Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Some Schnorf love
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign news and a roundup
Posted in:
* If Gov. Pat Quinn wanted to stir up all the bad memories of the income tax hike again, he’s done a terrific job by nominating former Rep. Bob Flider to run the Department of Agriculture. From the Tribune…
Of course, to think this pattern is anything but payback, you need to be (1) terminally gullible and (2) convinced that Illinois’ gene pool of citizens fit for cushy public jobs is dominated by lame duck Democrats who awakened that fateful 1/11/11 just itching to flip-flop on a monumental tax vote.
Our hearts go out to the Quinn spokespeople who have no choice but to keep saying that the tax vote had nothing to do with the governor’s appointments, and that all these Democrats are uniquely qualified to again be public payrollers. You’re supposed to think these are just Quinncidences.
The curious pattern started three days after the tax vote when Quinn appointed ex-lawmaker Careen Gordon to a seat on the state Prisoner Review Board. Gordon — like Flider, she had campaigned against Quinn’s tax hike proposal — also lost her re-election bid in November 2010. She soon approached Quinn about the board job, they talked again in December, she delivered for the governor in January and, well, you know. […]
We hope Senate President John Cullerton — even after his members get past the March 20 primary — tells Quinn he won’t be party to using taxpayer money, raised by a tax hike, to reward Democrats who voted for that tax hike.
If Careen Gordon was too hot for the Senate to handle, so is Flider.
Think, senators, about how complicit you want to be in this.
*** UPDATE *** I hadn’t seen Senate GOP Leader Christine Radogno weigh in on this yet. So I asked her spokesperson for a comment…
It’s a disturbing pattern that once again looks like a payoff for an income tax vote. It’s actually insulting to the taxpayers to think that they would forget about it just because a few months have passed.
* The Question: Should Gov. Quinn withdraw Bob Flider’s nomination? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Some Schnorf love
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign news and a roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Tribune is shocked–shocked!–that a governor’s ally might get a political appointment. Grow up. Dig yourself out of bankruptcy.
Comment by Ray del Camino Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:40 am
Comparing Careen Gordon to Bob Flider is incredibly unfair. The Tribune should consider meeting these people or make a couple calls before playing God from their fourth floor womb.
Gordon didn’t get the job because she had problems of her own in the Legislature. They didn’t like her. They thought she was whiny. She had a lousy attendance record.
Let Flider run this agency and he’ll do for Ag what Julie Hamos has been doing for DCFS.
Comment by Dirty Red Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:40 am
Voted no. While it smells, unless there is clear proof of wrongdoing, Quinn is entitled to have the people he wants running things.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:40 am
Yo, Rich, I’m really happy for you and imma let you finish, but Bob Flider is the best politician of ALL TIME!
Comment by Kanye Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:41 am
Didn’t we just have a post about a revitalized Gov. Quinn? This was defiitely a stumble. I say yes. Keep punishing the poor guy until he learns from his mistakes. They could have rolled this out better and his optics problems will be the GAs electoral problems in 2012.
Comment by Curious Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:44 am
Yes, Quinn has now bought and paid for Flider’s vote to get deeper in my pocket.
Comment by Dan Shields, Springfield, IL Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:46 am
Perception is a huge part of politics. Regardless of if there is “Quinn pro Quo” it sure looks like that. In order to prevent issues like this from coming up again, a law, Rule or Ethics directive should be that Legislators must wait 2 years after leaving office in order to take a State position. This would prevent issues like this as well as padding pensions.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:48 am
I’ve only met Flider once, but I have a world of respect for Duane Noland. If Duane says he will be a good Director of Ag, he almost certainly will be. A Governor’s nominee for a Cabinet position should be confirmed absent some evident lack of ability or character. A Governor runs for re-election based in large measure on the performance of his agencies. Within reason, he should be entitled to who he wants.
Lots of very responsible legislators voted for the tax increase. More should have. I find the idea of some sort of corruption here (Jim Nowlan’s “legal corruption”?) to be very weak.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:48 am
No. Who are you supposed to appoint to political jobs, people who oppose you?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 11:54 am
I voted yes, for two reasons. First, this has the stink of quid pro quo all over it, and Illinois voters have had to deal with those kind of shenanigans for far too long.
Second, I’m tired of Quinn turning state government into an employment agency for failed Democratic politicians. It’s not just the former general assembly members who voted for his tax hike, it’s Julie Hamos, and Dan Seals and Alexi Giannoulias (at least his position is unpaid).
Comment by so.... Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:00 pm
NO
the bankrupt Tribbies ceded any say on state ethics issues when they played footsie with Blagoof on trading Wrigley cash for good ed board treatment. NO ONE HAS EVER PROVED THEY WENT TO THE USA TO REPORT THE CROOKED DEAL.
Flider will do a fine job.
Annot understand why Capt Fax is so focused on the Tribbies. Do we smell a buyout?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:05 pm
No. What word said.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:06 pm
I voted no. The Gordon debacle proved Quinn has no shame when it comes to the practice of cronyism. But, I think the hypocrites who changed their votes should face public and legislative chastisement for accepting these positions. They’re equally, if not more, guilty of unethical behavior.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:18 pm
-so
When Big Jim and Little Jim appointed GOP pols to plum spots, did that bother you as well? Or is it different when Republican governors do it?
I do hope that in the Flider confirmation hearing, he is asked to explain how he changed his mind on the tax hike. If a 1% hike was the last thing the state needed in October 2010 when he was running for re-election, how could a 2% hike be acceptable three months later? Just askin.
Comment by reformer Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:20 pm
No. I stand by my argument/reasoning yesterday that Quinn has the right to appoint whomever he pleases and that Ag doesn’t necessarily require an ag “expert” or a big shot farmer to be run properly.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:22 pm
So the Tribune will only support appointee’s that voted against the tax hike? That’s a great way to determine if someone is qualified to run an agency.
Comment by M O'Malley Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:25 pm
==So the Tribune will only support appointee’s that voted against the tax hike?==
That’s not what they’re saying here.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:29 pm
No. Quinn should have thought this through before nominating Flider. And if he didn’t think it through, then he needs to start doing so. Let it be a lesson - for once, he should stick with the decision he made and manage the consequences.
By the way, excuse me for gagging while the Trib sends out its “hearts” to the Quinn spokespeople. Those spokespeople get PAID VERY WELL to do their jobs, whether they care for the message or not; if they don’t like their client, they should find another one.
Comment by Coach Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:31 pm
Appoint a real ag advocate. It’s such an integral industry from our state.
Comment by View from the Cheap Seats Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:45 pm
No. Loyalty to the Governor may be the most important qualification for an agency head. The expertise to do the agency’s work (under the loyal supervision of the Governor’s director) can be hired. Hiring some political hack to a job where expertise is the key qualification, or creating some make-work job to reward some hack, are entirely different matters, but this case doesn’t come within either of those categories.
Comment by anonymice Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:49 pm
PQ should appoint one of the “dancers” about to be put out of business by the new strip club tax.
By the way, Sheila Simon press conference @1:45 in support of this tax. Can we get a live stream of the opposition rally?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 12:52 pm
Frequently amazed at how different the tallied poll results are when compared to the comments. This one is no exception. Vote, while close, appears to indicate a majority says Quinn should drop the nomination. Comments seem to be clearly for allowing Flider to serve. Huh?
Anyway, I voted that Quinn should remove Flider from consideration. I don’t know the man so cant’ comment on that. Might be a pillar of the community, a peach of a man - a real mensch. However, since most folk in the state will be as I am - ignorant of just who Flider is and how capable he may be - the appearance of a quid pro quo is the perception left in our minds. One more cynical posting by a gov who, by all accounts loves patronage. The result is a cynical public that assumes all politicians are corrupt and that there is nothing they can do about it. Might be a plus for all the pols out there but hardly the basis for a strong engaged electorate. Which one do you think will lead Illinois to honest responsive leadership? Back room deals or honest transparent administrations?
Remember, since we all can’t know the man or woman - it’s the perception, not the person.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:03 pm
Rich,your fairness is impressive.You called a spade a spade even when the issue is Democratic cronyism.This is a perfect example of Illinois politics as usual.Thanks for highlighting it.
Comment by earl Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:07 pm
Without the tax increase, what would have happened in 2011? You can be bitter about it all you want, but it was the right action at the right time. We all say we want elected officials to make the hard decisions, but when they do we hear nonstop screeds about how deceitful and wrong those decisions were.
There are perfectly valid reasons for political careers to end. Doing what’s needed isn’t one of them.
Voted no.
Comment by Colossus Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:08 pm
I voted no. A Governor has the right to nominate whomever he wants to serve. Unless he is just totally incompetent he should also be confirmed. I have this opinion about Governor’s and President’s equally, no matter their party. They won the election. Elections have consequences.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Yes, it’s not that bad of a pick, but the optics due to the vote are horrible. Additionally, it might be best to appoint someone with more expertise in Ag trade.
Again, don’t think it’s a horrible pick, but it looks very bad and discredits both the Gov and Flider.
Comment by Ahoy Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:14 pm
He is woefully underqualified for the role, with no real relevant expertise, which would make him a poor choice even without the glaringly obvious quid quo pro.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:14 pm
In a few years Quinn will be evaluated by voters on his job performance, which includes appointments to run agencies. Flider is fit for this job and Quinn should stick with him regardless of the current flack. Political alliances have always entered into choices to some degree redarless of party.
Comment by Bitterman Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:19 pm
I voted no. Here’s the thing: 1)The Governor runs the executive branch of government. 2) The Exec branch has to make a lot of appointments. 3) The governor oftentimes looks to the GA for potential appointees. 4) A majority of the GA voted for the income tax hike. 5) A majority (I think all, I’m too lazy to look it up right now) of the majority was of the governor’s own party.
Therefore, if you make the blanket statement that no one who voted for the income tax increase can ever be nominated for an appointment, you are depriving the exec from a huge talent pool from which to make those appointments.
The minority needs to get over it. They lost. The increase is on the books. And just because someone voted for the increase doesn’t automatically make it quid pro quo.
Comment by Elijiah Snow Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:22 pm
The guy flips on the biggest issue facing Illinois, and shockingly ends up on the state payroll? This certainly stinks.
The vote should never have been cast. The appointment should never have been made. The appearance is overwhelming. This is the sort of thing that voters will understand and remember. Quinn needs to find somebody else.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:25 pm
Voted yes strictly because perception is everything right now. Yesterday we discussed being the 3rd most corrupt state in the union and today we dabate an obvious Quinn pro quo appointment. PQ should be doing all he can to get us out of #3 but not closer to #1.
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:38 pm
Debate - sorry
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 1:42 pm
==Additionally, it might be best to appoint someone with more expertise in Ag trade.==
I’m not picking on this commenter, but I find it sad that is such a casual thought. Too many politicians leading agencies. Yes, they know their way around state government, which is an asset to an agency, but politicians’ core competency is boosting themselves up, and maintaining relationships to do so. More professionals with knowledge of the areas they regulate should be running things.
Comment by Robert Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 2:00 pm
Apparently the Tribbie “opinion” isn’t worth much..the “Dump Flider” vote is on 6% over half. Usually these lynch mob issues go to 70-80%
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 2:18 pm
Voted no. Schnorf, once again, nails it, as does Word.
Comment by Thoughts... Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 2:20 pm
I am on the fence a little bit on this question. Patronage is a time honored fact of this country. The only issues are is this person qualified for the position and did the person get this instead of a more qualified person. During the Blago administration, it was clear that qualifications weren’t an issue. That would seem to be true with Quinn’s administration as well. As I commented the other day, many of these appointments have there resume on LinkedIn. It’s pretty clear they didn’t get their positions because they were the best of the candidates. So now the issue comes down to do we trust Quinn’s judgment based on the person’s ability to do the job, or is it payback (maybe both?) So far I lean to the side of not trusting Quinn to get the best talent for the state but to hire only “friends”. Qualified Yes
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 2:25 pm
Voted no. Flider is ok for the job, certainly on a level historically with other political appointees from both parties, Democratic and Republican. I think Flider’s motives for switching were a bit more complex than a quid pro quo. I think he knew that the state needed the revenue to avert a total catastrophe, but campaigned against it in a (we now know) futile attempt to win the election, and after the election he had nothing to lose by doing the right thing. The bottom line is that ALL politics is done in a state of tension between doing the right thing, doing what will benefit your career, and exchanging favors with others. It just happened that in this case the stakes were especially high and the tax issue was decided exceptionally closely.
Comment by jake Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 2:37 pm
I voted no as well, but to some degree this statement illustrates what is wrong with this state.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 2:53 pm
Certainly PQ could find another individual to appoint where the appearance of being rewarded for a vote is not in play. While Wordslinger is correct in that he may well be a good director, there is a pattern here that stinks. The people of IL want the political climate to change (though they have little expection that it actually will). PQ has been a big disappointment in this area.
Comment by Kerfuffle Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 3:03 pm
Voted no. On principle AND politics.
ON PRINCIPLE:
It’s not like Flider voted for a pay increase for Pat Quinn. He voted for a tax increase that happened to also be supported by Pat Quinn. So what? This state is broke. There are legitimate reasons besides a job in the future that someone would vote for a tax increase. Just like Flider voted for the civil unions bill where there are legitimate reasons besides a job in the future that someone vote for that bill. I mean why aren’t we beating up Flider for supporting that too while we are at it?
As far as I can tell, the only disqualifying factor anyone has raised for why Flider shouldn’t get this job is because he supported a policy of the governor’s as a legislator. How does that make sense? If a legislator who represented the district with the biggest agribusiness footprint and the Farm Progress Show, who served on ag committees in the General Assembly for a number of years and who has the support of the Illinois Farm Bureau isn’t qualified to head the Dept. of Ag, just who is qualified for this job?
ON POLITICS:
Quinn is dead to Downstate Illinois already. He would have been dead to Downstate if he never appointed Flider. So there’s nothing to be gained from backtracking here.
But there is something to be lost if he backtracks. Quinn is already pretty much viewed as a lame duck for 2014. If he wants to get things accomplished in the legislature in this environment, it’s really not a good idea to be disloyal to a legislator who was loyal to him.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 4:00 pm
@ OneMan = I voted no as well, but to some degree this statement illustrates what is wrong with this state.=
I just don’t see how there is anything wrong with that statement. Quinn is the head of the Executive branch and the Dept. of Ag is under his control. He should appoint someone who he believes will run the department as he wishes. Certainly, an appointee’s loyalty to the Governor is & should be one of the major qualifications of the job. The Governor cannot be everywhere at once, therefore he must appoint people who will promote his priorities.
I don’t think anyone is saying Flider is incompetent or will run the Dept. of Ag into the ground, 90% of the feedback on his ability to do the job has been encouraging (with exception to a few GOPs who obviously hold a grudge against Flider for his Quinncome Tax vote).
Comment by TCB Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 4:14 pm
It seems he paid to play with my money.
Comment by Cal Skinner Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 4:42 pm
Voted No.
If Pat had called me first, I would have told him it was a terrible idea.
And I really like Bob. Alot.
Not only that, he’s sharp. Almost over-qualified.
But, what ever damage there’s going to be is already done.
Withdrawing the nomination won’t change that.
Flider working his tail off and doing a great job will.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 5:03 pm
If “qualification” is the primary consideration for cabinet positions , shouldn’t a newly elected Governor retain most if not all of the prior Administration’s appointees? Having performed the job already, aren’t they presumed more “qualified” than an appointee who’s never had the job before? So long as hold-over cabinet members don’t act contrary to the State’s best interest, aren’t they bound to promote their party’s interest, if different than the Governor’s?
I’m no fan of Quinn or Flider, but it seems the arguments against the appointment all boil down to, “since there’s smoke, there must be fire”, which is an unfair presumption against both men.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 17, 12 @ 5:03 pm