Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Because… Baby Madigan!

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a reader…

Rich -

This link about state employees says 1943 is when they [first] got Election Day off.
http://www.sj-r.com/news/20161029/why-do-state-workers-get-election-day-off

This link says Speaker Madigan was born in April 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Madigan

(Tongue FIRMLY planted in cheek) Speaker Madigan is so powerful that at the age of 1 year, while still in diapers, he got the General Assembly to pass and GOP Governor Dwight Green to sign that legislation. WOW! That’s power!

* Think that’s far-fetched? Well, check out this Illinois Policy Institute opinion piece…

The 1980 cutback amendment passed overwhelmingly, eliminating a few dozen lawmakers from the House of Representatives and helping Madigan consolidate power as speaker when his peers first elected him to that office in 1983.

Yep. Madigan ordered gadfly reformer Pat Quinn to put the Cutback Amendment on the ballot to consolidate his nefarious grip on power. It’s all rigged!

* Related…

* Zorn: Anti-Madigan documentary shows why he’ll be hard to beat

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:44 am

Comments

Come on! That theory simply beggars belief! Ridiculous!

I mean– the very idea that Michael J. Madigan is natural-born offspring of human parents…

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:51 am
This election cycle lesson?

The easiest lesson is that if you even remotely thought the IPI was genuine, even to their own philosophy… You learned quickly that IPI is nothing more than a made up think tank, based in Madeupville, using the Rauner Word Jumble, 3.0 to mock themselves and actual facts…

… Don’t think so? You may have seen a movie that mocks it better than I could… paid for by… IPI… lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:51 am
===the very idea that Michael J. Madigan is natural-born offspring of human parents===

There are many who believe he was hatched at the age of 35.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:53 am
The idea that Madigan supported the cutback amendment is either totally ignorant or just a flat out lie.

Your choice, IPI.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:53 am
Speaker Madigan and the policies he’s responsible for, even though he wasn’t in the legislature yet.

Comment by Stark Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:54 am
Let’s cut to the real question on everyone’s minds: How high did he wear his diaper?

Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:55 am
Madigan…..and the chrono syntactic infundibulum Time Machine he controls!

Comment by Porgy Tirebiter Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 9:57 am
Tbh doesn’t look to me like he’s implying Quinn did Madigan’s bidding, just that the cutback consolidated power. Can’t disagree with that. One-on-one races gave huge power to party leaders on both sides.

Comment by Hmm Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:00 am
I wonder if they will say the same things when Lou Lang is Speaker?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:06 am
I feel like all of the combine conspiracy theories have been consolidated into one large Michael J. Madigan conspiracy.

Comment by Boone's is Back Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:07 am
===There are many who believe he was hatched at the age of 35.

I’ve been telling you all he is obviously an android.

==I feel like all of the combine conspiracy theories have been consolidated into one large Michael J. Madigan conspiracy.

Nailed it.

Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:10 am
Back then though, Baby Madigan had apple sauce every day at Noon.

Comment by Give Me A Break Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:11 am
Madigan is clearly an early AI creation - high pants model, of course.

Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:14 am
@Anonymous at 10:06

Bruce and the Raunerites go to bed every night and pray with all their heart that Mike Madigan remains speaker for as long as they are around. Without him, they have nothing.

Comment by Roman Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:22 am
Denying that the Cutback Amendment helped consolidate power among party leaders is plain ignorant. The point of mentioning it was to give context to the fact that the only successful voter-led referendum in modern state history happened to be a boon for those at the top of the food chain.

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:28 am
==Madigan…..and the chrono syntactic infundibulum Time Machine he controls! ==

And Malachi Constant is our governor?

Comment by Whatever Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:29 am
I want to believe someone is keeping a record of every time there’s a claim that Madigan was involved/Madigan conspiracy and one day we will all know what really happened.

Comment by ya never know Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:31 am
IPI doesn’t care if what they say is true. They only care if it motivates.

Comment by walker Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:31 am
- Austin Berg -

Then you should take that up with Quinn, not Madigan.

“Aw, you’re welcome.”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:32 am
This is nearly off line as the IPI opus on Madigan and lights at Wrigley … they use it to contend this is how Madigan wrecked the Cubs chances for success.

While wrickin’ the Cubs is a whole different topic Madigan worked slow the Cub/Tribbie effort to pre-empt local control efforts by Chicago.

Cub/Tribbies wanted blank check Madigan told them to develop a plan with Cullerton to avoid giving the neighborhood a complete F* job. Tribbieshave never forgiven
IPI missed the truth completely — go figure.

It was too bad Zorn did not mention to 2010 Tribbie series on the law firm that found zero examples special.improper treatment.

Comment by Annonin' Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:32 am
I had heard Madigan was hatched from an egg, and that Richard J. Daley has helped keep the egg warm to hatch it. Madigan imprinted on Da Mayor after hatching. And that’s how he learned to control everything. Isn’t that right?

Comment by Keyrock Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:39 am
IPI are just right wing hacks. No one with a brain in their head should trust anything they “publish.”

Comment by Chucktownian Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 10:51 am
- Oswego Willy -

Right. Because the Cutback Amendment did nothing to help the most powerful politician in the state. Move along.

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:12 am
- Austin Berg -

Again, keep up.

Quinn, not Madigan.

Willfully ignorant or…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:23 am
“Right. Because the Cutback Amendment did nothing to help the most powerful politician in the state.”

You may have conflated Madigan’s ability to take political advantage of most political events with an ability to orchestrate most political events.

History and Occam’s Razor strongly suggest the former.

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:24 am
==

- Austin Berg - Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:12 am:

- Oswego Willy -

Right. Because the Cutback Amendment did nothing to help the most powerful politician in the state. Move along. ==

Madigan wasn’t the most powerful politician when the Cutback Amendment was introduced. Not to mention Quinn was no friend of Madigan - they knew each other, but resides on opposite sides of the democratic party. Quinn was a Walker guy, Madigan was a Daley loyalist, and those two factions had been to war against each other.

Comment by ya never know Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:28 am
- @MisterJayEm -

Please point out where I’ve claimed that Madigan orchestrated the Cutback Amendment, as this post claims. Seems like you’re conflating your projection of my intent with, you know, my actual words.

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:40 am
- Oswego Willy -

Ack, trying to keep up but my brain must be overheating! So it didn’t help Madigan or it did? Waiting for an answer from you. Nowhere do I claim that Madigan asked Quinn to do his bidding. I’m giving context to a column about voter-led constitutional amendments. Why so angry?

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:43 am
===I’m giving context to a column about voter-led constitutional amendments.===

Unintended consequence. But, it was Quinn, not Madigan’s doing.

===The point of mentioning it was to give context to the fact that the only successful voter-led referendum in modern state history happened to be a boon for those at the top of the food chain.===

Nah.

The point to try to link Madigan to it shows either a willful ignorance to historical context, or …

I’m not angry, y’all make me giggle at you with your preposterousness.

I can’t make up your silliness, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 11:48 am
===I’m giving context to a column===

LOL

You didn’t provide context. You provided your pet spin.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:03 pm
Next IPI release: Madigan can morph and turn into …Hillary! Shocking revelation!

Comment by a drop in Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:04 pm
- Oswego Willy -

“Unintended consequence.” Glad we agree. I guess saying Madigan was helped by the amendment wasn’t so far-fetched after all.

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:05 pm
And, Austin, c’mon, man, you’re a propagandist. Pure and simple. You’re not interested in context to help people understand, you’re interested in creating a certain “reality.”

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:06 pm
So was Phil Rock, Pate Phillip, Lee Daniels, Tom Cross, Emil Jones… Willfully ignorant, or…

Ya figure out why I asked ya to keep up yet… or is still about Madigan.

I wish they’d go back to 3-member districts, but that seems like a “far fetched” idea now.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:08 pm
- Austin Berg -

As the screenwriter for “Madigan”, are you a member of the WGA?

I’m just… curious.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:31 pm
- Rich Miller -

I’m super proud of my work. Our documentary on the speaker provides a lot more context that you may find interesting. Have you seen it? And do you honestly believe your opinion column does not fall under your working definition of “propaganda”?

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:34 pm
===And do you honestly believe your opinion column does not fall under your working definition of “propaganda”? ===

That’s the usual propagandist spin. It’s not even worth addressing.

You are what you are. You can apparently sleep at night. Fine by me. But don’t expect me to consider you to be anything but what you are.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:42 pm
Oh, and Austin, your last comment was caught by the moderation software. Using my own name to post a personal and false attack on me here? No, you’re not a propagandist at all. Nope.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:54 pm
“Our documentary on the speaker provides a lot more context that you may find interesting.”

As long as we’re making offers of “a lot more context”: http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2016/09/29/new-madigan-documentary-surprises-some-of-the-people-in-it

“Super proud”?

Okay.

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 12:59 pm
One other thing, Mr. Berg. Do you remember writing this?

===The documentary includes an interview with a Madigan patronage worker. He insisted upon being picked up and dropped in off in different locations. “Since you’re working a government job they know what your salary is, and you’re expected to turn over usually 8 percent of your salary, whether it’s cash or ticket sales or labor or manpower. Your job comes with a premium,” he said. “I’m talking to you guys anonymously because I fear for my livelihood.”===

Except, as it turns out, an Austin, Texas actor portrayed that patronage worker.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-madigan-documentary-whistle-blower-actor-1014-chicago-inc-20161013-story.html

No propaganda there. Nope.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:00 pm
I’ve never seen Rich so worked up. Get ‘em Rich!

What did that young whipper-snapper say?? Give him the Biden and take him out back.

Comment by Full court press Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:05 pm
- Rich Miller -

Remember the part in the movie where we say “an actor portrays his words”?

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:05 pm
- Rich Miller -

Wait. Does this mean you’re not gonna be in any more of our movies?

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:07 pm
===Remember the part in the movie===

I haven’t seen your movie. I did, however, read your column in the Southtown, which is excerpted above. Didn’t notice any mention of an actor.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:20 pm
Mr. Berg lacks honesty in his writing when trying to make alleged honest points.

Readers unaware of the disingenuous place Mr. Berg is writing from… is what Mr. Berg counts on to mine his nonsense.

It’s not context, it’s messaging trying to be disguised, and he knows it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:21 pm
- Rich Miller -

We’ll overnight you a DVD. Looks like you opened the screener link but didn’t watch? What gives? Your point on my column is confusing. We had an actor deliver his words in order to protect his ID. You should watch the movie before commenting on it.

Comment by Austin Berg Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:35 pm
===We’ll overnight you a DVD===

Save your money.

===Your point on my column is confusing. We had an actor deliver his words in order to protect his ID.===

And you didn’t mention that in your column.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:43 pm
===you’re not gonna be in any more===

I wouldn’t have been in the first one if your guys hadn’t lied to me. And I’d bet money y’all knew that or you would’ve told me.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:49 pm
Mr Austin Berg wrote an article where he quoted a person, but in his article he never mentioned that when that person was portrayed on film there was a voiceover used?

Seriously, what is happening to journalism and why does IPI think they can get away with it? When someone does a voiceover of a real quote YOU WRITE in your article that those words have once been portrayed by an actor.

Every time I quote Lincoln I make sure to note that Damiel Day Lewis portrayed those words. It’s journalism 101, people!

Comment by Full court press Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 1:51 pm
I’m not sure we should believe that this person even exists. They lied about who was behind their little documentary. If they can lie about something as trivial as that then why should we believe anything else? They started with a conclusion and made a “documentary” to get them to that conclusion. Hardly work to be proud of.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:06 pm
I actually saw the film. The use of an actor was very clearly disclosed. This is a non-issue.

I’d love to hear someone tell me what is factually incorrect about the film. The argument about Madigan’s use of patronage and sham candidates is strong

Comment by MovieWatcher Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:18 pm
==was very clearly disclosed===

So? My point was about the column, which was published before the film.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:22 pm
- MovieWatcher -

The mere fact an alleged documentary won’t disclose to this’d they want to be in the film who is funding the work and under what premise this documentary is being told by not disclosing the funding source makes the entire work, bring as charitable as possible, disingenuous and downright phony to those watching and those duped to be a part of something they’d never agree to if proposed “honestly”

Other than that… It’s entire beginning premise…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:23 pm
Doesn’t the column mean that when they interviewed the patronage worker he insisted that they picked him up and dropped him off at different places? The fact that they used an actor to repeat his words on camera doesn’t change the fact that he was scared to talk about how he got his job.

Comment by Yelling Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:31 pm
This whole bit about the actor is a distraction and seems to be an excuse to not attack the argument itself.

Biased, maybe. You don’t like the funding…fine.

But, what is wrong with the argument? To stick to a single point from the movie, did Madigan not pull shady stuff by having 2 fake candidates in the Gonzalez election? Is any of that not true? The argument is pretty compelling.

Comment by MovieWatcher Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:38 pm
- MovieWatcher -

Is the movie “Rudy” a documentary on Notre Dame Football?

Why?

Your ignorance as to the dishonesty factoring into the mere premise is questionable judgment on your part… at best.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:42 pm
==I’m super proud of my work. Our documentary on the speaker provides a lot more context that you may find interesting.==

I saw the documentary. The biggest reaction it got from me was a guffaw when one of the interviewees (an former legislator, as I recall) explained that our property taxes are the highest in the nation, and that he knew a couple of retired school administrators drawing 6-figure retirement pay and “there goes your property tax bill.” Retired Chicago teachers are paid out of property tax revenues, but Chicago property taxes are low. Non-Chicago property taxes are much higher, but none of them are used to pay teachers’ retirement. The link isn’t there.
The rest was just too superficial to hold my attention for more than a minute at a time, which may be why I didn’t know that patronage worker was an actor until it popped up in the credits as I was about to turn it off.

As to the fake candidate accusation, I suspect it is true and would love to see the practice stopped somehow. But I also suspect that Gonzalez was just as fake, and he received a lot more support from someone.

Comment by Whatever Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:53 pm
- O W -

Fine, my ignorance is questionable.

Let me ask one yes or no question: Do you believe Madigan put up 2 shill candidates in his own election?

Comment by MovieWatcher Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:53 pm
===and would love to see the practice stopped somehow===

I can’t see how you can stop it. If they legally gathered the required number of signatures, the candidate goes on the ballot. But, hey, I’m open to suggestions.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 2:58 pm
===Let me ask one yes or no question: Do you believe Madigan put up 2 shill candidates in his own election?===

Absolutely. As Republicans have also done…

As Banks, McAuliffe, Capparelli, DeLeo did to protect each other too.

Anyone can run. Are you saying people can’t run?

It’s the oldest play in the book, both sides have done it for years, some even help friends with plants for the General.

This is the business, both side…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 3:00 pm
Maybe the candidate, who was not a candidate, was the patronage worker, who was not a patronage worker, that appeared in the documentary, which isn’t really a documentary, made by journalists, who aren’t really journalists.

Comment by Kafka Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 3:03 pm
Honestly, I don’t know my IL politics well enough to comment on the other cases. But, I’m willing to concede that it has been done on both sides of the aisle. That is not be a valid excuse.

Dealing with the practice in fair way would be tricky…But, we have to stop accepting “this is the business” arguments.

Illinois is broke and corrupt. People need to wake up to that fact. We need to start doing something differently…

Comment by MovieWatcher Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 3:20 pm
===llinois is broke and corrupt. People need to wake up to that fact. We need to start doing something differently===

Is holding the state hostage cool with you?

‘Cause even Crain’s is saying by nearly every measure, Illinois is worse off since Bruce Rauner became governor.

“Fire Madigan” is worth 1.4% increase in growth, and measured by just over $500 million in new revenue.

===Honestly, I don’t know my IL politics well enough to comment on the other cases.===

This is the DEEP end of the pool. If you like to question something, done by any one side, you may want to know some institutional knowledge. With respect.

===But, I’m willing to concede that it has been done on both sides of the aisle. That is not be a valid excuse===

But you were very willing to tear into Madigan… nothing said about both sides. Again, with respect, I appreciate your introspect, but if fixing all this was so easy, it woulda been done already, and both sides need to come together to do it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 3:26 pm
==I can’t see how you can stop it. If they legally gathered the required number of signatures, the candidate goes on the ballot. But, hey, I’m open to suggestions.==
Mr. Miller, if I had any suggestions that weren’t laughably unworkable, I would have mentioned them.

Comment by Whatever Monday, Oct 31, 16 @ 3:43 pm