Sun-Times

Sun-Times Covers Ozinga's Late Taxes

Josh Kalven — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:21:32 -0700

Earlier this month, we documented how 11th District GOP congressional candidate Marty Ozinga's concrete company was late on tens of thousands of taxes in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, leading to legal action in each state. The story then got picked up by the Politico, which noted that it had been covered by local "newspapers and bloggers." This characterization was later corrected, however, after someone pointed out that no newspapers had actually reported on Ozinga's late tax payments.

Well, that changed today. Abdon Pallasch has a story in today's Sun-Times headlined "GOP congressional candidate's firm owed $49K in taxes":

Concrete mogul Marty Ozinga's companies racked up $59,000 in unpaid taxes over the last 20 years, according to documents provided to the Sun-Times by political operatives.

The tax liens have been filed against the Republican congressional candidate's companies in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. Some are fines on his trucks that pour concrete in Chicago. [...]

"This is shaping up to be pattern of ignoring and breaking the rules for his own personal gain, which raises a question: If he's going to break the rules for his own business, how can you trust him to carry out the people's business?" said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Obama's Personal Responsibility Message Isn't Just For Black Folks

Josh Kalven — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:50:59 -0700

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. Indeed, theYoungstown Vindicator reported that he had "admonished parents to do their part by turning off the television, putting away the video games, and instilling in their children a desire to get a good education." As this image from the rally shows, there were plenty of white folks in attendance:

During a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on May 20, Barack said this:

Change is giving every child a world-class education by recruiting an army of new teachers with better pay and more support; by promising four years of tuition to any American willing to serve their community and their country; by realizing that the best education starts with parents who turn off the TV, and take away the video games, and read to our children once in awhile.

There sure were a lot of white people there:

In the wake of the Rev. Jackson controversy, I urge folks to go back and read Obama's Father's Day speech in full. An impression seems to have formed that because he was speaking at a black church, this was an instance of Barack going out of his way to "talk down" to African-American parents. Lost in that characterization is that the entire speech centered around what "we" need to do -- not "you" or "they." Also forgotten is that he didn't put all the responsiblity on the individual's shoulders, talking at length about the ways in which the government needs to meet struggling parents "half way."

Read the speech and judge for yourself.

Chicago's Walled Gardens

Josh Kalven — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:29:42 -0700

In a great post over at Urbanagora, Kiyoshi Martinez uses the Huffington Post's impending arrival on the Chicago media scene as an occasion to examine the current state of the Sun-Times, the Tribune, and various online outlets. As he notes, Arianna Huffington picked a really interesting time to jump into this pond:

I think the decision to target this city in particular shows a shrewd familiarity of the weaknesses of the two daily papers and their online properties. It seems almost paradoxical that at a time when two newspapers face financial turmoil, one of the largest news and political sites decides it's a good time to move in.

Martinez also highlights how Chicago's two major dailies have utterly failed to embrace the new media environment:

Rarely does the Tribune or Sun-Times link outside of their Web site to local bloggers or other Chicago-media sites (i.e.: EveryBlock, Chicagoist, Gapers Block, Chi Town Daily News). Nor do they embed YouTube videos, make use of Flickr, be active on Twitter or actually understand the concept of creating a community on their Web sites through commenters. And we haven't even talked social networking yet.

Instead, they build walled gardens, which defeats the philosophy of the Internet. Making things worse is that most of their new media content, such as videos, cannot be embedded to a reader's blog or shared easily. And the Tribune removes its articles from the public view after little more than a week, meaning that search engines can't index it and send them more page views and more revenue.

Read the whole thing here. And also make sure to check out the comments section where, interestingly enough, an argument breaks out over ... whether Martinez's post was too lengthy for the internet.

Thoughts On Obama's Public Financing Decision (Part 2)

Josh Kalven — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:49:44 -0700

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.

By my count, the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet has published eight blog posts on the issue since June 19 -- the day Obama announced his decision. Three of them simply repeated criticism of Obama from the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. One featured a press release from the group Democracy 21 blasting Obama. Two others offered evidence of Obama's "evolution" on the issue. And here's how she headlined her post on the Meet the Press discussion between Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last Sunday: "Graham on 'Meet the Press' on Obama broken pledge on public campaign financing: 'What he did by breaking his promise is reinforce every bad thing wrong with politics.' " Before cutting-and-pasting the MTP transcript, Sweet described Biden as "defending the undefendable for Mr. Obama."

Nowhere in Sweet's eight blog posts were McCain's campaign finance shenanigans mentioned. (Sweet has also commented on the controversy in repeated appearances on MSNBC.)

Meanwhile, over at The Beachwood Reporter last week, Steve Rhodes responded to the news of Obama's decision this way:

The spin from the Obama camp - particularly in its latest e-mail to supporters - is wholly disingenuous. A good rule of thumb: How would you feel if the situation was reversed? In other words, Obamaphiles would be lambasting John McCain to high heaven right now if he pulled this move.

Say what you will about the Obama camp's spin, McCain pulled his own "move" on public financing, possibly in violation of the law. A lot of folks on the left have cried foul. And the media has paid little attention to the matter, while repeating his attacks on Obama.

Finally, on Friday's edition of Chicago Tonight, Chicago Magazine contributing editor Bob Reed said that, fortunately for Obama, "not that many people care about campaign finance -- maybe with the exception of John McCain":

To many in the media, McCain will always be the lonely crusader for campaign finance reform and comprehensive immigration policy. He'll always be the maverick who stood up to the Bush administration on tax cuts and torture. Nevermind that he has compromised his integrity on every one of those issues.

In related news, one of the reasons McCain has escaped scrutiny on his gaming of the public financing system is that the FEC board has been unable to function due to a six-month disagreement in the Senate over one of Bush's nominees. That impasse came to end yesterday, as the five new commissioners were confirmed by the Senate. Hopefully, we'll be hearing more about the legality of McCain's actions in the near future -- from a fully-functioning FEC, if not the media.

Sun-Times Drive Targets Uninsured Illinois Kids

Mose Buchele — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:07:00 -0700

Illinois is the only state in the country that offers comprehensive and affordable health insurance to all children. The All Kids program covers 1.4 million children, but as many as "376,000 Illinois kids still are uncovered by any health insurance," according to the Sun-Times. That's why the newspaper and Resurrection Health Care are holding a registration drive this Saturday, June 21. The goal is to sign up 1,000 additional children in one day.

While organizers had initially hoped for 300 volunteers to man registration stations throughout Chicagoland, over 400 people have already signed up. As the Sun-Times points out, registering children with All Kids not only protects Illinois' most vulnerable, it saves everyone else money too:

Giving kids who would normally go straight to the emergency room a "medical home" helps to lower health care costs for everyone, said Barry Maram, director of the Illinois Healthcare and Family Services Department.

"Each year, for the people who do have insurance, $1,059 is added to the cost of our policies because of the uninsured," Maram said, citing a 2005 report from Families USA.

You can find a list of registration locations here. Take a look if you or anyone you know might benefit from this program, or call (877) RES-INFO to find a nearby enrollment center.

Lynn Sweet Watch: What About Clarke?

Josh Kalven — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:41:16 -0700

In her Sun-Times column today, Lynn Sweet reports on the sparring between the Obama and McCain camps yesterday over foreign policy. The piece is headlined: "Obama 'delusional'? McCain, ex-CIA chief doubt Obama's readiness to deal with terrorists." In it, she quotes former CIA head James Woolsey and McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann wailing away on Obama's foreign policy approach:

During a McCain campaign conference call with reporters, former CIA head James Woolsey said Obama's support of giving terrorists access to U.S. courts was an "extremely dangerous and an extremely naive approach to terrorism."

McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said if Obama "got that 3 a.m. phone call" -- a reference to an ad Sen. Hillary Clinton ran before the Texas and Ohio primaries questioning Obama's experience -- his response would be to "call the lawyers in the Justice Department." He also called Obama "delusional." [...]

Scheunemann also invoked a stereotype as he tried to make the point that terrorists are not common criminals. These terrorists, he said, were not "your run-of-the mill drug dealers on the South Side of Chicago."

In turn, Sweet devotes one graf to Obama's response:

"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could've pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane. "In part because of their failed strategies, we've got bin Laden still sending out audiotapes, so I don't think they have much standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9/11."

It's a decent rebuttal. Nonetheless, when a low-information voter reads about a terrorism-related back-and-forth between a politician and a former CIA director, whose argument do you think they're more likely to trust? That's why it would have been nice if Sweet had noted that Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism adviser under the Clinton and Bush administrations, hammered the McCain camp hours before Obama himself responded.

During a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Clarke described himself as "disgusted" by the McCain campaign's tactics and accused the Republican surrogates of "completely and utterly distorting" the GOP record on terrorism. Clarke also noted that Obama has a "comprehensive terrorism strategy" and demanded that the McCain camp "show where in the record Senator Obama has ever said he is favor of a pure law enforcement approach."

Take a listen to his comments:

Internal mp3

Laura Washington On Chicago's "Family-And-Friends Policy"

Josh Kalven — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:01:51 -0700

In her Sun-Times column today, Laura Washington notes the "buzz" surrounding the 1st Congressional District seat held by Rep. Bobby Rush, who has been plagued with health problems as of late. She imagines the potential field of candidates who might enter a special election if Rush were to step aside, citing Aldermen Toni Preckwinkle and Sandi Jackson, as well as State Sens. Kwame Raoul, James Meeks, and Jacqueline Collins.

But she concludes by dousing some ice water on that prospect, noting that "let the voters decide" ain't the Chicago way:

Of course, this might all be premature, as Rush, his wife and key aides all insist that he's on the rebound. I hope that is true and wish him well.

Still, the sharks are circling, and in Chicago, that's bad news for everybody.

Why? If Rush is unable to continue to serve, the Democratic Party regulars will activate their tried-and-true version of "democracy." Committeemen from the 1st District will gather at the smoke-free Allegro Hotel. (It won't quite be like the good old days, but someone is bound to sneak in a cigar).

Why not call a special election and let the voters decide? Nah. The party insiders will cut a shady deal and pick their own hack. That person will win, be able to serve a full, two-year term and will be difficult to dislodge the next time around.

This shameful, family-and-friends policy has saddled us with the likes of Cook County Board President Todd "It's My Sandbox" Stroger and U.S. Rep. Dan "College Professor" Lipinski.

Let's hope voters smoke this one out before it's too late.

Sun-Times Points To Potential Economic Benefit Of New G.I. Bill

Mose Buchele — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:36:03 -0700

Today the Sun-Times' editorial board came out in support of Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) legislation to modernize the G.I. Bill. The proposal (which passed the Senate last week) would offer increased benefits to U.S. soldiers returning from today's battlefields. Specifically, It would finance their education at a four-year college and provide them with a $1,000 bonus for every three years served. The measure is now pending in the House as part of the larger war funding bill. Meanwhile, President Bush has threatened to veto Webb's legislation, citing his preference for a separate, GOP-sponsored measure that features more restrictive education benefits.

The argument for Webb's G.I. Bill is essentially a moral one: our country owes a greater debt to veterans than is it currently paying. There are also practical considerations: our armed forces are increasingly stretched thin and the proposal would create better incentives for enlistment. Furthermore, the Sun-Times points to the potential economic benefit of supporting the legislation:

The original GI Bill, in the years after World War II, helped veterans forge careers and made our nation stronger.

For every dollar spent on those veterans, the government recouped $5 to $12 in taxes paid by college graduates with higher incomes, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Assuming such results could be replicated, the estimated $2 billion cost of modernizing the G.I. Bill should be though as a long-term stimulus plan -- not simply a one-time pay-off to returning soldiers.

Sun-Times Calls For Humane Treatment Of Immigrant Detainees

Josh Kalven — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:25:38 -0700

Today, the Sun-Times editorial board cited the recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid of an Iowa meatpacking plant as evidence of the need for better treatment of detained immigrants:

Immigration raids are a fact of life in the U.S., but mistreatment of immigrants shouldn't be. Besides the concerns raised in Iowa, a recent New York Times investigation reported evidence of inadequate medical care for detained immigrants. Sixty-six immigrants died in detention from January 2004 to November 2007, according to federal data obtained by the Times.

As ICE continues large-scale raids, detainees must be treated fairly. As a country, we can't figure out how to reform our broken immigration system, but we do know where we stand on civil liberties -- they need to be protected, whether a person resides here legally or not.

The Iowa raid also highlights the weak penalties against employers who hire and exploit illegal immigrants. Workers at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in Postville, Iowa, according to a suit filed last week, were assessed $50 immigration fees in their paychecks, not paid overtime and denied bathroom breaks. Eighteen may have been minors.

The Times investigation can be found here. And for a more forceful criticism of the immigration enforcement system in the U.S., read the response to the Iowa raid released by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Lynn Sweet Watch: Obama And The "Constant Sore"

Josh Kalven — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:13:26 -0700

What is it with the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet and Barack Obama's comments about Israel?

Back in March, we noted her suggestion that Obama hadn't addressed Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements regarding Israel (when, in fact, he had). Now she's reprinting Republican press releases that blatantly misrepresent Obama's recent remarks on the Middle East.

As Rob at Illinois Reason astutely pointed out, in a Sun-Times blog post yesterday evening headlined "GOP hits Obama over Israel," Sweet copy-and-pasted a statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) criticizing the Illinois Senator for comments made in a recent interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. From the release:

“Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims. Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’ It’s another sign that Obama is part of the broken Washington Americans are rejecting."

Sweet also included this statement from Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA):

“It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel."

But did Obama actually call Israel a "constant sore" or a "constant wound"? No, he didn't.

(Click "Read More" to continue ...)

He actually used those terms to refer to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

Rob also notes that while Sweet simply reprinted the GOP's distortions, some journalists took the time to both report on the attacks and point out that they're misleading. For instance, here's ABC's Jake Tapper:

Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.