By Steve Terrell | The New Mexican
1/4/2009

While President-elect Barack Obama left open the possibility Sunday that Gov. Bill Richardson one day will be a part of his administration, pundits said the cloud of a federal grand jury investigation must dissipate before Richardson's political career can resume its long advance. Richardson suddenly withdrew as Obama's nominee for Commerce Department secretary, acknowledging the timing of a reported "pay-to-play" probe in New Mexico would cause unwanted distractions as the new Democratic administration seeks U.S. Senate confirmation of its Cabinet.

Obama, already trying to stay out of the fight over a "pay-to-play" scandal involving the governor of his home state of Illinois, will have to come up with a new Commerce nominee as he prepares to deal with an economic crisis and other problems in Washington, D.C.

Richardson, meanwhile, must await the outcome of an ongoing grand jury investigation that reportedly centers on a Beverly Hills, Calif., company's hefty contributions to Richardson political action committees. CDR Financial Products won state contracts to help arrange financing of New Mexico construction programs in 2004, about the same time CDR executives were making sizable donations to Richardson PACs.

In a news release, Obama said, "Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration."

Richardson, in his own statement, denied any wrongdoing. "Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process." [...]

In a display of political bravado, disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich today appointed former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate, challenging national Democratic leaders to reject the appointment of an African-American to the seat that propelled Barack Obama to the White House. The defiant move tests the resolve of Senate Democrats who said they would not admit anyone appointed by Blagojevich, who is facing impeachment after being accused of trying to sell the Senate seat for personal gain. And it reveals to a nation celebrating Obama's victory the underbelly of Chicago's race-based political scene.

President-elect Obama supported the announcement by Senate Democrats that Blagojevich's appointment "will ultimately not stand." Obama issued the following statement: "Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada now faces a difficult political situation amid uncertainties that an attempt to block Burris from taking office can withstand a legal challenge. Burris, Illinois' first statewide elected African-American, wants entry into a chamber that no longer has any blacks.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago, appearing at Blagojevich's announcement at Burris' invitation, underscored the role of race in the governor's decision by using racially charged terms to defend the appointment. "I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer," said Rush, who promised to lobby congressional leaders on Burris' behalf.

"That was excellent Bobby. Thank you," Blagojevich said to Rush. The governor then turned to reporters and said, "Feel free to castigate the appointer but don't lynch the appointer. I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing!"

While Democrats on all levels were quick to castigate the governor, who was arrested three weeks ago on allegations he tried to sell Obama's former Senate seat, they were careful not to accuse Burris of any taint associated with Blagojevich. Still, questions remained why the former three-term state comptroller and one-term attorney general, nearly 14 years removed from holding statewide elected office, would accept the appointment when others who had sought it shied away after the governor's arrest.

Burris has long sought a jump to higher office, failing in three primary bids for governor in 1994, 1998 and, in 2002 against Blagojevich, as well as campaigns for Chicago mayor in 1995 and U.S. senator in 1984. In accepting the appointment, he refused to discuss Blagojevich's alleged criminal activities or whether he believed the governor should step down. "I am not a tool of the governor. I'm a tool of the people of Illinois," Burris told the Tribune Tuesday evening. "If I was worried about the taint [of Blagojevich], I would never have accepted that. I don't have any taint from Gov. Blagojevich. [...]"

WASHINGTON – Democrats are growing impatient with President-elect Barack Obama's refusal to inject himself in the major economic crises confronting the country. Obama has sidestepped some policy questions by saying there is only one president at a time. But the dodge is wearing thin. "He's going to have to be more assertive than he's been," House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told consumer advocates Thursday.

Frank, who has been dealing with both the bailout of the financial industry and a proposed rescue of Detroit automakers, said Obama needs to play a more significant role on economic issues.

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time," Frank said. "I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

By David Cho and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 5, 2008; 4:37 PM

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team has agreed to accompany Treasury Department officials to meet with Capitol Hill leaders to help the Bush administration gain access to the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package, government sources familiar with the matter said.

With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressing heated opposition to granting such a request, Treasury officials have come to realize that they need the president-elect's help to obtain the rescue money and are actively engaged with his aides, the sources said. Separately, the sources said, Treasury staffers are working on several proposals to unfreeze the troubled credit markets. But these initiatives would not be possible without the next installment of the rescue package. Transition officials want to see the Treasury's plans before they agree to support tapping the rescue package....

[...] House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said today that he has told both Paulson and Obama that they won't get the money unless a substantial part of it goes toward reducing residential foreclosures, which continue to skyrocket.

"I have said to both parties that the key here is to get some money into foreclosure diminution and if they don't get that done, then they can forget about the second $350" billion, Frank said in an interview.

Frank has been critical of the Treasury for failing to use the money to help distressed U.S. homeowners, whose defaulting mortgages have sparked a global recession. But Frank said he is also critical "a little bit of the Obama campaign for not being more forthcoming on this."

Frank said the financial bailout was sold to lawmakers in part as a way to help homeowners, and that Obama was helpful in making that point. But now, Frank said, "I think they are underestimating the importance of" following through on that pledge.

"Not just economically, which is very important, but politically," he said. "If they want to keep the confidence of the Congress in terms of these kinds of politically risky things, then they can't have people feel that they were mislead."

A week after the election of Barack Obama, gun buyers across the country are voting with their feet, flocking to gun stores to stock up on assault rifles, handguns and ammunition.

Some say they are worried that the incoming Obama administration will attempt to reimpose the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Others fear the loss of their right to own handguns. A few say they are preparing to protect themselves in the event of a race war. But whatever the reason, gun dealers in red and blue states alike say they've never seen anything like the run on weaponry they've been experiencing since Election Day— surpassing even the panic buying in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"People are terrified of losing their right to protect themselves," said DeWayne Irwin, owner of Cheaper Than Dirt, a large gun store in Ft. Worth. "The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point people are buying ammunition, high-capacity magazines, Glocks—it's all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest."

But anecdotal reports from around the nation suggest the sudden surge of November gun-buying is far surpassing the normal hunting-season spike that often occurs this time of year.

At the Memorial Shooting Center in Houston, which shares a building with a church, managers said they sold out of assault weapons a day after the election and are now adding new orders, at more than $1,000 each, to a monthlong waiting list. In Colorado, state authorities said they set a record for background checks on gun purchasers on the Saturday before the election—and the requests have been growing ever since.

And in Obama's home state of Illinois, business at gun stores is brisk. "We've had a lot of people concerned because our president-elect is extremely anti-gun and so is his running mate," said Jerry Bricco, owner of 1st Class Firearms in north suburban Zion. "They're afraid of future gun bans and what you will be allowed to get."

Not every gun enthusiast is so worried. Mark Greene, a hunter and member of Gun Owners for Obama who led a grass-roots campaign for the Democrat in Tarrant County, Texas, said he regarded fears of a looming ban on assault weapons as unfounded. "People are being pretty reactionary," Greene said. "There's a small contingent of folks in and out of the gun-owning community concerned that Obama's election is such a revolutionary change that it could portend mayhem. I think it's hysteria."

Obama's record on gun rights is conflicting enough to give ammunition to either side.

His campaign Web site said he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and promised that he would "protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns." Seeking to reassure gun owners, Obama told a campaign audience in Ohio in October: "I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

But Obama also has said he favors "common sense" gun laws, and as an Illinois state legislator he voted to support a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and tighter restrictions on all firearms. He has said in the past that he opposes allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons. And Obama's controversial comment last April that some rural Americans "cling to guns or religion" in difficult times suggested to many gun owners that he was fundamentally hostile toward them....

"Why are white people buying assault weapons?" said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. "I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery."

ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." [...]

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Oct. 31, 2008 —

Barack Obama's campaign has booted from its airplane three reporters who work for newspapers that have endorsed John McCain. The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board. Eliminated from the plane's traveling press were the Washington Times, the New York Post and the Dallas Morning News.

"It feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth," said John Solomon, executive editor of the Washington Times. "We paid all along to travel and cover Obama. This is a matter of basic fairness. We've committed a lot of resources and have been covering Obama since the beginning. By the campaign's own admission our reporter has done a fair job," he said. "We've covered him since 2007 and paid our dues. By the numbers we've covered Obama longer and given more coverage to him than many of the other people who were given seats. Our readers are mostly from Virginia, an important battleground state. He's not punishing us, he is punishing them," Solomon said. The Times is one of the most-read news Web sites in the country and has one of the highest circulations in Virginia, Solomon said. He said the paper would fly its reporters on its own to continue coverage.

In the final days of a campaign, it is not uncommon for journalists to be shuffled as multiple news agencies rush to get a coveted seat close to the candidate. "Unfortunately, demand for seats on the plane during this final weekend has far exceeded supply, and because of logistical issues we made the decision not to add a second plane," said Obama campaign senior adviser Anita Dunn. "This means we've had to make hard and unpleasant for all concerned decisions about limiting some news organizations and in some cases not being in a position to offer space to news organizations altogether," she said.

The Dallas Morning News, which has a daily circulation of about 300,000, acknowledged that it had not been covering the campaign as long as some other papers, but that it was discouraged to learn that magazines like Glamour had retained their seats. "We're protesting it and we're not happy about it," said editor Bob Mong of the Dallas Morning News. "We're not in a swing state, but given our history of outstanding political reporting, we're upset, particularly when you see guys like Glamour on board."

Mong said he had no evidence that his reporter had been ejected given the paper's editorial decision. A Morning News reporter, he said, was ejected from the campaign plane of John McCain, Obama's Republican rival, earlier in the week, but had recently gotten it back.

The Obama campaign said the decision was not based on the way Obama had been covered and pointed out that both the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which have been critical of Obama, had retained their seats. The campaign said it needed to make room for the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, but reportedly Jet and Ebony magazines have seats as well.

Col Allan, the New York Post's editor in chief, said, "We are happy to be on the outside looking in. It's what makes The New York Post special. We are not in the news business to be liked."

Journalists have complained in the past that campaigns kicked them off the planes as retribution for their coverage. In 2004, The New York Times said it was not given a seat on Air Force 2 when Vice President Dick Cheney was stumping with President Bush, because the vice president was displeased with the paper's coverage of him.