Yes… but
Wednesday, Oct 19, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Greg Hinz digs into the local angle on the national Fraternal Order of Police’s endorsement of Donald Trump…
But the statement also reports that, to get the national endorsement, Trump had to get votes from two-thirds of the state lodges.
In Chicago, the FOP asked its unit representatives—the local union officials—to survey the rank and file. The results: 43 wanted to endorse Trump, four sat it out and zero back Hillary Clinton. Similarly, the board of the state lodge voted 172 for Trump, five for no action and zero for Clinton.
Like it or not, that tells me that Trump has a receptive audience when he tells police that no one has their back when they hit the street, but he will. Though Trump’s tone is beyond histrionic, his core message in some ways was pretty similar to what ex-Chicago top cop Garry McCarthy told the City Club a few weeks ago.
* But check out the Chicago FOP’s endorsement page. Among others, the union is also backing Chicago state Reps. Ann Williams and Sara Feigenholtz, two of the most liberal members of the General Assembly.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
* Meanwhile…
On the campaign trail, [US Sen. Mark Kirk] said he’s gotten plenty of questions about Trump. But he says most voters are accepting of his position.
After an event last week with college Republicans at Illinois Wesleyan University, Kirk told reporters he was optimistic that the Republican Party will work to remind Americans that it’s the “party of fiscal conservatives and national security hawks.”
He insists that Trump won’t be an anchor on his or other Republicans candidates downballot. That said, he had a hard time hiding his disdain for his party’s candidate at the top of the ticket.
“Right now I would tell Trump to shut the hell up,” Kirk said. “This is not productive.”
The Chicago FOP took a pass on the Senate race.
* Related…
* ‘Shocking’ Trump Endorsement By Police Union Rattles Public Safety Chairman
- RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 11:57 am:
== Talk about cognitive dissonance. ==
Come on Rich. You know all politics is local; this year more than ever. People are looking for someone they can trust (at least more than their opponent) and outsiders who might, just might, change things. That leads to weird combinations.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 11:57 am:
If our political system was trusted, this endorsement would mean something.
- Peorgie Tirebiter - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 12:00 pm:
Oh my God - Blue Collar police have a different view of things than white collar alderpeople inconceivable!
- ChicagoVinny - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 12:04 pm:
The smart move would have been to take a pass on an endorsement like the FOP did in 2012. This won’t wear well.
- Earnest - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 12:19 pm:
Knowing that the Chicago police pretty much universally back Trump should help improve relations with the black community at least.
- Hard working Art Student - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 12:35 pm:
@Earnest
Um…..no.
- anon - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 12:52 pm:
Not a single vote for Clinton. Apparently officers from ethnic minority backgrounds don’t vote like their civilian group members.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
I think Kirk is whistling past the graveyard on Trump’s impact on his race and others. I doubt if his GOP Senate colleagues in Missouri, Wisconsin, PA, FL, NH and NC would agree.
Still, his “malignant clown” is the best suitable-for-publication two-word description of Trump to date.
- Oops! - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 1:02 pm:
So let’s say Trump gets elected and the Republicans keep control of Congress. It’s not hard to imagine them changing the federal bankruptcy code and enable municipalities to seek bankruptcy protection without approval of their state legislatures (as presently required.) Then Chicago and other cities could go to court to get out of their pension obligations. How would the FOP explain that to their membership?
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 1:18 pm:
Look, as I said to some fellow AFSCME’s puzzled by this, “The police have always been on the other side of a picket line. This is no different.” Maintaining order and compliance is a management need not necessarily a labor need. Police have always been there to do the dirty work for management.
I know that’s ugly but there you have it.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 1:53 pm:
Funny. I always thought the whole purpose of law enforcement is for society–the citizens–(to promote order, to protect lives and property, and respond to emergencies). I had no idea those functions were not “necessarily” needed as well by “labor”. Are not unions comprised by people?
- crazybleedingheart - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 3:11 pm:
…And some, I assume, are good people.
- Che - Wednesday, Oct 19, 16 @ 3:16 pm:
@Oops
Never underestimate the ability of a Chicago police officer to vote against his economic self interest.
- Payback - Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 5:07 am:
From the Greg Hinz article, “And I’ll give the FOP credit for telling us something about what its members really think.”
It’s no surprise that most police would support Trump. He’s the presidential candidate who voiced the term “stop-and-frisk” at least a hundred times so far in debates and public statements.
What cop would not endorse a policy that would allow and encourage them to stop anyone they want, at any time, for any pretext they can dream up? Deify the police and let them set public policy, and this is what you get.