Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pawar talks about his plans and addresses the “Madigan question”

Posted in:

Illinois

* Announced Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chicago Ald. Ameya Pawar was in the Quad Cities this week…

Pawar says he believes in a graduated income tax rate for the wealthy to pay their fair share.

He’s also campaigning on providing universal daycare, increasing funding to local schools and equitable funding that makes districts less reliant on property taxes. […]

“I also want to run on a vision,” Pawar said. “And, what I’m trying to present to people is to say we need a new deal for Illinois. Enough of this shaking up Springfield and cutting benefits and wages, we need a deal, a new deal for all Illinoisans that helps them get a fair shake of the middle class and the American dream.”

* And…

He said government, whether local, state or national, is getting a bad name from those claiming and repeating “that everything government does is broken or evil or corrupt.” However, he said, government “created the largest middle class we’ve ever seen after the Great Depression,” citing the New Deal, Civil Rights Act and Great Society programs.

“So I think government can be a force for good,” he said on a visit to the Quad-Cities on Wednesday to attend a Democratic Party rally. “And that means you have to elect people who believe in government and not people who want to run government like a business. So I think that means going out and talking to people and changing the narrative. […]

He also favors universal day care and criminal justice reforms.

“It doesn’t matter where you go in Illinois, it’s poor people being incarcerated for substance abuse and mental health issues,” Ald. Pawar said. “That’s got to change.”

That comment about government creating the middle class could get him in some trouble, but he is, after all, the leftie in the race.

* I was interested, however, in his response to a question about where he stood on Speaker Madigan, which wasn’t reported but is in the raw video of a TV interview. He started out by repeating something he’s said many times: “I’ve only met him once, after I won in 2011.” The interviewer followed up by saying Madigan has a record as well…

“He has a record as well, but I think if you turn everyone into a bogeyman you can’t expect them to come to the table and work with you.

“I’ll put it in these terms, private sector terms, since that’s what the governor likes. What CEO of a company comes in and says ‘I can’t do my job because the operations manager won’t let me?’ You have to be able to work with people.

“He’s basically turned over the keys to the governor’s mansion and office to the Speaker and says ‘I can’t do anything, it’s all his fault.’ He ran for the job, but now he says he can’t do the job because of one person. That’s not how it works in any other level of government in any time in history.

“His goal is to reduce benefits and destroy collective bargaining rights. And the Speaker is standing in the way of that. Do I agree with the Speaker on everything? Absolutely not. I also don’t know him. But I’m also not going to sit and demonize someone who I might have to work with.

“That includes the Republican leaders. I don’t think Republicans are bad, they’re just a different party. But they’re people who care about their constituents.

“I just can’t say the same thing about Gov. Rauner in terms of whether he actually just cares about his wealthy friends and an agenda or whether he has a real goal in Illinois other than just creating constant chaos.”

He needs to tighten that up a lot, and drop the “operations manager” analogy because it doesn’t quite work. In the private sector, a CEO can just fire an operations manager.

Other than that, it’s not a bad way to deal with the “Madigan question” that every candidate at every level will get as 2018 nears.

* Related…

* Charlie Wheeler: Check The Facts Before Buying Into The King Madigan Storyline: However, even a rudimentary understanding of state government and a cursory online search of past Illinois leaders would disclose how Madigan’s supposed “running” of the state for 34 years — his “kingship” — is nonsense. For starters, while speaker is undeniably a powerful position in the House, the post has little to no sway in the other legislative chamber, the Senate. And, of course, whatever legislators decide to do, the governor has almost the final say with a range of veto powers. But wait, can’t the legislature override vetoes? Sure, but despite their veto-proof majorities on paper, Democrats overrode only two of more than 100 vetoes in Rauner’s first two years, one of them with his blessing.

* Austin Berg: Madigan makes history as Illinois bleeds: Madigan decides which bills receive a public hearing, who chairs committees and receives the $10,000 stipends that go with them, who votes in committees, and when bills are called before the full House. That’s not democracy. That’s a dictatorship.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:11 am

Comments

==“I also want to run on a vision,”==

Getting sick of this line. Don’t say you want to, like something’s stopping you. Just run on a vision.

==Other than that, it’s not a bad way to deal with the “Madigan question” that every candidate at every level will get as 2018 nears.==

No, it’s not. And he certainly has time to tighten it up.

In general, the IPI/”Because Madigan!” folks never really contend with the fact that the voters elect a lot of Democrats, and it’s no secret that they’ve all got some connection to Madigan.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:19 am
===“I’ll put it in these terms, private sector terms, since that’s what the governor likes. What CEO of a company comes in and says ‘I can’t do my job because the operations manager won’t let me?’ You have to be able to work with people.===

(Sigh)

Alderman,

In state government, we have co-equal branches.

Making a statement where your analogy shows you lack an understanding of how the legislative and executive are intertwined, or further you can’t grasp that Rauner may not grasp it and you are playing off it as real…

… you’re making yourself look like a person not ready to lead the 5th largest state in America.

Maybe your messaging needs to coincide with the Illinois Constitution just a tad before you think your cleverness is “teaching” Rauner anything.

I’m more harsh than Rich has been because for me it’s missteps like this, and not fully comprehending what your doing is exactly why I feel a city council member, be it you or Evelyn Sanguinetti, are both not qualified to lead Illinois in the capacity of Governor.

Tightening your message on the basic grasps of what office you wish to hold is more of a warning sign then a red flag, and far more, for me, a clear indication that not only was I right about Evelyn Sanguinetti, you being the Democratic version of her isn’t changing my thoughts.

Do way, way, way better to seem in touch with what the job of governor actually is.

Oswego Willy

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:21 am
Any Democratic candidate for Governor whose not willing to say that Madigan should no longer be the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois and won’t commit to working to replace him as Speaker with another democratic legislator who is committed to the democratic agenda is doomed to defeat. They shouldn’t even get in the race.

Team Rauner have the money and commitment to make this election a referendum on Madigan. They are refocusing the paradigm. Re-Elections are always referendums on incumbents. But Team Rauner’s narrative is making Madigan the incumbent and continuing to make Rauner the Change agent. To defeat this, the Democratic candidate for governor must completely separate from Madigan. He or She must be bold. A soft shoe is going to be immediately met with a new face on the Boss Madigan website.

Comment by Altgelds Ghost Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:22 am
What’s more remarkable: that Charlie has to point out the obvious nonsense of the “King Madigan” theory or that the deep-thinkers at IPI and troncistan believe they can credibly pretend to be independent after being folded into Rauner’s propaganda machine?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:26 am
Altgelds Ghost -

But that’s not how government works. A Democrat is free to say they don’t support the Speaker, but a gubernatorial candidate can’t “commit to working to replace him” because they have absolutely zero say over the matter.

Also, going into the race essentially saying “Rauner is right about his biggest campaign issue; Madigan is ruining the state” is monumentally stupid. It absolves Rauner of most if not all of the blame he deserves.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:28 am
===Team Rauner have the money and commitment to make this election a referendum on Madigan.===

That is yet to be seen.

If your premise held water, Rauner himself would not be under water on his own favorables.

Can’t beat someone with no one, but Rauner is now…

“Pat Quinn failed”…

Governors own.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:30 am
I dunno, I thought that was a pretty amazing and coherent answer to the Madigan question that more democrats would be wise to adopt. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s standing against an extreme agenda of weakening unions and our social safety net. And pointing out what a weak ineffective governor he is for whining about one guy. Hit all the points. We’re going to gripe about the one-to-one transferability of his analogy? k i guess

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:32 am
I strongly disagree. Team Rauner tested the message in 2016 and it worked very well.

Lets review the results

Clinton and Duckworth — Not attacked for Madigan relationship. Won by 16 and 14 respectively

Mendoza — Attacked for Madigan relationship. Won by 2 points

House D’s — Attacked for Madigan relationship — Lost net 4 seats. Failed to pick up ant seats in Chicagoland event though top of the ticket one huge victory

Senate D’s — Attacked for Madigan relationship — Lost net 1 Failed to pick up any seats in Chicagoland even though top of the ticket won huge victory.

Then Team Rauner immediately started the Boss Madigan campaign. OW, your living in the past. We are experiencing a paradigm shift. Madigan owns the problem. Talk to your neighbors and friends. Talk to most legislators from either party. Look at the poll results. Yes Rauner numbers aren’t great, but compared to Madigans they are much better.

The Dems need to get out from under the weight of Madigan or the results of 2016 will just be a warning sign missed as they drive over the cliff.

Comment by Altgelds Ghost Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:39 am
==Do I agree with the Speaker on everything? Absolutely not. I also don’t know him. But I’m also not going to sit and demonize someone who I might have to work with.

That includes the Republican leaders. I don’t think Republicans are bad, they’re just a different party. But they’re people who care about their constituents.==

More of this please.

P.S. Do I like the format of asking your own question and then answering it? No, but on substance, I like this a lot.

Comment by SAP Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:40 am
So he is in effect saying Madigan should not be portrayed as the bogeyman while he portrays Rauner as the bogeyman who just tossed the keys at Madigan and walked away?

Keep tapping those glass slippers and believing your back in Oz.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:47 am
Agree with Johnnypyledriver- I think it’s early to talk about viability- particularly with the YUGEEE campaign cash difference between Pawar and Rauner- BUT this was a really good message and draws a strict us v. them contrast.

Comment by Boone's is Back Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:47 am
While rough around the edges, Pawar’s comments on Madigan are refreshing. Dems need to provide context, and Pawar is trying. I don’t think he has any kind of shot at being their 2018 candidate, though.

Comment by illinoised Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:48 am
“So - Louis G Atsaves -, you are in effect saying Rauner should not be portrayed as the bogeyman while he portrays Madigan as the bogeyman who just tossed to Rauner his actual constitutional duties like submit a budget and walked away?”

Right? Exactly right.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:51 am
== Pawar is trying. I don’t think he has any kind of shot at being their 2018 candidate, though.== Agreed, unless Kennedy and Pritzker give him all their money.

Comment by SAP Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:51 am
OW - do you really think Pawar lacks an understanding of how the legislative and executive are intertwined? I don’t.

What I think he is doing is oversimplifying the issue, arguably unfairly, to make Rauner look as weak and ineffective as possible. Which is what someone who is running for his job should be doing.

As Rauner has shown over the last 2 years, and Trump’s win shown on a national level, a candidate can say a lot of unfair, even factually wrong statements that informed, intelligent people abhor - but it won’t hurt their chances in getting elected. To the contrary (unfortunately)

Comment by Henry Francis Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:51 am
Too much space and words wasted on a guy who will be long gone by filing day

Comment by Wow Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:56 am
Is Pawar’s run more about getting his name out/raising cash for a possible mayoral run in 2019? He did term limit himself so…

Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:00 pm
- while he portrays Rauner as the bogeyman who just tossed the keys at Madigan and walked away? -

I wouldn’t say he’s portraying Rauner as a bogeyman, Louis. More like a whining child who when he doesn’t get his way, just keeps whining.

But keep cashing those checks from the WCC, pal.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:07 pm
===do you really think Pawar lacks an understanding of how the legislative and executive are intertwined? I don’t.===

I base my statement on a statement actually made by Pawar, an alleged crafted statement and making an example that clearly shows a lacking in understanding of the separation of powers.

===“I’ll put it in these terms, private sector terms, since that’s what the governor likes. What CEO of a company comes in and says ‘I can’t do my job because the operations manager won’t let me?’ You have to be able to work with people.===

No one had a “gotcha” question, no one forced a continued thought. Pawar made a statement that completely lacks in understanding, then in the next paragraph tried to not only explain it, but support it.

You say you don’t. Where is your cite like mine above?

You commented…

===What I think he is doing is oversimplifying the issue, arguably unfairly, to make Rauner look as weak and ineffective as possible. Which is what someone who is running for his job should be doing.===

Your rehabbing this misstep also “excuses” an alleged candidate for governor’s lack of understanding of messaging as using a useless example that has no bearing in governing, and trying to frame all this mess as “Rauner” isn’t a good way to portray a candidate understanding what they are running for and the duties of the office.

While I agree with the sentiment of your last paragraph, electing the Democratic version of Slip and Sue, less the personal injury case, should not lead to allowing any words said to be acceptable or not called out.

With respect.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:09 pm
- Altgelds Ghost -

That’s a lot of typing that never addressed Rauner being upside down on his own favorables… and that Rauner himself hasn’t been on the ballot.

You get back to me on that…

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:11 pm
- Altgelds Ghost -

Mendoza won by 4 points, not 2.

Also Mendoza won, so there’s that.

Mendoza was also statewide, the GA seats were not.

And… as awful and dreadful the Mendoza Campaign, as a campaign was, Rauner peeled 10% off the margin of Clinton and Duckworth, but… couldn’t close the deal.

If anything, as close as it was, that’s a credit to Rauner’s Crew, but it wasn’t Rauner running.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:17 pm
==That is yet to be seen.==

It’s yet to be seen if he’ll be successful at it, and I have my doubts, but he’s definitely got the money for it, and it’s clearly his intent.

==Lets review the results==

I think it’s pretty tricky to tease out the “Because Madigan!” of it all from the rest of craziness of this election. I don’t think Clinton won too many of those districts that Republicans picked up.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:19 pm
A better analogy would be: I can’t run Caterpillar because JP Morgan Chase won’t destroy my unions or tell me how much my annual budget should be.

Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:20 pm
===A better analogy===

That’s not bad at all.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:27 pm
OW - respectfully - it sounds like you are saying politicians don’t say things that they know are untrue, or inconsistent with what they truly think. (I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you know better). I am saying they (unfortunately) say such things nonetheless to appeal to the audience in front of them.

That was my point. I don’t need a citation that tells me Pawar understands the separation of powers. He’s a smart dude. He gets it.

Also, I get your point on “governing”. However in today’s age of Rauner and Trump, governing is barely on the radar. It’s all campaigning. I hate this, but it is what it has become.

With respect.

Comment by Henry Francis Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:28 pm
===I don’t need a citation that tells me Pawar understands the separation of powers===

… and yet… I have one that shows Pawar seemingly has no clue to the separation of powers…

- A Jack -

That’s way better, send it to Pawar before he “thinks” again.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:37 pm
Paparazzi sounds like an adult to me. I would vote for him.

Comment by Barrington Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:32 pm
That was Pawar, not Paparrazi in the previous message.

Comment by Barrngton Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:34 pm
OW and Anonymous

2 points

1 — It is possible for a Dem candidate with money to say he will work to change the speaker of his own party. Look how quickly Rauner took control of both republican Legislative Caucuses. Most Legislators will dance to what ever tune the person who’s paying calls.

2 — Clinton did lose the downstate districts that the Dems lost, but she won many Chicagoland districts that the GOP legislators held on to. For God’s sake, only one GOP legislator was defeated in an election that had a landslide for the D’s at the top of the ticket under a map that the Dems drew.

Madigan is the issue. Talk to people form Lakeview to Lincolnwood to Lake in the Hills and they will all point to the same problem. Nearly 40 years as speaker and 20 as DPI chair is too long for anyone. The state is in decline and there has been one constant in the decline.

Democrats who fail to accept this are going to lose.

As for Rauners numbers, they are not good, but I believe people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of Madigan. If the voters in 2018 perceive the Dem nominee for Gov as a proxy for Madigan, you tell me how that choice is gonna look.

In my opinion, its gonna look pretty good for Rauner

Comment by Altgelds Ghost Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:40 pm
Wheeler clearly has not been in a meeting under the dome.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:45 pm
Altgeld’s Ghost,

I agree with you to some extent about Madigan but because of that, it doesn’t matter what the record of the D challenger is, the R’s will immediately list them on the BossMadigan web site and charge that they are a Madigan stooge, regardless of the facts.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:16 pm
===It is possible for a Dem candidate with money to say he will work to change the speaker of his own party. Look how quickly Rauner took control of both republican Legislative Caucuses. Most Legislators will dance to what ever tune the person who’s paying calls.===

Pawar is “broke”… $50,000 isn’t even tip money for a chicken dinner fundraiser now

===Madigan is the issue===

“Pat Quinn failed” - Skyhook in reverse. That’s the issue. Otherwise all your typing would be able to explain away Rauner being upside down in polling.

===As for Rauners numbers, they are not good, but I believe people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of Madigan===

Madigan isn’t running against Rauner. Either keep up or explain how Rauner being upside down isn’t “Governors own”

===If the voters in 2018 perceive the Dem nominee for Gov as a proxy for Madigan, you tell me how that choice is gonna look.===

And yet Mendoza as a proxy won. Hmm.

===In my opinion, its gonna look pretty good for Rauner.===

I never said it wasn’t, but your conclusion isn’t based on looking at rational evidence.

I skipped your #2 because you seem to fail to grasp the whole statewide thingy… lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:21 pm
===“So - Louis G Atsaves -, you are in effect saying Rauner should not be portrayed as the bogeyman while he portrays Madigan as the bogeyman who just tossed to Rauner his actual constitutional duties like submit a budget and walked away?”===

No Willy. Didn’t say that at all.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:07 pm
Then - Louis G Atsaves -

How is “BossMadigan.Com” fit into your lil explanation?

You can throw in the 18 RoboCalls too, if you’d like.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:10 pm
Negotiations and compromise. If the Governor will not do either, he has run for the wrong job. Fire instead of foster. He should olive branch Madigan and the unions and see what he could find and win at. Too much Ego and not WE….

Comment by Bear3 Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 4:35 pm
===How is “BossMadigan.Com” fit into your lil explanation?===

Your still missing the point I made.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 4:52 pm
- Louis G. Atsaves -

===Your still missing the point I made.===

Raunerite apologist hypocrisy?

Nah, I got it, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 5:00 pm
–Wheeler clearly has not been in a meeting under the dome.–

You really should put a handle to that spectacular ignorance. You wouldn’t want someone else to take credit for the dumbest comment ever.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 20, 17 @ 9:43 am