Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Ives takes heat for claiming solution to Chicago’s gun crime is fathers in the home

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube

Gubernatorial candidate Chris Kennedy left the stage during a forum on Monday after Republican State Rep. Jeanne Ives argued the solution to gun violence in Illinois was having “more fathers in the home.”

Kennedy, a Democrat, replied by pointing out he had grown up without a father before standing up and walking out of the venue. […]

“It hit a very special nerve for me,” Kennedy said in an interview with NBC 5. “I lost my father to someone with a gun. For someone to say simply the solution is to have a father-in-law – I don’t know. How shall I react? What should my family have done?”

Kathleen Murphy, a spokesperson for Ives, said in a statement Monday night that the representative did not mean to offend Mr. Kennedy during the forum.

However, Murphy also reiterated the importance of fathers in domestic life, citing “similar statements” like President Barack Obama’s 2008 Father’s Day speech at the Apostolic Church of God on Chicago’s South Side. In his speech, the then-candidate said, “too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes.”

“Those are President Obama’s words, and that was what she was echoing today,” Murphy said. “She certainly meant no offense to Mr. Kennedy.”

Nobody doubts the importance of fathers. But that’s not what Rep. Ives said at the event. She claimed that putting fathers in the home was the actual solution…

“The problem is the gun violence in this city of Chicago, predominantly. And you know how you’re going to solve it? Fathers in the home,” she said. As the audience booed and shouted, she repeated, “Fathers in the home.”

* More…

A Democratic rival for the nomination, J.B. Pritzker, who lost his father to a heart attack at age 7, said of Kennedy’s response to Ives, “I think (there are) too many people unfortunately losing family members to gun violence. I don’t know what was going through Chris’ head other than I can only imagine the grief that he feels when he thinks of his father’s death.”

As for Ives’ solution for gun crimes, Pritzker said, “It’s not just an issue about how many parents are in the home. It’s about quality education. It’s about health care. It’s about jobs. If you want to avoid violence in a community, provide real economic opportunity. She doesn’t understand any of that.”

* Meanwhile, from a Monday press release…

When Does the #MeToo Reckoning Come to Springfield?

Today, State Representative Jeanne Ives, a conservative reform Republican for Governor, and whistleblower Denise Rotheimer held a joint press conference during which Ives called on both parties to end their bipartisan protection racket and take the complaints of sexual harassment seriously. She demanded that:

(1) The Legislative Ethics Committee should invite Denise Rotheimer to testify to her claims against State Sen. Ira Silverstein at their next hearing.

(2) The 27 other complaints that were ignored for as long as three years should be immediately released to the public with the names of the accusers redacted.

We have elections in March and November. It is because of the failures of legislative leaders, the ethics committee and the governor that we’re at this point. They failed to do their job and ensure that a Legislative Inspector General was in place and that complaints were handled in a timely manner. The voters shouldn’t have to pay the price. Given the political gamesmanship, it is appropriate to give these complaints the opportunities to be adjudicated in the court of public opinion in addition to, where appropriate, public hearings and/or courts of law.

Let me be clear, I don’t know the names or party affiliations of the other legislators against whom claims have been filed. And I don’t care who they are.
We either have a system that checks the abuses of those in power or we have a system where those in power abuse.

Rotheimer’s testimony illustrated the bipartisan nature of the sexual harassment crisis in Springfield. She noted that she turned to Senate President John Cullerton and House Minority Leader Jim Durkin. Neither came to her aide. Both brushed off her complaints with lip-service, instead of action.

Rotheimer added that she is supporting Jeanne Ives in the Governor’s Race because of her independence as a State Representative saying, “Jeanne Ives is the type of leader we need in the Governor’s Office. Jeanne Ives will be in charge. She has already taken charge by using her leadership position to confront the culture of corruption in Springfield and to challenge the policies that enable it to exist.”

The video of the Rotheimer and Ives event is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:13 am

Comments

“Fathers in the home” is her solution?

How is she going to accomplish that goal? Ban divorce?

What legislation does she believe will put fathers in homes?

Beyond the practical implications of her statement, there seems to be something else going on. I can’t hear anything but the dog sure is going crazy.

Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:18 am
This is the same Representative who said single mothers shouldn’t get state assistance until they track down the father of the child or until the mother finds a stand in “father” to say they will take responsibility for the child.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:19 am
Ives answer is disappointing. It is solely meant to appeal to a base. If “a father in the home” solves the problem, what is your legislative answer? As a governor, what can and will you do about it? Will you provide the community with resources and fund community partners to fill that gap? Or is it just a drive by comment that does nothing to add to the discussion.

Comment by Robert Lincoln Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:24 am
Sorry, Rep. Ives. Wasn’t going to stay with a man I was afraid of just to have a father in the home. That comment actually came off as misogynistic to me. Is it possible for a female to be a misogynist?

Comment by HangingOn Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:25 am
Ives’ comment and Kennedy’s response….

It takes just a moment, a comment, a response, for a campaign and campaign season to change. Is here one of those moments?

This is the time for Kennedy and Joy to begin their vision off an ignorant comment by someone ignorant to history’s

The Kennedy trademark is overreaching themes to bridge people together, united by the vision of a Kennedy.

Here is that moment. Can Kennedy make this moment be more than an embarrassing moment (to say the least) for Jeanne Ives?

This puts Kennedy and Joy in the spotlight on an issue and a campaign plank that can elevate the visibility and credibility of that ticket and resonate to voters and voting blocs that see Kennedy and Joy as leaders with vision, with a theme wrapped in shared pain.

Can Kennedy/Joy, in a way they feel is important and comfortable and thoughtful, make the connection in themes and campaign on this important issue.

They have the stories, they have the chance, but can they?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:30 am
Nationally and in Chicago there’s been an uptick in homicides the last two years. But it’s also true that the homicide and violent crime rates nationally and in Chicago had been on a steady decline for three decades prior to that.

By her logic, shouldn’t Rep. Ives give a shoutout to the single moms for a job well done?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/

Comment by wordslnger Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:32 am
Ives should continue to appear with Democratic candidates. She can score points with conservatives and get all sorts of free publicity by going into the lion’s den and challenging liberal orthodoxy, and the Dem candidates can roll up applause-lines by pushing back against her wackiness. A win-win.

Comment by Roman Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:34 am
==What legislation does she believe will put fathers in homes?==

Conversely, what is the current state legislation that keeps fathers out of homes?

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:34 am
The legislative solution for “more fathers in the home,” to the extent there is one, is reducing incarceration rates by eliminating mandatory sentencing rules, investing a lot of money in education,social services, and non-arrest based intervention programs, legalizing marijuana, banning criminal history checks for potential employees, and pardoning every nonviolent offender currently locked up for marijuana possession.

I don’t really see Ives embracing that agenda…

Comment by Actual Red Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:38 am
FWIW, in 2015, Chicago ranked 25th among cities over 100K for homicide rate, according to Pew.

Actually, as you’ll see in the link below, Chicago ranked lower as high-rate cities such as Cleveland and Newark didn’t make this particular study.

The question for Chicago has never been about rate, but why it has more homicides than higher-population NYC and LA.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_5a789407-4d43-5403-ad56-7c47880bda8e.html#1

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:38 am
Ives pronounced misogyny “me-so-jeannie”. Don’t believe me? Check out the video yourself on the link Rich provided.

Comment by Chi Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:39 am
Oswego Willy: “The Kennedy trademark is overreaching themes to bridge people together, united by the vision of a Kennedy.”

Mary Jo Kapachne is probably offended when you use “bridge” and Kennedy” in the same sentence.

Comment by Soapbox Derby Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:41 am
So single moms are to be blamed for gun violence?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:43 am
The knee-jerk insanity of the loony left is fun to watch.

Comment by Chris P. Bacon Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:48 am
And with that move, Rotheimer’s last shred of credibility–gone.

Comment by Molly Maguire Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:50 am
Does Rotheimer want her complaint to be taken seriously, or does she want to use it for publicity? Asking for a friend

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:53 am
–The knee-jerk insanity of the loony left is fun to watch.–

Thanks for your intelligent, informed and thoughtful contribution. You’ve really got game.

Now, back to the TV box.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:54 am
President Obama and Jeanne Ives are in agreement

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:54 am
===President Obama and Jeanne Ives are in agreement===

No, they are not. Learn to read, bot.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:57 am
This has gotta’ be a first: a ultra right wing conservative that claims she has the same position as President Obama.

Comment by Not It Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 11:57 am
====By her logic, shouldn’t Rep. Ives give a shoutout to the single moms for a job well done?

Word, take it one step further. Single parent homes which are predominantly single mother homes increased through the long period of declining violence. So….maybe that’s not it.

Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:00 pm
Nothing like the old “Obama did it too” response to valid criticism. Problem is, Ives just asserted that Black males are inherently violent.

At least we know if elected Ives will be quick to blame for Illinois’ woes on minority groups and stereotypes.

Comment by Swift Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:02 pm
Anyone who has seen Rep. Ives during floor debate knows this was pretty standard for her.

The article goes on to attribute this to Ives as well: “I’m sure Ra Joy, whoever the perpetrator was against his son, I’m imagining that person also did not have a father figure in the home.”

Now, why would she imagine that?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:04 pm
So, Republican challenger Ives’ solution to gun violence in Chicago = “fathers in the house.” Republican governor Rauner’s solution to black unemployment = “get rid of Madigan.”

Nobody’s insisting that either have a full command of the history and public policy approaches to either issue, though of course it would be nice if they had listened to policy experts and committed a few actual talking points to memory.

But this level is a bit too much, regardless of how it will play to their base(s).

The state’s citizens deserve more serious governors and would-be governors.

But explanations of this order are a step too far.

Comment by dbk Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:10 pm
Anyone argue with LP’s point? No?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:10 pm
Anyone argue with LP’s point? No?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:10 pm
===Anyone argue with LP’s point? No?===

Rich called him out.

Keep up.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:12 pm
- Problem is, Ives just asserted that Black males are inherently violent.-

She did?

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:12 pm
–Anyone argue with LP’s point? No?–

Read harder.

===President Obama and Jeanne Ives are in agreement===

No, they are not. Learn to read, bot.–

–Word, take it one step further. Single parent homes which are predominantly single mother homes increased through the long period of declining violence. So….maybe that’s not it.–

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:15 pm
Good on Kennedy for standing up and calling out Ives’ ridiculousness. This might be his best moment of the campaign so far.

And if Ives truly does believe this nonsense, she should support Pritzker’s plan to legalize marijuana. That’s one strategy that might actually help keep some fathers in the home, instead of in jail on possession or paraphernalia charges.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:17 pm
Anyone argue with LP’s point? No?

Argue what, that missing fathers is a good thing?

Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:23 pm
I Second OWs comment about the fulcrum moment
Although I feel he blew it.
That would have been the moment
For empassioned Kennedy
Eloquently ripping Ives to pieces
A roaring Kennedy
Fire in the belly Kennedy
That would have been
A game changer
But……..
We got a comment
And he fled.
I was really
Genuinely saddened
Honestly
The action proves to me
Kennedy flees from action
Or doesn’t show up for it.
Wow did I honestly not like writing that.
I don’t blame him
I can’t hold myself apart.
I too fail to show up enough
I too flee from action to much.
I get it.
But if we are to have a candidate
Who can best
The great master of
deception
Destruction
Obfuscation
We must have a
Stand and fight candidate
Who can harness the magma
Of personal pain.

Pritzker could have done the same.
I was disappointed
By both
But Kennedy lost a huge moment
It’s gone now.

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:29 pm
==At least we know if elected Ives will be quick to blame for Illinois’ woes on minority groups and stereotypes.==

Worked for trump, why not for Jeanne? Obviously part of the plan for the next couple months is to use this type of rhetoric to convince Illinois trump supporters to back her over Rauner in the primary. Time is running out but if she can catch fire on social media or convince a wealthy out of state patron to fund her, that group puts her well within striking distance of Bruce come March.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:31 pm
Men skipping out on their duties to their families is the single biggest problem facing our country. Denzel Washington had some interesting comments on this recently. But it is fair to point out that she isn’t offering a legislative solution.

Comment by AndyIllini Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:31 pm
So Chris. I’ve read your gun violence policy. Gibberish. What do you REALLY want to do with guns? I have personally asked Biss. He still doesn’t believe in the 2nd amendment. Do you? Give Rauner a chance why don’t you. You want to keep them 4 out of 5 union households at home come election day? How I pray for a conservative democrat to emerge. Are we extinct?

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:32 pm
==Anyone argue with LP’s point?==

Her assumption is disproved by the fact that two of the leading Dem candidates grew up without their fathers…

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 12:41 pm
Awful dog whistling both by Ives and in some comments here. If Kennedy contributes nothing else to the 2018 political landscape other than bringing this attention to it, well, that’s a year worth being proud of.

Comment by Chris Widger Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:03 pm
Pot calling kettle:

Two of the leading Dem candidates did grow up without fathers, but they didn’t grow up without money.

A big difference than what most single parent homes experience…..

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:07 pm
===And you know how you’re going to solve it? Fathers in the home,” she said.===

In some conservative Republican circles, this is an elegant statement of their preferred public policy. It is elegant in that it not only blames the victim, it indemnifies others from any blame.

You see, the violence in Chicago isn’t because of easy access to guns. It’s not because of poverty and segregation. It’s not due to failing schools and disinvestment in urban America. No, it is simply the fault of fathers for being absent.

And yes, the role of fathers is part of the equation, but for Ives and people like her, that is the sum total of solutions. This isn’t a problem for policy makers to address, this is a problem of the urban poor’s own making, and they alone can solve it.

There is another word for this, but it’s been overused lately. What is disqualifying about this remark and this mindset is that it makes Ives sound superior, and thus the smug simple answer solution puts her above women and families who don’t have a father in the home. It makes her feel better about herself and gives her license to spout this “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” garbage that ignores decades of history and mountains of research.

But Jeanne Ives and her friends know what’s best for poor families and urban America. Right?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:09 pm
For a balanced take on this story, see Rick Pearson’s piece in today’s Chicago Tribune.

Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:13 pm
== the violence in Chicago isn’t because of easy access to guns. ==

If you follow the laws in the books, access isn’t that easy.

If you want to talk about stealing train car loads if guns from minimally guarded rail yards, or buying guns illegally through proxies, both for resale on the streets, then yeah it may be easy.

I don’t know what the answer is but I have to suspect more community policing is part of the solution … but that costs money for more police.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:36 pm
Whining about Ives just wins her more votes. There are many voters wanting to hear a candidate say what she said.

She’s the only woman running, so you guys must be closed minded to only male candidatez, right?

LOL

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:53 pm
===There are many voters wanting to hear a candidate say what she said.===

That’s part of the problem. There are too many voters who want to hear how urban violence is not their problem and there isn’t anything we can do about. If only those lazy fathers would step up and take care of their responsibilities, we wouldn’t have all of these shootings.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 1:57 pm
==There are many voters wanting to hear a candidate say what she said.==

There are also many voters want to hear a candidate say only whites people should be running the country. A/K/A her base.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:00 pm
See^^^? Another one voter who wants to hear how there is nothing we can do about violence. I guess we’ll just keep waiting for these fathers to step up.

You’re right VanillaMan, there are a lot of voters who absolve themselves of any responsibility for this problem.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:01 pm
Blue Dog,

If you are claiming that the only reason for violence in Chicago is lack of fathers, and you don’t comment at all on violence or poverty in predominantly white rural areas, then yes, you are racist.

That’s particularly true when you have no plan at all to solve what you claim to be the only problem.

Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:04 pm
Goonerr. I didn’t say that. But if someone does, are their hearts full of hate? I don’t think so.

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:13 pm
Blue Dog,
Then you were just riffing? Your comments did not reflect those of Ives?

Ives said THE solution was fathers. She did say fathers and better schools, or fathers and better jobs or fathers and anything else.

Just fathers.

Read her comments.

Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:18 pm
The issue is out-of-wedlock births. I worked in paternity court for 25 years. Health care, jobs, etc….that’s fine, but studies have consistently shown that out-of-wedlock births perpetuate the cycle of crime and poverty. Can’t address the problem if you don’t acknowledge the problem. I believe that it what “fathers in home” meant.

Comment by No Raise Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:30 pm
===Can’t address the problem if you don’t acknowledge the problem.===

Would you acknowledge that easy access to illegal guns is part of the problem of urban violence?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:34 pm
== Can’t address the problem if you don’t acknowledge the problem==

Right. An phrasing it as she did that fathers alone would solve the problem is evidence that she isn’t acknowledging the full extent of the problem and that fathers is simply one piece.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:37 pm
Guns definitely part of problem as well. Still, no one should simply walk out because fathers outside of the home was brought up. This is the point.

Comment by No Raise Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:41 pm
===Still, no one should simply walk out because fathers outside of the home was brought up===

It wasn’t “brought up.” It was presented as the solution.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:42 pm
== If you are claiming that the only reason for violence in Chicago is lack of fathers, and you don’t comment at all on violence or poverty ==

I’m going to generalize here … usually violence / joining gangs are the result of no family structure and poverty … both of which are often the result of only one parental figure in the home. So, if you don’t acknowledge alternative family structures and fo believe in the need for an authority figure parent, then you could reach the conclusion that Rep. Ives did.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:44 pm
The solution to the problem is to put a bell on the cat. How are we going to put a bell on the cat? We can’t.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:54 pm
More gun laws on the books? More expensive FOID cards? Thoughts and prayers(my idea)? higher/ student spending? Haven’t all these been Tried? Here’s my gun violence solution. Commit a felony with a gun. 20 years. No parole. White. Black. Brown. Don’t care.

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 2:59 pm
===Pot calling kettle:

Two of the leading Dem candidates did grow up without fathers, but they didn’t grow up without money.

A big difference than what most single parent homes experience….. ===

They also grew up white and with all of the privileged assumptions that includes. Ives isn’t really talking about homes without fathers. In floor debate, I have heard Ives refer to “those people” and use other allusions to poor minorities that holds them in disdain, ignores the realities their lives, and offers overly simple solutions that blame them for their plight.

I agree with Honeybear; it’s very disappointing that Kennedy and Pritzger did not call her out when they had the platform and opportunity to do so.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:07 pm
Blue Dog,

When Chicago banned hand guns, the number of murders declined by nearly half.

So yes, more gun laws has been tried. It also seems to have worked.

Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:07 pm
Stop taking Ives literally.
She’s saying what many voters feel. There’s no reason to agree with her. There’s no reason to argue about it. Pritzker wants to buy everyone a magic unicorn, and Ives wants every child to have a loving and functioning family like in The Waltons.

Both candidates can’t deliver, but voters know how either candidate feels.

The more emtional you disagree with either candidate, the more you polarize voters.

I want a unicorn and a John Walton keeping Chicago kids safe.

I get it.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:30 pm
Gooner. That is just a play on statitics. Just like if I said murder rates dropped the year the ban was lifted.

Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:31 pm
===I get it.===

Yet you keep defending her. She is cynically playing to people’s racist fears and you’re OK with that?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:33 pm
==Stop taking Ives literally.==

Any other way we should take it, you know, since that’s exactly what she said?

I don’t think you do “get it.”

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:36 pm
Blue Dog,

A play on stats? It was a twenty year trend, which reversed about a year after conceal carry was passed.

Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:36 pm
–Stop taking Ives literally.–

Why? I’ve never got the impression that she doesn’t believe what she says.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:40 pm
===Pot calling kettle:

Growing up white: Good, no guarantees
Growing up w/ money: Better, things are easier
Growing up w/ inherited wealth: Best, success almost guaranteed

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:48 pm
Gooner. maybe Chicago followed the nation in that gun murder trend by chance?

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:52 pm
Gooner. Are you suggesting the Dem gubernatorial candidate should put a handgun ban on their platform?

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:54 pm
Blue Dog,
That would be a negative.
While the number in Chicago went up, New York was moving towards an historic low.

Give it up.

Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:56 pm
Fathers are important. Wanting all children to have theirs living at home is not a terrible think to want. Believing that if every child had their father at home there would be less gun violence is not a silly thing to believe. Claiming it is a solution is about as about as unrealistic has any other campaign statement.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 3:57 pm
===Claiming it is a solution is about as about as unrealistic has any other campaign statement.===

Fair enough. But if you can’t hear her blaming the entire problem on African American fathers who’ve abandoned their children, you aren’t listening closely enough. She has one prescription for urban violence: fathers in the homes. Therefore, it is no longer her problem to solve and there is nothing for the rest of us to do but judge these men from our perch above them.

It’s a none-too-subtle plea to the worst instincts of so-called “conservative values voters.”

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 4:04 pm
GooNer. Sorry. I am confused. Are you saying the murder rate went up because of concealed carry laws or the lifting of the handgun ban?

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 4:04 pm
Vanillaman—Policy is based on ‘feels’, so if Ives ‘feels’ the Southside violence is solely because of missing fathers, what policy decisions are going to be driven by this ‘feel’, because government isn’t going to keep a family together? Why try intervention when it’s missing fathers? Why try youth employment schemes when it’s missing fathers?

It’s far easier to blame violence on moral corruption, in this case poor Black folks, than trying to implement effective policy, and in this instance what would motivate Ives to do anything if in her mind the issue is simply missing fathers?

Ives’ message is a simple us vs. them message meant to dehumanize African Americans. What the “many voters feel” you reference is another tried and true example of racism specifically addressed to placate the racists without being blatant. That “feel” is the belief that because there is Black on Black violence on the Southside and African American fathers aren’t present like Caucasian fathers in the 1950’s, somehow African Americans aren’t as human as the rest of us. That is what Ives is saying and the audience in Chicago saw it immediately and responded appropriately because they know what Ives’ message is because they have lived with that message for 400 years in this country.

Comment by Swift Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 4:18 pm
==Fathers are important. Wanting all children to have theirs living at home is not a terrible think to want.==

That’s not the point Ives was trying to make. If you are not familiar with her rhetoric, ask one of her colleagues in the State House or watch the floor debate sometime.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 4:33 pm
If half truths count, everyone in this debate is a winner.

Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 5:09 pm
=What the “many voters feel” you reference is another tried and true example of racism specifically addressed to placate the racists without being blatant.=

I’ve heard some describe this by saying “there are bad people on both sides”.

Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 5:09 pm
After reading many posts today, I have finally figured out what ‘progressive’ means.

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 5:31 pm
Fun thread today.

==She is cynically playing to people’s racist fears==

Give her a break. Maybe you are racist to assume she meant Blacks? It’s probably right to say that having a dedicated father in one’s life will give you advantages and empower you. But it isn’t the Governor of Illinois’ choice to regulate societies personal relationships and reproductive choices.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 6:01 pm
Ives’ solution for forcing fathers to go back to families they rejected is…drum roll please.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 6:20 pm
I fully agree with the statement that we should have more fathers in homes. I’ve recently read a book called “Father’s Rights” written by an attorney Jeffery M. Leving and it opened my eyes. You have to understand that in order to stand up for social justice you have to acknowledge the importance of fathers in modern society.

Comment by Stan Lipnitski Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 8:13 pm
blue dog dem @ 2:59- “Here’s my gun violence solution. Commit a felony with a gun. 20 years. No parole. White. Black. Brown. Don’t care.”

Spoken like a true good old boy. That one should get you elected Master Cement Mixer at the Mason’s lodge in your all-white burg. “Tough on crime” laws will never effect pheasant hunters like you with double barreled shotguns, right?

FYI, since simple possession of a gun without an FOID card on your person became a felony in 1995 at the insistence of Republican governor George Ryan (long may he rot) thousands of “good guys” like you picked up felony charges: landlords collecting rent in dangerous neighborhoods, convenience store owners, etc. But that will never happen to you, because your cousin works for the Sheriff’s department, and “everyone knows me around here” right?

NRA would go broke without flag wavers that are too dense to figure out that every police state measure they support could put them away for hard time. Have you got a “Back the Blue’ bumper sticker on your monster truck? I heard they handed them out at Trump rallies along with the Make America Great Again ball caps.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 16, 18 @ 10:31 pm
-You have to understand that in order to stand up for social justice you have to acknowledge the importance of fathers in modern society. -

THIS. There is extensive research to back up Ive’s comments. Can’t that be acknowledged here… or it’s always attack first?

Comment by Sands Wednesday, Jan 17, 18 @ 9:15 am
–THIS. There is extensive research to back up Ive’s comments. Can’t that be acknowledged here… or it’s always attack first?–

Another victim heard from. And a ridiculously dishonest one at that.

No one here disputed “the importance of fathers in modern society.” That’s the biggest Strawman, ever.

The objection was to Ives flippant and shallow solution to gun violence: “And you know how you’re going to solve it? Fathers in the home.”

How a governor “keeps fathers in the home,” is an unanswered question, but she was just feeding red meat to the crowd.

You must be aware that the overwhelmingly majority of children raised in single-mother homes are not out popping caps in the streets. I bet you know a few yourself.

And plenty of murderous Chicago gangsters came from families with fathers in the home. Accardo, Giancana, Spilotro and Cerone from my neck of the woods come immediately to mind. Plenty more.

Ives red-meat rant was intended as a dog whistle, not a serious “solution” to gun violence. She’s hardly the first to use it.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 17, 18 @ 9:41 am