77 Comments - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 10:58 am: He described some of the problems. He offered no solutions. - The Historian - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 10:58 am: Agreed, but OK Rich, what’s the 2nd? - The Captain - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:02 am: I thought his best line was when he turned around Hillary’s “I’m with her” slogan and said “I’m with you”. You may have missed it because it was about 9 hours in during a Castro-length speech but it was a really deft political move. - Pawn - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:04 am: I am as sick as anyone about the shootings and murders in Chicago. And I think there are way too many guns here and throughout the nation. But when we want to lay the blame at Obama’s feet? http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/ - RNUG - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:07 am: == He described some of the problems. He offered no solutions. == Acknowledging a problem exists is the first step to solving. I’m not sure Obama and Hillary even acknowledge there is a problem. Or if they do, they consider it a different problem of too many guns. Starting from that premise won’t fix the underlying socio-economic problems. - jerry in chicago - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:08 am: Hey Rich, what’s number two? Wall Street? NSA? - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:09 am: Agreed. The President, for being a person who can orate very strongly about this nation’s problems, regretfully in a number of areas hasn’t matched his words with conviction and actions to live up to them. Urban crime and pverty is one area. Health care is another, as the ACA needs major work and I don’t hear any acknowledgement of that (and probably won’t until after November). I certainly don’t think Trump would be an improvement though. On the loud thing, this is an affliction of both major candidates. It’s as if they are not familiar with advancements in microphone technology which allow your voice to be amplified without you doing it yourself. - Juice - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:09 am: I agree that it has been a disappointment that the President has not focused more on confronting urban issues and problems that tend to be more unique for larger city settings, especially as it relates to Chicago. But the fact of the matter is that the number of murders in Chicago during Obama’s presidency will almost certainly be lower than during President Bush’s terms in office. So while the numbers are definitely too high (and not going in the right direction), it’s not like things have spiraled out of control so that they’re worse than before he took office. This is mostly just more typical Trump fear mongering. - Clark - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:13 am: I guess making an endorsement in a state rep race is more important than doing more, or at least calling for an end to violence here. It is definitely my #1 disappointment for Obama. - AlfondoGonz - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:13 am: Funny, when I heard Trump deliver that line, my first thought was “The guy who led the birther movement is now calling Chicago President Obama’s home town?” - SOIL M - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:14 am: After Trumps speech, and taking into account how the rest of the convention went i believe the biggest winner of the week will turn out to be the Libertarian Party. - SOIL M - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:16 am: AlfondoGonz— Dont forget the original birthers were the Clintons in 2008. - NoGifts - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:16 am: -Pawn THANK YOU! - Last Bull Moose - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:18 am: Trump was making an emotion based sale. Scary thing is that it might work. Obama has been a disappointment on violence. But then I think that illegal drugs and weak families drive the violence much more than guns. - AlfondoGonz - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:20 am: Soil M- Trump was the most vocal and persistent birther. Hence, “led the birther movement.” Do not move the goal posts or introduce straw men, please and thank you. - BK Bro - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:26 am: What amazes me is how incredibly isolated/segregated the problem is to certain areas. If you lived in the loop, practically anywhere in the north side south of irving park, or in the west loop, and didn’t follow the news you probably wouldn’t even know about the violence. I’ve talked to tourists that come down and stay in the loop and they don’t see a clue of the violence. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:32 am: I have been stunned at how little Obama helped Chicago. Johnson and the Bushes helped Texas immensely. Obama really blew it, but sadly I’m not surprised. He wanted to be a global icon, not a president from Chicago. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:36 am: OK…. what did you expect him to do? Nobody can change that - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:37 am: No single person, I mean. Not even the President. Not with NRA’ers out there. - JackD - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:37 am: What do all you disappointed folks think Obama could have done for the violence problem in Chicago? Can you think of anything the Republican congress would have allowed? - G'Kar - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:39 am: Last night just as Trump started to talk about Chicago, a storm disrupted my satellite signal. My first thought was “Madigan and the thunderstorms he controls!” - MOON - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:43 am: RICH I agree Trumps speech did not provide specifics as to how he will fix the problems he mentioned. However he at least acknowledges the fact that the problems exist. Will Hillary offer specifics of how she plans to fix problems, or for that matter will she even acknowledge that the problems Trump spoke of exist? - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:44 am: ===Acknowledging a problem exists is the first step to solving.=== Lol. OK then, what is the second step, and please cc the Trump campaign because they could use your advice. - @MisterJayEm - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:50 am: “Dont forget the original birthers were the Clintons in 2008.” Nonsense. No contemporaneous accounts suggest any link between the Clinton campaign, let alone Bill or Hillary Clinton, and birther slander. http://pages.citebite.com/w5u3f4b0n0rxh – MrJM - illinois Bob - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:51 am: @47th Ward =Lol. OK then, what is the second step, and please cc the Trump campaign because they could use your advice.= Obviously, bringing the incredible resources of the FBI, DOJ, ATF, and DEA to bear on the Chicago drug trade and street gangs that are the root cause of the virtually all the violence. Tell me you’re smart enough to understand that…I know that Trump is. - A guy - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:56 am: There just hasn’t been any “there” there from the beginning. W was better to this city than O. Just a fact. - Keyser Soze - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 11:59 am: Did someone just blame Chicago’s violence on the NRA? - Streator Curmudgeon - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:06 pm: Saw an interesting program on VICE TV the other night about smuggling guns from states with loose laws (mostly in the South), to states with tighter laws. This load went into Chicago, where the smuggler said he could get 3-4 times what he paid for them (on the black market). Chicago’s violence problem is at least as complicated as America’s unemployment problem. But of course Trump is going to fix all of them. /s - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:10 pm: The problem with Chicago gun crime is the fact that the Police are unable to lock up the less than 2,000 offenders who are causing most of the mayhem because of lenient enforcement of the penalty for carrying an illegal weapon. I would love to hear the President or any local politician explain why we can’t make the penalty for carrying an illegal weapon more severe. - Boone's is Back - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:19 pm: Yea and then two minutes later he proudly boasted his support by the NRA and called himself the “Law and Order” candidate. Anyone can point out problems- we have Fox News for that. But what about the solutions. As you, rightly pointed out, not a single scintilla of a solution presented. - Doug Simpson - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:35 pm: @vanilla: I think he will do alot when he’s out of office. He will be a good Former President, much in the mold of Jimmy Carter. I agree with your point and am not defending him. He was in an untenable situation. If he banned gay marriage and abortion, kicked everyone off of welfare, cut taxes to 0, appointed Right Wing Nut Jobs to the Supreme Court, and said there is no such thing as global warming….Republicans would still have a problem with him. - blue dog dem - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:36 pm: Rich. Same here. TPP and domestic violence. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:41 pm: I’ll wait for HRC to outline, in detail, what she will do to correct all of the problems. Memo: It is a keynote talk, not a long workshop. - Cook County Commoner - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:49 pm: “I would love to hear the President or any local politician explain why we can’t make the penalty for carrying an illegal weapon more severe.” Because a lot of decent people had prior issues with the law, and they cannot legally own a firearm. But they are forced to live in neighborhoods more dangerous than Baghdad because current governance has abandoned them in favor of other special interest groups that lay claim to revenue. - B.C. - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:55 pm: Cherry picking stats to help assign blame for violence in Chicago is a two-way street. There were 432 murders in Chicago in 2014, that was the LOWEST number of murders the city experienced since 1965. Should Obama get credit for that? Of course not. Just like he doesn’t deserve blame for the uptick in violence that occurred last year. Trump’s “It’s Midnight in America” narrative on crime (which our blood-thirsty news media is happy to enable,) is not supported by facts. The national violent crime rate is half of what it was 25 years ago. Chicago’s violence is down by similar rate. That doesn’t mean violence isn’t a problem — it is. But let’s examine it with some perspective. We’re not going to get that from a race-bating, fear-monger like Trump. - Union Thug Gramma - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 12:59 pm: And, if we actually want to do something about this violence, we need a national background check, gun regulation, and penalties for sellers who knowingly do straw purchases…just as a start. Many of these weapons that are used in gang warfare ARE legally purchased, but in other states. Until all states has some basic regulations in place, there are no answers. - CLJ - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:06 pm: Let’s not forget, which is easy to do, that Obama took office during the worst economic recession in over 70 years. The administration had a ton to do to fix that mess for the entire country rather than focus on benefiting Illinois. Then Democrats lost control of Congress to anti-urban Republicans. I can’t blame Obama or be disappointed in what he did or didn’t do. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:06 pm: Prosecutorial discretion would excuse the decent people. I am addressing the 2,000 people causing the mayhem. - frisbee - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:07 pm: ===Obviously, bringing the incredible resources of the FBI, DOJ, ATF, and DEA to bear on the Chicago drug trade and street gangs that are the root cause of the virtually all the violence.==== It was the IRS that got Capone and then re-legalizing alcohol ended much of the violence of that era. Drugs are bad but making them illegal makes the drug trade much worse. - Todd - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:08 pm: Felon in possession is a class 3, which if memory serves me correctly is 2-5. possession by a minor of a handgun is a class 4. this is in addition to the AGUUW charge so if you add in the class 4 and make it consecutively, a person could be facing 6 - 9 years. how much more would you like? - pundent - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:12 pm: Virtually everything that I’ve heard from Trump to date falls into one (or more than one) of the following categories: 1. Racist 2. Dangerous 3. Implausible And that’s when he’s able to actually articulate a thought. Most of the time what he says has no substance or planning attached to it. They’re simply words offered up to get a reaction. - Federalist - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:12 pm: His major points were on target but of course if you are an Obama/Clinton supporter you will naturally disagree. He did not offer specific solutions, but very few of the these Convention speeches ever do and that is true for both political parties. Same goes for State of the Union addresses. Always more theatre than substance. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:13 pm: CLJ, Chicago didn’t need your or his excuses. It needed action. I know Barack from back in the day. He can walk and chew gum at the same time. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:15 pm: ===He did not offer specific solutions=== The understatement of the month! He made promises no human being could ever keep and the sort of promises no major party presidential nominee has ever made. Crime’s gonna come to a complete stop next January? Seriously? The Tooth Fairy is more believable. - walker - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:18 pm: Good points Rich. For the doubters, looking for solutions, Trump finished that section of his speech with: “America will be safer on January 20.” and “I alone can fix it.” Okay then. - pundent - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:29 pm: Federalist - His major points have been fact checked (Pawn previously provided one of many sources) by any number of outlets and largely debunked as over exaggerations, misrepresentations, and in some instances complete fabrications. So the absence of any specific solutions is not unexpected. And I’m saying this as neither an Obama/Clinton supporter. I belong to the realist party where we like to call out (banned word) when we see it. - benniefly2 - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:35 pm: Donald Trump sounds like he is trying to lay all of the blame for the United States failed 40+ year ‘War on Drugs’ at the feet of the current President. That is simply ridiculous.I would love to hear a simple solution to the gang violence on the south side that is being driven by the drug trade. Even if you arrest 5000 gang members tomorrow, there will still be a problem. The demand for the product they are selling will still exist. And since there aren’t a lot of jobs or money to be had on the south side, that demand will drive the demand for jobs and money to supply that product to suburban kids and whoever else needs their fix. What was the President supposed to do? I still hear snide references to ‘Obama Phones’ on a weekly basis about a program that has nothing to do with President Obama. Now imagine what would have been said, the accusations that would have been leveled, if he were to have proposed creating thousands of random good paying federal government jobs just to give to folks on the south side in a targeted attempt to tamp down the violence? You think the congressional GOP folks would of gone ‘Great idea! Let’s do that!’? You think the the folks driving the birther movement, which still somehow exists, would have gone, ‘Hey… That is a nice thing you are trying to do for Chicago. We applaud your effort and hope you succeed.’ Really??? - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:52 pm: ===What was the President supposed to do?=== That’s my greatest dislike of Obamaniacs. Always handy with the excuses for his inability to get things done. That’s not to say he hasn’t gotten some things done. He has. But when it comes to his home town? Man, Texas is still spending LBJ’s money. - SenBillC - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:01 pm: “Best point of the night” Just did some math on murders in Chicago under two-term presidents since Richard Nixon occupied the White House. (Primary source: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/07/chicagocrime.html) Nixon (6 years): 4,896 murders in Chicago Reagan: 5,794 Clinton: 6,151 Bush: 4,260 Obama (7.5 years): 3,558 So just what was Trump’s point? Based on his metric, Chicago is safer now than it’s been at any time during the past half century. - Judgement Day - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:05 pm: Everybody is looking for a ‘magic solution’ to ongoing violence in Chicago. And, no luck. Maybe it’s because we’re focusing on guns, and not on the real ‘tool’ that is enabling much of the violence. Think: Communications. Likely most of the types committing the violence are carrying at least one smartphone, if not more than one. I’ve seen reports that the law enforcement has already established identities of a substantial portion of the individuals with violent tendencies. If you can monitor their cell phones from remote (and we know it is possible), law enforcement starts to have options. For example, to use your smartphone, you have to have the battery in, and as a result, the smartphone is broadcasting your location to the cell towers, so you are being tracked. And those GPS coordinates are broadcast several times per minute. You don’t need to track everybody and their brother, just the people on the list. Now, imagine that the computers are tracking smartphones and all the sudden you have a set of circumstances where multiple smartphones are moving from a very similar location, all at the same time. Maybe they are all located in the same vehicle? Might want to look into that. And take it a step further. Let’s say gunfire erupts along the route being taken at roughly the same time the multiple locations were in the same area. Interesting coincidence? Now, are there going to be a whole lot of civil liberty questions and issues? Oh, yeah. And that’s putting it mildly. But, it’s an approach. And who’s civil rights are being violated to a greater level? The Shooters or the (potential) targets? But, a major problem currently is that the shooters are mobile. If you want to reduce the violence, you have to reduce their mobility. It’s a far better solution to this problem than the ‘wack-a-mole’ approach currently being taken on guns. Focus on the process. Analyze the process, and provide law enforcement with more timely intelligence to either interdict the potential shooters before they can take action, or at least put them under a spotlight whenever they are moving. Bluntly, right now the shooters are using their mobile technology to get inside law enforcement’s OODA loop. Law enforcement needs to catch up. ‘Communications’ is currently a strong point for the shooters. Turn it into their weak point. Just a thought. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:06 pm: ===Based on his metric=== Use any metric you want. Then head to West Garfield Park for the weekend and let us know how that goes on Monday. - Nat - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:13 pm: Hey Rich, this is worth a read, I think, especially in the context of our budget crisis, but his argument is relevant at the federal level, too. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/opinion/blood-on-your-hands-too.html - Amalia - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:23 pm: Indianapolis is in the top ten for violent crime by the last FBI UCR. Chicago is not. the more timely question is, what has Pence done for Indianapolis? - Amalia - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:30 pm: also, it’s apparent that many people have not been listening to what Hillary has been saying about problems and solutions. from the beginning of her campaign. read her kick off speech. she is, and has always been, super substance driven on both the problem and the solution side. think she doesn’t see the police? she went to the NAACP convention this week and about half or more of the speech was about police, and shootings, and support before she got anywhere near community justice issues, and then she gave texture to that. infrastructure, she’s been talking about that for months. college loans too. listen to what she says, read her positions. she is the only thing keeping us from a third world dictator as our nation’s cheerleader and his lobbyist friends eating our economy for lunch. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:31 pm: Sadly, I suspect that Obama used Chicago merely as a stepping stone and he will not be returning here in retirement. - SenBillC - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:35 pm: Rich, I’m not arguing that violence isn’t a big problem in Chicago. Of course it is. And I’ll even agree that Obama has failed to mobilize the federal government to address the problem. One could argue that Nixon put a bigger emphasis on combating urban violence than Obama has. But Trump is trying to convince people that we have fallen into a crime-ridden dystopia under Obama — and that’s just not true. A weekend visit to one of Chicago’s most crime ridden neighborhoods is no more dangerous now than it was in 1974 or 1994. In fact, one could easily argue it’s statistically less dangerous today. - benniefly2 - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:37 pm: To be fair, I think there was plenty of stuff the President could have done on a lot of issues that he had the authority to do (Guantanamo, NSA surveillance, etc) and yet he did not act. I agree with that. I am sure my list of items of Obama failures would not match the list of items presented by other folks, though. That being said, I do not believe that ending the drug war in Englewood and North Lawndale was one of those things he could have unilaterally done without somehow putting Chicago under permanent martial law. Besides, its likely the markets would have moved to different neighborhoods even if he had put a third of the City under lockdown somehow. I will agree to disagree on this point, I suppose. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:43 pm: Don’t confuse “truthiness” with “truth.” The former is the real currency of political speeches. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:48 pm: ===In fact, one could easily argue it’s statistically less dangerous today.=== I’m sure that’s a comfort to the residents. - SenBillC - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:53 pm: Of course it’s no comfort to the residents. Either is Trump’s race-bating. - SenBillC - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 2:54 pm: *Neither - A guy - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:30 pm: He even wavered on the Library being here. He’ll be staying in DC after leaving office for a year or two. Chicago was just a ladder. They’re not coming back. He’s never had the Chicago gut like an LBJ did. That dude sweat oil and peed Texas Tea. - Federalist - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:31 pm: - pundent - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 1:29 pm: Federalist - His major points have been fact checked (Pawn previously provided one of many sources) by any number of outlets and largely debunked as over exaggerations, misrepresentations, and in some instances complete fabrications. So the absence of any specific solutions is not unexpected. “And I’m saying this as neither an Obama/Clinton supporter. I belong to the realist party where we like to call out (banned word) when we see it. ” So do you find HRC significantly more credible? And who will you vote for this Fall? - JackD - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:33 pm: Rich, LBJ had a Democratic congress. Someone asked what you would have had him do. I don’t think you answered that. Saying LBJ did a lot (unspecified) for Texas is no answer. @benniefly2, I assume you know that Congress refused to allow Guantanamo prisoners to be transferred to the United States (Illinois wanted that federal prison) and many countries refused to accept their nationals return. Trump to the contrary notwithstanding, presidents cannot simply snap their fingers to get things done. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:37 pm: ===LBJ had a Democratic congress=== BHO had a Dem congress for two years, then lost it. - A guy - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:44 pm: ===LBJ had a Democratic congress=== And he used it primarily to pound through every Civil Rights law JFK promised. Yet he still had time to develop a Space Center from Houston all the way down to Galveston and turn his entire state into the HQ of the Dept. of Energy. 20 years after dying, he still willed the super collider to TX instead of Batavia. He didn’t just deliver bacon. He delivered pigs. - Mama - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:50 pm: Obama could only do what the Republican Congress allowed him to do. The Republican Congress did not allow Obama to send help to Chicago because they want to change the color of Chicago to their side. - pundent - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:50 pm: So do you find HRC significantly more credible? I have no idea what you mean by “significantly more credible”. If we’re talking about property development the answer would be a resounding no, Trump is clearly “significantly more credible”. If the question is who is “significantly more credible” on domestic and foreign affairs the answer is obviously Clinton. They’ve each had successes and I would not deny either of them that. With regards to who will I be voting for the only thing I can tell you at this point is that it won’t be Trump. - NIU Grad - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:51 pm: The only “Illinois-centric” positive from this administration was funding from LaHood, who only lasted one term. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:52 pm: ===Obama could only do what the Republican Congress allowed him to do=== More excuses. - Mama - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:53 pm: “BHO had a Dem congress for two years, then lost it.” Rich, I would love to hear your explanation on how & why President Obama lost the Democratic Congress. - Mama - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:57 pm: How does one solve the socio-economic problems of Chicago? - JackD - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:00 pm: Some excuses are good. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:00 pm: Hard to believes even though we have the President and the # 2 Senate Democrat it seems we got more help from Washington when Dan Rostenkowski was Ways and Means Chairman. - Enviro - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:13 pm: Question: How does one solve the socio-economic problems of Chicago? Answer: Provide quality early childhood education programs. This is something that Obama has worked hard to provide for disadvantaged children. - SenBillC - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:14 pm: The President could have, and should have, used the full force of the Justice Department to crackdown on crime in Chicago’s most dangerous neighborhoods — both with federal prosecutions and federal manpower. There are a whole lot of federal agents based in Chicago who could have been shifted to this work and no act of Congress would have been necessary. - A guy - Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:17 pm: Rosty delivered. Lipinski delivered. Hyde delivered. Hastert delivered. LaHood delivered. Obama delivered….speeches. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.