Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: What’s he hiding?
Next Post: Unions: Workers will pay more in exchange for pension guarantees
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column looks at some Speaker Madigan polling…
The Illinois Republican Party has relentlessly bashed House Speaker Michael Madigan almost every day via press release during the past few months. Not many of those statements have been covered by the media, but the GOP is obviously hoping to make Madigan an issue in this election by blaming him for just about every problem in Illinois, even more than they did two years ago.
Madigan has also been hammered by the Chicago Tribune in a series of stories about his alleged conflicts of interest. Madigan initially dismissed the criticisms as “garbage,” but eventually responded point by point in a letter that was mostly ignored by the media, and never addressed by the Tribune itself. The Tribune’s editorial board has led the charge against the Speaker over the years, demanding his toppling as the House’s top guy.
House Republicans have tried for at least two decades to make the Speaker an issue in campaigns. It’s never really succeeded, mainly because people hadn’t heard enough about Madigan to be moved by the GOP’s negative advertising.
Since it seems clear that the GOP plans to use Madigan as its favorite target again this year, I went looking for a poll to see if attacking him now might work in a state House race after years of bad publicity. A northern suburban legislative district that leans Republican seemed a good place to look because the Tribune is read pretty widely up there and the residents might be more inclined to accept the fact that Madigan was bad for Illinois.
Campaigns being campaigns, I can’t divulge which district this poll comes from, but it was paid for by a northern suburban Republican. It was a legitimate live telephone poll of 301 people taken by a national pollster in mid July.
Again, this district leans Republican, so the Madigan numbers are probably a bit worse than they would be statewide.
Madigan’s “image” was tested by the poll, which found his positive rating at just 16 percent, while his negative rating was at 44 percent. Just 3 percent had a strongly positive view of his image, while 31 percent had a strongly negative view.
But 40 percent had either never heard of Madigan (17 percent) or had no opinion (23 percent). This is generally regarded as a well-educated region with politically aware voters, yet a very large percentage of that population doesn’t really seem to care either way about the Speaker.
The crosstabs have a much higher margin of error than the full poll’s 5.7 percent, but they’re still worth a look.
In the age brackets, Madigan’s worst rating comes from people 65 and over. A whopping 63 percent of people in that age range have a negative opinion of Speaker Madigan, with 53 percent having a strongly negative viewpoint. Only 8 percent of that age group have a positive view of the Speaker and 29 percent have either never heard of him (9) or have no opinion (20) .
58 percent of those aged 55–64 had a negative view of Madigan, while 42 percent of those who were 45–54 have a negative view of Madigan, and of those who were 18–44, 28 percent have a negative view of Madigan.
The general rule of thumb in politics is that the older one gets, the more one votes. And this poll in this particular district clearly shows that the older one gets, the more one despises Michael J. Madigan.
Among independents, a voting bloc that tends to lean more Republican, 46 percent have a negative view of Madigan, with 31 percent having a strongly negative view. But 43 percent have either never heard of Madigan (17) or didn’t have an opinion (26). And 56 percent of independents aged 55 and up have a negative view of Madigan, while a third either didn’t know about him or had no opinion.
The bottom line here is that there are some real dangers for the Democrats with Madigan’s negative image. His 59 percent negative rating among older women, who tend to be more independent, is high enough on its own to set off alarm bells, at least in this district. Even 41 percent of Democrats aged 55 and older have a negative view of him, according to the poll. So, yes, the cumulative result is the attacks may be having some impact. We’ll know more as the campaign proceeds.
* The Question: Is your opinion of Speaker Madigan positive, negative or do you not have an opinion? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:31 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: What’s he hiding?
Next Post: Unions: Workers will pay more in exchange for pension guarantees
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My opinion was based mostly on those who don’t like him. Therefore, I was somewhat positive. The fact that the fact-challenged Tribbie demagogues don’t like him is a positive. Also the fact that he told the truth about pensions and was attacked earned him credibility. He stated the fact that most beneficiaries of the state employee pension system have never been state employees. He was summarily attacked by Cross and the other anti-worker pro-deadbeat forces. Good for him.
Comment by Crime Fighter Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:42 pm
Strongly negative for the control he wields in the house. If his district wants him fine. However, I did not get to vote for him. There should be term limits on leadership. Basically, I do not have representation (IMHO) while he remains speaker.
Comment by wizard Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:50 pm
I VOTED STRONGLY NEGATIVE.
Madigan recruits individuals to run a campaign, with “Friends of Michael J. Madigan” money, against Springfield “power-brokers.” From the Madigan supported campaign of Ms. Kifowit, a quote from her primary campaign flyer. “So I increased your taxes and gave you more debt. Where is my raise. HAD ENOUGH.”
So, in answer to the flyer you paid for Mr. Speaker, we have HAVE ENOUGH of YOU and those who shill for YOU.
Comment by Anonymoose Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:56 pm
More Positive: from Rich’s “What’s He Hiding Post”: - Lie down with dogs - Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:27 pm:
“This is the kind of crap that happens when you surround yourself with Blagojevich apparatchiks”
Madigan called for fumigation of Blagojevich malefactors some time ago, instead Quinn elevated most of them. Another positive for Madigan.
Comment by Crime Fighter Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:56 pm
1. Despite the “Chicago neighborhood” dressing of his persona, he has been a dedicated advocate of a big-government spending agenda, expansion of welfare, big union initiatives, higher taxes, and liberalism in general. The tenure of his speakership coincides with the long decline of our state (note that he happily collaborated with George Ryan’s big budget and tax increases). 2. He cares little about any corruption within his caucus, such as Derrick Smith and the many others who have been convicted of federal crimes due to corruption.
Comment by Conservative Republican Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:57 pm
Left out: I voted strongly negative, unless you couldn’t guess.
Comment by Conservative Republican Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:58 pm
I haven’t always agreed with the Speaker on politics or public policy. Who has?
But he has been, without question, a positive force for good for the Illinois General Assembly and the state of Illinois.
Just ask Rod Blagojevich.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 12:59 pm
CF, many of the “Blagojevich malefactors” were former Madigan staffers. Blago didnt exactly have a deep bench of Springfield dems to hire. where do you think he got his people? Madigan and Daley.
Comment by anon Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:00 pm
I don’t mind Madigan, but I sure as hell don’t like what he has done to the State.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:00 pm
Also, the Speaker was Co-Chair of Blago’s reelection campaign. Quit using Blago as a reason to elevate Madigan — critique the man on his own merits.
Comment by anon Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:01 pm
I like the direction the state has gone politically and I give Madigan a lot of credit for that. Civil unions would not have been possible without Madigan and I give him kudos for not letting his Church shut down the debate.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:03 pm
Strongly negative.
He may not be Captain but he is steering the ship and has been for some time. The ship is heading full steam into the rock under his leadership.
Comment by Sunshine Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:05 pm
Yellow Dog summed it up for me; before Blago, would have been strongly negative. Now somewhat positive. While don’t agree with him about a LOT of things, feel that when he says something, you can believe it, unlike Quinn, who can’t be trusted.
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:07 pm
I voted somewhat positive, because I was impressed with the House vote on the state income tax increase, and I support cost shifting for the pensions, if it comes down to it.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:08 pm
“I voted _____ because I’m a fan of the republican form of democratic governance.”
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:09 pm
Somewhat positive. Do I think he’s a power mongerer? Do I think his fingerprints are all over our financial situation? Did he let his caucus get out of control on spending? Did he win elections on the backs of taxapayers by allowing programs, projects, and handouts to be funded when there was no funding? Do I think he believes the “consideration argument” would violate the Constitution? The answer to all of these questions is yes.
However, is my opinion more favorable than the other legislative leaders + Governor? Do I think he’s an excellent Politician? Do I think he’s the sharpest politician under the dome and in State Government? Would I like to see him retire? The answer is yes.
Don’t hate the player hate the game and he plays it just about as well as anyone can and has played it in Illinois.
Comment by dirt diver Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:12 pm
another strong negative here because of the heavy handed, self serving nature in which he rules…
Comment by Rudykzooti Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:13 pm
Madigan is an excellent example of the quintessential politician. It’s not that he’s particularly flawed in a negative way. It’s the nature of the business that produces his type.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:17 pm
Giving credit to ILGOP attacks upon Madigan gives the Prairie State Republicans too much credit for the Speaker’s diminished popularity. Michael J. Madigan’s popularity was due to slip on account of his longevity. He has been on the scene in Springfield for over forty years or so. Voters get tired, particularly since most of us are unable to vote against him.
Comment by Esquire Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:19 pm
I would have voted strongly negative because I think severe control should not be the order of the day. but I wonder what will happen without him. and I do respect his intelligence, even if I fear it. would be interested to know who others think could fill the void, and whether his system has trained other leaders or just smart followers.
Comment by amalia Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:22 pm
You know dear…your poll questions are out of proper Likert-scale sequence.
Comment by Debbie Reynolds Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:26 pm
How can you feel positively about a person who has consolidated so much power in his hands and then refuses to use it productively to address some of the most significant problems our state has ever faced?
Success should not be defined in political terms like getting re-elected and being the majority party. Unfortunately, it appears to me that this is how Mr. Madigan defines it.
Comment by Foxfire Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:27 pm
Agree with YDD, though admittedly my personal politics hew closer to MJM’s so my view may be a tad more positive. I’ll add that he’s a pragmatic politician in a world more frequently filled with idealogues who accomplish little. True, that means compromising from time to time, but my understanding was that is how a representative Democracy is supposed to work.
As for Anon 1:00 pm’s comment, it’s just not accurate. A relative few folks from Madigan’s past went to RRB, at the time I remember wondering why it was so few in fact. Obviously that number isn’t zero, but it’s small in comparison to where a lot of the folks came from. And repeating the trope about being Chair of RRB’s re-election is ridiculous - a) it was honorary and b) if you can find any tangible proof that he did literally anything to help Rod get re-elected, I’ll stand on my head in the middle of Michigan and Wacker and spit quarters.
Comment by Defender Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:28 pm
I voted somewhat positive (I don’t know that I’m strongly positive about anyone).
He’s an old-school conservative urban Dem, which make him a fairly moderating force in today’s environment. He doesn’t get rolled by the extremes on the spectrum.
He’s powerful, but he’s certainly not all-powerful as some would have you believe. In a bare-knuckled state like this, if you don’t have some power you’re roadkill, or a mushroom.
He couldn’t push Edgar/Pate around, nor Blago/Jones, although he stood up to Blago when plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle who are still around were willing to play ball with him.
If he was all-powerful, I imagine he would have delivered those tuition vouchers by now to his many constituents that send their kids to Catholic schools.
Ethically, he seems to know where the line is and takes care not to cross it. If he didn’t, I suspect some ambitious U.S. Attorney would have nailed his pelt to the barn by now. He’s had a target on his back for some time.
Plus, I’ve heard folks of all persuasions say his word is good.
It’ a simple-minded copout to blame all the world’s problems on Madigan or Bush or Obama or any other individual. Too many moving parts in a very complex machine.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:30 pm
Somewhat negative for me, since the perception of skirting the edge of conflict of interest has been part of his narrative for years. A few years ago there was a small story regarding his work with Eastern Illinois University which was clearly a conflict that went nowhere. Other persons could not have gotten away with half his “deals” and survived the scrutiny…so depending upon which way you look at that…it could be positive, yet for me - not!
Comment by Captain Illini Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:30 pm
Most voters are either obvlivious about Madigan or they don’t see the problem the IL GOP constantly shrieks about.
Those who are in the know realize we could do much, much worse, i.e., Tom Cross.
I strongly suspect that was a push poll and overstates a made up issue.
Comment by too obvious Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:42 pm
I went with somewhat negative for a combo of
Anon@1:00pm and
Dirt Diver@1:12pm
With those connected to him his tentacles have considerable reach.
Comment by Bemused Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:44 pm
Voted somewhat positive because I don’t think he’s responsible for all of the ills of the world and I don’t understand the comments that he’s responsible for the State’s fiscal crisis. I wish those who blame him for the fiscal crisis would explain how he’s culpable – I am legitimately asking because I guess I don’t get it. He seems to be the scapegoat for everything that is wrong in the State. Maybe he should wear the jacket for some things, but I don’t understand how he can be blamed for circumstances that are outside of his control. Unless every other elected official in the state is a Manchurian candidate, no one man can actually control everything.
He cannot pass a budget alone and he has no say in how the administration spends money allocated. Yes he’s powerful and can ask his members to vote in certain ways, but they’re adults and make final decisions as to how they vote. Given his history with Senate presidents, I think it’s safe to say that he has no control in the Senate. We’ve had republican governors for most of his tenure, and I don’t think Thompson, Edgar, or Ryan particularly caved to him.
He has no control over how pension systems have invested funds and has no control over the decisions made by pension boards. He had no control over the collective bargaining agreements entered into by school districts or the state.
I think I’m just sick of the easy out - Let’s always blame Madigan.
Comment by MahNaMahNa Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:51 pm
Anon @ 1:00pm must be an old Blago loyalist.
Comment by Crime Fighter Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:57 pm
=== many of the “Blagojevich malefactors” were former Madigan staffers ===
LOL. That’s hilarious.
@too obvious -
I think what the poll shows is that Republicans have a negative opinion of Madigan and no one else cares.
Hardly surprising.
Could have just as easily asked north suburban Republicans about their opinion of Nancy Pelosi, and it probably would have been much the same result.
Still, independents aren’t going to flock to Joe Walsh over Pelosi.
In a non-presidential year, tripe like the Illinois GOP has been spewing might help them turn out their base, but if hard core Republicans aren’t gonna come out to vote for Romney/against Obama, they aren’t likely to come out to vote against Mike Madigan.
To me, it seems like a big waste of resources.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 1:57 pm
Illinois does not have any other strong political leader who could have kept the ship of state above water for so many years. He is not individually responsible for the the current fiscal dilemma, caused mainly by the financial gurus who gutted the world economies and the Norquist-types who have intimidated legislators into short-changing essential government programs. As Speaker Madigan regularly says: “I serve at the pleasure of the House,” whose members truly respect his experience and ability.
Comment by ANALYST Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:05 pm
I voted somewhat negative because of the fiscal condition of our State. He is a master politician and appears to be a very good man, but he has failed as a leader during some of the most trying times in our State’s history. He may be the only man in Springfield that could have kept the two parties from driving the bus over the cliff.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:08 pm
I had to laugh when I read “Conservative Republican’s” comments. He obviously hasn’t been paying close attention to what happens in the Capitol. I voted strongly negative because 1) for the Speaker, power is an end in itself, and 2)to the extent that he has a political philosophy, the Speaker is closer to Paul Ryan than he is to Barack Obama, for whom he has no great affection. His disdain for Nancy Pelosi and lack of interest in helping the Democrats make gains in the US House is also well known.
Madigan is all for cutting spending and reducing the size of government. He is unsympathetic to public education and believes in his heart that government cannot solve social problems and so shouldn’t try. He controlled the liberals in his caucus by giving the Republicans veto power over the budget, putting them in a procedural straightjacket and letting them distribute the pain (a dubious gift which, strangely, many were happy to embrace).
At this point he has no interest in cutting back on corporate welfare or shifting the tax burden to the wealthy.
He has also convinced many in his caucus that there must be cuts for political reasons - even though the recent Medicaid cuts are in fact wildly unpopular.
The political situation in this state is downright unhealthy. There is far too much power concentrated in the hands of one man. Whenever I get a political solicitation from the Democratic Party of Illinois, appealing to me on the basis of “Democratic values”, I can only shake my head in dismay. It is highly ironic that this man is the state Democratic chairman.
Comment by Eugene Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:15 pm
Strongly negative,because he is smart enough to know better. He had the talent to do really do great things for the State. Instead he always wheeled and dealed to stay in control. Kind of reminds me of Boss Tweed, they both have gotten rich living off the State.
He was that shaker and mover that got us in this pension mess. He could run rings around most of the Governors he worked with,and he did.We all know with out his nod nothing happens.
So the pension mess will continue till he is either gone or not re-elected.Kinda sad.
Comment by mokenavince Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:15 pm
MahNaMahNa
Although not entirely his fault (at heart he is fiscally conservative) he enabled certain factions of his caucus to shape multiple budgets and spend on programs and projects we couldn’t afford to help those caucus members win elections. That money should have been spent to properly fund the pensions and other obligations. The primary cause for the pension debt in Illinois is underfunding. He signed off on budgets that underfunded the pension obligations for years to pay for programs his members wanted to hang their hat on during election time. Oh yeah, he also blessed legislation to increase pension benefits without proper funding mechanisms for those benefits. Those benefit increases helped is pro-union members win elections with help and money from unions.
Comment by dirt diver Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:21 pm
Mixed reaction:
Positive because he gets legislation passed and is a skilled political technician.
Negative because he rarely communicates his intentions, his policy-preferences or his general worldview to the voters.
Comment by Rudy Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:22 pm
I voted negative and my question would be how can a large group of these voters not know who MM is? They may vote but how could they not know who the most powerful man in the State house is?
Comment by nieva Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:31 pm
Strongly negative - I give every Illinois leader over the last thirty years a strong negative for their role in getting the state in such a financial mess along with all the cronyism.
Comment by Liberty First Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:36 pm
Not really due to his house work, but due to the rest. Why run fake canidates? Why control judicial selection? Property assessment appeals? i just don’t see those choices being good for the people of his district, but good for him.
Comment by thumbs down Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:50 pm
==Ethically, he seems to know where the line is and takes care not to cross it.==
I’d agree with this if you substitute “Legally” for “Ethically.”
I voted Strongly Negative. “thumbs down” describes the problem well.
Comment by Robert Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 2:58 pm
strongly negative. He has too much power and has made too much money as Speaker
Comment by Makandadawg Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:01 pm
Power corrupts. Need I say more? The constitution calls for a balanced budget, does it not? He could care less.
The man has his own agenda, when in fact he should have the best interest of the people of Illinois in mind.
Comment by wordonthestreet Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:03 pm
voted somewhat positive, anyone here want to play him in three dimensional chess? especially when its money-marbles or chalk!!!
Comment by railrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:04 pm
==he has been a dedicated advocate of a big-government spending agenda, expansion of welfare, big union initiatives, higher taxes, and liberalism in general.==
I sure wish that was true. I voted negative because it is not.
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:06 pm
Based on the comments so far, Madigan seems too be something of a political Rorschach Test. To some, “Too liberal,” others, “too conservative,” and still more “devoid of policy, other than survival.”
The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that we can’t think of anyone else who would do a better job.
When the Speaker finally decides to hang up his gavel, I wish his successor the best of luck.
The history books will likely judge Madigan one of the best legislative leaders - and certainly the most successful - in U.S. history.
And deservedly so.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:17 pm
Somewhat along the lines of what YDD said: older voters right now in this country are a more Republican / conservative-leaning demographic nationwide. That’s not always true at all points in American history, but it is true right now. So it doesn’t surprise me that older women in a relatively affluent suburb therefore skew against and dislike Madigan. More Republican groups are more against Madigan; no shocker there.
Maybe that spills over into older -independent- suburban women as well, which Rich infers. But it doesn’t sound to me like in a survey of 301 people there is much statistical space to derive certain conclusions there.
Comment by ZC Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:19 pm
BTW, I love the nice even mix of those who say “Madigan has too much power” and “Madigan should use all of his power to do X, Y and Z.”
Can’t have it both ways, Kampers.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:19 pm
I voted somewhat positive, in spite of being part of the independent old lady demographic that thinks badly of him. He’s a politician. This is what the talented ones are like.
Comment by Cheryl Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:22 pm
==The history books will likely judge Madigan one of the best legislative leaders - and certainly the most successful - in U.S. history.==
Ok, so if that is true why are so many things about Illinois “the worst in the country”. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:29 pm
I voted strongly negative. For those who support him, just try to run a campaign against someone he supports. Let me know if it was a “fair” campaign.
Comment by skippy Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:52 pm
I voted “stongly negative” but that may be because I am a Republican. I am one of those in the collar counties that reads the Tribune and probably have been more swayed (negatively) by their articles on Madigan than anything else.
Also, not being from Cook County, I aotomatically look upon Madigan as “The Poster Child” for everything that is politically corrupt in Chicago politics. Your article on the polling results on Mike Madigan was very interesting to me. I thought this guy was made of teflon and nobody else seemed to care about how he was perceived in the Cook County area. It looks like I was wrong. Here is a funny thing though. I always liked his daughter Lisa Madigan when she was first elected despite my being a Republican. However, over the past few years I find myself thinking less of her than I did when she was first elected. The question I ask myself is: Is this because of her performance in elected office? Or, is it because I am subconciously finding fault in her over the past few years because of the sins of her father? I hope not.
I do not like the “nepotism” practiced by our politicians with their families and I wonder if I am inclined to think that this is why I am rating her so much lower than I did when she was first elected? Hmmmm? Interesting.
Comment by Melvin Gibson Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 3:59 pm
@Bill -
Being the most-powerful legislative leader in the country is not the same as being “all powerful.”
Madigan was able to put together the votes to reform education funding in 1997, but neither he nor Governor Edgar could force Senate Republicans to pass it.
Madigan would have been able to put together enough votes to pass similar legislation in 2003-2008, but there was no way to put together enough votes to overcome a Blagojevich veto threat.
By that time, Illinois was in such a deep financial hole that the best Democrats could do was stop the ship from sinking.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:01 pm
Though the legislature has since failed to honor the Edgar 1995 pension funding deal- the last time in a generation someone attempted to control the pesnsion problems, Edgar with a republican legislature attempted to pay down the pension debt- Madigan once having regained control of the House failed to honor the deal and now the Pensions are deep in the hole- It is time to allow someone not under the control of the public sector unions to force fiscal discipline onto illinois- it is time to vote in a republican majority and begin to do what Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana have been able to do- reduce spending and attain fiscal sanity
Comment by Sue Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:08 pm
That said, I think President Cullerton is probably the most under-appreciated leader in the state.
He has demonstrated tremendous legislative and political skill, as well as a deep understanding of public policy.
We’d be in a much better state if he’d risen to Senate President in 2003.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:12 pm
Gee Melvin, you really have some feelings to sort out.
And, by definition, it’s not “nepotism” when you run and win primary and general elections.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:14 pm
–Though the legislature has since failed to honor the Edgar 1995 pension funding deal- the last time in a generation someone attempted to control the pesnsion problems–
Why not do it again? Quinn should suggest fully funding annual pension requirements, plus paying off the old pension shorts, starting when he’s safely out of office.
Such a deal. Such an attempt. Such a solution.
It was a “generational” solution — as in, have the next generation do the heavy lifting.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:30 pm
From the Illinois Review:
“Rich Miller admits: ILGOP exposure of Madigan is working”
LOL
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:30 pm
Somewhat positive. He is thorough, works hard and knows how to be effective and get things done.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:35 pm
Sue,
The Edgar 1995 pension funding plan was a joke! They were given a 15 year ramp up period. The required contributions during the early years was nothing compared to what later generations have to deal with. The “edgar 1995 funding plan” would have been something the GOP could hang their hat on if it didn’t have the 15 year ramp period. To tout that as if it was significant and responsible is a joke!
What are the income tax rates for Wisconsin and Indiana by the way?
Comment by dirt diver Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:37 pm
@Sue -
Thank you for your D.C. talking points. Very helpful.
=== It is time to allow someone not under the control of the public sector unions to force fiscal discipline onto illinois ===
This seems like a great time to remind you that it is Tom Cross, and not Mike Madigan, who is opposing legislation to cut our state’s future pension obligations by $30 billion.
And that its Tom Cross, not Mike Madigan, who is opposing reforms to teacher pensions backed by the Chicago Tribune and opposed by the teacher’s unions.
Remember McCormick Place? The last pension bill?
If Madigan is in the pocket of unions, they most have lost their pants somewhere along the road about five years ago.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:44 pm
Strongly Neg
I agree with some of the other commenters who said he has too much power and doesn’t use it proactively. If he wanted to be the Gov, he should have taken the chance and run.
Plus, I am totally sick of him and Lisa.
Comment by Belle Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 4:45 pm
=== he has too much power and doesn’t use it proactively ===
Which is it Belle? Does he have too much power, or just not use his power to advance your agenda?
And WHY in the world would Madigan want to be governor?
In the time he’s been in the General Assembly, he’s seen seven Governors — five as Speaker.
Face it: speaker is a better gig.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 5:24 pm
I said “Somewhat Positive” but I’m not willing to say why. I can see from the responses that this question provides a window into your soul.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 5:30 pm
The 40% no opinion or never heard of him status among educated people suggests to me what may be the most damning evidence against him. People are so apathetic because the State is such a mess that they’ve tuned out. And he’s been at the helm through it all.
Comment by Shemp Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 5:44 pm
Shemp, err no. They don’t know because there has never been a time in recorded modern history where people were all that knowledgeable about state politics. It’s not a justified leap of logic, that.
Comment by ZC Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 5:50 pm
The Speaker has been in-charge of the State for years and has us in financial meltdown. How could you possible be positive? When will we face reality.
Comment by Hickory Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 6:04 pm
c’mon…. that was nothing. you know things i say come true. is that the issue?
his time is up and by how you pulled it, it looks like you have seen the things going round.
next!
Comment by nino brown Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 6:24 pm
I voted somewhat positive. I have to give Madigan credit for bringing Blago down.
Comment by Can't Say My Nickname Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 6:54 pm
I have worked in twenty or so states in various political capacities and not once have I ever found reason to care about the leader of either legislative chamber, or the minority leaders. The business of state government is certainly consequential, but it’s just not that notable. Pay the bills, or don’t. Enact policies of varying consequence and popularity, or don’t. Most frequently it’s the latter.
I’m sure he is an excellent tax attorney, vote whip, campaign coordinator, family man, whatever. I just don’t care.
Comment by Dirt Digger Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 9:00 pm
Strongly positive. His word is his bond, he has patience and self-discipline, he is willing to work on a bipartisan basis with people he trusts, he scrupulously avoids illegal activities: sounds pretty good to me.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 10:01 pm
Madigan’s biggest mistake was probably not backing Paul Vallas for governor and remaining neutral in the 2002 primary; but in his defense I don’t think anyone really realized just how bad Rod would turn out to be.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 13, 12 @ 10:43 pm
Yellow Dog- the One and Only reason Vallas lost to Blago was that the IEA couldn’t bring itself to endorse a “superintendant” for any office whatsover- Had the IEA endorsed Vallas or stayed neutral- Illinois today would be a much different place
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Aug 14, 12 @ 6:11 am
“The Speaker has been in-charge of the State for years and has us in financial meltdown.”
Yeah. Never mind the housing crisis and the financial meltdown brought to us by Wall Street. Never mind that a plethora of other states are experiencing the same tough times despite no Speaker Madigan.
Comment by Anon- amiss Tuesday, Aug 14, 12 @ 7:03 am
Strongly positive.
He has always kept his word to grouops with which I was involved…whether positive or negative. And he cares about people with disabilities, an important issue for me and for the State too.
Warts? Sure. Everyone though has ‘em. I actually trust the guy to do what he says…how many political figures can we say that about?
Comment by mongo Tuesday, Aug 14, 12 @ 8:14 am