Progress Illinois

According to John McCain, the decision to increase troop levels in Iraq has been an unmitigated success, responsible for all that is wonderful about life there today. Even though President Bush didn't deploy additional forces until 2007, McCain's definition of the "surge" -- which now apparently encompasses our entire counterinsurgency strategy -- was already working by 2006, easing violence in Iraq's Anbar Province. How can anyone, including Barack Obama, claim this isn't an obvious testament to McCain's prescience and foreign policy superiority?

Steve Chapman gives a nice rebuttal to this nonsense in today's Tribune, explaining that McCain's argument only holds up if one defines "success" by a very narrow metric -- namely, a decrease to pre-surge levels of Iraqi and American deaths:

The troop escalation has not been the complete failure Obama suggested it would be, but it has fallen far short of the triumph claimed by Republicans. The level of violence, though down from the very worst months of the war, remains at levels comparable with 2005, which were considered awful at the time.

Iraqi civilians died at a higher rate in the first four months of this year than in the same period of 2005. The number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces is about the same. Here is McCain's definition of success: returning to a pace of bloodshed that was once regarded as intolerable.

What's more, such reductions in violence can't be attributed solely to the increase in troops. One has to also factor in the decision of Sunni militias to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other mixed neighborhoods, and Muqtada al-Sadr's cease fire. All contributed to the current situation, and lumping them together under the "surge" label is disingenuous to say the least.

And what about political reconciliation, one of the primary goals of the troop increase? Former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi says little has been accomplished.

Continue reading »

We know GOP Rep. Mark Kirk doesn't have much sympathy for the unemployed. But now he's trying to count Democratic opponent Dan Seals as a member of that population. From a Roll Call article published Monday:

“After losing his bid for Congress, Seals did not return to GE Finance and was unemployed,” according to a Kirk campaign memo out last week. “Near the end of the 2006 campaign, Seals paid himself $25,000 out of his campaign donor funds — an act that is legal but strongly discouraging to donors ... in May, Seals filed his 2008 financial disclosure with the U.S. House showing only $3,300 in earned income through the first quarter of the year.”

It's an odd criticism, especially considering that most candidates for Congress take leaves of absence from work to focus on hotly-contested campaigns. Archpundit agrees:

One of the most bizarre argument by the Frank Burns of the Blogosphere and Kirk is that a candidate should be employed full time while running -- which is convenient if you are an incumbent who is paid by the constituents, can mail to constituents with franking, can use your position to get your name out there, and generally have every advantage of incumbency.

But leave it to Kirk to mislead constituents. As the Seals campaign points out in the Roll Call piece, the suggestion that Seals is unemployed isn't even true:

“Mark Kirk entirely overlooks the fact that Dan Seals has worked as a business consultant and lecturer at Northwestern since 2006 and that Seals’ wife serves in a senior level corporate position,” the Seals campaign memo states. “So the question is, what does Mark Kirk find so objectionable that the Seals family, like many families in the 10th district have two working parents?”

Not convinced? Rob at Illinois Reason reminds us that we can look to the local conservative blogosphere for more proof.

Continue reading »

The big news out of Washington yesterday was the passage of a far-reaching housing rescue bill by the House. While President Bush initially opposed a section of the bill that would appropriate nearly $4 billion in grants for local governments to buy and refurbish foreclosed properties, he eventually relented, clearing the way for the bill's passage. But 149 congressional Republicans, many citing the rehab funds as a major sticking point, voted nay.

Among this group was 6th District Rep. Peter Roskam, who explained that he opposed the bill out of the fear that Gov. Rod Blagojevich will have too much control over the federally-funded Illinois projects. "Do you want Rod Blagojevich to be your landlord?" Roskam asked in a statement released by his campaign last night.

But how much control will Blagojevich actually have? As it turns out, not very much.

Continue reading »

Back in May, the Tribune cited a study by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University which predicted some troubling trends in teen summer employment. Now the Center has analyzed recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data and determined that their unsettling employment forecast has come true. From a press release put out yesterday by the Alternative Schools Network:

- Between 2000 and 2008, the national summer teen employment rate for 16-19 year olds fell from 51.4% to 37.1%, a drop of almost 30% -- a Depression-era reduction in job opportunities for American youth and the lowest youth employment rate in 60 years.

- Only one in every five Black 16-19 year olds worked during June 2008.

- Low-income teens fare worst in the labor market. During summer 2007, only 30% of 16-19 year olds from households with annual incomes below $20,000 worked and only 15% of low-income Black youth held a job, versus an employment rate of 50% for teens in households with annual incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Unfortunately, little has been done to ease the pain at the federal level, where the report's authors say youth joblessness could really be tackled. Bills in both chambers to set up for a summer jobs programs were left out of the 2008 fiscal stimulus package.

You can download the entire report here.

It goes without saying that many Chicagoans -- particulary from low-income brackets -- are distrustful of a city police force that repeatedly abused citizens over the past few decades with little repercussion. The most notorious example is the widespread torture of suspects under Commander Jon Burge (pictured right). In a well-reported article published on AlterNet today, Chicago-based journalist Jessica Pupovac shines a light on the two dozen men still behind bars for crimes to which they confessed only after hours of abuse by Burge-led officers:

[Michael] Tillman is one of at least 24 African-American men that the People's Law Office in Chicago claims are still serving sentences for crimes they say they confessed to only after enduring hours of torture at the hands of Chicago police officers under Commander Jon Burge between 1972 and 1992. Although 10 of Burge's victims have been pardoned or given new trials after their illegally obtained confessions were exposed, the vast majority of the 100-plus cases have yet to be reviewed by the state of Illinois. Those men have either served out their sentences, died in custody or, like Tillman, continue to live their lives behind bars, hoping that one day they will have a fair trial.

And what about the officers who elicited the false confessions? Were they brought to justice for their abuses? Not really, says Pupovac:

Nevertheless, almost 20 years later, not a single police officer has been made to face charges in the massive scandal. They were all let off the hook, first by a succession of judges and legal professionals who looked the other way, and later by a statute of limitations that expired before the Illinois state attorney considered filing charges. According to Taylor, there is no state or federal law criminalizing torture by law enforcement officers. While possible offenses for torture can include attempted murder, aggravated battery, battery, assault, assault with a dangerous weapon or hate crimes, the statute on these crimes is generally five years for federal prosecution and three years in the state of Illinois.

Continue reading »

It's great that the Tribune's Swamp blog is publicizing John McCain's latest lie about Iraq, in which he falsely credits America's troop surge for the "awakening" of Sunnis in Anbar province. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted last night, the Anbar Awakening in fact began long before the troop increase.

But rather than directly address McCain's revision of history, the Tribune's Mark Silva decided instead to report on MSNBC's segment about McCain's lie. Indeed, Silva refers to Olbermann's statement that McCain got "the basic timeline and history of the surge entirely wrong'' as an "assertion."  And check out the headline:

Why the quotation marks? This isn't a he-said/she-said debate. McCain is wrong -- plain and simple -- and the Tribune should say so in its own words.

Below are a few links laying out why McCain's claim is flat false.

Continue reading »

Want the Senate Democratic Whip to send your favorite Congressional candidate some love? In a poll on his campaign website, Sen. Dick Durbin is asking readers to pick from six Illinois Democratic candidates: Jill Morgenthaler, Dan Seals, Debbie Halvorson, Scott Harper, Bill Foster, and Colleen Callahan.  Whoever nets the most votes will be featured first in a fundraising email sent to the full DickDurbin.com community. To cast your ballot, visit the poll here. 

Rep. Phil Hare is all for improving the Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA) by expanding benefits to service-sector workers and those displaced because of trade imbalances with countries like China and India. That's why he's excited the Senate Finance Committee may take up a TAA reform bill tomorrow. He's just not too thrilled that Republican leaders are insisting on pairing the legislation with the proposed Colombian free trade agreement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi tabled indefinitely earlier this year. Here's Hare's response:

Let me be clear. I strongly support modernizing TAA. I voted for the House bill and lobbied for many of the provisions in it. My constituents fully understand the real life consequences when bad trade deals are combined with an inadequate safety net for displaced workers.

But the completely unrelated Colombia FTA should remain dead. Trade unionists are being murdered at a rate of one per week in 2008. Yet few if any of the perpetrators are being brought to justice. America should have zero tolerance for this type of violence.

Passing the Colombia agreement—based on the job-killing NAFTA model—would actually force more Americans into TAA while sending a terrible message about our commitment to basic human rights.

Hare is right to fight the Colombian FTA. As he pointed out in April, 39 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007 and they're being killed at a rate of over one per week this year. What's more, of 2,500-plus murders in the country since 1986, only 68 cases -- around three percent -- have resulted in convictions. Some trading partner, eh?

Instead of pushing through more lobbyist-ridden legislation, Hare suggests Congress take up the TRADE act, which aims to make American trade deals more just and humane:

What Congress should be moving is the TRADE Act— legislation that mandates a review of existing trade agreements and a renegotiation of those agreements if necessary. It also sets the terms of what must be included in future trade deals—including strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards.

The American people are desperate for a new direction on trade—including a modernized TAA. The Colombia FTA simply continues the failed policies of the past. Tying the two measures together is a bad idea any way you cut it.

John McCain says Barack Obama lacks the requisite experience to make sound judgments. It's hard to buy that theory, considering McCain has been wrong on every single decision about Iraq, particularly before 2003. But recently, the Arizona Republican seems to have taken a break from judging ... anything.

Chicago Public Radio highlights his Senate absenteeism:

In the past three months, Obama's missed more than 3 out of every 4 votes in the Senate. No gold star for attendance there, but Obama's numbers blow away those of his campaign rival, John McCain. The Arizona Republican hasn't cast a single Senate vote since early April, which is about 90 straight absences.

A spokesperson for McCain could not be immediately reached for comment. Obama's office stuck to its standard statement, insisting the senator balances his campaign and Senate responsibilities.

I guess we shouldn't complain. Non-votes are better than bad votes.

Bad news for Chicagoans who value the Fourth Estate: Maurice Possley, a Tribune investigative reporter who helped bring about the state’s death penalty moratorium, is resigning from the paper before it trims roughly 60 newsroom staff positions.

From Crain's:

Mr. Possley’s decision was based on what he referred to as the “stunning . . . dismantling of our newspaper in such a short time,” according to his note.

“I always had envisioned retiring from the Tribune, but events of the past year, including (Editor) Ann Marie (Lipinski’s) resignation, convinced me that now is the time for me to seek my fortune elsewhere,” Mr. Possley wrote.

It's been said before, but the decision by Sam Zell and the Tribune front office to focus on a not-so-snazzy redesign of the paper just isn't a sound use of resources. Steve Rhodes elaborates:

Redesigning newspapers, by the way, as the Trib is now doing, will not garner many new readers no matter how snappy. It's too late for that. The cycle of habit has been broken. The purpose of the print product now ought to be as a supplement to the website. And putting consumer and entertainment news front and center is an awful idea. Strip the paper down to news and news only. You can't compete with stale entertainment news. Then develop new print products, like a sports weekly, a photo weekly, a local Onion . . . it's time for newspapers - and their websites - to disaggregate. Ironic, isn't it?