My "technical" difficulties are not fully resolved. But I'm also not anxious to just leave this weblog (and its sister site) sitting unattended.
Hence, there will be periodic commentary, although not the daily routine you regular readers have come to expect. I hope to resume that daily schedule as soon as possible.
-30-
Monday, November 9, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
It's not laziness, just technology
I am experiencing computer problems that prevented me from filing the standard commentary readers of this weblog would have expected for Friday. As of now, I have yet to resolve these problems, but hope to do so as soon as is possible.
So I plan to go back to filing commentary meant to make you think (and occasionally annoy you) in the very near future. Please come back.
-30-
So I plan to go back to filing commentary meant to make you think (and occasionally annoy you) in the very near future. Please come back.
-30-
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Holdover abortion measure from GOP’s era of domination still causes headaches
For a few hours on Wednesday, Illinois provided the anti-abortion activists with one of their fantasies come true – yet another law whose purpose was to make it more difficult to obtain a medical procedure that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled legal some 36 years ago.
The state’s Department of Professional Regulation ruled that doctors had to start complying with a 14-year-old-but-never-enforced law that requires all girls under 18 to inform their parents if they desire to end a pregnancy with an abortion.
THAT HAPPENED AT a morning hearing at the Thompson Center state government building. But the anti-abortion victory was squashed in the afternoon hours when a Cook County judge issued an injunction that prevents indefinitely the law from being enforced.
There will be court hearings at some point in the future, so I suppose the day could come when the injunction will be lifted and the law could then be enforced.
Of course, we could also get the day when a judge realizes the absurdity of notification and issues the ruling that strikes this law down. Then, the fight would go on to the appeals and U.S. Supreme Court – which entails more years of litigation.
I can’t help but gloat a bit at the thought that a judge used some sense in listening to the people who argue that requiring a blanket notification policy on all teen girls creates situations where their lives could be ruined.
I GUESS THAT the anti-abortion activists don’t really care about that aspect, so long as they can get their ideological attitude that a legal medical procedure should be next to impossible to obtain imposed on the public.
Part of what set me off enough to want to make my point again was listening to the rant from Joe Scheidler, the long-time head of the anti-abortion Pro-Life Action League. I’m not just upset because he told reporter-types that 44 other states have similar notification laws, while the true total is only 35.
It doesn’t even bother me that he says he will continue to spend the rest of his life opposing this measure. I have never doubted the sincerity of Scheidler’s beliefs on the issue of abortion, no matter how misguided he may be.
What bugged me was the idea that he expressed repeatedly, one that all he’s doing is trying to talk girls out of ending a pregnancy and that somehow, creating laws to protect those girls “creates a bubble” that interferes with his right to free speech.
I HAVE SEEN on too many occasions throughout the years what constitutes expression of free speech to these activists. It is pure intimidation.
Trying to scare someone is offensive enough, but picking on a teenage girl who often may not fully understand her legal rights in the tough situation in which she has found herself is just morally wrong.
It borders on being a bully.
Somehow, I can’t believe that the law is meant to protect the bullies of our society. It is supposed to protect us from those who would bully.
NOT THAT THE bullies aren’t allowed to have such ridiculous thoughts. But it doesn’t mean they can necessarily act upon them.
I’m not about to predict how this issue ultimately will be resolved in Illinois.
Like it has been reported on many occasions, this particular law is a holdover from the spring of 1995 – which was the period when the Illinois General Assembly had a Republican majority to go with six state constitutional officers.
The mighty Mike Madigan was reduced for a two-year period to being the minority leader of the Illinois House of Representatives. The GOP used their control of the political process to ram many long-desired conservative ideological causes down the throat of the Illinois electorate.
MOST OF THOSE measures were ultimately found to be unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in future years. But this measure has managed to linger on the books – even though the whole concept of creating a notification process that doesn’t cause more problems than it resolves has prevented it from ever being enforced.
I have said on other occasions that part of the reason I don’t feel all that sorry for Republican partisans and the way they have been shut out of the political process by Democrats for the past seven years-and-counting (more than three times as long as GOP domination lasted in Illinois) is because I remember how the GOP behaved in 1995 and 1996.
The fact that we have measures such as this hanging around ought to be considered a lesson for those who might want to start believing all the Republican rhetoric they’re going to hear during the upcoming year from GOP candidates who want us to automatically “Vote Republican!” in next year’s elections.
Part of the reason those Republicans who are hard-core ideologues are upset with Democrats has nothing to do with Rod Blagojevich. It’s all about the fact that harmful measures such as this have no chance of passing the Legislature now.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: For a few hours, Illinois was paradise (http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=113121) for the anti-abortion crowd. Then, reality set in, and the status quo remains.
The state’s Department of Professional Regulation ruled that doctors had to start complying with a 14-year-old-but-never-enforced law that requires all girls under 18 to inform their parents if they desire to end a pregnancy with an abortion.
THAT HAPPENED AT a morning hearing at the Thompson Center state government building. But the anti-abortion victory was squashed in the afternoon hours when a Cook County judge issued an injunction that prevents indefinitely the law from being enforced.
There will be court hearings at some point in the future, so I suppose the day could come when the injunction will be lifted and the law could then be enforced.
Of course, we could also get the day when a judge realizes the absurdity of notification and issues the ruling that strikes this law down. Then, the fight would go on to the appeals and U.S. Supreme Court – which entails more years of litigation.
I can’t help but gloat a bit at the thought that a judge used some sense in listening to the people who argue that requiring a blanket notification policy on all teen girls creates situations where their lives could be ruined.
I GUESS THAT the anti-abortion activists don’t really care about that aspect, so long as they can get their ideological attitude that a legal medical procedure should be next to impossible to obtain imposed on the public.
Part of what set me off enough to want to make my point again was listening to the rant from Joe Scheidler, the long-time head of the anti-abortion Pro-Life Action League. I’m not just upset because he told reporter-types that 44 other states have similar notification laws, while the true total is only 35.
It doesn’t even bother me that he says he will continue to spend the rest of his life opposing this measure. I have never doubted the sincerity of Scheidler’s beliefs on the issue of abortion, no matter how misguided he may be.
What bugged me was the idea that he expressed repeatedly, one that all he’s doing is trying to talk girls out of ending a pregnancy and that somehow, creating laws to protect those girls “creates a bubble” that interferes with his right to free speech.
I HAVE SEEN on too many occasions throughout the years what constitutes expression of free speech to these activists. It is pure intimidation.
Trying to scare someone is offensive enough, but picking on a teenage girl who often may not fully understand her legal rights in the tough situation in which she has found herself is just morally wrong.
It borders on being a bully.
Somehow, I can’t believe that the law is meant to protect the bullies of our society. It is supposed to protect us from those who would bully.
NOT THAT THE bullies aren’t allowed to have such ridiculous thoughts. But it doesn’t mean they can necessarily act upon them.
I’m not about to predict how this issue ultimately will be resolved in Illinois.
Like it has been reported on many occasions, this particular law is a holdover from the spring of 1995 – which was the period when the Illinois General Assembly had a Republican majority to go with six state constitutional officers.
The mighty Mike Madigan was reduced for a two-year period to being the minority leader of the Illinois House of Representatives. The GOP used their control of the political process to ram many long-desired conservative ideological causes down the throat of the Illinois electorate.
MOST OF THOSE measures were ultimately found to be unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in future years. But this measure has managed to linger on the books – even though the whole concept of creating a notification process that doesn’t cause more problems than it resolves has prevented it from ever being enforced.
I have said on other occasions that part of the reason I don’t feel all that sorry for Republican partisans and the way they have been shut out of the political process by Democrats for the past seven years-and-counting (more than three times as long as GOP domination lasted in Illinois) is because I remember how the GOP behaved in 1995 and 1996.
The fact that we have measures such as this hanging around ought to be considered a lesson for those who might want to start believing all the Republican rhetoric they’re going to hear during the upcoming year from GOP candidates who want us to automatically “Vote Republican!” in next year’s elections.
Part of the reason those Republicans who are hard-core ideologues are upset with Democrats has nothing to do with Rod Blagojevich. It’s all about the fact that harmful measures such as this have no chance of passing the Legislature now.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: For a few hours, Illinois was paradise (http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=113121) for the anti-abortion crowd. Then, reality set in, and the status quo remains.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
EXTRA: That’s Damaso Marte?!?
The Damaso Marte whom I recall pitching for the Chicago White Sox back in the mid-2000s (including the ballclub that won the World Series in 2005) may have had outst
anding “stuff.”
But what I recall was a pitcher from the Dominican Republic who always seemed to be capable of blowing ballgames. He ultimately became the last pitcher one would want to see in a crucial situation.
THAT EXPLAINS WHY the only reason he got to pitch in that ’05 series was in that Game 3 that went deep into extra innings. There weren’t many pitchers left by that point.
So imagine my shock to watch the World Series Wednesday night and see Marte come in to pitch for the New York Yankees, face two batters, and strike both of them out!
And with three straight strikes to each. He particularly made Ryan Howard (the Philadelphia Phillies’ star slugger) look like a chump.
It’s too bad he couldn’t have been that overpowering when he pitched on the South Side. Perhaps White Sox fans would have had more to look upon this decade than one lone American League championship (winning the World Series is an added bonus).
ANYWAY, MARTE’S APPEARANCE set the stage for long-time star relief pitcher Mariano Rivera to come in and finish off the game, giving the Yankees a victory and their first World Series victory in nine long years.
For Chicago baseball fans, the key moment may very well have been commentator Ozzie Guillen's post-game promise to be back at the World Series in '10. Some Chicagoans are going to hold the White Sox manager to that promise.
And now, those of us who want a baseball fix will have to either wait it out until late February and Spring Training, or start paying attention to the professional leagues in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic – which began their seasons in mid-October and will play towards a championship in the Caribbean Series come early February.
-30-
anding “stuff.”But what I recall was a pitcher from the Dominican Republic who always seemed to be capable of blowing ballgames. He ultimately became the last pitcher one would want to see in a crucial situation.
THAT EXPLAINS WHY the only reason he got to pitch in that ’05 series was in that Game 3 that went deep into extra innings. There weren’t many pitchers left by that point.
So imagine my shock to watch the World Series Wednesday night and see Marte come in to pitch for the New York Yankees, face two batters, and strike both of them out!
And with three straight strikes to each. He particularly made Ryan Howard (the Philadelphia Phillies’ star slugger) look like a chump.
It’s too bad he couldn’t have been that overpowering when he pitched on the South Side. Perhaps White Sox fans would have had more to look upon this decade than one lone American League championship (winning the World Series is an added bonus).
ANYWAY, MARTE’S APPEARANCE set the stage for long-time star relief pitcher Mariano Rivera to come in and finish off the game, giving the Yankees a victory and their first World Series victory in nine long years.
For Chicago baseball fans, the key moment may very well have been commentator Ozzie Guillen's post-game promise to be back at the World Series in '10. Some Chicagoans are going to hold the White Sox manager to that promise.
And now, those of us who want a baseball fix will have to either wait it out until late February and Spring Training, or start paying attention to the professional leagues in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic – which began their seasons in mid-October and will play towards a championship in the Caribbean Series come early February.
-30-
When is a “parent” so messed up it should be ignored on issue of abortion?
It will be interesting to see how the medical “experts” who are with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation behave when they meet Wednesday to discuss the never-popular issue of abortion.
The law of Illinois in recent years has been that females under 18 who become pregnant and try to terminate it need to have proof that they told their parents of their desire. Political people who pushed for that law did so out of a belief that the parents in most cases would prevent an abortion from taking place.
BUT IN PART because this law was created under such blatant political partisanship, there has been a reluctance to enforce it.
The law itself has been on hold ever since it was enacted by the General Assembly and former Gov. Jim Edgar (who himself generally favored a woman’s right to choose when it came to abortion).
Various lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for northern Illinois (we’re talking about the judges at the Dirksen Building) kept this from being enforced, although a federal injunction on the issue was lifted during the summer.
In theory, the law has been on hold on the belief that there was no clear-cut procedure by which pregnant girls seeking an abortion could show they had notified their parents, or by which doctors would have to provide the notification.
IN SHORT, IT was confusing. So nothing was done. Until now.
The partisans who want to reduce the number of abortions that can be done by imposing such severe restrictions that it becomes next to impossible for many women to get one are sick of waiting.
They have been pushing for enforcement. Their demand, plus the lifting of the federal injunction, is what caused officials originally to say they would start doing such enforcement this autumn. At one point, it was thought that the law would take effect this week (the beginning of November).
For now, the law is on hold at least until the Wednesday meeting scheduled to take place at the professional regulation (the state agency that disciplines doctors in malpractice cases) offices at the Thompson Center state government building in Chicago.
WE’LL HAVE TO see if the state Professional Regulation Department’s medical disciplinary board decides to give in to the desires of the anti-abortion lobby (which is rather outspoken, although like most entities that try to intimidate through verbal means, ultimately full of hot air when one pays close attention to what they actually say), or keeps a hold on the process.
A significant part of the problem on this issue is that it likely is impossible to come up with a procedure by which parents would be “informed” of their daughters’ desire to terminate a pregnancy.
That’s actually the key here. We’re not talking about “consent,” which some states have and which anti-abortion activists in Illinois fantasize about having some day.
Ultimately, we’re talking about a medical procedure, which means that denying it to someone is probably a more immoral act than any anti-abortion activist believes the abortion itself is.
PLUS, THERE PROBABLY is no way to ensure that notification can be done without causing more significant problems.
The problem amounts to the cases of less-than-pristine family situations where a parent being informed of the girl’s pregnancy would exacerbate the problem. To be blunt, we’re talking about cases where incest could be involved, and with parents whose potential handling of the situation would be less-than-ideal.
I remember the days when this argument always would include putting a provision into the law by which girls could get out of telling their parents of their desire for an abortion, if they could convince a judge that such notification would cause a problem
That might sound like a sensible alternative, even though I realize it means putting young girls who might not be completely aware of their legal rights into the position of having to get themselves an attorney and deal with the courts.
OF COURSE, TO the anti-abortion types, that is a bad alternative because they could see girls actually using the option to get the abortion anyway. And their bottom line isn’t about protecting a parent’s rights or a family situation – it’s about making abortion next to impossible to obtain.
It is similar to the way they complain about the late-term abortions done in the final trimester in cases where the presence of a fetus threatens the mother’s health. The activists always want to claim that letting a medical doctor make a medical judgment in such cases is some sort of legal loophole.
Better to put their morals, rather than a medical opinion, in charge of the situation. Let’s hope the state Professional Regulation officials have more sense than that. And it would be nice to see the General Assembly use its current partisan majority to undo the mess that was caused by their past incarnation in the two years when the Legislature was a GOP-dominated affair.
-30-
The law of Illinois in recent years has been that females under 18 who become pregnant and try to terminate it need to have proof that they told their parents of their desire. Political people who pushed for that law did so out of a belief that the parents in most cases would prevent an abortion from taking place.
BUT IN PART because this law was created under such blatant political partisanship, there has been a reluctance to enforce it.
The law itself has been on hold ever since it was enacted by the General Assembly and former Gov. Jim Edgar (who himself generally favored a woman’s right to choose when it came to abortion).
Various lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for northern Illinois (we’re talking about the judges at the Dirksen Building) kept this from being enforced, although a federal injunction on the issue was lifted during the summer.
In theory, the law has been on hold on the belief that there was no clear-cut procedure by which pregnant girls seeking an abortion could show they had notified their parents, or by which doctors would have to provide the notification.
IN SHORT, IT was confusing. So nothing was done. Until now.
The partisans who want to reduce the number of abortions that can be done by imposing such severe restrictions that it becomes next to impossible for many women to get one are sick of waiting.
They have been pushing for enforcement. Their demand, plus the lifting of the federal injunction, is what caused officials originally to say they would start doing such enforcement this autumn. At one point, it was thought that the law would take effect this week (the beginning of November).
For now, the law is on hold at least until the Wednesday meeting scheduled to take place at the professional regulation (the state agency that disciplines doctors in malpractice cases) offices at the Thompson Center state government building in Chicago.
WE’LL HAVE TO see if the state Professional Regulation Department’s medical disciplinary board decides to give in to the desires of the anti-abortion lobby (which is rather outspoken, although like most entities that try to intimidate through verbal means, ultimately full of hot air when one pays close attention to what they actually say), or keeps a hold on the process.
A significant part of the problem on this issue is that it likely is impossible to come up with a procedure by which parents would be “informed” of their daughters’ desire to terminate a pregnancy.
That’s actually the key here. We’re not talking about “consent,” which some states have and which anti-abortion activists in Illinois fantasize about having some day.
Ultimately, we’re talking about a medical procedure, which means that denying it to someone is probably a more immoral act than any anti-abortion activist believes the abortion itself is.
PLUS, THERE PROBABLY is no way to ensure that notification can be done without causing more significant problems.
The problem amounts to the cases of less-than-pristine family situations where a parent being informed of the girl’s pregnancy would exacerbate the problem. To be blunt, we’re talking about cases where incest could be involved, and with parents whose potential handling of the situation would be less-than-ideal.
I remember the days when this argument always would include putting a provision into the law by which girls could get out of telling their parents of their desire for an abortion, if they could convince a judge that such notification would cause a problem
That might sound like a sensible alternative, even though I realize it means putting young girls who might not be completely aware of their legal rights into the position of having to get themselves an attorney and deal with the courts.
OF COURSE, TO the anti-abortion types, that is a bad alternative because they could see girls actually using the option to get the abortion anyway. And their bottom line isn’t about protecting a parent’s rights or a family situation – it’s about making abortion next to impossible to obtain.
It is similar to the way they complain about the late-term abortions done in the final trimester in cases where the presence of a fetus threatens the mother’s health. The activists always want to claim that letting a medical doctor make a medical judgment in such cases is some sort of legal loophole.
Better to put their morals, rather than a medical opinion, in charge of the situation. Let’s hope the state Professional Regulation officials have more sense than that. And it would be nice to see the General Assembly use its current partisan majority to undo the mess that was caused by their past incarnation in the two years when the Legislature was a GOP-dominated affair.
-30-
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Ballot slots – a race to be last
It’s one of those so-called “rules” that political people tend to give too much credence to – the idea that ballot slots make a big difference when it comes to getting votes on Election Day.
There were those hundreds of people who showed up at Illinois State Board of Elections offices Oct. 26 at 8 a.m. in hopes of getting the top spot on the ballot for each government position. In coming weeks, the state will conduct a lottery to break the ties to figure out whose name gets to be listed first.
BUT THERE ARE those people who believe that the next-best thing to being first is to be last. The idea is they don’t want to be stuck in the middle of a list of candidates.
Hence, some people who want to run for electoral office made a point of waiting until as late as they could Monday afternoon before filing the nominating petitions that are necessary to get a ballot spot for the Feb. 2 primary elections.
Take the Republican primary for governor – a campaign that is going to become a bloodbath between the old guard of the party and the conservative ideologues who think they have a superior vision.
Jim Ryan, the former state attorney general who lost a gubernatorial bid back in 2002, filed his nominating petitions to run for governor Monday at 4:18 p.m. Yet that’s not going to be good enough for him to get the bottom spot – Chicago business executive Andy McKenna filed petitions at 4:25 p.m.
THERE WAS A similar race to be last in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate from Illinois. Corey Dabney of Aurora thought he’d be able to get that bottom slot by filing petitions at 3:51 p.m., only to get beaten out by Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson at 3:59 p.m.
Now I know some political people look down on the people who wait – I once had a political candidate tell me with a straight face that anyone who didn’t have their nominating petitions ready to file with the state at 8 a.m. on the first filing day was somehow unorganized and not worthy of a vote on Election Day.
There is some evidence that the candidates who held out for the final day of filing are not going to be among the front-runners, although some of them were candidates for the state Legislature and for judicial posts who are counting on the fact that there won’t be much attention paid to them – and that they might be able to slip their way into a political post.
Somehow, I don’t think that Sylvester “Junebug” Hendricks is going to achieve political office. He filed his nominating petitions Monday at 4:11 p.m. to run for the Republican nomination for an Illinois House of Representatives seat on Chicago’s South Side.
WHAT CATCHES MY eye about his petitions is that he gives his home “address” as a post office box. Officially, he’s homeless. But, of course, we’re talking about a homeless man who has his own website – at http://sylvesterjunebughendricks.com/.
He’s also not the typical Republican official in that his website indicates he has a strong interest in urban issues and even is a supporter of President Barack Obama (his website indicates that Hendricks is an “Obama-can”).
Somehow, I don’t think state Rep. Will Burns, D-Chicago, is quivering in fear at the thought of the Junebug campaign – even though the freshman senator is at the point in his career where he is most vulnerable to an electoral challenger.
So when it comes to candidates being political stragglers, who was the absolute last to file their petitions?
INSOFAR AS STATEWIDE campaigns are concerned, two of the candidates for lieutenant governor were holdouts to the final minutes of the day.
Thomas Castillo of Elmhurst probably thought that getting his petitions for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in at 4:49 p.m. was late enough. But he got beaten out, in a sense, by state Rep. Mike Boland, D-East Moline, who filed his lieutenant governor nominating papers at 4:51 p.m.
Three candidates for a Cook County judicial subcircuit (Tracey Stokes, John Chwarzynski and Radusa Ostojic) filed their petitions to run as Democrats at 4:58 and 4:59 p.m.
Yet the absolute “loser” who hopes that it makes him into a “winner” may very well be Richard Mayers of Chicago. He is a Green Party type and he plans to use that political entity for his electoral aspirations this campaign season.
NOT THAT WE know yet which office he plans to seek.
He filed nominating petitions seeking the Green Party slot for governor, a seat in Congress and for a slot as a party state central committeeman.
He gives an address on the Southwest Side, but the Congressional post he’s seeking is the North Shore seat being abandoned by Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. – who hopes to move up to the U.S. Senate seat now held by retiring Roland Burris.
Does this mean he’s willing to move if elected? Does this mean he’s throwing his dreams to the wind, hoping to see where they land and what he can get?
THERE’S ONLY ONE thing I can say for sure.
The fact that he filed his nominating petitions right at 5 p.m. (closing time) means he was the absolute “last” candidate for the 2010 primary – which most likely will be his only achievement for this election cycle.
-30-
There were those hundreds of people who showed up at Illinois State Board of Elections offices Oct. 26 at 8 a.m. in hopes of getting the top spot on the ballot for each government position. In coming weeks, the state will conduct a lottery to break the ties to figure out whose name gets to be listed first.
BUT THERE ARE those people who believe that the next-best thing to being first is to be last. The idea is they don’t want to be stuck in the middle of a list of candidates.
Hence, some people who want to run for electoral office made a point of waiting until as late as they could Monday afternoon before filing the nominating petitions that are necessary to get a ballot spot for the Feb. 2 primary elections.
Take the Republican primary for governor – a campaign that is going to become a bloodbath between the old guard of the party and the conservative ideologues who think they have a superior vision.
Jim Ryan, the former state attorney general who lost a gubernatorial bid back in 2002, filed his nominating petitions to run for governor Monday at 4:18 p.m. Yet that’s not going to be good enough for him to get the bottom spot – Chicago business executive Andy McKenna filed petitions at 4:25 p.m.
THERE WAS A similar race to be last in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate from Illinois. Corey Dabney of Aurora thought he’d be able to get that bottom slot by filing petitions at 3:51 p.m., only to get beaten out by Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson at 3:59 p.m.
Now I know some political people look down on the people who wait – I once had a political candidate tell me with a straight face that anyone who didn’t have their nominating petitions ready to file with the state at 8 a.m. on the first filing day was somehow unorganized and not worthy of a vote on Election Day.
There is some evidence that the candidates who held out for the final day of filing are not going to be among the front-runners, although some of them were candidates for the state Legislature and for judicial posts who are counting on the fact that there won’t be much attention paid to them – and that they might be able to slip their way into a political post.
Somehow, I don’t think that Sylvester “Junebug” Hendricks is going to achieve political office. He filed his nominating petitions Monday at 4:11 p.m. to run for the Republican nomination for an Illinois House of Representatives seat on Chicago’s South Side.
WHAT CATCHES MY eye about his petitions is that he gives his home “address” as a post office box. Officially, he’s homeless. But, of course, we’re talking about a homeless man who has his own website – at http://sylvesterjunebughendricks.com/.
He’s also not the typical Republican official in that his website indicates he has a strong interest in urban issues and even is a supporter of President Barack Obama (his website indicates that Hendricks is an “Obama-can”).
Somehow, I don’t think state Rep. Will Burns, D-Chicago, is quivering in fear at the thought of the Junebug campaign – even though the freshman senator is at the point in his career where he is most vulnerable to an electoral challenger.
So when it comes to candidates being political stragglers, who was the absolute last to file their petitions?
INSOFAR AS STATEWIDE campaigns are concerned, two of the candidates for lieutenant governor were holdouts to the final minutes of the day.
Thomas Castillo of Elmhurst probably thought that getting his petitions for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in at 4:49 p.m. was late enough. But he got beaten out, in a sense, by state Rep. Mike Boland, D-East Moline, who filed his lieutenant governor nominating papers at 4:51 p.m.
Three candidates for a Cook County judicial subcircuit (Tracey Stokes, John Chwarzynski and Radusa Ostojic) filed their petitions to run as Democrats at 4:58 and 4:59 p.m.
Yet the absolute “loser” who hopes that it makes him into a “winner” may very well be Richard Mayers of Chicago. He is a Green Party type and he plans to use that political entity for his electoral aspirations this campaign season.
NOT THAT WE know yet which office he plans to seek.
He filed nominating petitions seeking the Green Party slot for governor, a seat in Congress and for a slot as a party state central committeeman.
He gives an address on the Southwest Side, but the Congressional post he’s seeking is the North Shore seat being abandoned by Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. – who hopes to move up to the U.S. Senate seat now held by retiring Roland Burris.
Does this mean he’s willing to move if elected? Does this mean he’s throwing his dreams to the wind, hoping to see where they land and what he can get?
THERE’S ONLY ONE thing I can say for sure.
The fact that he filed his nominating petitions right at 5 p.m. (closing time) means he was the absolute “last” candidate for the 2010 primary – which most likely will be his only achievement for this election cycle.
-30-
Monday, November 2, 2009
3 + 9 = Electoral Relief
We have exactly three months from Monday until the primary Election Day in Illinois. Then, we have exactly 9 more months until the general election is co
mplete, and we can be spared the nonsense that typically fills the “silly season.”
Until then, however, we’re going to be bombarded with rhetoric, stunts and general levels of inanity coming from various candidates wishing to run for electoral office. The day will come when we view those campaign commercials that put Blagojevich-style hair on all kinds of government officials as being the least offensive bit we’ll see this election season.
IT REALLY WORKS out this time that we are 365 days from the day that Republicans across Illinois dream will be the moment that voters rise up and dump Democrats everywhere – thereby re-establishing an order in which a GOP majority can go back to trying to ram a moralistic agenda down our throats the way they tried to back in 1995-96.
If it reads like I think reality will fall far short of that goal, you’d be correct.
I expect the end result of the 2010 election cycles to be a period in which Republicans gain a few offices, but in which Democrats still hold a majority. It won’t be the utter domination that we now have, but losing that won’t be the biggest loss in the world.
It just means we’ll be able to go back to blaming both political parties for the inability of things to get done within Illinois government, rather than thinking the problem is one entirely of a Democratic creation.
MUCH OF THE attention thus far is going on the U.S. Senate and Illinois governor races, where Roland Burris is leaving the former post and where Pat Quinn would like to have a chance to have a full four-year term in the latter office.
Both men have the potential to have Rod Blagojevich’s name linger over their campaigns, and you can bet that Republican candidates will go out of their way to ensure that the potential is fully achieved.
For this is the election cycle they want to think of as a referendum, of sorts, on the now-impeached governor who could theoretically be facing the end of a criminal trial in U.S. District Court some time next October – just in time to try to influence voters in the Nov. 2 general election.
The reality is that looking at the candidates, without a Blagojevich factor, the Democrats seeking both offices would be the clear frontrunners. With a Blagojevich factor, the GOP hopefuls could be competitive.
THERE ARE THOSE who are wondering if the more moderate segment of the Republican Party will prevail in the primary elections, giving a candidate who might be able to swipe some of the so-called independent voters who might otherwise be able to consider backing a Democratic hopeful.
Others (myself included) see that the conservative elements are going to see this as their potential chance to not have to pander to anyone, and to pick an ideologue who is willing to push a conservative agenda once elected, no matter whose feelings are offended.
I have heard some speculation about the GOP gubernatorial bid of Bill Brady, the state senator from Bloomington who has been positioning himself as a favorite of the ideologues, and that some party officials fear he could win the primary and cost them a chance to knock out Quinn/Dan Hynes.
Others wonder if the key figure to watch is Dan Proft for U.S. Senate. He has never held elective office, but he has worked in electoral politics as one of the hard-core campaign types who knows how to run and also has a sense of public relations that includes a quick wit that can come up with the quips that can take down more moderate foes.
IN THEORY, EITHER of these guys doing well is a sign that the GOP faithful are more interested in ideology than trying to reach out to people and win an election, whereas votes for people like Mark Kirk for Senate and Kirk Dillard for governor would indicate the opposite.
Personally, I’m going to be watching a different set of campaigns for evidence of how strong the conservative ideological desire triumphs over the practicalities of winning an election.
For me, I’m watching the Republican primary for Illinois comptroller – the state government post that controls the issuing of checks and payment of bills for Illinois.
It’s not that I think Jim Dodge, a long-time village trustee and official in southwest suburban Orland Park is some sort of hard-core ideologue. But he’s facing Judy Baar Topinka in the GOP primary.
UNDER TYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, Topinka would have the name recognition and experience (three terms as state treasurer, along with being a state senator from west suburban Riverside) to knock Dodge out of the box.
But the rhetoric I’m already hearing from the partisans is that the people who weren’t too enthused about voting for Topinka to be governor in 2006 aren’t too thrilled about having her in any state government post.
Their rhetoric contends that people like Topinka are the problem with government because they’re not conservative enough to stand up for ideological ideals (even though I remember that Topinka is a woman who once believed Phil Gramm should have been our nation’s president)
They’re going to spend the next year arguing that we need a complete change from the ideals of a Topinka (whom some people would argue were the ideals that once had the GOP as the dominant party within state government).
A DODGE VICTORY (or even a narrow Topinka win) means, in my book, that this will be an uncompromising election cycle.
If this does become an ideological war, we can be assured that Lisa Madigan – who as of Monday morning was the only major party candidate seeking the post of Illinois attorney general – won’t be the only Democrat taking an oath of office on Inauguration Day in Springfield in January 2011.
-30-
mplete, and we can be spared the nonsense that typically fills the “silly season.”Until then, however, we’re going to be bombarded with rhetoric, stunts and general levels of inanity coming from various candidates wishing to run for electoral office. The day will come when we view those campaign commercials that put Blagojevich-style hair on all kinds of government officials as being the least offensive bit we’ll see this election season.
IT REALLY WORKS out this time that we are 365 days from the day that Republicans across Illinois dream will be the moment that voters rise up and dump Democrats everywhere – thereby re-establishing an order in which a GOP majority can go back to trying to ram a moralistic agenda down our throats the way they tried to back in 1995-96.
If it reads like I think reality will fall far short of that goal, you’d be correct.
I expect the end result of the 2010 election cycles to be a period in which Republicans gain a few offices, but in which Democrats still hold a majority. It won’t be the utter domination that we now have, but losing that won’t be the biggest loss in the world.
It just means we’ll be able to go back to blaming both political parties for the inability of things to get done within Illinois government, rather than thinking the problem is one entirely of a Democratic creation.
MUCH OF THE attention thus far is going on the U.S. Senate and Illinois governor races, where Roland Burris is leaving the former post and where Pat Quinn would like to have a chance to have a full four-year term in the latter office.
Both men have the potential to have Rod Blagojevich’s name linger over their campaigns, and you can bet that Republican candidates will go out of their way to ensure that the potential is fully achieved.
For this is the election cycle they want to think of as a referendum, of sorts, on the now-impeached governor who could theoretically be facing the end of a criminal trial in U.S. District Court some time next October – just in time to try to influence voters in the Nov. 2 general election.
The reality is that looking at the candidates, without a Blagojevich factor, the Democrats seeking both offices would be the clear frontrunners. With a Blagojevich factor, the GOP hopefuls could be competitive.
THERE ARE THOSE who are wondering if the more moderate segment of the Republican Party will prevail in the primary elections, giving a candidate who might be able to swipe some of the so-called independent voters who might otherwise be able to consider backing a Democratic hopeful.
Others (myself included) see that the conservative elements are going to see this as their potential chance to not have to pander to anyone, and to pick an ideologue who is willing to push a conservative agenda once elected, no matter whose feelings are offended.
I have heard some speculation about the GOP gubernatorial bid of Bill Brady, the state senator from Bloomington who has been positioning himself as a favorite of the ideologues, and that some party officials fear he could win the primary and cost them a chance to knock out Quinn/Dan Hynes.
Others wonder if the key figure to watch is Dan Proft for U.S. Senate. He has never held elective office, but he has worked in electoral politics as one of the hard-core campaign types who knows how to run and also has a sense of public relations that includes a quick wit that can come up with the quips that can take down more moderate foes.
IN THEORY, EITHER of these guys doing well is a sign that the GOP faithful are more interested in ideology than trying to reach out to people and win an election, whereas votes for people like Mark Kirk for Senate and Kirk Dillard for governor would indicate the opposite.
Personally, I’m going to be watching a different set of campaigns for evidence of how strong the conservative ideological desire triumphs over the practicalities of winning an election.
For me, I’m watching the Republican primary for Illinois comptroller – the state government post that controls the issuing of checks and payment of bills for Illinois.
It’s not that I think Jim Dodge, a long-time village trustee and official in southwest suburban Orland Park is some sort of hard-core ideologue. But he’s facing Judy Baar Topinka in the GOP primary.
UNDER TYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, Topinka would have the name recognition and experience (three terms as state treasurer, along with being a state senator from west suburban Riverside) to knock Dodge out of the box.
But the rhetoric I’m already hearing from the partisans is that the people who weren’t too enthused about voting for Topinka to be governor in 2006 aren’t too thrilled about having her in any state government post.
Their rhetoric contends that people like Topinka are the problem with government because they’re not conservative enough to stand up for ideological ideals (even though I remember that Topinka is a woman who once believed Phil Gramm should have been our nation’s president)
They’re going to spend the next year arguing that we need a complete change from the ideals of a Topinka (whom some people would argue were the ideals that once had the GOP as the dominant party within state government).
A DODGE VICTORY (or even a narrow Topinka win) means, in my book, that this will be an uncompromising election cycle.
If this does become an ideological war, we can be assured that Lisa Madigan – who as of Monday morning was the only major party candidate seeking the post of Illinois attorney general – won’t be the only Democrat taking an oath of office on Inauguration Day in Springfield in January 2011.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)