* As subscribers were told earlier, this story is based on a false premise…

Publicly and privately on Thursday, top Illinois Democrats grappled with how to put a positive, election-year spin on federal prosecutors’ newly unsealed corruption case against their longtime leader, the former state House Speaker and party boss Michael Madigan.

Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker even appeared to celebrate the federal case, saying he thought Madigan’s indictment should help the state finally clean up its act.

But behind the scenes – in a memo titled “indictment talking points” – a dozen Illinois House Democrats got a starkly different, eye-opening missive urging them to express “misgivings” about the federal charges against Madigan and his close friend, former Commonwealth Edison lobbyist Michael McClain.

Democratic aides quickly said they had never approved – and in fact strongly disapproved of – the memo’s contents.

* This looks to me like a comedy of errors. First of all, a young former intern who’s been on comms staff for less than three weeks mistakenly sent two (not one) very different versions of draft talking points. As you can clearly see in the email forwarded to me yesterday by someone who was quite angry, nobody was urged to use the “misgivings” version. Redactions are by me because this appears to be an honest mistake by someone who was hired last month…

That went out to about a dozen House Democrats, some of whom were members of the ferociously anti-Madigan 19. With that in mind, you can definitely understand why some House Democrats were upset yesterday. Like, really mad.

Oops.

To be clear, I was told in no uncertain terms that nobody in upper management had tasked anyone with writing talking points defending the former House Speaker. These were unapproved drafts.

* The junior staffer who sent the drafts was not the same person who wrote them. She sent out a retraction a half an hour later…

* Word of the retraction apparently didn’t get back to the comms director, so he sent out another email about 15 minutes later…

* Here are the two versions that were originally sent to members…

Indictment Talking Points

• Today’s announcement, while an unfortunate confirmation of many concerns I have held, is another sign that our state is on a new track to a more ethical and transparent way of conducting the business of government.
• Tackling the challenges our state faces requires a clean slate and clear approach. We cannot progress further without addressing past issues. In this case, the conduct of Speaker Madigan.
• Following the election of a new Speaker, we have had a fresh start in Illinois. Major legislation, from a Medicaid reform omnibus to the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, signify the impact this changing of the guard has had, and for how long it has been needed.
• We have cultivated a new, more equal and bipartisan atmosphere in the House, a positive sign of new things to come, with the promise of further legislative victories to better the lives of all Illinoisans.
• I applaud law enforcement for stepping in and holding those who have committed wrongdoing accountable.

Indictment Talking Points-2

• While I always stand with law enforcement, I unfortunately feel I must call into question certain aspects of the investigation process regarding Speaker Madigan’s case. From the start, he has faced unfair, partisan accusations; charges which appear to have influenced the indictments laid out today.
• For years, our opponents across the aisle have focused their ire and prejudicial scrutiny on Speaker Madigan, to little effect. However, their constant accusations have finally had an impact; the federal government has buckled under their pressure.
• Despite my misgivings regarding this case, I want to reiterate that Speaker Welch has my full support. Our legislative accomplishments since he has taken the lead, including a major Medicaid Reform and the landmark Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, are undoubtedly victories to be proud of.
• Regardless of the outcome of these proceedings, it is incumbent on us to focus on the needs of the people of Illinois, and continue the legislative process to best address their needs.

I stopped pursuing the story yesterday when I found out what had actually happened. And none of those items from the second set of talking points appear to have been used by any member.

* Nonetheless, the ILGOP tried to make some hay today…

In the WBEZ report, aides from current House Speaker Chris Welch’s office - where the memo originated from - looked around for the nearest person to throw under the bus and came up with a “brand-new, junior staff” who supposedly wrote an entire set of talking points about the most consequential event in state government in quite some time and sent them out directly to House members without any approval of superiors.

Here are a few questions and pieces of evidence that need produced if this fanciful story is to be believed:

If indeed a phantom junior staff member exists, who in the Speaker’s office directed such a memo to be developed and provided talking points to guide its construction?
If the Speaker’s Office denies any leadership instruction to develop this memo, how do they explain the origins of the talking points - where on earth would a phantom junior staffer come up with such a defense of Mike Madigan?
Will the Speaker’s Office make available all internal email communications and text messages relating to this memo - both before and after its release?

Again, the staffer in question did not write the talking points.

       

85 Comments - Hahaha - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:14 am: Ok, then who did? And why? And at whose direction? - Torco Sign - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:26 am: I found the talking points Illinois Republicans have used for all of Donald Trump’s corruption: - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:26 am: Hahaha, nobody is stupid enough to direct any staffer to write something like that. A staffer wrote it for whatever reason, it was sent out in error by a different staffer, it was retracted, end of story. - Why, though? - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:26 am: In what universe would any member use the bogus talking points. I’m highly skeptical a young comms staffer would have some “Let’s defend Madigan, just in case” talking points on her share drive. Whoever told her to draft them should be held accountable by the House Dems - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:29 am: ===Whoever told her to draft them=== She didn’t draft them. - rtov - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:31 am: Who, what, when, where, why, how, and take one party’s side as gospel - The tenants of journalism. - been there - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:32 am: As someone who served on MJM’s comms staff, these things do not simply happen. This wasn’t some rogue newbie who made a mistake, acting on their own. There is a rigorous and strict writing and editing process. These talking points were requested, drafted, edited and then disseminated. The old guard is still alive within Speaker Welch’s staff. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:32 am: ===and take one party’s side as gospel=== Bite me. You wanna drag low-level comms staffers through the mud, get your own blog. - Norseman - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:34 am: Looks like some additional staff training is needed. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:34 am: ===The old guard is still alive=== Have you met Sean Anderson? - Back to the Future - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:34 am: Seems we have found the nothing burger of the week. - been there - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:35 am: I didn’t realize Sean Anderson constituted the entirety of Speaker Welch’s staff. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:38 am: ===constituted the entirety=== Didn’t say he did. - objectivity nostalgia - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:38 am: am i crazy to simply want to know why these were written by a current staff member or members within the speaker’s office in the first place? why is that such a hard follow up question to ask? cool, a former intern made a mistake. follow up, why were draft points defending madigan even written in the first place? - Hahaha - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:39 am: “A staffer wrote it for whatever reason” Ok, what staffer? And what were the reasons? - Socially DIstant Watcher - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:40 am: Some people seem really desperate to dust off their “But Madigan!!!” rally cry. Desperate for a dog that’ll hunt. - Big Tom - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:40 am: Let me clear this up. If you vote, or work for democrats in Illinois you are part of the problem. Hard send. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:40 am: ===why is that such a hard follow up question to ask? === You’re assuming the question wasn’t asked. Again, if you want to drag a staffer through the mud for no good reason, get your own blog. - Yammerer - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:43 am: Putting aside the role of the young comms person, the document came from somewhere. Either it was drafted under Madigan’s team to have a “break-glass-in-case-of-emergency” situation (which, if so, just say that) or someone, somewhere, in moment, felt it necessary for reasons. Is it granular, and inside baseball? Sure. But here’s hoping 300 is looking for noises inside the house. - Candy Dogood - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:44 am: Any professional press secretary would have talking points preparee to cover the topic of Madigan getting indicted to cover the possibility of either approach. They don’t get to see the indictment ahead of time to know whether it’s well founded or silly. If you have a press person that doesn’t have some go to talking points covering different reactions to predictable things then that person isn’t doing their job. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:44 am: === Let me clear this up.=== FoxNews must be in a commercial break. Clears up the comment. - Amalia - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:47 am: seriously, the situation is bad enough and so called professionals have to muck it up with this? infuriating. why didn’t you just email it to the Republicans so they could start laughing early. - Norseman - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:48 am: === drag low-level comms staffers through the mud === As a former staff, albeit on committee staff, dragging a staffer through the mud is not a goal. However, staffers have to understand the sensitivity of issues. Given the political nature of your job, when you have an extremely controversial issue you make sure supervisors are aware of and approve your actions. - The Captain - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:48 am: You can forgive a jr staffer mistake for sending them, but it is absolutely a story that someone was motivated the write them in the first place. - been there - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:50 am: No one is attempting to drag the new staffer through the mud. We are saying there is something deeper here and she is being used as the scapegoat so no further questions are asked. There is a number of MJM loyalists still on staff. They served under Mapes and MJM’s leadership for the state and DPI. There is a cult of personality within that group. But rather than looking into that and how their actions may have jeopardized the integrity of the new leadership, the final line seems to be “a newbie made a mistake, end of story.” - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:51 am: ===it is absolutely a story that someone was motivated the write them=== ===There is a cult of personality within that group=== lol Smells like an old fashioned witch hunt. - objectivity nostalgia - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:51 am: credit i guess to whoever in the speakers office decided to disclose that this individual is ‘junior staffer’, a woman, and a formerly an intern. the art of the scapegoat. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 11:53 am: ===speakers office decided to disclose that this individual is ‘junior staffer’, a woman, and a formerly an intern=== Um, I found that in about 10 seconds by Googling the name on the initial email. That’s my disclosure, not theirs. - hyperbolic liberal - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:01 pm: why was the comment of someone alleging someone here may be being biased deleted? - Fav human - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:01 pm: To me this looks like somebody’s idea of an April fool’s joke They meant to share with one or two of their close friends. But somehow it escaped into the wild. Probably because they saved it to a shared drive instead of their personal drive. I’m also wondering if that poor staffer wasn’t told, go send out the file marked “talking points”. And they did so without bothering to open it up and look at it. I’ve seen these things happen in a corporate context so it wouldn’t be particularly surprising if this were the true chain of events - Tuna on rye - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:03 pm: Whoever is responsible wasn’t employed by Main Street LLC? - rtov - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:03 pm: === deleted comment ==== It happens all the time. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:07 pm: Some of y’all are unclear on the concept. This blog post was designed to show how no HDems were “urged” to use pro-Madigan talking points. They were literally told to “feel free to use whichever version you prefer.” That’s one false premise. The other is that no mention was made of the second list of talking points. But when somebody bursts your little bubble then you shift your demand to how the staffer who wrote the memo needs to be publicly named and dragged through the mud. I’ve made a decision not to do that. And the attacks ain’t gonna change my mind. - been there also - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:10 pm: =But rather than looking into that and how their actions may have jeopardized the integrity of the new leadership, the final line seems to be “a newbie made a mistake, end of story”= You sound very bitter. The office of the Speaker just went through a massive organizational change. Give some slack. This “communications” department is completely new and is led by someone that has NEVER worked for MJM. Mistakes happen. This is ridiculous. Get off your soapbox and actually help the new Speaker by going to knock on doors or volunteer if that’s actually what you’re worried about. - watermelon - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:11 pm: LOL Rich… the fact there was some staffer with HDems that wrote the talking points whether trashed or not says all you need to know about Democrats in IL today. Keep trying to defend them. - hyperbolic liberal - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:12 pm: === demand to how the staffer who wrote the memo needs to be publicly named and dragged through the mud ==== i’ve read every comment and absolutely nobody has even alluded to a staffer being named???? are you okay? folks just want to know why one set of talking points were even floating around in the speakers office to begin with. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:13 pm: ===Keep trying to defend them. === I’m not. I’m just not gonna name the person so that y’all can have fun trashing him. Some of this is just downright perverse. - California Guy - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:15 pm: Weird how people on this blog would poke fun of other people mentioning how much of a problem Madigan was. Dishonesty and sketchy political dealing has become some normalized here that we’re numb to it. Terrible State finances, struggling pension system, people moving out, the list goes on. People have just accepted that these big problems will never be fixed. Sad. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:16 pm: === folks just want to know why === Because somebody made a stupid mistake and wrote them. Then somebody compounded that stupid mistake by sending them to a dozen or so members, one of whom had it forwarded to me. As far as I could tell, nobody higher up ordered anyone to write that memo. There’s just no there there. - low level - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:17 pm: == If you vote, or work for democrats in Illinois you are part of the problem.== Yeah, voting for people who think Jan 6th was “legitimate political discourse” is better, right? - ponderings - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:22 pm: Rich was right to point out the WBEZ article is misleading clickbait that failed to include basic and relevant facts. No one was “urged” to use the initial talking points. The mistake was discovered and corrected quickly. They were never supported and then disavowed - a mistake was made and the problem corrected. It’s slopping and bias journalism to print otherwise. The real issue is there used to be an unwritten rule STAFF IS OFF LIMITS. That’s not the case anymore. It would be decent if reporters, caucuses, and others remember that the underpaid and overworked state staff should not be pawns, and they aren’t public officials and don’t deserve the same level of public scrutiny. A staffer screwed up and the article turns that into what could be a career ending mistake. Fortunately the Speaker and his team know that the pressure staff face and no one is losing a job over this. - Chicagonk - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:23 pm: I mean it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know how Welch really feels about the indictment. I would hope that he looks at the indictment as a signal that the old way of doing things is not going to fly in the future, but I’ll believe it when I see it. - H-W - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:25 pm: =A staffer wrote it for whatever reason, it was sent out in error by a different staffer, it was retracted, end of story.= Yep. If the GOP needs a story, Madigan is the story. He has been indicted (not yet convicted). There are plenty of stories to be told about Madigan. Unfortunately, focusing on this missive is not one of them. Trying to make this mistake the story shows that those who push it are more concerned with politicizing minor issues, and less concerned with the business of the state. Ironic, because the business of the state is cleaning up politics, not, attacking talking points issued in error. - Leslie K - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:25 pm: ===Any professional press secretary would have talking points preparee to cover the topic of Madigan getting indicted to cover the possibility of either approach. === Exactly. I just don’t understand the handwringing about there being two versions. Writing out opposing talking points can also be a good exercise to anticipate the opposing side’s likely comments. It’s just a non-story to me that there were two versions. And then a new staffer made a mistake. Yawn. Just hope the staffer doesn’t get into too much trouble. Mistakes happen. - been there also - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:26 pm: =The real issue is there used to be an unwritten rule STAFF IS OFF LIMITS.= Couldn’t agree more. Thank you for pointing this out. Staff is always off-limits and honestly, I’m ticked off at whatever Member forwarded this and thought it was a good idea to throw their own staff under the bus. - Ainsley Hayes - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:32 pm: “There’s just no there there.” It is becoming very quickly apparent that you are the only one who believes that. We can all see you believe it very passionately. But no one else buys it. - Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:33 pm: I love watching Rich Miller turn into Terry Boers. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:37 pm: ===you are the only one who believes that=== lol I spent quite a bit of time on this yesterday and then again this morning. You read a story and then a blog post. Huzzah for you. - JJJJJJJJJJ - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:37 pm: Trash journalism. How can you read that email and conclude it was an “eye-opening missive urging” anything? That sort of sensationalizing undermines the profession. - don the legend - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:38 pm: ==Terrible State finances, struggling pension system, people moving out, the list goes on. People have just accepted that these big problems will never be fixed. Sad.== Your Illinois GOP record must have a scratch on it and is stuck. You forgot to include: but Madigan, Chicago bad, JB sucks, tyranny and oppression. - Chicagonk - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:40 pm: @H-W Madigan is symptomatic of what is wrong with Illinois politics. It’s not about parties, but about politicians that use their position to enrich themselves. And the politicians can say that what they are doing is within the law, but they are the ones writing the laws, as evidenced by the weak ethics reform law that was passed in 2021. And it’s no coincidence that the leaders of the house and senate are lawyers whose law firms did a lot of business with public entities. - Ainsley Hayes - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:44 pm: “I spent quite a bit of time on this yesterday…” Yeah. And? Perhaps there are some of us that are more skeptical than you are of statements coming out of the IL Democratic Party’s press shop. Of which, Michael J. Madigan was the both proverbial and literal leader of until the drip drip drip started. - JJJJJJJJJJ - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:45 pm: To all those saying there’s more of a story here: you may be right! But the WBEZ reporter failed to do the work of reporting that story and instead sensationalized an innocuous email by calling it an “eye-opening missive urging” members to do something. When it clearly wasn’t. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:51 pm: The saddest part of this is that it was necessary to tell people what to say about Madigan- says a lot about the lemming culture in Springfield. Part of the problem is they were often told what to do and say. “Uh, don’t say anything until we tell you what to say and when we tell you, we might change what we tell you to say.” - Captain Obvious - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:52 pm: Let he among you who has never hit “reply all” or “send” in error cast the first stone. As for the existence of the talking points defending Madigan, I would agree they were likely prepared so as to be ready with whatever response was felt to be appropriate. Although it is hard to imagine that the feds would indict unless they were sure they had him. - don the legend - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:53 pm: I love this blog and admit I rarely have any inside information on any of the topics. I assume I’m not alone. To read people, that presumably have much less knowledge than Rich, state with authority that Rich has some bias or agenda strikes me as absurd. - Demoralized - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:55 pm: Are some of you done having the vapors yet? You’re looking for a “gotcha” when there isn’t one. Get a freaking life already. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 12:59 pm: Questioning Rich as to what he should or should not cover or “whatever”, and then calling it some sort of bias… … isn’t it a bias being shone by those looking for a witch hunt to something that is a desire to be sympathetic. Seriously, it’s like pretending… “Tell us the name and such so we can stand up to support them” So… it’s disingenuous. You can try that on your blog. - Chicagonk - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:09 pm: Hopefully most of us appreciate the information and forum for discussion that Rich Miller provides. The Madigan indictment has me really frustrated with the state of Illinois politics and frankly people trying to dismiss the indictment as being just about Madigan and dismissing the anger residents have over this corruption engenders makes me think that the state isn’t ever going to change. - JoanP - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:11 pm: = I’m just not gonna name the person so that y’all can have fun trashing him. = Thank you, Rich. This is one of the reasons I appreciate this blog so much. - Steve Polite - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:13 pm: =If you vote, or work for democrats in Illinois you are part of the problem.= Because Republicans are perfect and never do anything bad, and Democrats are evil and can never do any good. /s - wildcat12 - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:18 pm: “The saddest part of this is that it was necessary to tell people what to say about Madigan- says a lot about the lemming culture in Springfield. Part of the problem is they were often told what to do and say.” Um, talking points exist in every statehouse in the country and in most corporate offices. This is not a “Springfield” thing. - Huh? - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:22 pm: == If you vote, or work for republicans in Illinois you are part of the problem.== Fixed it for ya. - The Dude Abides - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:24 pm: The political right in this state is hoping so much for a political scandal between now and November. It’s their only chance. If there isn’t one maybe they can try to create one. - H-W - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:25 pm: @ Chicagonk - I agree completely. I agree the story is Madigan. I disagree however that the talking points memos are the story (they are a sidebar) and as a professor who works with graduate students, I agree with Rich that jr. staffers should always be protected. I would encourage Democrats and Republicans to criticize Madigan (based on factual evidence as it is proven). But the talking point memos? I just do not see this as worth pursuing. - Huh? - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:37 pm: Let me see if I got this fingered out right. Somebody wrote something. A newbie sent an email by mistake. Newbie tries to correct mistake with second email. Dem higher ups scramble to CYA. GOP clutches pearls. Uninformed folk want to pillory newbie for mistake. I think that’s it in a nut shell. Newbie ain’t never gonna forget this. This will be a bar bet war story told for years. - ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:41 pm: Politics is less like House of Cards and much more like Veep. It’s not eleventy dimensional chess, it’s people getting through their day. If this was some grand conspiracy the 19 wouldn’t have been included because of exactly this comment thread. - High Socks - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:41 pm: I worked in comms for a leadership staff. You regularly write multiple versions of talking points. Different members have different takes. I would not be the least bit shocked if a couple members who for their own reasons asked to see some points that did something other than pile on Madigan. You might not agree with their take but you can take it up with them IF they decided to use the alternate points, which it looks like no one did. Trying to gin this up as some sort of scandal is at best weak, at worst malicious - rtov - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:42 pm: ==== Huh? ==== People just want to know who wrote the something. The staff is a straw person argument to draw attention away from the “something” that “someone” wrote. Typically journalists identify the who, what, and why in a story. That was not done here. No one cares about what the staff did or who the staff is. - OneMan - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:47 pm: == The political right in this state is hoping so much for a political scandal between now and November. It’s their only chance. If there isn’t one maybe they can try to create one. === The US Attorney took care of that one, the fact that any sort of talking points (regardless of their nature) had to be produced because a former long (to say the least) term speaker of the house, current democratic committeeman, and former state party chair was charged with running a criminal enterprise that involved the ever-popular ComEd has produced a political scandal. The fact a sitting governor was questioned about it (think of our track record with governors) only adds to it. If it wasn’t an issue they wouldn’t have a need to say jack. If this was reversed, you think the Democrats would say “there is no scandal there, this is all a big nothing burger”, I don’t. If you are the GOP and you convince a Democratic voter to stay home it helps. Grander scheme of things, this ‘incident’ while interesting from a ‘why did this even exist in the first place’ inside-baseball thing isn’t going to make a difference. There is going to be plenty to try and use to oppose the governor, we will see what is going to work and what isn’t. - Mary Poppins - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:47 pm: ==The real issue is there used to be an unwritten rule STAFF IS OFF LIMITS.= Couldn’t agree more. Thank you for pointing this out. Staff is always off-limits and honestly, I’m ticked off at whatever Member forwarded this and thought it was a good idea to throw their own staff under the bus.= thank you. makes it hard to get, let alone retain, good staff when members treat them like this - Norseman - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:49 pm: High Socks, you make some good points. While you do draft a lot of different things for members, don’t you discuss with supervisors a request that could create problems for the caucus? - low level - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:54 pm: == You regularly write multiple versions of talking points. Different members have different takes.== This was my experience as well on Issues back in the day. Im certain the GOP did the same. - Been There (not been there or been there also) - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:58 pm: ===It’s just a non-story to me that there were two versions. And then a new staffer made a mistake. Yawn. Just hope the staffer doesn’t get into too much trouble. Mistakes happen.==== While I am a different Been There, I agree with “been there also” that whoever the member who through the staffer under the bus should be ashamed of themself. Calling up the Speaker (or his directors) and giving him an earful and listening to the reasons this happened is how it should be handled. Not putting staff problems in the press. That being said we can probably start taking bets on which staffer will not win the Golden Horseshoe award this year. - High Socks - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 1:59 pm: Norseman - So it’s often referred to as a writing lab for a reason. You play around with ideas, experiment with stuff. Ok, Rep. so-and-so wants to say something different. I take it to my supervisor (or it’s taken to me, I’ve been in both spots) and they say give it a try and see how it looks. It’s drafted, discussed and ultimately rejected. I don’t know if that’s exactly what happened but it’s both plausible and not that big of a story - H-W - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:24 pm: @ArchPundit - =Politics is less like House of Cards and much more like Veep.= Thanks for the laugh. A perfect thought for ending the week, especially for some of us who are not wedded to either party, and are simply trying to make informed decisions about politics and elections. - Wally’s Attendant - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:30 pm: I’m sorry but if we are going to crack down on conspiracy theories on this thread we should also crack down on the “this was a thought exercise” gone bad. Those TP’s weren’t written to go out. No member, pro or anti Madigan, would have used them. In fact, they look written to goad a less sophisticated member into making a pr mistake. Which; as annoying as it is, begs the question of who put pen to paper. Hope someone is getting to the bottom of it. - Dotnonymous - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:31 pm: The French have a colloquial question they ask people who flipping out over way too little…which loosely translates to, ” Are you allowing yourself to drown in a teaspoon of water?” - Dotnonymous - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:32 pm: The French have a colloquial question they ask people who are flipping out over way too little…which loosely translates to, ” Are you allowing yourself to drown in a teaspoon of water?” - Dotnonymous - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:36 pm: …people who (are) flipping out…Oops. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:43 pm: ===People just want to know who wrote the something=== They ain’t always right. - High Socks - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 2:57 pm: ==In fact, they look written to goad a less sophisticated member into making a pr mistake.== Way to work a conspiracy theory into your post about cracking down on conspiracy theories - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 3:21 pm: High Socks, that was pretty funny. - ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 4:07 pm: H-W: It’s been a hard couple weeks for joy so I’m glad I could give you a laugh. And High Socks did the same for me. - ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 4, 22 @ 4:08 pm: Oh, and it isn’t an original by any means. I know I’ve used it on Twitter and so have several other people. But only bad jokes don’t get stolen. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.