Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Proft claims Rauner could be in “deep trouble,” Hughes says “no way” Rauner can run as outsider
Next Post: Is Pritzker a “secret agent” for Madigan?
Posted in:
* The Tribune jumps onto the bandwagon…
One Democrat, Rep. Scott Drury of Highwood, told WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” program he would consider [running for House Speaker against Madigan]. Other names have been dropped, including that of Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, though she told us discussions of her opposing Madigan were part of a “scheme” by Gov. Bruce Rauner to create a distraction.
No news there. The Tribune has been railing against Speaker Madigan almost since the moment he became Speaker.
* But they do manage to make a few good points. Here’s one…
To the calculus of replacing Madigan we would add: Democrats who support so-called progressive policies aren’t accomplishing those changes with Madigan in charge anyway: No increase in the minimum wage. No graduated income tax. No tax hike on the wealthy. No strengthening of the social safety net. No additional money for education. No changes to the state’s flawed school funding formula. They’re not getting done under Madigan because he doesn’t care about policy. It’s about power.
Not like they’d be for most of that anyway, but whatevs. They’re not wrong.
* And you may not know that this many HDems favor term limits…
If every Republican in the General Assembly to be seated next month voted for a different candidate for speaker — yes, GOP members can vote for a Democrat for speaker — only nine Democrats would have to defect to reach the 60-vote threshold for toppling Madigan. Nine.
Let’s start with Democrats who are on record supporting term limits for elected officials and/or legislative leaders, including Madigan. Readers, if your lawmaker is on this list, you might want to give him or her a call. You can find all of their phone numbers at www.ilga.gov. They are: Chicago Democrats Sara Feigenholtz, Fran Hurley and Kelly Cassidy; Robyn Gabel of Evanston; Carol Sente of Vernon Hills; Sam Yingling of Grayslake; Michelle Mussman of Schaumburg; Marty Moylan of Des Plaines; and Kathleen Willis of Addison. Reps. Ann Williams of Chicago and Stephanie Kifowit of Oswego both said they’d be open to leadership term limits.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 12:47 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Proft claims Rauner could be in “deep trouble,” Hughes says “no way” Rauner can run as outsider
Next Post: Is Pritzker a “secret agent” for Madigan?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is the ILGOP gonna robocall Yingling and then videotape his answer?
I’m stunned that Feigenholtz, Gabel, Ann Williams and Kelly “Bullet Tax” Cassidy support term limits of any kind, but good on them.
Comment by Ravenswodo Right Winger Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 12:50 pm
One takeaway I have from all of this is…
The Democratic House Caucus seems quite diverse in their thoughts on policy, governing, and the politics within both.
Diversity.
Interesting.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 12:53 pm
Good Op-Ed on several fronts: 1) Continues the drumbeat for Madigan’s removal; 2) Helps solidify his deserved status as THE most hated politician in Illinois; 3) Reminds “progressives” Madigan ain’t with them; 4) Names Dems who publicly support term limits of some sort; and 5) Subtly reminds suburban House Dems that their vote for Madigan as Speaker will be publicly noted this time.
There’s no hiding place for House Dems to pretend to be independent of Madigan moving forward … if they vote for Madigan as Speaker in a few weeks.
Comment by Deft Wing Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:03 pm
Tribune Editorial Board
The 1996 Lee Daniels called, he wants his idea back. This was to be his plan if the 1996 election resulted in a 59 - 59 split.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:14 pm
=The Democratic House Caucus seems quite diverse in their thoughts on policy, governing, and the politics within both.=
OW, methinks you are alluding to something but I just can’t put my finger on it……
Is there a caucus that is maybe not allowed to be as diverse in thought? Hmmmm….. have to think on that one a bit.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:17 pm
- JS Mill -
Maybe I stumbled across it, “maybe” I actually was purposely alluding to another Caucus.
“Maybe”…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:22 pm
Leadership term limits has nothing to do with the term limits that Rauner is proposing.
Comment by Ok Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:39 pm
Maybe this is naive, but if I was a Dem legislator, I’d probably cave on term limits and redistricting to get something done on the budget. Maybe even the property tax freeze.* No budget would cause a lot of pain.
It might mean voting myself out of a job, but it doesn’t seem like a great workplace environment anyway (and following term limits, legislators are usually able to end up in the capitol in some form doing politics of some sort).
*If coupled with school finance reform that would increase the funding for low-income districts. We’re too dependent on property taxes anyway.
Comment by whetstone Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:42 pm
There’s been plenty of air cover for having that “diverse” position to date. Has it changed now? We’ll see.
Otherwise, who ya kiddin’?
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:45 pm
- A Guy -
“The Democratic House Caucus seems quite diverse in their thoughts on policy, governing, and the politics within both.”
I stand by my comment.
lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:48 pm
I’m going to put on my conspiratorial hat for a bit, but Madigan fingerprints are all over the makeup of the Democratic party in the house. I saw firsthand when my cousin was running ten years ago in a house democratic primary how Madigan would use his control of campaign funds to get his favored candidates through contested primaries. The individuals he pushes through are hardly ambitious when it comes challenging the status quo in Democrat house politics. Expecting them to challenge Madigan’s control over the house is pure fantasy.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 1:58 pm
Mr/ms whetstone
Hope you don’t think bigbrain would a budget the Dos want….oh u said u were naive
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:04 pm
The Trib lost me at “their party’s long failed stewardship of it (the State).” They just continue to deny this is a bipartisan mess we’re in.
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:12 pm
So by reporting the facts and having a balanced editorial board means this? “No news there. The Tribune has been railing against Speaker Madigan….”
Comment by lech w Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:15 pm
-chicagonk- gets it.
As Rich has repeatedly noted here, Madigan tends to like them loyal and hard-working, and subservient.
Independent thinkers aren’t high on his list of preferences.
Comment by m Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:16 pm
“Maybe this is naive”
If you have to say it…
Here why that doesn’t work. There is ZERO trust on either side right now. Especially on the legislative side no on in Madigan’s camp believes that Rauner will either A. stop moving the goal posts once he gets some items or B. can be trusted to spend increased revenue from a tax hike.
Comment by Signal and Noise Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:27 pm
Whetstone - I’ve been saying the same thing for years - Rauner might not go for it, but at least the Dems would have much higher ground than their current “but…but…you have to go first…and we’ve never bargained over non-monetary items as part of the budget before (even if nothing forbids it and Ted Kennedy once did the same thing over health care reform).”
Progressives should think bigger than term limits and political reform: Rauner might actually trade you a minimum wage hike or education funding reform for other things in his agenda that are more important to him. You’ll never know with your current leader.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:42 pm
Let us return to Mr Proft’s comments…The Trib can’t just continue to rely on “because Madigan” forever either. Does anyone think removing Madigan will change Brucie or his runaground agenda?
Comment by d.p.gumby Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 2:42 pm
LOL @ thinking that if Madigan goes away, things will just work themselves out. Some one else will just take his place and steer the machine that’s been built for decades. Kinda like when a big drug dealer gets caught. Drugs are harder to get temporarily. Then, some one else takes the seat.
Comment by BK Bro Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 3:03 pm
BK Bro - maybe not “just work themselves out” but at times it has sure seemed like Cullerton was willing to make compromises Madigan wouldn’t (at least in moments when I suspended my cynical belief that any alleged significant conflict between the two of them is kabuki).
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 3:13 pm
==Some one else will just take his place and steer the machine that’s been built for decades.==
Not quite; the Speakership is a complex web of relationships that Lang/Currie/Whoever wouldn’t have and a looong list of little things that they wouldn’t know/care to do. Make no mistake, when Mike Madigan moseys on, it’ll be a big deal.
But it won’t get the Turnaround Agenda any closer to passage.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 3:14 pm
If the Tribune were truly concerned about suffering social services, bleak finances and the growing pile of debt on the middle class then wouldn’t they print an editorial telling Rauner to knock it off with the other stuff and focus exclusively on negotiating a balanced state budget that addresses these very concerns?
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 3:15 pm
-Arsenal-
Completely agree. For those who know the in’s and out’s of Illinois politics, a Madigan departure will certainly stir the pot and create some interesting drama. It just seems like the GOP tries to put all of it’s in one basket (Madigan). When he leaves, Illinois will largely stay the same. The “Turn Around Agenda” or any significant peice of reform legislation will continue to be blocked. For the average Joe in Illinois, life won’t change much in terms of taxes, spending, and the overall performance (or lack thereof) of IL govt. in general.
Comment by BK Bro Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 4:30 pm
Feigenholtz: Supporting term limits since 1994.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 9:37 pm
I like the fact that Durkin & Radogno are both for term limits, yet they have served since 1995 & 1997. They could both score a 10.0 in a gymnastics floor routine as a result of their flip flops on the issues like term limits & local government consolidation.
Comment by Sigh Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 11:01 pm
When you run against career politicians and your leaders are career politicians, what message are you sending? Clean up your own house first
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Dec 21, 16 @ 11:59 pm
The Tribune was wrong about isolationism, right up until Pearl Harbor and they’re wrong about Rauner.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Dec 22, 16 @ 12:42 am