so that by God's grace they can succeed in their mission.

Lipinski represents the southern portion of Proviso Township.

Emanuel:

Mr. Speaker, we gather today to consider a question that is profoundly simple: Do we support the President's plan to further escalate America's involvement in Iraq, or not? After 4 long, painful years in which we have seen so many young lives lost, are we now willing to put even more of our brave heroes in harm's way, or will we acknowledge that the current course is failing, that doubling down on the status quo while hoping for a better result would be foolish.

There are those who oppose this resolution because they say it would hurt the troops' morale. Hurt morale? Our leaders promised them they would be greeted as liberators. Instead, we have put them smack in the middle of a shooing gallery, policing someone else's civil war, backing an Iraqi government that refuses to stand up for itself.

We have sent our soldiers back time and again. We have sent many of them without the life-saving equipment and armor they needed, and now they say this resolution would hurt troop morale? To suggest that more of the same just won't do.

They have done their duty with courage and discipline. Now it is time for Congress to do its duty. They deserve not to be sacrificed in the furtherance of a policy that failed for the last 4 years.

From the beginning, this war has been a saga of miscalculations, mistakes and misjudgments for which America will pay in many ways for years to come. Let us not compound those bad judgments by ratifying another.

The President assures us that this escalation of war is the most promising path to a more peaceful Iraq. For the past 5 years we have accepted the President's assurances on Iraq, only to learn that the facts on the ground belied his aggressive assertions and rosy rhetoric. We accepted his assurances about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. We authorized a war on that basis, only to learn that much of what we were told simply wasn't true.

Against stern warnings, we accepted his assurances and those of the Vice President that a post-Saddam Iraq would welcome our presence and overcome deeply engrained sectarian differences. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us General Shinseki was mistaken when he said we needed far more troops to stabilize Iraq than the administration planned, and that the cost of this war would be minimal. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us the insurgency was in its last throes. It simply wasn't true.

Each of the last three troop surges has been countered with a surge in violence. It is for that reason that a bipartisan group of House Members and the American public oppose the forth troop increase. More troops doing more of the same is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it is not a tactic, it is the status quo plus.

The time is past for accepting this administration's assurances at face value. The human cost of its repeated assurances is too great.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I asked permission to establish a temporary memorial to the fallen in Iraq in Statuary Hall. The leadership at that time refused, so I began posting the pictures of the young soldiers we have lost outside my office. I have watched as that grim line of photos has grown past my doorway to fill the corridor. More than 3,000 dead, more than 20,000 wounded. When I walk by those photos, I see the purpose, I see the pride, and I see the promise in their young faces. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers who will never see their kids grow up.

I ask you, how long must this grim line of photographs grow before we acknowledge that this policy is not working? How many corridors must these memorials fill before we we say, not on my watch? How many more lives must we lose? How many more hearts must be broken?

It is time for this Congress to tell President Bush that his assurances are not enough. This escalation does not mean stability in Iraq, it will mean more loss and more photographs in the corridor.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Emanuel represents most of Melrose Park.

Gutierrez:

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution.

Four years ago, President Bush plunged our Nation into a misguided, pre-emptive war with Iraq. I voted against authorizing it then--and I have come to the floor today to affirm my strong opposition to this irresponsible war.

Unfortunately, after 4 years of failed strategies by this administration, the President is now poised to confound his tragic blunder, and ignore the will of the American people, by attempting to increase our presence in Iraq. And that is why this resolution is so important. Because it sends a strong statement. A statement that the vast majority of the country supports. And that is: escalating our presence in Iraq will not lead to success in the region, and more blank checks will not make America more secure.

Madam Speaker, our brave men and women in the military have done all that is asked of them over the course of the last 4 years. They are heroes who represent the finest our country has to offer--and they should be treated accordingly. But, from day one, this administration has spent more time planning its attacks on those who offered legitimate criticisms of the war and its tactics, than it has on planning for a stable and peaceful reconstruction of the region. And the results have been devastating and unworthy of our brave men and women serving in harm's way.

Enough is enough. Troop surges have not worked in the past, and there is no evidence that the same failed policies will work today. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

Yet, this administration continues to ignore the guidance of military experts, the Iraq Study Group, diplomats, decorated war heroes and former senior White House officials of both parties.

And rather than being open to debate and discussion with these experts, this Administration has routinely attacked their character and questioned their patriotism. Many of these individuals have bled on the battlefield. But to this administration, and its swift boat strategists, they are treated merely as political pawns. It is truly shameful.

Because of this Administration's hubris, we have seen troops without proper equipment, without basic body armor, without vehicles equipped to deal with roadside bombs and without the appropriate veteran's services when they return home.

Because of their ignorance, we have seen giant banners saying, Mission Accomplished, when today Iraq has spiraled into a bloody, religious civil war.

Because of their arrogance, we were told that we were going to be treated as liberators, not as occupiers.

And because of their incompetence, we were told that future oil revenues would more than cover the cost of the reconstruction.

They could not have been more wrong. The cost of the war continues to grow at an outrageous rate. To date, we have spent approximately $379 billion on this war, with estimates from some experts saying that the total long-term cost could exceed $1 trillion.

Think about that for a minute: $379 billion spent, more than $8 billion a month. That is enough to fully fund Head Start--100 times over. To give virtually every student in America a computer. Pay for prescription drug coverage for virtually every senior in our Nation. Offer summer jobs to every teen in our country. Put hundreds of thousands of additional police officers on the streets. Provide millions of scholarships to public universities for deserving students. And pay the salaries of millions of public school teachers.

But what do we have to show for that $379 billion--a country plagued with hardened religious sectarian violence.

Madam Speaker, it is time to stop this charade. It is time for the truth. It is time for the administration to really level with the American people.

Resurrecting and rehashing failed policies of the past is not the answer.

Real action is needed. Leadership is needed. Courage is needed. And that is why we are engaged in this debate--to stand up to the deception and the dishonesty.

We are here today to begin to set our strategy back on the right course. To protect our soldiers. And to ensure that we can win the real war on terror.

Madam Speaker, we are here today as patriots because we love our country. We are here because we support our troops. And we are here because we want our troops to be able to come home to their families and loved ones.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important resolution.

Gutierrez represents some of Melrose Park and Stone Park.

What arguments resonate with you? What arguments seem weak?

Davis and Gutierrez voted against the Iraq War Resolution in October, 2002. Emanuel's predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, was one of the 81 Democrats who voted for the resolution (126 Democrats voted "no"). Lipinski's father voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

In the past Emanuel and Dan Lipinski have been more supportive of Bush's Iraq policy than most Democrats.

GOV, Congressman Davis speaks in favor of anti-escalation resolution

The House of Representatives is deliberating on a resolution expressing disapproval of President George W. Bush's proposal to escalate troops levels in Iraq. I first read about it on Fire Dog Lake (Peterr).

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Each House member gets five minutes to say his or her piece.


Congressman Danny K. Davis said:

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for providing what we never had in the last session, and that is ample opportunity to fully discuss Iraq , where we are and what we ought to be doing about it.

I have always been told that when you start with a faulty premise, you will inevitably reach a faulty conclusion. And the rationale given for entering the war was faulty. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to 9/11. Therefore, we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

But then after the invasion, the occupation of Iraq has been tragically mismanaged. Civilian military leadership ignored the advice of senior commanders on requirements for preventing chaos in the aftermath of the invasion. As a result, our extended presence in Iraq continues to worsen the situation, not only in Iraq , but in the entire region.

Terrorist incidents continue to flare up around the world, from England to Spain , from Indonesia to Jordan . Chaos and intolerance in the form of civil war now has secured a deadly grip on Iraq . The policy of escalation has failed, and failed again, to loosen that horrendous grip. The Iraqi people want us to leave, and so do the American people, especially those in my congressional district, and especially those that I encounter at churches, schools, synagogues, town hall meetings and on the street.

Madam Speaker, democracy and self-government cannot be imposed on Iraq by any foreign power, including us, the United States of America . Our troops have done everything we have asked of them, even when we have failed to equip and protect them. The problem does not lie with our troops, but with the distorted world view of this administration and the military and diplomatic doctrine of preemptive war as a solution to global political problems.

We must do everything possible to protect our troops and we must do everything in our power to take care of them when they return home.

It is impossible, Madam Speaker, to build a coalition against terrorism by attempting to unilaterally impose these doctrines on the international community. We cannot undo the many mistakes which have been made in Iraq . And when our national interests have been so distorted, when we have so lost our direction, it is the historical, moral, and constitutional responsibility of this Congress to set us back on course and on the right track.

It is time to recognize that we are enmeshed in an unending, vicious circle of escalating violence, rather than a force for peace, and that is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 508, which would bring the force of law to end this war.

Today we have before us a nonbinding resolution, most likely insufficient to end the occupation. But it can help to move us in the right direction and set us on the right path. Therefore, I support this resolution, because it reflects the will and interests of the American people, and I trust that this administration will abandon demagogic calls for constantly changing notions of success and victory and awaken to the world of reality.

Madam Speaker, it is time, it is past time, to bring our troops home. I am told that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. This resolution sets us on the right course, gives us the right direction. I urge its passage.

Thanks to Robin at Code Pink for forwarding Davis' remarks.