The G Spot

Palin update

By Kathy G.

Hmmm . . . not sure what to make of this, but the Anchorage Daily News is reporting that, contrary to what's been buzzing around the rumor mill, Sarah Palin is not being investigated by the FBI:

An FBI spokesman took the unusual step today of declaring that Gov. Sarah Palin is not under investigation, an announcement prompted by rumors to the contrary on many web sites. “We are not investigating her,” said FBI spokesman Eric Gonzalez. “Normally we don’t confirm or deny those kind of allegations out there but by not doing so it just casts her in a very bad light. There is just no truth to those rumors out there in the blogosphere.”

Because the FBI usually stays silent on these matters, I wonder why they broke precedent by making this announcement? Palin must have some very good friends in some awfully high places.

Meanwhile, La Palin, wildly overreacting as usual, made the uniquely asshatted move of "threatening free speech on the Fourth of July." The Alaska political blog Mudflats is reporting that Palin's battalion of flying monkeys is threatening to sue blogger Shannyn Moore for defamation for mentioning that there are rumors that Palin is being investigated for criminal activities. Which there sure as hell are. They've been reported on MSNBC and all over the internets. If Palin wants to sue every blogger, web site, and news outlet that has mentioned the rumors, well, good fucking luck with that, lady!

I'll end with a special Palin bonus lie. If you seen it or listened to it, you'll know that Palin's trainwreck of a resignation statement yesterday was filled to overflowing with a toxic brew of Nixonian resentment, self-pity, and lies. I'll confine myself to singling out one of those lies.

Remember how Saint Sarah claimed that two million dollars of taxpayer money was being spent investigating her? Umm, try $296,000 instead.

Crazy-ass wingnut of the day: Peter Ferrara

By Kathy G.

Sarah Palin's abrupt and unexpected departure from the political scene was yet one more delightful surprise gift from the political party that keeps giving. Her already legendary Checkers speech/"you won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore" press conference two days ago -- or, as some have started calling it, "the mistake by the lake" -- was obviously thrown together in about 15 minutes, tops, and Palin's nervousness and distress were readily apparent throughout.

Clearly, there's some kind of scandal breathing down her neck -- as one internet commenter put it, her statement gave off a powerful whiff of "Oops! Got caught and gotta go. See ya!" No one as ambitious as Palin -- who, famously, claimed that when John McCain offered her the vice presidential nomination, she accepted without a moment's hesitation -- would so precipitously abandon their elected office, and by doing so pretty much put an end to their political career, absent an extremely compelling reason.

Well, that's the way it looked to any person, as Josh Marshall persuasively argues here. Because otherwise, her resignation makes absolutely no freaking sense. And as Judge Judy likes to say, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."

Immediately following her announcement, even Palin's wingnut fanboys were left scratching their heads. But I know my wingnuts, and, true to form, it didn't take them long to recoup, and start spinning faster than a dreidel in a kosher casino.

This has led to some choice pieces of wingnuttery. But I have to say, the wingnuttiest of them all (that I"ve seen, anyway) was yesterday's Fox News column by Peter Ferrara.

Let's start with the awesome title -- "Sarah Palin Outsmarts the Left."

Well, that hurt. My leftist comrades and I, foiled again by that noted brainiac, Sarah Palin! She is truly the master of 16-dimension political chess, that one!

But wait -- it gets better.

Lisa Marie Presley on the death of Michael Jackson: "I am gutted"

By Kathy G.

When I heard Michael Jackson died yesterday, it felt like part of my childhood died with him. I'll have more to say about his passing later on, but for now I wanted to point to this piece by Lisa Marie Presley, which is the most interesting thing I have read about MJ as a person (as opposed to an artist or a cultural figure) so far. Here's an excerpt:

Our relationship was not "a sham" as is being reported in the press. It was an unusual relationship yes, where two unusual people who did not live or know a "Normal life" found a connection, perhaps with some suspect timing on his part. Nonetheless, I do believe he loved me as much as he could love anyone and I loved him very much.

I wanted to "save him" I wanted to save him from the inevitable which is what has just happened.

His family and his loved ones also wanted to save him from this as well but didn't know how and this was 14 years ago. We all worried that this would be the outcome then.

At that time, In trying to save him, I almost lost myself.

He was an incredibly dynamic force and power that was not to be underestimated.

When he used it for something good, It was the best and when he used it for something bad, It was really, REALLY bad.

[. . .]

I became very ill and emotionally/ spiritually exhausted in my quest to save him from certain self-destructive behavior and from the awful vampires and leeches he would always manage to magnetize around him.

I was in over my head while trying.

I had my children to care for, I had to make a decision.

The hardest decision I have ever had to make, which was to walk away and let his fate have him, even though I desperately loved him and tried to stop or reverse it somehow.

After the Divorce, I spent a few years obsessing about him and what I could have done different, in regret.

Then I spent some angry years at the whole situation.

At some point, I truly became Indifferent, until now.

As I sit here overwhelmed with sadness, reflection and confusion at what was my biggest failure to date, watching on the news almost play by play The exact Scenario I saw happen on August 16th, 1977 happening again right now with Michael (A sight I never wanted to see again) just as he predicted, I am truly, truly gutted.

Here's Michael at age 13, performing the truest and most tender love song he ever recorded -- an ode to a pet rat.

It never fails to break me up. My god, that lad could sing like an angel.

All class all the time

By Kathy G.

Here is a combination of words I never thought I'd read in the same sentence: "Pup" -- that would be the late William F. Buckley -- immediately followed by the phrase "would relieve himself through the opened door of a moving car."

The article linked to above -- which concerns a new memoir by Buckley's son, Christopher -- reveals similar examples ultra-classy behavior on the part of Buckley pere. For example, there's the story of how Buckley exited Christopher's college graduation a scant ten minutes into the ceremony and abandoned him for the rest of the day -- all because was "bored." 

Then there's William F.'s wife, Pat Buckley, who sounds like quite a piece of work. Her own son describes her as callous, appallingly rude, and a serial liar. Among other things, she apparently largely ignored her own granddaughter's existence.

Ya gotta love those conservative family values!

I know I should be used to it by now, but honestly, the rank hypocrisy and ultra-entitled mentality and lifestyle of the conservative elite (in the article, Christopher says his father had two secretaries and a household staff of five; never washed a dish or changed a diaper in his life; and expected everyone around him to bend to his will) never ceases to astonish me.

Yet another reason why the bailout was a terrible idea

By Kathy G.

The Journal was chockfull of goodies today.

For instance, there is this important article, which describes an important effect of the bailout which surprisingly has attracted very little attention. It's this: the bailout's huge subsidies to firms that are failing are grossly unfair to its competitors.

The Journal article deals specifically with the insurance industry, and with complaints by ACE Ltd., the Chubb Group, Liberty Mutual, and other insurers that, because of its apparently unlimited access to the federal teat, A.I.G. is benefiting unfairly. Here's why: because A.I.G. is being so heavily subsidized by Joe and Jane Taxpayer, it can bloody well afford to slash prices -- and it has done so, aggressively. It has cut prices by more than 30% in some instances, which has enabled it, says the Journal, "to fend off rivals and to keep or win contracts." This type of extreme price-cutting may in fact be illegal, and investigations are underway by the GAO and state insurance regulators in New York and Pennsylvania, to determine whether A.I.G. is violating the law.

This story is deeply disturbing, on many levels.

First of all, it goes without saying that, especially in this distressed economy, being subsidized by the taxpayers is enormous advantage for any firm.

And consider: A.I.G. was run in such a reckless and disastrous manner that by all rights -- certainly by all free market principles -- it deserved to die. In contrast, however, its competitors in the insurance market appear to have run their businesses competently and responsibly. And yet, we are heaping lavish financial rewards upon the bad actor here, which in effect punishes the good actors.

This is not just grotesquely unfair to A.I.G.'s rivals (let alone the taxpayers), but it also undermines the free market system in a profound way. As regular readers know, I'm far from a cheerleader for the free market; I'm European-style social democrat who believes that mixed economies work best.

But I do believe that there are many things that markets do very well. However, for markets to work, competition is vital. And when, to the detriment of our social welfare and the public good, the government weighs its thumb so heavily on the scale in favor of certain firms but not others -- and, moreover, when the firms it is favoring are among the worst-run and most spectacularly incompetent ones in our history . . . Well, it's so outrageous and insane and perverse, that I despair.

And, like Paul Krugman, I despair not merely because of the continuing A.I.G. follies, or the ongoing bailout debacle. I despair because, despite everything we now know, and despite the depth of rage that has been expressed from Americans of every conceivable type and ideology, the Obama administration seems determined to go forward with basically the same shitty bank rescue plan that the Bush administration tried, and failed, to foist upon us. It basically amounts to taking piles of money of earned by ordinary working Americans and forking it over by the shovelful to many of the most greedy, out-of-control, and dangerous corporate assholes in our nation.

Obama was this country's one great hope, but now I see all too clearly the potential that this administration could soon be going down in flames. Universal health care, the Employee Free Choice Act, an energy bill, court appointments -- all of that could be fading away in a puff of smoke, all too soon.

And it's all because Timmeh, and Larry, and most important of all, Barack -- have minds that have been warped by corporate propaganda, or souls that have been corrupted by power, or spirits that, for whatever reason, are pathetically timid -- and thus are unable to do the right thing. And not merely the right thing, but the only reasonable thing. Which is, of course, to tell the corporate elites to go fuck themselves, and start nationalizing the banks ASAP.

I pray that I am wrong. But the administration is rapidly heading in a very dangerous direction, and there's not a lot of time to change course. As of now at least, as Atrios says, it certainly looks as if all this is going to end very badly indeed

Quote of the day

By Kathy G.

Let it not be said that the Wall Street Journal does not know its readership base all too well.

While paging through today's paper, I came across this extraordinary sentence -- in the sports section, no less:

If you like to see the strong slap around the weak -- and deep down, you know you do -- this was the sports weekend for you.

Wow.

Just -- wow.

Our corrupt elites -- medical science division

By Kathy G.

Buried on page 7 of today's Wall Street Journal is a rather astonishing article that is a remarkably vivid illustration of how corrupt an institution the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has become.

The facts are these: as the article's author, David Armstrong, reports, "a study [JAMA] published last year on the use of antidepressants in stroke patients was authored by a University of Iowa psychiatrist [Dr. Robert Robinson] who failed to disclose he had a financial relationship with the maker of the drug studied." This information came to light when a medical researcher, Dr. Jonathan Leo, published a letter in another medical journal which mentioned Dr. Robinson's conflict of interest and criticized the way the findings of his study were reported. Leo said he discovered the conflict of interest via a simple Google search.

What happened following the publication of Leo's letter is extraordinary.

For one thing, it caused JAMA to institute a sweeping and unprecedented new policy: from now on, says JAMA, anyone filing a complaint about a study author's conflict of interest must "remain silent about the allegation until the journal investigates the charge." And when they say silent, they mean silent --from now on, says JAMA, anyone making such a complaint will "be specifically informed that he/she should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while an investigation is under way."

This policy is highly unusual and has been sharply criticized by the editors of other medical journals.

But JAMA's attempts to silence and intimidate its critics don't stop there. Its editors appear to have launched a campaign of attacks and threats against Dr. Leo and the medical school where he teaches, Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee.

Morgan Stanley is blocking employee access to a site that's critical of the banks

By Kathy G.

For me, when it comes to following the financial crisis, one of the go-to sites has been The Baseline Scenario. It's written, in part, by Simon Johnson, an M.I.T. economics professor, who has been a relentless critic of the banks. Time and again, Professor Johnson has made the argument that the political power of the banks has grotesquely distorted our economy and our democracy, and that in order for sane, fair, and effective economic policies to prevail, the banks must be broken up.

Today, Johnson reports something disturbing: Morgan Stanley is blocking employee access to this invaluable site.

Access to our site has been blocked in the past by China - for reasons that should be obvious (if you want to pretend there is no global crisis).  But what kind of firm would not want its employees to access our macroeconomic analysis, Financial Crisis for Beginners, or your continuing debate about how to handle the world’s myriad financial sector problems?

Oh, yes…

Morgan Stanley.

No doubt there is a simple and reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with our views on banks, their executives, and the political power of the financial sector.  And it must be pure coincidence that Morgan Stanley was mentioned in a less than completely positive light during my February interview with Bill Moyers.

When it comes to the banks, there is so much to be outraged about these days that this may seem like a minor matter. But it's illustrative of just how profoundly out of touch and divorced from reality the financial sector has become. Morgan Stanley won't even allow their own employees to have access to a site that consistently mounts powerful critiques of the financial sector and the public policies that involve that sector. How can Morgan Stanley possibly defend itself successfully when its own employees don't have a clue as to the nature of the criticisms against it?

The corrupt cronyism and astonishing insularity of the financial sector has bred a level of denial so deep that I believe it will be death of them, in the end.

As someone once wrote in a not dissimilar context, "Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."

Happy St. Patty's Day to one and all

By Kathy G.

So much for that

By Kathy G.

Well, yesterday we got our asses handed to us, didn't we?

I fully expected us to lose -- but I did not expect us to be thrashed so thoroughly. I'll have more to say later, but I have to admit, right now I don't have the heart. Losing is never fun, but losing this badly is excruciating.

Congratulations, though, to Mike Quigley. He ran a strong campaign, and he's certainly a better-than-average Dem. He's too fiscally conservative for my tastes, and I don't trust him on foreign policy (in the first candidates' forum, he sounded hawkish about Iran, and said he opposed investigating the Bush administration for possible war crimes).

But Quigley is pretty good on most other issues, and he's an honest and capable public servant. And unlike so many in this race, he is not a hack. He has a genuine independent streak -- which is why Mayor Daley loathes him.

There's no question that he is several steps up from Rahm Emanuel, the previous holder of this seat.

All things considered, it could have been much, much worse.

But right now that feels like very cold comfort indeed.

Election Day -- Hildy says go vote, go volunteer, and then party!

By Kathy G.

 

Hildy, the official mascot of the Geoghegan for Congress campaign, wants to remind you to vote for Tom today if you're eligible, volunteer for the campaign if you're able, and join us for the party tonight!

1. First of all, today, March 3rd, is Election Day. If you live in the Fifth District and you're a registered voter, please vote in today's primary for Tom Geoghegan.

Polls will be open from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m., and Tom's place on the ballot is #11.

To find your polling place, visit this page. To check your registration, visit this page (under the heading, "Not sure if you're registered?"). And if you need a ride to the polls, call (773) 853-0687.

2. Secondly, if you have some time, please volunteer for the Geoghegan campaign's election day and get-out-the-vote activities. At this point, it's probably best if you just show up today at the field office at 4419 West Irving Park Road. There will be plenty for you to do.

3. Third, if you're interested in keeping up with the coverage of this race and following the election returns, I recommend that you keep checking the local blogs. Coverage of this race in the mainstream media, especially the local mainstream media has, alas, been abysmal, as Adam Doster points out in this post from one of the go-to sites for following this election, Progress Illinois. Thank God for the local political blogs, who have really come through on this story, and are taking up the slack.

Okay, here are some sites I recommend:

The Capitol Fax Blog

The Chicago Tribune's Elections Page (okay, their coverage does kind of suck, but sometimes there's something worthwhile there)

David Ormsby

Gapers Block

Jesse Greenberg

Prairie State Blue

Progress Illinois

Other blogs that occasionally cover this race have been the Chicago Reader blog, Clout City, and the blog of veteran Chicago Sun-Times political reporter, Lynn Sweet.

4. Finally, beginning at 7 tonight, join us tonight for election night party. Here's the info from the campaign website:

What: Celebrate Election Night with volunteers and supporters!

Where: Paddy Mac’s
4157 N Pulaski Road, Chicago

Pulaski and Berteau, 2 blocks north of Irving Park Road blue line and Metra stops,
Irving Park exit off the Kennedy

When: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 7 pm

Free Appetizers, $2 Old Styles and 35¢ wings.
TV coverage, free wi-fi, and speeches.

For more info please call Joanna Belanger or Catherine Slaughter: (312) 346-3659

Mr. G Spot and I will definitely be there, so please stop by and say hello. Tell 'em Hildy sent you!

Geoghegan campaign: final pre-primary round-up

By Kathy G.

It's been a long day for me today, and it will be an especially long day tomorrow, election day. I don't have time to do a proper post, but I will post some links to some of the best things that have been written Tom Geoghegan and the campaign over the past couple of days.

Digby has contributed not one, but two posts, and her co-blogger DDay has weighed in with a post of his own. Tom recently made this interesting appearance on Laura Flanders' GRITtv. Todd Beeton of MyDD gives us his thoughts about the race. John Nichols of The Nation writes about Tom's campaign as a paradigm for progressive politics.

And here's Tom's 30-second sound bite about why he's running. As Progress Illinois notes, Chicago Public Radio posted a 30-second clip from each of the candidates in the race, including the Republican and Green Party candidates, and Daniel Strauss of Gapers Block rated Tom's as the best.

All of those links, posts, and articles are well worth your while, but to me, there are three additional recent pieces that stand out as particularly noteworthy.

First, there's this piece about Geoghegan by veteran journalist David Moberg of In These Times. It's titled "The Anti-Blago," and among other things, it looks at the labor politics of the race -- a subject that Moberg, a distinguished labor reporter, is especially well-qualified to cover.

Secondly, as Mickey Kaus has noted, the latest endorsement of Tom's candidacy comes from a most unexpected source -- that Wicker Park hipster hang-out, the Hideout Bar:

In the above-mentioned post, here's what Tim Tuten, Geoghegan supporter and owner of the Hideout, had to say:

The Hideout has been a bar since 1934. It's located in a Manufacturing District on the Chicago's North Side. It has always been a place for steelworkers, construction workers and other working people. In the last few years, as our factories have closed and "down-sized," the Hideout has become a new home for hardworking musicians, artists and writers. Through all these years though the conversations at the Hideout have remained incredibly true to our history, a history that celebrates the hard-working spirit of Chicago.

For 30 years, Tom Geoghegan has fought on behalf of these very steelworkers, nurses, taxi drivers and immigrants, union workers and those trying to unionize. He has fought for lost wages due to plant closings and for health care for the uninsured. As a regular who became an owner of the Hideout, I wholeheartedly support Tom Geoghegan for Congress and ask that you do the same.

It's a wonderful post, and I strongly urge you to read the whole thing. Earlier in the campaign, Tom did a live interview at the Hideout, which you can view here.

One thing this campaign has not lacked is a plethora of wonderful writing by people who have supported Tom. There have been so many excellent articles, posts, and editorials written about Tom and his campaign that it's hard to point to any single one as being especially memorable, because there have been so many that have been outstanding. We could publish a book made of these damn things.

But of the recent pieces about Tom, it was Joe Conason's article in Salon that moved me the most.

First of all, I loved the pic that accompanied the article:

Photo credit: Shelley Anderson

Secondly, I appreciated the fact that Joe emphasizes that behind Tom's soft-spoken exterior, he is actually pretty tough:

In personal terms, Tom could scarcely be more different from the man he has set out to succeed. He is polite, thoughtful, usually soft-spoken and almost painfully principled -- in short, not much like the stereotype of a Chicago pol, except that for a nice guy he is also exceptionally tough. He has grit that is rare among intellectuals and academics but not so rare in labor, where the going is hard for anybody who doesn't just go along.

Thirdly, I'm glad Joe is telling this story:

Without breaking a confidence, I can offer an example from my own knowledge of Tom's work. Not so long ago, he took the case of a group of workers who, like so many others in the declining industrial companies of the Midwest, had been screwed out of their pensions and healthcare in a corporate takeover. What made the case different is that among the new owners, there happened to be a very prominent Democratic investor who is accustomed to having liberals smooch his ring (or some other place). Tom had very little to gain by taking on those obscure workers as his clients, not only because they probably couldn't pay him much, if anything, and weren't at all likely to win against a phalanx of expensive corporate attorneys, but also because he might well make a very powerful enemy for himself. He didn't care at all, any more than he worried when he fought the local Teamster chieftains who sent goons around to intimidate him from time to time (but never did). He didn't court publicity, didn't call any grandstanding press conference; he just fulfilled what he saw as his commitment to people who are forgotten or unrepresented or screwed over.

I know the case Joe is describing, and believe me, you have heard of the "prominent Democratic investor" to whom he refers. In fact, when I talk about Tom to other people, I've sometimes mentioned this case as a shining example of how Tom's deepest motivation is to do the right thing -- not the most expedient, or the easiest, or the most self-serving thing. As I've written before, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable is what Tom is all about.

Finally, and most importantly, I was touched by what Joe has to say here:

But there is another reason I am compelled to say a few words about Tom. It feels as though someone is looking over my shoulder. That would be Maria Leavey, my late friend who was also da close friend of Geoghegan's and spoke about him often to me. Like him, she was a believer against all odds, a fighter who dedicated herself to the long, hard, grinding and often unrewarding work of progressive politics. If she were still here, Maria would not have let a single day go by without hectoring me to write something about Tom, and she would have been right, as she almost always was. He will fight like crazy for the universal health insurance that just might have saved her life.

I never met Maria Leavey, but I felt that I knew her. She was a member of a listserv I am on, was a friend of Tom and other friends of mine, was a well-known figure in the netroots, and lived her life as a tireless activist for the progressive cause. She was also one of Tom's biggest fans in the whole world. I have little doubt that, were she were alive today, she would be moving heaven and earth to get him elected.

About two years ago, Maria Leavey died suddenly on the day before her 53rd birthday. Tragically, she did not have health insurance. It's virtually certain that, if she had, she would have lived.

Whenever I think of Maria Leavey, it strengthens and deepens my support of Tom Geoghegan in this election.

First of all, obviously, there's the personal aspect of it. There is little doubt that, had she lived, Tom would have been Maria's top choice in this race. And since she's not around to do the hundred million things, big and small, that she would have done to promote Tom's candidacy, I've pushed myself to do just a bit more, work just a tiny bit harder. Her absence is a huge loss for this campaign. We all need to do our best to help make up for it.

And secondly, and even more importantly, there is Maria Leavey as the tragic symbol of our profoundly dysfunctional and viciously inhumane health care system. In a country this rich and an economy this advanced, there is no reason why anyone should go without health care. And so help me God, I never again want to be faced with the death of someone, and be haunted by the sickening question -- but what if they had had health care?

And that's why it's imperative that we elect not just Tom Geoghegan, but many more like him. Tom's uncompromising vision is a national health insurance system that provides quality care for all, regardless of income or physical condition, with all costs picked up by the government. And he won't rest until that dream becomes a reality.

If you're a registered voter in Illinois's Fifth District, please be sure to go out tomorrow, and vote for Tom Geoghegan in the primary. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.To find your polling place, visit this site. To check your registration, visit this page (under the heading, "Not sure if you're registered?"). And if you need a ride to the polls, call (773) 853-0687.

You can volunteer for the all-important Election Day and get out the vote effort here. Alternatively, you can just show up tomorrow at the field office at 4419 West Irving Park Road. There will be plenty for you to do.

Please do vote, if you're eligible, and volunteer, if you can.

Do it for Maria Leavey.

A really, really bad reason not to vote for Tom Geoghegan

By Kathy G.

I feel like I need to do what I can to put this one to bed.

One argument I've heard for not voting for Tom Geoghegan in the IL-05 race is that "it will throw the race to Fritchey." The argument is, Geoghegan is a liberal, and he'll be splitting the liberal vote with the other leading candidates in the race who are at the progressive end of the spectrum, Sara Feigenholtz and Mike Quigley. And taking votes away from those two will pave the way to victory for John Fritchey, a candidate who, as this post at the terrific site Progress Illinois (one of the go-to sites for coverage of this election) points out, is to the right of Geoghegan, Feigenholtz, and Quigley.

I don't disagree with the point that Fritchey is more conservative than those other three. But I do disagree, strongly, with the argument that a vote for Tom = a vote for Fritchey.

Here's why: as the Geoghegan campaign explained in a blogger call last week, their strategy is not to challenge Feigenholtz and Quigley amongst their base -- that is, the lakeside liberals in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc.

Rather, Geoghegan's strategy has been to focus on the working class neighborhoods at the western edge of Chicago, and in the western suburbs. In other words -- Fritchey territory. Tom will likely be taking a lot more votes away from Fritchey than he will from Quigley or Feigenholtz. That's the terrain where this race will be fought.

One other thing: this election is likely to be close. Just the sheer number of candidates makes that exponentially more likely. That's why it's important that you vote -- every vote will count. For all we know, this election will end up in Coleman/Franken, endless recount territory.

Why do I believe it will be close? Here's one reason: I don't know of a single poll that's been done in this race for the past month, which has been released to the public.

Now, it's unclear if polls in the race will be of any use, in any case. Turnout special elections is notoriously difficult to predict -- let alone when it's a primary, and when there are twelve candidates in the race. Remember all those polls about the Barack-vs.-Hillary primaries, which turned out to be way off?

But as I said, In the past month, no polls concerning the IL-05 race have been released, and that tells you something. Some of the candidates (albeit not Geoghegan) are definitely doing polling -- their financial reports reflect this. If these polls showed good news for the candidates doing the polling, they'd release the numbers to the media -- that's what campaigns do. But since no one has done this, that tells you that the race is probably close, and none of the leading candidates are doing that great in the polls.

Which means -- it's wide open. Your vote counts -- it may well count a lot, actually.

That is why you need to participate. Voting will occur on Tuesday, March 3rd, between 6 am and 7 pm. To find your polling place, visit this site. And to check your registration, visit this page (under the heading, "Not sure if you're registered?").

To volunteer for the Geoghegan campaign on Election Day, sign up here.

Talk about awkward . . .

By Kathy G.

Via Andrew Huff of Gapers Block:

A reader reported to us that she happened to fly back from a trip to DC on the same American Airlines flight Thursday as both Illinois senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris. The flight was delayed three hours, during which time Burris worked the gate, shaking hands and talking with other passengers. Durbin was nowhere to be found until the plane began boarding.

The senators turned out to be seated right next to each other -- Burris by the window, Durbin in the middle seat, with a large gentleman on the aisle. Durbin and Burris didn't speak the entire flight, according to our source, who was two rows in front of them. Burris reportedly stared out the window the whole way, while Durbin appeared to be sleeping. They went in opposite directions once the plane landed at O'Hare. Considering their recent meetings have been tense, it's no surprise -- but you'd think they would have been able to switch seats.

And you do know about the lawsuit Geoghegan filed last week, to force a special election to replace Burris, right? The argument that Tom makes in his suit is that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution requires such elections, and hence appointments of U.S. senators by state governors are unconstitutional.

Of course, that's the argument Tom has been making all along -- well before allegations surfaced that Burris's appointment might be tainted. You can read Tom's argument in more detail in this op-ed he published in the New York Times back on January 6th.

Emily's List: bane or blessing?

By Kathy G.

I may want to address this in greater length after Tuesday's election, but I wanted to draw your attention to this post by Brien Jackson, about Emily's List. Brien is a critic of Emily's List because, as he points out, Emily's List will endorses women only, even in cases where the male candidate is clearly more progressive and a better candidate. This also means there's no incentive for male candidates to try to compete for the endorsement, by, for example, making a stronger a commitment to women's issues. And, unlike the case with other PACS, the female candidate who receives the endorsement doesn't need to do any favors for Emily's List in return, because it's a given that, so long as you're a pro-choice woman, you will get their endorsement, no questions asked.

Brien has a point. Certainly, Emily's List has made some poor choices at times. They've occasionally endorsed really bad candidates, as they did last year, when, in a Democratic Congressional primary, they endorsed the egregious Nikki Tinker over the progressive Democratic incumbent, Steve Cohen.

Or take, for example, in the IL-05 race, where Sarah Feigenholtz won the coveted Emily's List endorsement -- and the even more coveted funding that goes along with the endorsement. In the IL-05 race, not only is there a male candidate in the race who is more progressive than Feigenholtz (that would be Geoghegan, obviously). There is also another female candidate, Jan Donatelli, who is not only more progressive, but also smarter and more engaging than the blandly mediocre Feigenholtz. I understand why they endorsed Feigenholtz -- she's an elected officeholder with more political experience than Donatelli, who's a political novice.

Sirota for MSNBC

By Kathy G.

I want to urge you all to join the campaign to get David Sirota hired by MSNBC as the host of its proposed 10 pm (Eastern) political show (following the Rachel Maddow show). David is a talented journalist who has spent a career as a dedicated soldier for the progressive movement. (You Geoghegan fans out there should know that David is a big fan of Tom's, has been promoting Tom's work since well before the campaign, and has been a strong supporter of Geoghegan for Congress).

There are two reasons I think Sirota would be ideal for the 10 pm slot. First of all, Sirota is a passionate economic populist, and especially in the midst of an economic crisis where we've seen unprecedented levels of wealth distribution upwards, from ordinary taxpayers to greedhead bankers, we could certainly use a strong left economic populist voice in a mainstream medium forum. In particular, an economic populist would contrast nicely with the other liberal MSNBC hosts -- it's different both from Keith Olbermann, who alternates entertainingly between snark and moral outrage, and from Rachel Maddow's engaging wonkiness.

Secondly, David does very well on television -- I remember one particular appearance a couple of years back in which he eviscerated that lying weasel John Stossel, over the issue of minimum wages.

Interested in seeing Sirota in the 10 pm slot? Then email MSNBC at letters@msnbc.com, and tell 'em so. You can also join the "David Sirota for MSNBC!" Facebook group, which was started by Open Left's Chris Bowers, here. It already has 1,2999 members.

Note to Citibank

By Kathy G.

When even the Wall Street Journal editorial page says you totally suck, you should be taken over by the FDIC, and you need to be broken up into little pieces until you are no longer "too big to succeed" -- can there by any doubt that you do totally suck, that you should be taken over by the FDIC, and that you do need to be broken up into little pieces until you are no longer "too big to succeed"?

Awesome

By Kathy G.

The Washington Independent's excellent David Weigel attended a the so-called "new American tea party" protest of the stimulus bill put on by the wingnuts. Apparently it was quite the five-star freakshow on the dance floor. He's posted some priceless pictures of the event (and be sure to read his captions, which are hilarious).

He said the picture below was his favorite. I agree.

Credit: David Weigel

Reason to be (very) cheerful

By Kathy G.

Check out Paul Krugman's latest column.

Though maybe I should put the column in context first. Among leading liberals, there is perhaps no one who has been more skeptical of Barack Obama than Paul Krugman. Indeed, at times that skepticism has crossed over into out-and-out ungraciousness.

With that in mind, read what Krugman has to say about Obama's budget:

Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course. [emphasis mine]

[. . .]

. . . [F]ears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

After describing the significant new expenditures in the budget for health care and emission allowances, he writes:

And these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in.

Krugman does offer some qualms. And he does note that, "{t}he administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing," which is certainly true. Indeed, Geithner and Summers have sucked ass even harder than I feared they would.

But if this budget is as good as Krugman claims it is -- and I have no reason to believe it is not -- then that gives me hope that, in the end, Obama will do the right thing, concerning the banks.

Though it's frightening to ponder how much taxpayer money will be pissed away first.

Still, Krugman concludes that this budget "looks very, very good." And that's probably the best political news I've heard since Election Day.

Afflict the comfortable -- elect Tom Geoghegan to Congress!

By Kathy G.

If you were to ask me why I'm supporting Tom Geoghegan in the IL-05 special election for Congress, the answer would be simple. I'm supporting Tom because he is the truest progressive in the race.

What, you may ask, is a progressive? A progressive is someone who "comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable" -- someone who, above all, will fight for the rights and the dignity of ordinary people, even -- especially -- when that means taking on the most powerful institutions and entrenched interests in our society. Given that so many injustices derive from economic inequality, the cause of economic justice will always be at the center of a progressive vision. But economic justice is by no means the only vitally important progressive value. A true progressive is someone who signs on to the entire progressive agenda -- not just the bits and pieces of it that happen to be popular at any given moment, or happen to coincide with his or her own self-interest. And finally, a progressive is someone who is committed not merely to advocating incremental change, but to advancing big, bold, and sometimes quite controversial new ideas.

By those measures, Geoghegan is far and away the most progressive candidate in the race. He has bloody well spent a lifetime "comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable." He's filed lawsuits against employers who illegally discriminated against workers or prevented them from joining unions. He's won back pensions, health care, and lost wages for thousands of people. He's gone to court to enforce child labor laws, and to crack down on predatory payday lenders.

Scenes from the class struggle; or, don't give up on us, baby

By Kathy G.

Kicking off this series of random yet connected observations -- Dean Baker should tell us how he really feels:

The NYT piece on bailout III for Citigroup looks like it was written by Citi's lobbyists. The piece never once points out that the government has handed tens of billions to Citigroup for almost nothing. Let me say that about six more times: the NYT article on the latest Citi bailout never once points out that the government has handed tens of billions to Citigroup for almost nothing. The NYT article on the latest Citi bailout never once points out that the government has handed tens of billions to Citigroup for almost nothing. The NYT article on the latest Citi bailout never once points out that the government has handed tens of billions to Citigroup for almost nothing.I suppose tens of billions for Citi doesn't deserve as much attention as $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts or $25 million for the Smithsonian.

[. . .]

It's time that the media stopped covering up for Wall Street. The issue is not "nationalization," the issue is a bankruptcy type receivership for insolvent banks. It is absurd to pretend that this is prevented by trade agreements or anything other than the power of the shareholders and executives who run these banks.

As Baker had earlier noted:

I was just at a White House conference listening to a lot of people talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits for retirees. How can the same government that hands tens of billions of dollars to Citi's shareholders and top executives cut key benefits for the retirees? Why aren't the news reports calling attention to this massive give away to some of the nation's richest people?

I'm not sure whether this is the conference to which Baker is referring, but at any rate, it's nice to know Dean was wide awake, even if Larry Summers was sound asleep. And obviously I'd vastly prefer it that way, than the other way around.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that "TARP Said to Be Ripe for Fraud":

The U.S. government's rescue of the financial system is vulnerable to fraud that could potentially cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, government watchdogs warned lawmakers Tuesday.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, told a House subcommittee that the government's experiences in the reconstruction of Iraq, hurricane-relief programs and the 1990s savings-and-loan bailout suggest the rescue program could be ripe for fraud.

[. . .]

Federal officials have already alleged TARP-related fraud. In January, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Nashville, Tenn.-based firm with defrauding investors of at least $6.5 million by claiming their money was invested in TARP and other securities that didn't exist. Mr. Barofsky's office is working with the SEC in investigating the case.

Great column about Geoghegan in tomorrow's Washington Post

By Kathy G.

Harold Meyerson has a terrific column about Tom and the campaign in tomorrow's Washington Post. You can read it here.

As they say, read the whole thing. But to whet your appetite, here are some of the highlights:

In March of 2004, a few days before the Illinois Democratic senatorial primary, I wrote a column for this page headlined "A Bright Hope in Illinois." It was, I believe, the first column for a daily newspaper outside Illinois devoted to a rising young pol named Barack Obama. Bolstered by polling that showed Obama to be the clear leader in the race, I fearlessly predicted that he'd become Illinois' next senator and quoted the assessment of Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic member of Congress from Chicago's Gold Coast district, that Obama would "march right onto the national stage and the international stage."

Well! Thus buoyed by my undisputed status as a kingmaker in Illinois politics (undisputed, I acknowledge, because it's never been asserted), I write today about another of the state's Democrat, this one a candidate in Tuesday's special primary election for the overwhelmingly Democratic congressional district in Chicago's North Side that until recently was represented by Rahm Emanuel. As events would have it, this candidate has a lot in common with Obama. Both are Harvard Law grads. Both have authored notable books. Both worked on behalf of unemployed steelworkers: Obama as a community organizer, this candidate as a lawyer who won 2,500 of them their pensions after their employer refused to pay up. And both have politically problematic names.

[. . .]

In [a] column he wrote before Wall Street's collapse, Geoghegan lamented the high percentage of elite college graduates who funneled themselves into finance, and he characterized the bank bailout policy of the Bush administration as "the new social contract: In Tribeca, at least, no kid will ever lose his (or her) first (or second) condo." Another time, he wondered "why, in the party of William Jennings Bryan, is there no one demanding an interest cap on our Visa cards and our MasterCards," also noting that in Chicago, "payday lenders charge more than the Mob wants for juice loans." In the collected works of Tom Geoghegan, the value of social and economic ideas and practices is set by the way they play out on the streets.

There are, by actual count, a gazillion candidates for Emanuel's old seat on Tuesday's ballot, including a number of conventionally liberal pols, some of whom would probably make fine members of Congress. But Congress has no shortage of conventionally liberal or conventionally conservative pols. Of streetwise political intellectuals who've devoted themselves to a career of economic justice it has none.

You can donate to the Geoghegan for Congress campaign here, and volunteer here. The campaign has begun putting out a call for those crucial Election Day volunteers, including poll watchers, and volunteers for its GOTV effort.

Remember, the election is less than a week away -- it's on Tuesday, March 3rd. There's no time to lose.

Barack's speech tonight

By Kathy G.

Well, first of all, I was delighted to see that Justice Ginsberg was able to be there, and bathe in the glow of the warm response of the crowd. And Barack's gracious words about Ted Kennedy were well-struck. We need these liberal lions now more than ever, and it's great to see them get their due.

Secondly, Michelle Obama totally rocks. It's not just that she's gorgeous and stylin', which of course she is. But there's something about her strength, her intelligence, and her humanity that seems to shine through, whatever she's doing. The warmth of her responses to the "real person" schoolgirl who was sitting next to her in the audience tonight was just one example.

Thirdly, I agree with Simon Johnson that more specifics about what we're going to do with the banks would have been welcome.

And fourthly and more generally -- all right, I might as well bloody admit it: what I want more than anything else for America right now is the reincarnation for FDR. This apparently is most definitely a minority view, but during tonight's speech, I'd much rather have heard something like this:

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

[. . .]

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

    -- FDR, Speech at Madison Square Garden, October 31, 1936

Geoghegan: the progressive's progressive

By Kathy G.

We're heading into the final week of the campaign -- the election is just a week away, on March 3rd. There are a plenty of exciting developments to report.

Laura Washington, the award-winning journalist, published a column in yesterday's Sun-Times about Tom, entitled "Geoghegan May Turn 5th District Race on Its Ear." The whole thing is well worth reading (personally, I was particularly proud to see Ms. Washington give a shout-out to this blog), but I want to single out one phrase -- the part where Laura calls Tom the "progressive's progressive."

Indeed he is, and one way you know that for sure is by the impressive of list of progressive luminaries who have endorsed Tom -- everyone from progressive journalists like Thomas Frank, James Fallows, Hendrik Hertzberg, and David Sirota to progressive feminists (are there really any other kind?) like Katha Pollitt, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Naomi Wolf, to that venerable progressive institution The Nation magazine, which made a rare editorial endorsement of Tom in this race.

And now, to add to this list, the campaign recently  announced the endorsement of Tom by four of Chicago's most distinguished living progressives: Abner Mikva, Leon Despres, Marty Oberman, and Dr. Quentin Young. Here's what they've had to say:

Marty Oberman:

“We need to elect Tom Geoghegan to begin the repair of the recent damage to Illinois’ political landscape,” said Oberman, former alderman from Chicago’s 43rd ward. “Tom’s candidacy is steeped in the great progressive tradition of Paul Simon and Adlai Stevenson. He is unmatched for both his serious thought and successful action in the interest of social and political reform.”

Hildy's List, Week Four: Let's Keep the Momentum Going

By Kathy G.

You don't want to make Hildy cry, do you? Then give to the Geoghegan campaign.

Today's reason for donating to Hildy's List? It's simple: let's keep the momentum going.

This has been a terrific week in Geogheganland. Things have definitely been going our way, and if they continue in this direction, we should be in excellent shape on election day (which, in case you need a reminder, is less than two weeks away! It will occur on March 3rd).

The week started with a bang, kicked off by this fantastic interview Tom did with Jeff Berkowitz on his TV show, Public Affairs. It's a terrific example of the way Tom pushes the envelope and moves our public dialogue, and our politics, forward. It's not just that Berkowitz is skeptical about Tom's ideas -- it's clear that he's never even heard anyone advocate a lot of these issues before. And yet, Tom presents his case in such a sensible and compelling manner that by the end of the show, Berkowitz is clearly respectful -- even though, ideologically, he's not in sync with Tom at all. Huzzah and kudos to Jeff Berkowtiz for allowing such a thoughtful political dialogue to take place. You don't see that a whole lot, these days.

Secondly, political and economic developments continue at a breakneck pace, in ways that couldn't be more beneficial to this campaign. The Roland Burris debacle only serves to illustrate a point Tom has long been making: that vacancies in the U.S. senate should be filled by special elections, not appointments.

And did you catch the news that Alan Greenspan is calling for the nationalization of the banks? Which is a policy that Tom, of course, has been supporting for many months now. Where Geoghegan leads, even Greenspan must follow!

And, in what may have been the best news of the week, Tom snagged a major endorsement, from Democracy for America. This is a big deal. DFA is a national grassroots organization dedicated to electing progressives to office. They have been indispensable in electing folks like Donna Edwards to Congress. Their endorsement is not merely good press. It means money, and boots on the ground, which will be very significant advantages in a race that is likely to be as closely fought as this one.

I also hear some other exciting endorsements are coming down the pike. Stay tuned.

And wait -- there's one more thing I have to say! Last night, I attended another campaign event. And at this event it was clear -- Tom was the best I've ever seen. He was so powerful,and so moving. He's getting better and better at this public speaking and running for office stuff. It's fascinating, and inspiring, to see.

The bottom line is, though we're in good shape heading down the final stretch, we still lack the structural advantages that the elected officeholders in this race possess. Every little bit helps, so please give whatever you can to Tom, and do it today. Even $10 or $20 can make a difference. Times are tough, but the campaign appreciates whatever you can spare.

And another thing -- your money right now is worth more than it will be worth tomorrow. That's because the sooner the campaign has your money, the better it is able to plan. A huge bunch of money the day before the election will be worth a lot less than the same amount today. Because if we get it today, it will enable us to budget and plan for organizers, mailings, and perhaps even an ad buy, for that final stretch.

Hildy has raised $200 for Tom just this week. Good work, Hildy! But let's be sure to up the ante for coming week. You can donate to the Geoghegan for Congress campaign through Hildy's List here. Tell 'em Hildy sent ya.

(For the backstory of Hildy's list, see this post).