Living and breathing in the Second City
Laws we never think about …
25 Nov 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedLike the law that dictates the order of succession. Here’s a pretty good case for changing it.
Democracy in America
22 Nov 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedMake Promises, Break Promises, Get Elected Anyway. From the Trib:
Memo to Mayor Richard M. Daley, U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, Cook County Board President Bobbie Steele … :
That didn’t take long, did it? Todd Stroger, whom you each touted as a “progressive” or a “reformer” when you endorsed him for Cook County Board president, won’t even take office until next month. And already he has broken a key campaign pledge he made to voters.
“I will ask [for] and accept his resignation–period.”
That’s what Stroger said on Sept. 29 about his father’s patronage boss, Gerald Nichols, when it was clear that a federal investigation into hiring irregularities in county government was a political problem for Stroger. He said that if he won the election, Nichols would be gone.
But Stroger now says that he needs Nichols’ advice. So he won’t promptly dump Nichols, who’s being paid $114,000 a year by the county to do nothing.
“I’m going to bring Gerald on to help me figure out who’s who and what’s what,” Stroger told the Sun-Times. He said he’ll get around to dumping Nichols in, oh, January. At least, that’s what Stroger says now. Check back in January.
So, public officials, what does this episode tell voters about each of you? That when you stand before a crowd to praise a candidate for his reform credentials, or you record robo-calls to tell citizens he’s “the real reformer,” or you tell voters who trust you to trust him–does Todd Stroger’s already-slippery performance tell voters that the worth of your word approaches zero?
… U.S. Reps. Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr., Daniel Lipinski, Rahm Emanuel, Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky …
You know Gerald Nichols. He was the 8th Ward man to see when John Stroger ran the patronage dump that is Cook County government. A few years back, when Todd Stroger was a state representative, he quietly sponsored a $12,000 tuition grant for Nichols’ daughter.
When Bobbie Steele took over this summer as interim board president, she suspended Nichols–she said she couldn’t figure out what he was supposed to be doing for the county. That was Steele’s way of saying Nichols was too hot to handle, given that FBI agents were showing very intense interest in county hirings and promotions.
… Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Comptroller Dan Hynes, Secretary of State Jesse White …
Todd Stroger spokesman Bill Figel confirmed Tuesday that Stroger the Younger plans to keep Nichols around for a while so Stroger can learn everything Nichols knows about county government. You’d think a guy being paid to sit at home and wait for the mail might donate his supposedly crucial knowledge to the county. Instead, this walking symbol of Democratic clout politics in Cook County will be advising … Todd Stroger, the putative reformer each of you endorsed.
… State Senate President Emil Jones, Sens. Rickey Hendon, Jeff Schoenberg, Kwame Raoul, Donne E. Trotter, Maggie Crotty, Don Harmon …
This isn’t “just politics,” any more than endemic county corruption is “just politics.” This is about services to needy and sometimes desperate people. Example: A new report from the court-appointed monitor at Cook County’s juvenile detention center documents recent efforts by county administrators at the center to impede her investigations. This at a facility that has chronically abused girls and boys by the hundreds.
Todd Stroger is about to take responsibility for that hellhole–in part because each of you told voters he was the best candidate for the job.
… House Speaker Michael Madigan, Reps. Calvin Giles, Sara Feigenholtz, Lou Lang, Julie Hamos, Barbara Flynn Currie, Bob Rita, Marlow Colvin, Connie Howard, Elaine Nekritz, Deborah Graham …
So, each of you, ask yourselves: Is the man you said would be a fine Cook County Board president making you proud you endorsed him?
Will you now speak out in public? Or do you do that only in campaign season when party leaders tell you whom you’re going to endorse?
… Cook County Board members Deborah Sims, Earlean Collins, Jerry Butler, Joan Patricia Murphy, John Daley, Roberto Maldonado, Joseph Mario Moreno, Larry Suffredin …
As is, each of your names remains on Todd Stroger’s Web site. Telling him to remove you from his endorsement list won’t take back what you told voters about him before the election. So leave your name right where it is. As a record.
… State’s Atty. Dick Devine, County Recorder Gene Moore, Ald. Ed Burke, Toni Preckwinkle, Richard Mell, Ed Smith, Tom Tunney …
He’s all yours.
Media’s Future Big and Small
22 Nov 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedI haven’t posted anything here for a while. I’ve had family in town and been busier than usual at work … but this is definitely worth posting. Harold Henderson (a Chicago Reader columnist and blogger) emailed me an article from The Atlantic about the future of newspapers. The author, Michael Hirschorn has more wrong the right I suspect … but nevertheless he has enough right that he’s earned himself due consideration.
Particularly I’m intrigued by the notion of the shift from anonymity in media to personality. Hirschorn doesn’t focus on this specifically but it’s implied by the article. This dovetails nicely with my belief in a more transparent and therefore more openly biased media.
A Legend Passes
16 Nov 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedI had the privilege of meeting Milton this summer. He was an incredibly short man. He was so short I remember being very embarrassed that I had even noticed. I thought it a poetic justice that his legacy would cast shadows on us all. Indeed the shadow has fallen over me today.
Learning the Wrong Lesson
11 Nov 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedDownload File
The aftermath of an election is just as important as the election itself. The losing party is sent scrambling for explanations of what went wrong and embedded in each explanation is a theory about what the party must do different in the future. The importance of interpreting a loss can’t be understated. One misinterpretation can mean permanent minority.
So far the one thing all conservatives agree on is that they lost the election, the democrats did not win it. But just why conservatives lost is still an open debate, and the dominant side of that debate thus far has been conservatives who feel their only mistake was not being conservative enough.
Conservative columnist and Talk Radio host, Hugh Hewitt argues, for instance, that Republicans “forfeited” their majority by taking “the easy way out” which lead directly to Tuesday’s disaster. Rush Limbaugh concurred and read Hewitt’s entire column on the air. But not only do the exit poll numbers not substantiate Hewitt and Limbaugh’s opinion, they show something else entirely.
Republicans didn’t lose their base; they lost the middle, pure and simple.
If it were true that compromise and weak knees lead to the stunning losses on Tuesday we would expect to see significantly lower turnout among conservatives, but we don’t. Exits polls from CNN estimate that 36% of House voters were Republican, down an insignificant 1% since 2004. Self-identified conservatives made up 32% of voters on Tuesday, down just 2% points from 2004. And white evangelicals turned out in virtually the same numbers this past Tuesday as they did two years ago.
So conservative turnout seems to be only marginally significant. A bigger part of the story is that conservatives simply didn’t vote as solidly Republican as they did in 2004. Kerry only received 21% of the evangelical vote in 2004. House Democrats on Tuesday got 29%. In 2004, 84% of conservatives voted Republican, this year that number is down to 78%.
When conservatives aren’t voting Republican the base is officially eroding and in a two-party system that erosion generally takes place in the middle.
Indeed, polls show conservatives did horribly amongst moderates and independents. In 2004, Bush and Kerry virtually split the Independent vote 48% to 49% respectively. On Tuesday the Democrats won big, 57% to 39%. Democrats also increased their numbers among self-described moderates getting 61% of the vote on Tuesday, up from 54% in 2004.
This certainly sounds like conservatism being defeated rather than “forfeited” as Hewitt would have it.
Even worse for Republicans is how they did among Latino voters, a demographic Bush and Rove have been courting for years. Republicans garnered only 29% of the Latino vote on Tuesday, down from 44% in 2004. It is impossible to interpret this as anything but a reaction to the GOP’s rhetoric on immigration. And yet, Hewitt and Limbaugh among others point repeatedly to immigration as an issue on which compromise cost the GOP.
Perhaps they assumed the right could offset the loss of Latino votes with big gains among those who are passionate about illegal immigration. But in a bit of electoral irony, the GOP won only 56% of the anti-illegal vote–those who think “most illegal immigrants should be deported.” While clearly a win, the numbers are hardly impressive given the intensity of the rhetoric. It’s hard to see the logic in thinking less compromise on immigration is the key to returning to majority status.
All this is not to say that conservatism is dead, only that it seems quite obvious that conservatism, as it’s been presented over the last few years, is no longer in touch with what most people care about. Since Bush was elected, conservative outrage has been focused on issues like gay marriage, immigration, and Terri Schiavo. Meanwhile the tax cuts were never made permanent, not a single government program was truly reformed, and spending has broken records, but, with the exception of a few bloggers, there’s been little to no public outrage.
If the Republicans want to be contenders in 2008 they will have to learn a lesson from 2006, but they need to make sure it’s the right lesson. Namely, that the party of the Contract With America seems to have lost touch with most of the American public. The party of lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and limited government has become the party of anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, and anti-stem cell research. Conservatives don’t have to give up these issues, but they have to take this election as evidence they don’t belong at the top of their agenda.
Ninnies in the news
19 Oct 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedDon’t get me wrong. I’m full of sympathy, but two stories in the paper this morning made me laugh hysterically:
Immigration Spending
13 Sep 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: Uncategorized$44 billion on immigration enforcement, including a “virtual fence.” Now pardon me for asking but are we sure all the immigrants are coming through the desert. I know that the popular imagery is the mexican worker crawling through the desert to reach America. But I’d bet good money that quite a few immigrants are coming through checkpoints.
$44 billion? Can that be justified as “smaller government?”
Independence Day?
22 Aug 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: UncategorizedPublished in the Chicago Tribune August 10, 2006.
With party politics becoming increasingly polarized and with more and more Americans unwilling to identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, buzz about the viability of a third party in 2008 is palpable.
Sure, pundits with established reputations scoff at such brazen suggestions. But I would guess that every one of them, from James Carville to George Will, has entertained the notion. The skeptic is right, of course. We live in a two-party system and there is next to no chance of a third party having any real sustained success. But this doesn’t in any way preclude the occasional party shake-up and even realignment.
Historically, successful party realignments have served to entrench an existing party, as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1932 realigning election did for the Democrats, or establish a new party out of fractured coalitions, as the 1860 election did for the Republican Party.
Given the abysmal approval ratings of both parties in Congress, it seems unlikely that either will solidify a dominant majority anytime soon. But a shake-up is not out of the picture.
Enter Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Republicans will no doubt argue that Lieberman’s defeat Tuesday in Connecticut’s Democratic primary at the hands of his challenger, Ned Lamont, says something about the Democratic Party. Indeed it does; it demonstrates that, like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is being pulled toward the loudest, most organized constituency in its troubled coalition, leaving more moderate, less ideological voices underrepresented.
But more important than what the loss says about the parties involved is the opportunity it may bring for serious alternatives in 2008. If Lieberman wins the general election as an independent, it could be a galvanizing force for the silent majority of voters standing between two party extremes. This momentum could very well produce an independent presidential ticket from one or both sides of the aisle.
Imagine the possibilities: Giuliani-Lieberman, McCain-Rodham Clinton, Biden-Gingrich? OK, that last one’s a little far-fetched. But the idea of center-right and center-left coming together is not. The center-left is anxious to distance itself from the more pacifist elements in the party. On the right, a once stable bridge between libertarians and social conservatives is now on fire as a result of the Bush administration’s embrace of big government and congressional Republicans’ obsession with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and flag burning.
It would be foolish to deny the appeal an independent candidate with credibility on fiscal issues, fresh ideas about foreign policy and a soft position on social issues could have.
Of course, Lieberman has two major problems.
First, despite the tantrum thrown by Connecticut Democrats, he is still a “liberal.” His American Conservative Union rating in 2005 was 8 (a perfect conservative would score 100). Lieberman’s Republican opponent, Alan Schlesinger, will no doubt remind us of this in coming months. Lieberman will have to find ways to appeal to the center-right, despite his reputation.
Lieberman’s second problem will be persuading Democrats who voted for him in the primary to go against the party and vote independent in November, a much more daunting task. Lamont will argue that doing so risks putting a Republican in office. Fear is a powerful motivator.
If Lieberman is going to be successful, he has to think bigger than himself and bigger than this particular campaign. He has to run against the system. He has to argue that both parties have been corrupted by a combination of special interest and partisanship and that until independents and moderates start asserting themselves, we will only have more of the same. He has to paint his campaign as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift the base of power in Washington. Reform, reform, reform.
Does Lieberman have vision? He’ll need it. Does Lieberman see the big picture? He’d better start looking. Can he persuade others to support him and even follow his lead? Who knows. At the very least, we know it will be fun to watch and there’s a small chance his loss in the Connecticut primary could become an important moment in American political history.
A Bandwagon With No Wheels
22 Aug 2006 Author: Mike Van Winkle In: ChicagoIn a bizarre bit of election-year strategy, Democrat centrists like Joe Biden and Evan Bayh have taken to attending anti-Wal-Mart rallies around the country to show off their pro-labor credentials. “It’s not anti business,” Bayh told the New York Times, presumably with a straight face, “Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle class squeeze.”
Earth to Bayh?
Overall sales were up 12 percent in July (2.3 percent at stores open for a year or more) which seems a pretty good indication Wal-Mart’s customers are not at all anxious. And who are Wal-Mart’s customers? The middle class, of course.
So the notion that Wal-Mart is “emblematic” of the “middle class squeeze” seems borderline absurd. The real anxiety about Wal-Mart is mostly within labor organizations, which are infuriated by Wal-Mart’s resistance to unionization, especially since the proportion of the U.S. population in labor unions is continuing a long-term decline.
The only thing Dems seem likely to gain from a bash-Wal-Mart strategy would be to energize this shrinking voter base. But all this union agitation is generally in areas where the Democratic Party already has firm control. Even, pollster John Zogby is on the record saying that bashing Wal-Mart too much “means no net gain” because it won’t appeal to any new voters.
Wal-Mart remains a popular corporation even though activists have been attacking it for years. There have been televised documentaries, professional labor protests, and union-run web sites such as “Wal-Mart Watch” and “Wake-up Wal-Mart.” Not to mention the bad press from Chicago and Maryland.
But at best there’s been only marginal impact on Wal-Mart’s image. According to Pew poll in December 2005, 65 percent of Americas still have a “favorable” view of the corporation even after years of attack. That means Wal-Mart is still more popular than both Congressional Republicans and Congressional Democrats who recent polls peg at 31 percent and 34 percent respectively.
And there is good reason for the public’s approval. When the dinky little city I grew up in got its first Wal-Mart Super Center, you would’ve thought we’d struck oil. The buzz was enormous, and not because of the jobs that Wal-Mart brought with it, but because time and money we were going to save. No more driving to driving an hour to Monroe, Louisiana for a decent selection of small appliances, or cheap clothes, or sporting goods.
Wal-Mart is not just economically important in small towns across the country, but socially as well. Big City Wal-Mart haters might think it sad that young people would choose to spend their Friday and Saturday nights hanging out at Wal-Mart, but in small towns across American they do just that. In these towns proof of Wal-Mart’s cultural importance can be found in the habit of calling it the Wal-Mart, much like the post office or the high school.
Wal-Mart employees are fiercely loyal, a sure sign of good employee relations. Three quarters of its managers are home grown, having entered the company has hourly “associates.” Wal-Mart also offers jobs to people other employers often don’t want to take a chance on, such as the elderly and the mentally disabled. This leads to lots of jokes from snotty high school kids, but it is a truly beautiful thing.
Finally, there are the health benefits that critics obsess over. The beautiful irony is that all the clamoring about Wal-Mart not paying enough in health benefits comes at a time when public policy experts are agreeing that the employer-sponsored health care system has failed. It inflates costs and makes American businesses less competitive on the world market.
Think tanks as diverse as Cato and Brookings have called for an end to the employer-based health system. And yet, we’re supposed to disparage Wal-Mart for resisting this inefficient method of providing care.
Biden and Bayh are obviously reacting to a very real anger in some of their constituents, but they have to be careful not to mistake sound and fury for sound policy. Bashing Wal-Mart is anti-business and it’s also anti middle-class.
To commonsense people, like those who shop at Wal-Mart, this sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.
-Carl Sandburg
Popular posts
- French open live stream
- Disney launches sexy underwear campaign for kids in China
- PHP Fatal error: Class ‘DOMDocument’ not found
- Pedro Roselló “Write-In” para gobernador
- Pictures of Naked Middle Schoolers, teen decapitated
- Wichita School Board Action is Very Expensive
- I hate Dell
- How Do I Change the Mediawiki Navigation Bar?
- The Colorado Model
- Yahoo to Microsoft… pound sand!
Powered by FireStatsStats
Recent Comments