Chicago - Mayoral Race - Rahm Emanuel Wins

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

I will repeat my previous opinion regarding the unfitness of "anybody but Rahm".

AMEN!

Although I'm sure there's plenty of other people I'd hate to see become mayor.

BTW, glad to see Daley going.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by 10023

Anyone with the current title of Alderman should be struck from the list of viable candidates on that basis alone.

Do some research. Waguespack, Moreno, Jackson, Moore, Tunney and Brookins have all shown some backbone and pushed for more transparency in a lot of different ways. Just saying "throw them all out" without saying why is lazy and ignorant.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by dennis1

An italian mayor would be awesome.

a great mayor would be awesome. Don't care if he/she is a purple, metrosexual from Antarctica.

[ametz]

I’d go with Rahm- He’s well known, regarded as extremely intelligent but practical, and hasn’t (probably) made too many enemies out here, and I’d think it’d be hard for another candidate to really dig in and hurt him. Plus, he’s one of the few who can raise the necessary money in such a short time.

Others whom I hold in high esteem but probably can’t survive a run: Claypool (too many enemies), Mike Quigley (won’t carry the whole city, just settled into a congressional role anyway) Jesse Jackson Jr (Anyone who’s paid close attention to his work knows he’s an excellent pol, but his association with Blago and the specter of his dad having any kind of access to the office just kills his chances), Bill Daley (don’t think he wants it, and I feel like the city is suffering from a little Daley fatigue) David Hoffman (like Quigley, sort of known, but I don’t think he has citywide appeal)

Some of whom I think COULD do a good job, but whom I don’t quite trust because of old school political entrenchment: Lisa Madigan (her dad is the primary mover and shaker, and I attribute much of our Illinois’ sorry state of affairs to his stewardship), Ed Burke (his divisiveness during the council wars is just about unforgivable)

Nightmare candidates: Just about anyone in the city council, including Gutierrez (I’m Puerto Rican but this guy….no. Too much posturing, too many shady deals), Tom Dart, Joe Moore, Dorothy Brown, Bob Fioretti.

I think a Waguespeck or a Brendan Riley could be intriguing down the road but, as a practical matter, neither should occupy the office of mayor any time soon.

I'm missing names in each category to be sure, but this is what I could think of off the top of my head.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Attrill

This is very true. I know Waguespack and think he's an extremely intelligent, hardworking, and honest guy. One of the best Aldermen in the city. But I have the same concerns you do.

Having met him a few times my take is generally similar, but I think it's important not to promote good people up to their level of incompetence. He's a great rookie Bucktown alderman in the overall scheme of things, but at least as of 2010, as mayor he'd be a disaster. Ed Burke and the City Council would almost literally steal his lunch money every day, and no one on the south or west sides would have any reason to take him seriously. When facing down someone like Ed Burke or other power brokers like Emil Jones, James Meeks etc. would you want to use Rahm's rotting fish carcass, or Scott's sternly worded letter?

Of all the aldermen and former aldermen whose names have been floating about, the only one I can remotely see giving a comfortable speech and gladhanding the populace anywhere in town is Manny Flores and possible as you suggest Sandi Jackson. Gutierrez is too toxic, Danny Davis can't win anything but a safe seat, and the current crop are a bunch of jokers (Moore), used-car salesmen (Fioretti), or still a bit wet behind the ears (Waguespack, Reilly).

[dennis1]

Jesse Jackson and Tom Dart are tied for 2nd place. Jesse will win if Rahm stays.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Do some research. Waguespack, Moreno, Jackson, Moore, Tunney and Brookins have all shown some backbone and pushed for more transparency in a lot of different ways. Just saying "throw them all out" without saying why is lazy and ignorant.

As if "transparency" is always a good thing.

Nationally, increased transparency (think C-SPAN and cable news coverage of every bill being debated by Congress) has made our political system completely dysfunctional.

At the city level, transparency just probably results in a lot of bickering amongst interest groups and absolutely nothing ever getting done. Chicago needs to be run by a benevolent dictator like Daley.

Tunney did lead the effort to repeal that ridiculous foie gras ban, so that's one good thing he's done at least.

[dennis1]

Originally Posted by 10023

As if "transparency" is always a good thing.

Nationally, increased transparency (think C-SPAN and cable news coverage of every bill being debated by Congress) has made our political system completely dysfunctional.

At the city level, transparency just probably results in a lot of bickering amongst interest groups and absolutely nothing ever getting done. Chicago needs to be run by a benevolent dictator like Daley.

Tunney did lead the effort to repeal that ridiculous foie gras ban, so that's one good thing he's done at least.

There is a sense that demcratic Great Lakes politics is at a tipping point. "Transparency" is just a talking point, but trying to show there is some will at least quell all the suburban bitching.

[Chicago3rd]

Rahm is part of the same machine that Daley and Obama are in. Of course they will support him. I can't vote for Rahm because of his record in the White House. Since there is NO issue with getting a complete loser rightwing type of candidate I will have plenty of folks to vote for. My personal pick - Lisa Madigan

[Attrill]

Do some politicians use "transparency" as an empty buzzword? Certainly, but it is a MAJOR issue in Chicago. What does it mean? Here are just a few things for starters:

- Accounting on TIF expenditures. About 1/6th of the city budget was completely hidden until the Sunshine Ordinance passed, but even that allows Aldermen to enter almost all expenditures as "Administration" with no details. Even with those lax requirements there are plenty of Aldermen who are not reporting how they're spending millions of dollars.

- Complete accounting of how much TIF money is on hand - and how are the decisions made on how to disburse it? There is supposedly $1 billion in TIF funds sitting in accounts unspent. There is no summary of what it is earmarked for, and ultimately no proof that the money is really there.

- Release of statistics on CPD disciplinary records. Much of the city has lost faith in the CPD, and they need to start taking steps to regain trust. They're either covering up serious abuses or they're shooting themselves in the foot by hiding nothing.

These are important because the city has an awful track record on all of these fronts. I can certainly understand how people are skeptical of politicians who talk about "transparency", but some of them are serious and you need to do your research to find out who those aldermen are. Is anyone seriously comfortable with the fact that the mayor and aldermen have about a billion dollars that is not accounted for but just floating around somewhere?

On a side note - I'm amazed at how many people are so behind Rahm Emanuel before he's issued any statements about what he would do. I could see myself being convinced to vote for him - but how does he intend to fund the budget shortfall? What are his general plans for CPS? How does he plan on getting more funds for the CTA? How will he utilize TIF funds? He's nothing but a huge blank slate at this point, and until he outlines his approach to the issues confronting Chicago it is way to early to decide who to vote for.

[emathias]

I like that Rahm has a lot of drive and connections. But he has very little executive experience, and a very well-known temper. I'd hate to see him get into office and get distracted with attempts to be vindictive - it wouldn't be appropriate, and it wouldn't be in Chicago's best interest. He has (supposedly) mellowed, and if he's mellowed enough and has some good ideas I could vote for him, but he definitely has his work cut out for him in convincing me and people who think like me.

On the other hand, I would never vote for Tom Dart.

[dennis1]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Do some politicians use "transparency" as an empty buzzword? Certainly, but it is a MAJOR issue in Chicago. What does it mean? Here are just a few things for starters:

- Accounting on TIF expenditures. About 1/6th of the city budget was completely hidden until the Sunshine Ordinance passed, but even that allows Aldermen to enter almost all expenditures as "Administration" with no details. Even with those lax requirements there are plenty of Aldermen who are not reporting how they're spending millions of dollars.

- Complete accounting of how much TIF money is on hand - and how are the decisions made on how to disburse it? There is supposedly $1 billion in TIF funds sitting in accounts unspent. There is no summary of what it is earmarked for, and ultimately no proof that the money is really there.

- Release of statistics on CPD disciplinary records. Much of the city has lost faith in the CPD, and they need to start taking steps to regain trust. They're either covering up serious abuses or they're shooting themselves in the foot by hiding nothing.

These are important because the city has an awful track record on all of these fronts. I can certainly understand how people are skeptical of politicians who talk about "transparency", but some of them are serious and you need to do your research to find out who those aldermen are. Is anyone seriously comfortable with the fact that the mayor and aldermen have about a billion dollars that is not accounted for but just floating around somewhere?

On a side note - I'm amazed at how many people are so behind Rahm Emanuel before he's issued any statements about what he would do. I could see myself being convinced to vote for him - but how does he intend to fund the budget shortfall? What are his general plans for CPS? How does he plan on getting more funds for the CTA? How will he utilize TIF funds? He's nothing but a huge blank slate at this point, and until he outlines his approach to the issues confronting Chicago it is way to early to decide who to vote for.

I hate to say this, but what we don't know won't hurt us. Personally I am behind Jesse Jackson Jr

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by dennis1

I hate to say this, but what we don't know won't hurt us. Personally I am behind Jesse Jackson Jr

Welcome to the Brave New World.

I could see the "what we don't know won't hurt us" attitude making sense in the 90's, but given the current budget crisis I want some assurances that money isn't being wasted before I see my property taxes go up (which I expect and can live with, as long as there is more accountability for where the money goes).

I could behind Jackson as well, possibly either of them. I'm hoping to go to an event in a couple weeks that Sandi Jackson is going to be at, I'm hoping to talk to her briefly to get some sort of feel as to where she's coming from.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yawn, like the current budget crisis is a result of mismanagement. Hate to break it to you but EVERY level of government throughout the country is in the same boat right now, this is not something local to Chicago. When you go through a massive economic crisis you get a massive public crisis. That's just how it works so get over it. At least Chicago still has lights on its streets unlike Colorado Springs. Chicago hasn't seen much at all in the way of massive spending cuts the way 90% of other large cities in the USA have seen over the last year or two. So I would say things are working out pretty well for us.


Lisa Madigan is one of the most promising young(ish) politicians out there. I will never vote for her for Chicago Mayor. That would be throwing away her career. She will be heading to Washington and becoming an excellent Senator or President.

Originally Posted by Attrill

Do some research. Waguespack, Moreno, Jackson, Moore,

Joe Moore is a bumbling ignoramus who would run Chicago into the ground if elected. I cannot think of a more unfit candidate than him except maybe Fioretti. He has built his entire career off of "say no to Daley" which isn't a great talking point anymore when Daley is no longer in office...

Originally Posted by emathias

I like that Rahm has a lot of drive and connections. But he has very little executive experience, and a very well-known temper. I'd hate to see him get into office and get distracted with attempts to be vindictive - it wouldn't be appropriate, and it wouldn't be in Chicago's best interest. He has (supposedly) mellowed, and if he's mellowed enough and has some good ideas I could vote for him, but he definitely has his work cut out for him in convincing me and people who think like me.

Lol, and Daley II had executive experience coming into office? He was a state attorney and a committee member of the Democratic party, not executive in my book. Rahm is essentially running the highest executive office in the world right now, THAT is executive experience.

Also, I think that the above paragraph sounds just like Daley. Short tempered and likely to do something vindictive or brash? I dunno remember the battle of Meigs? Or how about this gem of a quote:

Reporter: But are gun bans really effective?

Daley: *picks up rifle*
How about I point this gun up your ass and we'll see of effective it is!


Lol, More of that is exactly what Chicago needs! Hey Alderman, you going to vote against this, how about I kick your ass! Lol, yes please!

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Yawn, like the current budget crisis is a result of mismanagement. Hate to break it to you but EVERY level of government throughout the country is in the same boat right now, this is not something local to Chicago. When you go through a massive economic crisis you get a massive public crisis. That's just how it works so get over it. At least Chicago still has lights on its streets unlike Colorado Springs. Chicago hasn't seen much at all in the way of massive spending cuts the way 90% of other large cities in the USA have seen over the last year or two. So I would say things are working out pretty well for us.

In general I agree with you that Chicago could be in much worse shape, and many cities are - but supposedly there is ONE BILLION DOLLARS in TIF money stashed somewhere. You're saying you're fine with just letting remain unaccounted for?

Like I said, I expect raised fees and taxes, but I want an accounting of that money before my property taxes (among others) are raised. If someone who is running for mayor isn't smart enough to look for the low hanging fruit to save some money before raising taxes they don't even have the right to be running. Do you pay property taxes in Chicago? Do you have a kid in CPS? I do - this election is serious shit to me, and I want to know what the candidates propose to get the city through the recession before I make any decisions on candidates.

I agree with you about Moore, I would never vote for him for Mayor but I think as an Alderman he will vote to open the books

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I used to pay property taxes (and more importantly sales tax since that adds up to far more than the $2000 I paid for property taxes when you are spending over $100k a year between your company and personal spending) in Chicago. I would never send my child to CPS, I don't trust public schools in general, but I don't have a child so that's irrelevant. Frankly there are "supposedly" $1 billion dollars in TIF money, until someone does the accounting work and shows it should be somewhere that's just wild speculation. Besides I think you might not understand how TIF's work if you think that $1 billion is just mysteriously missing.


Anyhow this is why Rahm must win:

"Why the [expletive] would you pick Vegas for a [expletive] convention? Any organization that chooses Vegas over Chicago is a [extended series of expletives], and you can quote me."

~Rahmbo~



economist.com

"This finger is gone but the other one still works"

~Rahminator~

[10023]

Originally Posted by dennis1

There is a sense that demcratic Great Lakes politics is at a tipping point. "Transparency" is just a talking point, but trying to show there is some will at least quell all the suburban bitching.

What does suburban bitching have to do with Chicago city government?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Attrill

These are important because the city has an awful track record on all of these fronts. I can certainly understand how people are skeptical of politicians who talk about "transparency", but some of them are serious and you need to do your research to find out who those aldermen are. Is anyone seriously comfortable with the fact that the mayor and aldermen have about a billion dollars that is not accounted for but just floating around somewhere?

Surprisingly, yes.

Politics has been called the "art of the possible", and it is entirely dependent on various quid pro quo exchanges between politicians. People like the idea of "compromise" among politicians, but what this really means, by necessity, is "I scratch your back, you scratch mine".

The idea of representative democracy is that voters elect representatives whom they believe to be of good character and sound mind, with broadly similar goals and beliefs to their own. It's then the politician's job to advance these goals, which involves making a lot of deals with other political operatives. The ideal is for high-minded men to engage in compromise based on principle, but in practice it's usually a matter of trading favors and money.

So no, I frankly do not want every use of TIF funds or every dollar in the budget to be disclosed on the front page of the Tribune, because if you subject all spending and everything that politicians do to public scrutiny, you prevent the government from functioning the way it was intended to (or at all).

Remember that before cable television (or even the nightly news and radio), people barely had any clue what their elected representatives in Washington were doing, and the government arguably functioned much better then than it does now.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by 10023

So no, I frankly do not want every use of TIF funds or every dollar in the budget to be disclosed on the front page of the Tribune, because if you subject all spending and everything that politicians do to public scrutiny, you prevent the government from functioning the way it was intended to (or at all).

+1

The ideal system gives power to the people... on election day.

[10023]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

+1

The ideal system gives power to the people... on election day.

Precisely. And the fact that voters currently have so much day-to-day information about the goings on in government gives them much more power than they should have. It effectively makes every major Congressional vote, for instance, a public referendum. No member of Congress can take a principled stand, or give away something in exchange for something else (i.e., compromise), because there will be an outcry and people calling for their head come election day. So we now have a system that is purely partisan, with legislators subject to a litmus test of ideological purity. And there are very good reasons why the system is not designed to make every action of government subject to public referendum. It is now completely broken because of it.