Mar 052010
A little Friday humor ... thanks, Mom!
Let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.
What the hell could possibly go wrong?
What the hell could possibly go wrong?
Mar 052010
It's good to hear that some of our Representatives are taking on the challenge of getting charges dropped against three Navy SEALs charged with abusing a terror suspect taken into custody last September.
The story from FoxNews (emphasis added):
This is war, people, not simply someone getting busted by the police at a protest ... and even then law enforcement shows way more self-restraint than I could ever muster in such stressful situations. (Honestly, when you're watching "Cops" or some such "real" police show and the cops have some mouthy, drunken doofus to deal with .... don't you just want to give the creep a quick punch in the face? Sorry ... how uncivil of me, I know. I could never be so disciplined.)
The story from FoxNews (emphasis added):
I wish we had more people in our leadership with as much brains and cojones. How worrisome this must be for our military who constantly have political correctness breathing down their necks! We even have nitwits in the government that think prisoners of war should be mirandized! .... oh, wait! "high value detainees."GOP Reps. Want Charges Dropped Against SEALs Accused of Abusing Terror Suspect
Two Republican lawmakers are seeking to have charges dropped against three Navy SEALs facing court-martial for accusations of abusing a terror suspect caught in an ambush killing of U.S. contractors in Iraq.
The SEALs -- Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas -- were part of a team that in September 2009 captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected plotter behind the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA contractors in Fallujah in 2004.
The contractors' bodies were burned and left hanging from a bridge. The image came to symbolize the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the brutality of the enemy Americans face there.
McCabe is accused of punching Abed in the stomach and giving him a bloody lip during the arrest.
Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind. and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. held a news conference Thursday with McCabe and more than a dozen retired Navy SEALs and other special forces personnel.
...
Burton and Human Events, a conservative publication, have gathered petitions with more than 150,000 signatures demanding that the charges be dropped against the men.
The SEALs were offered what's call administrative punishment if they admitted wrongdoing but that would have hurt their future as special operators.
Rather than accept the reprimand, the sailors chose to fight the charges in a military court.
They were arraigned in military court in December and the trials are set to begin in April for Huertas and Keefe, and in May for McCabe, who is charged with assault, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement; Keefe is charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement; and Huertas is charged with dereliction of duty, making a false official statement and impeding an official investigation.
The stakes are high for the three SEALs because a guilty finding could result in severe punishment. They face up to one year confinement in a military facility, demotion to entry-level position and a bad conduct discharge from the Navy.
...
"The insanity could be stopped at any time,” Puckett added. "This is a knee jerk reaction to their refusal to accept a lower form of discipline which would have ended their careers and would not have given them a fair hearing because guilt had already been established in the minds of senior people in the chain of command.
"There are so many ways in the military system to handle this short of court martial," he continued. "That's all we're asking."
This is war, people, not simply someone getting busted by the police at a protest ... and even then law enforcement shows way more self-restraint than I could ever muster in such stressful situations. (Honestly, when you're watching "Cops" or some such "real" police show and the cops have some mouthy, drunken doofus to deal with .... don't you just want to give the creep a quick punch in the face? Sorry ... how uncivil of me, I know. I could never be so disciplined.)
Mar 052010
Allahpundit
Hot Air
March 4, 2010
Yesterday they needed 216 to pass it, now they need 217. Like Ace says: Nomentum.
A quick Democratic head count: Shelley Berkley, who voted yes in November, is a likely no this time. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Frank Kratovil — who was named in that dopey AP piece a few days ago as a possible flip to yes — voted no last time and say they’re voting that way again. The only way to flip all three? The Senate has to pass Obama’s “fix” to Reid’s Senate bill before the House votes on anything. If they do it the other way, with the House passing Reid’s bill first, there’s a chance that reconciliation could collapse in the Senate, leaving the House stuck with the Reid bill they pretty much all hate (albeit for different reasons).
Geraghty’s been doing yeoman’s work trying to figure out precisely what has to happen for Pelosi to get to 217. According to his latest calculation, every last pro-life Democrat who’s threatening to vote no with Stupak this time would have to flip to yes; if even one of them votes no — which seems exceedingly likely — it’s all over. And that assumes that House progressives will fall in line and stick with their yes votes from November. By no means is that a sure thing; remember, Raul Grijalva says he’s “pretty certain” that several liberals are ready to walk away this time. In fact, Roll Call claims they were pestering The One at last night’s White House health-care huddle about possibly reviving, er, the public option. Good luck with that, champ. The long and short of it is, unless I’ve missed a story somewhere, not a single Democrat who voted no before has committed to flipping to yes this time. The momentum is entirely the other way.
One thing I don’t get: Why can’t the Senate pass Obama’s “fix” to Reid’s bill before the House votes on anything? It would solve all their problems with wavering House Democrats. The argument, as I understand it, is that the fix can only be “reconciled” with existing legislation, which means Obama would have to sign something into law first. But if they’re willing to go this far to pass this travesty, why not go a little further and ignore that detail? If the GOP takes them to court, the Dems can plead separation of powers to try to keep the Supremes from intervening. Why not do it? What else do they have to lose? Our leader told us yesterday that passing this is the right thing to do. That should be enough, no?
Exit quotation from lefty Sherrod Brown, vowing pushback if the GOP tries to obstruct reconciliation: “If they’re going to try to filibuster in the traditional sense or the more modern sense that they do, they’re going to have pain, too.”
Update: Are my eyes playing tricks on me or is that a thin crack in the dam starting to appear?…
Hot Air
March 4, 2010
Yesterday they needed 216 to pass it, now they need 217. Like Ace says: Nomentum.
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal will delay his resignation from Congress by three weeks, citing intense pressure from House Republican leaders to remain and vote against President Barack Obama’s plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system…Obama could in theory push the vote back into April or May to wait Deal out and force him to resign before the bill comes to the floor, but after Gibbs set a deadline of March 18 for passage this morning, he’ll look like an even weaker chump than usual if he does that.
News of Deal’s decision was inadvertently broken by U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, who congratulated Deal on his decision.
On Monday, before 100 supporters at the Gainesville Civic Center, Deal said he would leave Congress, effective March 8, in order to devote all his time to his campaign for governor.
A quick Democratic head count: Shelley Berkley, who voted yes in November, is a likely no this time. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Frank Kratovil — who was named in that dopey AP piece a few days ago as a possible flip to yes — voted no last time and say they’re voting that way again. The only way to flip all three? The Senate has to pass Obama’s “fix” to Reid’s Senate bill before the House votes on anything. If they do it the other way, with the House passing Reid’s bill first, there’s a chance that reconciliation could collapse in the Senate, leaving the House stuck with the Reid bill they pretty much all hate (albeit for different reasons).
Geraghty’s been doing yeoman’s work trying to figure out precisely what has to happen for Pelosi to get to 217. According to his latest calculation, every last pro-life Democrat who’s threatening to vote no with Stupak this time would have to flip to yes; if even one of them votes no — which seems exceedingly likely — it’s all over. And that assumes that House progressives will fall in line and stick with their yes votes from November. By no means is that a sure thing; remember, Raul Grijalva says he’s “pretty certain” that several liberals are ready to walk away this time. In fact, Roll Call claims they were pestering The One at last night’s White House health-care huddle about possibly reviving, er, the public option. Good luck with that, champ. The long and short of it is, unless I’ve missed a story somewhere, not a single Democrat who voted no before has committed to flipping to yes this time. The momentum is entirely the other way.
One thing I don’t get: Why can’t the Senate pass Obama’s “fix” to Reid’s bill before the House votes on anything? It would solve all their problems with wavering House Democrats. The argument, as I understand it, is that the fix can only be “reconciled” with existing legislation, which means Obama would have to sign something into law first. But if they’re willing to go this far to pass this travesty, why not go a little further and ignore that detail? If the GOP takes them to court, the Dems can plead separation of powers to try to keep the Supremes from intervening. Why not do it? What else do they have to lose? Our leader told us yesterday that passing this is the right thing to do. That should be enough, no?
Exit quotation from lefty Sherrod Brown, vowing pushback if the GOP tries to obstruct reconciliation: “If they’re going to try to filibuster in the traditional sense or the more modern sense that they do, they’re going to have pain, too.”
Update: Are my eyes playing tricks on me or is that a thin crack in the dam starting to appear?…
Republicans are trying to turn up the heat on House Democrats who may be wavering on health-care legislation, including freshman Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore.Schrader made some noise about voting no in November too before ultimately voting yes, but if the dam starts to burst, expect him to bail early this time.
Schrader’s office said Wednesday that the congressman has not yet made any commitments on whether he would vote for the Senate-passed version of health-care reform. “Kurt’s commited to moving forward on health care,” said spokesman James Atkin, but he wants to study the bill first before making a commitment.
Feb 242010
Mark Polege
Keyboard Militia
The Democrats and their hypocracy is historic. Words that sound more like a Tea Party convention are actually when the Democrats in Congress were on the wrong side of the "nuclear option" in Congress in 2005. I can honestly say I have never heard these Democrats discuss the Constitution or the Founding Fathers more in the past year than I have right now. I wonder why.
Courtesy of Breitbart TV:
Interesting how the Democrats' concern for a "naked power grab" has changed since they have come into power.
Keyboard Militia
The Democrats and their hypocracy is historic. Words that sound more like a Tea Party convention are actually when the Democrats in Congress were on the wrong side of the "nuclear option" in Congress in 2005. I can honestly say I have never heard these Democrats discuss the Constitution or the Founding Fathers more in the past year than I have right now. I wonder why.
Courtesy of Breitbart TV:
Interesting how the Democrats' concern for a "naked power grab" has changed since they have come into power.
Feb 152010
Fred Barnes
Weekly Standard
February 15, 2010
How quickly the president and congressional Democrats have turned to tricks and ploys and sham events.
How the mighty have fallen! Only seven or eight months ago, President Obama and congressional Democrats were on their way to remaking America along liberal lines and positioning themselves for decades of political dominance. Their lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, plus the White House, gave them unassailable command of Washington.
Today, they still have those majorities and the presidency, but they’re no longer in command. Their hopes of enacting the most ambitious agenda of liberal legislation since the days of FDR and the Depression are over. Now they’re reduced to stunts, tricks, and gambits usually associated with embattled presidents and minority parties.
Obama’s invitation to Republicans to join him at a bipartisan health care summit next week has been dubbed the “Blair House stunt” by political analyst Jay Cost. (They’ll meet at the Blair House across the street from the White House.) It’s supposed to give Democrats and Republicans a chance to compromise on health care reform--on ObamaCare, as it’s been nicknamed.
Fat chance. The invitation makes it clear that Republicans would be props in the televised summit as Obama and Democrats tout their own bill. Both houses of Congress have passed “comprehensive health care legislation,” it says. “…The Blair House meeting is the next step in the process.”
If that isn’t plain enough about what Democrats are up to, the strategy that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is currently pursuing on ObamaCare should remove any doubts. She has concocted a three-step process to pass the Democratic bill without any input from Republicans (as usual).
It’s a tricky process, as even some Democrats concede. And it’s both complicated and a last ditch ploy, a legislative hail mary. First, the House must pass the Senate version of ObamaCare, which won Senate approval on Christmas Eve. Then, in a second bill, the House would enact changes in the legislation to make it more amenable to wary Democrats in the House. The third step would have Democrats use “reconciliation” in the Senate to pass the changes with 51 votes, not the 60 normally needed to overcome a filibuster. This tactic would touch off a firestorm of Republican protests.
But it may not work. Putting together a majority in the House may be beyond Pelosi’s skill at cajoling and intimidating reluctant Democratic members. When the House version of ObamaCare passed in November, it got 220 votes. She’s lost 4 votes since then (one by resignation, one by imminent resignation, one by death, one by switching). That gives Pelosi 216 votes, one short of a majority given the vacancies. Also, a number of Democrats may join Republicans to oppose reconciliation in the Senate.
So much for ObamaCare. It’s hanging by a thread. So is the remainder of the liberal agenda. To deal with this dire situation, Obama is preparing to issue executive orders “to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” according to Peter Baker of the New York Times.
There’s nothing wrong with executive orders, except they are less immutable than legislation passed by Congress. They can be revoked by subsequent presidents. What’s unusual is that a president with large majorities of his own party in both houses of Congress must turn to such orders to salvage a semblance of his agenda.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats terrified by the prospect of a Republican landslide in the midterm elections in November have come up with a new tactic. They’ll force Republicans either to vote for a series of modest but purportedly popular bills or be accused of obstructionism if they vote against the bills.
It’s stunning that this is what Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and once-triumphant Democrats have stooped to. It’s an old practice. Republicans have used it in the past.
But Democrats, only months ago, thought of themselves as masters of Washington and rulers of the political universe. A liberal transformation of America seemed to be within their grasp. Now, the public having rejected their program, it has slipped away. Their descent into tricks and ploys and sham events--the stuff of uptight legislators and desperate presidents--has occurred with mind-boggling speed. And they have only themselves to blame.
Weekly Standard
February 15, 2010
How quickly the president and congressional Democrats have turned to tricks and ploys and sham events.
How the mighty have fallen! Only seven or eight months ago, President Obama and congressional Democrats were on their way to remaking America along liberal lines and positioning themselves for decades of political dominance. Their lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, plus the White House, gave them unassailable command of Washington.
Today, they still have those majorities and the presidency, but they’re no longer in command. Their hopes of enacting the most ambitious agenda of liberal legislation since the days of FDR and the Depression are over. Now they’re reduced to stunts, tricks, and gambits usually associated with embattled presidents and minority parties.
Obama’s invitation to Republicans to join him at a bipartisan health care summit next week has been dubbed the “Blair House stunt” by political analyst Jay Cost. (They’ll meet at the Blair House across the street from the White House.) It’s supposed to give Democrats and Republicans a chance to compromise on health care reform--on ObamaCare, as it’s been nicknamed.
Fat chance. The invitation makes it clear that Republicans would be props in the televised summit as Obama and Democrats tout their own bill. Both houses of Congress have passed “comprehensive health care legislation,” it says. “…The Blair House meeting is the next step in the process.”
If that isn’t plain enough about what Democrats are up to, the strategy that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is currently pursuing on ObamaCare should remove any doubts. She has concocted a three-step process to pass the Democratic bill without any input from Republicans (as usual).
It’s a tricky process, as even some Democrats concede. And it’s both complicated and a last ditch ploy, a legislative hail mary. First, the House must pass the Senate version of ObamaCare, which won Senate approval on Christmas Eve. Then, in a second bill, the House would enact changes in the legislation to make it more amenable to wary Democrats in the House. The third step would have Democrats use “reconciliation” in the Senate to pass the changes with 51 votes, not the 60 normally needed to overcome a filibuster. This tactic would touch off a firestorm of Republican protests.
But it may not work. Putting together a majority in the House may be beyond Pelosi’s skill at cajoling and intimidating reluctant Democratic members. When the House version of ObamaCare passed in November, it got 220 votes. She’s lost 4 votes since then (one by resignation, one by imminent resignation, one by death, one by switching). That gives Pelosi 216 votes, one short of a majority given the vacancies. Also, a number of Democrats may join Republicans to oppose reconciliation in the Senate.
So much for ObamaCare. It’s hanging by a thread. So is the remainder of the liberal agenda. To deal with this dire situation, Obama is preparing to issue executive orders “to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” according to Peter Baker of the New York Times.
There’s nothing wrong with executive orders, except they are less immutable than legislation passed by Congress. They can be revoked by subsequent presidents. What’s unusual is that a president with large majorities of his own party in both houses of Congress must turn to such orders to salvage a semblance of his agenda.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats terrified by the prospect of a Republican landslide in the midterm elections in November have come up with a new tactic. They’ll force Republicans either to vote for a series of modest but purportedly popular bills or be accused of obstructionism if they vote against the bills.
It’s stunning that this is what Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and once-triumphant Democrats have stooped to. It’s an old practice. Republicans have used it in the past.
But Democrats, only months ago, thought of themselves as masters of Washington and rulers of the political universe. A liberal transformation of America seemed to be within their grasp. Now, the public having rejected their program, it has slipped away. Their descent into tricks and ploys and sham events--the stuff of uptight legislators and desperate presidents--has occurred with mind-boggling speed. And they have only themselves to blame.
Feb 082010
In July 2009, Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, sent a letter to the Fed asking it to approve the fast acquisition of two banks owned in large part major contributors to the Menendez campaign, according to the Wall Street Journal. This kind of intervention is considered grossly inappropriate and appears to be a form of influence peddling.
William Black, a federal bank regulator during the savings-and-loan crisis two decades ago, and like Mr. Menendez a Democrat, called the senator’s letter "grotesquely inappropriate," given his ties to the two directors. Mr. Black, now a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said the letter crossed an unofficial line by asking regulators to approve an application instead of simply asking that it be given consideration.
The problem here, as with the entire banking crisis, is not the result of too little government meddling, but of too much. For years, Congress has treated the banking system like its own play toy. The solution to this crisis is smaller government, not larger. This reduction in the government’s control of banking should begin with the privatization of Fannie and Freddie. And November’s election is the time to make that happen.
Tags: bank failures, banking, congress, corruption, Robert MenendezRelated posts
Jan 032010
by Michael Volpe - BigGovernment.com
January 3, 2010
Over the last month or so, I have featured several posts on the Putback amendment. The Putback amendment is a proposal by an Illinois activist named John Bambenek that tries to dramatically reform the structure and procedures of our government in order, in the hopes of Bambenek, to make the government more responsive.
The Putback amendment is comprehensive and so I did three separate posts on it. It includes a mechanism to allow the rank and file within the legislature to get their bills to the floor. With this amendment, any legislator would need to get 25 legislators to sign off on a discharge petition and that would get any bill onto the floor. Currently, it only goes through the rules committee and the rules committee is manned by the leadership. It also removes so called “shell bills” which are blank bills that filter through the legislature and allow the legislature to write the meat and bones in private and quickly have it voted on.
The amendment also has language that helps with ballot access. It limits challenges to those that are rooted in fraud and/or deception or ineligibility. It also allows for a more transparent and open process for redistricting. (That’s only the beginning of course so please visit the links for a comprehensive analysis of the amendment)
Over the last month or so, another amendment has been introduced to the public to compete with the Putback amendment. It’s called the Fair Map amendment. The first major difference is that this amendment only deals with the question of redistricting. Currently, the way the law is structured is this: First, a bill has to come out of both chambers and survive a gubernatorial veto. In each time, the Democrats controlled one and the Republicans the other, so that’s never happened. Next, the leadership each pick four people from each party. Then, five of those eight have to agree on a map. Of course, if there’s 4 partisan Republicans and four partisan Democrats on said committee, the chances are slim that any such agreement will be formed. In fact, it’s never happened. The third step is to pick either Democrat or Republican out of a hat (Lincoln’s hat, by the way) and have their map enacted.
The Illinois Fair Map amendment changes this process slightly. The leadership would still have to pick four people, but now they can’t be legislators, staff, lobbyists, etc. Furthermore, the committe must choose a ninth person up front. The map must be drawn based on specific criterion, something the Putback amendment also requires, so that partisanship is eliminated.
According to Bambenek, the first problem here is that this amendment wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Any amendment to the State of Illinois’ constitution must contain two different things: a structural change and a procedural change. In the Putback amendment, a structural change is that the bicameral legislature becomes unicameral. A procedural change is that now a legislator can bring their bill to the floor with 25 votes in a discharge petition.
The Illinois Fair Map amendment only has a procedural change. There is no structural change. So, according to Bambenek, this won’t survive constitutional muster. Yet, the Fair Map amendment, only a month old, is the one receiving all the attention. The Chicago Sun Times has already given it their seal of approval.
The Tribune is probably not far behind. What has the Sun Times said about the Putback amendment? Nothing and ditto for the Tribune. In fact, there’s been scant reporting of the Putback amendment in any of the Chicago media. Bambenek held a press conference in Chicago’s posh Union League Club and the only member of the Chicago media to show was the local Fox affiliate and they didn’t even use the footage in a broadcast.
That almost certainly has everything to do with who’s backing each of the two amendments. The Fair Map amendment is backed by Tom Cross, Illinois House Republican leader, and it’s being helped by the powerful and respected New York law firm, the Brennan Group. That gives the Fair Map amendment credibility the Putback amendment doesn’t have. After all, John Bambenek, the leader of the Putback amendment, is a relative political unknown.
In fact, in the establishment, the issue of constitutionality is dismissed. After all, a respected law firm like the Brennan Group would never get something like that wrong. So, it appears that the Putback V Fair Map amendment will wind up much like everything else here in Illinois politically, the establishment versus the outsiders.
January 3, 2010
Over the last month or so, I have featured several posts on the Putback amendment. The Putback amendment is a proposal by an Illinois activist named John Bambenek that tries to dramatically reform the structure and procedures of our government in order, in the hopes of Bambenek, to make the government more responsive.
The Putback amendment is comprehensive and so I did three separate posts on it. It includes a mechanism to allow the rank and file within the legislature to get their bills to the floor. With this amendment, any legislator would need to get 25 legislators to sign off on a discharge petition and that would get any bill onto the floor. Currently, it only goes through the rules committee and the rules committee is manned by the leadership. It also removes so called “shell bills” which are blank bills that filter through the legislature and allow the legislature to write the meat and bones in private and quickly have it voted on.
The amendment also has language that helps with ballot access. It limits challenges to those that are rooted in fraud and/or deception or ineligibility. It also allows for a more transparent and open process for redistricting. (That’s only the beginning of course so please visit the links for a comprehensive analysis of the amendment)
Over the last month or so, another amendment has been introduced to the public to compete with the Putback amendment. It’s called the Fair Map amendment. The first major difference is that this amendment only deals with the question of redistricting. Currently, the way the law is structured is this: First, a bill has to come out of both chambers and survive a gubernatorial veto. In each time, the Democrats controlled one and the Republicans the other, so that’s never happened. Next, the leadership each pick four people from each party. Then, five of those eight have to agree on a map. Of course, if there’s 4 partisan Republicans and four partisan Democrats on said committee, the chances are slim that any such agreement will be formed. In fact, it’s never happened. The third step is to pick either Democrat or Republican out of a hat (Lincoln’s hat, by the way) and have their map enacted.
The Illinois Fair Map amendment changes this process slightly. The leadership would still have to pick four people, but now they can’t be legislators, staff, lobbyists, etc. Furthermore, the committe must choose a ninth person up front. The map must be drawn based on specific criterion, something the Putback amendment also requires, so that partisanship is eliminated.
According to Bambenek, the first problem here is that this amendment wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Any amendment to the State of Illinois’ constitution must contain two different things: a structural change and a procedural change. In the Putback amendment, a structural change is that the bicameral legislature becomes unicameral. A procedural change is that now a legislator can bring their bill to the floor with 25 votes in a discharge petition.
The Illinois Fair Map amendment only has a procedural change. There is no structural change. So, according to Bambenek, this won’t survive constitutional muster. Yet, the Fair Map amendment, only a month old, is the one receiving all the attention. The Chicago Sun Times has already given it their seal of approval.
Illinois voters, prep your John Hancocks. Citizen petitions began circulating Thursday to fix the perverse way Illinois draws its state legislative districts — a way that stacks the deck in elections in favor of incumbents.
Don’t be shy about signing on the dotted line.
The goal is 500,000 signatures by April, enough to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot asking voters if they want to strip from legislators the power to draw legislative districts and give that power to an independent, bipartisan commission. Nine other states already do it this way.
The Tribune is probably not far behind. What has the Sun Times said about the Putback amendment? Nothing and ditto for the Tribune. In fact, there’s been scant reporting of the Putback amendment in any of the Chicago media. Bambenek held a press conference in Chicago’s posh Union League Club and the only member of the Chicago media to show was the local Fox affiliate and they didn’t even use the footage in a broadcast.
That almost certainly has everything to do with who’s backing each of the two amendments. The Fair Map amendment is backed by Tom Cross, Illinois House Republican leader, and it’s being helped by the powerful and respected New York law firm, the Brennan Group. That gives the Fair Map amendment credibility the Putback amendment doesn’t have. After all, John Bambenek, the leader of the Putback amendment, is a relative political unknown.
In fact, in the establishment, the issue of constitutionality is dismissed. After all, a respected law firm like the Brennan Group would never get something like that wrong. So, it appears that the Putback V Fair Map amendment will wind up much like everything else here in Illinois politically, the establishment versus the outsiders.
Follow me on Twitter