NEWS FLASH: GOVERNOR QUINN IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

3/7/13

Regular readers know that I am no big fan of Governor Pat Quinn (no relation).   We are generally on opposite sides of the political spectrum, though lately, given the mewing that has been emanating from those who claim to hold the conservative banner,  I’ve had a hard time determining where on the political spectrum I stand.  See my 2/28/13 post CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY.   Beyond that, Pat Quinn’s career has been characterized by either misguided or malevolent demagoguery that betrays either a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth and prosperity are generated in a free market society or a desire for power and recognition so powerful and consuming that it rides roughshod over the facts, common sense, and, in some cases, decency.

All that having been written, I don’t believe that Mr. Quinn is a fundamentally indecent man.   Though he often substitutes emotion for sound thought and reasoning, he genuinely seems to care about the poor and downtrodden and feels a duty, on his part and on everyone’s part, to do what he can to ease the plight of our fellow citizens.  He feels, I suspect, that we are our brothers’ keepers, though he seems to think he is, or ought to be, first among equals in this duty to keep an eye out for what he perceives to be the little guy. 

Furthermore, the people I know who know Quinn, and who have known him for years, tell me he is essentially a good guy.   Some of these guys are pretty hard core conservatives, yet they still vote for Quinn.  Given what I have learned about what the role of ideology should be in politics when personal ties are in place, I don’t blame them for voting for a guy they know and like regardless of their lack of ideological affinity, but that is grist for another mill. 

I don’t know Pat Quinn, but, a long time ago when he was either State Treasurer or between jobs, he, I, and an economist friend of mine had a long lunch with Mr. Quinn to talk about the state’s finances.   While Mr. Quinn, being a politician, was doubtless more interested in political contributions (which didn’t come from either of us) than our opinions on money issues, he certainly made it seem that he wanted to hear what we had to say and he asked very good questions; the man clearly is intelligent.

Finally, when Pat Quinn, or any politician, is right, I, who have little or no regard for any but a very few people who practice his craft, have to admit that he is right.   And Pat Quinn was very right when, in presenting his budget, he pointed out the obvious, to wit, that we must do something about our pension problem in this state.  Yes, we all know that.   But a firm grasp of the obvious eludes most politicians, so the your typical pol deserves some credit even for stating what is plain to those of us who hold, in the eyes of the politicians, lower stations in life.  

The mutual desire of that Mr. Quinn and this Mr. Quinn to solve our pension problems arises from opposite motivations.   Yours truly would like to save the state from bankruptcy and perhaps cut taxes while Pat Quinn would like to find more money to blow on real, potential, or even perceived constituencies and thus help in his ongoing struggle to stay on the public payroll as long as possible.   Nevertheless, we both see the need for addressing this problem.

Further, Mr. Quinn was right when he said, in delivering his budget address

“We all know that we must reform the Illinois public pension system.   So, members of the General Assembly, what are you waiting for?  Illinois taxpayers are losing patience with your lack of action…It’s time for you to legislate.”

It is indeed time for the motley crew of no account poltroons that we call legislators to get off their taxpayer padded posteriors and do something.

As one might guess, though, Mr. Quinn’s call for the legislators to stop whistling past the graveyard didn’t sit well with those esteemed public servants on either side of the aisle.  Even the Republicans, who profess to want to “address our pension problems,” as long as it won’t cost their constituencies anything, had little good to say about the scolding Governor Quinn delivered.   The most inane of these comments came from Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R. Lemont).   Ms. Radogno, suddenly defending the institution she spends most of her time castigating, from the inside, opined that it was “unfair” (boo-hoo) of Quinn to lay blame on the lawmakers, arguing 

“Most of the work that has been done on pensions has come out of the General Assembly, and not out of the governor’s office.”

That statement was inane enough, given that NOTHING has been done on pensions by either the General Assembly or the Governor.   Most of nothing is still nothing.   But Ms. Radogno compounded this whopper by arguing that

“The governor should have turned and put that to the guy standing behind him in
a navy blue suit. ... I think people here are tired of his style of politics.” 

The “guy standing behind (Governor Quinn) in a navy blue suit” at the time literally but not nearly as figuratively as Ms. Radogno, in her febrile imagination, would like to believe, is House Speaker Michael Madigan.  (See, inter alia, my 2/28/13 post REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS:   CHICAGO POLITICS CLAIMS A “VICTIM” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD.)

Hmm…

First Ms. Radogno says that it is “unfair” (How I hate that word when used by adults!  When has fairness ever been a prominent feature of life?   But I digress.) of the Governor to blame the legislature for Illinois’ pension problems.   Then she says that Quinn should have “put that to the guy standing behind him in the blue suit,” none other than Michael Madigan. 

Does Ms. Radogno realize what office House Speaker Mike Madigan holds?   He is the Speaker of the House…and the House is half the legislature.   Further, if truth be told, the Speaker controls not only the House but, though his close association with (Some might say, with some justification, control of) Senate President John Cullerton, the Speaker also commands the other half of the legislature.  

So in Ms. Radogno’s world, we aren’t supposed to blame the legislature for the pension mess; we are supposed to blame the guy who runs the legislature, the guy who, for all intents and purposes, is the legislature.

In my 2/27/13 post MR. SUNSHINE ON ROBIN KELLY, DEBBIE HALVORSON, AND THE ILLINOIS 2^ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RESULTS, I wrote

Watching Ms. Halvorson in action could almost lead one to the conclusion that the Democrats of the 2^nd District should be excused for nominating Robin Kelly, or at least were smart not to have nominated Ms. Halvorson.  Ms. Halvorson was once Majority Leader of the Illinois Senate!  O tempora, o mores!  That such an unimpressive candidate, shallow thinker, and reflexive flip-flopper could actually have been the Majority Leader of the Illinois Senate explains a lot about the sorry condition of the state of Illinois.

Judging from current Republican Senate Leader Christine Radogno’s failure to understand that the legislature is the legislature, the quality of the leadership in the General Assembly has not gotten any better since the days of Debbie Halvorson.  If such a thing is possible, it may have gotten worse. 

No wonder why we find ourselves slogging through such deep excrement in this great hog producing state.

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. 

MR. SUNSHINE ON ROBIN KELLY, DEBBIE HALVORSON, AND THE ILLINOIS 2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RESULTS

2/27/13

Lifelong bureaucrat and political hanger-on Robin Kelly won the Democratic primary, and effective election, in the race to succeed the disgraced Jesse Jackson, Jr. (See my 2/16/13 post, LET’S FINALLY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT JESSE AND SANDI JACKSON)  in Illinois’ second Congressional District.  

Ms. Kelly campaigned almost exclusively on the issue of gun violence, despite the District’s other problems, including a foreclosure rate in its Chicago and suburban precincts that is the highest in the state.  Robin Kelly appears to really believe that we can “end the plague of gun violence” simply by passing more stringent gun laws.  (See my 2/24/13 post IT’S NOT GARRY McCARTHY’S FAULT.)  She won the race with the help of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pro-gun control USA PAC, which spent $2.2 million on pro-Kelly advertising.  She apparently successfully portrayed the race as a Davidic race against the Goliathine NRA, which stayed out of the race, though its Illinois affiliate did spend a relative pittance supporting one of her opponents, Debbie Halvorson.   (More on Ms. Halvorson below.)  Ms. Kelly also had the tacit support of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.   Unlike past great Chicago mayors, like Richard J. Daley and Tony Cermak, the last two have eschewed publicly supporting candidates in primaries, preferring to sneak around and maintain plausible deniability, but I digress.  Robin Kelly also has had problems with, er, sloppiness, similar to those of her two predecessors.   Her lackadaisical approach to the rules manifested itself primarily in recordkeeping when she unsuccessfully campaigned for State Treasurer when her time sheets showed that she was working…for the State Treasurer.  Ms. Kelly evidently has no problem with being paid, by you, while she campaigns for her next spot at the public trough.  

Ms. Kelly’s big victory (52% of the vote in a very crowded field) once again confirms the wisdom of one of yours truly’s idols, H.L. Mencken, who observed

“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

Perhaps the low turnout (15% in Chicago and suburban Cook) limits the reach of the application of this latest example of Mr. Mencken’s acuity of mind.   Then again, the low turnout may confirm Mr. Mencken’s astuteness, but I digress again.

Clearly, there were better candidates in the race.  Newly elected State Senator Napoleon Harris, who has actually done a few things in life beyond feeding at the public mammary gland, comes immediately to mind.  But he was only a minor candidate who dropped out rather early, and even the so-called major candidates never really had a chance once Michael Bloomberg came in with his money, Mayor Emanuel starting throwing his weight around (behind the scenes, of course) and Toi Hutchinson dropped out.  See my 2/18/12 piece,  2^ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT PRIMARY IN ILLINOIS:  ROBIN KELLY-- BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE?

One of those candidates who never had a chance, though she basked in the delusion that she did, just as she basked in the delusion that she could have defeated Mr. Jackson in the 2012 primary, was former Congressperson and State Senator Debbie Halvorson, of whom I wrote extensively in my 2/18/12 post.   As a somewhat close observer of this race, I heard Ms. Halvorson speak a few times and read some of what she spoke.   If following this race did nothing else, it did explain quite a few things about Illinois politics to this long time observer of that curious and fascinating endeavor.   Ms. Halvorson was perhaps the least impressive candidate in the race, certainly the least impressive of the major candidates.   Watching Ms. Halvorson in action could almost lead one to the conclusion that the Democrats of the 2^nd District should be excused for nominating Robin Kelly, or at least were smart not to have nominated Ms. Halvorson.  Ms. Halvorson was once Majority Leader of the Illinois Senate!  O tempora, o mores!  That such an unimpressive candidate, shallow thinker, and reflexive flip-flopper could actually have been the Majority Leader of the Illinois Senate explains a lot about the sorry condition of the state of Illinois.

One final thing.  Now that Ms. Kelly has been effectively elected to Congress, we are already hearing about how a “new era” has broken out for the 2^nd District, that she will be “a breath of fresh air” and a source of “refreshing change” for the District.  

One would hope that the cheerleading media would refrains from such hagiography until we learn more about Robin Kelly, especially about how her aforementioned laxness of attitude concerning campaigning on the public dime might manifest itself once she gets to Washington.   Why?   Because we heard the same things about Jesse Jackson, Jr. when he replaced Mel Reynolds and we heard the same things about Mel Reynolds when he replaced Gus Savage in 1993.   Though Mr. Jackson did not share Mr. Reynolds weakness for pubescent girls, and Mr. Reynolds did not share Mr. Savage’s apparent anti-Semitism and strong distaste for those who did not share his racial background, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Jackson were both moral pygmies who brought disgrace to their district, their city, their state, their country, and their families.   The initial breathless adulation did not pan out, and the hosanna choruses in the press that greeted both gentlemen wound up looking worse than foolish.  One would think the media cheerleaders would have the decency, or at least the good sense, to go easy on the bowing before Ms. Kelly until things develop a bit.  

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. 

2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT PRIMARY IN ILLINOIS: ROBIN KELLY-- BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE?

2/18/13

State Senator Toi Hutchinson dropped out of the race to succeed the disgraced Jesse Jackson, Jr. as 2^nd district Congressman in Illinois.   (See 2/16/13’s already seminal post LET’S FINALLY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT JESSE AND SANDI JACKSON.)  This surprised many observers, including yours truly, though Hutchinson was losing ground of late to her chief rival, long time political hanger-on Robin Kelly, whom Ms. Hutchinson endorsed after dropping out of the race.  

Ms. Hutchinson (pictured) had two big things going for her.   As of the last filing date on 2/6/13, she had more than twice as much money ($199,901 vs. $88,820) in her campaign fund as did Ms. Kelly.   She also had the endorsement Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle.  Ms. Preckwinkle is not only very popular but also used to employ Ms. Kelly; thus, her endorsement of Ms. Hutchinson over her former employee said a lot.   However, there seemed to be momentum building behind Ms. Kelly, resulting in her fundraising picking up considerably in the last few weeks.   The entrance of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pro gun control  Independence USA PAC into the race on Ms. Kelly’s side, to the tune of $2.1 million, convinced Ms. Hutchinson it was time to go.

 The suspicion on the part of many, and not only those backing the sole white candidate in the race, former Congressman Debbie Halvorson, is that there was more to Ms. Hutchinson’s dropping out of the race than Mr. Bloomberg’s supporting Ms. Kelly because of Ms. Hutchinson’s record on gun control, which could be construed, after more than a modest amount of twisting and turning, as anti gun control.  In this still racially charged part of the country, the thought is that the black political leadership in the district is coalescing behind Robin Kelly for fear of Debbie Halvorson winning the primary, which is tantamount to winning the election, in a district that was redrawn to assure black representation.

It’s tempting to draw parallels between the 1983 general election for Chicago mayor and the 2013 primary in the 2^nd Congressional district.   In 1983, 1^st District Congressman Harold Washington won the Democratic primary against two white candidates, the incumbent Jane Byrne and Cook County State’s Attorney Rich Daley.   Given the racial character of much of politics in Cook County back then (and now), the Republican nominee, State Representative Bernard Epton, suddenly had a chance to win by drawing the votes of white voters who couldn’t stomach the idea of a black mayor.   Mr. Epton, by no means a bigot, seemed to have gotten caught up in his newfound good fortune, using as a campaign slogan:   “Bernie Epton—Before It’s Too Late.”  And he came reasonably close to wining in this heavily Democratic town; Mr. Washington won 52% to 48%, a very close margin by Chicago standards.

The opposite parallels, if you will, between the 2013 2^nd District race and the 1983 general are not as clear cut as one might suppose, however. 

First, and most obvious, the current race is a primary election while the 1983 Washington/Epton race was a general election.   Thus, Washington could count on the support of those party loyalists who put party before race and could therefore count on a substantial white vote.  But there was substantial support for Republican Bernie Epton coming from white regular Democratic Organization committeemen who put race before party.   The party was split, allowing Epton to make it a race. 

The party is again split in this primary, as is the nature of a primary.  While it seems that most of the powers-that-be are uniting behind Ms. Kelly, there is substantial support for Ms. Halvorson among regulars in the white townships in the district.   And a third major candidate, Alderman Anthony Beale, is a ward committeeman and is likely to draw support not only from his ward but from regulars in the portion of the district that lies in the city of Chicago.

So the primary/general distinction is not as great as one might suppose.   

Second, Bernie Epton was a very unlikely receptacle for the support of whites who were voting nearly solely on the basis of race, some might say on the basis of bigotry.   Mr. Epton was a liberal Jew from Hyde Park, not exactly the type of candidate that white bigots would ardently support were he running against a regular Democrat named, say, O’Brien, Kowalski, Melchiorre, or Siliunas.   Robin Kelly is a black liberal whose race and political philosophy are very much in keeping with the district.  She would thus be a very logical receptacle of the support of liberal black voters. 

Third, the demographics of the district make a victory by Ms. Halvorson very unlikely, even had Toi Hutchinson stayed in the race.  Only 34% of the voters in the district are white.   As much as we would like to wish otherwise, people vote their race.   If Ms. Halvorson got every white vote, the black vote would have to be split nearly evenly among the three (before Ms. Hutchinson’s departure) black candidates for her to win.   (When Ms. Halvorson ran against Mr. Jackson in the primary in 2012, she was trounced 71% to 29%.)  Ms. Halvorson also claims that she will be outspent 30-1 by Ms. Kelly.   But she’s wrong; if you count Mayor Bloomberg’s money, she will be outspent 40-1.   Simply put, Debbie Halvorson, because of her race but also because she is not a very compelling candidate and is not well financed, never had much of a chance in the primary, with or without Toi Hutchinson in the race.

A better parallel might be drawn between the current primary in the 2^nd District and the 1983 primary for mayor in which, as I said before, Harold Washington won the race because the white vote was split nearly evenly between Mr. Daley and Ms. Byrne; the actual outcome was

Washington                  37%

Byrne                           33%

Daley                           30%

Until the last few weeks of the race, moreover, Mr. Washington was not expected to be a factor; that was a Byrne/Daley race until Mr. Washington came out of seemingly nowhere to win.  (And it was an ugly enough race even before Washington entered the race and the anti-black bigotry rose to the surface.   Remember the Daley supporters and their unsanctioned “Dump the b----, vote for Rich” signs?)

Doubtless, the black political power structure was thinking about this outcome when they persuaded Toi Hutchinson to leave the race, but they still might have a parallel situation on their hands.   There are three major candidates remaining:   Robin Kelly, Anthony Beale, and Debbie Halvorson, the latter of whom is the only white candidate.   In addition, there is a host of minor candidates, most, if not all, of whom are black.   So there is the potential for racial ticket splitting resulting in a Halvorson victory.  

However, again, the demographics of the 2^nd district are very different from the demographics of Chicago in 1983.   Every white vote wouldn’t win the race for Ms. Halvorson even in a crowded field.   And Debbie Halvorson is no Harold Washington.

Yes, race permeates politics in Chicago and its environs, even to this day, but that doesn’t mean the 2^nd Congressional race is an eerie reverse parallel of the 1983 mayoral general or primary election.

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.