Michael J. Madigan (D-Dodger)
Wednesday, Dec 2, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
House Speaker Michael Madigan said Tuesday that he’s been too focused on the state’s budget problems to give any real thought to the March primary, declining to say which races his Democratic Party plans to pour money into.
Madigan also did not directly answer a question about whether he’d support Chicago Rep. Ken Dunkin’s re-election efforts, after Dunkin twice would not cast votes during Democratic attempts to overrule Republican Gov. Rauner on spending for child care and services for the elderly and disabled.
“We haven’t reached any decisions on the primary at all, we’ve been occupied with the No. 1 issue facing the state of Illinois: the budget deficit,” Madigan told reporters.
Madigan also brushed aside an inquiry about the three people challenging him for office, including whether he had anything to do with recruiting additional candidates to make it more difficult for one person to take him on.
The Speaker repeated his line about being too preoccupied with the budget to be dealing with putting up primary opponents against himself. He answered the same way when asked whether the county party ought to rethink its neutrality in the state’s attorney race. He’s just way too focused on the budget.
And if you believe any of that then you’re beyond help.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:26 am:
Well, I think I’m beyond help, but not because I believe his quotes here. Madigan famously keeps his own counsel. In fact, most reporters are lucky to get a spontaneous quote from him at all. When has he ever opened up about his campaign strategy?
They say a political gaffe is when a pol accidentally speaks the truth. Madigan doesn’t make those kinds of mistakes. You can ask the same question many different ways, but you’ll almost always get the same answer from him.
- walker - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:27 am:
Aah, he’s just cruising along his new talking point tracks — I’m focusing on the budget, while Rauner is focusing on the 2016 election campaign.
- Big Joe - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:29 am:
C’mon Rich. You know all the Speaker wants to concentrate on is getting a balanced budget these days. /s
- Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:30 am:
“brushed aside” - an overly polite way of saying “refused to answer”?
- Juice - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:31 am:
Agree with 47th. Though it would have been terrific if the Speaker came out and said “yes I am supporting one of Representative Dunkin’s opponents in the primary. And why shouldn’t I? I am even supporting two opponents against myself.”
- Triple fat - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:40 am:
Maybe the Speaker likes to take care of his opposition through working behind the scenes to assure their Federal prosecution. He’s been way to busy dealing with the Mayor. I wonder who will be next?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 11:42 am:
I’ve yet to run into anyone that has had inter-workings with the Speaker and they say…
“Madigan was detached to the politics here.”
“The Speaker isn’t thinking about the election.”
“Mike Madigan is focused on the one angle, not looking at the long term politics later”.
You cant say Madigan plays 3-D Chess and then believe this quote, no matter your own workings with the Speaker.
- the Patriot - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
This is a clear indication the Governor is winning. He has completely paralyzed the greatest political thinker in IL history not named Lincoln to a point where he cannot perform essential functions he has done better than virtually everyone on the planet for 4 decades. (snark noted).
Follow up question, Mr. Speaker, in your focused analysis of the budget issue what new proposals do you have at this point?
You’ve been working all day every day for 6 months on the same a problem you figured out 40 other times, but have no new ideas?
He will probably hold a press conference tomorrow and endorse Trump as well.
- LizPhairTax - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:19 pm:
Monique had to ask but she couldn’t have expected an answer.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:24 pm:
In the realm of ridiculous statements yesterday, these are certainly the least consequential for Illinois citizens.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:35 pm:
Rich, Thanks for the laugh of the day provided by this post.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:37 pm:
===. In fact, most reporters are lucky to get a spontaneous quote from him at all.
I believe Rich got him to answer who his favorite Beatle was once. Once.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:38 pm:
===I believe Rich got him to answer who his favorite Beatle was once===
Nope. He ignored the question.
But if I ever get him on my podcast…
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:43 pm:
I believe him!
LOL!
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
==he’s been too focused on the state’s budget problems to give any real thought to the March primary==
With Madigan passing consecutive unbalanced budgets fy14 and fy 15, making him focus strictly on the 16 budget must count as Rauner’s first verified miracle. /s
- Brian - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:47 pm:
Rich, can you get Madigan to explain how he sees email without an email address, uses a computer without a computer and makes calls without a cell phone since all of those magically don’t exist under FOIA requests by media?
- LizPhairTax - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:53 pm:
Rich has a podcast?
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:56 pm:
Reckoned ==dodger== was a reference to Madigan ==dodging== the microphone yesterday because he wanted to speak after the Governor.
With St Bruce performing miracles and the Child-Emperor Mikey throwing hissy fits, this impasse may never resolve.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
FKA, I believe “dodging” refers to dodging the questions asked.
Your singular obsession regarding the significance of yesterday’s press statement order is duly noted. Again.
- justacitizen - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:15 pm:
Speaker is so focused on solving the budget issue he was speechless in the private meeting, lol.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:24 pm:
===And if you believe any of that then you’re beyond help.===
But ain’t it a great excuse?! Why would he take a question about anything else ever? All the governor can talk about are the reasons he refuses to work on a budget. It gives Madigan complete cover. “I’m focused on the budget.” Yes, of course you are…. because you were given a tremendous gift of yet another governor with absolutely horrendous management skills.
- AlabamaShake - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:36 pm:
**But if I ever get him on my podcast…**
Wait… this is breaking news or something. You have a podcast?!
- Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:36 pm:
MJM does not have to do much but hold to his core position that the budget is the number one problem. The more time that goes by without a budget the more and more he becomes correct.
- Anon - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:37 pm:
===including whether he had anything to do with recruiting additional candidates to make it more difficult for one person to take him on.===
Is there any merit to that claim?
- Truthteller - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:39 pm:
A “D” to the reporter for asking the question. The media should be focused on the budget whether Madigan is or not.
- Just Me - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 1:56 pm:
If he is so focused on solving the state’s budget mess, than what are his ideas to balance the budget? What cuts will he support? What tax increases will he support?
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 2:12 pm:
===If he is so focused on solving the state’s budget mess, than what are his ideas to balance the budget? What cuts will he support? What tax increases will he support?===
That would be a great question for the governor considering his constitutional obligation is to present a balanced budget and failed to do so. Madigan doesn’t have to come out for or against anything until the governor is ready to talk about the budget. So why should he? It could only hurt him.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 3:13 pm:
===Nope. He ignored the question.
Well, he did smile as I recall.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 3:23 pm:
@wordslinger - it was remarkable seeing a 73-year-old man behave so childishly.
==Again==
Did you comment prior to 12:59 today on the Speaker’s behavior following the meeting? Or in yesterday’s post after Monique Garcia’s tweet re the ==standoff between Madigan and Rauner on who will have last word today==?
- My New Handle - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 3:25 pm:
“What tax increases will he support?”
As he said in the presser, he would support a tax on millionaires, with a non-binding referndum vote as backup.
- My New Handle - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 3:38 pm:
Also as I remember, a few years ago Madigan was behind shifting TRS and SURS pension payments from the state to universities, community college districts, and local school districts. There was too much blowback from the school districts to advance much of the idea. It isn’t like he has just come up with concern for the deficit. His plan would have saved quite a chunk on the state side, though those costs still ultimately would be borne by the taxpayer, as any government service is.
- Not it - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 4:13 pm:
Ducky LaMore- the Speaker said the budget is the junky thing he has been working on, so it is natural to ask him for the product of that work.
My New Handle- that isn’t a solution for FY15 and the Speaker knows it.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 5:36 pm:
Rich-
As I said in February, 2007 (When I also predicted Obama would have no problem competing with Clinton in fundraising
, Jay Hoffman still owns the best, straight-faced political denial of all-time.
Accused of mixing state government and political fundraising, Hoffman said:
“I have no idea who gives me money. My campaign treasurer handles all of that.”
Write that one down, campers. It is invincible.
- Anon - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 9:55 pm:
===including whether he had anything to do with recruiting additional candidates to make it more difficult for one person to take him on.===
==Is there any merit to that claim?==
The primary “plant” is a time-honored tradition in Illinois (particularly Cook County) politics. It tends to be shrouded in mystery because it is rarely in the interests of those involved to talk about it.
In this case it seems fairly clear what (allegedly) happened, and MJM’s plants seem more justified than usual because Jason Gonzales may be a GOP plant.
In theory, if the Jason Gonzales entry had been well executed, they might have pulled it off. That’s assuming there are no operators on the inside to ensure that MJM got his way.
It would be interesting to see the timeline of when the three primary opponents were entered. At any rate, it’s clear that managing his primary is a top priority for MJM, and it appears that he once again outmaneuvered his opponents.
Of course, MJM would have very likely won a two-way race, but it would have been more of an annoyance and a distraction to him, which was probably an intention of those backing Gonzales.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 2, 15 @ 10:09 pm:
===It would be interesting to see the timeline of when the three primary opponents were entered. At any rate, it’s clear that managing his primary is a top priority for MJM, and it appears that he once again outmaneuvered his opponents.===
Use the search key, there was at least one article giving the timeline of all these filings. The backstory is talked about, around the edges too (the why)