Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Next Post: OK, I’ve held my tongue but somebody’s gotta say it
Posted in:
* Sen. Bill Brady announced some significant government reforms yesterday. As usual with these things, most are unrealistic. Still, it’s good to see a major party candidate pushing cumulative voting. From his press release…
Returning to multi-member House districts with no more than two being from the same political party and slightly reducing the size of the Illinois General Assembly. Three representatives would be elected from each of 41 Senate districts, trimming the size of the legislature to 164 members from the current 177.
Here’s his quote in the Sun-Times…
“There are Republicans here in the city of Chicago who feel left out because they don’t have Republican representation,” Brady said. “Under cumulative voting, they would go back to having a voice in Springfield through their representative. There are Democrats in [downstate] McLean County who feel they don’t have a voice in state government because their legislators are Republican.” […]
Brady’s proposal for changing the state legislature would not add any additional lawmakers. It would reduce the number of senators in Illinois to 41 and increase from two to three the number of state representatives in each district.
He’s exactly right about that. I barely knew who Pat Quinn was when the Cutback Amendment passed, but I grew to despise that thing.
* Lots of people claim that if the Cutback Amendment allowed Mike Madigan to increase his power. I don’t deny that, but I also don’t think that the return to those days would do much to clip his wings.
So, Brady wants to term limit legislators…
“We have reached a point where too few people control too much and the power is too concentrated,” Brady said. “There’s no question that the speaker of the House, representing little over 100,000 people, has had absolute control over the state of Illinois. He’s been able to do that for nearly three decades and it’s time for that to end.”
Again, no doubt that Madigan’s power is super-concentrated. I’m not sure that making Mike Madigan an issue will do much for Brady, but it’s still a free country. This is a pretty good line, though…
“Government in Illinois has become all about the politicians and not about the people,” Brady said.
And this is the sort of rhetoric that is not going down too well with Chicago-area business execs who are lining up behind Andy McKenna and others…
Brady repeated his claim to be the chosen candidate of downstate conservatives, who he says have had enough of Chicago-area politicians, Republicans as well as Democrats.
“What I hear throughout Illinois, including Chicago, including the Chicago metropolitan areas, people are tired of the centerrf point of influence in the Chicago metropolitan area,” said Brady.
He also tried to make some hay over the new McKenna-Murphy “ticket”…
Brady also said he had no favorite for a lieutenant governor running mate among a field of several lesser-known candidates. He criticized former GOP state chairman Andy McKenna of Chicago, a new entry in the governor’s race, for “deal making” in running with state Sen. Matt Murphy of Palatine. Murphy dropped his bid for governor to run with McKenna as lieutenant governor.
* Strange…
“This is my office,” Brady told reporters, pointing to the large room that had nothing inside of it except for a large conference table and floor-to-ceiling windows looking toward Lake Michigan.
“What do you do — just sit here and look out the window?” Brady was asked.
“I’m a delegator,” Brady smiled. “I don’t like to have anything. In my Bloomington office, all I have is a conference table.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Next Post: OK, I’ve held my tongue but somebody’s gotta say it
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I like the cumulative voting angle.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:26 am
It is always fun to listen to someone who is not as bright as he thinks he is.
Comment by Obamas' Puppy Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:29 am
Capt Fax:
As was mentioned to you earlier today, the media asked Brady if he could cite some example of harm done or good deed thwarted because Masdigan has served so long.
He was mute
The media (notice how we left out the reporter’s name)failed to include this info in the story.
No John Peter Zenger Awards here.
The lack of specific evil seems to underscore the total nonsense of this proposal.
It also important to remind everyone that term limits turn the power over to lobbyists, senior staff and agency folks.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:32 am
Sen. Brady has some good ideas here. First, the re-introduction of cumulative voting is a good idea for ensuring that everyone has a voice, whether it’s Chicago Republicans or downstate or suburban Democrats.
Second, term limits on executive officials (governor, lt. governor, attorney general, etc.) is a great idea. No one person should wield executive authority for an indefinite period of time.
However, I don’t support term limits on legislators. I’m originally from Michigan, which has term limits on its state legislators. The limits have led to a revolving door of folks who aren’t competent in their jobs until they’re lame ducks, which only serves to concentrate power in long-serving staffers who know where the levers of power are and how to use them. Personally, I prefer the accountability of elections (even if the same people are continuously elected) to unelected, power-wielding staffers.
Third, love the idea of importing the federal individual donation limits. A candidate should not be permitted to rely only on a small cadre of high-dollar donors.
Finally, as a Democrat, I’m disappointed that it’s a Republican who made these proposals and I hope they get a fair hearing in Springfield.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:41 am
CIRCULAR
One of the primary beneficiaries of term limits are the newspapers and other forms of media. They will be the ones endorsing “their candidates” who will be beholden to them for their endorsements. Brady’s proposals will put way to much power in the hands of the media.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:42 am
Brady is in his 3rd term as a State Senator, which is the limit he has proposed. Does that mean that he’s willing to pledge that if he is not elected governor, that he won’t run again for reelection to the Senate?
Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:47 am
I like the idea of cumulative voting and do think it was a mistake to get rid of it. It would make the GA little less lopsided or one-sided. However, I also think term limits ought to be reserved for executive branch officials (governor, AG, SOS, etc.) — two terms (8 years) for each, identical to the term limit for POTUS, would be appropriate.
If there are going to be term limits for legislators they should be much longer, perhaps 12-20 years, so that there isn’t a huge amount of turnover in any one election cycle.
States that have tried strict legislative term limits have the problems “CircularFiringSquad” refers to — it simply increases dependence on lobbyists and staffers and causes legislators to become preoccupied with attaining their NEXT job or another elected or appointed office, instead of being preoccupied with getting reelected. It simply trades one problem for another.
Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:49 am
Great plan. Then, based on history, Chicago will be represented by solid Republicans like Richard J. Daley (elected to the State House as a Republican in 1936).
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:50 am
I consider myself a progressive Dem and think the ideas he offers up sound reasonable…especially term limits…
Comment by Anonymous45 Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:52 am
I don’t like term limits for many reasons such as it gives too much power to unelected professional staff, throws out the good legislators with the bad, among other things, and believe that voters can term limit whomever they darn well please but there may be a need for them in the Legislature at least temporarily. I’m glad that Brady is talking about this. He deserves credit for proposing something (emphasis on something) of some substance and engaging the public. Perhaps a compromise on term limits could be 10 more years for current members in whichever body they currently serve then the term limits sunset.
Comment by colt 45 Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:52 am
Ronald Reagan, ‘ol Double R, is a guy for whom I have great respect. Problems, yes, but overall good for this country. At one time he was a Democrat, then switched to Republican. When asked about his switch, he said he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, they left him. Ironically I feel the same way about the Republican Party. I am now an Independent - fiscal conservative and heading toward libertarian on social issues. There are no leaders worth mentioning in either party, local, state or national.
Comment by You Go Boy Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:52 am
i think the cut back amendment was a disaster—it magnified leadership’s role—eliminatied safe seats, often held by guys who weren’t so partisan and who could therefore work for comprimises and avoid gridlock—i think cumulative voting was a great progressive idea—its elimination was the most anti-reform step of my time in illinois public life
Comment by publius Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:59 am
Brady is to be commended for his proposal, and it was great that he got well-deserved press on it. Brady is 100 percent correct that Madigan’s stranglehold over the Illinois House has in fact hurt the state. Power in the hands of one hurts the many. Then there’s that old absolute power cliche that rings true here as well.
Circular Firing Squad if you need examples, why don’t you start with this year’s budget stalemate and work you way back seven years. What more do you want or need beyond that for starters? Madigan and his House Dems could have given Quinn the 50 percent tax increase he sought, but didn’t. The Senate gave Quinn a 67 percent tax increase, but the House didn’t and couldn’t by that point.
I am torn between Dillard and Brady.
The democratic control over this state has paralyzed it and I don’t see much good coming from continuing with a democratic governor. The democrats have led this state on path to ruin, with each year being worse than the previous. We already know that next year’s budget proposal won’t be pretty, so why continue with this one-party rule madness? It hasn’t worked well in Chicago or Cook County either.
Comment by Okay Then... Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:03 am
I have said it before and I will say it again…
I don’t get the appeal of Any McKenna…
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:04 am
Rich - I know you’ve told us before, but can you remind us if any of the state senators will lose their seats by running statewide or are they all in the middle of a term?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:14 am
OKAY
With regards to “the old cliche” cite one example where Madigan has been involved in any corruption.
With regards to “Madigans stranglehold” if you cite that as the reason for no tax increase than I can only hope Madigans stranglehold continues for many years. A tax increase punishes all citizens and a 67% increase is confiscatory.
If Madigan did not have the power he now has, Jones,Cross and Watson would have sold out for anything Blago offered.
Give me more Madigans , the State needs people who are honest,strong willed, and not afraid to take on these “Judas” that call them self politicians.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:19 am
So I’ve started paying real close to the state legislature for maybe the past 2 years or so. If I somehow made my way there as a legislator, I could probably come up to speed pretty quickly.
Maybe the problem of politicians taking 10 years to be able to figure out the legislative process isn’t a defect of term limits, but a factor of only abject morons being on the ballot.
Stop elected stupid people and you won’t have people you have to be helped to find the bathroom.
Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:20 am
Strange is an understatement.
“I’m a delegator,” Brady smiled. “I don’t like to have anything. In my Bloomington office, all I have is a conference table.”
He doesn’t like to have anything or doesn’t like to do anything?
Even folks who delegate have to manage the work they’re delegating to ensure it’s getting done correctly.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:24 am
MOON..
And Tito made the trains run on time….
Power concentrated in one place, in one person, sort of defeats the whole ‘democracy’ thing.
No matter how good you think Madigan may be for this state, that sort of power in one place isn’t good.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:26 am
A return to the 3 member house district would be great, I am glad that Brady is out there talking about this. There is also a petition going around to this get on the ballot as constitutional amendment.
One thing that Brady has going for him in this primary is that he is a down state candidate with solid connections to the area.
While Dillard, Schillerstrom, McKenna, and Proft all are from the same region and what should be there geographical base areas overlap.
I have yet to met a Republican that was particular happy with McKenna tenure as State Chairman, so I dont see this campaign going any better for him than his 2004 bid for US Senate.
Comment by RMWStanford Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:30 am
==“I don’t like to have anything.==
He doesn’t like to do anything either except run for governor every four years.
Having said that I hope he wins the primary if Dan Proft doesn’t.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:31 am
ONE MAN
If that is what you think then let the Dem Caucus or voters in his district remove him. I for one am extremely grateful that he has this “power” and hope he continues to serve for many more years.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:35 am
““There are Republicans here in the city of Chicago who feel left out because they don’t have Republican representation,” Brady said. “Under cumulative voting, they would go back to having a voice in Springfield through their representative. “
Nope. But the Greens would. And other sprouted up local parties or “Independents”.
Comment by George Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:43 am
At last a candidate who has some meaningful ideas for reform of government instead of offering just another tax and spend program. This is the kind of stuff that we as voters will make our decisions on.
Comment by Superman Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:44 am
Super, How does it “reform” government?
As Rich pointed out, the Speaker’s power likely wouldn’t be changed by going back to a cumulative system.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:48 am
Brady’s proposals are interesting but not politically feasible. How many of Brady’s Senate colleagues would vote for a constitutional amendment to reduce the number of senators, much less term limits? Very few.
Comment by Reformer Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:48 am
There is no way the voters in his district will ever remove Madigan. Unemployment in that district would approach 100% if he ever lost. Does that mean that having one guy from one little district running the entire state is fair or “good” for the state? Even the cult followers will admit off the record that they are getting a little sick of all the obstructionism and the heavy handed way the House is “run”. It is no accident that 10 or more long time representatives are bailing this time. They just got sick of waiting. There has never been anywhere for them to go and there still isn’t.
Ask some of the Cook County workers that you’ll find working precincts downstate this January if they don’t think that the power should be shared a little bit.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:50 am
MOON, if his constituents in his legislative district are happy with Madigan, then let them keep him.
I, however, am not one of his constituents and his power over the entire state of Illinois is the problem. He has served as Speaker long enough now. For the good of the state of Illinois it is time for new people with new ideas and leadership styles. (The same can be said of Chicago as well.)
I am deeply concerned that his actions as Speaker are in his own interests, i.e. maintaining his power, and not in the interest of state’s and its people.
Comment by Okay Then... Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 10:51 am
-No thanks on brady. Springfield spends an inordinate amount of time on navel gazing. We’re in a recession, the last thing we need is a 6 month food fight about turning over government.
-Andy McKenna can get the time of day from me when he tells me what he was doing when we lost 3 congressional seats.
-It’s usually not a smart political move to go to a city and tell it that it’s the problem in state government. Brady needs a new flak.
Comment by Shore Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:08 am
“Maybe the problem of politicians taking 10 years to be able to figure out the legislative process isn’t a defect of term limits, but a factor of only abject morons being on the ballot.”
I don’t think it’s a matter of not being able to “figure out the legislative process.” If it were, any 8th grade student who had just passed an Illinois constitution test could be an effective legislator.
What would be missing under short term limits would be the chance for legislators to prove that they can be trusted, that they know when and when not to negotiate or compromise on issues, and that they can effectively serve their constituents. These things cannot be done overnight.
Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:11 am
BILL
There are 3 co-equal branches of government.So please explain how Madigan “runs the entire state”
OKAY
Where is your example of corruption as you alluded to? What problem does he present given what you describe as his “power”? Who’s to say other than his caucus and voters in his district that he has served long enough? You spoke of democracy in your earlier post. When the voters in his district and his caucus elect him is that not the best example of democracy in action?
The trouble with many of you “reformers” is that when you cannot win under existing rules you call for changes to the rules that favor your position.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:12 am
Cumulative voting? How long has it been? Get over it.
I doubt if it would hold up under subsequent Supreme Court “one man, one vote” rulings, anyway.
Everybody in Chicago is sick of Chicago area politicians running things? You wouldn’t notice from the results.
How about a real reform, non-partisan redistricting? Everything else is just sour grapes.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:13 am
Could term limits be applied to executive positions (gov, lite gov, ag, sa) and also to the speaker position? Leave alone the rest of the ga and make go for the leadership position? I appreciate the posts re where the power goes if term limits applies to the ga. Power doesn’t get shared, it gets taken.
Unfortunately, since all these changes have to go thru the ga there ain’t much chance of it ever being let out of some godforsakenbackwater committee by mjm.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:19 am
We are learning more and more every day that Brady is somewhat of an odd duck. Can’t you see him leaning back in a chair looking out at Lake Michigan with those ostrich boots of his kicked up and resting on the conference table?
Comment by Odd Duck Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:23 am
The man has been in the state legislature for 16 years and just now he’s decided that term limits would be a great idea? Why hasn’t he limited his own terms?
Comment by Mountain Man Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:41 am
Illinois is not a growing state in population. Chicago was bigger decades ago than it is now. So, what has changed with regards to representation? Why do we have what we have now, but didn’t have in the past?
The Cutback Amendment concentrated the political power within fewer hands. Our obsolete Constitution was written by people who believed in management, work groups, cooperation and problem solving - so centralization of political power wasn’t considered a problem when this generation of leaders were in charge.
Thanks to this broken Constitution and to the Cutback Amendment, political fiefdoms were enriched with power and cash as a consequence. What used to work - government in Illinois - stopped working.
So Brady’s reform should just start by throwing stones at the guy who is now in the governor’s office and gave us this abomination of an amendment. Thanks to Pat Quinn, we have the consequences of disfuntional government. Now that he is sitting on top of the mess he helped create all those years ago - Brady should start proposing we eliminate Mr. Quinn’s history and mess producing, Cutback Amendment. Then Brady can start proposing eliminating the author of this monstrocity from the Governor’s Office.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:42 am
MOON, stop trying to pretend shock, surprise and dismay that suspicions and suggestions that I or others have made about Madigan are without merit. You may think that just because no one says anything negative about him proves your point, i.e. he is well-liked and well-regarded, but I would argue it is really just the Machiavelli effect playing itself out. And, I can assure you that my argument would prevail over yours.
“Everybody in Chicago is sick of Chicago area politicians running things? You wouldn’t notice from the results.”
Really Wordslinger? Surely you know better than that.
Comment by Okay Then... Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:45 am
–”Everybody in Chicago is sick of Chicago area politicians running things? You wouldn’t notice from the results.”
Really Wordslinger? Surely you know better than that.–
I know that Chicago politicians, Dems no less, were elected to all the statewide offices but one, even though the city has just 23% of the voting population. How do you arrive at your conclusion?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 11:53 am
It’ll be nice when we move to the new website and threaded comments so all this blockquoting all over the place can be a thing of the past.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 12:00 pm
Now Word, you know that 23% becomes more like two thirds when you add in the collars. They all keep winning because the voting public knows that a democrat, even one from Chicago, is better than most Republicans.
Besides look at the collection of all stars the Republicans usually run.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 12:25 pm
Then I guess there is nothing wrong with the state budget in Springfield? Like they didn’t just borrow $3.5 billion to pay pensions and pledge to not pay state vendors another $3.5 billion and call it balanced. We know Madigan wanted to raise taxes he wouldn’t because he didn’t want to risk losing some house seats in Chicago. Your right thou the voters in his district won’t vote him out of office but go ahead make the rest of voters of this state day and give us a chance to vote for term limits and end this torture.
Comment by Dnstate Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 12:34 pm
Now Bill, you know that the Collars, though certainly trending Dem, should be competitive for the GOP, as they were in the recent past along with the Northwest and Southwest Sides.
The reasons they are not have more to do with the GOP leaving them, rather than them leaving the GOP.
The last statewide election, outside of the city, the GOP/Dem split was about 50/50. How did that happen?
I just feel a need to point out to the whiners that they’re not victims.
As far as the tired old whine that people up north won’t vote for anyone South of I-80, I seem to recall Paul Simon and Jim Edgar were pretty popular fellows. Durbin keeps winning, too.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Yes Bill because the Democrats have done such a good job in this state over the last 6 years.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 12:39 pm
OKAY
Suspicions and suggestions are not truths or facts. Need more be said. I am not expressing shock; merely pointing out your ignorance and inability to provide any alledged corruption, and/or wrong doing.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 12:56 pm
The deal that was recently struck between Andy McKenna and Murphy reminds me of a very similar deal cut between Steve Rauschenberger and Ron Gidwitz several gubernatorial elections ago. Steve Rauschenberger (much like Matt Murphy) was a bright idealistic Republican candidate that lacked the necessary funding to see the job done when it came to running for Governor of Illinois. When they (Steve & Matt) ran out of cash and rang up substantial campaign debt, they had to sell their souls to the devil. The price that the devil demanded was that they drop out of the race for governor and instead they run for Lt. Governor in exchange for the necessary money that they needed to pay off their campaign debts and continue on with their quest for Lt. Governor. Both McKenna and Gidwitz (falsely) believed that the conservative followers of Rauschenberger and Murphy would blindly and loyally follow them to the Gidwitz and McKenna camps. Their thinking was flawed. Why? Because the Rauschenberger and Murphy supporters gravitated to Rauschenberger and Murphy in the first place just so they could get away from the likes of candidates like Gidwitz and McKenna. Money can’t buy votes. It can only but air time and lots of media attention to get your name out there for the voters to see. Maybe 10%-20% of Matt’s followers will vote for McKenna but that leaves the other 80% casting their votes for the other conservative GOP candidates that are left such as Brady, Dan Proft, Andrzejewski, or Schillerstrom.
Comment by The Prophet Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 2:02 pm
==Paul Simon and Jim Edgar were pretty popular fellows==
But Simon lost the ‘74 goober nomination to Dan Walker because he was viewed as selling out to the (first) Daley clan.
Can’t wait for threaded comments!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 2:15 pm
VQ, shooting for this week. Maybe tomorrow if we’re lucky.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 2:25 pm
===several gubernatorial elections ago===
That was last time. And another GOP “ticket” that year did work out in the primary.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 2:31 pm
I think candidates for governor should announce their preferred lite gov candidate. Look at what happened to Stevenson and the Democrats when a couple of LaRouches got on the ticket. Or am I the only one around long enough to remember that mess?
Comment by formerGOPer Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 3:20 pm
formerGOPer,
We who are still in the GOP would love nothing better than to see the LaRouchies break into the dem ticket again. What a hoot!
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 4:54 pm
Brady is hitting on Madigan because the Speaker’s power is a hot button issue with Republicans. It is quite correct that it may not play much in the General Election.
Matt Murphy has shown continuing signs of doubtful judgment. He ran for statewide office too soon. He picked a questionable bunch to run his campaign. Now he has made a deal with Andy McKenna that he may regret.
The whole story on McKenna’s departure as State Party Chairman has not come out, and may never do so, but it was interesting. Suffice to say that while the State Central Committee got a bad rap of being a bunch of mindless McKenna slaves, it wasn’t true, not at all.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 5:05 pm
I’m not sure McKenna understands the vitriol out there against him. I would not be surprised to see him booed if he attends any appearances of rank and file gop.
Comment by Bumblejuice Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 5:38 pm
Pre-cutback amendment, Dawn Netsch and the “Crazy Eight” had to refuse to vote for a Democrat for President of the Senate in order to win a few compromises like being given the text of bills that they voted on. This romanticized vision of the Illinois legislature in the 70’s is too much.
The last thing we need is a return to the lack of accountability that 3-member district created.
Mike Boland has had a better idea (though I don’t know whether he still talks about it these days). A unicameral legislature. That would destroy the power of the leaders. It works in Nebraska. It works in Canada. It would work here.
Comment by irving & ashland Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 6:04 pm
MOON, why did Madigan put politics above the interest of the state when he refused to allow his House Dems to support Quinn’s 50 and 67 percent tax hikes?
He made it very clear that he did not want to risk losing seats. Loss of seats = loss of speakership. See, it’s all about him. He only cares about himself.
I did not support the tax hikes, by the way.
Comment by Okay Then... Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 6:45 pm
Right on, Greg. Arizona suffers from the same problem with term limits on their legislative leaders. A former AZ community action lobbyist I know, who is a very liberal and progressive Dem, recently expressed her frustration over the issue. You see the worst behavior out of legislators. Very cutthroat. Everyone trying to one-up and outmaneuver each other so they can be the next speaker or senate president. You’d prefer that to the stability we have now? So my words to those who argue for term limits on legislators and legislative leaders in Illinois are “Be careful what you wish for.”
Okay Then, you make no sense. You claim Madigan put politics over the interests of the state on the income tax issue by not letting his caucus support the hike, which by the way is false, they voted how they wanted and voted for their own interests, they didn’t need prodding from Madigan. But your claim suggests you believe that raising the income tax would have been in the state’s best interests. In the same breath you say you were opposed to the hikes. You can’t have it both ways, dude.
Give me Madigan any day of the week. The man helped to write the state Constitution, so I would suspect he has a much more more vested interest than you may think in preserving the integrity and the rights of the Legislature. And he was the only one who paid more than lip service against the shenanigans of Blago and the only one who refused to let Blago run roughshod over the Constitution.
Comment by Professor Chaos Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 9:11 pm
“..ensuring everyone has the right to vote..” EXCEPT the republicans on their leadership (SB600). Bill you need to think thru this reform crap you are pushing. Start with the GOP leadership in IL first. That is why we have the ALL MIGHTY ONE in DC.
Comment by reformer Friday, Sep 25, 09 @ 8:19 am