Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Kennedy compares AFL-CIO Pritzker endorsement to “Christian Right” backing Trump
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Kennedy compares AFL-CIO Pritzker endorsement to “Christian Right” backing Trump

Wednesday, Jun 7, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Chris Kennedy was on WBEZ this morning. Tony Arnold gives us a rundown

Except Kennedy himself made a play for that endorsement and tried to keep Pritzker from getting it.

* From the ILGOP…

J.B. Pritzker was panned yesterday by Democrats and Republicans alike after receiving the Mike Madigan-backed AFL-CIO endorsement.

The endorsement comes hundreds of days before the primary, before any debates, and without a proper vetting process.

But Mike Madigan knows that J.B. Pritzker can be trusted to maintain the corrupt Chicago machine – Pritzker’s already been exposed on FBI tapes and media reports working the system to get state jobs and massive tax breaks.

Chris Kennedy, Ameya Pawar, and Daniel Biss blasted Pritzker and the insider process used to obtain the endorsement.

Watch NBC Chicago’s coverage here.

* Tribune

Pritzker appeared “very at ease, very comfortable talking to labor, and he was quizzed pretty hard on different question, and he came back with all outstanding good answers and I just think he’s been working it and working it hard,” Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan said.

The decision to act so early was motivated by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner’s efforts to weaken union rights, he added.

“There were a few who raised comments that this is the earliest we have ever done it, but we all agreed on one thing, that Gov. Rauner is not leading this state forward and he needed to go, and I think that propelled the early endorsement discussion for J.B.,” Carrigan said. […]

Carrigan dismissed suggestions that Madigan orchestrated the endorsement.

“I didn’t really hear that in the meeting today. I heard a lot of discussion focused on (Pritzker’s) questionnaire and how he answered and how he talked about helping other candidates,” Carrigan said. “The speaker is the chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois, he has certainly been around a long time, but I didn’t not feel any, you know, hard force from him.”

* And the Pritzker campaign seems a bit unclear on the concept…

AFL-CIO is one of 16 Illinois unions that have now endorsed JB and are ready to bring Rauner’s war on the labor movement to a swift end. Throughout his time in office, Bruce Rauner has held this state hostage, in a reckless attempt to cripple unions and attack working families.

Oh, for crying out loud. The AFL-CIO is not a union. It’s the umbrella organization for most unions in Illinois. It’s a federation (that’s the “F”) and a congress (that’s the “C”).

       

85 Comments
  1. - Annyong - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:13 am:

    Kennedy is the guy I’ll end up voting for but I’m not sure attacking the union leadership is going to be the best idea he’s ever had.

    Isn’t his campaign manager an alum from the Chicago Federation of Labor? I can’t imagine why she would sign off on a strategy like this. He should’ve just politely said “I will stand with the working people of Illinois and I believe their members will vote for me” and point to the fact that JB just barely met the threshold for endorsement. Why bring Trump and Madigan into this?


  2. - Iron - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:15 am:

    Kennedy sounds like another anti Christian bigot


  3. - The Captain - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:17 am:

    Notable:

    1. Bruce Rauner’s #1 goal is to break unions. He’s held the state hostage for three years for this.
    2. The standard Republican response to a Democrat’s union endorsement has usually been an anti-union message, one that has some resonance with independents.

    However Rauner’s ILGOP response to Pritzker’s AFL-CIO endorsement hasn’t been an anti-union message, it’s been an anti-Madigan message. Notable, somewhat odd and surprising.


  4. - JPC - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:19 am:

    Maybe Kennedy didn’t want to be Governor after all.


  5. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:19 am:

    Couple really great points above…

    Dear Pritzker Comm Crew,

    Don yourself a real solid. Learn WHO endorses you, WHY the endorsement matters in the political, and EXACTLY what the group does, represents, and how the endorsement works within the groups’ structures.

    This is amateurish boiler plate messaging, showing a lack of respect to the endorsers by not presenting who they are, but also disrespectful to your boss, since taking time to speak to its importance to him and the campaign was glossed over.

    Not good.

    To this…

    ===Except Kennedy himself made a play for that endorsement and tried to keep Pritzker from getting it.===

    Kennedy Crew, besides the hyperbole of trying to parse out, at the “Nth” level the differences between rank and file and leadership, if you continue to mask sour grapes as “we didn’t want it” or refuse to seem honest that you didn’t get it when you try your own engineering one way or another, how will anyone take you serious when you get ANY endorsements after such silliness.

    You got beat in the endorsement. You say things to still seem palatable to the membership and even the leadership, if it comes to it in April 2018, and move on like adults wanting to be the candidate people want to endorse.

    Both campaigns have serious growing pains, Comm-wise, if either think they can go up against the Raunerbot 24/7/365 messaging they will face. Right now, neither are up to the task.

    To the ILGOP going after Pritzker, again, on the Tapes,

    They exist, they are being talked about, Prizker Crew they are being framed without a counter message.

    Figure out something.


  6. - AC - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:27 am:

    The ILGOP statement serves as recognition that fighting among Democratic candidates serves their purposes quite well. I wish Illinois Democrats would focus on their competing approaches to defeating Rauner. Sadly, I don’t think that’s going to happen, because winning the primary seems more important for Illinois Democratic candidates than winning the general election.


  7. - DuesPayingMember - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:30 am:

    The real problem is Pritzer, I mean Pritzker, didn’t earn this endorsement, it was given to him. Candidates need to earn wins throughout a campaign. It’s the only way to prepare a campaign for the real fights in the general. All this early action by the party makes me uneasy.


  8. - Saluki - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:30 am:

    This Kennedy Fella is really something else. Maybe he should have tried running for State Senate or something before looking at the big chair.


  9. - A guy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:31 am:

    In one sentence, Chris offended and slammed over 50% of the voters. That’s an efficiency you don’t often see.


  10. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:34 am:

    “Those grapes were sour anyway,” said the fox.

    – MrJM


  11. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:34 am:

    I get the analogy he tried to make (Unions endorsing a guy who’s family business is anti-union is like a group of devout Christians endorsing a guy who doesn’t exactly lead the best example of a Christian lifestyle)….but it’s not a great one to use.


  12. - Rocky Rosi - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:39 am:

    Come on Kennedy! Come on man! JB got the endorsement move on. Kennedy sounds salty.


  13. - DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:42 am:

    I think you could say that Kennedy’s state that the unions endorsement …. Implies the AFL CIO is a union so he is as wrong as Pritzger. And saying unions endorsing Pritzger is as absurd as Christians endorsing Trump does not seem a slam at Christians but a good analogy. Pritzger businesses not a whole lot of union loving and Trump not exactly a born again


  14. - Jeff Trigg - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:42 am:

    Who is the Green Party running? Looks like another 10% for “other” kind of election coming up.


  15. - Annonin' - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 10:42 am:

    Seems like Kennedy manages to P* off Christians and Union folks with one quick blurt. That is a Rauneresque/Blagoofian caliber bungle


  16. - A guy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:01 am:

    == Implies the AFL CIO is a union so he is as wrong as Pritzger===

    Get it right man. It’s Pritzer. Don’t you read the papers? /s lol.


  17. - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:03 am:

    Bad move. It won’t change anything regards the endorsement, other than to remind people that JBP received it.

    Chris is acting more “Skakel” then “Kennedy”.


  18. - Amalia - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:05 am:

    not the greatest comment, but please let’s not confuse Christians with Dominionists. they are not always the same. As a person who is a Christian, I’m offended by the Dominionists,/the Christian “Right,” and those who would use the religion that is most Jesus related for their ridiculous policies. the Christian “Right” is very involved in Dominion theories and it is truly frightening. this is especially evident in foreign policy but clear elsewhere. I call them the Christian Wrong.


  19. - Anon0091 - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:26 am:

    Dues Paying Member,

    “The real problem is Pritzer, I mean Pritzker, didn’t earn this endorsement, it was given to him.”

    What are you talking about???? Pritzker’s been working with the union folks towards this goal for six months (plus his years of relationships beyond this). His first real hire was a national union person from Illinois. He’s met with heads and members of various unions dozens of times and talked with them hundreds of times. How exactly was he “given” the endorsement?


  20. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:32 am:

    ===it was given to him===

    You’ve read too many Tribune editorials.


  21. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:32 am:

    Wonder how many coal miners and steel workers are going to vote for a progressive,anti-gun Democrat come November ‘18?


  22. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:33 am:

    ===Wonder how many coal miners===

    Not many, because there’s only a handful left.


  23. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:36 am:

    ===steel workers===

    If they are Union steel workers and decide Rauner is better than anyone Dems put up against him… welp, voting to hurt labor… by a union member… it happens.

    Education might stop that, but…


  24. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:40 am:

    Rich. My point as well. OW. The Dem party has done zilch for the US steel industry.


  25. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:42 am:

    I guess RTW, RTW Zones, collective bargaining, “Raunerism” works for organized labor.

    Hmm. That’s a new one on me.


  26. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 11:43 am:

    Update. Every so often, the state extends unemployment benefits to steel workers.


  27. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 12:16 pm:

    The thing is, the Christian right getting behind Trump…worked. I mean, what policy have they not gotten out of this Administration?

    Unions will be pleased as punch if Governor Pritzker is as good to them as President Trump is to the Christian Right.


  28. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 12:25 pm:

    Rich. Update to earlier dialogue. Although not many active USMW in Illinois, my good friend just reminded me that he and about 5,000 retirees still live in Illinois. By the way. They love Trump. And most I know are pretty datn conservative.


  29. - realkewlio - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 12:27 pm:

    ==Not many, because there’s only a handful left==

    On that note, interesting fact: There are about 51,000 coal jobs left in the country. Whole Foods employs twice as many people- does that mean the two parties should start campaigning and organizing the arugula aisle, too?


  30. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 12:32 pm:

    ==By the way. They love Trump.==

    You mean the guy who lost IL by 14 points?!


  31. - DuesPayingMember - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 12:49 pm:

    Rich - I don’t read the tribune, just the headlines you post. I’m a democrat that doesn’t like when the party ordains a candidate before the voters get to choose. Why even have a process?


  32. - Sue - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:01 pm:

    No but it is similar to their two endorsements of Blago


  33. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:05 pm:

    I’m with ya DuesPayingMember. I posted similar sentiments yesterday and was roundly mocked. 19 people deciding to endorse when the union represents 900,000 just looks bad. I mean, the unions endorsed Hillary and Quinn and then their members voted for somebody else. It’s like they’ve learned nothing. But we’re children who have never watched an election before. Whatevs. These people clearly don’t care about us


  34. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:07 pm:

    ===19 people deciding to endorse when the union represents 900,000 just looks bad===

    There are also “just” 59 elected state Senators in a state of about 13 million people.


  35. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:12 pm:

    (Sigh)

    The leadership faces election by its membership.

    These aren’t 19+ people acting in a vacuum.

    Membership can vote them out next election or vote, come March and/or November against the wishes of the elected Labor representatives.

    Not everything is “American Idol”, “Dancing With The Stars”, “The Bachelor/Bachelorette” or “The Voice”


  36. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:24 pm:

    Johnnypyledriver, are you a steward, board member or officer of your local?

    I would wager that if you were you wouldn’t make the statement that leadership doesn’t care.

    Honestly though, I used to think that till I said something here on this blog to that effect.

    I regret it immensely. I was being self centered and petulant.

    My suggestion is to reach out to leadership and have s discussion about it. So much is on the line. I know we want to make the right decision.

    Keep the fire brother

    And we both need to keep in mind Navy wardroom etiquette

    Praise in public. Criticize in private.

    You don’t have to remind me harder said than done.


  37. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:24 pm:

    good grief. nobody is suggesting the AFL-CIO can’t endorse the way they did. We’re simply pointing out something that, frankly, seems to be pretty common sentiment out there. The union and party bosses make these endorsements at their own peril when they don’t have the backing of membership. It happened with Hillary. It happened with Quinn. And it sure as heck looks to lots of us like it’s going to happen with Pritzker. I don’t even understand what y’all are arguing against, or if you’re arguing against it. You seem to just want to mock people


  38. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:26 pm:

    Loving God. Easier said than done


  39. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:27 pm:

    ===It happened with Quinn.===

    Welp, it’s a good thing rank and file wanted to teach leadership and Quinn a lesson.

    That’ll show em, looking out for Labor.

    lol


  40. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:30 pm:

    ==Welp, it’s a good thing rank and file wanted to teach leadership and Quinn a lesson.

    That’ll show em, looking out for Labor.==

    yes, agreed, it sure appears the lesson didn’t stick and they’re ready for Rauner round 2.


  41. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:32 pm:

    Arsenal. My point is simply this. Do you want four more years of Rauner?. I don’t. But simply putting a D behind your name doesn’t get you automatic union votes. 2 out of 5 . Ring a bell?. As a former USW member, and a lifetime NRA member, I can tell you passions run hotter on gun issues than union issues.


  42. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:34 pm:

    ===yes, agreed, it sure appears the lesson didn’t stick and they’re ready for Rauner round 2.===

    Yeah… if they go against the leadership, then that works in aiding Rauner again.


  43. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:36 pm:

    ==Yeah… if they go against the leadership, then that works in aiding Rauner again.==

    Rock, meet hard place.

    Looks like they’ve chosen the option of just bashing their head against both until clarity improves


  44. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:40 pm:

    - JohnnyPyleDriver -

    You make no sense.

    The leadership went with Pritzker.

    Membership will vote in March thinking that’s smart or not to vote for Pritzker

    Labor won’t endorse Rauner in Novwmber, Pritzker or not.

    The only way you make sense is if union members plan on voting Rauner no matter what, then your beef is with members that vote against their better selves.


  45. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:43 pm:

    I think they did learn the lesson from the primaries

    Support for Dillard came way too late.

    We didn’t scout the battlefield and showed up at the last minute
    Then 2/5 union households voted for Rauner
    Then union households stayed home to punish Quinn

    Ask yourself this
    Who would Rauner rather run against? Kennedy
    Who does rauner attack most? Pritzker.


  46. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:50 pm:

    Honeybear - chicken or the egg? Is Rauner spending money against Pritzker because he fears him or because he realizes, as many of us do, that he’s likely to be his opponent given the early support the big bosses on the left are tossing his way?


  47. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:53 pm:

    OW, what, in particular have I said that doesn’t make sense? I’m happy to clarify. Thanks!


  48. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:55 pm:

    - JohnnyPyleDriver -

    ===The only way you make sense is if union members plan on voting Rauner no matter what, then your beef is with members that vote against their better selves.===


  49. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 1:57 pm:

    You said that…

    What did I say that necessitates that?


  50. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:00 pm:

    ===The union and party bosses make these endorsements at their own peril when they don’t have the backing of membership===

    Their “peril” seems to be looking out for membership. lol


  51. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:02 pm:

    Their “peril” is handing an election to somebody out to destroy them because they didn’t take the time early on to see where membership stood. Which obviously they haven’t. Which of course is the point. There are groups out there that realize this and are approaching their endorsement as a caucus to prevent a repeat of Hillary and Quinn


  52. - Anon0091 - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:05 pm:

    Johnny,

    Rauner has been attacking Pritzker since November - long before he was even a candidate. It’s pretty clear, and I’ve heard this from numerous people inside the Administration, that they are terrified of Pritzker. Primarily they are concerned about his money but they also know he’s infinitely more likable than that failed governor they’re working for.


  53. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:08 pm:

    ==Primarily they are concerned about his money but they also know he’s infinitely more likable than that failed governor they’re working for.==

    ::Hits play on Blago tape::

    ::rewind::

    ::Play::

    ::rewind::

    ::Play::


  54. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:12 pm:

    ===Their “peril” is handing an election to somebody out to destroy them because they didn’t take the time early on to see where membership stood===

    Then why have an elected board, lol

    Further, voting against Rauner, no matter the Dem nominee is how the election will be won.

    ===There are groups out there that realize this and are approaching their endorsement as a caucus to prevent a repeat of Hillary and Quinn===

    Quinn and Hillary will self funders that could ease the burden on Labor up and down the Ticket.

    That ain’t like either one of them.


  55. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:14 pm:

    I think endorsements mean something. Not much but something. an 8 person primary in particular. Every vote counts.

    I just wish every public service union member, and every union teacher,HoneyBear excluded, showed as much passion when it comes to their consumer spending as they do worried about who best represents them in Springfield or Washington. Corporations and capitalists respond to the almighty dollar prwtty darn quick. Just look at how fast NOrth Carolina reacted when the NCAA banned post seaaon tourneys. Its not what we say in life. Its what we do.


  56. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:20 pm:

    ==Then why have an elected board, lol==

    Then why do endorsements? My main contention is that an endorsement this early and without direct input from membership will serve to tilt the vote toward the endorsed candidate without regard for whether that is the candidate with the best shot at beating Rauner. Obviously leadership thinks this is the case, but who knows where membership stands? We’ll get an idea in March, but this endorsement necessarily muddies those waters. You can’t accurately test where membership stands once you’ve already put your thumb on the scale. I have little doubt Pritzker is going to get the nom, and it’s my opinion that these endorsements are going to be the key in pushing him across that line.


  57. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:28 pm:

    Rich, Didn’t you and the pundits say that Rauner could never win?


  58. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:31 pm:

    ===Then why do endorsements?===

    That’s what organizations do, lol.

    ===…without regard for whether that is the candidate with the best shot at beating Rauner.===

    Two in five in Labor voted for Rauner.

    The message to Labor is “Anyone but Rauner” after March. That’s it. That’s the ball game.

    ===You can’t accurately test where membership stands once you’ve already put your thumb on the scale===

    They are elected BY membership.


  59. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:35 pm:

    ==Two in five in Labor voted for Rauner.==

    Exactly, and if they want to avoid that outcome again, they better be sure they’re backing the right horse. I’m seeing no evidence that these groups are doing such due diligence.

    ==They are elected BY membership.==

    Were they elected on the basis for their support for Pritzker? If not, I can hardly see your point. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up that they are elected leaders. It has no bearing on whether they have accurately picked the right horse in the primary


  60. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:39 pm:

    ===Were they elected on the basis for their support for Pritzker? If not, I can hardly see your point.===

    They are elected.

    Within that, they are empowered to vote on an array of things that effect membership, not just one or 317 things they said when running.

    That’s like these members in the GA that “won’t vote on anything until a budget” nonsense.

    They are elected to vote on issues they face in their elected capacity.

    How hard is that to grasp?


  61. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:44 pm:

    BDD, I get. Lord do I. But we must first focus on one on one relationships to build solidarity and union identity. Get the buy in first then comes education when the trust relationship is established.
    jjohnny’s words are the warning siren. “They don’t care”. That kills me. Because I do. I care. We must build union from bottom up. From front rank back and that’s what we are doing with the AFSCME STRONG activist program.

    Janus may decimate our paid staff
    Starved of finds
    All rests with the Promachos
    The front-rankers of a phalanx

    So to answer you BDD. We’re still on step one
    You are reading ahead to step 2
    How do we act as union folk?
    We buy union, we buy local, we buy American
    We defend the wages and rights of ALL workers

    Right now if I preach that too many say
    What had the union done for me?
    Why didn’t the union protect me?

    I always answer
    I’m fighting right now for you
    I’m the union. You are the union
    We are standing and fighting right here!

    Relationship first


  62. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:46 pm:

    ==How hard is that to grasp?==

    It’s staggeringly simple and I have already said I understand it. I’m asking how that relates to whether Pritzker has or can get the support of membership given recent history.


  63. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 2:54 pm:

    ===I’m asking how that relates to whether Pritzker has or can get the support of membership given recent history===

    If Labor hasn’t learned its lesson by the “lesson” they taught Quinn…

    … or that leadership has their best interest at heart.

    This idea that Leadership isn’t seeing things, that’s not the case. If anything “membership” going off the reservation only proved who seemed to grasp the best interest of labor in their thiughts(?)


  64. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:01 pm:

    ==If Labor hasn’t learned its lesson by the “lesson” they taught Quinn…==

    ==This idea that Leadership isn’t seeing things, that’s not the case. ==

    Ok, so if membership doesn’t grasp it but leadership does, why do you put so much emphasis on membership choosing leadership? lol. Members should just listen to their leaders because they can’t be trusted with their vote….except when they use it to elect their own leaders…..who tell them who to vote for….which they don’t listen to and then we get Rauner and Trump.

    Round and round —- Wheeeeee


  65. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:07 pm:

    ===so if membership doesn’t grasp it but leadership does, why do you put so much emphasis on membership choosing leadership?===

    The elected leadership have responsibilities.

    It’s not going round and round.

    You fail to grasp the obvious.

    The leadership is elected. In that capacity, they endorse. They are elected with membership knowing the role of leadership.

    If membership decides that they now are clueless that they elected the best people possible to look out for they’re best interests…

    The leadership is empowered to do things like endorse.


  66. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:15 pm:

    I’ve grasped everything you’ve said. It’s just that it bears no relevance to what I’ve been saying. Sure they’re empowered to endorse. On that we agree. But if they endorse a candidate that can’t get member or general voter support, they haven’t used that power very well.


  67. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:20 pm:

    ===ut if they endorse a candidate that can’t get member or general voter support, they haven’t used that power very well===

    We’re months and months away from seeing if that is the case.

    Further, by endorsing, they spectating to help in propelling that support, acting as a help, a boost to the campaign.

    That’s how endorsements work. They, at times, are designed to boost candidacies for mutual benefit, not solely to cherry pick and bandwagon on a candidate already awash in momentum.


  68. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:22 pm:

    “Further, by endorsing, they are endorsing to help in propelling that support, acting as a help, a boost to the campaign.”


  69. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:26 pm:

    ==Further, by endorsing, they are endorsing to help in propelling that support, acting as a help, a boost to the campaign.==

    Yes, that’s the point. Propelling the wrong person to the nomination could spell doom for the general. That’s my entire problem with this. If leadership wants to propel the candidate that best represents membership, why not ask the membership who they’d support? Why tell them who to support? I know I know, because they can. I don’t deny that.


  70. - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:31 pm:

    AFL-CIO members no longer have the same shared interests as AFSCME. If unions households didn’t turn out for Quinn, I think much can be attributed to that divide.


  71. - Uh oh - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 3:44 pm:

    Was it worth it? J. B. Pritzker endorsement by the absolute minimum?

    Does this AFL-CIO endorsement smell as bad as when Pritzker disconnected the toilets next door to his mansion to get a property assessment reduction?


  72. - A guy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:05 pm:

    Willy, an interesting point that I’m observing from Johnny PD is that perhaps the membership isn’t comfortable or enthusiastic with this process, or at least a measurable amount of them, you know, say 2 out of 5? There can’t really be an argument that this thing wasn’t slammed through with the minimum amount of leadership support necessary and…apparently some very active arm-twisting, horse trading and some manhood and womanhood testing going on.

    My guess is that JPD isn’t the only guy who feels this way.


  73. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:14 pm:

    - A Guy -

    Yep. I’m sure there was a lot that went into getting this endorsement by Pritzker, and by Pritzker allies trying to nose count it to passage.

    That seems to be the rule more often then the exception in getting endorsements when there isn’t an obvious connection (Ex-Police Officer and Law Enforcement as an example)

    Process, “sausage making”, compromise, all seem to have messes.

    Come April, Labor will continue to be with a Nominee named Pritzker, or they will quickly need to coalesce behind the Nominee not named Rauner.

    To look at the “why” on Pritzker and this endorsement, the monetary commitment for overall advancement of Labor within the Pritzker Campaign platform.

    We’ll see.


  74. - A guy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:21 pm:

    We’ll see indeed. We’ll have to look at union support from top to bottom. Part of my thought was informed by Mark Brown in today’s paper. He’s definitely a union guy and his misgivings are similar to JPD’s. No surprise that things get ram-rodded in these groups. But the timing is confusing membership. They aren’t comfortable with the early move.

    Just my observation. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Until afterwards when the new fight starts.


  75. - Ahem! - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:29 pm:

    AFL-CIO endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. How did that effort pan out?


  76. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:34 pm:

    ===How did that effort pan out? ===

    She won Illinois by 17 points.


  77. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:38 pm:

    ==She won Illinois by 17 points==

    And became President of Illinois and everybody lived happily ever after lol


  78. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:53 pm:

    ===And became President of Illinois and everybody lived happily ever after===

    Pritzker only needs to “win” Illinois.

    “Elections are confusing”


  79. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 4:58 pm:

    ===“Elections are confusing” ===

    Some people are just too dense to reach, I suppose.


  80. - Generic Drone - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 5:10 pm:

    I think Pritzger will survive the bad press. He needs to pound Rauner on TV. I just watched one talking about our social crises created by Rauners agenda. It was good except I kept waiting for them to cut to the video of Rauner telling fundraisers that he believed a social crisis is needed. But nope . No video! C’mon man! You guys are droppin the ball.


  81. - JohnnyPyleDriver - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 5:24 pm:

    Woosh it goes. Here’s how the joke works:

    Poster makes a comment drawing parallels to the national election and lessons learned therefrom.

    You narrow the scope of that comment to the state despite the poster’s clear intention.

    I make light of that mischaracterization.

    Hope it helps!


  82. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 5:33 pm:

    ==As a former USW member, and a lifetime NRA member, I can tell you passions run hotter on gun issues than union issues.==

    I suspect that’s true (all the union guys I hang out with are across-the-board Berniecrats, but I don’t assume they’re representative, at least of the trades), but it remains the case that Democrats have well demonstrated that they can win without voters who prioritize gun rights.


  83. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 5:54 pm:

    —I’m seeing no evidence that these groups are doing such due diligence.—

    And you would be made privy to the due diligence and how? You get what I’m saying?
    How would you know what due diligence they do?
    You’re acting as if you need to be consulted. If you want to be consulted or at the table of those deliberations you need to work towards it.
    AGAIN
    I ask
    Are you a steward?
    Are you a Executive Board member or officer?

    If not, or not in process towards that goal,

    well………

    I’m not saying sit down and shut up.

    I’m saying you are not aware of all that goes into the deliberations and endorsement.

    I’m saying you’re making assumptions it seems based upon your opinion and hurt feelings that they didn’t consult you and go with your choice.

    We democratically elected our Labor leadership.
    Representative democracy
    They then make the call.
    If you’re interested in why….ask them.
    If you don’t know how or who to contact
    You’re not involved enough.
    It’s not internet democracy where everybody gets to be somebody, everybody feels consulted.


  84. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Jun 7, 17 @ 8:46 pm:

    Honey. Not all trades feel there is a voice in BA selection. Much,much good old boy stuff…..almost the rackets.


  85. - Honeybear - Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 7:07 am:

    I get that, BDD, yeah you’re probably right with the rackets to an extent with trades. But I don’t think they are wrong. I have come to the same conclusion privately. Only Pritzker has the money to crush the vertical integration of media that Rauner has.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Today's quotable
* Study: The party's over for Corporate Personal Property Replacement Tax revenues
* Another Bears stadium false alarm
* Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
* Massive tollway contract screwup leads to TRO
* Welch urges judge to toss staff unions’ lawsuit
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Another supplement to today’s edition
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Selected press releases (Live updates)
* Burke sentenced to two years (Updated x3)
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller