Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Washington; Schock; Jacobs; Lobsters (Use all caps in password)
Next Post: Morning shorts
Posted in:
* 5:47 pm - From the Chicago Board of Elections…
[T]he previous high for first-day balloting during Early Voting in Chicago was 890 ballots cast before the Nov. 2006 election. The daily average for that election was 1,378 ballots during Early Voting.
Today, the first day of Early Voting for the 2008 General Primary, an unofficial total of 3,990 ballots were cast in the City of Chicago. Historically, the lowest counts of ballots have been the very first few days and on weekends.
That sound you heard was incumbents all over the city gulping very hard. Barack Obama’s candidacy may be a blessing to some, but his very powerful “change” message might prove fatal for a few entrenched incumbents who have thought for months that their reelections are in the bag.
* 5:57 pm - The Illinois House will return at eleven o’clock on Thursday. I’m figuring the Senate comes back that day, too, to deal with the governor amendatory veto of the transit bailout bill. CBS-2’s Mike Flannery has this update…
The bill’s chief sponsor, Evanston’s Rep. Julie Hamos, warned CBS 2 that as many as six members who voted for it last week are now saying they may vote no on Blago’s rewrite.
Remember this valuable lesson: Legislators are a lot like soldiers. They grumble very loudly but, in the end, usually do what they’re told.
* 6:04 pm - Jim Oberweis goes way negative on Chris Lauzen in his new radio ad…
* 6:11 pm - Larry at ArchPundit criticizes Illinois NOW for their attack on Barack Obama in a post entitled: “Illinois NOW, the Essence of Hypocrisy“. [Note: Profanity alert.]
The essence is that I-NOW is slamming Obama and touting its refusal to endorse him when they endorsed Lisa Madigan for doing the same thing. Larry adds this bit of history…
Illinois NOW also stood by Blair Hull when information came out about domestic violence in his divorce dispute.
Present votes engineered by Planned Parenthood? Very, very bad, except when it’s somebody else making those same votes. Spousal abuse? Why, that’s no problem at all.
*** 8:38 pm *** I just got off the phone with Rep. Julie Hamos. She claimed she never said that six members might flip to “No” on the transit bill. Hamos said that was the number of people she gave to the governor’s office to flip to “Yes” last week.
Hamos said people have been “playing games” with the bill all day, but when asked whether she thought the bill would die when all is said and done, Hamos paused for a bit and said she didn’t think it would perish.
She also said there could be another chapter written this Thursday when the Legislature reconvenes. Asked if that meant the General Assembly might send the bill back to the guv with further changes, Hamos said, “Stay tuned,” and repeated the same answer when asked again.
So, I guess we should “stay tuned.”
* 9:06 pm - From the Tribbies…
“I’d say today that it is not going to get 60 votes,’’ [Rep. Marlow Colvin] said Monday. “But that is before the Speaker has really started working it, and asking people to come on board. And I think he is going to be doing that to avert any kind of shutdown.” […]
Though she said she doesn’t like the way the governor is trying to strong-arm the legislature into approving the free-ride program, state Rep. Rosemary Mulligan (R-Des Plaines) said she still plans to vote for the transit bill this week. But she said it’s not like her older constituents are clamoring for her support of the bill. […]
“I don’t think anybody wants to see this blow up,’’ [Rep. Julie Hamos] said. “It’s too dangerous.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 5:50 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Washington; Schock; Jacobs; Lobsters (Use all caps in password)
Next Post: Morning shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Throw the bums out!”
“But which are the bums, sir?”
“The ones that are there”
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 5:52 pm
No seriously, which bums are you talking about?
Lipinski?
And now I’m at a loss for anyone else.
Comment by Just wondering Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 5:54 pm
Anybody want to book a bet on how many will take heed of the public mood after November?
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 5:59 pm
Rich Miller wrote, “Legislators are a lot like soldiers. They grumble very loudly but, in the end, usually do what they’re told.”
That’s something that we need to change.
Comment by Squideshi Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:02 pm
“They grumble very loudly but, in the end, usually do what they’re told.”
So, if they vote no, they were just doing what they were told, then?
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:03 pm
LOL. I seriously doubt that Madigan wants to wear the jacket for a CTA debacle. But keep on spinning away.
Also, notice I wrote “usually.” Sometimes, the mushrooms revolt.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:06 pm
I think Madigan wants Blago to wear the jacket.
If they vote to accept, Blago gets to wear the crown.
In all seriousness - Madigan knows this could be Blago’s snow-plow moment. Make him the villain who caused doomsday and he is as welcome as a raw egg in an easter basket. Madigan can just wait it out until Lisa moves into the Thompson Center.
But it only works if Madigan can do it under the radar. He doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.
Where’s “Dumber” when you need him? He can explain it all to us.
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:12 pm
Who runs Illinois NOW and what do they have against Barack Obama?
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:13 pm
There are so few Legislators in the Chicagoland area that have anyone running against them I don’t think it’ll make any difference.
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:14 pm
GoBearsss, I think your logic is flawed. Voters may be upset at the guv if the bill goes down, but he ain’t on the ballot.
Who is on the ballot? Madigan’s members. And several of them have primaries. You would know this, I’m sure, since some come from the administration.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:17 pm
Nice try Rich, but you missed wide left.
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:18 pm
Here’s the list. Lot’s of incumbents running unopposed.
http://www.chicagoelections.com/press/docs/candlist.pdf
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:20 pm
Look - let’s just see what happens at the end of the day.
If it doesn’t pass, I am wrong. If it does pass, you are right.
That better?
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:20 pm
Strange how politicians and their supporters tout endorsements when they get them, then attack organizations who don’t deliver what they think they’re owed.
NOW’s endorsement has always been for sale. Obama-ites need to get over it. Anyway, what’s wrong with a WOMEN’S organization endorsing a WOMAN?!!! Get a grip Archpundit and Rich - you’re in full-blown Obama-hysteria, and it’s repulsive to see.
Still do want to know why Obama didn’t get the IVI-IPO endorsement, though…
Comment by phocion Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:29 pm
Broken Heart - I think you also miss an important group - the downstate legislators.
Most of the coverage of the free rides for seniors has been good everywhere other than Chicago.
It might have a bigger impact for the senior factor that Rich was talking about if those “downstaters” vote against seniors.
Comment by GoBearsss Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:31 pm
There’s nothing wrong with a pro-women’s rights group endorsing a woman (it’s the ntl org FOR women, not OF women, by the way). It’s goofy, though, when they endorse another candidate with the same voting record and don’t utter a word about it. That’s the point. See?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:31 pm
Only six?
Rich, the problem with the whole “Madigan wearing the jacket for the debacle” theory is that four of the Yes votes were Republicans. If those guys flip, who wears the jacket then?
I’d also point out that three of the Governor’s most loyal allies in the House — Hoffman, McCarthy and Granberg — all voted “No”. So, if it goes down in flames and those guys vote “No”, then who wears the jacket? Not Madigan.
Granted, there are other scenerios. Two moderate Republicans and two solid Democrats were excused, so the equation changes dramatically depending on who shows up, and Fortner voted present, although is more likely to vote no now. McAuliffe and Saviano voted No but are open to persuasion, especially by organized labor.
But right now, I wouldn’t lay odds either way on what happens.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:37 pm
GoBearsss, there’s room on his left?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 6:44 pm
Well, I’ll give IVI-IPO credit for creativity with their presential endorsement — Cynthia McKinney on a Green Party ticket. And what’s with not issuing an endorsement in the 3rd CD where Pera is taking on the hacktacular Lipinski?
Maybe IVI-IPO is trying really, really hard to be irrelevant.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 7:00 pm
Presidential endorsement, that is. Excuse the typo.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 7:01 pm
Rich,
Perhaps the stable-cleaning aspects of early voting will make up for the poll-watching difficulty inherent in weeks of polling at scores of locations…
– SCAM
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 8:08 pm
I expect the vote will be the same in the House as the Saviano plan.
Rod will put his people on it, and if Madigan can’t get enough people who want doomsday to happen to switch and vote No, then they will all go back on as Yes.
Its pretty simple.
Comment by JJ Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 8:16 pm
Except, JJ, Rod didn’t put his people on the bill that he AV’d.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 8:19 pm
My vote: Net change is 4 members will change from yes to NO. Question of the Day tomorrow?
Comment by North of I-80 Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 8:30 pm
Considering that Hamos claims to have been misquoted, I might take that bet, North.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 8:41 pm
—NOW’s endorsement has always been for sale. Obama-ites need to get over it. Anyway, what’s wrong with a WOMEN’S organization endorsing a WOMAN?!!! Get a grip Archpundit and Rich - you’re in full-blown Obama-hysteria, and it’s repulsive to see.
No, and if you recall, we both covered this in 2004. To claim Obama didn’t stand up is a joke. First, they endorse people who joined in that strategy. Second, if they knew what was going on at the time–Obama then became committtee chair and sat on the same kinds of bills repeatedly. He took the flak on his own. Attacking him for not standing up for choice when he’s one of the most hated Lege Members in Illinois for his actions is silly.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 9:04 pm
Junior League = Women’s Organization.
NOW = Women’s rights organization.
phocion, try to get it right.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 9:10 pm
I think Madigan makes sure it passes in the House. To risky letting that many votes just to make the gov look bad. I don’t think its worth the risk for any of them. On the other hand all they need is one vote to south in the Senate. But I don’t see anyone on the list of yes votes flipping.
Comment by Been There Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 9:18 pm
Hamos said . . . “She also said there could be another chapter written this Thursday when the Legislature reconvenes.” Nuts! There goes my free transit Pass(es). They’re gonna send the guv back a “clean” bill and give him one last chance at a do over!. Shoot, and my bags were packed and I was ready to go!
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 9:43 pm
Well, didn’t Rod say they send him a pile of manure?
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 9:48 pm
He’s likely to have so much manure for his garden he’ll be winning blue ribbons at the ‘08 State Fair!
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 9:54 pm
Hmmm . . . or maybe a clean transit bailout bill that passes and a trailer bill on freebees for seniors that fails.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 10:17 pm
Stick a fork in Rod and the transit bill. This year will be a repeat of 2007 only much worse. Can ya dig it!
Comment by Opie Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 10:29 pm
A Citizen:
Rod don’t do the fair you know: his kids get allergic or something.
Comment by Beanbag ain't Politics Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 10:37 pm
Beanbag
That’s because he can’t stand the Press…ure!
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Jan 14, 08 @ 11:00 pm
“Except, JJ, Rod didn’t put his people on the bill that he AV’d.”
I think JJ’s point was that Rod’s people would be in addition to the votes on the Hamos bill.
Comment by JohnR Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 1:38 am
“(e) The Governor may return a bill together with specific recommendations for change to the house in which it originated. The bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to the Governor and if he certifies that such acceptance conforms to his specific recommendations, the bill shall become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)”
For what its worth, they can pass a separate bill, but they can’t just change the bill in a way that doesn’t match his changes. If they do, they are essentially trying to kill the bill.
And then Madigan doesn’t even have to pull votes off the bill. He can just say they changed it (unconstitutionally) and sent it back.
When the Governor doesn’t certify it, they can claim to the media that they made his changes, with a few alterations, and sent it back. And the media will buy it.
Total BS move by Madigan and Hamos if this happens. If it does, he either REALLY REALLY hates the Governor, or he REALLY REALLY hates seniors, or CTA riders or both.
Comment by JohnR Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 1:46 am
JohnR -
There’s a loophole in the AV language. The process leaves it up to the Governor to determine whether or not an amendment “conforms to his specific recommendations.” Now, that is usually read to mean “identical”, but our constitutional convention would not have used the word conformed unless they meant “is similar”, and they certainly would not have left it up to interpretation.
Lawmakers could cut a deal with the Gov. to do a more scaled-back version of a senior benefit, create goals, a bipartisan task force, whatever.
There is always a win-win-win somewhere.
There’s an old saying that there’s no limit to what you can achieve if you’re willing to share the credit.
But the converse is always true.
Blagojevich insists on trying to take all the credit, gain political advantage, with every move.
Don’t get me wrong, Madigan is a political animal too. But he never cared about getting credit. He just doesn’t want Rod to get it.
And now, Rod once again finds himself in a tough situation.
It was just a year ago that Rod proposed a hugely popular expansion of health care.
Unfortunately, Rod tied it to a hugely unpopular $7.5 billion tax increase.
That didn’t go so well.
Then Rod proposed a hugely popular capitol construction plan.
Unfortunately, he tied it to a not too terribly popular expansion of gambling, the largest in state history. That went pretty poor too.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 2:51 am
Very late to the party here, but I heard that Oberweis ad last week on WGN radio.
Comment by Stuck with Sen. CPA Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 7:51 am
I’m not convinced that early voting hurts the incumbents. The primary campaign season is essentially one month long this year, and we’re only 10 days into it. A lot of the heavily backed challengers are relying on a mail campaign that is going to drop 3 pieces a week until election day, and have only put out a couple of pieces so far.
By election day they may bury the incumbents by name recognition alone, but they haven’t broken through yet.
Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 8:47 am
Letr’s add free I-PASS for all AARP members
Comment by ANON Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 8:54 am
I know both of my legislators are being opposed.
I live in Annazette Collins’ and Rickey Hendon’s district.
When I go vote this weekend, I’ll be casting my votes for Eddie Winters and Amy Sue Mertens.
Even if they get the transit bill done, I’m pretty darn sick of the shenanagins down there in Springfield.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 9:01 am
IVI-IPO made no endorsement in the Democratic Presidential primary. Get your facts straight, Angry Chicagoan.
And Rich/Archpundit, you miss the point. I agree that NOW’s endorsements are often not based on principle. They’ve been so co-opted so many times, and their rationale has often been so lame that I don’t personally put much stock in their endorsements. But it is an organization that is supposed to be FOR women - so they’re endorsing a woman. Big whoop.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 9:20 am
phocion - I don’t think the endorsement is what Archpundit and Rich are taking issue with.
It’s clear (to me) that the affront comes from the justification, which is to try to push a line that Obama isn’t pro-choice enough because of those votes, and the intentional distortion of his record on the issue.
If NOW prefers Clinton, fine. But the attacks on his choice voting record intentionally omit the facts of the situation.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 9:46 am
Thanks, Jerry. I’m tired of trying to explain that distinction.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 15, 08 @ 9:47 am
[…] Jefferson was the lone Rock River Valley lawmaker in either chamber who voted last week for the original mass transit legislation. Some media outlets (here and here) have reported some legislators who voted for the bailout last week may be getting cold feet as it gets closer to Thursday, the day lawmakers return to vote on the governor’s change to the bill. […]
Pingback by In Chambers » Is it really a free ride? Updated x1 Wednesday, Jan 16, 08 @ 1:03 pm