Yet in the ultimate evidence that when it comes to politics, Rauner is a rank amateur, it would seem to be that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to wind up using the issue to take him down.
RAUNER’S
METHOD OF bringing the issue up was by using his amendatory veto powers to
attach the issue to a separate measure – one that would impose a series of
restrictions in Illinois on firearms usage and purchase.
In
short, legislators who desire to have those restrictions take effect would have
to go along with his death penalty plan for people who kill law enforcement
officers or large numbers of people in one fell swoop.
So
what does Madigan, the man who’s been a part of the legislative process in
Illinois for nearly a half-century, do?
He
introduced an amendment Thursday to an Illinois Senate bill now pending in the House of
Representatives, with the amendment being “the exact language the governor
suggested” to bring back capital punishment.
THAT
BILL WILL have a committee hearing come Monday. Legislators will have their say
on the matter at that time. As Madigan put it, “we look forward to continuing
our effort to keep our children, our schools and our communities safe from
senseless gun violence.”
More
likely, it will give the Democratic Party majority that controls the Illinois
House a chance to beat up on Bruce Rauner, knock about his bill, denounce him
for trying political tactics meant to impede firearms restrictions that many of
them previously voted for, and pretty much go out of their way to make Monday a
very unpleasant day for the governor.
Eventually,
they’ll probably take some sort of vote on Rauner’s suggestion, and put the
spin on it by saying it was evidence that “the people” didn’t like the governor’s
ideal.
It kind of reminds me of a moment some two decades ago – back when then-Gov. Jim Edgar and Mayor Richard M. Daley came up with a proposal related to a new Chicago-area airport.
THE
TWO OF them made a public announcement about what they wanted to happen, and implied
the General Assembly would follow suit in coming months. Yet then-state Senate
President James “Pate” Philip didn’t think much of the idea, and really was
bothered by the fact he wasn’t consulted as part of negotiations.
Which
resulted in Philip having the Edgar/Daley proposal written up as a bill for the
Senate to consider. They wound up rejecting it outright (literally, nobody
voted for it), and Philip forevermore would say of that issue, “we voted for
it, nobody liked it.”
Now
I know some are saying that this may be a tactic by which Madigan ensures
Rauner takes full blame for trying to bring back a capital crimes statute – an issue
for which the state went to lengthy extremes to abolish in past years.
Which
would wind up costing him many votes in Illinois – even though Rauner is
looking solely at the ideologically-inclined who might get worked up over this
single issue.
BUT
I SEE it more as a way of killing the Rauner plan off, while possibly trying to
save the separate issues related to firearms ownership.
Regardless, it makes Monday’s debate more about partisan politicking rather than about any criminal justice issue.
If
you want to be honest, if this gets reduced to an issue of political gamesmanship,
it’s most likely that Madigan will prevail.
For
Madigan just comprehends the political process and how it can be used to get
things done far better than Rauner with his anti-union dreams that he tries to
pass off under the label of “reform.”
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment