Progress Illinois

On WTTW's Chicago Tonight yesterday, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability executive director Ralph Martire discussed the school funding crisis in Illinois and expressed his support for State Sen. James Meeks' effort to highlight the issue.  "We've got to get people as outraged about the fact that for decades we haven't given children an adequate education in our state," he said.  "And when they get the same fervor and outrage over that that they have over this silly day of missed school, maybe we'll make a change."

Talking about the tax code's effect on the state's fiscal situation, Martire also pointed out that "Illinois has got a $600 billion economy -- $600 billion.  The cost of the tax increase needed to fix our problems would be about $6 billion.  That's one percent of our economy."  Watch it:

For more on the education funding issue, check out Will Burns' column from last week.

Yesterday's "Tuesday Commentary" on WTTW's Chicago Tonight went toTribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice, who voiced her hope that Chicago police will "step up" in the face of the city's rising violence without resorting to brutality. She also took aim at Mayor Richard Daley's ridiculous statement last week that fear of unfair media coverage has made officers timid, calling this suggestion "nothing short of shameful." Watch it:

Also of note, in a Sun-Times op-ed last Sunday, Chicago activist and journalist Jamie Kalven (full disclosure: he's my father) responded to Daley's remarks:

It is a first principle of our democracy that public officials in whom we vest substantial power must be subject to public scrutiny. This principle applies every bit as much to the police officer on the street as to the high government official.

We give the police great powers -- to arrest and detain, to use force, and, under certain circumstances, to kill -- and we allow them considerable discretion in performing their duties. Public scrutiny is the necessary antidote to abuses of those powers.

For Daley to suggest that officers must be sheltered from core democratic principles in order to show up for work is a diservice to both the police and the communities they serve.

In the wake of the Jesse Jackson "incident," there's been a lot of talk about what the reverend meant when he said Barack Obama has been "talking down to black people." Both in private conversations I've had and in discussions I've observed on the airwaves, there seems to be an assumption that Obama has only stressed personal responsibility and good parenting when speaking to black audiences. For instance, check out Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell's claim on WTTW's Chicago Tonight last Friday that this is "not a conversation he has with white America":

But while it's true that Obama tends to linger on these issues a bit longer in front of predominantly black audiences and that he tends to employ a slightly different vernacular in those settings, Mitchell's assertion that he's not telling white audiences to turn off the TV and encourage their kids to study is false.

For instance, here's what he told an audience in Spirit Lake, Iowa, on December 16 of last year:

Parents, you’ve got to turn off the tvs and shut down the video games. [And] our students have to understand that education is not a passive activity. You don’t just tip your head over and have it pour in....You’re gonna hear me as President not just talking about programs--I’m going to be talking about our obligations to our kids.

And here's what the audience looked like:

In Youngstown, Ohio, on February 18, Obama hit on a similar theme.

Continue reading »

On WTTW's Chicago Tonight last week, the Friday panel discussed the possibility of gubernatorial bids by both Bill Daley and Lisa Madigan. During the conversation, ABC 7's Andy Shaw asserted that "Mike Madigan has done great damage to Lisa's chances with his obstructionism in Springfield."

Host Joel Weisman and the Tribune's David Greisling both pushed back against the notion that Lisa would be held accountable for her father's record as House Speaker. Watch it:

I'd have to agree with Shaw and, frankly, it was refreshing to hear a journalist even refer to Mike Madigan's "obstructionism."

As I tried to articulate during my own Chicago Tonight appearance a month ago, I think that the speaker is a serious liability for Lisa if she decides to run. Griesling is probably right that most Illinois residents don't associate Mike Madigan with the stalemate in Springfield. But that might change if Lisa threw her hat in the ring, as it would result in some serious scrutiny of her father and how he operates.

In my first post on this subject, I endorsed Barack Obama's recent decision to opt out of the public financing system. I noted that the move makes obvious sense from a tactical standpoint and further argued that, within Obama's fundraising apparatus, small donors have an unprecedented amount of influence -- resulting in a balance that any reformed public financing system should encourage. In this post, I'll address how McCain has gotten a pass from the media in the midst of this controversy.

John McCain's accusations of an egregious, public financing flip-flop on Obama's part have been broadcast far and wide in the past week. What has been infuriating about this latest controversy -- and McCain's central role in exacerbating it -- is the lack of acknowledgement by the press corps and the editorial boards of how McCain gamed the public finance system this election year.

In case you don't know the details of McCain's maneuvering, here's a helpful recap from Media Matters' Jamison Foser:

John McCain said he would take public financing for the Republican primaries. Then he used the promise of that public financing to help secure a loan for his campaign. Then, after he wrapped up the Republican nomination, he abruptly decided he did not want to be bound by the limits on campaign fundraising and spending that accompany public financing, so he announced that he had changed his mind.

But Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason sent McCain a letter saying that he cannot unilaterally opt out of the public financing system without FEC approval -- a letter the McCain campaign ignored. If McCain cannot opt out of the system unilaterally, he has broken the law by raising and spending funds in excess of legal limits, and continues to do so each day. Even if McCain isn't breaking the law, he has already broken his word and "reversed himself" on the question of whether he would take public funding for the primaries.

Referring to the national coverage, Foser writes: "I have seen no indication that a single reporter has asked McCain to reconcile his criticism of Obama with his own on-again, off-again relationship with the public financing system."

While this is obviously a much more significant issue at the national level, it's also been a problem in our local coverage.

Continue reading »

Appearing on WTTW's Chicago Tonight on Friday, Tribune editorial page editor Bruce Dold suggested that Barack Obama and John McCain share the same position on immigration. Watch that claim -- as well as Dold's assertion that Obama suffers from an "elitism divide" -- below:

Now on the one hand, you could argue that Dold's description of the two candidates' positions on immigration favors Obama. After all, Dold is essentially arguing that Obama isn't vulnerable on this "wedge issue" because of their purported agreement.

But I'd argue the contrary -- that Dold's characterization helps McCain.

Indeed, Dold is giving the Arizona Republican credit for his initial support of comprehensive immigration reform, while overlooking that he backed away from that position in a clear pander to GOP primary voters. Media Matters has this concise description of McCain's switch:

[D]uring the race for the Republican nomination, McCain reversed himself on the issue of border security, saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. Indeed, McCain said in January that he "would not" support the comprehensive immigration reform legislation he once sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

Every time a reporter or commentator overlooks McCain's flip-flops -- on immigration or the Bush tax cuts or the religious right -- McCain benefits. Independents and moderates continue to think that he shares their values, while the Republican base takes comfort in his decision to move in their direction.

It's the media's responsibility to remind the public of McCain's maneuvering. But more often than not, they turn a blind eye.

Last night's edition of WTTW's Chicago Tonight featured one host, four local journalists, and a healthy dose of Obama-related hooey. Read on for a full run-down.

The "special discount"

The weekly panel discussion began on the trial of indicted businessman Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine's testimony this week, but quickly turned to Barack Obama and whether his candidacy will be affected by his relationship with Rezko.

For obvious reasons, Chicago journalists have devoted more resources and more ink to this story than their national counterparts. And so they should. It's their job to suss out the details and make sure all the local angles have been investigated. But as the apparent authorities on this story, is it too much to ask that they have their facts straight by now?

Apparently so. Take this exchange among the Chicago Tonight panel regarding Rezko's simultaneous purchase of a lot adjacent to the Chicago house bought by the Obamas in 2005:

JOEL WEISMAN (host): While we're still on Rezko, do you think people nationally grasp what happened in terms of the discount and the real estate deal that Rezko was able to provide?

DAVID MENDELL (Tribune reporter): I don't think they grasp the whole thing. But they do see that Obama is tied to someone who seems like a shady character. And that goes against his image as a clean government guy.

ANDY SHAW (ABC 7 Chicago): And the entire media found the Rezko story eventually: to the extent that everyone has heard it, everyone has seen the house in Hyde Park and the aerials, and everyone knows that he paid a lot less than Rezko for a similar piece of property.

Let me repeat myself: can we please put this one to rest?

As I explained in my previous post: while the Obamas paid $300,000 below the asking price for their house, there is no evidence that Rezko's purchase of the adjacent lot had any effect on the price the Obamas paid. Indeed, Shaw's assertion that Rezko paid more "for a similar piece of property" overlooks an important distinction between the two lots.

More after the jump ...

Continue reading »