PAT QUINN TO BLACK VOTERS: BRUCE RAUNER = RAHM EMANUEL?

8/18/14

Bruce Rauner, according to the polls, holds a big lead in the 2014 Illinois governor’s race.   My asking around, and my instincts, tells me that the polls are right.  Even natural Pat Quinn voters (liberal women, union members, even friends of mine who know Mr. Quinn and voted for him out of a sense of Fenwick affinity in 2011) have told me they won’t, even can’t, vote for the Governor this time around.   One would be a fool to write off Pat Quinn’s chances in any election; he is a great campaigner and a very clever politician.  (See, inter alia, 2014 Illinois Gubernatorial Election Year Rag:   “Hand Me Down My Bulletproof Vest…” (Rant Lifestyle, 1/20/14) and PAUL VALLAS ON THE TICKET:  PAT QUINN MAKES ANOTHER BRILLIANT MOVETOWARD RE-ELECTION, 11/8/13.)   Plenty of former politicians got that way underestimating Pat Quinn.

But Pat Quinn is clearly in trouble.  If he is to win, he has to do a lot of things, and one of those is to shore up his loyal base among black voters, primarily in Chicago.  How can he do that?

Black voters, if one believes the polls, don’t like Mayor Rahm Emanuel.   Rahm Emanuel has endorsed Pat Quinn but he is a close friend of Bruce Rauner.  Mr. Rauner helped Mr. Emanuel become wealthy during the Mayor’s brief stint as an “investment banker,” the two have done business together, and they even vacation together.   So at least one strategy would appear to hold some potential for Pat Quinn:  convince black voters that a vote for Mr. Rauner is a vote for Mr. Emanuel.

This will be difficult, especially when Mr. Emanuel is publicly, if not all that enthusiastically, endorsing Pat Quinn and Mr. Quinn is doing nothing to deflect that endorsement; after all, Mr. Quinn needs all the votes and financial support he can get.  But this is what political operatives of an especially Machiavellian, some might say sneaky, variety are for.   Somehow, the back channels have to be cultivated.  The word has to get out on the street, but only on some streets, that Mr. Emanuel is secretly backing his old pal Bruce Rauner and that support for Mr. Rauner is de facto support for Mr. Emanuel.

Can Pat Quinn pull off such a feat?   Despite his much vaunted, but now tarnishing, reputation as some sort of Mr. Clean, he has not survived nearly forty years in Chicago and Illinois politics by being some kind of choir boy.  One can be confident that Mr. Quinn has plenty of dirty tricksters in his indirect, or maybe direct, employ.   One can be confident that Mr. Quinn will try, or is trying, such a Rauner=Emanuel tactic, if only because he is almost at the point at which he will need to try anything.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

THE PRIVATE SECTOR’S ROLE IN “MODERN” CHICAGO: SHUT UP AND PAY

2/20/13

Today’s (i.e., Wednesday’s, 2/20/13, page 2),Chicago Sun-Times reports

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is challenging a business community that bankrolled Millennium Park, the NATO summit, and Chicago’s failed Olympics bid to raise $50 million over five years for a higher moral purpose:  saving the lives of thousands of at risk kids.

“Emanuel is putting his formidable fund-raising skills to work to raise money for early intervention programs for younger kids….

This shake down of local businesses is only the latest illustration of the attitude of the mayor of Chicago, both this one and the last one, toward the “private sector” or the “business community.”   These mayors speak in hallowed tones when they utter the words “private sector,” but to them the “private sector” is only an appendage of the public sector, there to do the bidding of the politicians and to pick up the checks for the never ending self-aggrandizement these politicasters call “careers in public service.” One can almost understand Mayor Daley’s and Mayor Emanuel’s utter failure to understand the true role of the private sector in a free market political system; neither of these gentlemen had ever worked a legitimate job in the private sector prior to becoming mayor.  Selling one’s influence and calling it investment banking, by the way, is not a legitimate job.  Or perhaps their belief that the private sector exists only to do the bidding of the public sector arises from the growing reality that we no longer live in a free market system, but rather a perversion of that system in which nominally private big business and big government work as one to insure an ever tightening monopoly on the wealth a society produces.

How can one argue that “saving the lives of thousands of at risk kids” (It’s always “for the kids” or “for the children” isn’t it?) isn’t a worthy goal?   It’s easy to make such an argument, given the history of these ad hoc nonprofits that spring up to pilot something the Mayor and his cronies seem to want.   The money is raised and gets chewed up in the rat hole of bureaucracy.   And it always seems to be the same handful of politically connected players who are involved in such “civic endeavors.”   “The private sector” was pressured to finance the NATO summit and the G-8 conference.   The NATO summit went off reasonably well, but the G-8 never made it here.  There was plenty of shake down money left over after that summit that the Mayor is still using as a piggy bank for his cherished projects, like boat houses along the Chicago River.  The Olympic committee shook down local businesses for millions; we didn’t get the Olympics, but a lot of people got big salaries working at Chicago’s Olympic committee and they and others took lavish trips to promote our bid.   Millennium Park looks good now, but its luster wears off when one considers that it came in at whole number multiples of original cost estimates.   No problem, according to then Mayor Daley; we’ll just hit up the “private sector” for more dough.

If developing “intervention programs for younger kids,” whatever that means, is a worthy goal, why aren’t these types of endeavors financed with tax dollars?   Maybe because Chicago is broke and the taxpayers do not deem such programs sufficiently worthy to justify higher taxes.  So the Mayor extracts tribute from the “business community.”  To a certain extent, such giving is done from the goodness of the corporate hearts of those being “asked” to donate.  But local businesses have to be growing tired of the endless extortion racket that the mayors of Chicago call “public/private sector cooperation.”   Either that or the “donors” are being secretly paid back in city contracts or other consideration that comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets (See, for illustrative purposes, my 8/4/12 post on the now defunct Rant Political, TRUSTING THE CHICAGO POLITICIANS, reproduced below, for further illumination and speculation on such dealings.) or in simply being allowed to do business in Chicago without being harassed to an even greater extent by those who control both the bully pulpit and the enforcement mechanisms of the city and state.

Businesses that are operating here or considering operating here have plenty to discourage further investment in or relocation to Chicago:   high and increasing taxes, especially at the state level, a history of endemic corruption, still sub-par public schools, a crumbling infrastructure, a voracious and growing crime problem, even dyspeptic weather.   For the last twenty five years or so, they have to add “serving as the bottomless bursar for the career aspirations of the politicians who run the place” to the list of disagreeable traits Chicago displays for actual and potential investors.  This is no way to attract business to this once greatest of American cities…unless the Mayor and his minions are only interested in attracting businesses willing to play ball.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

TRUSTING THE CHICAGO POLITICIANS

8/4/12  

Like most cities, and especially like most cities in our industrial heartland, Chicago is having problems with its aging and often creaking infrastructure.   It seems that, over the years,  the public fisc has been exhausted by the types of things that pack the most potent payback for the pols, such as new parks, schools, streets, etc. and handouts for groups, such as officially and permanently aggrieved parties and billionaire owners of sports franchises, that compete for the title of most stentorian in making their demands of the politicians for the taxpayers’ money.   This has left little to maintain the old parks, schools, roads, bridges, etc., with the predictable consequences.

So back in the Spring, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan for an “infrastructure trust” (“IT”) was approved by the pack of lap dogs we call a City Council in the city of my birth.   I first addressed the IT, before Rant Politics came into being, in one of my other blogs, The Insightful Pontificator; see my 4/18/12 post entitled “WHO YA GONNA TRUST; ME OR YOUR OWN EYES?”  The IT was rendered necessary, at least in the eyes of Mr. Emanuel and the mewing sheep who gaze ever lovingly into his eyes for their next order, because Chicago either can’t, due to the fiscal mess Mr. Emanuel’s predecessor, Richard M. Daley (“Richard II”) left the city, borrow any more money or at least can’t borrow money for the types of projects the IT is designed to finance.  

While we know that the IT is billed as “private/public partnership,” a term that, while sounding comforting to most of the populace, sounds more than vaguely Orwellian to yours truly, we know very little else about the workings of the IT, partially because details have yet to be worked out but partially, one suspects, because the Mayor and the participants in the IT would rather not have us know much about how this Goldbergian beast is to operate.   Even yours truly, who knows a thing or two about finance and financial structures, is confused about the IT.   Will the IT lend money to the city for various infrastructure projects?   Will the IT actually purchase assets, presumably to take advantage of the tax code’s depreciation provisions that are not available to municipalities that pay no federal income tax, and lease those assets back to the city?   In either case, the projects would go on the city’s books as debt, at least according to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).   As Alderman Jason Ervin said at the show hearings in the City Council for this monster, “It (the IT) looks a lot like debt,” to which Chicago CFO Lois Scott replied “You’re right.  It would be, in many ways, like debt.”  

So the reasonably financially cognizant, or even the merely concerned citizen, might ask why we need the IT if it is just a vehicle to lend money to the city that the city could otherwise not borrow.  Ms. Scott replies that

“The bulk of what the city is going to do in terms of infrastructure won’t have a ghost of a chance of going through an alternative source of financing.”

So why would the participant in the IT provide the city with such financing if conventional investors would not provide such financing?    One can think of three reasons.

First, the investors in the IT will demand, and justifiably so, outrageously high interest rates and/or lease payments to make a decent risk adjusted return on the financing no one else, according to Ms. Scott, will provide.  

Second, the investors in the IT will expect a return commensurate with the risk they are assuming, but not necessarily directly from these projects because doing so would make Rahm Emanuel look bad.   The Mayor would like to trumpet the IT as a “creative” way of doing infrastructure projects; to pay investors market rates would expose the IT for the batch of sweetheart deals it appears to be.   Better to hide from the taxpayers the IT’s juiciness for its investors by somehow nudging those investors to the head of the line for other projects the city is doing.

Third, the Mayor is bullying the “private sector” participants in this “public/private partnership” into taking a less than market return on their investments.   How, one might ask, can the Mayor bully even multinational corporations into subsidizing the city?  

To answer that question, one has to understand what politicians, and especially Chicago politicians, mean when they refer to “the private sector.”  To these lifelong pols, whether we mean Rahm Emanuel, Rich Daley, or any of the sycophants with whom they have surround(ed) themselves, the “private sector” refers to that group of nominally private companies, large and small, who wait obediently and obsequiously to be tossed, in a process that the politicians laughingly call “privatization,” one of the monopolies over providing formerly public goods or services.   Operating a monopoly is quite lucrative, as Econ 101 tells us; the prospect of attaining such a monopoly, or of losing one, can be quite intimidating to the companies that unashamedly refer to themselves as participants it the “private sector” in this town.  Such intimidation can be quite effective in motivating those whose idea of “free enterprise” is sitting at the Mayor’s feet, gazing pitifully, yet hopefully, yearning to be tossed a bone or two.

Whatever is at work here—actual market returns to endeavors that are supposedly undoable in the real marketplace, side rewards to IT participants, or intimidation of IT and prospective IT participants, the Chicago taxpayers are going to have to finance, one way or another, the upkeep of the infrastructure that makes the city work.   This will be expensive due to the raids pols have made on the city’s treasury for years.  The Chicago Infrastructure Trust is just a means of hiding these costs from the taxpayers while keeping the same old Chicago political games going.

JUST HOW DID SANDI JACKSON END UP UNDER THAT BUS?

2/7/13

What was long known for a long time among close political observers is now official, or as official as such things can be:   federal investigators have opened a probe, separate but not distinct from that of her husband, of former 7th Ward absentee Alderman Sandi Jackson.  

The probe centers on financial transfers between the Congressional campaign fund of former U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (affectionately known in these parts as Triple J) and the aldermanic campaign fund of former Alderman Jackson.  Investigators are also looking into undocumented credit card charges on one or both of the funds.   It is not at all difficult to guess that the well-grounded suspicion of the federal investigators is that both campaign funds were used as piggy-banks by the Jacksons, and not always, or even all that often, for political purposes.  It apparently wasn’t just Triple J’s buying expensive watches for his paramours and providing the transportation necessary to make his, er, romantic encounters possible; it also appeared to be Sandi Jackson’s using the campaign funds, which seemingly were fungible in the minds of the Jacksons, for whatever happened to strike her fancy.  Whether the Jacksons have actually done anything illegal is up to the feds to prove, but the whole situation certainly looks bad.

Regular readers know that yours truly has no special sympathy or affection for the Jacksons and finds laughable, or pathetic, Sandi Jackson’s pose, much abetted by the local and national media, as the put upon victim in this episode.   (See, inter alia, my 1/13/13 post on the now defunct Rant Political, COMMISSIONER BILL BEAVERS ON ALDERMAN SANDI JACKSON:  DIOGENES, PUT DOWN YOUR LANTERN, and my 11/22/12 post on the same cite, JESSE JACKSON, JR. RESIGNS:  DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE KEISTER ON THE WAY OUT, both reproduced below.)   But even an objective observers might question why this probe of the either sloppy or fraudulent bookkeeping of the Alderman’s campaign fund is even necessary.

No one denies that Alderman Jackson was paid $5,000 per month from Congressman Jackson’s campaign fund, through a “consulting” firm, Donatella & Associates, in which Alderman Jackson had a large ownership interest.  These payments, ostensibly for campaign consulting services, followed one of the oldest, most time worn, but somehow still in use and effective practices in the annals of Chicago politics:  Put one’s spouse on the payroll, one way or the other, of one’s campaign fund, thus allowing “campaign” contributions from those seeking a larger space at the pubic trough to flow, like water through a sieve, into one’s pockets though those of his or her spouse.

If the feds could prove that nothing was done in exchange for the payments made to Sandi Jackson’s Donatella & Associates by Congressman Jackson’s campaign funds, it would seem that they would have proven their case that the campaign funds were funneled to the Jacksons for personal use, or so it seems at least to this non-lawyer.  And it shouldn’t be hard to prove that nothing was done for the payment to Donatella; the payments were made each month, whether the Congressman, who held one of the safest seats in Congress, was campaigning or not.  Further, the payments continued during that period of time during which Mr. Jackson could not campaign because he was being treated, in-house, for a curious assortment of psychological and emotional maladies, which seemed to intensify with federal scrutiny of his actions.  

Transfers between the campaign funds of the Alderman and the Congressman and kinky credit card charges might add to the body of evidence against the Jacksons, but the most transparent abuse of “campaign contributions” seems to have involved the payments to Donatella & Associates.

One more thing…

According to a report by the Chicago Sun-Times Michael Sneed, whose column is a must for those who follow Chicago politics, Sandi Jackson is complaining, according to sources, that she “was thrown under the bus by her husband.”   Given Sandi Jackson’s apparent culpability in this ever expanding caper, unless Triple J is singing on his wife (a not implausible turn of events, given the former Congressman’s shortcomings of character, er, sorry, “mistakes”), she has only wound up under the bus because she dove under it with great vigor and enthusiasm.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on this subject.

PROMISED REPRODUCTIONS OF PAST ARTICLES:

COMMISSIONER BILL BEAVERS ON ALDERMAN SANDI JACKSON:  DIOGENES, PUT DOWN YOUR LANTERN

1/13/13

Chicagoans, and Illinoisans in general, are far too tolerant of corruption in our politicians.  We continually complain about our high and increasing taxes, our so-so level of services, the crime in our streets, and the enormous public pension and health care liabilities that will soon make our state financially uninhabitable.   But we continue to elect the same scalawags, rogues, or worse.

On the other hand…

It has long been my contention that a corrupt local pol looking to put some ill-gotten dough in his pocket is far less dangerous than a national pol, or even a local pol with a national reputation and ambitions, who comes to his job with a messianic complex and the unwavering certainty that s/he knows what is good for “the people,” despite his or her never having had a real job.   Further, at least our corrupt local pols provide plenty of entertainment value and provide us with much of the swagger that we feel is our inherent right as Chicagoans.   As we like to say when someone speaks of the latest manifestation of corruption,  “Hey, this ain’t Minneapolis.”  The problem of late, is that the price of this corruption has been exceeding its entertainment value, and the taxpayers are justifiably displaying some at least rhetorical opposition.  But I digress.

As loyal readers know, I’ve so far written novels about the politics of my hometown, The Chairman and its sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge.   While these books are widely read and enjoyed even by people who have no special affinity for politics, let alone Chicago politics, because of the searing insight they provide into the human condition and their often page turning plot lines, those who have some knowledge of the politics of this most American of cities enjoy trying to determine who the characters are in “real life.”   On more than one occasion, I have been asked if the fictional Alderman Isaiah Parker is indeed Cook County Commissioner and former 7^th Ward Alderman, Bill Beavers.  The answer, of course, is no; Isaiah Parker is a lot of people, as are all the characters in my book.  But it would be hard to make up a character more colorful, or more reflective of Chicago politics, than Bill Beavers.

I met Commissioner Beavers, a large, imposing man who refers to himself as “the hog with the big nuts,” maybe twenty years ago, when he was 7^th Ward alderman.   He was appearing before a small group of Chicago civic leaders to discuss, among other things, the gang crime problem at the time that, in the retrospective light of today’s problems in that area, seems akin to a jaywalking problem in the city.   Then Alderman Beavers, who was a Chicago police officer earlier in life, displayed an amazingly intricate degree of knowledge, down to the street corners over which various factions of gangs presided in and around his 7^th Ward, of the problem and had plenty of ideas on how to address it.   He was one of the most impressive of the many politicians yours truly has ever met.

On the other hand, Bill Beavers has never been very shy about turning public office, and political power, into cash.   Such a propensity has finally landed the Commissioner in serious trouble; he is currently under federal indictment for misuse of campaign funds and related tax evasion.   The 77 year old Mr. Beavers contends that he is guilty of only honest bookkeeping mistakes and that the feds brought the charges only to pressure him to wear a wire on fellow Cook County Commissioner, County Finance Committee Chairman, and 11^th Ward Democratic Committeeman John Daley.    When he refused to give them what they wanted, Beavers contends, the U.S. Attorney’s people indicted him.   Mr. Beaver’s most succinct comment on the indictment is that it’s “horses—t that I’m not worried about.”   He went on to call Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney whose office indicted him, a “rooster with no nuts.”

It is this degree of willingness to speak his mind where lesser men flee for cover that, in perhaps a strange way, endears Bill Beavers to people, including yours truly.   Such honesty and fearlessness has surfaced most recently in the wake of the resignation of 7^th Ward Alderman Sandi Jackson, who claims that her abandonment of her office arises out of concern for her ailing husband, former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., who contracted his mysterious malady about the time the federal government started sniffing around his many apparent ethical lapses, including his role in trying to buy the Senate seat once held by President Obama.   (See my 11/11/12 post, JESSE JACKSON, JR. RESIGNS:  DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE KEISTER ON THE WAY OUT)   While not yet facing heat on those matters, he is under federal investigation for misuse of campaign funds.   One of the many areas of federal interest just happens to be the hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars paid to a firm controlled by, you guessed it, Sandi Jackson, for consulting services.  Another area is the thousands of dollars he spent on gifts for female “friends.”

So while in the wake of Alderman Jackson’s resignation, the Chicago media, which can’t seem to decide whether it swoons more energetically for Mayor Rahm Emanuel (See my 12/28/12 piece, RAHM EMANUEL:  MAYOR FOR LIFE…OR UNTIL HE BECOMES PRESIDENT) or Alderman Sandi Jackson, swallows whole such drivel from Alderman Jackson as

“I am unapologetically a wife and a mother and I cannot deny my commitment to those most important personal responsibilities,"

and such a reputed straight talking tough guy as Mayor Emanuel utters such fluff as

“As Sandi takes this time to focus on her family, we give her our deepest thanks and support for her service to our city and the residents of her ward.  Her leadership has been greatly appreciated in the Chicago City Council,”

Commissioner Beavers tells the truth about Sandi Jackson:

“She was a ghost alderman.   She was never here.   She always lived in Washington.  People come in my office to find out where she’s located.  I have pre-printed information with her office address and phone number.   They’re coming to me for aldermanic issues that I don’t handle because they can’t find her.”

“She wasn’t very effective because she was never there.  She never attended any meetings and, when she came to a meeting, she left right away.  I don’t feel sorry for her.  I’ve got my own problems.   I think she’s gonna be part of it and Jesse Jr. is cutting a deal to save her.”  (Emphasis mine)

Some will argue that Commissioner Beavers has an axe to grind, and he does.   He was 7^th Ward Alderman until he left to run for the County Board to watch over young Todd Stroger, who surely needed, but clearly refused, Mr. Beavers’ help.   When Bill Beavers left his aldermanic post, he installed his daughter, Darcel, in that office.   Darcel Beavers lost that job to Sandi Jackson in 2007 on the strength of the name of the family into which Sandi Jackson married.   So, yes, Mr. Beavers has reason to dislike Sandi Jackson, but can anyone deny the truth, or the honesty, of his contentions?  As Jackie Hudson, a lifelong resident of the 7^th Ward and a constituent of both Sandi Jackson and Bill Beavers, said of Mrs. Jackson’s resignation

“It’s a good thing.  She doesn’t do anything over here.  She was just riding her husband’s coattails.”

Another constituent, Dianna Mott, added

“I’m in total shock, and I’m looking for some answers.  I want to know the real motivation behind her leaving.  We understand what’s happening to you (Alderman Jackson) and your family, but where does that leave us?   What happens to the ward?”

While the local media mavens want to make us believe that poor, put-upon Sandi Jackson ought to be pitied for enduring so much and our supposedly tough guy Mayor utters inane praise of an absentee alderman for fear of alienating some imagined constituency concocted in his north side yuppie head, south side old school pol Bill Beavers tells it like it is…and doesn’t give a damn what people think about it.

Hog with big nuts indeed.   Bill Beavers is indeed the last of a breed and I, for one, will miss his like when he is gone.

JESSE JACKSON, JR. RESIGNS:  DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE KEISTER ON THE WAY OUT

11/22/12

Jesse Jackson, Jr., the now former Congressman with a big name, little accomplishment, and a parade of ethical lapses finally resigned from his sinecure in Washington before trouble with federal law enforcement would have forced him to give up his Congressional pension.  Despite his having left the government payroll, one suspects that the federal government will soon be once again picking up most of his living expenses; an indictment is in the offing and any deal looks likely to involve some time as a federal guest.

While last week I discussed Triple J’s landslide reelection despite being under a very dark and heavy federal cloud (See DUMB AND DUMBER:  REELECTING JESSE JACKSON, JR. AND FURTHER ENTRENCHING MIKE MADIGAN, 11/12/12), I have more thoughts in the wake of Mr. Jackson’s finally doing the inevitable.

--Mr. Jackson’s resignation letter to House Speaker John Boehner contained so many references to “mistakes” that one suspects Triple J’s typewriter had, or has developed, a key for that entire word.   Mr. Jackson’s referring to his moral failings and ethical transgressions as “mistakes” continues a troubling trend toward confusing not only terms but ramifications and motivations.   Taking a left turn when one meant to take a right turn is a mistake.   Cheating on one’s wife with comely cocktail waitresses who moonlight as bikini models, using campaign funds for personal reasons, and dealing with corrupt governors for Senatorial seats are moral failings and ethical transgressions.  But our society seems to see no differences between mere mental oversights and horrendous violations of long established and well grounded moral codes.  Then we wonder why people commit so many of the latter.

--Jesse Jackson, Jr. was a Congressman of little accomplishment.  In his seventeen years in Congress, he did little more than make an occasional decent speech, accept undeserved congratulations, and plot to gain his next political office.   This made him no different from most politicians, but young Mr. Jackson didn’t even manage to gain a committee chairmanship or a seat on the Appropriations committee for his otherwise pointless and unproductive efforts.   Perhaps this was because Mr. Jackson was so focused, or some might say obsessed, with the notion of a “third” Chicago airport in the far southern reaches of his district, the merits of which were very limited at best and a reflection of the corruption that pervades Chicago politics at worst.

At any rate, the people of Illinois’s 2^nd district will have a hard time replacing Mr. Jackson with a representative of less accomplishment.

--Two congressmen before Jesse Jackson, Jr., the voters of the 2^nd district were represented by one Gus Savage, a crude anti-Semite and racist (He didn’t like white people, even those he represented.) who got caught up in a sex scandal.   Mr. Savage was replaced by Mel Reynolds, a young guy who had a great academic resume that included degrees from the University of Illinois-Champaign and the U of I of the east, Harvard, along with a Rhodes Scholarship.   Beyond the academic resume, though, Mr. Reynolds was little more than a clean slate on which the people of the district, and well-meaning liberals who lived well beyond the district but who made a point, and sometimes a profession, of expressing concern and a misguided and grossly inflated sense of solidarity with those who had to deal with the vicissitudes of life in much of the 2^nd district on a daily basis, could pin whatever groundless hopes and aspirations they had for the man.   Mr. Reynolds ended up leaving Congress after being convicted of twelve counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography…and being recorded while extolling the sexual attractiveness of Catholic high school girls.

Then came Mr. Jackson, whose resume was even thinner than that of Mr. Reynolds but who had the overwhelming virtue of his father’s having been born before him.  Again, the same crowd of political hacks, downtown and north shore professional liberals, and political guns for hire looking for work were endless in their praise of this empty suit…in nearly the exact same words they used for Mr. Reynolds when he took over the seat from Mr. Savage.   And now Mr. Jackson has left office in the wake of a sex scandal, a scandal involving the purchase of public office from a corrupt governor, and federal law enforcement matters tangentially related to the first but not the second of the aforementioned.   One would think people would learn.

Let’s just hope that whoever replaces Mr. Jackson (grist for another mill; there are, of course, plenty of candidates, the most intriguing of which is Sam Adam, Jr., who lives in my old neighborhood, is a great and bombastic attorney (He was the guy who represented Rod Blagojevich the time he (almost) won, a nice guy, and the very definition of the word “character.”  Sam would liven up the House a bit.  But I digress.), s/he is a person of sufficient background and accomplishment that s/he will serve the district well and will serve as more than a Rorschach blot for the well meaning who love to express sympathy for Chicago’s south side from the comfort of their gated communities or doorman manned high rises miles and miles from the boundaries of the district.

--Now Illinois has two governors in jail and a Congressman headed there.   I would say we are a national laughingstock but we’ve been that for years.   Yet we keep electing these people and, more sadly, the people who pull their strings.  Again, see DUMB AND DUMBER:  REELECTING JESSE JACKSON, JR. AND FURTHER ENTRENCHING MIKE MADIGAN, 11/12/12.   And those of you who want to understand the appalling yet intriguing politics of my home town that produces such notables would do well to read both my books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, available at, among many other places, Amazon.com.  Nobody explains how we do things around here better or more entertainingly.