Wednesday, May 23, 2007
News / Clout City Big Guys
Posted by Mick Dumke on 05.23.07 at 11:30 AM
No one had a bigger smile at Monday's City Council inauguration than 35th Ward alderman Rey Colon. During the swearing-in ceremony he looked overjoyed during even the most tedious moments of Mayor Daley's 30-minute speech. He beamed through the repeated prayers from clergy carefully selected to represent Chicago's diversity (and the mayor's multicultural grip on power): Cardinal Francis George, Bishop Arthur Brazier, a rabbi, an imam, a Buddhist leader. After the ceremony Colon lingered in the council chambers, even wandering up to the mayor's seat at the front of the room, taking a seat in it, picking up the gavel, and posing for a couple of pictures.
Colon had reason to enjoy the moment. He'd run for reelection this winter with all the baggage of a sitting official--a public record of council votes, zoning and development decisions, and campaign contributions available for dissection and critique--and few of the assets. For one, his leading opponent was Vilma Colom, the former alderman Colon had defeated after a bitter race in 2003 (and lost to in his first stab at the City Council, in 1999). Though Colom had managed to alienate thousands of her constituents during her time in office, she still had a political base, access to cash, and operatives ready to pull some dirty tricks--thanks largely to her political benefactor, 33rd Ward alderman Richard Mell. Colon ran as a go-it-alone guy, and though he hasn't tried to forge an identity as a Daley opponent, he also hasn't cozied up to the mayor. He had some union support, but not tons of it. In many ways, he really was on his own.
To no one's surprise, Colon had to battle, especially when an "anonymous" pamphlet began circulating that detailed all his past history, both real and imagined, with courts and cops. Colon didn't say it directly, but he hinted in all ways possible that he believed Mell had secretly bankrolled the mailing; Mell denied it, saying he told Colom the pamphlet was "scurrilous." But Colon took to referring to Colom as "Mellma." He won the runoff with 62 percent of the vote.
Mell and Colon began to make up at a committee meeting a couple weeks ago, when the powerful 33rd Ward alderman went up to Colon, offered his hand, and told him, "You're the man."
"I think he ran a great race," Mell explained afterward. He added that he'd backed Colom because she's a friend who'd backed Mell's son-in-law, Governor Rod Blagojevich, during each of his runs for office. "I felt that I owed her that effort."
Mell insisted that there was no bad blood between him and Colon--and that he didn't have a problem with his council colleague's ridicule of Colom. "Why not?" Mell said. "If he's fighting for a victory, he had to do whatever he had to do."
"I was surprised, because he didn't treat me like that when I won four years ago," Colon said of Mell's turn to cordiality. "But he said he didn't realize how many people hated my opponent."
Colon said he appreciated Mell's effort to reach out to him, but he continued to link Colom's nasty campaign tactics to the 33rd Ward alderman. "I think the fear of Mellma was enough," he said. "I think the negative stuff backfired."
On Monday, as Colon chatted with some reporters and friends outside council chambers, Mell strode strode up and slapped him on the back. "Congratulations, big guy," Mell said.
Colon looked so happy he was ready to burst. "Thanks, man," he said. As Mell continued on his way, Colon went back to what he'd been doing: ripping the Tribune for describing him as "quiet" in a piece the day before.
"I think if I would've provided some public entertainment value to the council I wouldn't have been labeled like that," Colon said.
Then again, sometimes entertainment backfires.
Comments (49)
Showing 1-49 of 49
"But he said he didn't realize how many people hated my opponent." That comment reveals how woefully disconnected sMell is from the real people down at ground level. It doesn't take more than a few passing conversations to understand how Vilma thoroughly burned her bridges in the community. Meanwhile Rey's jumbled attempt at party/fundraiser should raise some eyebrows. I have no doubt he is a sincere person and great alderman...but why the need to raise more $$$? I hope he doesn't take sMell's backslaps as a sign of goodwill...the guy is just playing cowboy politics a la W. Bush. I would apporach sMell with a big chip on my shoulder.
like
dislike
Rey should Run someone against Mell everytime he runs. He's bound to get what Matlack got. So what if he has an army of patronage workers and millions of dollars. Does he have the people, the residents of the 33rd Ward. Scott Waguespack did it with the people of the ward and a lot less money. So many politicians in power are so afraid Mell it gets me sick. FYI Mell threatened to throw forces against 30th Ward HDO Alderman Ariel Reboyras if he didn't cut a deal to help Mellma Colom in case of a runoff. The runoff came and Ariel was forced to work against his closest Latino Ally, Rey Colon. Mell is the Chair of the Ehics Committee, what a funking joke! He tried pushing Flores around regarding the Cooper Lamp Factory and Flores sent him to hell, and worked for Rey openly, with cash and people. I've heard people say Mell "made" this person and "made" that person, which is probably true because Blagojevich would't have been shit if it wasn't for Mell, but then it seems as if he thinks he owns them. I'm glad Blago told him to back the fuck off...after he got the goods of course. The arrogant bastards are falling at the polls or by indictment. Matlack, Beavers, Shaws, Natarus, Tillman, Al Sanchez, Sorich, etc. Daley is afraid of this geiser too. Mell hates Daley because Daley cut him out of the jobs when he was taking care of his own people. Mell's boys are Berrios, Gutierrez, Maldonado, Gabinski...old school politicos. When are these guys gonna get taken out. These Dynasties gotta come down. Look to the future. Obama, Colon, Flores, Munoz, Waguespack, Ocasio, Cochran, DelValle. I think Mells kissing Rey's ass now because he doesn't want to see the progressive movement move one ward north to the 33rd ward. I hope it does man, I really do. His cronies walk with a swagger of invincibility like they can march into any ward and win it for this arrogant fuckhead. People have gotten wise to these bastards.
Perhaps when Colon and his cronies have stopped playing games, someone in his office can respond to my email about the dangerous traffic situation at the Addison/Lawndale crossing.
yeah Ian - maybe the same can happen with waguespacks office. I've been trying to get things done in the last month and matlaks office gave me the run around saying waguespack was not doing his job and things were going to be lost in the transition...then I look at matlaks windows at his closed office and they say go to 311 for anything...nice job matlak. couldn't do the job during your tenure and couldn't do it when exiting. loser.
Matlaks office may be closed but I'm sure the timesheets and paychecks are flowing. Waguespack folks should document attempts to reach Matlack showing a genuine interest in continuity of services for the people. Matlack should show some class and work with the new alderman.
this part from Joravsky may be the biggest compliment he's given all year to an alderman: "Colon ran as a go-it-alone guy, and though he hasn't tried to forge an identity as a Daley opponent, he also hasn't cozied up to the mayor. He had some union support, but not tons of it. In many ways, he really was on his own."
"Colon ... hasn't cozied up to the mayor." Save for a handful of votes in his career, Colon was & is an extremely reliable Yea in the endless stream of mindless, unanimous no-discussion, no-debate, rubber-stamp Chicago City Council votes. There is no purer way of defining cozying up to the Mayor.
"Colon ... In many ways, he really was on his own." Clearly Colon would like us to think of him as his own man. But relying on self-reporting is a notoriously flawed method of evaluating the performance of politicians. Colon's claims of independence have negligible support in his voting record. Colon's documented voting record is one of a strong Daley collaborator. Sorry, I expect writers to check facts when politician's lips are moving. If you were covering Congress you would never dream of writing of someone that they are in many ways their own man if they voted in lock-step with Hastert 99.99% of the time.
How about writing articles containing the specifics of the most-costly-to-the-taxpayers shenanigans practiced by 'our' city council 'representatives' during the past, say, 10+ years, detailing the costs to taxpayers and the 'benefits' received? Like starting with the yearly budgets of the departments of Streets & Sans, Water & Sewer, Planning, Building, Zoning, Finance, Legal, Insurance, etc..... Like a complete listing of all city employees, their yearly incomes, their job descriptions and duties, their job benefits and perks, department equipment and supplies budgets, listing of all vendors and contractors used, etc...... How about a public audit of all city, (and county), yearly budgets, analyzed and scrutinized by the best Ebenezer Scrooge's on the Reader's staff, with the goal of submitting questions to every single public official responsible for approving of same, as in the who, what where, when, how and why of every taxpayer's dollar taken and spent..... If our 'public servants' truly believe that they are effective, efficient and trustworthy guardians of our hard-earned dollars paid in taxes, they should have no problem with being held accountable for their actions relevant to same, past, present and future..... Are the journalists at the Reader up to the task of being more than a meager version of 'Entertainment Tonight'?
"Colon's documented voting record is one of a strong Daley collaborator. " Voting with the mayor 75% of the time doesn't even remotely put him at the top of the list. Try some fact checking - can you display any aldermen who showed more independence? It's all relative, and it's not like Daley doesn't put lots of good things up for vote.
> Voting with the mayor 75% of the time doesn't even remotely put him at the top of the list. > Try some fact checking http://council.forum49.org/ find me 25% of the votes where Colon stuck it to Daley
> It's all relative You are splitting thin blond ones to claim one alderman is more independent than another. > it's not like Daley doesn't put lots of good things up for a vote. I understand Daley has his constituency, that believes EVERYTHING he does is so marvelous, it should all be passed unanimously without discussion and without debate.
my apologies, jackass, it's actually 77%: http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/Aldermanic%20Voting%20Records/CityCouncilVotes2003-2006.htm
of course you realize the 77% you cite is 77% of Prof. Simpson's fav 17 votes of course by limiting your focus you could probably convince yourself Colon is the reincarnation of Leon Dupres you could throw out 13 of Simpson's 17 and then Colon is DALEY'S WORST NIGHTMARE! Simpson included two (2) budgets, Colon has voted on 4 Simpson included no TIFs, Colon has voted on dozens
> my apologies, jackass, it's actually 77% so let me get this straight you want to make sure folks understand that Colon is independent based on four (4) votes in 4 years? Rebel, rebel!
Four? There are 16 or 17 - but your point is taken, I misread the stats. So, as you are the prosecution here, what's the number? This is still ridiculous, though: "You are splitting thin blond ones to claim one alderman is more independent than another." That's absurd, this Council has actually stood up and gotten in Daley's face on a few major issues, and it's why the unions actually inserted themselves this year. Not all issues coming up for a vote are equal, but I agree more independence on TIFs is long overdue. It's a new Council, stay hopeful.
more to consider: http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/CityCouncilVotes.htm in 2005, Colon has a 72% agreement record (looking for 03 and 04). and regarding the importance of various votes, this is most definitely a huge one: http://www.russstewart.com/2-8-06.htm On the Northwest Side, as can be discerned from the adjoining vote chart, there are two kinds of aldermen: Daley supporters and slavish Daley supporters. All 12 area aldermen supported the mayor's 2005 budget, but only Doherty opposed the tax hikes. All the aldermen present except Rey Colon (35th) opposed the resolution to end the city's Shakman appeal.
http://www.russstewart.com/2-8-06chart.htm Almost forgot Colon voted NO on Wal-Mart as well, in spite of Hizzoner's ridiculing,
also worth mentioning (from 2004): http://djwinfo.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_archive.html Most of the ward organizations that supported Dan Hynes ended up losing – big – to Barack Obama. In the South Side 8th ward, Cook County Board President John Stroger is the ward committeeman. He backed Dan Hynes, but the 8th ward voters did not, casting 15,684 votes for Obama and 649 for Hynes. On the lakefront, from the Loop all the way up to around Foster Avenue, the organizations for the 42nd, 43rd, 44th and 46th wards all endorsed Dan Hynes – and most of the elected officials followed suit. Obama swept the entire lakefront with 70%+ of the vote. (The 48th and 49th ward organizations endorsed Obama). On the Northwest Side, where ever-more progressives are moving in and the long-time residents are flexing more independent muscle, only the 35th ward organization led by Alderman Rey Colon endorsed Obama – all the rest went another way, and Obama still won them all (except for the 31st ward, where the non-endorsed Gery Chico won!).
> Four? There are 16 or 17 Simpson reported on 17 votes between May 7, 2003 - November 15, 2006, votes carefully selected to bolster his contention of growing independence in our City Council. Conspicuously absent from Simpson's report is the TOTAL number of votes taken during that period, which number in the thousands. Even looking at just those 17, Colon agreed with the Mayor in 14, for a Simpson Wild Hair Rating of 77%.
> there are two kinds of aldermen: Daley supporters and slavish Daley supporters splitting hairs again no, sorry, there is only the latter
> All the aldermen present except Rey Colon (35th) opposed the resolution to end the city's Shakman appeal. so now you're down to ONE (1) vote in 4 YEARS as enough to establish independent cred? you seem like a bright person, you know you would never go this far to defend a similar voting record of a state or congressional legislator
So, you guys get off on commenting on the various mouse farts produced by all the city council rodents, picking nits off the clout beast's ass, as if the beast gives a shit about your mumblings...... The ONLY thing the clout beast fears is VOTER TURNOUT so massive that no amount of fraud can overcome the actual vote tallies. The ONLY thing the clout beast works hard at is ensuring that the majority of voters showing up at the polls are those beholden to the beast. The ONLY thing the clout beast cares about is discouraging widespread voter registration and widespread voter participation. The BEST hope citizens now have is the failures of the clout beast to muzzle the Internet, as the Internet is the MOST effective means of communication citizens now possess, all other media being compromised whores for generations. But you guys keep on playing this real-life game by the rules written by the clout beast, keep spinning your 'voter-wheels' and the beast will continue to laugh, all the way to the bank........
for god's sake, let the adults talk and go back to your spamming. Hugh, I listed a bunch of votes that suggest Rey Colon is not being led by the nose by Daley, they are big ones. Shakman? Huge. Beyond huge. Do you understand what Shakman has done to gut the alderman of their past patronage armies? Don't whitewash this down to simply "a vote," this is an issue of serious importance to all of us. Wal-Mart? Also huge. Someone needs to take a stand against these slave-labor exploiting bastards (or preferably, bust them into a million pieces even Rockefeller couldn't put back together), and make no mistake about it, aldermen got a lot of heat not just from the mayor but also from the aldermen who think that being able to walk to your job is the most pressing issue facing their neighborhoods. but the larger point is Daley is not Satan. He puts good things in motion, and those should be supported. TIFs are not one of them, mind you. and yes, I do apologize for calling you a jackass, although you do seem to have drawn a line in the sand that you are unwilling to look past. Another Despres would be great, but where did he come from? the relatively highly-educated and super-liberal UC campus. watch for Waguespack, and then watch to see how the ball keeps rolling in 2011. Daley isn't going to last forever, you know, let's just hope he doesn't bankrupt us with the olympics before he retires. As sketchy as the TIFS are, they are still "internal" - a mayor down the line can find a way to negate them if a Council also sees the light.
> I listed a bunch of votes that suggest Rey Colon is not being led by the nose by Daley, a bunch? you mean as in a few? for every vote of a particular alderman's that you claim demonstrates his independence, I can show you a THOUSAND that show he is a rubber stamp > they are big ones. of course you and Simpson and the unions and everyone else are allowed to pick & choose a few or even ONE fav issue that is personally important to you and say to yourself, that's MY issue, he voted MY way, he's MY guy Why are the 2 budgets Simpson included any bigger than the 2 he did not? > you do seem to have drawn a line in the sand that you are unwilling to look past. Exactly, yes, I have: it is the line between fact & fantasy. To talk of ANY Chicago alderman in terms of degrees of radicalness is crossing a line, the line of fact and reason. The FACTS are the voting record. > stay hopeful I wonder how many new TIFs were established Wed? We have a responsibility to see things as they are or we are lost. We are all desperate for change and so we tend to see things that are not there. The press feeds this when they write up a storm in teacup as some kind of clash of titans. Look at Simpson's 17 issues again: Daley prevailed on every significant issue. The imagined New Radical Left in City Council has foie gras and the Iraq war resolution as their main accomplishments to date.
> Shakman? Huge. Beyond huge. Wha? Huge would have been if the Chicago City Council actually PASSED a resolution calling off Daley's assault on court oversight of hiring. The resolution FAILED. That's not huge. > Wal-Mart? Also huge. Huge would have been if the Chicago City Council overrode the veto.
"Adults"? Keep on telling yourself you have a brain and it works, as all you're doing is indulging in mental masturbation. Nothing contained within your 'adult talk' will do anything to solve the problems of dishonest people controlling the making of laws, the making of 'government' policies, the spending of tax dollars, the control, through propagandas, manipulations and such, of citizens, or the ongoing unaccountability for same. You are free to choose to engage in your concept of 'adult' conversation, but your description, of actually effective strategies to rid ourselves of these vermin, as 'spamming', reveals your lack of sincere desire for honest people holding public office. Have all the sport you wish to, but there are actual adults seeking to inspire real, effective changes to our presently defective and harmfully perverted 'political systems'.
> Colon went back to what he'd been doing: ripping the Tribune for describing him as "quiet" Colon should have been happy to be described as "mostly quiet." "Mostly quiet" was generous. If the Tribune wanted to accurately summarize Colon's 1st term it would have read: "Mostly collaborated with Daley in first term despite promises of bringing independence to the council." instead of: "Mostly quiet in first term despite promises of bringing independence to the council."
"I think if I would've provided some public entertainment value to the council I wouldn't have been labeled like that," Colon said. No one expects Colon or any other alderman to be the post-Natarus era class clown. But we MUST expect our aldermen to use their heads and vote their hearts and not be rubber stamps.
ONCE AGAIN YOU SEE THE SERIAL POSTING OF HUGH ,AN INCUMBENT HATER FROM THE FAR NORTH SIDE. ALL AN OFFICIAL HAS TO DO TO BECOME A TARGET OF HUGH'S LIES AND SMEAR INNUENDOES AND INFERENCES IS TO WIN AN ELECTION ;ONCE IN OFFICE THEY BECOME HUGH'S TARGET!
So, the mysterious 'ALL CAPITOLS' poster returns! And what brilliant observations does he/she have to share with us? Why, the same old, tired complaint, to wit: "ONCE AGAIN YOU SEE THE SERIAL POSTING OF HUGH ,AN INCUMBENT HATER FROM THE FAR NORTH SIDE. ALL AN OFFICIAL HAS TO DO TO BECOME A TARGET OF HUGH'S LIES AND SMEAR INNUENDOES AND INFERENCES IS TO WIN AN ELECTION ;ONCE IN OFFICE THEY BECOME HUGH'S TARGET!" Apparently, Hugh is hitting a few nerves in his posts, namely the nerves of those who are 'nervous' about the possibility that they, or their 'sponsor's', will lose the power to tax and dole out our hard-earned dollars to those 'special, sponsored few'? Save those ill-gotten gains, boys and girls, the gravy train may soon be coming to a halt.....
Hugh makes some good points, no doubt. However, he offers no pragmatic solutions. Dissing Simpson? Good god man, are you holding your breath hoping Mother Theresa is going to run for mayor or as an alderman? This City's system has been corrupt for 120+ years, it isn't going to change overnight, or due to the actions of one individual. Let's look at Despres - fantastic man, great principles, but what is his legacy? Did he "fix" the system? Yes, I do look at the small improvements & am guilty of perhaps overemphasizing them, but Shakman is a big one to me. I do also understand it's just a start. Hugh, run for office - run a campaign, do SOMETHING - or post a list/start a website breaking down every individual vote; but as we all know, it is much easier to criticize and destroy than it is to create.
Well, why don't you post the information you find would be helpful for the voters to know, on this open comment board? Why, if you are so well informed about both the positive and negative aspects of 'our' city government affairs, don't you share the details of same with all of the voters who view this comment board? Why, if you are truly interested in stimulating voter thoughtfulness and participation, don't you provide the honest, factual information we all would benefit from knowing, as well as your own, insightful opinions on same? Inquirying minds would like to know......
the people demanding said information are the ones who should be getting out there and posting it, just like everyone I'm busy as hell.
So you are mad as hell, but too busy to do anything about it ? Life is good in the cheap seats / ivory tower / peanut gallery.
Yeah, we see how busy you be, shillin' for da man, workin' dat crook county shell game, pretendin' to be wat you ain't, hell sure is wat you be busy wit......
what on earth are you all talking about? I pointed out the obvious, if someone is going to demand that *I* provide information publicly available, perhaps that person should get off their butt and do the research themselves. I provided links to Dick Simpson's studies and a few other ones as well, but these apparently don't meet the high standards of the peanut gallery here. but as I don't work for you all, if you want more research, hop to it. to paraphrase an old saying, "THIS AIN'T YO MAMA'S MESSAGE BOARD, SON. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GET IT YOURSELF" lastly, try reading some of Dick Simpson's books, you might learn something.
":Perhaps they, the impatient ones, are over-estimating the extent of your knowledge. " afraid so. believe me, if I knew this stuff, I'd post it. not sure why people are assuming I'm - what, a county or city employee? - but I'm just another schnook trying to figure out why we keep getting fleeced by the Man. and while I'd love to see a giant solution present itself, I just don't see that happening. I suspect improvements will come slowly and only through great effort, and then you have to deal with the crooks who will try and roll back the progress any way they can. what we need in Chicago is another political party, like the Greens. if you've never read his stuff, I highly recommend Peter Dale Scott's books on "Deep Politics," which he defines roughly as the relationships that cross government, private business and criminal enterprise lines and truly affect us all in ways that can't be explained using traditional conventional political analysis.
by the way, in the 35th ward the choices were Colon (incumbent), ColoM (prior two term incumbent), and originally, Sotomayor (IL state tollway employee).
Why didn't capsman bring up the painting of the window frames? I never tire of reading about how he is so disturbed by them. I think capsman is starting to like Hugh, just a little.
Mysteriously, an interesting series of posted comments disappeared from this board. Fortunately, I saved the page. 'giant' solution? May 30th - 2:58 a.m. "and while I'd love to see a giant solution present itself, I just don't see that happening." If you're referring to the concept of 'HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT', all it will take for this to move from concept to reality is for enough people to hear about it, talk about it, think about it and realize that it WILL work. 1) REGISTER TO VOTE!!!!! 2) Before election day arrives, make a list of ALL incumbents running for re-election. 3) Bring this list with you when you go to vote. 4) Remember that, with few exceptions, you will NOT be voting for ANY of the incumbents on your list. 5) If there are 2 or more challengers listed running for a given office, cast your vote by following this formula: a) If the INCUMBENT is listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger who is listed LAST. b) If the INCUMBENT is NOT listed first, then vote for the challenger who IS listed FIRST. 6) If enough voters choose to follow the above rules, then just sit back and watch, as the 'talking heads' of the media talk for hours and hours, speculating on the reasons why SO MANY incumbents got fired!!! Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? I don't think so. It's just simple mathematics. And it can happen, IF enough of us citizens are willing to do more than just bitch-rag about how thoroughly we're being butt-fucked. Amazed May 30th - 10:14 a.m. that makes an assumption that all the new aldermen will be on the same page as far as what "we" want them to do. while I wholeheartedly agree we have too many chair-moisteners wasting our tax dollars on City Council, the fact remains that the path to election is extremely difficult, and involves compromises to win popular support - this isn't a radical town by and large. not yet.... May 30th - 11:11 a.m. Actually, a one party dictatorship masquerading as a representative democracy is the more radical reality, don't you think? And, the "path to election is extremely difficult" only applies to a specific person's perspective when he/she is seeking to be elected. The voting strategy outlined is not meant to get any specific person elected, it's purpose is to: 1) demonstrate to both the voters, aka citizens, and to those presently holding public office and those seeking, or thinking about seeking, public office, that the people truly have the power to determine who, specifically, will be granted the authority to control the making of laws, policies, spending of taxes assessed, and the amounts of said taxes, etc., as well as the appointing of those who enforce, apply and adjudicate those laws and policies, which effect us all. 2) inspire, in the many citizens who have, so far, failed to appreciate the power they possess, the will to exercise that power, by putting those presently 'blessed' with holding the authority of public office in the same position that we, the 'ordinary citizens' live our lives in, namely, that since we can be fired from our jobs, and, thus, we're inspired to do our jobs well to avoid same, they, the 'public servants', should have to know that they can, and will, be fired, should their 'job performance' prove to be unsatisfactory. 3) establish, as the normal, expected condition, that those elected will NOT be re-elected, UNLESS they convince the voting citizens that they DESERVE to be. As it stands now, we, the voting citizens, have been conditioned to believe that those SEEKING public office, the challengers, have to convince us to elect them, (in effect, to replace an incumbent who benefits from our holding the false assumption that said incumbent is doing an acceptable job), when a more effective, and beneficial to us, attitude would be for us all to embrace the assumption that ALL incumbents have to prove that they've been doing an outstanding job, by their deeds, not merely their words, before we ALLOW them to remain our employees, by not voting them out of office. Perhaps the concept of politicians truly fearing the voters, as an unstoppable force, is a radical one, in this time and place where so many voters fear the politicians, as in 'you can't fight city hall'. The truth is that you don't have to fight city hall, since 'city hall' is really merely a bunch of human beings who you can fire, come election time. Fire them all, vote them all out of office, and, if those who replace them fail to satisfy, fire them next election. You'll be surprised at how quickly honest people will be running for office, once they see that the "path to election is extremely difficult" is no longer all that difficult. The difficult thing SHOULD BE to get re-elected.
Everything she touches turns to sh*t. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/415690,CST-NWS-bomb06.article
The good Reverernd admits it was a big ploy for pity. Shame on you Vilma http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-threatjun07,1,6406718.story
