Friday, January 9, 2009
News / Clout City The nays
Posted by Mick Dumke on 01.09.09 at 05:25 PM
State reps Milton Patterson and Elga Jeffries have something in common besides an unwillingness to vote for impeaching the governor: neither has to face voters again.
Patterson is retiring after his current term ends--which, for all practical purposes, is today--and Jeffries lost her bid for re-election last year.
As they explained their decisions to the Trib:
"Patterson said he wasn't comfortable with voting 'yes' on impeachment. 'I think the committee did an excellent job in the report, it was just there was not enough for me to feel comfortable with a decision to do that.... I did not feel comfortable voting based upon what I heard and read, simple as that.' ...
"Rep. Elga Jefferies, a South Side Democrat, cast the sole 'present' vote because, she said, a 'lot of this process was personal.' ... Jefferies, whose term ends next week, said she suffered from 'personal vendettas' in a rough primary campaign that she lost. 'I was torn between political and personal,' Jefferies said."
Patterson, a well-liked former Democratic committeeman of the 17th Ward, suffered a stroke a couple of years ago and chose not to run for re-election last year. According to state records, his campaign fund is about $138,695 in arrears thanks to loans it took out from the ward organization and Patterson's personal funds. He'll be replaced next week by Andre Thapedi, an attorney who ran for the seat unopposed: after he challenged the ballot petitions of at four foes before last February's primary, they all withdrew or were tossed off the ballot.
Jeffries polled just 12 percent of the votes against four challengers in last year's primaries. Winner Will Burns, a former aide to outgoing state senate president Emil Jones, said Jeffries must have been referring to one of her other opponents. "When I ran for state representative, I ran on the issues," he said. "We never did a negative piece on Elga and we didn’t attack Elga. So when she says she’s talking about negative vendettas, she must be talking about somebody else."
Burns said he doesn't doubt that Jeffries had some good reason for voting "present." "I never question a legislator’s motives. If a legislator says she’s voting her conscience, I take her at her word. That said, if I had been in there, I would have voted yes."
Comments (20)
Showing 1-20 of 20
At least Jeffries and Patterson voted. Where was the diehard Blago supporter Ken Dunkin? He didn't even show up to cast a vote. Maybe he was in the intensive care unit. Now there's a man caught between his benefactor Jesse White and his partner in crime Blago!
like
dislike
No real courage in their votes. They are both lame ducks and probably will ask Blago for a job.
"No real courage in their votes." actually refers to the 114 who voted to impeach. It takes no courage to be part of a lynching, none whatsoever. This body of 'legislators' has been aching to rid themselves of the pesky executive branch governor for some time. If only our city's legislative branch felt the same way about our city's executive branch mayor. Were daley to be 'charged' by the feds, would our 50 little angels react in the same manner?
If anyone has a problem with the Mayor or their alderman, they should run against them or support someone who will. Then, if there is enough support to turn them out, the people will go to the polls and elect someone else. That is called Democracy. And dont give me that bullshit about the power of incumbency - ask Bilandic, Byrne, Oglive, Tillman, Coleman, Haithcock, Matlack, Bush I, Carter, Alan Dixon, Beavers, Chandler, about the power of incumbency. 50% +1 of the people must be satisfied with their government because every four years they have a chance to change it and by and large, they do not. So aside from the few malcontents on this little rant board, the people speak and are content with their government, or at least do not want to risk changing it wholesale and become another Detroit or Cleveland in the process. We could have a fool like this one in Baltimore, so be grateful: http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/acrobat/2009-01/44441728.pdf a leader that thinks with that patch of hair between her legs instead of her brain.
It's impressive, your being so full of shit 24/7/52, it really is. "50% + 1 of the people..."? Don't you mean 50% + 1 of the people who are registered voters and who bothered to vote in an election? And "...must be satisfied with their government..."? Don't you mean must be so discouraged by the apparent advantages held by incumbents that they either don't bother to register to vote or, if registered, don't bother to vote? Which then results in usually less than 50% of even those registered to vote actually voting, thus reducing your '50% + 1 of the people...' claim to, at best, 25% + 1 of all registered voters being those '...satisfied with their government...'. And which further reduces your '50% + 1 of the people...' to a mere 12.5% + 1 of the people as a whole. Yep, 1 out of every 8 citizens qualified to vote are electing and reelecting those wonderful folks whose bung holes you are so intimately familiar with. "So...the people speak and are content with their government..."? And there are those who've accused me of being repetitive. Just out of curiosity, is it possible that you actually believe the shit you spout? Or are you just one of those natural born liars?
I'm the liar with my vote incumbents out sayings! :P *wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
He voted after you finished giving your job required rim jobs to each and every one of your bosses.
rim jobs? Did someone mention rim jobs? I love those! Remember vote Patricia McDonough, Mayor Des Plaines. I will fight for every City of Chicago worker to break the rules and get a raise!
Vote Incumbents Out ranter does not give the people credit for having any sense. According to his logic, if someone is getting poked in the eye, their disillusioned response would be to either to allow it to continue by doing nothing (not voting) or encouraging more (by saying thank you, can I have another and vote for the alleged inept incumbent), instead of kicking the shit out of the person doing the poking (voting for someone else). It is amazing that this world continues to rotate on its axis being populated by so many people that do not have as much sense as Vote the Incumbents Out ranter.
Your analogy is a specious one. Deliberately so, I'm sure. It's amazing that a political patronage machine hump like orion would think that he/she could, simultaneously, imply that 'the people' aren't being credited with having 'any sense' and then try to run this bullshit analogy up the people's asses. orion is the one depending upon 'the people' not 'having any sense'. And orion is the one depending upon 'the people' reliably defaulting to the 'what's in it for me' mentality that is the only perspective that orion understands. And orion is the one depending upon 'the people' being so busy trying to survive, and so resigned to believing that, no matter what they do on election day, 'the machine' will never allow any truly honest candidates to get on the election ballot, so all that 'the people' are stuck with choosing from are assholes (a), (b), (c), etc....., that 'the people' have been abandoning their democracy, by not voting, or not even registering to vote, in record numbers. Is orion suggesting that incumbents want every qualified to vote citizen to be registered and to vote in every election? Is orion implying that those citizens who met the qualifications to register and who do not register, and, thus, are not allowed to vote, are being sensible? Is orion seriously claiming that those citizens who meet the qualifications to vote, are registered, but choose not to vote, are expressing their approval of the incumbents, by not bothering to vote at all? Who really is giving 'the people credit for having any sense', orion or the HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT commenter?
I will try to keep this simple for you. There is a mechanism to remove ineffective politicians, it is called voting. Every two or four or six years, depending on the office, the people have an opportunity to nominate and subsequently vote for those who they feel are in their best interests. Unfortunately, no one is around to hold their hand, take them to the polls and give them a juice box and orange slices after voting. The people have to decide wether or not exercising their civic duty is worth while.
I have no sense, because I spout "HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT", when it doesn't really work. :P VOTE INCUMBENTS IN
No need to make an extra as being simple, oreo, that comes natural to you. "ineffective politicians". Hmmmmmmm, what could you possibly believe you mean by that? 'ineffective' at doing what? 'politicking', perhaps? And what is politicking, if not a synonym for bullshitting, manipulating, patronizing, scheming, scamming, deceiving, obfuscating, pandering, profiteering, and generally acting as if there is only one natural law, that of 'where's mine?'? Now, what could you possibly have meant by the statement "...the people have an opportunity to nominate..."? Did you mean that they have the opportunity to submit a specific citizen's nominating petitions to the election board, for this political crony controlled entity to deny said nomination? By applying the rules? Said rules written by the incumbent politicians? Said rules having never been submitted to the electorate for their approval? Said rules having been created solely for the benefits of the incumbents? Said incumbents being members of the political machine? Could that be the 'opportunity' you speak of? You remind me of the crooked dealer in a rigged black jack game, who, when confronted with his cheating ways, merely replies, "Hey, watcha bitchin' about, I'm the only game in town, so either ante up or leave the table!!" Catch the Fever: HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
I guess those confounding rules for getting on the ballot kept Waguespek, Dowell, Thompson, Fioretti, Jackson, Cochran, Dixon, Neeley, Gianulius, all newcomers, from getting on the ballot. Frankly, anyone too stupid to figure out how to get signatures, assemble them in the prescribed manner and present them in a timely manner, should not be in elective office in the first place. And, idiot, the rules have been submitted to the people through their duly elected representatives - you must have missed that part of 8th grade civics class.
Except for Scott Waguespack, your examples prove my point. Frankly, anyone so disingenuous shouldn't try to appear genuine. As for 'duly elected representatives', well, refer back to: re oreo January 11th - 7:09 a.m. Catch the Fever: HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
