Friday, February 9, 2007
News / Clout City A technical foul on Helen Shiller?
Posted by Mick Dumke on 02.09.07 at 06:57 PM
The League of Women Voters of Chicago was one of several sponsors of last week’s often-hostile debate between 46th Ward alderman Helen Shiller and challenger James Cappleman. Before the event began, one of the League’s moderators announced that supporters of both candidates had to remove all campaign buttons and signs in order to stay, and that neither side would be allowed to use video or audio recordings of any portion of the event for campaign purposes.
Soon after the debate, however, several video clips of Shiller were posted on her Web site, and Cappleman’s team raised a stink. On Thursday a member of the Cappleman campaign emailed me a link to a statement [pdf] from the League, issued the day before, criticizing Shiller: “Displaying this video is a direct violation of the League’s debate rules. The League has made repeated calls to the Shiller campaign headquarters to request the video be removed from their site. The League has also received dozens of calls, e-mails, and faxes from 46th Ward residents expressing their anger that the Shiller campaign site is displaying this video. The League is disappointed that our forum rules were disregarded by the Shiller Campaign and is requesting that the debate video be removed from their website immediately.
“The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization whose purpose is to encourage informed citizen participation in government.”
Cappleman's aide also sent me a statement from him calling Shiller’s decision to post the video “one more example of the lack of integrity she has displayed during her 20 years in office.”
Shiller supporters, though, believe the “dozens of calls, e-mails, and faxes from 46th Ward residents” were organized by their opponent. My call to Shiller’s office was returned by her son, Brendan, the precinct coordinator for the campaign. “We’re sorry the League of Women Voters is being bullied by the Cappleman campaign into making a story where there is none,” he said. “We always said we were going to videotape the debate so they wouldn’t lie about what Helen Shiller said, which is what that campaign has a tendency to do.”
Comments (28)
Showing 1-28 of 28
One also has to wonder -- why would a "no video taping" rule be instituted in the 46th, while others are using youtube, and debates & ads are airing on Public Access channels? Check you tube and look at the attack ads being produced by people not sanctioned by the Cappleman Campaign. Factor that in as you make a decision on Feb. 27
like
dislike
Better yet come on over to www.whatthehelen.com and check out the non sanctioned stuff JP Paulus mentioned. Factor that in as you make a decision on Feb. 27. ARRRRRRRRRGH
In September 2004 our own "Chicago Reader" referred to Brendan Shiller as the "Lawyer of Choice in the 46th Ward." Here is a link to the story. https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2004/040903/CULTURE&search=brendan%20shiller Turns out 46th Ward businesses with liquor related issues before the City of Chicago have utilized the fine services of Brendan Shiller. His mother, purely by coincidence is the alderman for the 46th Ward. Brendan Shiller was admitted to the Illinois Bar on November 6th, 2003. Less than a year later he is the "lawyer of choice for the 46th ward". He is clearly a great talent.
As usual, you are wrong again, JP. The LWV has the SAME rule for the debate hosted in the 49th ward. The rule, as we recall from the 46th ward debate, was that people working in the MEDIA could tape the debate, and those media workers had to pre-register with the LVW. In fact, the moderator even made a last minute request for all unregistered media workers to go register before the debate started. It was the campaigns themselves and those in the audience who were not to tape the debate and use if for campaign purposes. Craig Gernhardt, of "The Broken Heart of Rogers Park" explains it on his blog... "Much of the same old stuff was said last night at the League of Woman's Voters/O.N.E. Forum - plus I had some technical difficulty last night with the recording - and some rules issues with the League of Woman's Voters group. First, my memory card filled up with-in 2 minutes of recording (I forgot to delete the last debate) - Then the League of Woman's Voter's usher kept giving me the business for recording. Why? It seems at the 46th ward debate on January 31st, Alderman Shiller violated the rules of the debate by filming the action and posting small clips on her website. That's a no-no. The LWV's didn't want that happening again. So, they were roaming the room, disrupting the people with video equipment." Now we know the truth about that. What we want to know is what benefit does the Alderbeast get from this whole dust up? Helen Shiller gets to say "Cappleman is a bully?" That's silly for two reasons. 1. James is a social worker. When is the last time you saw a social worker who was a bully? He was a Franciscan Friar. Are they known for being bullies, too? 2. The person who comes out of this thing looking like an insolent idiot is Helen, for telling the League of Women Voters to go screw themselves. That's basically what she did - she said with her actions, "I don't care what I agreed to, and I don't care what you say about it. Not only am I not taking down the 2 videos I posted, but I'm putting up a half dozen more." Who's the real bully? The truth is that the phone calls, emails, and faxes were encouraged by ordinary people who have had enough of an Alderman who does whatever she wants, whenever she wants, and doesn't give a damn about ethics, rules, or even her own self respect, much less having any respect for voters who don't share her myopic views on a whole host of issues.
Brendan's "liar" comment would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. Everyone knows social workers are wanton liars when compared to career politicians, those paragons of truth, justice, and the American Way. We sense the beginning of the end for the alderbeast.
Spin, Spin, Spin! Readers ask yourself, what is more likely, that the League of Women Voters, a non-biased, independant group, was somehow "bullied" by a hard working challenger running in his first campaign......or that an incumbant career politician and her son (a laywer) are giving an honest response to being caught.? Hmmmm..... The "trust me I'm a laywer" bit was worn out by Brandmeir years ago. What seems more likely is "like mother, like son"....equating to nothing other than simple, dishonest activity. Kudos to the official Cappleman campaign workers for not sinking to this level.
J.P., I was personally requested (harshly) to put away my video camera BEFORE the debate began - by the Moderator of the debate. She explained that both candidates had agreed to the rule not to allow ANYONE to videotape the debate and that they would not put any debate video on their web sites or otherwise. Respectfully, I complied with this rule. JP, how - in good conscience - can you support this breaking of the rule by Helen Shiller and her campaign? You wear your Christianity like a badge, often attacking others with it like a weapon. Doesn't this hypocracy on your part damage the cause you are trying to promote? ...or do debate rules - in your faith system - only apply to James Cappleman and those on the Cappleman campaign somehow? Uptown Videographer P.S. By the way, the League of Women Voters' press release demanded that the Shiller campaign remove those videos immediately, so you don't have their support in your argument, either.
As we think through Brendan's argument more thoroughly, he is basically saying this: "We had to be unethical, and then lie about it and smear James Cappleman to pre-emptively defend ourselves against James Cappleman." You know, we've drawn many parallels between Helen Shiller and George Bush at our blog, and this is just the icing on the cake. The nut (metaphorically and...) does not fall far from the tree. www.whatthehelen.com
Interesting that Brendan Shiller returned the Reader's phone call. Could he be so active in his mother's campaign since she plans to "appoint" him to her alderman seat when she step down mid-term? Stoger, Beavers, now Shiller? Good thing she won't have a chance after James Cappleman wins the 46th Ward Alderman seat on February 27th. I emailed Helen Shiller's campaign with asking why they chose to violate the agreed-upon rules of the debate and if they had a video of the debate, why not post the entire deabte so that her constituents can can vote based on full information? In her typical style, I didn't even get a response to my email.
While Helen should have respected the rules of the debate, can we agree that the rule is moronic? When I was helping to set up a LWV debate, I was told the rule was instituted to prevent things from being taken out of context. As if written quotations couldn't be abused. In my experience in politics, the League does not like robust partisan debate but rather a denatured subsitute. They are very over-rated, but to be commended for trying I guess.
I agree the rule is moronic. The bigger issue is that Shiller never raised this as a problem when she agreed to the rules of the debate when she signed an agreement with the League of Women Voters. She had yet another chance to back out when the rules were read to her, Cappleman, and 400 attendees of the debate. She remained silent about her disagreement with the rules until AFTER the debate. There is a lot of anger in the community about Shiller not being true to her word on many things, and most especially with the Wilson Yards. Shiller's latest action merely encapsulates what has been said all along about her trustworthiness. It's rather interesting that her supporters, including jp, are silent about Shiller's behavior. They would not be so with Cappleman. Again, it highlights the double standard that they have no problem with. Hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems.
I attended the Illinois Committee for Honest Government event with my brother. I was very impressed with a nice event, very good food, and a lot of elected officials and potential candidates. I was most impressed with BRENDAN REILY in the 42nd Ward. I thought it was very interesting that MICHAEL LIEBERT dropped out and decided to endorse BRENDAN REILY and work together. It is good to see candidates cooperating and working together and doing what is right for the whole and good rather than the ego of the individual. Burt Natarus is not a good alderman and an embarassment. I am supporting Brendan Reily.
John Guiney, Thanks, you may have noticed this story involved ONE alderman far away from da ward of 42. If you are going to support you candidate, which I encourage, do it in an appropriate story. How about I throw in a comment here for Ginger Rugai in the 19th. Or Sheehan. ARRRRRRRRGH
I'm supporting Ginger rugai and I hope you do too (forget that Sheehan character.) Honestly, the bash Joe Moore / bash Helen Shiller folks are so repetitve, they're boring. Aiy, aiy, me matey.
Who said anything about Joe Moore? This is about a group or league of women voters who don't have their act together when holding a debate or forum or whatever you want to call it. If they can't pull off a debate without causing a rukus, they should get out of the debate business. morsehellhole.blogspot.com
And if someone can't pull off a post without misspelling "ruckus," he should get out of the business of commenting.
In an effort to better inform the electorate prior to the February 27 Municipal and Aldermanic elections, the Illinois Committee for Honest Government has been actively producing a series of programs that have or will be airing over the Chicago Access Network (CAN-TV) (Channels 19 and 21 in the City of Chicago). But this year, for the first time the ICHG has expanded its reach beyond the 400,000 or so Cable-TV households within the City of Chicago. We are posting this here as it seems that the focus on Senator Barack Obama (a past award winner of the ICHG and a guest on CAN-TV with Frank Avila during the 2004 race and the Live Hotline show while a State Senator and endorsed in 2004 by the ICHG) is or at least may be distracting from the important local races that deserve attention. While the War in Iraq and the Presidency are no doubt important issues, the local voters and bloggers can play a more significant and immediate impact in the local municipal races. Now everyone who has access to the Internet can watch the many programs we (the ICHG) have produced (sometimes in conjunction with other CAN-TV producers like Commissioner Avila, Alderman Flores, the NorthwestSide Democratic Organization, plumber and hired trucks Whistle Blower Patrick McDonough, and the world's conversation starter Morgan Carter) in recent monhts discussing the key issues witha wide range of candidates and other officials. To access most of these programs, merely do a GOOGLE search and click VIDEO and put in the name "Frank Avila", or "Election 2007", or the names of the individual candidates. Frank Avila hosted most of the shows but where conflicts arose we also had shows by Alderman Flores, Commissioner Avila, Morgan Carter (of Omnibus Roundtable and the Chicago Communicator), Chicago Reader reporter Mick Dempke, Frank Coconate, and Patrick McDonough also some candidate interviews and endorsements in conjunction with the Chicago Federation of Labor and the SEIU. While we do not always agree with all the hosts or the same endorsements, the 15 minute, half hour and even hour long shows provide a refreshing break from the 30 second soundbite in major media or a drop of a piece of literature by the dwindling precinct captains. You can also find most of these shows (besides doing the Google or Youtube video search) on either www.aldertrack.com or www.chicagoclout.com although they are not our websites nor do we necessarily vouch for the content of these sites. You can find a list of the programs and just hit the link to the site and watch the programs as if you were watching TV. But, if you do not have a computer, internet access, or the necessary hardware or software to watch movies/TV on your computer monitor, or just want to watch it on TV (assuming you have Cable Television) you can watch the Illinois Committee for Honest Government's "Election 2007" series (sometimes also in conjunction with the Issue Forum series or Avila Talk Chicago) programs between now and February 27th. Here is a list of the Election programs (there are other programs including Tibet Chicago, the Center for Jewish Life, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Marine Scholarship, Wounded Veterans, Mexican American Art, Slavery historical quilts, Art shows, Stamps and Veterans issues and many others besides politics) (but these shows promoted here are for the candidates who appeared on them to give choice, information and options) to air over Cable Access Network in February to the more than 400,000 Cable-TV households in the City of Chicago. (there is no prohibition on taping these and showing them and many people are viewing them over the internet) You can also contact CAN-TV or the local TV viewing guides with Cable to see times of this and other shows. Some shows already played in December and January. (Almost all shows are on Channel(s) 19 and/or 21 although Channel 36 is also a CAN-TV station primarily focusing on religious shows) Here is the schedule: Thursday, February 9: Vilma Colom (35th), 11 am, Channel 19 Thursday, February 8: Martin P. Cooney (47th), 11pm, Channel 21 Monday, February 12: Vilma Colom (35th), 11:30 am, Channel 19 Tuesday, February 23: Martin P. Cooney (47th) 11pm, Channel 21 Wednesday, February 14: Election campaign analysis with former and reformed gang negotiator and member and urban trasnlator Wallace "Gator" Bradley, 11:30 am, Channel 19 Sunday, February 18: Peter Zelechenko (who uncovered the computer security issues at the Board of Elections)(43rd Ward), 5:30 pm Channel 19 Sunday, February 18: Wayne Strnad (30th), 6 pm, Channel 19 Sunday, February 18: Dinah Ramirez (10th)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 6:30 pm, Channel 19 Sunday, February 18: Mike "Libby" Libert (42nd)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 11pm, Channel 21 (Please Note that Mike "Libby" Libert dropped out of that race and the ICHG is endorsing Brendan Reily that will be doing a TV show in the near future) Monday February 19: Peter Zelchenko (43rd), 12:30 Channel 19 Monday February 19: Wayne Strnad (30th), 1 pm, Channel 19 Monday February 19: Dinah Ramirez (10th)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 1:30 pm Channel 19 Monday, February 19: Dorothy Brown (Mayor)/Pat Dowell (3rd Ward), 6 pm Channel 21 Monday, February 19: Erick D. Rayburn (9th), 7 pm Channel 21. Monday, February 19: Daniel "Danny" Solis (25th), 11 pm Channel 21 Wednesday, February 21: Election campaign analysis with former gang member and urban translator Wallace "Gator" Bradley Friday, February 23: Mike "Libby" Libert (42nd)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 10 pm Channel 21 Sunday, February 25: Erick D. Rayburn (9th), midnight (Saturday night), Channel 19 Sunday, February 25: Dorothy Brown (Mayor)/Pat Dowell (3rd), 8:30 am Channel 21 Sunday, February 25: Freddrenna Lyle (6th), 5 pm Channel 19 Sunday, February 25: Ed Smith (28th), 5:30 pm, Channel 19 Monday, February 26: Freddrynna Lyle (6th), noon Channel 19 Monday, February 26: Ed H. Smith (28th), 12:30 pm Channel 19 Monday, February 26: Daniel "Danny" Solis (25th), 11 pm, Channel 21 Most shows are hosted by Frank Avila esq. Any information on the Illinois Committee for Honest Government, please contact Randall Sherman via email at shermanrandall@hotmail.com or 773-744-8839. For information on the TV show or try to get scheduled call Producer Tony Joyce at 773-791-3130. Please remember to vote. Suzanne, The Illinois Committee for Honest Government
NotsoIrishPirate, Thank you for your loving and kind comment. I have sad news for you. Ginger is gonna lose. If you don't think so I suggest you take a walk through the streets of Mount Greenwood. You pro Ginger people are so repetitive repetitive it is boring.
Repetition is very boring. We'll say it again so that is sinks in. Repetition is very boring. Are you bored yet? Maybe we didn't repeat it enough. Yawn!
Methinks the tide has turned. Even the mainstream press is now taking on Helen Shiller......shocking! http://www.pioneerlocal.com/newsstar/news/255382,sn-shilleredit-021407-s1.article
Thanks for the great coverage on the Aldermanic races. Can we expect anything more on the city-wides, especially the City Clerk's race? For once, there's a competitive contest there. Thanks
I think it was shameful the way the debates were run. I was there it felt like fascist oppression. And before everyone on this blog believes in what Mr. Broken Heart has to say, please take the time to read my blog: www.aldermansintern.blogspot.com I've assessed all of the debates that happened for the 49th ward, including the one by the League of Women Voters. "Encourage" is not a word that I would use for the way they run debates.
Hey we've been through many elections with this incumbant. She's always the one committing the foul and she always one blaming the other side. As copied from WTH: The 46th Ward SuperBowl Just like Bears fans watching the Superbowl, experienced political fans can predict which “play†Shiller and her longtime campaign coach, George Atkins , will run next. VOTERS, don’t get drawn offsides by this fake. The Smear is only intended to draw you to the polls as she sneaks in for the win. Don’t fall for it this time. Let me diagram this classic Shiller Smear Campaign play for you: Helen falls down on the field, the victim, the Victim, the VICTIM!!! – crying that she was fouled. Helen's team runs over claiming that they saw it too. Helen lurches toward the press to give them the money shot. Helen rolls over toward the crowd to illicit sympathy in the stands. Helen wastes time running down the clock so the other team cannot get in another play. She limps to the sidelines, where she giggles with her teammates and miraculously recovers to return to the field. She intentionally fouls the other team on the next play. She falls down, and cries, “Help me, HELP me, HELP ME!!!! Those bullies did it to me again. Helen screams, “They are piling on; run, Run, RUN!!! to the polling place to save meâ€.
Time for change has come. Shiller's had how long to promote positive change in the 46th, yet there's still crackheads all over wilson and broadway, our property is being devauled, and the wilson yard project STILL isn't going anywhere. ANYONE BUT SHILLER NEXT TUESDAY.
==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT== This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning. I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind. I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public. This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties. So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!). Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula: * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them. * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate. * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST. * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST. * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed. Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above. If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate? If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office? Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)? Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)? Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways? As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing. The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT. The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds. Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few. To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said: * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.
This is the single most useless set of political commentary I have seen in several years. It is laughable to see 5 people fighting with each other when each and every one of you know you are the only 5 people who ever read this garbage. The wit is witless. The slants are transparent. You all need to put your tim eto better use.
Helen and her campaign along with James and his campaign are not asked to film the debate. Helen & her campaign film the debate anyway and break the rule by also posting it on her website. James & his campaign don't film. Ethan, where is the slant in this story?
