Edgar likely right about Latino mayoral prospects in upcoming municipal elections

EDGAR: Who'd win Emanuel vs. del Valle?

Former Gov. Jim Edgar made the news this week by stating the incredibly obvious – William Brady is too conservative socially to be acceptable to the bulk of Illinoisans.

But Edgar made another statement that may be equally obvious, albeit one that has not drawn anywhere near as much public attention – it’s going to be a long-shot for a Latino candidate to get taken seriously, even though it really shouldn’t be.

DURING A FORUM held at the Springfield campus of the University of Illinois, Edgar made it clear that he expects former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to be one of the two candidates for mayor who make it to a run-off election to be held in April.

But can Emanuel win? Edgar thinks there’s one possibility that would ensure an Emanuel defeat in the run-off – that is if he were running against a Latino candidate. He seems to think that the growing Latino population of Chicago would combine with all the people who despise the idea of Emanuel as mayor and would vote for Anybody But Rahm.

The problem with that scenario, however, is that there are two Latino candidates of significance likely to be in this campaign. Both city Clerk Miguel del Valle and former City Colleges of Chicago chairman Gery Chico have their own flaws that make it unlikely they would make it to the run-off stage.

So what is likely to occur?

AS OF NOW, we have Emanuel saying he will use a grammar school in his old congressional district to start actively campaigning for office, with former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., saying they plan similar events this weekend to get their names out before the public.



DEL VALLE: Can his campaign stand out?



Next week is also the time period in which candidates for mayor will have to make their candidacies official by filing the nominating petitions to show they have enough support to warrant a spot on the ballot.

Monday will be the day that we see a rush of candidates early in the morning, all hoping they can get the top ballot spot for the Feb. 22 elections.

Which means that if Chico or del Valle are to even be in the mix, they’re going to have to cough up the petitions that they have spent recent weeks trying to prepare.

WHILE MUCH ATTENTION has been paid in recent weeks to an attempt by African-American activists, clergy and politicos to try to unite behind a single African-American mayoral candidate, there has been little attention paid to those Latino candidates – in large part because there has been no effort to try to unite Latino voters into a single bloc.

If anything, it is going to be that split in opinions that prevents any of the Latino candidates from mounting a serious challenge to finish the February election in the Top Two.

Keep in mind that things could have been worse. We could still have Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., thinking of himself as a mayoral hopeful, and there were polls taken that indicated that the bulk of Latino voters in Chicago would have looked most favorably upon a Gutierrez campaign for mayor compared to any other Latino candidate.

It makes me think that the day Gutierrez announced that he’s not going to run for mayor, preferring to remain in Congress to try to keep the issue of immigration reform alive, was the day that most Chicago political people stopped thinking of the possibility of a Latino mayor in 2011.

I’VE WRITTEN IT before, and I’ll write it again.

Del Valle, a former state legislator who was the first head of a Latino Caucus in Springfield, is a mild-mannered, serious-minded public official who likely will get lost in the political muck by the screaming that will emanate from Emanuel and his African-American challengers.

The people who are peddling stories that del Valle would back out of the race if given a significant position within the Chicago city school system are trying to thin out the ranks, with del Valle getting their attention because it is realistic to think his mild-mannered approach could be most appealing to non-Latinos if they’re in search for an alternative to Emanuel. Rahm versus Miguel would be a most-interesting run-off election.



CHICO: Is he candidate material?



Whereas Chico, who was a part of the Chicago Public School reform back when Paul Vallas was still highly regarded by the powers-that-be in this city, gives off an aura of somebody who ought to be a staffer, rather than an elected official.

PERHAPS HE’S THE guy whom the new mayor should consider for chief of staff – a position he once held under Richard M. Daley. It also means Chico may have been premature in resigning his most current post with the City Colleges system so as to focus on a mayoral campaign.

There’s also the fact that Emanuel’s camp a few weeks ago managed to get the support of United Neighborhood Organization CEO Juan Rangel, which probably makes him think he can get enough Latino voter support to prevent any one Latino candidate from uniting the Spanish-sympathetic masses on their own behalf.

That prospect likely lies in a future year.

  -30-

What lesson did we learn?

The Illinois General Assembly may well try to take on the bill concerning the concept of “civil unions” when they return to the Statehouse next week, yet I think it more interesting to try to figure out what lessons were learned from last week’s election cycle.

How bloodied will this battleground become over civil unions?



For it seems that no lesson was truly learned. Everybody wants to have their own beliefs reinforced to the point that it likely will become impossible for people to work together on any issue.

WHAT CAUGHT MY attention was a Chicago Sun-Times report about the civil unions issue, where backers say they are going to try to get a bill passed by the state Legislature during the fall session that begins Tuesday.

Of course, the concept has its critics – including several religious organizations that are claiming opposition on so-called moral grounds. Catholic Conference of Illinois officials went so far as to tell the newspaper that “civil unions” might as well be gay marriage – a concept they vehemently oppose.

They also brought up the results of elections in Iowa, where three state Supreme Court justices who were perceived as supportive of gay marriage failed to get enough votes to be recalled to service on the high court.

The implication being that anybody who votes in favor of a measure that gives respect to gay people as people faces the threat of an angry hoard of homophobic voters come the 2012 election cycle.

ACTUALLY, IF THAT were a legitimate factor, then this fall veto session (before the newly-elected Legislature even takes effect) is the perfect time to bring this issue up. Because we’re talking two full years between the time of the political act, and the votes being cast.

There may well be some people who will bitterly hold a grudge and keep it in the backs of their minds (too bad it couldn’t stay there) that people voting “aye” on civil unions need to be removed from office. I suspect a majority will have moved on, with some finding other reasons to want to dump incumbent members.

But it really isn’t a legitimate factor. In fact, one of the characteristics of a responsible public official is an ability to determine when a public “majority” is really just an “angry mob” whose desires ought to be ignored for the good of society.

Which would make me hope that state Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, is capable of finding enough support to get this measure through – if for no other reason than to show those elements of our society that their time of prevailing in our thoughts is truly in the past.

IT STRUCK ME as a little odd that the civil union critics brought up the Supreme Court of Iowa as an example of what happens to public officials (including judges) who don’t behave in an ideologically conservative enough manner.

Then again, those same ideologues probably don’t want to think about the Supreme Court in their own state of Illinois, which in this election cycle went through its own partisan political fight.

While special interests were able to stir up resentment against the Iowa high court and get three judges dumped, an effort by business interests that want an ideologically conservative high court in Illinois went down to failure.

Remember Thomas Kilbride? He’s still the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and will remain on the state’s high court for another decade after taking about two-thirds of the vote. And we’re not talking votes coming from Cook County. The people who voted in this particular election came from a swath of central Illinois counties that all backed Bill Brady for governor.

OUR OWN STATE’S voters rejected an ideological effort to alter our high court’s partisan balance (and yes, our court has a 4-3 Democrat/Republican split). I’d think that makes us a little different than Iowa, where local voters gave in to the rancid rhetoric that all too often crops up whenever political people deal with issues related to gay people.

Which really makes me view the Iowa “threat” as a cheap threat that we’d be better off ignoring.

Now I don’t know if this particular bill is going to make it through the Legislature this time around. I suspect that the longer officials wait, the less likely something is to occur. Which would make now the time to finally do something (instead of letting this become one of those perennial issues that crops up in Springfield every two years with nothing happening).

I also will admit to agreeing with the Catholic Conference when it says that civil unions and actual marriage for gay people are “practically the same.”

SO WHAT?!? I have always thought those political people who say they support civil unions, but not gay marriage (including President Barack Obama), were just being ridiculous and making a phony effort to appeal to the conservative ideologues – one which I doubt ever works.

As far as civil unions go, if it means we’re acknowledging the idea that people are entitled to a certain amount of respect and dignity, and that we’re infringing upon someone’s ability (it’s not a right) to have someone to look down upon, then it probably is a good thing.

Particularly since the bottom line on this issue is that the idea of two people partnering up in their lives is really their business, and not ours.

  -30-

EXTRA: What is more ridiculous? GOP hard-line on Obama, or Quinn mandate?

It seems I’m not the only person who wonders if the Republican rhetoric about taking a hard line on issues and being uncompromising will ultimately do them in politically.

The Gallup Organization came out Wednesday with a new study that finds more people in our society (or at least more of the people who were polled) prefer the thought of “compromise” rather than “sticking to beliefs.”

FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT OF people want our political leaders to work together to reach a consensus, while 27 percent don’t mind a hard line from their elected officials. And yes, there is a partisan split. People who identified as Republican were more likely (41 percent to 32 percent) to prefer the hard line, while those who identify as Democrat were more likely (59 percent to 18 percent) to think in terms of working together.

Now I’m sure some conservative ideologues are going to try to spin this into a claim that they’re standing up for what they believe is proper.

But what caught my attention was another part of the survey, one that says 64 percent of people think President Barack Obama will make a sincere effort to work with the new Republican majority that will run the House of Representatives. In fact, anybody who objectively looks at Obama’s political background (meaning you realize how ridiculous all that birther nonsense is) in the Senate and the Illinois Legislature would realize he has always valued the concept of bipartisan work.

By comparison, only 43 percent of people think the Republicans will even try to cooperate with Obama. And only 17 percent of people think there is any truth to the statement of, “Republicans in Congress willing (to compromise), President Obama not willing.”

ADMITTEDLY, IT IS still early in the process – and this is one lone poll. But some of these ideologues need to give serious thought to the very real concept that perhaps we like Obama more than we like them.

Which means their belief that we’re automatically going to blame Obama for the failure of anything to be accomplished during the next two years may be an even more ridiculous thought than all that rhetoric Gov. Pat Quinn has been spewing in recent days about having a “mandate” to govern Illinois.

  -30-

Will GOP eagerness to play partisan politics start Obama uptick to re-election?

When I hear the new Republican majority of the House of Representatives go on and on about how it will repeal the healthcare reform measure that is a significant part of President Barack Obama’s legacy, I wonder how short-sighted they truly are.



OBAMA: Is the 'daylight' in sight?

Not that I expect the healthcare reform measure that was meant to provide some sort of medical coverage to many of the 47 million people in our country who currently go without. The Senate remains Democrat-controlled.

SO EVEN IF the GOP uses its majority in a purely partisan vote to “approve” a repeal or significant overhaul of the law that would gut its intentions, it is very unlikely to get through the full Congress.

Even if for some reason Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., were to see some political advantage to letting something pass, Obama himself would use his “veto” power to kill it off. And nobody these days has a veto-proof majority to override the president.

So healthcare reform (or if you insist on using the nit-wit term, Obamacare) isn’t going anywhere during the next two years. Any rhetoric we hear about the issue (and we’re going to hear a ton of such talk) is about pure partisan politics – all geared toward the notion that Obama himself should be a one-term president.

Excuse me for thinking that these newly-elected officials who got sent to Congress by voters spewing Tea Party-type rhetoric are so uncompromising and so strong-arm in their approach to government that I fully expect they’re going to handle this thing in such a manner that will turn off the true majority of our nation.

MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE I still remember the budgetary negotiations for the federal government’s 1996-97 fiscal year. It was just months earlier that the GOP had taken a majority in both the House and Senate, and under the leadership of now-former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., was determined to implement their own partisan version (the “Contract with America”) of what federal government should be.

That is what inspired them to take a hard-line toward budgetary negotiations and refuse to compromise even slightly. So when the deadlines passed and the federal government was forced to shut down all non-essential operations until a budget was in place, GOP officials figured that then-President Bill Clinton would be blamed.

After all, everything was Clinton’s fault. Just as now everything that goes wrong with the government must be because of Barack Obama.

A national populace that had been inclined to listen sympathetically to the Gingrich rhetoric was so turned off by what it heard and saw in this case that Clinton wound up gaining the moral high ground. It was the beginning of the process by which Clinton cruised toward re-election the following year.

IS THAT WHAT could happen if GOP types start going overboard with all their talk of dumping healthcare reform, and anything else they think can be tied to the idea of an Obama administration being wasteful?

Let’s not forget that 47 million figure – as in the number of people who don’t have any kind of healthcare coverage, and whose reliance on hospital emergency rooms for routine treatment is a major financial burden on the medical system.

If they’re not careful, they risk being the people who are willing to leave a significant number of people with nothing. Similar to another report I read Tuesday in which the governor-elect of Wisconsin (a Republican who went overboard on the government waste rhetoric during his campaign) is insisting he does not want a high-speed railroad line developed in his state between Milwaukee and the state capital in Wisconsin.

He’s going to claim he’s saving the federal government money by avoiding lengthy studies to develop the kind of inter-city railroad system that is necessary if we’re ever to get people back onto trains for their travel.

WHAT REALLY COULD happen is that all the surrounding states could wind up taking Wisconsin’s share of the federal funds for the project, and Wisconsin gets left behind its Great Lakes states. Illinois officials already are saying they’ll take Wisconsin’s money and put it to use on improving the railroad line between Chicago and St. Louis.

Could Scott Walker’s stand on high-speed rail wind up helping Illinois to develop further ahead of Wisconsin? Could the resulting loss of jobs for Wisconsin because of not having a piece of the high-speed rail project wind up coming back to hurt the GOP electorally in 2012?

I couldn’t help but notice an MSNBC analysis of the Electoral College Tuesday morning that figured both Obama and any Republican candidate already have in excess of 200 electoral votes, and that there are only eight states that truly are up for grabs by either candidate.

One of those states was Wisconsin. Could these “principled” stands wind up offending enough people that Obama winds up following in Clinton’s footsteps in terms of re-election?

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Because I couldn’t help but notice the Gallup Organization, which came out with a new study this week that says Obama’s popularity is on the rise in recent days – which is surprising to them because they would have expected such overwhelming losses in last week’s elections to cost him a few points.

But Obama went from a 43 percent favorable rating on Election Day to being up to 47 percent now (with the number of people who disapprove of his performance dropping to 46 percent).

It’s not a great performance rating. But it certainly could be worse, particularly compared to the studies prior to the election that showed the favorable rating for Congress ranging around 22 percent.

Which means those GOP partisans who want to think the whole country hates Barack Obama had best consider that people were always more disgusted with Congress than with the president. If they try to overstep their political play, they could find that the essential equation remains – and that they will be the ones who get dumped in Election ’12, rather than the president.

  -30-

Pat Quinn doesn’t have a ‘mandate’

QUINN: How Mighty is he?

Gov. Pat Quinn is behaving like a victorious politician, going about using the M-word to describe the government authority he thinks he now has.

We’re talking about his “mandate,” the idea that he won an election by enough of a majority that the people themselves indicated their desire to see his vision be implemented into law.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, I must admit that I always thought political people who insist about talking about “mandates” were showing off their electoral insecurity – trying to make their voter majorities sound more impressive than they truly are.

If it seems like I’m comparing Quinn to the teenage boy in a high school locker room who tries to exaggerate his “size” by an inch or two, you’d be correct. I feel the need to ding Quinn on account of the fact that I remember how much I personally was disgusted by George W. Bush (whose official memoir appears in bookstores Tuesday) back in the days following the 2004 election when he insisted on describing his victory over Democrat John Kerry as a “mandate” to implement a conservative ideological vision.

That wasn’t a mandate. Neither was this.

In fact, about the only election I can think of since the time I became eligible to vote literally was the first one I ever voted in – 1984 for president. That was the year Ronald Reagan got re-elected with 59 percent of the popular vote.

TO MY MIND, that is how overwhelming an Election Day victory has to be in order for the word “mandate” to even enter the conversation.

What good was his 'mandate?'



Although even under those circumstances, I have a problem with politicians thinking in terms of having the peoples’ will. Because the reality of our society is that we do have some serious splits. This election cycle illustrated it perfectly. Despite the overwhelming Republican trends in some parts of the country, others solidly rejected the Tea Party-type rhetoric – including here in Illinois.

This was the election cycle in Illinois where everybody outside of Chicago and its suburbs solidly wanted a Republican-oriented form of government for the state. These are the people who are thoroughly repulsed this year because they realize that their share of the state is shrinking, which means it is unlikely there ever will be a government comprised overwhelmingly of officials who are willing to kow-tow exclusively to their interests.

Quinn did get an overwhelming amount of support from voters who cast their ballots in Chicago (a nearly 4-1 vote ratio). Yet I don’t think Quinn has a “mandate’ from city residents. I’d argue that what we voted for was the idea of keeping William Brady away from the Executive Mansion in Springfield.

WE DIDN’T WANT Brady. I doubt that many local voters really cared that much about Quinn. Which means that since we got what we really cared about, most of us will go back to paying little attention to the Statehouse Scene while we figure the REAL government (a.k.a., City Hall) goes about its elections.

It’s too bad that many of us are willing to be that apathetic, because that state government many of us care so little about is relied upon so heavily to maintain so many programs and functions locally, including our public schools.

Heck, city government will have a lot of trouble continuing to operate at its current levels if the state can’t start making headway in terms of closing the nearly $15 billion shortfall it now faces.

Where do things stand now? We have a governor who insists upon using the M-word to claim authority in an election where he couldn’t even take 50 percent of the vote. Does this mean that Scott Lee Cohen and Rich Whitney are the people who deprived Quinn a chance to have a true “mandate?”

SO WHILE I am basically in agreement with Quinn’s rhetoric that there is going to have to be some form of tax increase (I thought Brady’s rhetoric on the issue was unrealistic) to generate the kind of revenue needed to prevent cuts in state government from becoming onerous to the people, I only hope that Quinn doesn’t let his victory go to his head.

He still has a Legislature to contend with in terms of putting together some sort of mechanism that resolves the state’s financial problems – although I think the reality is that it will take many years to completely fix the fiscal mess.

I hope Quinn doesn’t develop an ego that throws out the word “mandate” so often that he thinks he doesn’t have to listen to anyone else.

If anything, I think that is where George Bush the younger went wrong in his presidency. His belief that he had a “mandate” to push his political vision down our throats wound up turning off enough people even among those who should have been his most ardent supporters.

GETTING OVERLY ARROGANT in the face of Illinois’ financial mess could be what takes down his gubernatorial term in its opening days.

I’d hate to think The Mighty Quinn has anything in common with Dubya – aside from the fact that both men won their initial elections by slim vote margins and claimed victory early, as a tactical measure meant to undercut their opponent in the public eye.

  -30-

Where’s the mayoral consensus?

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., is now the officially designated African-American candidate in the running for mayor of Chicago. Not that the “honor” is going to amount to much come Election Day.



DAVIS: Does his 'endorsement' matter?

A coalition of activists, ministers and political people who all have an interest in seeing a black person become the successor to Mayor Richard M. Daley has been spending its time in recent weeks interviewing candidates – trying to pick who they think would be the best bet to win in 2011.

THEIR HOPE WAS to pick an African-American mayoral hopeful, get the bulk of the African-American electorate to back their choice, and by coordinating such unity could have a chance of actually defeating anyone else who decides to run for what could become a free-for-all.

So they wound  up picking Davis – who back in 1991 tried challenging Daley himself, only to become one of the masses of people who got their electoral butts whomped in a Chicago mayoral campaign by Daley.

I’m not sure what is more ridiculous; the fact that Davis is going to be far from the only African-American candidate following a process that was supposed to give him a sense of exclusivity? Or is it the process itself that initially rejected Davis, but then reconsidered him when it became apparent how foolish they were behaving?

On the latter point, it is because that coalition let it be known at one point that they had their process narrowed down to two candidates – former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and Cook County Board of Review member Larry Rogers.

CONSIDERING THAT ANY campaign by Moseley-Braun is going to get tied up in all the baggage of her personal story (her ex-boyfriend, her mother’s receipt of Medicaid, etc.), there was a very real chance that this lengthy, detailed process to put up a united front by African-American voters  would have wound up making the announcement that “Larry Rogers” would be their preference for mayor.

To which, Chicago would have responded, “Who?” Then, it would have yawned and moved on to other candidates.

Hence, Davis got the pick. He is a former alderman and county board commissioner, before moving “up and out” to Congress following the 1996 elections. He is the big politico from the West Side. He sounds as credible a candidate as anybody else will in this free-for-all of a mayoral election to take place.

And maybe he’d like to have an option beyond Congress. Because the reality of reapportionment in Illinois is that the Latino population has risen to the point where there probably should be two congressional districts designed for such representation – and the easiest way to achieve that “goal” is to do away with Davis’ district (which will run into significant opposition).

SO DAVIS IS now the “official” black candidate, as chosen by the coalition, which has failed. Not that it ever had a chance to succeed. The reality of political ego means that some of the people who appeared before the coalition made it clear they’re running for mayor, regardless of what that activist body had to say.

Moseley-Braun, who lost out on getting the coalition’s endorsement, went so far this weekend as to open her campaign office – picking out a space in the Bronzeville neighborhood that gives her both cheaper rent than a downtown location AND a symbolic tie to the African-American Chicago of old.

We also have soon-to-be former Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., making it clear he is very interested in running for mayor (if we could only get Circuit Court Chief Judge Tim Evans and Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., into the mix, we’d have the bulk of Daley’s challengers trying to be his successor).

Davis is also going to have to take on Rev./state Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, saying he plans to be a candidate, hoping that his far South Side mega-church with its 20,000-member congregation gives him a solid base of supporters from which to begin a campaign for city-wide political office.

THERE’S EVEN PATRICIA Van Pelt Watkins, who may be a political unknown but claims to have already raised some $400,000 for her mayoral campaign, and seems to be playing off the theme of being a “new voice” for our city.

There may well be other African-American officials who decide to get into the mix – perhaps even Larry Rogers, who won’t let the fact that the coalition didn’t pick him stop him from filing nominating petitions with his name on them.

That is the one good part of this political process. The time to actually file those petitions is next week. From Nov. 15 through Nov. 22, candidates will have to either “put up or shut up” when it comes to being a candidate for mayor.

Which means that after next week, there won’t be any more speculation about IF a person will be a candidate. They either are or aren’t, then we can move on to the part of the process by which the candidates have their followers challenge the legitimacy of their opposition – in hopes of knocking a person or two off the ballot to try to bolster their own chances of winning.

THERE IS ONE aspect that strikes me as bizarre.

Since it is obvious there will be several African-American candidates in this campaign, it is ironic that things are shaping up thus far for there to be only one significant white candidate in this campaign – former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

There still is time for someone else to get into the mix. But how ironic would it be if the candidate choice for mayor next year becomes Emanuel and a slew of African-American candidates?

In short, the exact opposite of what that coalition had hoped would occur to begin with.

  -30-

Will Burris be “rollin’, rollin’, rollin’” back to City Hall for mayoral bid?

He’s got the itch. He wants to be an elected official.



BURRIS: Will he drop from 36 percent to 1 percent?

I think it is pretty clear that Roland Burris intends to campaign for mayor of Chicago in the 2011 municipal elections.

BURRIS IS OUR incumbent senator who is going to be replaced sometime around the end of the month, enabling Sen.-elect Mark Kirk, R-Ill., to gain about one month’s seniority on the other Senate newcomers.

I’ll be honest. If it would have been possible, I would have voted to keep Burris for the remainder of the term, because I think the bureaucratic bopping about that will take place soon is unnecessary, and likely will cause more confusion than it is worth.

Also, it may well have let Burris leave the U.S. Senate on his own terms (instead of booting him sometime about Nov. 29), thereby making it easier for the 73-year-old to accept the idea of political retirement.

Because after seeing him be interviewed this week on WTTW-TV, it was so obvious that he won’t leave electoral office voluntarily. He WILL be in the mix for mayor – most likely as a stubborn candidate who stays in all the way to the end and takes 1 percent of the vote.

WHICH MEANS WE’RE going to have to assume the role of a vampire slayer and drive a stake through the heart of his electoral ambitions with our lack of votes. Where’s Buffy when we need her?

Two things caught my attention about Burris’ comments.

For the record, he claims he’s not a candidate right now. He admits nominating petitions are being circulated on his behalf to try to gain the support required to get his name on the ballot for the February municipal elections, but says the people doing the legwork are doing this on their own – and that he will make up his mind what to do in a few weeks after seeing the results of their work.

Roland thinks we love him to the point where we’re going to sacrifice our time and effort to keep alive his political career (which really came to an end following the 1994 elections, even though he has been a perennial candidate for many offices ever since).

THE OTHER THING that caught my attention was Burris’ memory of the 1995 mayoral election, when Roland himself ran a campaign as a political independent and lost to Richard M. Daley.

In that election cycle (they were still having partisan primary elections back then prior to the general election), Burris managed to take 36.1 percent of the vote to Daley’s 60.1 percent. In short, Roland is just one of the many black politicos whom Daley has beaten up on (Tim Evans, Bobby Rush and Danny Davis are a few of the others) in mayoral elections.

I don’t think anybody has any special memory of the ’95 mayoral race, except for Roland, who described his performance as, “the highest performance against a Mayor Daley in our time,” while also pointing out that he got the one-third support during a campaign that lasted little more than 30 days.

In short, Burris thinks that he’s something special who can achieve victory come 2011.

ABOUT THE ONLY people in Chicago who suffer from greater delusions than that are Chicago Cubs fans who seriously believe their team is JUST THIS CLOSE to actually winning a National League pennant.

The thing to consider about Burris’ mayoral bid is that it came just one year after he lost his bid for Illinois governor, and just a few months after he left office as Illinois attorney general.

In short, Burris was still a viable political commodity. That first campaign he ran for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1994 (losing to Dawn Clark Netsch) was a legitimate political bid. There was no shame in that loss. He just got beaten. It happens.

It is his political activity in the years since that mayoral bid that have created the image of Burris as the old-timer who can’t accept his time has passed, and manages to chip away at his reputation bit by bit with each token campaign he runs.

THAT WILL BE the end result of any serious mayoral bid, although Burris during his television appearance this week admitted he thinks there are other credible candidates, including former Chicago Public Schools President Gery Chico, Rev. James Meeks, and former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun – all of whom he said he could consider endorsing, should he decide NOT to go for Chicago mayor.

But he will. We will all snicker at the sight. And perhaps events will occur that will cause Burris to think that there is some other office he can run for in the future.

Although I have taken my share of pot-shots at Burris throughout my two-plus decades as a political reporter-type person, I have to confess to having some respect for the record he accomplished as the state’s attorney general, along with three terms as state comptroller.

It’s just too bad that Burris doesn’t return to his South Side home (the one he bought from famed gospel singer Mahalia Jackson) and become one of our historic figures – adding accounts of his two “Golden Gavels” (earned by presiding over the Senate for 200-plus hours) and support for President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform proposal to his tales of integrating the public swimming pool in Centralia by just diving in.

  -30-