Chicago - Mayoral Race - Rahm Emanuel Wins

[Standpoor]

Damn. The Supreme Court let the Appellate Court have it. It was a stupid decision on the part of the Appellate Court. I was hoping the Supreme Court would put the Appellate Court in its place and the Supreme Court came through. So far, I am only a little ways into the opinion but this is my favorite:

Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the
principles governing the question before us were settled. Things
changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision
and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited
above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to
craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency.
See No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at 6-8 (dismissing the foregoing
authority in its entirety). Thus, our review of the appellate court’s
decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of
whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the
particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court
was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor
of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not.

[Loopy]

...

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Loopy

I, for one, welcome our new nine-fingered overlord.

He may be on the ballot but there is still an election, probably two to be had.

As far as the decision is concerned I guess it makes sense, the vote was unanimous and thus the case was obviously very strong. I was never big on this residency challenge, the last few days I was just trying to make sense of the appellate court ruling and I was wondering if there was a strong legal case, I never expected what happened on Monday to happen. I think simply saying "I will leave it up to the judges since I am not a lawyer" was a fair statement.

[alex1]

glad Rahm is on the ballot, but the man is a total jack-off. Watching the debates right now, and he's by far my least favorite candidate.

[Nowhereman1280]

Even below CMB? She sounded like a raging lunatic at times, especially whenever she got on the topic of schools. Chico would be like "Charter schools are an important part of the program" and CMB would be like "OMG you just threw public schools in the trash" she repeated her stick about how the other candidates wanted to abandon public schools like 20 times. Its pathetic that she's polling stronger than Chico who is by far the only other candidate that is really in Rahm's league.

Chico looked good tonight, Rahm was OK, Miguel had some good points, CMB sounded like a nutcase as usual...


PS: Told ya so about the court ruling. Just like I said, wasn't based in precedent or law in any way.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Chico looked good tonight, Rahm was OK, Miguel had some good points, CMB sounded like a nutcase as usual...

^ I would pretty much agree with this assessment.

Rahm held his own but didn't particularly impress me. I thought Chico sounded really professional and knowledgeable.

CMB has no chance of winning because 1) she doesn't consider the budget deficit a crisis and 2) she can't win the white vote if she is essentially against building more charter schools.

I still think Rahm will win, but now that I've heard this debate I have to say that I think Chico is probably more qualified for the position. That doesn't mean that Rahm can't be a great mayor (in fact, because he is not so connected with the Daley machine he may actually offer a new perspective--which I think the city badly needs), I'm just guessing he will have a rockier learning curve when entering office than Chico would.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I would pretty much agree with this assessment.

Rahm held his own but didn't particularly impress me. I thought Chico sounded really professional and knowledgeable.

CMB has no chance of winning because 1) she doesn't consider the budget deficit a crisis and 2) she can't win the white vote if she is essentially against building more charter schools.

I still think Rahm will win, but now that I've heard this debate I have to say that I think Chico is probably more qualified for the position. That doesn't mean that Rahm can't be a great mayor (in fact, because he is not so connected with the Daley machine he may actually offer a new perspective--which I think the city badly needs), I'm just guessing he will have a rockier learning curve when entering office than Chico would.

As a Chico supporter I hope more voters take your point of view and take a more serious look at him. I still think a Rahm-Chico runoff will be very competitive and a Rahm-Braun runoff will be Dead On Arrival. I think the way the candidates were seated from left to right is the order the votes will fall on February 22nd. Rahm will get the most votes and Chico will come in second, both of them advancing to a runoff. Braun will come in third and Del Valle in fourth place. I think it is pretty clear that Chico has nowhere to go but up and Braun nowhere but down, Rahm will stay at his 44% or go down a bit as more people take a more serious look at Chico.

[the urban politician]

^ You know, that's all fine, and I"m not trying to sip the Rahm kool-aid, I'm really not.

I am growing impressed with Chico, but I have one really big concern about him. He has been a part of the whole Daley-thing, for lack of a better word, for a very long time.

Chicago really needs somebody who has not been inside the machine for so long. If somebody doesn't come in and kind of shake things up in a big way, how will the city defeat its challenges? I really agree with those out there who think it crucial that Chicago change its ways to continue to compete as a global city.

[wrab]

They sure didn't mince any words in expressing their displeasure with the appellate decision. Ouch! Burn!

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You know, that's all fine, and I"m not trying to sip the Rahm kool-aid, I'm really not.

I am growing impressed with Chico, but I have one really big concern about him. He has been a part of the whole Daley-thing, for lack of a better word, for a very long time.

Chicago really needs somebody who has not been inside the machine for so long. If somebody doesn't come in and kind of shake things up in a big way, how will the city defeat its challenges? I really agree with those out there who think it crucial that Chicago change its ways to continue to compete as a global city.

Well as unpopular as Mayor Daley may be right now one has to remember how much of an amazing mayor he was for the vast majority of his tenure. Gery Chico reminds me of the good old days of Mayor Daley's more early tenure, Chico was Daley's right hand man when many of the best policy decisions of the current administration were first introduced and implemented. Chico reminds me of Daley ten or so years ago, someone who truly loves the city and being Mayor of Chicago is the pinnacle of their ambitions. Chico was by far the most articulate and confident in the debate.

Rahm would make a decent mayor but I am not so convinced that he views Mayor of Chicago as just another stepping stone to something else whether that be running for governor or senator down the road or perhaps something else on the national front. Rahm held his own in the debate but almost seemed slightly timid or awkward in the way he talks, he must not like debates, its hard to believe that someone who has such a tough guy image looking a little nervous in a debate.

Carol Mosely Braun really faltered in this debate, for one thing she said that she didn't consider Chicago's financial situation to be a crisis and then said that Gery Chico's support for charter schools is akin to throwing in the towel for our neighborhood public schools.

Then there is Del Valle who has a few passionate points but is still bragging about being the poorest candidate. He attacks people for having more money than him and says its about grass roots support, he fails to realize that both are actually important. Then there is the fact that he also goes along with Braun in the anti-charter school rhetoric.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago really needs somebody who has not been inside the machine for so long.

Don't think for a second that Rahm isn't involved with the machine. Remember that he was a huge political insider as a US representative before Obama appointed him chief of staff.

The advantage he brings to the job is not outside perspective but outside connections, mostly in DC.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Rahm held his own in the debate but almost seemed slightly timid or awkward in the way he talks, he must not like debates, its hard to believe that someone who has such a tough guy image looking a little nervous in a debate.

I've met Rahm a couple times and know a few people who've worked with him. I think the tough guy image is way overblown, and really misunderstood. He has no real results to show for the things he's supposedly been tough on (unless you consider backing DLC policies in the Clinton administration being tough). I see it more as just going with the crowd in an animated and colorful fashion. He was brought into the Obama administration to wrangle votes in Congress, get legislation pushed through, and keep everyone on message. That didn't work out too well (especially since he opposed the Healthcare bill and watered down the Financial Reform bill).

Originally Posted by Chicago103

for one thing she said that she didn't consider Chicago's financial situation to be a crisis

CMB's track record on handling ANYTHING financial, either personally or in choosing people to run them for her, is horrendous. Probably felonious as well. She would run the city into the ground.

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Then there is Del Valle who has a few passionate points but is still bragging about being the poorest candidate. He attacks people for having more money than him and says its about grass roots support, he fails to realize that both are actually important. Then there is the fact that he also goes along with Braun in the anti-charter school rhetoric.

DelValle's "man of the people" routine is a bit overblown, and does get tiresome. On the plus side he is the candidate who has the best knowledge of the budget and knows all the players in city government. He knows where there is fat to be cut and slackers to be driven out. I would love to see him put in charge of the next city budget, either as mayor or in another City Hall position. He is an honest guy, and comes across much better when you talk to him in person.

I think Chico could do a good job, although he had some problems navigating the day to day politics while he was working at City Hall and made more enemies than he should have. Right now I'm torn between Chico and DelValle. I think Rahm could do a good job, but I'm not sure.

BTW - the track record on Charter Schools in Chicago is not good. Magnets and Academies have been proving to be much more effective. I'm not inherently opposed to the concept of Charter Schools, but the city really needs to eliminate them or completely rethink the way they're being implemented.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Attrill

He has no real results to show for the things he's supposedly been tough on (unless you consider backing DLC policies in the Clinton administration being tough). I see it more as just going with the crowd in an animated and colorful fashion. He was brought into the Obama administration to wrangle votes in Congress, get legislation pushed through, and keep everyone on message. That didn't work out too well (especially since he opposed the Healthcare bill and watered down the Financial Reform bill).

Or, one could say that his ability to "water down" legislation and make it more paletable is the only way it got passed. Same logic would apply to his recruiting the Blue Dogs to win the house in 2006 by expanding the tent of the Democratic party, with the idea that a somewhat fractuous majority is still more effective at advancing one's agenda than being in an ideologically-pure minority.

Point being, one could spin this as being results-focused and good at vote-counting to get things actually passed, rather than relentlessly pursuing ideological purity. Your take quoted above is the opposite extreme, being written as though (a) more base-friendly, liberal versions of Healthcare and FinReg could have easily passed both houses; and (b) the Democrats would still have won substantial majorities in 2006 and extended those in 2008 without many moderate members that were recruited by Emanuel. Both positions are, at the very least, debatable.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Don't think for a second that Rahm isn't involved with the machine. Remember that he was a huge political insider as a US representative before Obama appointed him chief of staff.

The advantage he brings to the job is not outside perspective but outside connections, mostly in DC.

just to add to your post. He also brings in large corporate connections. I understand some of you view this as a positive, but I cringed in agony when his solution to the lack of grocers in some neighborhoods was to bring in Walmart to these places. This is one of the more damaging scenarios that could play out in the long-term.

A visionary mayor will play nice with big business while promoting economic growth to happen internally. If communities can begin successful co-ops and farmer markets, the city can essentially fill the void by providing fresher and more local produce while keeping more of the $ spent within the city economy.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Or, one could say that his ability to "water down" legislation and make it more paletable is the only way it got passed.

I certainly understand that approach, and actually approve it it much of the time. I just don't see Rahm being a real hard ass because he enforced moderation in an administration that was pretty much 100% on board with the DLC. He bashed liberal Democrats who were already fairly marginalized, basically just kicked some guys while they were down, and people called that being tough. He was also very involved in the Clinton attempts to get healthcare and gays in the military passed in Congress (and failed) and then opposed pushing those through under Obama (when they succeeded). Combine that with his strong opposition to anyone who opposed going into Iraq and I really question his judgement on what "water down" means and when to do it.

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Same logic would apply to his recruiting the Blue Dogs to win the house in 2006 by expanding the tent of the Democratic party, with the idea that a somewhat fractuous majority is still more effective at advancing one's agenda than being in an ideologically-pure minority.

I was pretty involved in the 2006 congressional election, primarily in the IL 6th district, and worked with a number of people on the DCCC. He got VERY involved in the primary and kind of forced Duckworth through as the nominee. I thought it was a really bad decision, and most of the Iraq veterans he pushed through as nominees in 2006 lost. I could write a book about how messed up a lot of that approach (and Kerry in 2004) was. I also think he shares the credit for 2006 successes with Dean's 50 state strategy - Democrats need a combined approach to maximize gains in any election.

Anyways, I'm not a Rahm hater. Based on my experience I don't get the tough guy reputation that carries. In some ways that's a good thing. I think he was an excellent Congressman, but I question his judgement on many things.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I am growing impressed with Chico, but I have one really big concern about him. He has been a part of the whole Daley-thing, for lack of a better word, for a very long time.

Daley would have beat Rahm with atleast 60% of the vote, so I don't think he's that much of a liability for Chico.

[ametz]

I don't know...I think we were perilously close to suffering Daley fatigue, and it's not a stretch to think that Chico's insider status is a liability for a good chunk of the electorate at this point. I agree that both Chico and Rahm are 'insiders' (for that matter, so are Del Valle & Braun). But I think Chico's standing in this regard is more insular (local), whereas Rahm is better suited to find ideas and help elsewhere, as Daley has for so many years. A primary concern with Chico is that he touts his work with the CPS but...isn't the school system still pathetic? One specific point that I just can't get over: doesn't Chicago have the shortest school day in the entire nation, and possibly in the industrialized world? This is a glaring embarrassment, and if Chico couldn't do a thing about it when he was front and center doesn't sit well with me. Does anyone know if Chico's stint as CPS boss was more 'get along, go along' or did he try to enact ambitious plans but was thwarted by unions, or the mayor, or whomever?

[ardecila]

Well apparently we're going to have a massive turnover on City Council as well. We could be on the verge of a sea change in Chicago politics. Exciting stuff.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well apparently we're going to have a massive turnover on City Council as well. We could be on the verge of a sea change in Chicago politics. Exciting stuff.

I think this is actually much more important than the mayor's race. Anyone who doesn't know who their alderman is, and what they've done, shouldn't even THINK about who they're going to vote for in the mayoral race until they get that figured out. In addition to the open offices there have been a number of reform alderman added to the city council over the last few years.

The Sun Times just started announcing their endorsements and Progress Illinois has a good candidate tracker. They're both good places to start researching who you're going to vote for.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by www.myfoxchicago.com

Chicago - Mayoral candidate Gery Chico, who is running second in the polls to Rahm Emanuel, is proposing a departure from current policy when it comes to the residency of Chicago police and firefighters.

Chico said it might be time to drop the mandatory requirement that Chicago police and firefighters have to live in the city.

As he tries to gain momentum in the anything-but-predictable race, he picked up the endorsement of Chicago's Firefighters Union Tuesday.

Chico, who has also been endorsed by Chicago's Fraternal Order of Police, said when it comes to the residency issue for cops and firefighters, today is a different world.

this is the only reason i dont like Chico for mayor. If you get rid of the residency requirement, you risk destabilizing over a dozen middle class neighborhoods in Chicago. and of course, the police and firefighter unions LOVE the idea. get City of Chicago benefits without having to pay City of Chicago taxes. Lovely.