Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
^ For the record, I don't agree with that article concluding that Rahm "failed". Sure there were plenty of things he couldn't fix, but "failure" is far from how I would define his Mayoralty.
As far as running for POTUS....hmmm that's intriguing but I remain unconvinced...
|
I wouldn't call his tenure an unfettered success, but it was far from a failure, too. Some of the financial changes he made were unpopular and painful, but should help a lot in the long run and politically difficult. I'm not sure many politicians could have gotten them done. I'm not sure many politicians could have achieved more, financially, than he did, either, considering just how far behind the eight-ball Daley left the city. That's my biggest concern with whoever is next - will they have the political skill and willpower to keep making the hard, painful choices necessary to keep Chicago's finances improving or will he or she simply cave and kick the can ever further down the road like so many before?
The only things I consider an unqualified failure is his failure to smooth over the politics necessary to snare the Lucas museum, and that's hardly something to cry home about. It'd have been a feather in Chicago's cap, but it wasn't exactly the Smithsonian we're talking about and was hardly universally popular with the electorate. And, more importantly, I think his handing of the Laquan McDonald incident was sub-par. The fact that murders spiked during his time in office was unlikely to be his fault, so I can't really blame him for crime/policing in general. And Chicago mayors don't seem to have that much impact on crime here, as much as we might wish they did. And he did at least start hiring officers again. The selection of police chiefs is a key consideration, but the best chiefs we have had in the 2+ decades I've lived here have been extremely unpopular with the rank and file. That sort of cultural change might be somewhat impacted by a mayor, but it's not completely in their control unless they take wildly risky, dramatic steps that could very easily backfire.
I do wonder if/how it will impact any chance Chicago has for Amazon. Him being mayor was almost certainly a positive in Amazon's considerations, but Amazon would be foolish to make such a big decision based only on the presence of one elected official, no matter who that official was. And I'm sure that, if asked, he could continue to make phone calls and press the flesh to keep Chicago in the running if possible. I would hope Amazon makes a choice before his term is actually over, though, so that probably won't be necessary.
He got the first infrastructure-related special taxing district created for the construction of the Belmont Flyover, he seems to have stabilized CPS funding, made progress on O'Hare and Midway updates, and generally provided a level of stability giving local business leaders confidence. Chicago's economy is the best it's been in the time I've lived here (I came in 1995). He doesn't get all the credit for that, but considering some of his opponents in the last race, he get credit for not screwing things up or making disastrous decisions like some of the ideas his opponents had.
I don't think he'll run for President. I think he'd have to be crazy to try, considering his polarizing image. He could very well help elect someone else, though.
Prev
) or Daley at this point, the latter simply because he naturally will value business and investment (as opposed to villainizing them), which are needed to make Chicago tick.
Linear Mode
