Don Wade & Roma

Rep. Davis: Obama Must Put People To Work

Adam Doster — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:00 -0800

To succeed as President, Barack Obama is going to have to help revive the American economy. That's the issue that dominated the campaign, especially the last two months, and it's what voters are entrusting him to do. We've already blogged at length about the importance of a vibrant economic stimulus plan, a plan Obama seems to favor. But a government injection shouldn't stop there. As Rep. Danny Davis suggested on WLS' Don Wade and Roma this morning, the federal government can play a constructive role in creating sustainable jobs now. Listen:

Internal mp3

ROMA: What’s the first issue you want to see resolved, other than the economy, when Obama comes to Washington?

DAVIS: Well, it would be a clear-cut stategy -- and a very direct one -- for putting more people to work. One way shape, form, or fashion.

While Davis' point is general, it's one that's been echoed by progressives for months. During the Great Depression, FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided valuable and long-lasting public services, raised morale, and helped boost the economy. It wasn't a panacea (in fact, it's arguable the New Dealers weren't ambitious enough in the short-term), but programs like the WPA helped put America back on the road to economic recovery.

While Davis says it's important to put people to work in any way we can, I'd suggest we need to be more discerning; the best bang for the government's buck is clearly throwing more human capital into the burgeoning green economy. This includes employing people to repair public transit infrastructure, revitalize the electrical grid, and weatherize buildings and homes. With this sort of approach to job creation, the federal government could put money in people's pockets while also lessening the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. It's rational, moral, and cost-effective. What's not to like?

The "Dangerous Threesome" Argument

Adam Doster — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:06:13 -0800

Hoping to survive an oncoming Democratic wave, John McCain and his Republican cohorts popularized a new campaign meme this past week -- the "dangerous threesome":

Referring to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, House speaker, and Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, Mr. McCain told a rally in Cleveland, Ohio: "You know, my friends, this is a dangerous threesome. They believe that $1 trillion of rescue financing is not enough and have already proposed another $300bn spending spree they're calling a stimulus plan."

This idea that voting for Republican candidates will prevent the "threesome" from overreaching has trickled into some tight congressional races too, especially in districts where Obama is expected to fare well. GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, fearing a 14-point Obama landslide in the 6th District, warned of one-party rule on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning last Wednesday:

ROSKAM: My predecessor Henry Hyde had a great description for things. And he said, “There’s one thing worse than gridlock in Washington and the worse thing is the greased shoot of government.” And I think there’s a lot of wisdom there. If government does things fast, without other voices, without other people raising issues and raising questions, it tends not to work out too well.

Now, there's some truth to that quote. Good policy incorporates a range of opinions and research from different perspectives. What's overlooked, however, is the actual policies an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress would push. No matter how much Roskam cries about the dangers of big government, Americans are hungry for the main planks of the Democratic agenda. In fact, they have been for a long time, only to be foiled by timid lawmakers and structural legislative deficiencies (i.e. the filibuster).

Most Americans want to solve global warming and move away from our dependence on oil. They want a responsible but immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They also want progressive taxation and government-funded stem cell research and reformed labor laws and universal health care.

Maybe Americans prefer a divided government because it provides necessary "checks and balances" on the leaders in the majority. Some political scientists aren't at all convinced, and I'm not either. Regardless, complaints at this stage of the game about the danger of giving the opposition too much power just reek of desperation, particularly coming from a party whose godfathers not so long ago relished the idea of one-party rule.

WLS' Don Wade Imagines Obama Murdering His Grandmother

Josh Kalven — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:03:39 -0700

After more than 20 years on the air, WLS' Don Wade & Roma Morning Show is a Chicago media institution, regularly featuring appearances from high-profile journalists and commentators, not to mention politicians from both sides of the aisle. As the Tribune's Eric Zorn recently explained, "The idea used to be the conservative, Don, sparring with the liberal, Roma. But Roma has veered to the right in recent years and the show has lost its bi-partisan charm." Indeed, while they bill themselves as the "most positive, optimistic radio show in the universe," Don's hard-line conservative views and contempt for the Democratic presidential nominee have been anything but "positive" or "optimistic" in recent months.

That lack of charm was evident Friday morning when Don -- fed up with the media's purported coddling of Barack Obama -- imagined how the press would react if shown a video of the candidate murdering his elderly, ailing grandmother in Hawaii. Here's how he set the scene:

The video clearly shows grandmother greeting Barack Obama, coming through the door. Barack Obama comes over, sits down beside the grandmother, and places a pillow over her face -- and holds the pillow over her face -- holds the pillow over her face until she struggles no more.

On Friday night, CBS 2's Mike Flannery -- himself an occasional guest on the show -- reported on the uproar over Don's comments. Watch it:

Having listened to excerpts from the program repeatedly this election year, it's not that suprising to see that Don's disdain for Obama and the mainstream media has reached this point. And having browsed the Don Wade & Roma blog today -- maintained by WLS producer Brandy Burkhardt -- I can't say I'm too shocked by the show's overall rightward drift either. Case in point: on Friday morning, Burkhardt posted the forged Waldorf-Astoria receipt I discussed yesterday, which purports to show that Michelle Obama ordered $447 in room service while her husband held a meeting at the hotel. Of course, the source of this rumor -- the New York Post -- retracted their report on October 21, three days before Burkhardt posted the bogus receipt under the headline: "A Man Of The People...As Long As We Pay For It."

Meanwhile, the Tribune's Phil Rosenthal reported in early August that the program's ranking in terms of morning drive-time listeners climbed from 7th to 3rd this spring.

Kirk: "We Don't Know" If Seals Is A 9/11 Truther

Adam Doster — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:08:37 -0700

GOP Rep. Mark Kirk is all in a tizzy about the newest TV ad coming from Democrat challenger Dan Seals' camp. The video features Caleb Davis -- an Iraq vet from Peoria -- making the case that the incumbent Republican sent troops to war irresponsibly and didn't care for them when they returned from battle. Watch it here:

Rather than take on the message of the ad -- which he can't be too thrilled about -- Kirk has opted to go after the messenger, highlighting a Peoria Journal Star report that Davis wore a black T-shirt proclaiming "Investigate 9/11@911truth.org" to an event at a Peoria library. For those who don't know, the "9/11 truthers" theorize that the American government was complicit in the terrorist attack. However, Davis denies any involvement in the movement. From his statement in response to the controversy, sent to us by the Seals campaign:

"I am not a member of this organization, nor have I ever been. I attended an event because I was sent by my government to fight in a war that was based on lies, including the lie that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Let me set the record straight, I believe that America was attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11.

Kirk first sent a letter demanding Seals take down the ad. "I am disappointed," he wrote Monday, "that you would center your campaign on a spokesman who believes the U.S. government murdered nearly 3,000 of its own citizens." And appearing today on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning, he went so far as to entertain the possibility that Seals himself holds such views. Listen here:

Internal mp3

DON WADE: Does Dan Seals endorse that view that this was a conspiracy by the United States government to blow up the Twin Towers and --

ROMA: Murder 3,000 of its own citizens?

KIRK: We don’t know. I think all we can say is he's very tolerant of those views because he puts a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as the center of his campaign spokesman and then when we told him everything about this guy, he’s now standing behind him.

"We don't know" if Seals believes that the U.S. government is responsible for 9/11? That's ludicrous, as Kirk very well knows. It's also reminiscent of Republican Senate candidate Steve Sauerberg, who recently said that he has "no idea" if Sen. Dick Durbin is patriotic.

Rep. Kirk: "I Don't Know" If Palin Is Qualified To Be Prez

Adam Doster — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:05:04 -0700

As we noted in the Early Bird, Rep. Mark Kirk is now expressing skepticism about John McCain's running mate. When asked if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had the qualifications to become president, the North Shore Republican told the Tribune editorial board yesterday: "Quite frankly, I don't know." When pressed further, he told the assembled reporters "I would have picked someone different."

But one month ago, Kirk was signing a different tune.

Talking to the Tribune on September 1, he described himself as "encouraged" by the pick. In an September 2 interview on WLS' Don Wade And Roma In The Morning, Kirk praised the governor for her ethics crusading nature. Listen below:

Internal mp3

It seems to be a very much an ego-free zone for her … [T]he governor also took on the old corrupt Republican bulls in Alaska. Fired a bunch of them, some of them are now going to jail, including possibly Sen. Stevens. She seems pretty fearless on taking out the old guard. [...]

There's a lot of guts on both sides for McCain and Palin. So they've got their share of enemies. But sometimes you're marked in public life by who you've taken out. And certainly in the Oval Office and generally in an administration you want a fearless team.

One day before, on September 1, WIND's Big John Howell and Cisco Cotto asked Kirk about Palin's experience directly. Here's what the 10th District incumbent had to say:

Internal mp3

HOWELL: How can you convince me -- a guy who is not a far-right social conservative Republican -- to really consider her one heart beat away from the Presidency?

KIRK: She’s obviously an unknown figure, but she has had a rocket sled of a career already in Alaska. I think as governor, obviously she does have more executive experience -- ironically -- than the three other guys on the ticket. Her big asset, though, will be on the campaign. We have seen Sen. Obama now standing forth as a recognized national figure, but his greatest achievement has been his own campaign, and being able to command and defeat the electorate and push Hillary Clinton to the side. We now will look at Sarah Palin. She did very well in her first time out when she was nominated by Sen. McCain. It was a risky strategy.

Palin is no doubt drawing big crowds on the trail and volunteers to local McCain offices, but it's tough to say whether, on balance, she's been "a big asset" on the campaign. Her constant fumbling in recent interviews and broader reluctance to speak to reporters has turned off a lot of voters:

One of Palin's problems has been perceptions of her experience. In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll conducted during the first half of September, 61 percent said they did not think Palin — governor for less than two years and former small-town mayor — has the right experience to be president. That view has changed little in more recent surveys.

Polls also show Palin's image, while positive overall, has begun to erode. While an NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey in early September showed more people viewing her favorably than unfavorably by 20 percentage points, that gap faded to 6 points by last week. Similarly, her net positive rating in a Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll shrunk from 27 points in early September to 11 points a week ago.

Halperin A "Staunch Backer" Of GOP's Bailout Demands

Adam Doster — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:23:20 -0700

There's contrarian and then there's just silly. Speaking to WLS's Don Wade and Roma early this morning, Time editor-at-large Mark Halperin lauded House Republicans for protecting American taxpayers during the negotiations surrounding the mammoth -- and now defeated -- Wall Street bailout bill. Listen:

Internal mp3

HALPERIN: The House Republicans are kind of like the beleaguered, red-headed step children of our political system right now. They are the minority in the lower house. But if it weren’t for them, I think we would have had a deal passed that would have had less oversight, more money, more dictatorial powers. And so we're in a better place than we were, but it still ain't a great place.

DON WADE: Are we marking down Mark Halperin: friend of House Republicans?

HALPERIN: A staunch backer in this case. I really think they did the public a lot of good because the House Democrats weren’t crazy about what the White House proposed. But if House Republicans had stepped forward and said "We're in line, Mr. President. We're going to vote for this," the thing would have passed probably largely the way the administration would have proposed it.

Where to start ...

First off, it's a bit ironic that hours before the House Republicans balked on the bailout and then blamed it on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for delivering what they deemed a "partisan speech" prior to the vote (you be the judge), Halperin tells Don Wade and Roma that it was Republicans who had the best interest of the taxpayers and nation at heart. House Finance Committe Chairman Barney Frank said it best: "[B]ecause somebody hurt their feelings they decide to punish the country."

What's even more ludicrous is Halperin's contention that it was House Republicans who made the bill more palatable to taxpayers by providing oversight and a "better chance of the taxpayer to recover money." According to The Hill, the major Republican proposal called for "the removal of regulatory and tax barriers to help facilitate the use of private capital to produce liquidity; temporary tax relief provision to help companies free up capital; and temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions." This was the "let the markets crash" theory of governance. Nowhere in this approach is there a discussion of either topic considered.

Perhaps Halperin should read the work of his own colleagues. On Thursday, Time's Justin Fox wrote that Rep. Eric Cantor's plan to insure, rather than purchase, the bad mortgages "wouldn't be a markedly better deal for taxpayers than [Treasury Secretary Hank] Paulson's," but would be "significantly more complicated to administer." He also called the competing House Republican Study Committee proposal "a joke":

It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn't be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?

To be clear, the bailout bill was cetainly flawed and it's arguable whether or not progressives should have supported it at all. But if anyone added oversight to the bill, it was House Democrats. Republicans did nothing at all to protect taxpayers. Extending them credit is beyond silly.

A Tip Of The Hat To The "Illinois Nine"

Adam Doster — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:08:08 -0700

Some conservatives are laying blame for the mortgage crisis in all the wrong places.

Earlier this week, the National Review joined others on the right in in castigating the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to loan in communities of color at the same level as other neighborhoods.

Others, like Chicago radio personality Don Wade, thinks it's the fault of Congress for their lack of oversight. While interviewing Rep. Jan Schakowsky on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning today, he asked: "But what about the very regulators who were supposed to be manning the gates – the people like [Rep.] Barney Frank [D-MA] and [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] and all of those people?" Of course, many overlook that the securitization and selling of the debt got us where we are today, not the mortgage defaults themselves. This practice was made possible by Congress' dismantling of the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which had the effect of handcuffing government regulators whose job it was to prevent such risky financial maneuvers.

Schakowsky reminded the WLS hosts that not everyone in Washington supported that move. Listen below:

Internal mp3

ROMA: You guys were all overseeing all of this. You were supposed to be being sure everyone was on the mark as well. So I think the blame is going to spread both sides of the aisle. I think it’s going to spread all the way up the tree to the top. And I think the average citizen who takes out a mortgage in good faith is the one left holding the bag. I feel like I'm on a snipe-hunt.

SCHAKOWSKY: You know … in 1999, there were 57 of us who voted not to do the deregulation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that actually set the stage for all of this -- the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And you know, and this is the result of that. The Congress has been working all year to try and help homeowners and communities, not just people who got themselves into bad loans, and we did pass some legislation. But the regulation system is completely out of whack.

So how did regulation of the financial industries work before the 1999 bill? Robert Kuttner explains:

The Glass-Steagall wall was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank. With Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were tightly supervised and given access to federal deposit insurance, to keep savings secure and prevent runs on banks. Investment banks, meanwhile, were not government-guaranteed and were free to do more speculative transactions for consenting adult customers. But Roosevelt's newly created SEC subjected securities markets to much tighter structures against self-dealing and insider conflicts of interest.

As Schakowsky noted, the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, a bill written by one of John McCain's chief economic advisers, eradicated the protections provided by Glass-Steagall.

But 57 House members and eight Senators voted against the measure, a prescient move given the devastation it ultimately wrought. Nine of those "nay" votes in the House came from Illinois' Democratic delegation (including Schakowsky, Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr., Luis Gutierrez, and Jerry Costello).

To those nine who opposed deregulation, we give a retroactive tip of the hat.

Hastert: Palin Only "Real American Family Person" In Presidential Race

Adam Doster — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:35:57 -0700

Like other Illinois conservatives, former Speaker Dennis Hastert is thrilled with John McCain's vice presidential pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Why so pleased? Live from the Republican convention, he explained his reasoning on WLS' Don Wade & Roma Morning Show today, saying that she is "the only person that’s a real American family person that’s come out in this election." Listen here:

Internal mp3

What a patently absurd statement. After an auto accident claimed his daughter and wife, Joe Biden raised two young sons by himself, commuting between his home in Delaware and Washington D.C. by train every night to be with his family. Barack Obama's grandfather marched in Patton's Army and his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, later studying under the G.I. Bill. His mother raised the presidential nominee and his sister by herself, relying in part of food stamps so she could finish her bachelor's degree and put her kids through college on loans and scholarships. But Biden has been in the Senate too long to be a "real American family person." Meanwhile, Obama doesn't share -- in Roma's words -- Palin's "recognizable American lifestyle."

Hastert's touting of Palin's American values also excuses her fringe belief, exhibited from the mid-1990s onward, that Alaska should secede from the union. Lincoln would be so proud.

Kirk's False Proposition: Either Drill At Home Or Buy From Iran

Adam Doster — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27:18 -0700

Rep. Mark Kirk, in his first appearance on WLS' Don Wade & Roma Morning Show since the infamous "shoot on sight" fiasco, was back in rare form today. This time, the North Shore Republican offered listeners a false proposition: either drill for oil offshore or buy oil from the Iranians. Listen here:

Internal mp3

KIRK: We have a fundamental choice. We need to get off oil, but for the time being we are still dependent on it. We can either buy 80 billion barrels of oil from the Iranians or from ourselves. And we should buy it from ourselves.

It's unclear where Kirk got the 80 billion figure. That aside, his assumption that the United States will be forced to rely on Iran if we don't feed our oil dependency at home is a pretty sneaky way of scaring voters into the GOP's pro-drilling camp.

For over a decade, America has kept Iranian crude out of the domestic supply through a ban on their oil imports and congressionally mandated sanctions on companies that attempt to develop Iran's oil and gas. Given the political discourse in Washington surrounding the Iranian regime -- a reality Kirk is well aware of -- it's incredibly unlikely that the ban will be lifted in the near future. But that doesn't stop Kirk from using the "scary" Tehran regime as his foil, fearmongering about hypothetical Iranian influence on American life instead of arguing for his favored proposal honestly.

But just for fun, let's suppose we did lift the Iranian ban and drop the oil-related sanctions. How would this affect supply? Robert Naiman recently posed this question to economist Dean Baker, who responded with some interesting data:

"Suppose they [Iran] open up to foreign investment and production goes up 1-2 million barrels a day after a few years...It's 5 to 10 times McCain's offshore drilling."

So by equating these two options -- drill offshore (adding 200,000 extra barrels per day) or open the U.S. market to Iran (1-2 million extra barrels per day) -- Kirk is greatly exaggerating the impact of expanded domestic production. It might be an effective electoral gambit, but more U.S. drilling just won't effect the energy crisis in any meaningful, immediate way. And Kirk should own up to it.

UPDATE: We looked into Kirk's "80 billion" figure and discovered that the 10th District Republican is actually conflating two very different government estimates. In doing so, he's more than quadrupling the amount of oil thought to be available in the offshore areas under federal moratorium. Read our full explanation here.

Boehner On WLS: Dems "Worship At The Altar Of Radical Environmentalism"

Adam Doster — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:01:30 -0700

There aren't two Americans more fond of the GOP's "Texas Tea Party" than the hosts of WLS' Don Wade & Roma. As the so-called "protest" trudges along, the broadcast duo continues to have House Republicans on their show, thanking the representatives for their purportedly valiant efforts. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner called in from the Cincinnati airport -- en route to the Capitol after some R&R on the golf course -- making sure to spread some distortions along the way.

For instance, while discussing Republicans' demand that Democrats return from August recess to hold a vote on the GOP's bill to increase offshore oil drilling, Roma and Boehner had this exchange:

Internal mp3

ROMA: In her interview with George Stephanopoulos, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally ended up with one mantra at the very end of the 10 times he asked her tried and pin her on why she wouldn’t allow a vote. And she said finally, “I want to save the planet.” Is it because the Democratic Party has become beholden to the greenie groups that have funded their presidential runs so heavily?

BOEHNER: Oh yeah. They worship at the altar of radical environmentalism and that’s why they are standing in the way.

Their effort to paint Democrats as the side whose energy positions are controlled by special interests is quite remarkable.

Consider this: since 1990 environmental groups have contributed $17.7 million to candidates at the federal level -- most of which has gone to Democrats. During the same period, the oil and gas industry has doled out $220 million. These contributions have been directed at Republicans by a three-to-one margin. But according to Roma and Boehner, it's the Democrats who are "beholden."

During the same interview, Don asked the Boehner a leading question about Pelosi's opposition to the GOP's favored energy policy. Here's his response:

Internal mp3

BOEHNER: Well, I think the big issue is they [Democrats] want no part of nuclear energy, they want no part of using coal, and they want no drilling for new oil and gas. Moveon.org was at my office yesterday demonstrating and their plan is identical to Pelosi’s plan: no more drilling, no coal, no nuclear. All they want is solar and wind. Well I’m sorry, but you’re going to be very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter if that’s the only plan that you have. It’s not a serious plan to take a big step toward energy independence.

Of course, this is a wild distortion of of the energy plan favored by Democrats, including Barack Obama, to achieve "energy independence." While wind and solar power are key factors in any approach to build a sane energy policy, they are individual pieces of a larger policy. Promoting conservation policies (increasing fuel economy standards, weatherizing buildings), implementing an economy wide-cap and trade program, and creating millions of green jobs -- ideas Boehner overlooks -- will not only lessen our environmental footprint but improve our nation's economic competitiveness. He also ignores the very real concerns nuclear power and "clean coal" present and suggests that oil exploration will lower gas prices in the short-term, a point that's demonstrably false.

You can listen to Boehner's entire appearance here.

For more on the GOP drilling stunt, read our posts here, here, and here.