Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another emergency rule filed *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* My Sun-Times column this week starts out with a no-brainer proposition…
Barring a miracle, it’s difficult to see how Illinois Republicans can turn around their misfortunes anytime soon.
President Bush remade the national GOP in his own image. Republicans in this state, except in hard-core pockets, are now buried with him in a deep, dark hole.
Not long after the 2006 primary, Gov. Blagojevich’s campaign ran a TV ad linking his Republican opponent Judy Baar Topinka to President Bush. Topinka had emerged from a nasty Republican primary in surprisingly good shape, with one poll showing her competitive with Blagojevich. But her numbers dropped through the floor after that TV spot aired, and she never recovered.
* It goes on with some more examples and then makes this point…
All but the most loyal GOP voters appear to be so completely turned off by the Republican “brand” that even if they disagree completely with Democrats on major issues they won’t consider voting for the other party.
* And then…
There will be an opportunity for Illinoisans to vent their rage next year without voting for a Republican, however.
* What would that be?
Every 20 years, Illinois voters are asked if they want to convene a state Constitutional Convention. The last time this question was on the ballot, in 1988, more than half of all voters didn’t even bother to pick a side.
But Gov. Blagojevich is so incredibly unpopular with voters right now, as well as Cook County Board President Todd Stroger and the whole system in general, that if something doesn’t change soon I think we could see the voters using next year’s “Con-Con” vote as a referendum on our seemingly broken government
* I take the readers through the recent polling which showed 65 percent of Illinoisans want to add recall to the Constitution and a majority would recall Gov. Blagojevich if given the chance and toss in a bit of Con-Con history. Conclusion…
To many voters, changing from a Republican majority in 1994 to a complete Democratic majority in 2006 hasn’t worked at all. They may just decide that real change will only come if the rules are changed.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another emergency rule filed *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Amen to holding a new constitutional convention! The arguments warning of dire consequneces if a new convention were held that were brought up in 1988 are so much baloney now. Can anyone imagine coming up with a more screwed-up system of government than we have right now?
Comment by fedup dem Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:19 am
it’s ludicous to include Todd Stroger with Rod B. Todd’s misfortune mainly has to do with Claypool beginning his campaign for President three years early. Rod B and his administration has broken several laws that the public knows of and many more that we don’t know of.
a recall admendment can cause a lot of bickering and turmoil within the current state of affairs, whoops we already have that. so why not, bring on a recall or that indictment we’ve been promised for the past four years.
Comment by are you kidding me Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:29 am
Rich, with the triple whammy of taxes being proposed by the Dems at the national, state and Cook County level, and the budget crisis in Springfield, even the average Joe in the street has got to be taking notice that this is all happening under the Dem watch. One party rule doesn’t do anyone any good, and Illinois/Cook County is the prime example. Given the extensive media coverage on those issues, and the fact that people actually do take notice when it hits them in the pocketbook, not to mention the current anti-Blago backlash, do you really think the GOP will remain caught in downward spiral? It’s all cyclical, as you know, and there has got to be a turning point. Sure this isn’t it?
Comment by Team America, World Police Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:31 am
“Rod B and his administration has broken several laws that the public knows of and many more that we don’t know of.”
Thats one of the dumbest statements I’ve seen yet. He broke laws that we dont know of? What does that even mean
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:32 am
You don’t need a con-con to institute a recall provision. Recall amendment, yes; con-con, absolutely no.
Comment by Jechislo Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:39 am
Jechislo is right — implement a recall amendment to the current constitution, to prevent Con-Con from taking off.
Add another amendment for voter approval or rejection - make the state income tax graduated, not flat.
Comment by capitol view Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 9:42 am
===It’s all cyclical, as you know, and there has got to be a turning point. Sure this isn’t it?===
I’m pretty darned sure. National issues have proved far more important to voters than state and local issues. Look at 2006, for example, or 1994. National issues drove those results. And with the presidential campaign in full swing next November, that’s most likely what will be on their minds.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:06 am
The environment is bad - for both sides - Democrats are in the hole with blagojevich. With Hillary the likely nominee and mainstream candidates on the republican side -illinois has the potential to be a target - Giuliani has already said IL is on his map. Not to mention the competitive congressional contests which bring greater resources in Republican leaning districts. Then again, it could be a disaster…
Comment by Underdog Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:10 am
The Republicans have had worse problems than what was going on at the Federal level. Yeah people were upset about that and I had no idea about the Blago ad linking Topinka and Bush, but the state GOP aren’t looked at in the best light either. Still it’s unfortunate that people will judge will their local leadership do based on the more national leadership. Especially if one really has nothing to do with the other.
Comment by Levois Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:12 am
You could be right, but I think the Democrats have enough survival instinct to pull this off.
This is a failure of our politics, not our constitution.
The GOP melt down started during Edgar’s second term and was caused due to simple evolution, generations and timing. The party exhausted itself to the point where the “new” leadership was a senior named George Ryan. It had a run for 30 years and was due to die.
But the Illinois Democrats were not ready. They have not yet devised a new way for government to operate in the 21st Century. They reached back to Adlai Stevenson and tried to recreate the Great Society from 1964, just as they were attempting when they left office in 1974. They “push forward” by raising the 1933-era minimum wage and 1940’s Harry Truman’s Universal Health Care. They attacked big business and demanded tax booty like it was still 1964. Of cource their “fix” for Illinois hasn’t worked - while the GOP is dead politically, the Democrats are dead adminstratively.
So the Rip Van Winkels had no idea what to do with a bankrupt state as Chicago faultered, Cook County blew up, and as the State’s dismal growth rate couldn’t keep up with the rest of the US, except to demand more taxes. Blagojevich’s White House dreams kept state income and sales taxes in place as Illinois exhausted it’s credit and sold assets.
This is a failure of our politics, not our constitution. I do not believe that voters will pull the switch for a constitutional convention and are able to disern the differences between the wheat and the chaff. There is another year for the Democrats to put out the fires they started and offer some kind of hope for Illinoians.
But if they continue with their childish finger pointing in order to survive 2008, they just might exhaust voter’s patience to the point where they pull the switch on the entire disaster.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:25 am
Seriously consider supporting the Green Party, folks. I don’t know if they have the ansers but
at least they haven’t been in power since the
Ice Age.
Comment by Esteban Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:27 am
I have my doubts about how much a con-con can do to fix the problem in Illinois, my fear is that it would just become another way for special interest groups to gain more power. The ILGOP needs new leadership and needs to move away for social issues and focusing on reforming and reducing state government.
Comment by RMW Stanford Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:42 am
Our IL GOP was ill before GWB ever stepped into the White House. The message of the Religious Right does not resonate in IL because of demographics, we just don’t have enough Evangelical Christians compared to Catholics, Orthodox Christians and non-Christians for that. So you had our IL GOP being affected by the national GOP’s preoccupation with the Religious Right causing a situation where they wound up in a nasty IL civil war between the socially conservative GOP voters and the socially liberal GOP voters. It would seem that the socially liberal faction has won that war given Topinka’s run and the complete wipeout of the Keyes campaign. But if they’ve won it, they’ve won a party that is badly tattered. The Dems missteps may give the GOP breathing room to re-assemble itself but I don’t think it can do that quick enough to be competitive for the next couple of election cycles.
In the meantime, I am rooting for the Green party to become a real alternative because I do believe that democracy doesn’t exist well or function well with one party rule.
I could go for a con-con just to see what will happen. If democracy is good, then what could be more democratic than rewriting all the rules of governance? Perhaps a constitution written 30 years ago no longer speaks to us.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:46 am
Leaders of both parties and every special interest from labor unions to the chamber of commerce will line up against Con-Con and spend millions to defeat it.
It will take an extraordinary grass-roots effort to overcome that. Then, if Con-Con wins, it will take a second extraordinary grass roots effort to elect the right delegates to make it a “people’s convention” that could win the right to recall, referendum and term limits.
Not a likely scenario, I’m sad to say.
Comment by North by Northwest Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 10:53 am
I don’t see how a Convention avoids the problems we have now. How to people get elected to be delegates?
Same way as they get sent to the legislature.
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:01 am
Teh GOP Party in Illinois still does not have a clue.
The leadership is the same one who worked to ’save’ George Ryan and selected Alan Keys to run for the US senate. They are tarred with financial woes and entrenched people who play and profit from both sides of the fence.
There needs to be a wholesale change in the leadership in order for for the base to start believing in anything that comes out of the leadership ranks.
Case in point is ther ’selection’ of Steve Greenberg to run against Melissa Bean. Withour looking into the credentials of two other declared candidates, thy appear to have been smitten again by someone who is heir to a large fortune and appears willing to spend some of it campaigning. The question is whether he can convince the voters that being an almost NHL player is good enought to unseat Melissa Bean.
Comment by plutocrat03 Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:08 am
I hope they use cumulative voting for electing delegates.
Comment by Levois Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:08 am
Good point Pat, allof these CON CON lovers fail to see that the powers that got us into this mess will be the sam epowers represented at a CON CON. No to CON CON solve the problems with something called courage and leadership.
Comment by Kid Vegas Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:11 am
I believe the perceived governmental disfuction problem has been caused more by the president of the Senate than the governor. Jones has, in effect, rendered our suposedly bicameral structure a unicameral legislature by flat refusing to allow elected senators to vote on significant budgetary issues. Voters may choose, out of frustration, to ratify his defacto action through a con con. It seems to work in Nebraska, and it reduces the total number of ineffective legislators.
Comment by one of the 35 Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:23 am
Possible. Major indictments on the state level and in the city could put it over the top. But my guess is no. Too far down the ballot and requires too much interest and enthusiasm from an electorate that will be preoccupied by the presidential election.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:34 am
I don’t think a con-con answers the questions that beset our state. There is not a lot of cooperation in Springfield– regardless of who is in power!
When the GOP was in power, in my opinion, they treated the other side of the aisle just as poorly (if not worse) as the Dems are now. The way the state is broke down, geographically and culturally, its IMPOSSIBLE to please all at one time. It makes it hard for any state legislator to appear to be a unifier or one who wants to incorporate all.
Comment by HelpMeUnderstand Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:39 am
Maybe someone can answer this question.
The constitution allows for the selection of delegates to a con-con. Here is part of the text:
(d) The General Assembly, at the session following approval by the electors, by law shall provide for the Convention and for the election of two delegates from each Legislative District; designate the time and place of the Convention’s first meeting which shall be within three months
after the election of delegates;…….
If we do have a con-con, why would we think that the people elected to be delegates will have any reason to substantially change the power given to our elected officials? I’m not so convinced that those elected to be delegates will act with statesman like qualities instead of being raw pols.
Comment by Trafficmatt Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:50 am
I think the biggest problem with state government is too much power in the hands of just 5 people - the 4 legislative leaders and the governor - rather than with the rest of the legislature. Would a new constitution be needed to fix that? It seems unlikely that any fix could happen within the current constitution, since those 5 people could easily block any move to reduce their power.
Comment by Skeptical Optimist Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 11:50 am
I agree with the implications of One of 35’s remark that dumping Senator Emil Jones as the Senate Democartic President is the best short-term solution to reducing the dysfunction/gridlock in Springfield. We’re stuck with Blago for three more years, but Jones has become an albatross we can do without.
Senate Democratic Caucus - Emil Jones has got to go.
Senator Jones it’s reformism, not racism!
Comment by Captain America Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 12:05 pm
Either you take opportunities to improve state government or you accept the status quo. If you oppose a constitutional convention — which is the best method to suggest improvements to our state government to the electorate in the form — then you accept the status quo. I don’t see a third option for those who oppose a constitutional convention. What are you so scared of? Democracy? If the convention proposes some amendments and they aren’t good ideas, then the people will reject them on the November 2010 ballot (when they would likely appear). It’s not as if the current method of placing amendments before the electorate has been productive over the last two decades. We need more options to allow the electorate to improve state government.
Comment by Dan Johnson-Weinberger Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 12:28 pm
I recall that after Nixon resigned in 1974, the GOP was absolutely clobbered in the midterms, and TV pundits soberly forecast the end of the Republican Party. It didn’t happen, of course. But the GOP turned hard right and due South over the next decade, and became quite a different party that it was in the 1960s. I suspect that another turn is in the offing, but the direction remains to be seen.
The Democratic leaders at all levels are doing their damndest to revive the Illinois GOP, and we thank them for it.
The question, however, is “What Illinois GOP should it be?”
If it is a party that emphasizes “values”, such as hysterically opposing gay rights and crusading against abortion, the present failure will continue.
If it is a party that emphasizes sound government (a term that has achieved oxymoron status in Illinois), fiscal restraint, and new approaches to the problems of schools, heath care, poverty and the economy, it has a chance.
In effect, a “New Republican” is required. By that term, I don’t mean the silly bomb throwers who have attacked the GOP from within for the past years, simply seeking to assume personal power and install a Hard Right ascendancy. Instead, an entire new paradigm of the party’s purpose and approach is the key. That will take a lot of thought, discussion and leadership.
Whether the current GOP can muster such elements remains to be seen. The upcoming primary, with committeeman races, and resulting County Chairman races, may give a clue.
Comment by Bubs Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 12:45 pm
VanillaMan — the problem is not that the Democrats simply resort to demanding taxes, it’s the kind of taxes they demand. When Illinois is behind most of the Deep South in per capita taxation (45th in the nation in overall per capita local and state taxes) it’s not as though this state has high taxes overall; it’s that those taxes are overwhelmingly levied on people who can’t afford to pay them. Taxation does not work unless it falls on people who can afford it, as it does in most other Midwestern states. As long as we cling to a flat income tax, and try to fill in the gap by nickel-and-diming people to death with sales and property taxes, that will continue. We have to raise the income tax to pay for school funding if we want to be able to cut property taxes. We have to make the income tax progressive. We have to tax services if we want to be able to lower sales taxes on goods.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 1:30 pm
We did a poll on our site about having the power to recall LOCAL officials (like Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner who’s embroiled in various scandals) and the overwhelming response was in favor. That wouldn’t apply only to him, of course, but it might prevent the bait-n-switch tactics we see from people like Mayor Daley (finances are fine during an election year, then the next year I’ll whack you).
Comment by OpenlineBlog.com Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 1:52 pm
I also would argue the notion that “voters made the switch from Dems to Republicans? as the voter turnout was lower than in past elections.
I just think that situations have spun out of control and we have erred in determing who the best officials for Illinois would be this election. Party has nothing to do with it.
Comment by HelpMeUnderstand Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 2:04 pm
Rich, is it possible that as a way of deflecting criticism over their ineptitude the last several years, that both parties would run against the Legislature by running for a Con-Con, even if they are, at best, indifferent to the idea? Think it’s possible to finesse it that much?
Comment by Shadrach Bond Friday, Nov 9, 07 @ 2:49 pm
When I was in college, the students enthusiastically supported an amendment to reduce the size of the legislature and the method of voting for reps. One student I knew from a politically astute family predicted dire consequences as a result of this amendment. Was this what he was predicting? Does the IL Con work better with cumulative voting and a larger GA?
Comment by class of 82 Saturday, Nov 10, 07 @ 8:25 am
No to Con-Con. As I have seen stated here previously by posters whom I respect, it will be today’s political bosses (or, more likely, their surrogates) who will do whatever they can to keep the status quo…
It will make the Madigans even stronger. They want it all. The GOP has already capitulated so they’ll get it.
Comment by Think about it. Saturday, Nov 10, 07 @ 3:45 pm
The more I think about it, the problem is the 4 or 5 people who bottleneck everything. Most state reps and senators are good people who want to fix problems … or at least the ones I personally know are. But the leaders can choke anything. So the solution is to get rid of the leaders or limit their power … no one person should be able to prevent ALL of our elected officials from voting on the issues.
The entrenched leaders are there because they have lots of money they use to dole out to the rest of the party to keep the members in line. There are a couple of possible solutions to that: campaign spending limits and term limits.
One approach would be to limit campaign spending to ONLY the candidate who raised the funds … none of this pass thru to other candidates … not sure how you could constitutionally effect this limit but nobody would be limiting their free speech, just limiting how much influence they could buy. If that is found unconstitutional, then allow the spending but require it to be from the person’s PERSONAL funds (not coporate / campaign / PAC / NFP / etc.)… nothing is stopping them from using their OWN money to support someone. Splitting hairs but isn’t that what we pay congress and the judges to do?
The other approach would be good old term limits. Yes, I know the arguments about how that would leave the unelected staff running things and it would flush out all the “experienced” lawmakers. It just means we would need to do some tweaking on the rules … limit successive terms in office to no more than 6 years or two terms … and then require an equal amount of “sit out / bench” time before they could run again. As to the aides, etc. have a small core number of true professionals who answer to JUST civil service rules and require all other aides to leave office when their officcial leaves, no jumping ship or being bequethed to the next guy. So what if we get a bunch of amateurs running things … could that be any worse than the “professionals” we have now?
Comment by Another Ex-State Employee Sunday, Nov 11, 07 @ 2:50 pm
The IL GOP should be capitalizing, but they don’t know how. Andy McKenna hasn’t the first clue. He’s just not a leader. The IL GOP’s continued paralysis shows what happens when a guy comes in 4th in a U.S. Senate primary (McKenna in 2004) and then jam him in at the top anyway just because his daddy and daddy’s friends have a lot of dough.
Having 2 legislative leaders, Cross and Watson, whose vision extends little beyond getting gambling industry dough, also doesn’t help.
Comment by GOP'er Sunday, Nov 11, 07 @ 3:06 pm