Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Meet the 114th House District Republican candidate
Posted in:
* I suggested this weeks ago…
The Cook County Democratic Party Executive Committee has called a meeting for Thursday to reconsider an endorsement in the [state’s attorney] contest, party spokesman Jacob Kaplan said.
In August, Cook Democratic leaders voted to remain neutral in the contest.
That was largely because of a divide in the party, with Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle backing Foxx, her former chief of staff, and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and influential Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, in Alvarez’s corner. Also running is former prosecutor Donna More. […]
Since the video’s release in late November, Alvarez’s support among Latino and African-American politicians has waned. Ald. Roderick Sawyer, 6th, long a Foxx backer, said he believes Foxx now has the votes to win the endorsement.
If Foxx is slated, ward organizations controlled by Madigan, Burke, etc. will be forbidden to pass literature for or help any of her opponents - a rule change pushed by Madigan.
I think Politico had the story first this week, by the way.
*** UPDATE *** Press release…
DONNA MORE ACCUSES DEMOCRATIC PARTY BOSSES OF CAVING TO PRECKWINKLE
Democratic Party Re-Slating Session Set for Next Thursday
Chicago – Jan 8, 2016 Cook County State’s Attorney candidate, Donna More is blasting any attempt by Democratic Party bosses to re-open the slating process for the express purpose of selecting Kim Foxx.
More, who is the only former federal prosecutor and state prosecutor in the Democratic primary race is lashing out at what she sees as a blatant attempt to “force feed an unqualified candidate down voter’s throats.”
More asserts, “It’s obvious that my campaign represents a real threat to Democratic bosses who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than in restoring trust and public confidence in the State’s Attorney’s Office.”
As for the party’s re-slating plans next Thursday, More decried, “Just another example from the political power brokers that this race is more about politics than about independence, transparency, fairness or justice.” Adding More, “This is simply another sordid maneuver by Democratic Party bosses, led by Toni Preckwinkle to get her handpicked candidate Kim Foxx selected.”
More, who on last Wednesday officially kicked off her ’70 Days to Victory Campaign” ahead of the March 15th primary, made it clear that she will be a prosecutor who will be free of political influence in making sure that justice and fairness prevail.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:54 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Meet the 114th House District Republican candidate
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
In my view, choosing to spend one’s time with a nice orderly voter registration initiative
instead of
sustained, visible yelling in the street, resignation petition drives, and other “disorganized” but wide-ranging messaging
would not have produced this result.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:59 pm
Covers lots of sins;
It takes Alvarez out of the Wards that work, it marginalizes More, keeping a “Raunerite” out of the Democratic infrastructure of a Cook County push for Democrats.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:04 pm
Those party literature passing rules are enforced as effectively as the speed limit on the Dan Ryan.
And besides, in a high profile contest like the State’s Atty’s race will be, even the few remaining strong ward organizations won’t have much influence on their voters.
No doubt, this will hurt Alvarez — largely because the media will make a big deal about it. I hate to agree with a recent Kass column, but this shows “Boss Toni” is running the county party. Madigan wanted to let sleeping dogs lie here, The fact that Berrios is reconvening slating indicates Preckwinkle is calling the shots.
Comment by Anon4 Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:06 pm
===but this shows “Boss Toni” is running the county party===
And your preferred boss is… ?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:07 pm
More has some high profile supporters, including Brendan Reilly (a Committeeman) and John Fritchey.
It will be interesting to see how they would respond to an endorsement. Knowing those two, I don’t see them suddenly dropping their support and backing Foxx.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:10 pm
So who stops Madigan from circulating material?
Comment by Come on Man! Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:11 pm
– And your preferred boss is…? –
Don’t really have one, though I’ll take just about anyone over Berrios, including Toni. I just enjoy the irony of a Hyde Park reformer being a political boss.
Toni has been very effective at setting the political narrative in the media, but much less effective at getting her allies elected down ballot. She’s trying to change that with this move.
Comment by Anon4 Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:17 pm
If they break the rules what are the penalties?
Comment by Anonish Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:17 pm
There’s no way they re-convene without the tacit approval of Madigan, whether he casts his vote for Alvarez or no endorsement, so I doubt he’s much concerned about his future inability to pass lit for Alvarez.
Also, CrazyBleedingHeart has an excellent point.
Comment by Century Club Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:22 pm
The preferred boss is the people, as indicated in the “pesky” Constitution. Cook county and the city could use two viable parties, which would make the government answerable to the people. Slating results in election, real democracy….
BTW, same thing would happen if the Republicans ran the Chicago machine for 100 years.
Comment by Junior Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:23 pm
== And your preferred boss is… ? ==
Exactly, Rich.
If all of the clout were listed on the ballot, this race is Daley (incumbent)
vs challengers Preckwinkle & Rauner
Madigan is keenly aware that Cook voters will not support Daley in that matchup right now. And he can’t afford them going over to Rauner.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:24 pm
===what are the penalties? ===
Removal.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:25 pm
- crazybleedingheart -
I would argue Alvarez will be wearing more of a “Rahm” name tag than a “Daley” one.
Also, I am not convinced that any Cook County Dem wiseguys, including Madigan, see More as a legitimate threat to win this race.
Comment by Anon4 Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:32 pm
The boss will come around to the crowd here…for a price.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:39 pm
For all of those preparing Anita’s obituary, let’s not count chickens before they are hatched.
Comment by Anonymouth Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:44 pm
Alvarez has no chance, but I can’t see her dropping out regardless. It seems Toni is seizing the moment. Lisa called for a federal investigation of the Chicago PD without a word to Rahm first; I think MJM has already moved on. Alvarez is toast, and Rahm is in more trouble everyday.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:45 pm
And if Madigan and Burke decided to back Alvarez, you better believe they would still “carry” their Wards for her. Still, they have to consider the big picture.
Comment by Anonymouth Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:45 pm
=== Alvarez has no chance ===
What basis do you have to say that? I believe that previous polling that was reported by this site showed that Anita was still very much in this race.
Comment by Anonymouth Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:47 pm
I think it’s more interesting that “Toni” thinks this is worth it, let’s face it, in this day in a race like this, what do you guess the slate brings a SA candidate in terms of votes, remembering a dem primary that’s almost over
Comment by Wow Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:51 pm
https://capitolfax.com/2015/12/11/they-cant-both-be-right/
Comment by Anonymouth Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:52 pm
Frankly, this seemed kind of inevitable.
Comment by Boss Tweed Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:56 pm
The removal is not automatic, keep in mind, the Committeemen still would need to vote to remove.
So there would in fact be no penalty if Messrs Madigan or Burke passed for Anita
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:06 pm
The basis is not charging the shooter in the Laquon McDonald shooting for 400 days. The community will hold her and Rahm accountable, and she’s the first to stand for an election.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:29 pm
Madigan and Preckwinkle have come to terms on this one.
Comment by AC Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:36 pm
Just one move in a complex dance. Too early to predict winners.
Comment by walker Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:37 pm
=== The basis is not charging the shooter in the Laquon McDonald shooting for 400 days. The community will hold her and Rahm accountable, and she’s the first to stand for an election. ===
I’m glad you speak for all of the voters of Cook County
Comment by Anonymouth Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:55 pm
–The preferred boss is the people, as indicated in the “pesky” Constitution. Cook county and the city could use two viable parties, which would make the government answerable to the people. Slating results in election, real democracy…. –
Is there some sinister force preventing the formation of a “viable” Republican Party in Cook County?
Judging by election results, there are a lot more GOP voters in Cook County than any other in the state. Plenty of GOP money in Cook County, too.
There’s no complaining about losing when you don’t even bother to get into the game.
You seem to be down on slating. Would you prefer a “law” that would prevent political organizations from meeting and discussing their preferred candidates?
I think there’s a word for that.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 4:19 pm
===what are the penalties ===
There aren’t any penalties. There are several committeemen who are working against the slated candidate for circuit court and there have been zero repercussions for them.
Comment by AC Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 4:41 pm
To More’s Update,
You better get some mileage out of that Rauner donation.
Right? Exactly right.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 4:58 pm
**===what are the penalties? ===
Removal.**
Has this ever actually happened? Committeeman often support their own candidates against the slated candidate.
AC points out that there are definitely committeeman supporting Meister over Michelle Harris. There are numerous other examples.
There were committeemen who were definitely supporting Biss even after the Mendoza endorsement.
So has a committeeman ever been removed for working against a slated candidate?
Comment by AlabamaShake Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 5:11 pm