Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Will it be a boom or a thud?
Posted in:
* Larry Suffredin’s lobbying gig was the main source of contention at last night’s debate among Cook County State’s Attorney hopefuls…
County commissioner Suffredin called himself a proven reformer who can fix an office that’s broken. And, he said, he resents the status quo under Bob Milan, Dick Devine’s top deputy, and Anita Alvarez, Devine’s number three lieutenant. But they’re firing back at Suffredin for making big bucks as a corporate lobbyist.
“How can someone stand up here and say he is a reformer, say he is progressive, when he has spent the last 30 years of his career making money off special interest groups,” said Milan.
* Ouch…
[Ald. Tom Allen (38th)] also took a shot at Suffredin, saying, “I agree with Mr. Suffredin that he fights for justice — as long as somebody pays him to do it.”
* And the attacks weren’t all about lobbying…
Devine’s top two aides, Robert Milan and Anita Alvarez, emphasized the need for a prosecutor to hold the office as they criticized Suffredin’s suggestion that he wouldn’t plea bargain gun cases that resulted in great bodily harm.
“It’s an empty promise. A real prosecutor could never run an office like that,” said Milan, 46, stressing the need for flexibility in prosecutions.
* And he wasn’t the only target. Howard Brookins also got some grief…
Brookins was criticized by Allen for problems he had in paying rent on his office and city violations for a building he owned. Brookins has said the building was effectively in someone else’s possession and his in name only.
* You can read extensive notes from the candidates’ Daily Herald editorial board interviews at this link.
I’ve lately kept articles about this race in Morning Shorts, but I’ve noticed an increase in comments about it, so have at it…
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 9:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Will it be a boom or a thud?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As someone who lives in his district, shall Larry win, I’d like to know who he plans to anoint to his county seat?
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 9:40 am
I have not seen any polls but some internal polling must have Sufferdin in the lead if all the negative hits are aimed in his direction.
Comment by L.S. Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 9:55 am
Well, the candidates in favor of flexibility will get my vote.
We all need to remind ourselves how much it costs
to put people in jail. We need to remind ourselves
that jail is a very expensive means of providing drug treatment. We need to remember that nearly half the cases tried at 26th and Cal involve nonviolent drug cases, targeting a disproportionate number of minorities, mainly
African Americans. We need to remember that jailing large numbers of people for long periods of time is very, very, very expensive to the taxpayers, although very, very lucrative for
Democrat-approved prison contractors and Corrections patronage hacks who contribute to the right pols.
The candidates aren’t going to say that we should be putting fewer people in jail and that we should clear up the racial disparities (which would in itself help fix the first problem). Or they aren’t going to say it very loudly. No political courage.
So I guess emphasizing flexibility is the best we can hope for.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:04 am
LS, he seems to be spending lots more than the other candidates, so that could definitely be impacting the polling there.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:04 am
Suffredin is a thoughtful guy. I am surprised
that he lobbies for some of the ‘merchant of
death’ types (Thank You for Smoking, awesome
book and movie,right?), but he thinks and acts for good things, mostly.
Watch the debate ( make popcorn for this one)
on Sunday afternoon on Ch. 7. The last one
was pure theater and reading about this show does
it no justice. you’ve got to see the folks in
action. Imagine that you will have to see the winner on tv or in court. Listening to some of them plod on with heavy sticks makes me cringe.
There are many Milan fans on this board. Sorry, your guy sounds brutal. Anita Alvarez has not
found a way to break out, but she is more polished. Allen steps up a bit more than Milan.
Brewer has been through this so many times that
he has learned a bit on the presentation lingo. And Brookins, running for the State’s Attorney
of people of color. Also brutal.
But, watch it for yourself. this is an important race. thanks Rich for putting it on the board and
for making us pay attention to who will put away
the bad guys in Cook County!
Comment by amy Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:28 am
Old Larry the Lobbyist is clearly in deal-making overdrive. Mr. Progressive has gotten rich from killing us via big tobacco, ruining our families via “gaming” (legalized casino gambling), and ripping us off for drugs we need to stay alive (the drug companies). There is hardly a major big time special interest that lobbies in Illinois that Larry the Lobbyist hasn’t made money off of. I find the tobacco to be especially repulsive, considering I believe he voted for Cook County’s public smoking ban. That’s about as unscrupulous and double-dealing as one can get.
This is not a very promising race. On the D side, we have this lobbyist who has conned people into believing he would bring actual reform. We have a white Chicago (Daley) alderman laughingly doing the same. We have an Hispanic female who thinks she should be elected because she’s Hispanic and female. We have the status quo guy who is Devine’s number two. Then, we have the two black candidates running a racial campaign promising jobs to black prosecutors and leniency toward black suspects.
Once this is done, one of these clowns will run against the R clown, who thinks that the SA’s office has the legal authority to take over the police departments of home rule towns (probably hoping to be able to go after his political enemies in Cicero and Melrose Park).
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:37 am
I HAVE seen internal polling and it shows that Anita Alvarez is not only ahead in the polls but WAY ahead in the polls. That’s why Larry keeps mentioning the two hispanic politicians who he made deals with to support him. That’s also why he is doing photo shoots at the Mexican Fine Arts Museum. Larry is a lobbyist and the diametric opposite of a independent reformer. How can he stand there with a straight face and say that to the voters??? Look at his A-1 disclosures to the Board of Elections. He has raked in more than $150K in just the last two days from people with whom he plays backroom politics. How does he get away with it? He’s the least independent candidate in this race.
Comment by Pat Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:38 am
if the building is in your name, you own it and thus responsible for the ownership. Too bad the political wannabe political leaders don’t know or understand the basics.
Doug Dobmeyer
Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:47 am
Pat, I don’t know about the poll, but what you are saying underscores the repulsive pattern of racial and ethnic voting in this county. For decades, the Dem Machine kept its power by carefully “balancing” its ticket between various racial and ethnic groups, because these boobs cast their votes based upon someone’s nationality or skin color. Count out all the white guys, since they’re going to REALLY split the white vote. It’s Brookings, Brewer and Alvarez with the only real chance here, and I think Brewer and his Gus Hall factor take him out of it altogether.
So, who gets more voters to the polls, blacks or hispanics? Sadly, that is what will determine who our next SA will be.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:47 am
I wonder if Larry the Lobbyist thought he would be able to fly under the radar in this campaign and avoid the truth coming out. Here are the facts: Larry Suffredin lobbied against lowering the blood alcohol limit to .08 on behalf on liquor distributors. He lobbied against the smoking ban in Chicago on behalf of the Illinois Restaurant Association. He lobbied for gaming companies like MGM and Penn National and made big bucks doing it. The fact that he is also against guns doesn’t redeem him other transgretions. He is just a hired gun. You can’t call yourself a public servant when you’ve only been a servant to the highest bidder. His conflicts of interests made him question whether he could even vote on the Cook County budget and he had to go to the State’s Attorney for legal advice as to a potential recusal. Who will he consult when his many conflicts arise if he is State’s Attorney? He even admitted to the Daily Herald editorial board that he will have to recuse himself as State’s Attorney is these gaming issues come up concerning his former clients. He should stick with his smoke filled room politics and allow the people of Cook County to have a State’s Attorney who is experienced and capable of doing the job without conflict and with skill and integrity.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:48 am
Snidely,
I share your frustration but I think that the reason Alvarez is leading in the polls has more to do with her qualifications, her experience, her resume and proven integrity than her skin color. Study all of the candidates resumes and I think you would agree that she is the best. She has 21 years of experience fighting violent gang crime and murder. As important is that she is the only candidate that has done anything about public corruption. She personally indicted and prosecuted the first round of corrupt SOS police officers who were committing armed robbery, home invasion, kidnapping and official misconduct. Ten years ago she called for the SOS unit to be disbanded. They finally gave in to her demand and agreed and disbanded it last year after more officers did the same thing. When she became in charge of recruitment and hiring, she increased minority representation in the SAO from 26% three years ago to 40% in their last incoming class despite the fact that only 7% of law school graduating classes are minority. That’s progress and that’s a proven record. Most importantly and unlike any of her opponents, she owes nothing to anyone. She is the only person who can be truly independent. She is the right choice for real change.
Comment by Pat Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 10:58 am
Brookins is a frightening choice. He is already scandal ridden and election day is still weeks away. He doesn’t pay his bills and he is fairly called a slum lord. Isn’t that the kind of person that State’s Attorney is supposed to protect us from? I also hear that it’s just the tip of the iceberg. It is really a sad state of affairs if people vote for him. His whole campaign seems to be “I am black, you are black, vote for me.”
Comment by Margaret Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:07 am
Pat - Alvarez is WAY in the lead? Really? I no longer live in cook and don’t have a dog in this fight so I really don’t care. But I do find it a little hard to believe that Alvarez, who hasn’t run for office, doesn’t appear to have much money (filed last D-1 on paper, never a good sign) and is in a crowded field with big money players like Suffredin and Brookings, is WAY in the lead. AFL is with Allen, Suffredin has Jackson and White, Brookings has his share of big name support. I’m not saying Alvarez can’t compete but “WAY in the lead”??? Also, whenever someone has that much detail about a candidate’s record, it a little obivious that you are close to the campaign. No offense, use the blog to promote your candidate by all means. But your claims seem a little thin.
Comment by L.S. Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:24 am
L.S. - Wait and see. I hear WAY in the lead and frankly, it makes sense to me. Why do all the conventional politicos assume that Cook County voters won’t elect quality? Clearly I am a supporter but I am not an embellisher. She can win by one vote for all I care. I just believe that she will win. She has natural advantages that no other candidate has. Her qualifications and experience are second to none and she is the only female and the only Hispanic. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out.
Comment by Pat Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:34 am
LS, I think you hit the nail on the head. But, since the election is only a few weeks away and this site is populated by political junkies who’s votes I doubt are swayed by postings here, Pat is wasting his (or her) time.
Misrepresenting your candidate as “leading the polls” is one of the oldest tricks in the book. It’s a ploy to snare the people who cast their vote for who they think will win, because they think their vote will be wasted otherwise. Those voters get in my craw probably even more than the racial and ethnic voters.
If you can’t or won’t make an educated choice as to who is going to lead all of us, please stay at home, so that the rest of us are not stuck with YOUR silly choice (and by this, I don’t mean to say that A.A. is a silly choice for SA, so long as a vote for her is actually an informed one).
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:37 am
Pat,
You’ve hurt my feelings. You said “I share your frustration”, but then you went and said that Alvarez is also a good choice because “she is the only female and the only Hispanic.”
I don’t think you’re just “close” to her campaign. I think you’re one of her point people assigned to steer internet blogs and write letters to newspapers, etc.
I think that if someone posted that, “I would love to vote in this race, but I can only vote for a candidate who puts ketchup on her ice cream”, you would astound him with tales of how Anita makes Heinz and Oberweis blend into one, majestic feast.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:42 am
If you’re an elected representative and take cash to take positions, you’re a scoundrel, but if you register as a lobbyist, it’s all good, I guess.
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:48 am
I actually watched the debate already. WLS- Chanel 7 has it up on their site:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=5894821
After watchng this there is no doubt there was some gang tackling on Suffredin, but on the surface it seems to me to be more from rigtheous indignation than the perception of him as a “front runner”. Brookins and Brewer are no doubt none too happoy with JJ Jr. and Jesse White on their endorsements, and Allen, Milan, and Suffredin feel the cloak of “reformer” that Suffredin wraps himself in is not really a good fit, so they looked for opportunties to point out why. They all seemed to be pretty effective, and Larry needs to get better at diffusing that. He did not defend himself very effectively.
Suffredin offered some fresh perspectve on securing sources for additional funding which demonstrated some fortethought. Although one has to wonder if he is just more atuned to the county budget comng down the pike and decided to try to plan ahead in case he actually (accidentally) wins.
Credit goes to Brewer over Brookins, who seemed to have some substantive platform ideas, as opposed to Brookins theoretical concept that {the States Attorney’s office is a white supremacist organization not to be trusted by minorities} and vote for me because I am black.
Allen did not distnguish himself here too well; with the exception of his ability to go negative on Suffredin. His commentary was almost vntage Ditkaesque ( Reformer;Larry Suffredin,who you crappin?) Some of his comments about budgeting within the office also could be spot on. Whomever wins the office will have to deal with the budget constraints of the county, and that is a painful reality. It could be a challenge to implement some of the new programs and ideas the candidates have suggested, but it would be far better that someone that actually knows and understands the office and its core mission take on that task. Allen’s effort to come as the “straight shooting regular guy” may play well on the nort wes side, and sout wes side may appeal to the Bungalo Belters of city workers, but to much of suburbia he comes off as more of a goof.
Before watching the debate I was on the fence between Milan and Alvarez as to who was best qualified. This was probably Alvarez’s best opportunity to become visible to a broader audience of voters (i.e. women), and she took advantage of it pretty well, but unfortunately for her it will lkely be her last opportunty to do so, and it will only be seen by a very small percentage of the Democratic primary voters. She was effectve at differentiatng herself from the others by pointing her minority status, but having experience as a minority actually workng in the office. She also did not take the Hillary (I am woman hear me roar), but subtely ponted out she is a “working mother of four”. Despite a decent showng here however there was something missing in her presentation, and I think it was manifsted in what seemed to be an inability to think quickly on her feet. This will represent a real challenge to anyone who occupies the office. As States Attorney there will be no shortage of unexpected surprises, and some of her fumbling and canned responses gave me cause for concern.
This debate solidified my selection of Milan. He showed vast knowledge and understanding of the core mission of the office. He demonstrated an awesome respect for the importance and the power of the position, and the need for sound judgement and flexblity and discreton in how and when to use it.He also showed me grace under fire, which can be especially difficult in having to answer to others in a forum like this where very few of the opponents know what they are talking about.
People have commented here that he can be rough around the edges, and to some that may be so, but in this debate he seemed to demonstrate diplomacy, while at the same time using a velvet hammer, and occasonally taking the velvet off if he needed to be more forceful. I can now see why Devine endorsed him. Alvarez had a decent showing, but I don’t think she is yet ready to lead.
His comments about and directed to Suffredin’s “hair brained scheme” of a blanket prohibition on gun crimes was dead on in terms of the nature of the position and the importance of, and the need for flexibility in prosecutorial discretion. Suffredn’s concept here is indeed a populist pandering empty political promise that shouldn’t, and couldn’t be practically implemented.
Milan also politely pointed out to Andy Shaw is misunderstandng of how the system works in the police female bartender beating case, and he also effectively defused the perception that Shaw was attempting to create; that the States Attorneys office (and Milan) turned a blind eye because a Chicago cop was involved.
Here’s where he also exercised some diplomacy as well, because if he did not have the temperament for the job that some have questioned, he could have easly turned the tables on Shaw, and responded with a rhetorcal question about city zoning and licensing matters that the Shaws to look the other way on in operating their previously unlicensed hoite toite SRO out of their home. Given Andy’s illusion to “hypocrisy” by Suffredin, Suffredin, Milan, or any of them really could have called him out on that.
This was a good forum and I wish more people would watch it, because the position is so important to all our communities. It makes it all that more disheartening to realize that too many people will give defference in their decision to the electricians or the plumbers union.
Go figure. Sad but true.
Comment by Barrister Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:51 am
Pat and L.S.,
Just a supporter and not a point person but that aside, check out the records of AA and Larry and see for yourself. If I have misrepresented anything, I am sure you’ll let me know.
Patty McPat
Comment by Pat Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:58 am
Meant Snidely and LS, sorry.
Comment by Pat Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 11:58 am
Well I am certainly not connected with anyone’s campaign but I am a voter and my vote goes to Alvarez with Milan as second choice. Its time for some change around town. She’ll bring it.
Comment by Margaret Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:04 pm
Milan has some great qualities as a candidate but I am turned off when he repeatedly takes credit for everything and seems to deny responsibility for anything that has gone wrong. His tie to the status quo and Devine just mean more of the same and that’s not what I think we need. The more I have read and seen of Anita Alvarez, the more impressed with her I have become. I am certainly not voting for a pol. I am with Margaret on this, Anita gets my vote.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:11 pm
Jerry, Margaret and Pat are all posting from the same IP address.
Sockpuppetry is a bannable offense. Last warning.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:14 pm
i am just an interested observer, trying to decide
between Larry, and after watching, Anita. Anita
behaves like a lawyer, not a union representative
of the state’s attorneys as Milan does. The Milan
supporters on this board denigrate Anita’s
experience. How can she be so underqualified
if she is the no. 2 apppointed in the office?
And, that Girl X case was very, very important.
Anita is getting my attention by her performance
in the debates.
someone please put up a poll result from the
media. i hate to play by the polls, but, my
vote will go to the democrat who can stop
Brookins, Larry, Anita, or Tom Allen. I highly
doubt Milan is even close.
Brookins is not near qualified enough to stop Peraica, and peraica is poison.
Comment by amy Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:21 pm
Nothing against the dedicated public servants Alverez and Milan, but they are not bona fide contenders - in fact they split the vote of people who believe that career prosecutors should have an edge for State’s Attorney. I agree that Alvarez is a lot smoother than Milan - I really like her. But I don’t believe the polls cited as showing her in the lead. Even if she doesn’t win this race,she could be a political comer if she’s interested in future political office. I’d be willing to bet that Suffredin would be the second choice of most of the Assistant State’s Attorneys supporting Milan/Alvarez,rather than Brookins or Allen. Alvarez would defineitely be my second choice!
Larry Suffredin earned his living as a lobbyist - nothing illegal in that - reminds me about that hilarious movie, Thank You for Smoking. Although lobbyists are hired guns, I have seen nothing that suggests that Larry Suffredin is for sale in terms of his actions/responsibilities as an elected official.
As far as I’m concerned Suffredin’s performance as Cook County Comissioner has been exemplary. He’s been fighting the good fight for reform of Cook County government. He seems to be heads and tails above Brookins and Allen in terms of natural ability and communication skills. If this race among Brookins, Allen, and Suffredin were decided on the basis of ability, and personal integrity,as well as sincere interest in reforming government, Suffredin would win hands down.
All I can recommend to open-minded bloggers is read he newspaper editorials before casting your vote. The Sun-Times has already weighed in on behalf of Suffredin. I am confident that the Tribune and the Daily Herald will do the same, given that the likely alternatives are two mediocre organization Democrats.
Ultimately, whichever Democrat prevails, I plan to vote for them wihtout reservation given that that Peraica is the likely Republicn nominee. Peraica reminds me a lot of the Republican Sheriff James Grady - I just don’t see him as a genuine reformer. He totally discredited himself with the “beer hall putsch” farce he pulled on election night
Comment by Captain America Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:26 pm
Larry has never hid the fact that he was lobbyist, and those people who have worked with him, or on the other side of an issue he was lobbying on will tell you, he’s a fair, ethical guy. I know the cynical readership of CapFax might find this hard to believe, but there is such a thing as a good lobbyist.
Larry’s frontrunner status was cemented in this debate, and I think all the other candidates are worried because he is the only candidate that is getting any sort of support from outside of his natural constituency. Larry has undeniable credibility as a reformer from his work on the county board.
Comment by nobody sent Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:35 pm
just got the Personal PAC endorsements.
the list of recommends for State’s Attorney is
Allen, Alvarez, Brewer, Brookins, Suffredin.
Milan lovers, please explain why Milan’s name is not on this list.
did he send in a questionnaire? is he anti-
choice? did he not turn in a questionnaire
for fear of being put on the record with
some anti answer?
the choice issue has come up in past
State’s Attorney’s races. it has also come
up in connection with County Hospital. we
need a State’s Attorney who will protect
the rights of women who need the services
of County Hospital when it comes to abortion
and birth control.
So, a vote for Milan is a vote against choice?
Comment by amy Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:39 pm
Pat’s internal poll was asking Margaret and Jerry who they were going to vote for in a very Sybil like manner.
Comment by Garp Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:41 pm
Nobody sent, said it right.
Some of you may have this image of lobsters as guys who pass out cash to legislators, but it’s wrong and stupid and just plain goofy.
Also, Suffredin had a very good reputation as a lobbyist. He was one of the best.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:41 pm
I for one, think that Suffredin is a good candidate, but he is really overstating his Reform credentials, at least as far as the County Board is concerned. I personally heard him tell an audience that he has “led the Reform Bloc” for years. Nonsense. Larry is often the one the real Reformers have to keep their eye on in a tight situation, to make sure he does not find an excuse to duck and cover.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 12:56 pm
Nice post Barrister. I was getting ready to light up “Pat” regarding the polls, but Rich exposed the poster.
It is just sad that the public does not know how the system really works. The political process doesn’t lend itself to that. It is so easy to throw out an accusation that on its face sounds plausible, but after examination, a different story emerges. The Abate case is a prime example and Milan did a good job explaining what happened. In virtually all cases, the police initiate the charges. The police decide whether to charge a misdemeanor or whether to call the SAO for felony approval. The SAO doesn’t find out about the case until it gets to court. At that time, assistants get to look at the case and they can then decide if a case should be uprgraded. That is the check on the police department.
The public only hears that Abate was charged with a misdemeanor and then are told that the “system is broken.” I could go on, but I would be writing for hours.
If anyone thinks that Milan represents the status quo, they are wrong. The executive staff of the SAO is almost entirely behind Anita. The executive staff are the ones that make the big money and don’t do much work. They view Milan as the outsider. It’s funny that Anita talks about getting more grant money when one of her supporters is in charge of obtaining the grants. Don’t get me wrong, she is my second choice, but only because the others do not have a clue on how to run the office.
From what I have heard, the polls show that it is anyone’s race to win. That means whoever has the most money and most ads will win. Once again, very sad.
Comment by Mad as Hell Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:06 pm
” … I have seen nothing that suggests that Larry Suffredin is for sale in terms of his actions/responsibilities as an elected official.”
Suffredin puts the burden on the voter to parse his campaign contributions, his client list, and his lobbyist disclosures to look for conflicts. I’ve got a better idea: avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Is that so hard? That would be easier for us. Is that too much to ask these days?
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:25 pm
Hugh, the trouble with the appearance of impropriety is whose perception are we gonna go with?
To some, obviously, being a lobbyist in and of itself is an appearance of impropriety.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:27 pm
“Suffredin had a very good reputation as a lobbyist. He was one of the best.”
lose the past tense
Suffredin is CURRENTLY registered as a lobbyist at the City, State, AND County levels.
http://egov.cityofchicago.org
/webportal/COCWebPortal/C
OC_EDITORIAL/reg-lob-121407.pdf
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.c
om/departments/index/lobbyist/
http://www.voterinfonet.com/s
ub/disclosures.asp
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:29 pm
Yeah, but he is not down here as much as he used to be. Still, point taken.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:31 pm
Being a paid corporate lobbyist AND an elected reprsentative is in and of itself an appearance of impropriety.
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:33 pm
So, there you have it. I might disagree. If so, who’s right? Which perception is he supposed to bow down to?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:35 pm
Um, voters, I guess? Suffredin has evidently made a judgment that earning a living as a corporate lobbyist while serving as an elected representative is no biggy with voters, he can spin it. He has brought the thrashing on himself, it was avoidable. If nothing else he has to admit he has made it harder on himself to get out all his wonderful progressive reform ideas.
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:46 pm
So, let them decide.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:47 pm
But what if they decide otherwise? Then what will you do?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:50 pm
It’s not a matter of perception. On the one hand, you make a living shilling for the tobacco, gaming and drug industries. On the other, you are a commissioneron a county board that taxes tobacoo products and bans smoking, and also runs a hospital that treats the victims of smoking (cancer patients). Conflict of interest. You represent drug companies, yet your county health dept. buys prescription drugs. Conflict of interest. You represent casinoes, and the county may get a cut of gambling money. Highly probable (BUT POTENTIAL, to be fair) conflict of interest.
And Rich, I don’t understand why posts criticizing Larry S. for endorsing Bobbie Steele and Todd Stroger yet painting himself as a reformer are being deleted. I think it is a very fair point. If you are supposedly in a fight to the death with the devil, you don’t sleep with him between rounds. Just my opinion.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:50 pm
Profanity and over the topness. Tone it down. Everybody should hear this as well.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:51 pm
“So, let them decide.”
you mean, as in, “shut up & let voters decide”?
this is a political blog, right? can’t you post that in response to any pretty much any given comment?
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 1:57 pm
It was a two-part comment, Hugh.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 2:00 pm
” … Suffredin’s performance as Cook County Comissioner has been exemplary. He’s been fighting the good fight for reform … ”
Suffredin lost all reform cred when he hung Quigley out to dry on some VERY modest and VERY reasonable TIF reform proposals. Suffredin argued before the County Board that giving Cook County property tax payers honest information about where their property taxes were going would confuse them.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/fe
atures/stories/theworks/070511/
Even perennial candidate Tommy Brewer piled on, and he’s right:
“Suffredin is an insider, not a reformer.”
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 2:28 pm
Some of you may have this image of lobsters as guys who pass out cash to legislators, but it’s wrong and stupid and just plain goofy.
Someone should tell that to Larry the Lobbyist, then. He gave more than $64,000 to Republican politicians during his lobbying career. Did he not do that because he’s a lobbyist?
Was it because he shares the values of George Ryan, Judy Baar Topinka, Tom Cross and all the others? I guess Larry could say that.
So he is a reformer who takes money from big corporations like BP Amoco, and he is a progressive who writes lots of big checks to Republican politicians. Got it.
Comment by Blue Ray Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 2:35 pm
Hugh,
Quigley endorsed suffredin. So what exactly is your point?
Comment by mr Blackwell Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 2:39 pm
Quigley also endorsed Stroger, what’s your point?
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 2:48 pm
I’ve posed this question before and never really received any feedback, but if Allen is a union guy with union organization and money, plus he’s the only one on tv right now and has been for about 3 weeks, how does he lose? I’m not saying he’s the best candidate by any means (I don’t think any of them are), but I would guess that he’ll be increasing his ad buy and start mailing in the next week. I think he’s the only one in the race who will have any name recognition whatsoever for regular, everyday people.
I fancy myself fairly politically knowledgeable, and would have never heard of Alvarez, Milan, or Brewer if I didn’t read this blog. Suffredin and Brookins are both trying to coattail it on Obama voters - Suffredin on lake shore liberals, Brookins on south side blacks - but they both assume that people already know who they are. I guess I just don’t get it…
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 3:02 pm
The best choice for States Attorney is Tom Allen who has distinguished himself as a voice of the working class and the less fortunate. He is not flashy or flamboyant but is a hard worker who listens to his constituents. He has impeccable integrity and credentials. That being said, I do like Anita a lot. The rest are also rans bordering on the comedic.
Larry “smoke em if you got ‘em” S. and Little Howie are the funniest.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 3:30 pm
Laryy went to the States Attorney’s office for cover; looking for an opinion as to a “conflict of interest” which forestalled him from breaking the reported tie and becoming the deciding vote AGAINST Stroger sales tax increase when it was first proposed.
If you are representng the people that elected you; and you can not vote AGAINST a gigantic tax increase, then you certanly do have a conflict of interest, and should do the right thing and resign.
Reformer; Larry Suffredin, who you crappin?
Comment by Barrister Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 3:41 pm
I don’t particularly care for any of the candidates, but how can Larry Suffredin consider himself a reformer? I checked out his website, and his endorsements. There sure are a lot of familiar Cook County faces endorsing him. They must not be too scared of his “reform.” Rickey Hendon endorsed him, that should say enough about his reform credentials there.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 3:45 pm
A couple items: First, Anita isn’t anywhere near the top of anybody’s poll. That’s misinformation of a major magnitude. Second, pretty much everybody did well at the debate last night, with the exception of Brookins, who looked like he was ready for a process server to approach the podium with the most recent lawsuit or disciplinary complaint. Suffredin has an authoritative oratorical style, but gimme a break, he paints himself as a competent administrator, but he’s been a one-man-band lobbyist for decades (a competent and ethical one, no doubt), he doesn’t have the type of administrative experience that would lend itself to running a 900 person law firm that represents non-paying indigent citizens who don’t trust anybody. The question in this race is who is going to be on television with ads that capture the electorate’s attention. Thus far, Allen looks like a bit of an empty suit. The wisdom of wrapping himself in the police flag when police corruption and police shootings are in the forefront is surely lost on me. I think it’s going to wind up being a battle between Milan and Allen
Comment by chiatty Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 3:55 pm
One other thought: If the State’s Attorney’s office is/was such a mess, why did Suffredin, Allen and Brookins all support Devine last time around? Why did Suffredin serve as Devine’s finance chairman for an earlier election? Why didn’t any of the “outsider” candidates ever have a single criticism (other than Brewer, who’s run before) of Devine? Why? Because they never paid attention to the office until the vacancy popped up. Opportunists and very little else, IMHO.
Comment by chiatty Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:01 pm
chiatty- I do agree that Allen’s ad campaigns aren’t the best (I thought the same thing when I saw the ‘10K police officers support Tom Allen’ ad), but at least he’s on tv.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:03 pm
BSP esq:
Allen’s on, but those in the know will tell you he’s wasting money to be on this early. The voters will start looking at this race in a week or so. Allen will have some company in the final ten days. He won’t be the only candidate with ads. btw, you’re a lawyer, what about Allen’s obviously illegal and unconstitutional “plan” to have GPS tracking devices on sex offenders!
Based on his professional activities the last 20 years, Allen might need a GPS to find the courthouse!
Comment by chiatty Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:12 pm
It’s almost never too early to be on TV if you’re an unknown. Just as long as you don’t peak too early.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:14 pm
chiatty- I don’t know if it’s an entire waste of money. He’s on quite a bit and after awhile ads like that function subliminally. Plus, it’s not like he’s going to run out of money.
Believe me, I don’t think he’s a great candidate. I don’t know if I’ll even vote for him. I was really just wondering why everyone seems to be ignoring him.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:19 pm
Rich,
No doubt it’s helping a bit with name recognition. It’s just a matter of the expense and holding your fire until you see the target.
Comment by chiatty Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:20 pm
I do find it interesting that Suffredin was Finance chair for Devine. How come no one has brought that up in the debates? I watched the debates online and thought that Suffredin and Alvarez were the smoothest candidates. I did like the way Milan corrected Andy Shaw and pointed out how charges are brought. Milan does his best when talking about the law. Allen needs to work on his delivery and stop painting himself as just a “regular guy” But I was most surprised by Brewer. I’ve heard his name a few times and I know he likes to run for office, but he seemed like a common sense guy and definitely has the credentials. He’s a lot better candidate for the black community than Brookins, who looks and sounds like he just doesn’t care for the job. That’s my armchair analysis.
Comment by Matlock Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:26 pm
I got ya on that. Still, if you have the bucks…
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 4:27 pm
I can’t believe I am agreeing with Bill—Go Tom Allen.
Comment by Garp Thursday, Jan 17, 08 @ 5:23 pm