Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Strangest forgery ever
Next Post: Putting a human face on line items
Posted in:
* From a press release, with emphasis added…
Yesterday, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner told reporters he was “disappointed” in how Emanuel has handled the aftermath of the Laquan McDonald shooting, and said he would sign a bill to legalize mayoral recall in Chicago if it reaches his desk.
Crain’s Chicago Business stated, “As conservative talk show host and ex-gubernatorial candidate Dan Proft put it on his show today, “Rahm has been nothing but antagonistic to Rauner and his agenda. They may be in the same wine club, but I suggest that if that bill lands on Rauner’s desk, he signs it.”
Rauner also suggested that the bill would not apply to Emanuel in this term, only to future mayors. But that little nuance didn’t get in the way of the bigger message.
Proft’s statements today included:
Where has leadership in the [Illinois General Assembly] been on this? This is an opportunity for Republicans to say to minority families “We stand with you. We want what you want. Where are your party kingpins on this?”
Because Rauner made the statement he made there are fewer dark corners for [House Minority Leader] Jim Durkin and [Senate Minority Leader] Christine Radogno to hide in.
[RE: the question of whether or not the bill would apply only to future mayors, not Rahm Emanuel]: That is not an interpretation of the bill, it’s a look at case history. Nothing in the bill specifies it. It could be a matter that would be litigated if passed and signed–like the pension law and so many other legislative measures.
We argue it should apply to Rahm this term upon signature into law. If Rahm wants to litigate it, let’s do so. The worst case scenario is an appropriate recall mechanism in place for Chicago mayor and aldermen a la the mechanism in place for the Governor and state legislators on a go-forward basis.
The worst possible outcome is a good outcome and the best possible outcome is a better one.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 9:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Strangest forgery ever
Next Post: Putting a human face on line items
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Dan Proft remains outside the tent doing that thing that those outside the tent often do.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:00 am
#proftsaid
Comment by CharlesT Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:01 am
Occasionally, I agree with Dan Proft. This is one of those times. I would love to see Rahm gone. And he ain’t gonna go on his own, despite the best interest of Chicago.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:05 am
Wonder if Rauner would’ve came out for recall if Rahm delivered Dem House votes to decimate prevailing wage and collective bargaining?
If Rahm won’t help destroy public and trade unions, “Recall Rahm” and get me a Chicago Mayor to take on Speaker Madigan.
This isn’t hard to follow. This “Recall Rahm” bit and the “I cried” malarkey is about Rauner leveraging the Turnaround Agenda, and if “Recall Rahm” is the freight to get it done, then it is.
It’s foolish to think that Raunerites (not GOP members, Mr. Proft) see this as an opportunity to take on the “status quo”. Rauner needed Rahm for triangulation and now that Rahm is becoming more and more useless in leverage by the second, Mr. Proft is pandering to a new leverage; Recall Rahm? Bruce will sign it, but…
… then that Turnround Agenda hostage thingy will pop up.
The bottom line is this; had Rahm, or if Rahm, delivered HDem votes over Madigan, this sideshow would never be occurring.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:06 am
If Proft trumpets that it applies to Rahm regardless of settled law, the courts will of course dance to his tune.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:08 am
Can Uiehlein drink a glass of water when Proft speaks?
Meh, if Emanuel (or Radagno or Durkin) gave Proft one of those sweet, no-bid, half-a-million-a-year hack deals like he had in Cicero, he’d spin the other way.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:10 am
Yes, Durkin and Radogno jump on board and tout this bill so you can add another phrase about getting rid of the evil mayor to the usual anti-Chicago rhetoric on caucus campaign materials.
I would like to think that Durkin and Radogno don’t think the effort is worth the trouble and wouldn’t truly resolve anything. However, in reality it’s probably because the political posturing has to gear up after the holiday slows.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:12 am
Dan Proft is paid by Rauner. He isn’t for real. It’s all part of the Rauner game.
Comment by Phony baloney Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:20 am
OW is right, but it doesn’t mean Proft is wrong here - politically it doesn’t hurt to put the recall issue in Madigan’s court and play to African-American voters, especially in the city. I’m surprised he hasn’t played up trade union racism more. Ever listen to African-American talk radio and here what they say about construction sites? Rauner and Rahm may be friends, but Rahm’s ability to fight public unions isn’t what it used to be.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:28 am
===Dan Proft is paid by Rauner. He isn’t for real. It’s all part of the Rauner game.===
Yeah, and Rauner’s game is a fool’s errand. Would you expect the next mayor to be more friendly to the Rauner administration? I don’t think so. Rahm would be the gov’s best option. So getting rid of him will actually hurt the gov’s agenda, not improve it’s potential success.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:31 am
What all this tells me is that it’s a good time to be a lawyer.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:36 am
- walker -
Shh! You’ll ruin the “I’ll sign the recall after you vote for Union Decimation” bit.
Rauner will “tell” them after, “My bad. This won’t take Rahm out now.”.
Wielding leverage is hard.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:40 am
The GOP has a unique ability to never learn from its past behavior. And an uncanny knack for claiming that certain one off policy stances that benefit a minority group will earn them trust and votes.
Seriously, its probably more than a little insulting to claim that by carrying the mantle on this one issue of the day then they will make inroads in the AA community.
Seriously, how high up are those towers they perch on? You cant make inroads to that community until you start offering solutions to their bread and butter issues. Its not rocket science.
Comment by Abe the Babe Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:43 am
CapFax commenters I’m disappointed in you. Nine comments in and no one thought to make an image macro of Proft’s newfound concern for black people in Chicago?
Do I have to do everything for you?
Fine, here:
https://imgflip.com/i/wuy09
Comment by Will Caskey Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:45 am
===This is an opportunity for Republicans to say to minority families “We stand with you. We want what you want.===
Dan Proft or the Onion?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:57 am
You could be forgiven if you thought that Proft’s fealty to our constitution would include fealty to the outlawing of Ex Post Facto laws.
“No…ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3
US Constitution
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:59 am
So this Proft helpin’ the GOPies?
Comment by Anonin' Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 11:26 am