Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Madigan: “Thank you very much”

Posted in:

Illinois

On the House floor on Wednesday, Madigan was asked by State Rep. Ron Sandack, R-Downers Grove, whether he believes term limits should come before the millionaire tax — that’s a reform Gov. Bruce Rauner has pushing in his Turnaround Agenda and one his administration says he’d support.

Madigan said term limits are administered by voters –who can choose to retain an elected official or not at the ballot box.

“Members of your political party and Gov. Rauner subjected me to a vote of the people in the last primary election, and I won overwhelmingly. Thank you very much,” Madigan told Sandack.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:04 pm

Comments

Oh Owl…

It’s like if you asked Bill Black and Mike Bost what they would’ve done different to be better at the role…

… and the Owl just does what Rauner says.

I’m not worried, Sandack will tweet something about U of I athletics tonight while layoffs, because short term pain is a-ok for Sandack,… while layoffs are being prepared.

Way to go, Owl. Remind the Speaker…

Ugh.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:34 pm
… “and the Owl just does what Rauner says.”

OW, do you think at this point Ron “the Owl” Sandacks only response to college students and higher ed staff in his district is to “hang in there.”

Comment by Papa Mikey Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 11:48 pm
Who can explain how you going away will balance the budget?i voted for terms and millionaire tax last general election only one counted. Your stereotyping the GOP as the party of the rich

Comment by Rabid Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 4:37 am
- Papa Mikey -

I don’t have to guess what Ron Sandack would say. Sandack tweeted very clearly his belief…

@RonSandack: I’m frustrated 2, but taking steps towards reforming IL more important than short term budget stalemate. - Ron Sandack, 9/28/15

Reform is more important than short term budget stalemate.

If Universities close, Ron Sandack will be frustrated… but… reform is more important. Social Services close, Ron Sandack will be frustrated, …but… reform is more important.

Now, Todd Maisch… he tells us all to hang in there….

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 5:46 am
If Ron Sandack were half as clever as Ron Sandack thinks Ron Sandack is, this state wouldn’t have any problems at all.

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 6:30 am
Madigan isn’t wrong here. The very idea of an election is a term limit. You want to remove long-term legislators? Reform campaign finance.

Comment by Bryan Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 6:42 am
The millionaire surcharge is a wonderful idea and should be included in a budget deal. I think Democrats should push hard for a budget deal that includes a millionaire tax amendment or some sort of fair tax amendment on the ballot.

It’s the fair thing to do, and it’s a very appropriate response to politicians who want to fix things solely on the backs of the poor, sick and middle class workers.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 6:55 am
They shouldn’t have poked the bear by running someone against him. Did they really think they could primary him? Did they just want to “tug on his beard?” Send a message? Or did they just do it because they could?

I agree with others on here. Elections are term limits. Reform campaign finance instead.

Comment by steward Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 6:56 am
Snap. As Madigan points out, the voters decide with every election.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 7:00 am
Good answer Madigan. Sandack looks silly once again.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 7:04 am
How many terms has Rep. Sandack served?

Comment by reasonable Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 7:06 am
reasonable @7:06 am, “How many terms has Rep. Sandack served?”

At least one too many…

Comment by former southerner Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 7:25 am
===Did they really think they could primary him? Did they just want to “tug on his beard?” Send a message? Or did they just do it because they could?===

Rauner wanted tens of thousands of dollars “wasted” to make the Speaker spend tens of thousands of dollars now, so that money can’t find it’s way into General Election Tier 1 races in November.

That, and tweak the Speaker, and aggravate the Speaker, and irritate the Speaker, and…

… the you have good ole Sandack just keeping the wound open, trying to make it fester.

Bill Black’s genius was his ability to “snarkily” mock the processes. It was the processes and the result (Bills) of the processes, and procedures that were just so delicious.

Mike Bost felt more theatrics were needed to make points. While Black would yell, Bost would scream. There’s a huge difference between yelling and screaming, and while Bost screamed, the processes were the target, the absurdity of “the moment”, that was both Bost and Black.

Sandack?

Ron Sandack uses snide baiting. Sandack will use Raunerite talking points instead of using a microscope the the processes. Sandack loves and relishes the personal baiting, the mockery of thought through the Rauner prism. This “exchange” is no different… Rauner talking point, continual poking at Madigan, making it clear the overt personal angle.

The Speaker made it known, “Mr. Sandack, you’re not helping. You want to go personal, I have a long memory. You’re no Mike Bost, you’re no Bill Black, so go tell Rauner I won, I’m still here, and you can sit down now.”

But, maybe I expect too much from a GA Member who is frustrated, but expounds and relishes the fact the state having short term budget pain is a-ok with him.

That’s on me. That’s my bad.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 7:39 am
point-Madigan

Comment by burbanite Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:04 am
I am not a Madigan proponent, but regarding this subject, he speaks the truth. Election day is, in fact, the mechanism by which term limits can be imposed. Anything else is a direct affront to the democratic process.

The imposition of term limits is akin to saying: Hey, we can’t let that guy run, he’ll just win.

Doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

So, do long-standing elected officials amass too much power? Most would answer yes. So vote ‘em out, instead of imposing term limits, which represents a subversion of the democratic process.

Comment by Stumpy's bunker Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:24 am
“In this case, I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions. There are a number of members on your side of the aisle - Acting Director Poe, representative Moffitt, Representative Leitch, Rep. McAuliffe - that have served long and distinguished careers, and I am sad to see them go.

There are others, some would argue, for whom five terms is too long.

That, ultimately, is for the voters to decide.”

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:24 am
Kind of hard for elections to be effective term limit when the politicians pick their voters.

Comment by Morgan County Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:31 am
(1) I think the Speaker can say, with a straight face, that his last primary was a mandate for 2 more years of his Speakership.
(2) I think OW is correct that the primary challenge to the Speaker was more about the long game of bleeding his resources more than actually taking him out.
(3) You guys are really making me miss Bill Black. He could deliver some of the all-time best rants without making it personal as well as being a gentleman in every sense of the word when you dealt with him one-on-one.

Comment by SAP Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:43 am
In this era,
where billionaires, and their nine closest friends,
have the ability to buy every commercial spot on tv and radio,
have the ability to buy news networks,
have the poor ethics/morals of presenting fake newspapers in mailboxes, etc.,
and thus have the ability to pummel the electorate with their messages which have been carefully crafted to incite a less-informed base,
all in order to preserve their .01% version of capitalism,
Madigan is correct.

Why would we give the Citizen United types more contests to buy? Not a good idea.

Comment by cdog Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:48 am
As my teen girls would say “BOOOOOOM ROASTED”!!!!

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:48 am
When you want to pretend like you aren’t an opponent of democracy, you turn up the snark.

The voters of this state consistently and overwhelmingly say they want term limits. According to the Paul Simon Institute poll, 80% support term limits, 54% “strongly” favor them.

Let the voters decide? The voters aren’t being allowed to decide. The leadership won’t even allow the legislators to even vote to put it on the ballot so they can decide.

80%.

The contempt for voters shown on this board is impressive. Sad, but impressive.

Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:49 am
If I were Sandack, I’d be more worreid about term limits in my own district than in Madigan’s. You are going to be running against a Dem opponent with probably Donald Trump at the top of your ticket. Somehow I don’t see the Donald flying real well in DuPage and may well take some of your own down with him. Perhaps you should mind your own store.

Train111

Comment by train111 Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:51 am
Ron Sandack will win in November with the over/under 56.5%, and I suggest the over…

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:53 am
Who wants to take my right to vote for whoever over and over again?

Comment by Rabid Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:54 am
We have one rep that illustrates what term limits would bring to our goverrnment-Ken Dunkin. He is a lame duck rep so with term limits wouldnt maybe half of the house or senate based on election dates also be lame ducks and “behave” like Dunkin.

Comment by Magic carpet ride Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:55 am
“Who wants to take my right to vote for whoever over and over again?”

Answer is 78.7% of Illinois voters

Comment by Jose Abreu's next homer Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:00 am
Willy your 7:39 comment was excellent.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:00 am
That’s the very definition of “You’ve been PWNed.”

Comment by Northsider Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:03 am
If that many voters want term limits, imagine how many would say “voters, not party leaders, should decide if we have term limits.”

Any bets? I’m going with 95%.

Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:04 am
Dear Ron: Here’s the analogy- You’re ‘A’ ball, Madigan is Sandy Koufax. Hint- He’s got good ’stuff’!

Comment by Slippin' Jimmy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:05 am
- Norseman -

Thanks, bud.

It’s been in my craw for a while.

Sandack indeed does have a “job” to do, and I get that role. Putting up how Sandack goes about his business continues to be a disappointing aspect, among others, of the evolution of Ron Sandack.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:08 am
Is anybody else annoyed by Madigan’s entitlement attitude that how dare someone run in an election against him? How dare people even disagree with Madigan.

Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:12 am
- Ahoy! -

With respect.

The alleged Republican governor (Executive) decides to insert himself in the Democratic Primary of a rival (Legislative) to continue a proxy battle, but more importantly make the rival spend money in a Primary battle engineered by another branch and another party’s leader.

You see how there’s a rub?

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:16 am
Yep I’m all for mob rule to decide who I can vote for,just don’t trample on my civil rights

Comment by Rabid Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:18 am
I find it interesting that those who advocate term limits (who don’t like a particular elected official) usually don’t reside in that official’s district. Personally, I’m not an advocate of term limits per se but I may be persuaded to term limits in terms of the number of times a person can be serve as Governor, Speaker, President of the Senate.

Comment by Stones Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:22 am
Honeybear, I’m often nodding my head at your responses, but this time I have to disagree, respectfully. As has been pointed out, when you can buy the election having more open seats will not result in a better GA — just one that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation X. That is not what we need. Term limits AND Finance reform — I’m with you all the way. But for now, no, it’s not the answer.

Comment by Not quite a majority Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:23 am
C’mon Rabid, mob rule is not deciding who you can vote for. Are they gonna take your guns too?

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:27 am
Madigan’s witty repartee does not change the fact that he’s steered this state into financial ruin over the course of his long career. Hooray for his wittiness!

Comment by BigDoggie Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:33 am
- Honeybear - Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 8:48 am:

Honeybear, LOL! Thank You for that!

Comment by Jimmy H Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:53 am
Typical Madigan , calling a meaningless vote, firing up his supporters but not solving problems since the 1970’s

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:55 am
LCD, voters want term limits not for the purpose of getting rid of their own representatives, but because they have an unfavorable opinion of other people’s representatives. All other polling and election results indicate that this must be the case, or else long-sitting members would tend to not have favorable opinions and would have more trouble in re-elections.

And explain to me how constitutionally prohibiting who people can vote for is “voter empowerment”.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 9:56 am
We are lucky to have the experienced statesman Madigan to balance Rauner.

Comment by Jimmy H Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 10:09 am
Theoretically, Madigan is right. Practically, he’s wrong. Term limits for GA & elected offices would encourage more people to vote and run for public office, because their votes and participation would actually count.

Comment by justacitizen Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 10:16 am
LCD, voters can get rid of their own representatives any time. Term-limit types want to restrict your ability to choose among candidates to represent you.

I think it would be swell, for example, if the people around Wheaton were limited from sending Rep. Ives to Springfield.

But I don’t live around Wheaton. Why should I be limiting their choices?

And why should you be able to limit mine around Oak Park?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 10:19 am
===Practically, he’s wrong. Term limits for GA & elected offices would encourage more people to vote and run for public office, because their votes and participation would actually count.===

Cite, please? Make sure it’s Illinois centric.

If you can’t, that’s opinion you’re trying to pass as fact.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 10:32 am
“The contempt for voters shown on this board is impressive. Sad, but impressive.”

Elections be damned! We must protect the voters from themselves!

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 10:36 am
–The contempt for voters shown on this board is impressive. Sad, but impressive.–

Voters are the ones who keep electing the representatives of their choice in their districts.

Can you move around okay? You’re wrapped yourself in the flag pretty tightly today.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 10:51 am
==”Rauner wanted tens of thousands of dollars “wasted” to make the Speaker spend tens of thousands of dollars now, so that money can’t find it’s way into General Election Tier 1 races in November.”==

Which races are labeled as Tier I?
Who does Rauner plan to run in November?

Comment by Mama Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 12:03 pm
The biggest reason Rauner’s people want term limits is to flip IL from a Democratic state to a Republican/Tea Party state.

Comment by Mama Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 12:11 pm
I have to agree with the general sentiment that term limits are largely popular because you want to see some rep other than your own to get the boot.

The most glaring example would be Madigan. So much talk about his being around too long, but the fact is, residents of his district keep voting for him. So, should the rest of the State get to subvert the democratic process by telling his constituents that they can’t vote for their apparently preferred candidate?

Comment by illini97 Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 12:19 pm
One of the reasons that I’m not big on term limits is that people should enjoy, or suffer through, the choices they make, or don’t bother to make, at the ballot box. Objectively redistricting certainly would make sense, however.

Comment by Zonker Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 12:44 pm
I do not believe the office holder is the problem as much as the power the title itself holds… By this I mean term limits would not be needed to curb Madigan’s power if the powers held by the Speaker of the House were curbed.

Comment by GO FOR IT IN 2 Thursday, Apr 21, 16 @ 2:33 pm