Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Old man Ricketts has a new problem

Posted in:

Illinois

* Cub family patriarch Joe Ricketts’ PR problems continue. New York Times…

[Ricketts] is involved in another effort slated for this summer, a documentary film based on a widely criticized book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza, which asserts that Mr. Obama is carrying out the “anticolonial” agenda of his Kenyan father.

Mr. Ricketts’s aides said he was one of roughly two dozen investors, providing only 5 percent of the film’s budget. But his involvement shows how the more strident attacks against Mr. Obama, which Mr. Romney’s aides view as counterproductive, continue to find backing even as the Republican Party and the Romney campaign seek to keep the focus on the economy.

The episode involving the proposed Wright advertisement put new attention on the ability of wealthy donors, working with groups independent of the candidates, to shape the presidential race, and stoked further debate about whether outside groups were driving politics to become increasingly negative. […]

In explaining the rejection of the Wright proposal questioning Mr. Obama’s character, which was drafted after Mr. Ricketts held two meetings with the strategists behind it, a top aide said that it reflected “an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects” and that his role this year would “be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally.”

Yet the film Mr. Ricketts is helping to finance, called “2016: Obama’s America,” is built on the premise that “Obama has a dream, a dream from his father, that the sins of colonialism be set right and America be downsized,” according to a trailer.

Oops.

Old man Ricketts can’t throw a consultant under the bus this time around. This one is all on him. And it ain’t pretty. Downsizing America to fullfill his African father’s dream of ending colonialism? Yeah. OK.

* More…

An early glimpse of his views on Mr. Obama can be found in a June 2010 graduation speech he gave at Bellevue University in Nebraska, for which he is a leading benefactor. Lamenting the banking and auto bailouts, he declared, “Our Republic is under assault from our government,” adding the historical note that “most of the past threats have come from outside our borders.”

He called this “a most dangerous time,” when “people begin to second-guess the American experiment” and “flirt with dead-ends like socialism.” It was in that climate, he said, that he had decided to become more personally involved in politics.

Mr. Ricketts’s aides said he was primarily motivated by his concern for the budget deficit and government spending.

He detests government spending unless, of course, it’s being spent on his family.

* What I want to know is, where the heck is the Chicago media on this story? Why is the NYT scooping them so often on the Ricketts?

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:36 am

Comments

Someone may have pointed that out here yesterday..

The Tribune is too busy on the pensions to cover anything else

Comment by western illinois Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:41 am
Um, shouldn’t the American president be in favor of ending colonialism? Isn’t that the whole American Revolution/Declaration of Independence/Founding Fathers thing? This is a good thing, yes?

Comment by Lakeview Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:42 am
Maybe they believe in free speech and encourage a wide range of political views? And, maybe even hope that buying a ball club doesn’t trump an individual’s first amendment rights? Or even maybe, and I know this sounds quaint, that decisions by Chicago’s Mayor may be based on the merits of a proposal not the political leanings of the proposer?

Comment by walter sobchak Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:46 am
I think a 12 game losing streak and 16-32 record is a bigger problem in the long run.

That said, Ricketts needs some swiss cheese to go with the holes in his story.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:47 am
Funny how someone whose stated goal is reducing government spending is so obsessed with racially-based attacks on the president who has dramatically cut government spending.

Comment by 44 Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:48 am
===Maybe they believe in free speech and encourage a wide range of political views? ===

As do I. However, it’s been shown at least twice now that the old man was fibbing when he said his opposition would be based solely on gvt. spending. That’s a very big problem for him.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:49 am
How come it seems that some of the conservatives continually deriding America’s ‘entitlement mentality’ spending are the ones with the biggest entitlement mindsets themselves???

Mr Rickets needs to use his own money to fix his ballpark.

train111

Comment by train111 Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:51 am
Perhaps the Sun-Times would cover this story, if only they hadn’t turned over the news hole to “our favorite Chicagoans.”

Note to Joe Ricketts: Chicago ain’t Omaha. And you’re exponentially increasing the price your kids must pay to seal the Wrigley Field renovation deal.

Comment by Northsider Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:51 am
=== What I want to know is, where the heck is the Chicago media on this story? Why is the NYT scooping them so often on the Ricketts? ===

new york has *much* better journalists…

Comment by bored now Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:04 am
===Maybe they believe in free speech and encourage a wide range of political views?===

That’s cool, but don’t pour millions into funding attacks on government spending and political figures you’re prejudiced against while asking for taxpayer help to refurbish your kids’ new toy.

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:04 am
The Chicago media doesn’t cover anyone. Mike Madigan.gan,Lisa Madigan get passes except for puff pieces, Rahm nothing critical I think murders are uP over 50% since he took office but why dwell on that it unsafe to go to the beach because of gangs, but he held a NATO summit that left Chicago deserted on a beautiful weekend. Any coverage on Ald burkes complete control of handing out judge appointments. The Chicago media has been house broken and is useless for any type of critical coverage.

Comment by Fed up Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:05 am
Personally, I always celebrate anti-colonialism on July 4.

Walter, Ricketts seems to be exercising his 1st Amendment Rights just fine. He’s not a victim because someone calls him on his nonsense.

–“Our Republic is under assault from our government,”…

–He called this “a most dangerous time,” when “people begin to second-guess the American experiment” and “flirt with dead-ends like socialism.” –

Ooh, scary. Who writes this junk, anyway?

Ricketts certainly seems to be “second-guessing the American experiment.” He wouldn’t want to “flirt” with what he calls the “dead-end socialism” of government investment in a privately entity like a dead-end ballclub.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:10 am
“What I want to know is, where the heck is the Chicago media on this story? Why is the NYT scooping them so often on the Ricketts?”

The Chicago press is busy preparing their next hagiography: Garry McCarthy: Savior or Messiah?

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:20 am
Uh, doesn’t the Tribune Co. have continued commercial relationships with the family?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:23 am
Yeah, when I think of our President, “Rage” is one of the first words that springs to mind.

No wonder the Weekly Standard’s review of the book criticized it for “misstatements of fact, leaps in logic, and pointlessly elaborate argumentation.”

On a side note, there’s some awful irony in an Indian immigrant to the U.S. defending colonialism.

Anyone know how the Ricketts family ended up in Nebraska?

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:23 am
Can Mr. Ricketts finance a new left handed bat or starting pitcher? How many more times is Mr. Ricketts going to say “I had no clue?” Calling the President an anti-colonialist? Come on! I obviously believe in the first amendment, but come on, don’t ask for taxpayer money for Wrigley while running a SuperPAC called the Ending Spending Fund, and helping fund people like Mr. D’Souza!

Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:24 am
== And, maybe even hope that buying a ball club doesn’t trump an individual’s first amendment rights? Or even maybe, and I know this sounds quaint, that decisions by Chicago’s Mayor may be based on the merits of a proposal not the political leanings of the proposer? ==

Well part of the first amendment isn’t your speech is without consequences and those consequences can take on many forms. I am free to say what I want about Rich and he is free to ban me from the site.

However, to some degree you do give up (or at least limit) your first amendment rights when you own a baseball team or any pro sports team. It’s part of the deal of ownership (Just ask Marge Schott).

As for his political views not impacting his relationship with the City of Chicago, besides the nice thought behind that statement most actions of government are to some extent governed by politics (that is the nature of government here) but also one could argue that public statements about the spending of public funds made by the owner of any enterprise within the state should be at least considered when state support is asked for.

Would it be good government to ‘give’ money to someone who feels such money should not generally be given?

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:26 am
–Uh, doesn’t the Tribune Co. have continued commercial relationships with the family?–

Cubs broadcasts on WGN radio and TV, which are also news outlets.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:26 am
Lakeview, I was thinking the same thing. Are we all pretty much anti-colonial? I would be a bit alarmed if some candidate for president started talking about reunification with the UK.

Comment by Flippy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:26 am
Nobody has to read any books by any author, the old man appears to be doing quite well

Comment by Duh Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:29 am
Walter, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that abridge a person’s right to free speech. A bloviating billionaire who repeatedly says things that offend large portions of the public is on his own. Words have consequences.

Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:30 am
Is it really that surprising that the Trib isn’t receiving leaks from someone looking for a liberal-friendly outlet? And moreover regarding an individual who recently gave them a lot of money while they were in bankruptcy court?

That basically leaves Carol Marin to potentially cover this and frankly this isnt really her kind of story. That’s not a criticism, I just don’t see her writing it.

Comment by Dirt Digger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:33 am
is there a cubs fans against ricketts subsidies pac? if not i think i may just incorporate it. rich what are your ad rates? im only half kidding.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:39 am
== Why is the NYT scooping them so often on the Ricketts? ==

Because in the end, Ricketts is going to get a bucketful of public money, and calling attention to these repeated indiscretions is going to cause much embarrassment to Rahm and Chicago at the check signing party.

Comment by Pillory Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:46 am
“…the president who has so dramatically cut government spending.” What Kool Aid has been being served at your house? Hey, Rickets et al can say what they want. There will be plenty of money generated from the other side saying what they want to say. That is the nature of politics. Please don’t try to foster the argument that all the moey is with the Republican Party. Just look at who contributed to the Obama campaign last time around. This is part of what all the men and women who have died for our country fought for. Enjoy it.

Comment by johhnypizza Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 10:54 am
Perhaps the Ricketts family can solve their problems by moving the Cubs to Nebraska City. Joe may have more pull with his hometown’s government, and there are a lot fewer “you people” the family can drive away from the team.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:09 am
the cubs are still going to get a ridiculously good deal, the city will get screwed the way the city of boston got screwed when theo’s old boss larry luchino put together this kind of deal in boston 10 years ago, and bro’s are still going to shell out bucks so they can watch the soriano/gary scott/candy maldanado flavor of the day flail about while they ogle the 23 year old blonde sitting 3 rows away.

Dick Durbin showing up at wrigley the day after this whole thing broke (I think we see more of him on tv sitting in seats next to the on deck circle in the summer than we do actually doing his job), playing nice told you all you need to know about any effect this will have on the deal’s future. Rahm needs wrigley to be a smashing success so that young professionals will want to come to chicago and ignore the awful winters and fact it’s in the middle of nowhere and doesn’t have as good an economy as nyc or san fran.

The dad is a greedy nutty old fart, we knew that coming in. That’s life, but the kids to me have come off as spoiled brats trying to play the fans as suckers from day 1 and I’ll have a very hard time supporting them. As we discussed 2 weeks ago, I and most cub fans expect this team to suck for the next 3-4 years and that’s before they trade off what pieces are left. Good luck selling this kind of act when they’re pushing 110 losses again next year.

White Sox fans should pull up a chair and enjoy the mess.

Comment by Shore Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:12 am
Maybe the NY media has nothing better to cover. Whatever this Ricketts temepest in a teapot is about, he’s just a guy who owns a ball club. This is beginning to read like some TMZ non-story flap. I honestly do not know if there is some sinister outcome that I am missing. Businessmen wanting taxpayer subsidies isn’t news, hypocrisy isn’t news. Sincerely, what is the news here?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:15 am
=== Rickets et al can say what they want. ===

Well, actually, Freedom of Speech doesn’t include the right to lie.

Beyond that, however, Ricketts can do as he pleases.

But I would generally advise against using tirades against “Big Government Spending” as your cover story for attacking the president when you’re seeking a $150 million government subsidy.

Speaking of balanced budgets, the Chicago Cubs have the second-highest debt of any team in the country.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:16 am
I can understand Mr. Ricketts’ dislike of President Obama. The incomes of the rich have dropped dramatically in the last three years, so much so that the rich are threatened with extinction. Corporations have also been posting record or near-record losses, and CEO compensation is at an all time low.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:17 am
Has the Congress passed a new anti-sedition act barring any criticism of President Obama and his administration? For a former Constitutional Law instructor, Obama and his adherents certainly have little tolerance for the First Amendment.

Comment by Esquire Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:21 am
Tribune, too busy focusing on the minute number of prisoners released due to new evidence, plus the ownership conflict, they will always be the Cub paper. Sun Times, the story cannot be completely told in pictures…..of celebrities.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:24 am
Is it time for Joe Ricketts to go on vacation yet?

Next thing you know, Tom Ricketts will go to all the American posessions like Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico and let them know we Americans, including President Obama love they are a part of the USA, and Colonialism isn’t a dirty word, and Tom Ricketts is a big fan of the President.

I wish Tom Ricketts well with that.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:31 am
== But I would generally advise against using tirades against “Big Government Spending” as your cover story for attacking the president when you’re seeking a $150 million government subsidy.==

Why? I can lobby hard to change the ‘Collect $200 as you pass GO’ rule in Monopoly, but until it changes for all players, I will gladly collect it.

Why put myself at a disadvantage?

Comment by Pillory Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:35 am
–Businessmen wanting taxpayer subsidies isn’t news, hypocrisy isn’t news.–

Since when?

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:39 am
==–Uh, doesn’t the Tribune Co. have continued commercial relationships with the family?–

Cubs broadcasts on WGN radio and TV, which are also news outlets. ==

And I believe in the sale, the Trib retained something like a 5% ownership stake as a way for Zell and Co. to avoid a huge tax liability or something like that.

Comment by Randolph Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:42 am
This certainly is a story that needs to be covered and uncovered. Hopefully with Rich’s post this will draw attention to it, and many news people read this blog. Let’s see who will jump on this.

I defected to Wrigley field yesterday to bring some South Side luck to the Cubs, it worked, they broke thier losing streak.

I looked around, and saw so much work that needs to be done at Wrigley. It is not family friendly, I had to go down one ramp to bring my son to the facilities, then walk aways and go down another ramp to the ladies facilities, for starters.

There are so many structural issues it was really overwhelming. Was this a state of the art Stadium 98 years ago? Or was it built cheaply to get it up and running?

Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:44 am
–For a former Constitutional Law instructor, Obama and his adherents certainly have little tolerance for the First Amendment.–

The First Amendment protects you from criticism and disagreement? Who knew?

Poor Joe of Arc, the burning martyr for the First Amendment.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:44 am
“Joe Ricketts, while leaving for a ‘long planned vacation’ was asked about the controversy had a one sentence response to the criticism.

‘Usually after I say something, I get the response, “Yes, Mr. Ricketts.” so I am just confused that I didn’t hear that this time.’”

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:53 am
I’ve always believe the Cub had bigger problems than just a goat. This seems to confirm that belief.

Comment by Deep South Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 11:58 am
JOE RICKETTS INFILTRATES RIGHT WING GROUP - EXPOSES PLOT, RICKETTS KIDS LABEL DAD ‘HERO’

That one is for free, Tom.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:00 pm
- walter sobchak - Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 9:46 am:
Walter, Walter, Walter –
“?Or even maybe, and I know this sounds quaint, that decisions by Chicago’s Mayor may be based on the merits of a proposal not the political leanings of the proposer?”

Dearest Walter, as you probably know, the world is full of meritorious proposals, and the City and State have extremely limited resources. Personally, I would rather see $300 MM spent on investing in the West Side, in the Garfield Park area. But the Cubs proposal probably has more widespread popular support. So in a world full of worthy proposals that could generate economic development, I can understand why the Mayor would choose to invest in Wrigley, although I personally oppose this plan.

However, if Mr. Ricketts continues to flap his jaws and draw attention both to his political views (which are at odds with the views of most Chicagoans) and to his opposition to any public spending that does not directly benefit him and his family, then it would certainly make sense for the Mayor to choose to make that $300 MM investment in another worthy and less controversial project.

Mr. Ricketts certainly has a First Amendment right to say anything that floats through his cerebrum. And Mayor Emanuel has a responsibility to spend public dollars in ways that benefit the public, as well as a political incentive to spend them in a way that the public finds reasonable and beneficial.

If Mr. Ricketts has the right to say anything he likes (which he certainly does, this being America and not a colony of Great Britain), then Mayor Emanuel has both incentive and obligation to direct public dollars as he sees fit.

Under the First Amendment, I have the right to tell the readers of my Facebook page that my boss is a dolt and a poopyhead. I can do this without fear of imprisonment. I will, however, lose my job. The First Amendment protects my freedom of speech, but it does not give me the right to say and publish anything I want without consequence.

If you have any other questions, I would be glad to come and speak to your civics class.

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:04 pm
The New York Times took this story to the “Scooby-Doo” ending, with Joe Ricketts responding, “I would have gotten away with this too, if it wasn’t for these meddling newsies.”

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:04 pm
When you’re figuring why the NY media is breaking a story about the Republican Ricketts family, you might also want to ask why the Trib, Sun-Times and Daily Herald missed the stories about Mark Kirk election cycle after election cycle.

The stories about Kirk’s fraudulent military service broke in the NYT, WP, on Cap Fax and on blogs.

Not that anyone would ever suggest the Trib and Daily Herald are in the tank for the GOP or that the Sun-Times is in the tank for the Israel Lobby…

BTW, how does the Trib reconcile minimizing Henry Hyde’s role in Clyde S&L and the entire S&L debacle, but justify maximiizing Alexi Giannoulias’ non role in the collapse of Broadway?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:08 pm
Big deal. I pay this man as much attention as I do Donald Trump, Alec Baldwin, etc.

Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:17 pm
Joe Ricketts is a member of the radical right and in in own estimation a job provider. One of those guys who robbers from the poor to give to the rich.The Republicans are loaded with these guys, his son quite naturally would like to do this with the Cubs.Why pay on your own dime when we can
load it on the middle class and lower class Taxpayer. After all the Cubs can afford to dump players and pay other teams to take them.
To think the people of Illinois are going to just,roll over when you slam the 1st President from Illinois since Lincoln is nuts.

Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:17 pm
FED-UP Oh please…right now the Tribbies have at least three reporters working to feverishly portrait 6 yeaer-old Madigan votes as huge scandal…it isn’t but they will report it that way.

Meanwhile it is truly disheartening that old man Ricketts seems bent to use race as the wedge issue in his hate speech campaign against the Preisdent. It suggest he has retained WhackyJack Roeser as a policy mentor.

It is very troubling that a mind that disturbed has a role in a major IL entity like the Cubs.

Hopefully his family is smart enough to put their big stadium plan back in the closet for a year.

We don’t think Trump & Baldwin are pushing their hate speech and looking for a government hand out

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:28 pm
I’m not sure you guys understand anti-colonialism or decolonization. In the sense of the academic or social activism definition, the terms refer to historically-marginalized groups and peoples using their agency to make their own strategic choices politically, socially, and economically in order to break down the effects of institutional and cultural racism.

Comment by Aaron Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:29 pm
I wish my enemies were this crazy.

Comment by The Captain Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:30 pm
If Old Man Ricketts is throwing his money around to break into the movies, I have the perfect summer blockbluster:

“Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter II: Son of Barackula.”

Roll the clip:

–VO: In a world gone mad, the 16th President returns to Illinois to battle the vampire son of a raging anti-colonial Kenyan intent on downsizing America for the sins of colonialism.

–Lincoln: You won’t find a birth certificate… he’s The Socialist Undead.

–This time…. it’s personal. –

With the proper funding, I could turn this notion into a concept. Joe, let’s take a meeting.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:32 pm
The Republicans should be unhappy because the money didn’t get spent publicizing the state of the economy, and the Democrats should be happy that the money didn’t get spent publicizing the state of the economy.

Would the Democrats have preferred that instead of wasting the money on some wacked out ‘documentary’ film, that Joe Ricketts spent the money instead on publicizing the state of the economy?

“I and most cub fans expect this team to suck for the next 3-4 years and that’s before they trade off what pieces are left. Good luck selling this kind of act when they’re pushing 110 losses again next year.”

Shore, that’s way short sighted. But if that fits your narrative, then go for it. But IMO, you need to pay more attention to the minors.

Last year Tom Ricketts made some really strong moves and spent a ton of money on the farm system. He told everybody that he was going to rebuild the Cubs organization top to bottom, and he did it. Then he told everybody his priority was to rebuild the Cubs minor leagues (and invest a lot of money doing it), and that it would take multiple years, and again, he’s doing it. He’s been doing exactly what he said he would do.

The biggest problem this year is that Bud Selig and his cronies changed the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) in regards to the MLB draft and how overslot spending is now treated (hint: It’s way way punitive to any club that goes ‘over slot’ for draft picks).

That’s one area the Cubs were not shy about taking advantage of over the past year. But it’s a tactic that’s not available now unless a club is ready to lose future draft picks. It was a favored tactic of the deep pocketed ball clubs like the Yankees, Red Sox, a few others, and the Cubs jumped in big time last year.

Eve heard of the ‘Dominican Academy’? The organization is continuing to move forward.

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:33 pm
“…you slam the 1st President from Illinois since Lincoln is nuts”

The people of Tampico and Dixon would like to talk with you about this statement.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:37 pm
“–Uh, doesn’t the Tribune Co. have continued commercial relationships with the family?–

Cubs broadcasts on WGN radio and TV, which are also news outlets.”

Word, those deals were ‘encumbered’ into the sale by The Tribune Company. Part and parcel of the deal for a rather substantial time period, as I recall.

The Cubs would have much preferred to avoid those ‘obligations’. Imagine the valuation loss to WGN if they don’t have substantial broadcast rights to Cubs games.

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:38 pm
=== Why? I can lobby hard to change the ‘Collect $200 as you pass GO’ rule in Monopoly, but until it changes for all players, I will gladly collect it. ===

Um, last time I checked, we weren’t all collecting $150 million.

And Ricketts isn’t lobbying for any rule changes. He’s simply attacking the President.

Given that he actually favors government subsidies, its clear he doesn’t have a problem with Obama’s policies. If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume Ricketts is just a run-of-the-mill Nebraskan racist, given that his main attacks seem to be related to Rev. Wright and Obama’s “Kenyan roots.”

Of course, I know Joe Ricketts is NOT a racist because his son said so in a press release.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:39 pm
At this point, having Theo Epstein ring up Curt Schilling to instruct the Ricketts family on how to secure funding from a state government looks like a good move.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:46 pm
@44 For US fiscal 2010, Obama’s first full fiscal year in office, federal outlays were $3.456 trillion. For 20ll it was $3.603 trillion. To say Obama has “dramatically cut government spending” is false. Furthermore, CBO is expecting the spending numbers to rise for fiscal 2012 from its March projections. Spending did fall from fiscal 2009 (only part of Obama’s presidency) to fiscal 2010, but then rose.

http://cbo.gov/publication/25114
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/March2012Baseline.pdf

Comment by Aaron Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:46 pm
===If you have any other questions, I would be glad to come and speak to your civics class.===

- soccermom -,

Do you do Luncheons? Maybe a Lincoln Day Dinner? do you have a website, and do you use PowerPoint?

I would go to that lecture, so add me to your Mailing list! We need a refresher course it seems on that pesky ole “1st Amendment”

Good Post. No snark.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:46 pm
“Personally, I would rather see $300 MM spent on investing in the West Side, in the Garfield Park area.”

Um, ok, good luck with that. Just as a point, the entire goal of making an investment is to generate a positive return on investment.

On average, the Wrigleyville neighborhood gets approx. 81 days a year where 35-40k people show up in the neighborhood and spend money (lots of it).

Same thing happen in the Garfield Park area?

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:48 pm
Omaha is building a new baseball stadium. I assume they would accept the Cubs there, despite the obvious drop-off in quality play from the college teams that play there now. After the Flubs move to Omaha, we could get an expansion team for Wrigley owned by the City, after tearing it down (except for the outfield) and rebuilding a new stadium on the site with no bad seats (about 80% of the seats at old Wrigley are terrible seats). Rahm would love being a MLB owner.

Comment by Ace Matson Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:51 pm
- wordslinger -,

Nowadays, that could get “green lit”! The casting could include … I better leave it there.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:53 pm
It’s about time some sense came here. At least Tom Ricketts, his brothers, and sister don’t mind government using bonding authority to upfront cash for stadium renovations. It’s quite possible that Joe Ricketts does not. None of us really know, so let’s attack him what he should be attacked for: irrelevant and odd potential attacks on President Obama. Why should we avoid calling the father a hypocrite? Because he has zero operational control of the ballclub and does not even sit on the board of directors. He simply fronted some cash for the purchase.

@Esquire If you’ve read–or studied–the constitution as far as a high school level, you might know that the freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism of what you say by others exercising their rights, but only undue infringements on your rights, primarily from government.

Comment by Aaron Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 12:56 pm
- On average, the Wrigleyville neighborhood gets approx. 81 days a year where 35-40k people show up in the neighborhood and spend money (lots of it). -

Sounds like they’re doing alright, why not use some of that money to fix up the stadium?

Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:02 pm
–The biggest problem this year is that Bud Selig and his cronies changed the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) in regards to the MLB draft and how overslot spending is now treated–

I’m pretty sure it’s the hitting and the bullpen. And the defense.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:10 pm
Public funding for stadiums is welfare for a very small elite. It has been going on for decades. This form of welfare only works under a social contract that includes programs that benefit a broad spectrum of ethnic groups and classes. This social contract is being voided by people like Joe Ricketts, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, The Koch Brothers etal. Time to let the Wrigley Field and its owners fend for themselves like the rest of us.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:23 pm
–Um, ok, good luck with that. Just as a point, the entire goal of making an investment is to generate a positive return on investment.

On average, the Wrigleyville neighborhood gets approx. 81 days a year where 35-40k people show up in the neighborhood and spend money (lots of it).

Same thing happen in the Garfield Park area?–

Lucks got nothing to do with it. Let private enterprise invest for their return on investment.

Sounds like Wrigleyville is doing pretty well already. Maybe the Cubs should just slap a surcharge on tickets, or take the above- ticket-price premium on their in-house scalping scam, and float bonds for renovations.

Garfield Park, on the other hand could benefit from some public investment. It has the park, designed by William Le Barron Jenney, and the conservatory, designed by Jens Jensen. It was the garden spot on the West Side.

Best of all, it would be public money going to restore public assets to their original grandeur.

Any reasons you can think of that might not be beneficial to the neighborhood?

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:30 pm
“Public funding for stadiums is welfare for a very small elite. It has been going on for decades”

You mean like for Jerry Reinsdorf and the White Sox with US Cellular stadium?

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:38 pm
Wordslinger: Good one.

Honestly, I don’t know how anyone in the dugout can look Ryan Dempster in the eyes.

8 starts, 2.14 ERA, 50 strikeouts v 13 walks.

And his hitters can’t give him a win yet.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:38 pm
“Sounds like they’re doing alright, why not use some of that money to fix up the stadium?”

It’s going to take a rather large amount of cash - why can’t the Cubs get a similar type of deal to what was given to the White Sox?

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:41 pm
–It’s going to take a rather large amount of cash - why can’t the Cubs get a similar type of deal to what was given to the White Sox?–

You’re advocating 100% public financing and no rent for 18 years?

Clerk, take the roll.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:46 pm
“Garfield Park, on the other hand could benefit from some public investment. It has the park, designed by William Le Barron Jenney, and the conservatory, designed by Jens Jensen. It was the garden spot on the West Side.

Best of all, it would be public money going to restore public assets to their original grandeur.

Any reasons you can think of that might not be beneficial to the neighborhood?”

I’m sure it would be. But, the City of Chicago is going to have to issue bonds. From an investor standpoint, what’s going to sell those bonds?

A renovated Wrigley Field with a long term stable/increasing income stream?
-or-
The grandeur of a renovated Garfield Park?

Where’s the money (return) to justify making the investment?

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:48 pm
–Where’s the money (return) to justify making the investment?–

The same justification and return you get from investing in all other public assets, like roads, schools, transits, parks, community colleges, etc. You facilitate opportunity, commerce, private investment and increase quality of life.

What’s the ROI on public funds in Wrigley, anyway? And why are they at the top of the list?

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 1:57 pm
“You’re advocating 100% public financing and no rent for 18 years?”

No. Just pointing out that there’s this little ‘inconsistency’ in how our local and state government treats our professional sports teams.

If you think back a ways (admittedly a few years ago), the White Sox before Jerry Reinsdorf was a pretty shaky operation. JR was a pioneer in many ways in running a professional sports team in a professional business environment.

It’s what the Tribune Company should have done, but they weren’t up to the task. Tom Ricketts sure looks like he is capable of taking the same approach.

But with the Cubs, it’s apparently more important to pass on the opportunity to jumpstart a turnaround situation for what can be a premier professional sports team, and also ensure that Chicago benefits. For what - because you don’t like the old man’s politics? Madness.

Remember, when you are in (or soon to be in) a financial crisis, the very first objective to ensure survival is to “Secure your existing revenue base”.

That’s why you invest in the Wrigleyville neighborhood…

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:06 pm
Wow, Oswego — no snark? Is that really you?

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:08 pm
Correction:

“Tom Ricketts sure looks like he is capable of taking the same approach as Jerry Reinsdorf”.

Also,
“What’s the ROI on public funds in Wrigley, anyway? And why are they at the top of the list?”

Word:
I’ll repeat:
Remember, when you are in (or soon to be in) a financial crisis, the very first objective to ensure survival is to “Secure your existing revenue base”.

That’s why you invest in the Wrigleyville neighborhood…

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:09 pm
To those of you talking about Ricketts taking the Cubs to Nebraska, what about him just keeping the Cubs in Arizona after spring training? He got those sucker taxpayers to pony up $100 million on a new ballpark, and whaddyaknow… the Ricketts family lied about imminent plans for spending their own cash on the shops and economic development projects around the new park that they had promised in order to get taxpayers to approve the project.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/mesa/article_21185a8e-3e1d-11e0-9b95-001cc4c03286.html

Why do the Cubs need to fleece taxpayers in multiple states?

Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:10 pm
== It’s going to take a rather large amount of cash - why can’t the Cubs get a similar type of deal to what was given to the White Sox? ==

You mean a deal in which the Ricketts turn over ownership of their stadium to the state? Funny, that doesn’t seem to be the deal they want.

Comment by OldSmoky2 Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:16 pm
===Wow, Oswego — no snark? Is that really you? ===

I was “overserved” during the holiday weekend and trying to work and recover today, but it is indeed me, Snark-less on your points.

To the post,

BOTH SIDES …

…of the aisle seem to forget the points you are making on the 1st Amendment, and that saying anything doens’t prevent a possible backlash, even thou you have the right to say it.

What I also find comical is that someone says something, it comes back to bite them, and then they are shocked that words have “weight” and do have effects, when at the same time they say those words … for effect.

Just make sure whomever you speak for, at their event, doesn’t serve chicken. A better menu makes for a better event. Or so they say.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:22 pm
–Just pointing out that there’s this little ‘inconsistency’ in how our local and state government treats our professional sports teams.–

That deal was made 30 years ago. It wasn’t exactly a model for public funds for private enterprise and has no relevance today.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:23 pm
–You mean a deal in which the Ricketts turn over ownership of their stadium to the state? Funny, that doesn’t seem to be the deal they want.–

It’s the deal they wanted, and the one they had Blago, Zell and Big Jim working on before they bought the team

In fact, they knocked about $150 million off the purchase price when they couldn’t dump liability for the stadium on taxpayers.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:26 pm
===It’s going to take a rather large amount of cash - why can’t the Cubs get a similar type of deal to what was given to the White Sox?===

Because giving Jerry Reinsdorf and the White Sox $150M for a ballpark in 1988 (and the Bears $1B in 2000) was a mistake then and giving Ricketts $150M for a ballpark in 2013 is just as big a mistake. Because a mistake was made back then doesn’t mean Chicago needs to make the same mistake again in 2013.

In addition, the biggest difference between the two was that the White Sox legitimately threatened to leave Chicago in 1988 (and the Vikings were a serious threat to leave Minny this year). Ricketts has already said that leaving Chicago is not an option (btw, he would be foolish to even consider leaving Clark and Addison anyway).

Comment by Frank Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:32 pm
Oops, I made a mistake in the above post. I cracked up when I read the Son of Barackula. Abe Lincoln could use a $5 bill like a cross or a stake through the heart, since the Son of Barackula hates nothing more than capitalism and money.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:47 pm
== Um, last time I checked, we weren’t all collecting $150 million.==

Um, you are being hyper-literal, Yellow Dog.

My point is you can argue to have the rules change as you follow the rules.

The rules are if you own a professional sports franchise in Chicago (Reinsdorf, McCaskey, et al) you can ask for, and get,public money.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Comment by Pillory Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:57 pm
“Because giving Jerry Reinsdorf and the White Sox $150M for a ballpark in 1988 (and the Bears $1B in 2000) was a mistake then and giving Ricketts $150M for a ballpark in 2013 is just as big a mistake. Because a mistake was made back then doesn’t mean Chicago needs to make the same mistake again in 2013.

In addition, the biggest difference between the two was that the White Sox legitimately threatened to leave Chicago in 1988 (and the Vikings were a serious threat to leave Minny this year). Ricketts has already said that leaving Chicago is not an option (btw, he would be foolish to even consider leaving Clark and Addison anyway).”

Actually, I’m in agreement that public funds to ANY professional sports team probably isn’t a good idea - especially in these financial times.

But, if the decision comes across as politically tainted (”We don’t like this guys politics, so we’re going to screw with his investments”), then that’s a giant “NO NO”.

That type of decision making will always come back to you - Many in ways you won’t even know about.

I’m sure that the Ricketts would want to do everything possible to avoid having to leave Clark and Addison. But if you make the situation (politically, but especially economically) too miserable of a situation, what was ‘impossible’ suddenly becomes ‘possible’.

Just remember, a few years ago, the Seattle Supersonics leaving Seattle for some backwoods country town wasn’t considered ‘possible’ either. Now they are in the NBA West finals as the Oklahoma City Thunder.

Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 2:58 pm
–Just remember, a few years ago, the Seattle Supersonics leaving Seattle for some backwoods country town wasn’t considered ‘possible’ either.–

Ah yes, the historic tradition of the Supersonics at the uh, um, uh, Big Basketball Court.

They drew about 13,000 a game in Seattle. They moved to an existing stadium in OK City.

The Cubs in recent years generally sell out at about 39,000 a game. There is no existing ballpark for them to move to.

Other than that, very similar situations.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 3:09 pm
It’s surprising how little, comparatively speaking, the Cardinals got from Missouri and St. Louis taxpayers when building Busch Stadium III.

Comment by LincolnLounger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 3:13 pm
“Just remember, a few years ago, the Seattle Supersonics leaving Seattle for some backwoods country town wasn’t considered ‘possible’ either.”

Key was broadly considered the worst facility in the NBA, and the Sonics had a bad lease. Howard was never going to move the team, but a “sign & trade” (ie sale + move) was a legit possibility.

Huge amount of the value of the Cubs is location of Wrigley–where in the suburbs could they do remotely as well on attendance? Another huge amount is tied up in co-ownership of CSN Chicago–what’s that worth if they move to PDX? Or Charlotte?

Comment by Chris Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 3:15 pm
“…you slam the 1st President from Illinois since Lincoln is nuts”

Also Galena would also like to talk to you (yes I know that Grant was not born here)

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 3:28 pm
I’m just trying to figure out still, as an Obama supporter, whether I should be boycotting Cubs games or trying to funnel more money TOWARD Joe Ricketts. His business acumen may be strong, but based on his taste in attack ads so far (”Kenyan anticolonialist”?), he may yet be the Jim Oberweis of this election cycle.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 3:34 pm
Thanks, One Man — I was wondering why we had given up our claim on Grant.

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 3:37 pm
“as an Obama supporter, whether I should be boycotting Cubs games or trying to funnel more money TOWARD Joe Ricketts”

Boycott Cubs for stinking too much, support Joe Ricketts by putting that money in an account at TD Ameritrade and trading a lot. Win-win!

Comment by Chris Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 4:05 pm
We also have a claim on Reagan, though given what’s happening in Dixon these days, it is understandable that few would want to call attention to the place. But if Joe Ricketts is interested in investing in horses, that’s the town to do business.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 4:13 pm
“I was wondering why we had given up our claim on Grant. ”

If we can claim Grant (probable, as he was “resident” in Illinois at election), then we can’t really claim Reagan. And our Reagan claim is contrary to a Lincoln claim–Lincoln first arrived in Illinois at about the same age as Reagan was when he last left.

Comment by Chris Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 4:37 pm
in re presidents: legally, presidential candidates are put up by their state, and the presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the same party cannot be from the same state. Two presidents were elected from Illinois: Lincoln and Obama. Two other presidents had Illinois ties but were not elected from Illinois: Reagan (California) and Grant (Ohio).

I always thought the Grant thing was dubious. The people of Galena built him that lovely house, but he spent very little time there.

Anyway, I’m not sure any of them would have any patience with anything about the Cubs these days.

Comment by Lakeview Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 5:41 pm
“legally, presidential candidates are put up by their state, and the presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the same party cannot be from the same state. … Grant (Ohio).”

Grant could NOT have been “from Ohio” for nomination purposes, as (sitting) Ohio Senator Benjamin Wade remained on the Veep nomination ballot and led through the first 5 votes. From a constitutional test, Grant was “from” Illinois (kinda like Cheney was “from” Wyoming in 2000).

Comment by Chris Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 6:02 pm
The Galena history museum is charming in any case (where else do you get greeted by a hologram of Ulysses S Grant?) and all serious Illinois tourists should give it (and just Galena in general) a look at some point.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 6:14 pm
Ah, Chris, that makes sense - I didn’t realize his VP was from Ohio. Of course, Ohio claims Grant quite vociferously, and Illinois seems to forget about him.

The Galena museum is lovely, and the town is lovely, too. IIRC, they are very fuzzy about how long Grant lived in that house, but if it was to protect his constitutional status a la Cheney, it would make sense that he wasn’t there long but that it was important to place him there.

Comment by Lakeview Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 6:41 pm
A little historical perspective:

Young Eureka College graduate Reagan’s first broadcast job was picking up Cubs play-by-play via Morse Code telegraph and recreating it through theater-of-the-mind over the radio at WOC in Davenport.

At the time, the powerhouse Cubs were in an unprecedented 25-year drought of World Series championships.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 29, 12 @ 8:28 pm