Rahm Emanuel

An Illinois court, in a 2-1 vote, put Rahm Emanuel’s bid for Chicago mayor on hold [court opinion-pdf]. Rahm was the frontrunner in the polls and has been a fundraising juggernaut. The issue is whether he meets the one year residency requirement for the office, given he was living in the Washington DC as Obama’s Chief of Staff. The rationale behind the residency requirement is an attempt to ensure that the candidate knows the wants and needs of her/his constituents.

The court made various legal distinctions and ruled that he did not meet candidacy eligibility. While “carpetbagging” is nothing new in politics, the statutory laws in Illinois specify voter and candidate eligibility. While Rahm would be eligible to vote, he was not deemed eligible to be a candidate. His lawyers tried to use the remedy that he was in service of “business of the United States” as a reason for his not physically being in Chicago. The court interpreted the statute as only applying to voting.

While going after Rahm’s standing may be politically motivated, it nevertheless does bring up an interesting question on how the Illinois law should be interpreted. Proponents of allowing him on the ballot state that he is a Chicagoan and had every intent of returning to Chicago after his stint in Washington DC. Another argument is that it would be unfair to disallow his candidacy, likening his situation to a military person serving outside his home district and citing his history of being in Chicago.

On the other hand, is there something to the statute that requires a candidate for office to be physically present for a year in order to be eligible? Is Rahm somehow less qualified, possibly less in touch with his constituents, because he wasn’t in Chicago all year? Is this a matter of the rules being the rules and leaving the White House when he did, as opposed to earlier, was a risk he took on?

I feel he should have known better and if he knew he was going to run in February of 2010, he should have quit the White House then or at least have shown a commitment to being in the Chicago area on weekends, etc., between February of 2010 {or earlier} and when he moved to Chicago in October of 2010. Why? The statute is clear and him at least showing some commitment to being physically present shows a deference to the spirit of the law. Hindsight is 20/20 and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Some pundits say Rahm is to big of a player to be benched on the sidelines. He’s pretty confident that he will prevail, but, then again, it’s Rahm talking.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thoughts on the court decision taking #RahmEmanuel off the Chicago mayor ballot @ThickCulture

Notes from North of 49ºN

The above AP video shows Pennsylvania House of Representatives member Joe Sestak, who beat White House supported Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary talking about an unpaid job offer discussed by Bill Clinton last year. The skinny is that Rahm Emanuel greenlighted Bill Clinton offering Joe Sestak an unpaid position of influence in consideration for not running against Specter in the 2010 primary. Sestak declined. This wasn’t enough for Republican Rep. Darrell Issa or pundit Liz Cheney. Issa is claiming that this will be Obama’s Watergate and citing 18 U.S.C. § 201 on bribery and wants an investigation. {As an aside, Issa was instrumental in the 2003 California Gubernatorial recall election that replaced Gray Davis with Arnold Schwartzenegger}. Cheney wants the same, accusing the White House of a smokescreen::

The U.S.C. bribery statute clarifies what consists of a bona-fide bribe, which hinges on the influence of an “official act”. What is an official act? Here is is:

“the term ‘official act’ means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.” [*]

The idea is to limit influence on law, not a decision to run for office. While I’m not a fan of Emanuel or these types of tactics, I see this as politics-as-usual and within the scope of the law. I think pressing this one is a lost cause and more blowing smoke, but it may well be “run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-who-salutes” season. Happy Memorial Day.

And they call Toronto The Big Smoke.

Song:: Ben Folds Five-‘Smoke’

Twitterversion:: [blog – #ThickCulture] Sestak-Clinton-@WhiteHouse controversy. Whose smokescreen is it anyway or much ado about nothing? @Prof_K

Tonight is Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Let’s hope it’s more exciting than Steve Job’s iPad announcement and I’m sure many Dems. hope it elicits less ridicule.

The WSJ has an even article on Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, about how he’s taking heat from the left.

“The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.

‘F—ing retarded,’ Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.”

From a strategic perspective, I feel both the Republicans and Democrats are rudderless. The Republicans have taken potshots at Obama and the Democrats, but don’t have a unifying vision. The Democrats led by Obama are taking heat for not addressing the problems-at-hand head-on and the left wing of the party feels the administration is compromising ideology.

A year ago, Obama was ushered in on a mandate of change. Emanuel is a Clintonian centrist and deals in a raw pragmatism in the service of getting things done. So, while many in the Democratic party in wake of the loss of Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in Massachusetts {hey, I spelled it right, unlike Coakley} think the party should go more centrist. Strategically, the Obama administration needs to address the concerns of the people in effective ways. While Emanuel’s centrist pragmatism may seem like a reasonable way to push policies through, it’s passive. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush was good at changing the game with the help of Karl Rove. Jon Stewart for weeks has lambasted the Dems. for focusing so much on retaining a filibuster-proof Senate majority, something W never had. While it could be argued that this is because of many centrist constituencies that Senators are beholden to, I see a dearth of effective communication and policies that people can get behind.

The lack of support on health care reform is a perfect storm. The right has framed it as a government interventionist boondoggle and the left have failed to communicate what they perceive the stakes to be. I see “centrist pragmatism” as resulting in the proposed healthcare legislation, which is overly complex, hard to understand, and reeks of compromise.  As we’ll see below, healthcare is now the “wrong” issue, no matter how hard politicians try to spin it as being tied to the economy.

Rahm’s centrism is wrongheaded, but blindly following a hard left agenda would also be a mistake. I think the Obama administration needs to look at the priorities of the people and the challenge will be to craft policy addressing these and communicating how the policy will effect change.

What are the public’s priorities?  According to a Pew Research study conducted earlier in the month, overall, the economy is looming large as a concern::

Terrorism is third, with the Christmas airline bombing attempt fresh in people’s minds. The next three are interesting with possible drivers:: social security {decimated retirement plans and obliterated pensions}, education {rising costs}, and Medicare {rising pharmaceutical costs}. Breaking things down by ideological lines, the following pattern emerges::

Interestingly, what matters to all groups is pretty similar. Healthcare is only in the top 5 for Democrats, painting the issue as partisan, given its divisiveness.

What to do? All roads lead to the economy and while the deficit is a concern, strategically, I see populist Keynesian measures that put people to work as a way to win over independents, appeal to the Democratic base, and would be hard for Republicans to fight.

Twitterversion:: Centrist pragmatist R. Emanuel under fire from left-Democrats, but what about people’s priorities? Insights fr. Pew data. http://url.ie/4sen  @Prof_K