 |
| SMITH: He's still around |
This
legislator told me that the only hard-and-fast commitment she had to make in
exchange for Madigan’s support (including the periodic transfers of cash from Madigan’s
campaign funds that keep many legislative campaigns alive) was to promise that
she’d vote in support of measures to keep Madigan in his leadership post.
TO
THE BEST of my knowledge, state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, complied with
that demand. He never did anything that would have challenged Madigan’s
authority to be House speaker (without which Madigan would be just another schlub
legislator from the Southwest Side).
So
should it be any surprise that Madigan is backing Smith’s bid for re-election
come the March 18 primary over other candidates. Madigan aides themselves admit
that the speaker is supporting Smith because he’s the incumbent – and for no
other reason.
Yet
there are those who are acting “shocked, shocked to learn” that Smith can be
endorsed by anybody for re-election.
Smith,
after all, is the guy who got booted from the Illinois House two years ago when
he was indicted by federal prosecutors on claims that the cash he took for his
government activity amounts to bribes.
BUT
IN WHAT was the quirk of the 2012 election cycle, Smith managed to get
re-elected to a two-year term – one that will soon come to an end. Because the
federal court system is one that takes time to work one’s way through, he has
yet to be found guilty of anything.
So,
he’s running for re-election to another two-year term in this year’s election
cycle. The reality of our political set-up is that incumbents have a lot of
advantages, no matter how inept or sleazy we may perceive them as being.
He’s
going to keep getting re-elected until the very day that a “guilty” verdict is
rendered. I don’t really like that idea, but I accept that it is reality.
 |
| MADIGAN: Merely playing politics |
So
I’m not so concerned about the fact that Smith probably will win the Democratic
primary AND the general election in November.
THE
REAL QUESTION is whether “the feds” can get their act together to obtain a
conviction of some type against Smith.
Perhaps
those of us who are all upset that Madigan would think to support Smith –
instead of trying to pick a no-name and rise him from the muck to a position of
authority in the Illinois House – ought to focus our attention on why it takes
so long for a criminal case to actually come to trial.
For
a case that is supposedly as obviously a “guilty” verdict as some political
people would like us to believe, perhaps this should happened long ago.
For
those who have already forgotten the specifics of this case, it involves a
$7,000 payment he received after writing a letter supporting a day care
operation that sought a $50,000 grant from state government.
I’M
SURE HE’LL argue that he was just making a recommendation about something
proposed for his West Side-based legislative district, just like any other
legislator would do. This will become a case – when it finally goes to trial –
that will become a matter of how much we actually trust anything Smith says.
Now
I’m not writing this commentary in defense of Smith. It’s more a criticism of
those people trying to score more cheap political points off of a pending
indictment.
 |
| What's taking them so long? |
I
expect Madigan to keep supporting Smith so long as he fulfills Madigan’s
interests.
What
disgusts me is that Smith, if he really is as guilty as prosecutors want us to
believe, isn’t in a prison cell already. And if he isn’t guilty, that a
criminal charge has lingered over him for so long!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment