Thursday, January 28, 2010
Politics / Clout City / News Congressman Danny Davis Faces Some Real Opposition For Once
Posted by Mick Dumke on 01.28.10 at 11:52 AM
I certainly won’t predict that esteemed Danny Davis—he of the booming baritone and liberal politics—is going to lose his bid for an eighth term in Congress.
But as Ben Joravsky and I write in this week’s Reader, times are changing in his west-side district.
Put another way: it's never good when the incumbent has to spend time defending his association with the Reverend Moon.
- Danny Davis
His take on the matter: it's much ado about nothing. The Unification Church, he says, is more mainstream than most of us think. "They had a banquet downtown the other day, and the black preachers who were there was like a who's who of Chicago. I didn't go to it, but they ain't following no Moon. They ain't gonna drink no cyanide and shit."
But on to the matter at hand. After winning all of his previous congressional elections by huge margins, Davis has some legitimate opposition this time around. All three of them became peeved—and saw an opportunity—when Davis expressed interest in running for the U.S. Senate and then Cook County Board president, only to back down and say he wants to keep his current job.
We got into it a little in the paper, but this is the fuller version of what’s going on in the race.
One of his opponents is Darlena Williams-Burnett, a former Cook County commissioner who’s now the top lieutenant to Recorder of Deeds Eugene “Gene” Moore. She’s also married to 27th Ward alderman Walter Burnett and enjoys the support of ward boss and secretary of state Jesse White.
Williams-Burnett says that while Davis has been distracted with running for other offices the district continues to struggle with the aftershocks of public housing redevelopment, which sent thousands of former tenants into other already-impoverished areas and spurred increases in violence. She says the district needs more affordable housing and business development, and she’s angry that public safety is so imperiled that working people feel like prisoners in their own homes. That’s why she believes it’s time to call in the National Guard.
“Ultimately the government is going to have to deal with this and it’s going to take more than the local police,” she says. “I’m under the impression that in certain neighborhoods where things are really bad we could use the national guard or some sort of force to keep things moving—to keep people off the corners. We can’t lock them all up, but we need some sort of enforcement.”
Next up is Sharon Dixon, three years into her first term as 24th Ward alderman. Dixon believes the district should have received far more in federal stimulus and foreclosure assistance funds than it has over the last year. She blames Davis for not working harder to get it. “I felt like that was a smack in the face.”
Also running is Jim Ascot, a commercial realtor who lost an uphill campaign against Davis in 2006. With little money and limited name recognition—along with the fact that he’s a white guy in a predominantly black district—he faces the longest odds. But he’s got a lot of energy and says he could bring people together to take on problems like the shortage of affordable housing and the deterioration of the CTA. “It’s about having the ability to step up and be a leader,” he says.
Davis argues that he’s done a good job by raising awareness of ex-offender issues, bringing money back to the district, crafting legislation to reorganize the postal service, and doing lots of politicking and legislative work on the health care reform bill.
Plus, he says, his opponents are full of it.
Davis dismisses Williams-Burnett as nothing more than the latest annoyance sent his way by Jesse White. “The 27th Ward, they have always been what we characterize as Democratic regulars, and I’ve always been characterized as an independent Democrat,” Davis says. “As a matter of fact, their organization ran a woman against me, I’ve forgotten which time it was, but they supported a woman against me. I forget her name.”
The Burnetts, he adds, “have an interest in politics. Not necessarily in public policy, but in politics.”
He also thinks Dixon is in over her head. “It’s pretty difficult to rationalize her running,” he says. “Of course, this is America, and everyone’s got an opportunity to run. She was just elected alderman by a 100-and-some votes, and I guess she might be running to try and increase the possibility of trying to be reelected. I guess. I don’t know what her claim is to fame, and I don’t know what her political ambitions are. I don’t know what makes her think she can possibly win an election to Congress.”
Davis is aware that Ascot probably doesn’t have a great shot of winning, and he speaks of him fondly. “Jim’s run against me before,” he says. “He’s a gentleman.”
The congressman is probably right in concluding he’ll hold onto his seat. But I also don’t think he can afford to blow his foes off.
Davis is loved by reformers because he doesn’t always cater to the local Democratic machine, but he’s also long past the days when he crusaded against it.
Plus, even if it’s not his fault, the west side is still deeply troubled—full of vacant homes and old factory buildings, empty lots strewn with trash, and unemployed men dealing on the corners. It's outrageous that so much of it has been neglected, by many of our elected officials, since the 1968 riots.
And the other candidates are running so they can build name recognition and go after Davis again in two or four years—or open the door enough so that even stronger candidates can step in. “I don’t want to say I don’t expect to win, because I’m very competitive,” says Dixon. “But this is also about me laying some groundwork in the Seventh Congressional District and letting the voters get to know me. If I don’t win this time I can come back again.”
Davis says there’s a ton more he wants to do.
Like what? I asked him.
“Retire," he says, then quickly adds: “Eventually.”
Comments (10)
Showing 1-10 of 10
"That’s why [Williams-Burnett] believes it’s time to call in the National Guard."
Boy, that sounds like a sure-fire way to get votes. Who wouldn't want to live under martial law?
like
dislike
Mick,
I hate to veer off-topic. But since the rest of the media seems to have completely failed to grasp the magnitute of Daley's outrageous decision about the fireworks announced Wednesday, I thought I would call your attention to the fact that the opportunity to fill this void is quite tremendous. I think people are going to eventually be as outraged about this as the parking meter lease deal. As originally announced, the decision to cancel the fireworks supposidely was about saving the $500,000 or so that the event costs. Yet I would be absolutely astonished if there is not far more tax revenue taken in from the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from the suburbs and elsewhere who come to the event. From my observations, the overwhelming majority of these people purchase something while they are in the city. Many use the opperatunity to eat at restuarants. Michigan Avenue is always even more packed than usual on that day. So there would likely be quite a bit of sales tax revenue. Plus, many businesses will presumembly have more people work because of the larger crowds. This means more income tax revenue plus even more sales tax revenue because these employees have more money to spend. I'm sure there are even a fairly large amount of people who the event brings in from hundreds of miles away or even farther who then stay at hotels. So the cancellation will decrease the revenues that come from hotel taxes. In fact, the fireworks likely is the tipping point that causes quite a few tourists to decide to visit Chicago for their vacation.
So it seems to me that the notion that this will save money just doesn't wash. I'm sure you could fairly easilly talk to tourism experts. Perhaps there have been studies done about how much the fireworks brings to the economy. And, of course, you should insist that the city explain why they somehow believe that the cost savings will outweigh the benefits. If they cannot even estimate how much tax revenue the event brings it would be rather outrageous and would indicate the people in charge have no idea what they are doing (which wouldn't particular be surprising considering another city official stated last year something like "I doubt many people from the suburbs come to our festivals in millenium park, they have Ravinia over there." indicating, among other things, that he didn't seem to understand there was a difference between northern, western, and southern suburbs). The last I checked, no media outlet (with the exception of a brief mention by Greg Hinz) has even bothered to explore how much the city will lose in tax revenue from the cancellation. If you were to decide to do this I would imagine you will attract as much attention as your excellent work about the parking meter lease deal screwups.
In addition, it is completely outragous that this decision was made without any debate at all. Nobody apperently knew it was even being considered until it was announced. Daley stated today (in contrast to what was announced the day before) that cost was only the secondary factor. He said the most important thing was just that he preferred the new setup of having three small festivals on the fourth (one of which, contrary to the impression from media articles, isn't new). That is not the way things should work in a city that supposidely has a representive form of government. in a city of a few million people it does seem to me that the opinions of more than one person should matter. Were the aldermen consulted? If not, why? If so, why on earth did they let this thing occur? Those are questions that need to be asked. You and Ben are pretty much the only journalists in the city who ask these types of questions. So hopefully I will see some of your typically excellent work addressed to this issue.
Anyone else remember when the city didn't have a fireworks show? There actually was a pay show in Soldier Field on the 4th proper. I think Byrne started the public fireworks craze.
As a black man, it wouldn't be a bad idea for a white person to win the 7Th Congressional District. I want someone who does their job, I'm not worried about their race. The district covers parts of downtown, the west side where some whites live and Oak Park. Danny Davis is part of the Democratic machine. It seems everyone runs as independent then votes with the party, even though the policies hurt their constituents. For instance, making people buy for profit health care, without a public not for profit plan that constituents would rather have as an alternative. Many people see the Davis seat as off limits until he retires, but I disagree. I believe a young white liberal would do more to promote good ideas than a stubborn old black man catering to the establishment and these crazy west side preachers who store front churches impede economic progress on the west side. No seat is safe in this political environment because Democrats and Republicans feel compelled to give tax payer monies to big corporations. Mayor Daley's TIF money to move corporate headquarters to Chicago is the example of these policies. Danny Davis shouldn't feel safe in his seat now and in the future.
"Yes, black people are on the internet! LOL!"
And even more white people claiming to be black in order to work a political angle.
You can see footage of Danny Davis bowing to Moon and his wife in my short film, The King of America, at www.thekingofamerica.com.
I have spent all of my life in Chicago. I have known Congressman Danny K. Davis for about 25 years, since he was a Chicago city councilman. In all of that time I have met very few people who genuinely cared about the true meaning of the word politics--to serve the people. While other politicians practically move to Washington, D.C., Congressman Davis comes home every weekend to serve his constituents. He is constantly holding town meetings and serving his district--which is not just the African-American west side, but includes all of downtown Chicago and old town as well. Because Congressman Davis will not cow-tow the political powers in Chicago, he has always been considered an independent Democrat and has never received the political favors that for instance Isaac Carruthers his alderman and committeeman who is on his way to jail can claim. Several years ago after all of the negative publicity that attacked Congressman Davis for associating with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon some people thought that it was the perfect time to unseat him. So the Republicans called for his resignation and ran someone against him whose name was also Davis. Alderman Carruthers convinced his aunt to run against Congressman Davis in the primary election. The bottom line--his constituents re-elected Congressman Davis by a 92% plurality. As I understand it, Congressman Davis NEVER had any interest in becoming Mr. Obama's successor in the U.S. Senate. I sincerely believe that he looked at the mess that is the Cook County Board and thought that maybe he could do a better job and be of greater service to the six million constituents in Cook County than just serving the 750,000 who are in his congressional district. In my humble opinion, Congressman Davis has always been about service and cooperation. His constituent services out of his humble office on the west side in the original Sears Roebuck and Company building are among the best in the congress. His cooperation with such people as Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert have only helped the people of his district. If he has a fault, it is probably expressed best by his wife Vera who once said, "would someone please let Congressman Davis know that he is NOT the ever-ready bunny." BRS
