Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: A play for the endorsement?
Posted in:
· I despise Washington, DC politics, and have as long as I can remember. This bit of goofiness does nothing to make me change my mind. The amount of national dust that can be kicked up over something as trivial as a career politician’s bruised ego is beyond me. Message to all DC types: Get over yourselves.
· John Cox has apparently decided that he hasn’t withdrawn from enough campaigns.
· Was this ever in doubt?
· The feds force SIU to drop paid fellowships for the poor, minorities and females because they discriminated against non-poor white males.
· Republican congressional candidates list their reform plans.
· Charlie Johnston calls the McCulloch prosecution into question.
· Two state employees claim there was nothing untoward about a controversial IBM contract approved during George Ryan’s administration. Prosecutors had an earlier witness who claimed the deal was rigged.
· There’s massage and then there’s massage, but the person in this story appears to be the “clean” sort, not the dirty kind. Conclusion: That piece is a totally unfair hit.
· Congrats to Deputy Dog Bradley Tusk, whose wife is pregnant.
· Ald. Solis says he’s not interested in being appointed City Clerk to replace Jim Laski. Word is that’s because the mayor told him he wouldn’t get the job anyway.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 4:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: A play for the endorsement?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The news about SIU is encouraging. Discrimination at the academic level should not be tolerated for any reason whatsoever.
Comment by Slash Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 6:25 am
Rich, you’re totally right that DC politicians need to get over themselves and their undeserved egos, but there’s no question that many state elected officials (and the reporters and bloggers who cover them) suffer from the exact same problem.
Comment by DC is the Worst Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 6:36 am
Why no mention about Barack’s Grammy?
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3889702
Comment by Larry Horse Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 7:05 am
And why the heck shouldn’t all massage parlors, clean or dirty be legal? If two consenting adults are making a transaction for a massage that isn’t hurting anybody else, the state has no business to shut down that establishment.
Comment by Larry Horse Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 7:10 am
If I have to see another huge splash on the front page of the Sun-Times about Obama I’m going to lose it.
Larry Horse….Obama’s grammy was mentioned on Illinoize.
Comment by Krenzler Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 8:37 am
guess you gotta get in where you fit in.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 8:58 am
Regarding your comment on Ald. Danny Solis apparently being out of the running to be Chicago’s next City Clerk, I wonder why Daley wouldn’t give him the job? I mean just because that last two elected City Clerks have now been nabbed by the feds, and that Solis could barely beat his convicted predecessor (Ambrosio Medrano) in the 2003 Aldermanic Elections, why should that disqualify this product of the hard efforts of the notorious HDO (who helped insure his re-election in 2003) from advancing himself in life?
Comment by Randall Sherman Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 9:23 am
I really think that the next City Clerk will be Alderman Ray Suarez. He has a pretty good record in the council. Suarez is the longest serving Hispanic alderman.
Comment by Fouts Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 10:17 am
Rich, I’d hasten to point out that the piece is not a “hit” in any way, shape, or form on the masseuse. She’s a totally legit professional and it’s not suggested otherwise.
It’s a politician listing a $2000 pay out for research to a woman who happens to be a professional masseuse that is the issue. I contacted Jacobs for a response and got none.
The entire matter could be easily explained and put to rest.
I’m certainly not impugning the masseuse or her reputation in any way, unless you consider being paid to work for the senator some sort of knock on her reputation.
As my post clearly states, she could very well have done research for Jacobs. She could very well have done research and massages, or, as amazing as it would be, perhaps there are two women of the same name.
I fail to see how asking for clarification is some sort of low hit job. Or is it now considered bad taste to ask how politicians spend their contributions?
Comment by The Inside Dope Thursday, Feb 9, 06 @ 10:18 pm
This “massage story,” for lack of a better characterization, is a potentially interesting story. Then again, it may be nothing. To his credit, the Inside Dope has presented it precisely as such.
At no point did the Inside Dope ever “hit” anyone with the story. In fact, he did not even assert that the campaign committee making the expenditure, or the person receiving it, did anything wrong. The Dope merely calls to our attention a few examples of expenditures that might be deserving of inquiry and explanation by a public official.
There is no question that the expenditure of campaign funds is not private. Any citizen donating or receiving campaign funds simply cannot expect that such payments will be maintained as confidential. They are, by their very nature and as a matter of law, public. If a person receives the benefit of campaign money, he or she simply must expect that the payment will be public, for all to see.
We then turn to the argument that it is somehow improper to question a public official’s expenditure of campaign funds. Is there anyone who honestly believes that it is improper to scrutinize campaign expenditures? If it is so improper, then why is it that as a matter of law they are necessarily held out to public scrutiny?
There is a compelling reason that campaign funds are held to public scrutiny. It is an attempt to keep candidates for public office honest. It is an attempt, by the very legislature of which the Senator is a member, to ensure that those who donate to a candidate’s campaign have the ability to know how their money, and their confidence, were spent. To suggest that we may not scrutinize a candidate’s campaign expenditures is nothing less than an affront to the heart of the very campaign disclosure laws which elected officials swear to uphold and support.
We next turn to the issue of whether it is unfair to question this specific expenditure. A review the the itemized expenditures for the entire calendar year 2005 reveals a total of 180 itemized expenditures. There is but one entry for the purpose of “research,” rendering the description of the purpose of the expenditure unique, at least when contrasted to the other 179 itemized expenditures in the D-2.
These facts, considered in their totality, do not lead to the necessary deduction that the Senator has somehow improperly expended campaign monies. It is altogether possible that the person who received the monies legitimately performed appropriate campaign research.
But these facts, considered in their totality, do provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable inquiry.
I want to be very clear on this next point. It is not just reasonable for the public to question our elected officials. It is not just appropriate for us to hold our elected officials accountable. It is one of our most basic, important obligations as participants in a democratic republic. To suggest otherwise is not just evasive. It is repugnant to the essence of democracy.
The piece is not a “totally unfair hit.” It is not a “hit” at all. It presents a very reasonable question that remains unanswered. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Comment by Dissenter Friday, Feb 10, 06 @ 12:20 am