Lest you be lulled into thinking that the year would end quietly, we have this wonderful bit of gift-wrapped shade out of Chicago. I don't have time to give this the full Timberland it deserves but offhand I think you have to give Blagojevich credit. This is a clutch player. With time running out in the year and all other cynical dealers exhausted, this is the guy you go to.Taking a routine case of retail politics and turning it into a matter of racial indignation -- that's a guy with a complete game.
As for Bobby Rush, watching politicians age is only slightly less painful than watching boxers get old. With virtually no chance of Burris actually making it into the senate seat but a huge chance for this to become precisely the kind of racially tinged drama that Obama does not need this was a bad move all around.
Blagojevich has virtually no capital to spare and Rush won't win any points even if he did manage to cram Burris into Obama's seat. And his explicit appeal: "There are no African Americans in the Senate" is possibly the most politically tone-deaf moment since, well, last week or so. That argument might've carried (limited) weight on November 3rd. At this point the logical rejoinder is "And there are no white people in the Oval Office."
« In the year of the dragon, lots of men disappear... | Main | Toward a more oppurtunistic pro-blackness » Jelani on boxing and Bobby Rush01 Jan 2009 09:15 am
Heh:
Comments (75)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Actually, since we only have "one President at a time", there are no black people in the Oval Office either. I know some people want to totally disown that guy named Bush, but that's a bit extreme, isn't it?
Rush is a complete tool. He can't make the argument that he's trying to make without the vocal support of Barack Obama. You know, the black man who's seat we're trying to fill who just won a freaking Presidential election. As it is, Rush has Obama's open opposition to this play, and if Bobby Rush thinks that he can bigfoot the next President of the United States, he's as stupid as Helmet Head.
I want more black Senators. I think as a country, we need African American voices in higher branches of government, like the Senate. That type of diversity in our leadership is necessary for the survival and advancement of our country, regardless of what many on the right want to think. However, this is all wrong. And worse, it's counterproductive to whatever it is that Rush claims he wants to achieve. That is, if you believe he wants to achieve anything other than a power move in Illinois politics, and to claim the title of Kingmaker.
From what I know of Burris, he seems to be a fundamentally decent person who happens to think much more of his own abilities and potential than other people seem to. That's fine, but it won't help him hold onto Obama's seat in an election, and it won't make him a more effective Senator for the state in the meantime. And I'll respect him much more right after he realizes this and withdraws his name from this f'ed up process that Blago has begun.
Oh, and Happy New Year Ta-Nehisi.
Anyone have polling numbers? I don't.
My guess is that most Black people in Illinois would prefer Burris be seated, meaning they agree with Rush more than Coates.
I don't see where the outrage comes from.
1) I don't see how Burris sitting makes Blago substantially less likely to be punished
2) I don't see how Blago being punished is a more important ideal than there being at least one Black senator
Adding in here that if Reid (with at least tacit support from Obama) suddenly has the balls to punish Burris for accepting a seat from the person who legally had the authority to offer it at the time when he couldn't punish Lieberman for campaigning for McCain saying terrorists supported Obama during the election, that says a lot about Reid and Obama.
Very "courageous" when it comes to standing up against Black people, not so at all when it comes to standing against white conservatives.
I still don't regret supporting Obama and voting for him, and still think he is better than the alternatives offered, but I am increasingly disappointed in him.
And if this is how a Black man has to be to be electable for national office, then maybe the US hasn't made the progress I thought/hoped it had made on Nov. 5, 2008.
I haven't been able to follow this drama too closely--lots of traveling in the last week--but can anyone tell me if Burris, assuming he's seated (and he should be, since Blagojevich has the legal right to appoint him) won't be primaried by every Illinois candidate who was lusting after that seat in the first place? The attack ads tying Burris to Blagojevich practically write themselves.
I think Bobby Rush deserves more respect for the game he's playing. It's not a pretty one, but it looks like, from a certain angle, it'll be effective.
Mike Allen at Politico:
Sources say Blagojevich’s s successor if he’s removed from office, Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, is likely to point someone who is African- American, but likely not Burris because of the taint or Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill), who is often mentioned as a possibility but would be too controversial.
Sources said the choice is likely to be someone young and dynamic, like Dan Seals, who ran in a northeast Illinois House district in 2006 and 2008. It needs to be someone who would appeal to the white Republicans in downstate Illinois, to prevent the seat going to the GOP in a future election.
Seals is hardly my favoritest pol, but there were many worse possibilities for the appointment, and fighting to ensure some minimal diversity in the Senate chamber is a good fight.
I haven't been able to follow this drama too closely--lots of traveling in the last week--but can anyone tell me if Burris, assuming he's seated (and he should be, since Blagojevich has the legal right to appoint him) won't be primaried by every Illinois candidate who was lusting after that seat in the first place?
By all accounts, Burris has no plans to run in the special election. I think he just wants to be Senator before he retires entirely.
And he sorta kinda will be.
Jack Irons: I don't understand your argument at all -- I don't understand any of these pro-Burris arguments actually. Am I dreaming? Was it not just a couple of weeks ago that Burris himself was saying that the Governor needed to resign? Was it not Burris himself supporting the AG's efforts to strip him of the governorship because he was "unfit to lead"? Was it not Burris himself that said that the allegations against the governor were shocking and appalling? Now with all that in mind, he went behind the scenes and apparently lobbied for the Senate seat and is now mums the word about Blago's actions. So basically, Burris has willingly allowed himself to be used by a corrupt governor (those tapes say it all) just so that he can become a Senator. Yes, this is EXACTLY the type of man that Black folks need representing them in the Senate.
I don't care how "impeccable" his record is, his actions in the last couple of days give me pause. And to top all that off, he has the nerve to say that "racism" may be in play because the Senate follows up with their initial pledge that they would not seat a Blago appointee. Once again, this is EXACTLY who Black people need to represent them in the Senate. A man not only lusting for power, but one that would use racially divisive arguments to bully himself into getting that power.
And for people to throw in Lieberman is disappointing as well. This is not about Lieberman, and it is not really about Burris. It is about Blago, and everybody knows that. The Senate said weeks ago that they would not seat ANYONE appointed by Blago--so why does the fact that Blago appointed a Black man change things? They are doing exactly what they said they would do, and I desperately hope they stand by that pledge.
And what the heck did Obama do? Stand by his initial statement that he didn't think that the Gov. should make any appointments? Yes, that's outrageous. Stand by his initial statement that the Gov. should resign--that's outrageous as well--at least he didn't switch it up like Burris did. Say that anyone appointed by Blago would have a cloud of controversy and taint over them--another outrageous statement--sounds oddly familiar to the SAME statement that Bobby Rush made just weeks ago before he found religion and has given a full throated endorsement for Burris' appointment.
Whatever, people willing to look the other way on Burris and implicitly Blago, will get the type of representation they deserve. Just because they are Black, does not mean they are beyond reproach.
Jack Irons said:
And immediately followed with:I could have stopped reading there, but I didn't because I'm a glutton for punishment I guess.1) Sitting Burris probably won't make it any less likely that Blago will go down, but what it does is ensure that he goes down while making as loud and toxic a stink as he possibly can. And worse, he leaves his taint on the next Senator from the state of Illinois as well as the national and state Democratic party. Anyone with any sense would have seen this and rejected the offer, and then waited for the governors impeachment to make an appeal for the seat. The fact that Burris accepted any offer from Blagojevich leads me to believe that he is not anyone I want near higher office.
2) The fact that you're trying to conflate Lieberman's situation with the Blago/Burris one is asinine. No one was more pissed at Lieberman by the end of the general election than I was. But Lieberman doesn't owe his political seat to a tarnished appointment from a crooked politician who has become a national punchline. Reid clearly stated that any appointment that Blagojevich would make would be unacceptable, and would be opposed by the Senate. And that didn't change just because Bobby Rush thinks he sees a way to become a Kingmaker in a post-Obama Illinois. To call this a race issue is damaging in ways that Rush probably no longer cares about.
I'll it as simple as possible why your entire argument is ridiculous. If Obama proved anything, it's that we don't need to crawl through the sewers on the way to power. That might be the US that Rush is comfortable in, and Blago sure as hell wants to keep it that way, but it hurts all of us in ways that should be obvious to everyone involved.
The one thing I'll say right now is, whoever decides to primary Bobby Rush will get my campaign contribution money in 2010.
Sources say Blagojevich’s s successor if he’s removed from office, Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, is likely to point someone who is African- American, but likely not Burris because of the taint or Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill), who is often mentioned as a possibility but would be too controversial.
Sources said the choice is likely to be someone young and dynamic, like Dan Seals, who ran in a northeast Illinois House district in 2006 and 2008. It needs to be someone who would appeal to the white Republicans in downstate Illinois, to prevent the seat going to the GOP in a future election.
The 'Black Street' don't know Dan Seals. I know him,because I'm a poltiical junkie, but color me cynical about this. Quinn had all the time to get this out to the newspapers when this first broke about Blago (to position himself for when he became Governor). You don't nominate someone Black that Black people have never heard of, and has no connection to the Black community - other than skin color.
If Quinn had 'dropped' his intentions of nominating someone African-American, or at least making it clear that Black folks were on this list, it would be a whole other story. But, He DID NOT.
Sorry, if my cynical self isn't buying it.
PS-Don't get shocked if those impeachment proceedings don't go the way folks think they should.
Anyone who got this appointment was going to be challenged in the Democratic Primary in 2010. I thought that was pretty clear. So, it's not just if Burris gets seated (which he should; there is no legal reason why he shouldn't.) The Democratic Primary of 2010 will be pretty bruising, but I still believe the Democratic Nominee that emerges in 2010 will beat anyone the GOP puts forth.
Some final words on this Dan Seals mess.
What is his base?
I'm just askin'.
He's a Black man with a White wife, who has NO Chicago connections whatsoever. The Black vote IS Cook County, and we don't know him.
So, the thought that they'd throw away Burris - who IS well known and rooted in the Black community.
For Seals, who is a NOBODY in the Black community.
I know some folks live in post-racial delusion. But, wake up.
That SEALS would be chosen over the numerous presently elected Black officials?
Uh huh.
"Guess" means "guess".
I guess I was skipping steps. I'll spell it out. I was saying that at least that portion of my statement was falsifiable. Someone could pull out a poll. Like guessing last January that the Giants were a better team then the Patriots before the game, then the game could prove the person right or wrong.
Anyone feel free to point out a poll, and it will serve as an indicator of my feel for the political views of the Black community in comparison to Coates'. If I find one, I will. And I haven't seen one yet. As far as I know, I could well be wrong. I've been wrong before.
Anyway, Blago should go. No argument.
Blago as of today, is the person with legal authority to select the Senator.
The selection of Burris was not the result of a sale or anything underhanded.
Burris will do the job as well as any other prospective appointee, or any of the other appointees to Senate in history.
I'm not seeing where Burris' selection is "the sewer". Where did that happen?
Pledges get reversed. Obama pledged to support a filibuster of any bill that contained retroactive telecom immunity. He reversed. Now, facing Burris, he gets his heart back. It's kind of pathetic, but that's the best we could get for president right now.
If Blago had taken someone's money and put him forward before he could be removed then that person's appointment should have been rejected. Reid's pledge took that off the table as an option for Blago, which was good.
Blago made an appointment with no monetary consideration. The purpose of Reid's pledge has been served and now I don't see what point blocking Burris's nomination advances.
More than that, I don't see Coates' or dannity's anger at Burris, or Burris' selection or Rush's support of Burris' selection.
It strikes me as being uncomfortably quick to criticize, and harsh in criticism of a black politician who finds himself in opposition to a white politician.
It really comes down to was Burris selection an act of sewage, as maybe Reid would say, or a pretty clean act taken after Blago attempted and failed to perform a dirty act, as Burris would say.
We're not going to just assume that it's sewage though. You're going to have to explain why it can't be a clean individual act by a person who still may deserve to go to jail.
Rikyrah and Jack Irons,
The United States of America just elected its first black president and you guys are acting like they will only let him in the White House through the kitchen. Come on! As another young black guy, I'm disappointed. This is the small minded, short-sighted crap that would keep a person like Barack Obama from rising in the first place. He tosses you a bone so you guys run and fetch?
This appointment has everything to do with Blago and nothing to do with whomever he picked. Everything didn't just change because Blago picked a black guy. Obama, Reid, et al said that whomever Blago picked would be tainted and should not be seated. Those things don't change because of who he picked.
BTW, Obama was a nobody in the black community too. Let yourself be marginalized and you will keep fighting over the table scraps forever.
Its 2009. I wish you guys would listen to yourselves.
As far as Blago and this Senate seat is concerned, if you want to blame someone, don't blame Blago, or Roland Burris, or Bobby Rush.
Blame Speaker of the Illinois House and Chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party MICHAEL MADIGAN.
Who MORE than had the authority to pass legislation to ok a Special Election. In that time between Blago's arrest, and when he got his bearings by hiring R.Kelly's lawyer, he could have rammed legislation about a Special Election through. Don't let ANYONE lie to you that he couldn't. He runs that place with an iron first. I don't call him Massa Michael Madigan for nothing.
But, he didn't. He thought he was slick. He thought that he had taken away all of Blago's weapons. He forgot that Blago was from the street, and had no shame. So Blago kept ahold of his last grenade and threw it.
Also, do you expect or even want the Dems to hold the seat in 2010. I can guarantee that the Dems will have a very tough time of this in the next election, no matter who is running for the seat. To have someone in there who was seated by the embarrassingly corrupt governor will make that shit almost impossible. Think bigger, man! Look up beyond your own rice bowl.
Also, I can tell Obama doesn't suit your taste, but no one you would approve of would have a chance in hell of even coming close to a National election, much less a state-wide one.
This appointment has everything to do with Blago and nothing to do with whomever he picked. Everything didn't just change because Blago picked a black guy. Obama, Reid, et al said that whomever Blago picked would be tainted and should not be seated. Those things don't change because of who he picked.
We finally need to get back to being a country of laws. Blago hasn't been convicted. He hasn't even been indicted, let alone impeached. He is the sitting Governor of the State of Illinois. He had the legal right to do what he did. He picked someone who hasn't been in politics for over a decade. A person whose public service record is sterling.
BTW, Obama was a nobody in the black community too. Let yourself be marginalized and you will keep fighting over the table scraps forever.
Courtney H,
Come on, now.
Yes, Barack Obama was a nobody. But, he was a nobody who built his FOUNDATION in the Black community.
I don't speak of where other folks live. I'm a Chicago gal. I went east to school, but came back home after college and graduate school.
Barack Obama built his foundation in the Black community. Folks want to pretend that I don't know where I live.
Dan Seals doesn't live in the Black Community. He doesn't work in the Black community. He doesn't work for the Black community. He has absolutely NO connection to the Black community of Cook County, and we ARE the Black vote in Illinois. I don't know why stating facts makes me, what - 'small-minded'.
Black folk in Cook County aren't going to be his ' base', just because he's Black. He doesn't even have a political base where he lives, because he couldn't even win the elections where he ran.
Like I said, if you want to live in post-racial eutopia, that's fine. But, I'm talking about Illinois politics. And, choosing a Black candidate who doesn't even have a Black voting base from which to depend upon and build for the 2010 Democratic Primary, makes the choice of Seals, just as tokenist as Clarence Thomas.
The beauty and barbershops don't know Dan Seals. And can't point to one reason to choose him - other than he's Black, and despite what folks might think - Black folk DO need something more than that.
Black folk know Roland Burris. That's why we can separate him from Blago.
We don't know JACK about Dan Seals, and 2 years isn't long enough to build it.
But the special election couldn't be held until at least the summer of this year. Who would have the seat between now and then, when all that crucial legislation will be coming down the pipe? I know Reid is weak. However, you guys are falling right into the Repubs hands. You are prolonging and dirtying up the national Dem brand with this Blago thing. You also let them slam blacks for once again playing the race card in a case where most reasonable observers would think it had no place. Your playing checkers while the opposition plays chess.
You are absolutely right about one thing, Blago has no shame.
My boomer parents, from Chicago Metro, who supported Hillary (America would never blah, blah, blah) believe this stinks of "Sharptonism"
Obama is THE PRESIDENT. Old or young, banana or black as night, Cornell or Crip THEY ARE ALL still BRISTLING with pride, and NEW FOUND OPTIMISM for themselves or their kin. With every passing day of his presidency they see less victim and more opportunitiy in the mirror every morning.
"Sharptonism" is rooted in 'victimness', but when fewer people see themselves as how you want to connect with them then you have less connection.
If Obama is mildy successful over the next 2 years, Rush and his ilk will be very susceptible to defeat by someone with a message of self direction. Even among his older base...why? Because no one likes being the victim.
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
Courtney, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying.
Somewhere in there are you explaining why Burris' selection is unacceptable?
Let's say Blago had chosen someone white, but did so without any corruption in that particular choice. What purpose would removing that choice serve? Who would it help? Why would it be important? Why would you be angry at the choice, and angry at supporters of that choice?
About kitchens, and scraps and that stuff. Maybe the entire pre-Obama Black political establishment is obsolete - but we're not going to know that at least until Obama advances the aims of that establishment in office. We haven't seen yet what Obama is going to do in office. I'm not overly optimistic to tell the truth, though I wouldn't prefer any of his alternatives.
Obama getting elected, which I am very happy for, doesn't mean that black people now have a responsibility to use their very best Ebonics to attack any black politician in a dispute with a white politician.
Also, do you expect or even want the Dems to hold the seat in 2010. I can guarantee that the Dems will have a very tough time of this in the next election, no matter who is running for the seat. To have someone in there who was seated by the embarrassingly corrupt governor will make that shit almost impossible. Think bigger, man! Look up beyond your own rice bowl.
Not only do I fully expect the Democrats to retain this seat in 2010, I'm damn sure that they will. The GOP bench is about as shallow as it comes, and that hasn't changed.
Also, I can tell Obama doesn't suit your taste, but no one you would approve of would have a chance in hell of even coming close to a National election, much less a state-wide one.
Posted by Courtney H
How do you know Barack Obama doesn't suit my taste.
I voted for him AGAINST Bobby Rush in 2000 - that's how long Obama has been on MY radar. I posted this before, but Rush IS my Congressman, and I have NEVER voted for him in a Democratic Primary.
But, I'll say it again:
Barack Obama built his FOUNDATION in the Black community. And, that made all the difference for him. His FOUNDATION was the Black community and the hippie, reformist Whites of Hyde Park and the Lake - that was his foundation.
Seals doesn't have that. And putting forth someone who has NO foundation,and no political service record other than RUNNING for office - means that Seals would be a TOKEN.
Remember, Black folk didn't come to Obama until the last moment. They had to be convinced that he could win.
I'm not talking about the Presidential run.
I'm talking about the 2004 SENATE run. He had the foundation, but Black folk weren't going to throw away their vote on him. They had to watch and see if he could build himself up around the state, and be a credible candidate. WHEN he did, they responded accordingly. BUt, without the FOUNDATION that he had built already in the Black community, it would have all been for naught.
Seals has NO foundation. I'm stating a fact.
Rikyrah, what I'm almost hearing from you is that none of this mess matters because there will be a primary anyway. Therefore, I don't get why anyone would defend the Burris selection on the grounds of "racial progress" as he's just made it virtually impossible for him to retain that seat beyond 2010. And he's done it in a way that gives people who want to make a legitimate argument that diversity in our leaders is a desirable thing that we need as a people a black eye because of how this has played out. I can't think of a bigger waste of political capitol than what we currently have on display here. The CBC needs to stay far far away from this live grenade.
To briefly touch on the Seals thing, the thing I don't like about it is that he lost his Congressional bids. Twice. And he lost in the most favorable Democratic conditions we're likely to encounter for a very long time. And he lost while running against progressive taxation for God's sake, which puts him squarely on my shit-list.
In Illinois, any generic Democrat would be favored over any Republican in a statewide election, but that person should be able to point to some electoral success or some base of support. Seals has neither. If he's really a name people are starting to throw about seriously, he better get out there right the F now, and start retail politicking. He might be a decent pick, but you can't just pull throw him out there and think he's going to fly. I'm not going to get into the weeds here, but that's every bit as racially undermining as Bobby Rush's gambit. He better talk to somebody, and get himself known.
But the special election couldn't be held until at least the summer of this year. Who would have the seat between now and then, when all that crucial legislation will be coming down the pipe? I know Reid is weak. However, you guys are falling right into the Repubs hands. You are prolonging and dirtying up the national Dem brand with this Blago thing. You also let them slam blacks for once again playing the race card in a case where most reasonable observers would think it had no place. Your playing checkers while the opposition plays chess.
Either we are a country of laws again or we are not.
Here are the FACTS.
Blago is the Governor. He's not the impeached Governor. He's not the convicted Governor. He's not even the indicted Governor. He's still the Governor.
Blago has the power to appoint the Senator.
Burris IS qualified. He's more than qualified for the position.
They could all back Burris, who has been a loyal Democrat, telling him that they will remain neutral in 2010. That means he'd have to do everything on his own, and that means he wouldn't be in any position in 2010 for any possible win.
The time for a special election is OVER. Madigan had the chance to make it happen and it didn't. We're not going to have a special election, because if Blago decided to challenge it, which NOW he would, they'd lose, because, ACCORDING TO THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION, BLAGO WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS AS GOVERNOR.
The next election for that Senate Seat will be the Democratic and Republican Primaries of 2010.
1) I don't see why the selection of Burris, even if Blago had acted criminally before that section, is the sewer of politics. Can someone explain that?
2) I don't see Burris accepting the selection, serving and running for reelection in 2010, even if he loses in the primaries, as harmful to any Black interests. Can someone explain that? ("Well next time a governor is caught on tape trying to sell a seat and afterwards appoints a Black replacement there may be problems" does not count as a harm to Black interests)
3) I'm a little disgusted at the vehemence with which some people, including Coates, have attacked Bobby Rush and Burris. I'm seeing it as tomery. Can someone explain the vehemence?
Rikyrah, what I'm almost hearing from you is that none of this mess matters because there will be a primary anyway.
Exactly. I ALWAYS believed that whomever got this seat WOULD be challenged in 2010.
Remember, I supported Jesse Jackson, Jr. I thought he was more than qualified. I knew that he would do the retail politicking needed; that he and his family would be practically living outside of Chicago for the next 2 years if he had gotten the appointment. That he would need to do that heavy, small room politicking to convince those folks outside of Chicago to take a look at his voting record - on the issues, there would be no doubt, if you were a working man, or a family farmer - he was on YOUR side. But, they would have to SEE him and his lovely wife, to even think about giving him a chance.
And then, even after all of that. Even after having a solid record. Even after going, place to place, face to face with the people..
I only gave HIM a 50/50 shot of winning the Democratic Primary.
He was young. He had ideas. And, I knew that if he could actually win the Democratic Primary, that the Democratic Party would do the rest of the work for the 2010 election.
Therefore, I don't get why anyone would defend the Burris selection on the grounds of "racial progress" as he's just made it virtually impossible for him to retain that seat beyond 2010.
Because, after it seemed as if Jesse Jr. was out, then I was only interested in a caretaker. Someone who would be a dependable Democratic vote, and would give all the potential 2010 challengers, time to begin their campaigns -on even footing.
3) I'm a little disgusted at the vehemence with which some people, including Coates, have attacked Bobby Rush and Burris. I'm seeing it as tomery. Can someone explain the vehemence?
You aren't the only one. I think folks want to believe this post-racial nonsense. This is hardball ethnic politics. Folks are delusional if they believe electing a Black person as President erases this overnight. Maybe in 10 years, if Obama is successful. But, now? No. And certainly not in a place like Illinois.
"I'm a little disgusted at the vehemence with which some people, including Coates, have attacked Bobby Rush and Burris. I'm seeing it as tomery."
Jack. That last comment is way over the line, and will get you banned. Please don't do it again.
Ta-Nehisi:
Is the line that commenters say that anything you write strikes them as tomery?
Is the line that commenters cannot say anything negative about you or what you write at all?
If you spell out exactly where the line is, I'll respect it. If not, maybe I'll get banned for unknowing crossing the line, which would not be the worst thing in the world.
Here's What I Hope:
I understand that this situation is one of Burris' own making by accepting the appointment, but what I hope doesn't happen it that we and the MSM begin the process of character assassination of a man who while yes, this is a stupid move, has been from what I've read a good and honest public servant (I'm speaking of Burris here).
The line is "Tommery," as in "Uncle Tom." You've disagreed plenty all through this thread. Fine, by me. But accusing someone of "Tomming" is wrong on every level. If I actually have to explain to you why, then you're reading the wrong blog.
rikyrah A Senator has to represent ALL of IL. Not just black ppl in one area, you know there are AA's in the burbs to (and even in the rural areas). By golly, a Senator would also have to represent the WHITES in IL, and the Latinos and Asians, and everyone! Oh and everyone includes ppl who don't live in Chicago.
I heard Chi town was a divided city, but this crap is getting ridiculous.
Rikyrah I agree with you about JJ Jr. He was a strong and important advocate for Obama during the election, especially early on. And while he probably crossed the line a couple times during the primarily, that wasn't going to really come back to haunt him in Illinois. He would have put in the work because he knows that there are people out there that hold his name against him. And what was interesting was he seemed to almost relish that challenge. I was rooting for him, although I agree with you about his chances of winning beyond an appointment without extensive party support. And for the record, I'm starting to think that Jesse Jr. isn't as out of the running as some had said, but it's impossible to say until Fitzgerald actually presents his indictment.
And I get your logic of a caretaker, but if I'm reading your correctly, expending political capital on a quixotic and very short-term appointment to Obama's Senate seat in this way hurts the chances of anyone you might like to see eventually take that seat moving forward. This situation is generating a very real backlash, regardless of who's fault it was or who thinks it's a good idea. That's not something that Blago cares about obviously, and it might not be something that Rush cares about, but it's something that we should keep in mind.
@Jack Irons: I have already addressed your first two questions in my previous post, and I stand by my arguments in that post. As far as your third question, I think that both Rush and Burris are using racial grievance to bully and shame people and I don't think that it is appropriate.
1) Rush is a hypocrite. He has been talking about his concern about the fact that there are no Black people in the Senate, yet, in 2004 he supported the White Blair Hull, against the Black Barack Obama---hmmm, I wonder why? So basically, he trots out his "racial grievance/victim" argument when it suits him. In my mind, that is pathetic. I understand the importance of having greater diversity in the Senate, but this is certainly not the way to go about doing it. Black people are better than this. We don't need grandstanding, bullying, or victimhood to get better representation, and by putting on that buffoonery at the press conference, Rush undermined that. He has continued to undermine that by comparing Senate Dems who dare to raise the same concerns that he did just weeks ago--a la explicitly stating that anyone appointed by Blago would be tainted---to segregationist. Once again, pathetic, and blatantly dishonest and inflammatory.
2) Burris is either an idiot or just dishonest. He knew weeks ago that the Senate released a statement saying that they would not seat ANYONE appointed by Blago, yet now, he has the nerve to say that there may be "racism at play" for the reasons behind them not seating him to the Senate in order to get sympathy from Black constituents. That is low. Why would anyone want someone who would be willing to do that representing them in the Senate!?! Sorry. I don't have the stomach for that crap.
These type of people, these types of arguments do not HELP the Black community. This is beneath us. And putting a Black face on it will not make it better.
@Jack Irons: Oh, and I forgot to add, you can save that Uncle Tom schtick for someone who doesn't know any better. See, the funny thing is, I was born with a brain, and my mother did not raise me to be anyone's sheep. Pointing out when you think other Black people are doing something wrong does not make you an Uncle Tom, but trying to shame people for doing so does make you a coward.
Here's the thing. If Tommery exists, then there will be things that strike me as fitting in that category: "tommery".
Maybe something I write strikes someone as stupid, maybe it strikes them as weak, maybe it strikes them as racist, or complicity with terrorism, maybe it strikes them as tommery. I personally have no problem with anyone telling me any of this.
I'm taking you to be saying accusing someone of- (really say something someone wrote strikes one as-) tommery is over the line for this blog in a way that doing the same for stupidity, weakness, racism or complicity with terrorism is not.
Now I know. I won't say anything you or anyone else here writes strikes me as tommery, even when it does.
It's a pretty arbitrary line though, but it's your blog. Whatever makes you comfortable.
And I get your logic of a caretaker, but if I'm reading your correctly, expending political capital on a quixotic and very short-term appointment to Obama's Senate seat in this way hurts the chances of anyone you might like to see eventually take that seat moving forward. This situation is generating a very real backlash, regardless of who's fault it was or who thinks it's a good idea. That's not something that Blago cares about obviously, and it might not be something that Rush cares about, but it's something that we should keep in mind.
dannity,
once Blago did NOT resign immediately (which I never thought he would), I knew we were in for a drama.
a caretaker is what takes this away from being a NATIONAL story (and hurting Obama) to it being a LOCAL story (which doesn't hurt him as much).
I'm going to remind folks.
Patrick Fitzgerald just asked for a 90-day extension to the deadline for his indictment.
90 Days.
It's not being reported in the national media, but the folks that the folks in Springfield were depending upon to testify at that Impeachment Proceedings..well, they're not all that excited about testifying, because if it's between pissing the Illinois House off and pissing off Patrick Fitzgerald, they're choosing to dis the Illinois House.
These impeachment proceedings are not going to be the slam dunk that people outside of Illinois seem to believe that they will be. It's beginning to look as the phrase goes ' - not even close'. Without that indictment from Fitzgerald, the Illinois House doesn't really have things to hang on Blago. They have the same things they've disliked about him before. BUt, that wasn't good enough to impeach him with 6 months ago. So, what has changed. An arrest without indictment doesn't give them the meat for the impeachment.
TRW: I've read every comment in this thread, but have not found answers to my questions 1 and 2. Maybe they are in a form I can't understand, I'd appreciate if you spell your answers out as clearly as possible. Don't worry about repeating, on the internet nobody has to pay for paper.
1) I don't see why the selection of Burris, even if Blago had acted criminally before that selection, is the sewer of politics. Can someone explain that?
2) I don't see Burris accepting the selection, serving and running for reelection in 2010, even if he loses in the primaries, as harmful to any Black interests. Can someone explain that? ("Well next time a governor is caught on tape trying to sell a seat and afterwards appoints a Black replacement there may be problems" does not count as a harm to Black interests)
Also, apart from the word "tommery" which I now understand is a sensitive one here, I don't understand, except Rikyrah's explanation, the vehemence of the attacks on Burris and Rush.
3) I'm a little disgusted at the vehemence with which some people, including Coates, have attacked Bobby Rush and Burris. Can someone explain the vehemence?
Well I see without my insightful and effervescent presence this discussion has degenerated into the toilet bowl.
My useless drunken dad had some interesting lines that fit at least two of the folks posting in this thread. Three if you count me.
"Useful as tits on a bull".
"Doesn't know his ass, from a hole in the ground".
Actually now that I think about it those comments also fit Roland Burris and Bobby Rush.
Here is an interesting take on Bobby Rush.
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/mcqueary/1357752,010109mcqueary.article
I don't expect Obama to stomp on him in the next election, assuming Rush is alive and healthy enough to run, but I can always dream can't I?
The subtext running through some of these comments about who is "black enough" is wrong. Of course being a pasty faced white devil perhaps I shouldn't say that.
Not black. Not from Chicago. Don't have a horse in this race.
Reid and Obama are both on the record as saying that anyone appointed by Blago is tainted. They are at least being consistent in opposing Burris. Moreover, they both have much larger constituencies than Chicago to worry about. If Rush really wants to see Burris in the seat, he might think about how his approach plays in rural Pennsylvania: not very well at all.
On the other hand, as long as Blago remains the sitting governor of Illinois, he has the right to make the appointment. The legislature had the chance to take that right away, and didn't do it. I don't think it's fair to the people of Illinois to ask them to do without representation until Blago's legal situation is resolved. (Months? Years?) (Which is probably exactly how Blago persuaded Burris to take it.) Like it or not, Burris is the best alternative currently available, and that doesn't change because he happens to be black, or because Rush is being an idiot.
Bottom line, I think Burris ought to be seated, because I think refusing to seat him sets a bad precedent. Burris himself is qualified and is not accused of any wrongdoing. So the Senate is going to refuse to seat him because they don't like the guy who appointed him? A lot of Senators should take a good hard look in the mirror before casting that vote. Unfortunately, Reid has backed himself into a political corner, which Blago and Rush are now ruthlessly exploiting.
rikyrah A Senator has to represent ALL of IL. Not just black ppl in one area, you know there are AA's in the burbs to (and even in the rural areas). By golly, a Senator would also have to represent the WHITES in IL, and the Latinos and Asians, and everyone! Oh and everyone includes ppl who don't live in Chicago.
I find is ' amusing', that Black folk, who vote for numerous White candidates throughout history, never hear this crap when it comes to a White candidate. But, suddenly, a Black person talking about a Black candidate, and they have to be patronizingly reminded that the Black candidate ' has to represent ALL the people'.
Like.I.Don't.Know.That.
Black folks ALWAYS bend over backwards to seem ' fair', when it hardly ever seems to be reciprocated.
Rikyrah, I wonder about that. I really do. That standards for impeachment are not the same as they are for a political prosecution. Maybe they should be, but they're not. I can't see a single Democrat in the Illinois House legislature supporting the dude. And any Republican that drags there feet without a very good reason will be crucified in the press.
Remember, Blago had his fingers in a whole bunch of pies, and the Tribune was one of them. To say that there's broad popular political support for impeachment is an understatement.
If the legislature wants to, they can impeach him. And they'd be right to if for no other reason than this whole mess is hurting their state, and he could no longer fulfill the duties expected of governor because of it. Hell, Obama is about to put hundreds of billions into state spending. Does anyone trust Governor Soprano to oversee it? Anyone?
In fact, from where I'm standing, the only reason that I can see for them to not impeach him post-haste would be because Blago knows where all the bodies are. And if that's the case, it'll happen regardless of an indictment anyway.
dannity,
I believe those in the Ill. House when they said that they had been looking into impeaching Blago for over a year. I believe them. The thing is, they had decided that they couldn't do it - legally.
The arrest and what they thought would be an impending indictment gave them the cover that they were looking for.
Now that indictment isn't here. It won't be here for another 3 months.
And now, Blago has hired the type of lawyer that knows how to fight this.
@Jack Irons
1) Picture crawling up through a sewer. Now Picture accepting a political appointment, especially one as prestigious as a Senate seat, from a governor who's being accused and has been caught on tape in numerous instances of bribery and graft, including withholding funds from a childrens hospital, trying to shake down a union rep, and attempting to sell the Senate seat of the first African American elected President of the United States.
2) Just accepting the nomination probably would not have been necessarily harmful unless there's more to some of the political and financial ties between Blago and Burris that have been hinted at, which right now don't seem to be the case. I know I wouldn't have had any problems with Burris' selection in any other circumstances, and would be more sympathetic to Rikyrah's argument. As it is, the blatant and ridiculously inflammatory injection of racial politics into this is EXACTLY the wrong tone to take right now. And it's just as much an example of the type of politics that needs to go away as Virgil Goode's Muslim bashing and Sarah Palin's "palling around with terrorists". I'm not saying that now that we have Obama, everything is sunshine and roses, but this type of stuff is the past, and needs to be left there.
3) I don't think anyone has been "vehement". What Blago did was calculated to push buttons, both on the left and the right. And he accomplished his goal. The debate we're having is necessary because it'll define who we are moving forward. We can do that without throwing around terms like "tommery". Blago's trying to open some racial fault-lines. It's up to us to determine what that means, and how we respond to it. The end.
1 - If a bad guy is the only guy who can make an appointment, then accepting the appointment is not in itself a bad thing, or a dirty thing. I don't see a reason Burris should not have accepted the appointment if he could do so without himself engaging in corruption. I hold that a clean person can accept the appointment without becoming dirty just by doing so and don't really understand the argument you're making that seems to be if anyone accepts anything from a guy who is accused (not yet convicted) of a crime that person and that transaction is somehow coming from the sewer.
2 - "hinted at, but right now don't seem to be the case", that sounds like innocent to me, you can't be holding this as a strike against Burris. Now Rush brought the topic of race into this discussion. I don't feel hurt by that though. I'm asking how much damage do you think Rush did to what black cause and how?
3 - Rush is two-face, the bad guy from Batman? Nigger please? That's vehement to me. For what? For saying he wants there to be at least one black person in Senate and Burris can be that? This is at most a tiny tiny crime barely worthy of a single blog post, but none of the hysterics.
@ Jack Irons:
If Rush is so gung-ho about Black representation in the Senate, why didn't he support one of the two Black candidates in 2004? Why did he CHAIR the campaign of the white candidate?
What galls me is Rush & Burris crying racism over crap like this.
@ Rikyrah:
I realize you live in the epicenter of all this political drama. However, your geographical location does not mean you can speak with such certainty for all other Black people who live in Cook County.
Happy New Year TNC & commenters!
Yeah, so what. He didn't think one of the Black candidates would win. I didn't so either at the time. Obama has been the beneficiary of a whole lot of unexpectable turns of good luck that have gotten him elected. If Rush knew Keyes would have ended up being the Republican nominee, so that any Black person who won the D primaries would end up Senator, I think he likely would have supported one.
I don't find the hypocrite thing as damaging as some of you do, or worthy of long discussions of how bad he is.
Burris would, from my point of view, be a good Senator. Better than any alternative I see coming down the pike, in addition to the fact that he's the Senator-in-the-hand, as opposed to the alternative-in-the-bush. Since he's a plausible candidate right now, that is a bigger issue to me than making fun of Rush.
I really don't understand this eagerness to denigrate Rush. He's a non-issue in this situation. This urge to denigrate seems to me to come from a place of weakness.
Yeah, so what. He didn't think one of the Black candidates would win. I didn't so either at the time. Obama has been the beneficiary of a whole lot of unexpectable turns of good luck that have gotten him elected. If Rush knew Keyes would have ended up being the Republican nominee, so that any Black person who won the D primaries would end up Senator, I think he likely would have supported one.
The luck thing and Obama has never truly been discussed, but maybe it should.
BLAIR HULL was leading in the polls until damn near the last weekend of the Primary election in 2004.
THEN the 'scandal' broke about him and the problems with his wife.
THAT is when Obama became a viable alternative for people and he won.
Jack Ryan, though trailing Obama, was a very good candidate, who, quite honestly, had a tailor-made story for the election season. Rich White Guy who does good and then goes to work and help in the inner city. On top of that, he was a looker.
But then, the Obama campaign got the Tribune to unseal those divorce documents( and nobody who is actually thinking believes any different - that's why I never understood anyone who thought Obama was a naive bumpkin that didn't understand the 'rough and tumble' of politics).
AND, if Ryan hadn't of wedded himself to the Illinois GOP conservative Holy Rollers - he probably could have stayed in the race. But, the Holy Rollers couldn't have someone who got their freak on in sex clubs with their wife.
Then, nobody serious in Illinois GOP politics would run. If they had been able to draft former GOP Governor Edgar for the seat, as they wanted to, nobody would have ever heard of Barack Obama. But, Edgar's wife nixed it, and so, the Lunatic fringe of the Illinois GOP party brought in Keyes.
And the rest, is well...you know...
Rikyah:
"Barack Obama built his FOUNDATION in the Black community. And, that made all the difference for him. His FOUNDATION was the Black community and the hippie, reformist Whites of Hyde Park and the Lake - that was his foundation."
Not clear that this is the case. Obama got pasted -- by none other than Bobby Rush -- when he ran to represent Hyde Park and the South Side in the House of Representatives. "Not black enough" was one of Rush's successful campaign themes.
If I recall correctly, after this election, his State Senate district was re-drawn to run along the lake from the loop to south of Hyde Park, meaning his "FOUNDATION" was actually quite different -- a lot of Chicago's (young) money as well as Woodlawn and Greenwood.
As to his "foundation" in the primaries: well, South Carolina saved him, certainly, but he won his delegates in Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Alaska. It's an interesting question what route Obama would have taken if Bobby Rush hadn't hammered home the rules of the urban machine: "don't want nobody that nobody sent."
I don't buy the 'post-racial' idea... but I think Obama is a stellar example of young(er) black politicians willing to challenge 'Tammany Hall.'
hahaha, Carrington.
I love how you lefties think Obama somehow "challenged" the Chicago political machine.
Obama is a PRODUCT of the Chicago political machine and IS CONNECTED with all its dirt. He is an EXEMPLAR of how a political machine gets know-nothing candidates into office (meaning his senate seat and Illinois senate seat--the presidency is a different matter).
Basic Fact... "Leftie?" I don't think so. Elitist? Probably.
No, Obama is a PRODUCT of the Harvard political machine, for better and worse.
As to Obama challenging the Chicago machine... well, as I said before, he challenged it, lost, and accomodated. That said, one gets the sense that Chicago pols are happy to be rid of him.
And, frankly, one suspects that political machines generally prefer know-nothing candidates with resumes to match.
Basic Fact,
The machine did not support Obama in his run for the state senate or in his primary run for the US Senate.
Obama's state senate seat was situated in Hyde Park, which anyone with any basic knowledge of Chicago politics. knows is the epicenter of the reform-minded, community organization brand of Chicago politics that has historically been ANTI-MACHINE. (Read Mike Royko's book Boss if you don't believe me.) So Obama's main backers in his state senate run were the same organizations that had supported his predecessor Alice Palmer.
Moreover, in the 2004 Dem primary for the US Senate, the machine candidate was state comptroller Dan Hynes, the son of former Cook County Assessor Tom Hynes (who had run against Harold Washington for Mayor of Chicago in 1987 and lost). Obama only gained the support of the Daley Machine AFTER he become the Democratic nominee, not before. Therefore, Obama does not owe his position to the Chicago Machine.
As usual, your command of actual facts is lacking.
Rikyrah,
The Blair Hull scandal by itself was not enough for Obama to win the Democratic primary for the US Senate in 2004. He still had credible opponents in state comptroller Dan Hynes (who was the Machine's candidate) and Cook County Treasure Maria Pappas.
No, the singular event that put Obama over the top was the endorsement of Paul Simon's daughter, and the commercial that David Axelrod put together that featured that endorsement. By linking himself to the late & beloved Paul Simon, Obama sealed the deal with Illinois voters, including white voters in downstate Illinois. That is how a then obscure state senator from Hyde Park was able to win with 50% of the Democratic primary vote (while celebrity Jack Ryan only managed to eke out a 35% plurality against much weaker opposition in the Republican primary).
I am also skeptical of the idea that Obama would have lost had someone like former Governor Jim Edgar been the replacment GOP nominee. Edgar had never faced anybody as formidable as Obama when he ran for Secretary of State and then Governor. The most formidable Democrat that Edgar had ever faced was former state Attorney General Neil Hartigan, whom Edgar had barely beaten in the 1990 gubernatorial race. Hartigan was nowhere near as intelligent, eloquent, and charismatic as Obama; he was more like an Irish-American Roland Burris, a competent if unspectacular public official.
Knowing that, I suspect that Edgar at best would narrowly have lost to Obama in the same way Hartigan had narrowly lost to Edgar. More than likely, Edgar would have garnered 48% of the vote to Obama's 52%.
Oh, eltoro, if it weren't for the back of cereal boxes, you'd do no reading at all. Bend over and take your spanking, little man.
"The machine did not support Obama in his run for the state senate or in his primary run for the US Senate."
----Right. Obama falls down on his knees for Preckwinkle to begin his political career and was a machine kid. "Although many of Obama’s recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn’t. “I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors," according to the New Yorker.
Also from the New Yorker: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign, he ran a voter-registration drive that placed him at the center of the city’s politics."
"Obama's state senate seat was situated in Hyde Park, which anyone with any basic knowledge of Chicago politics. knows is the epicenter of the reform-minded, community organization brand of Chicago politics that has historically been ANTI-MACHINE."
---Are you trying to tell me that a heavily Democratic district in a democratic machine is somehow reform minded--when they blindly vote democrat every election???? OMG. You really are drinking the Kool-Aid. "On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics"---From the New Yorker.
"(Read Mike Royko's book Boss if you don't believe me.)"
---------A book from 1971? Great. I will now study modern Greek politics using only Plato's Republic as a guide.
"So Obama's main backers in his state senate run were the same organizations that had supported his predecessor Alice Palmer."
---And? You're holding up
"Moreover, in the 2004 Dem primary for the US Senate, the machine candidate was state comptroller Dan Hynes, the son of former Cook County Assessor Tom Hynes (who had run against Harold Washington for Mayor of Chicago in 1987 and lost)."
-----You, like an idiot, assume that because Hynes was somebody's son, the machine had to pick him. Obama proved himself to be a loyal machine follower in the state senate, and thus picked up enough corrupt Democratic unions to secure himself the primary.
"Obama only gained the support of the Daley Machine AFTER he become the Democratic nominee, not before."
---Really? PROOF???????
"Therefore, Obama does not owe his position to the Chicago Machine."
------Or he clawed his way to the top of the machine. Which sound smore likely: magically, he avoided machine politics in a machine dominated town and yet never reformed the machine and somehow is the only good,pure, and true politician in Illinois history OR he was a good machine duber, working for machine organizations (Chicago Annenberg, anyone) and rising quickly through the ranks?
Really, how stupid are you? You think The Messiah climbed to the top of Illinois politics with neither the support of the Democratic Machine of the city he is from and also without opposing them at all??? Right under Daley's nose?????
I'll bet your next argument is that Chicago isn't corrupt at all, or that calling it corrupt is racist.
*smacks forehead in exasperation*
As usual, your command of actual facts is lacking.
-"You, like an idiot, assume that because Hynes was somebody's son, the machine had to pick him. Obama proved himself to be a loyal machine follower in the state senate, and thus picked up enough corrupt Democratic unions to secure himself the primary."
Basic Fact,
Take your spanking, you dope. Again, you didn't bother to get any actual facts to support your assertion. Hynes is the state treasurer, and he got there through the endorsement and support of the Cook County Democratic Party machine figures, like Mike Madigan, like Richard Daley, like Blago's father-in-law Dick Mell, like John Stroger, etc. In addition, the machine Democrats in Cook County mostly supported Hynes in the 2004 Senate run; that's why he got the official endorsement of the Cook County Democratic Party. In addition, while some of the unions threw support to Obama, most of the unions either supported Hynes or Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas.
So once again, when you look at actual Illinois history, it is easy to see your non-existent command of facts, even at a basic level.
*smacks forehead in exasperation*
-"Right. Obama falls down on his knees for Preckwinkle to begin his political career and was a machine kid. "Although many of Obama’s recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn’t. “I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors," according to the New Yorker.
Also from the New Yorker: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign, he ran a voter-registration drive that placed him at the center of the city’s politics."
Basic Fact,
You do realize that Toni Preckwinkle is not part of the machine, don't you? Her roots are in the South Side community organizations that have opposed the Machine throughout the years, which have pushed for ethics reforms over the years, and which supported Harold Washington against machine polticial figures like Jane Byrne, Richard M. Daley, and Fast Eddie Vrdolyak. In addition, she has represented the neighborhood of Hyde Park, which has always been anti-Machine in its outlook.
Moreover, voter registration drives are not synonymous with machine politics, and machine politics do not equal city politics. Again, there has been a reform element in city politics centered around community organizations in Hyde Park and other parts of the South Side that has opposed the machine, and voter registration drives in the city's African-American wards are driven more often by those community organizations than by the Machine. Increased voter registration of African-Americans on the South Side played a key role in fact in putting Harold Washington into the mayor's office over machine candidates Jane Byrne, Richard M. Daley, Tom Hynes, and Eddie Vrdolyak.
Again if you actually knew anything about Chicago's history, you would not make such asinine assertions. Take another spanking, Basic Fact.
"Are you trying to tell me that a heavily Democratic district in a democratic machine is somehow reform minded--when they blindly vote democrat every election???? OMG. You really are drinking the Kool-Aid. "On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics"---From the New Yorker."
Basic Fact,
Chicago Democrats do not equal Chicago machine Democrats. The world of Chicago politics has always been more than just the machine. One can thrive in the world of Chicago politics without being part of the machine. Just ask Harold Washington, who became mayor despite the opposition of the Machine. He did it through the support of South Side community organizations, and anti-Machine liberal Dems in lakefront neighborhoods like Hyde Park and Lincoln Park. This elements, BTW, are the same ones that provided Obama's base when he ran for the US Senate. On other hand, the machine elements that had opposed Harold Washington were the ones that had supported Dan Hynes.
If anybody is a Kool-Aid drinker, it is you Basic Fact. Stop mindlessly accepting the distortions of Chicago political history presented by partisan Republicans from outside of Illinois (Illinois Republicans know better.)
"A book from 1971? Great. I will now study modern Greek politics using only Plato's Republic as a guide."
Just because it was written in 1971 doesn't mean it is irrelevant. The book tells how neighborhoods like Hyde Park were at the epicenter of reform, anti-Machine politics for decades. Moreover, the organizations that promoted anti-Machine politics didn't disappear after 1971. They are still there, and they still play a vital role in city politics. Therefore, while reading Boss by itself is insufficient for being properly informed about Chicago politics, reading Boss is certainly a necessary part of it. (It's a shame that you possess a history doesn't matter attitude. I bet that you were a supporter of Dubya and Sarah Palin.)
In fact, the role that that the anti-Machine elements play in city politics increased after the death of Richard J. Daley, and reached a high point during the time of Harold Washington. While they don't have the prominence they had under Harold Washington, they are still important enough for Richard M Daley to try to accomodate in some ways. The younger Daley has made a concerted effort to improve city services on the South Side and the West Side, to adopt the agenda of civic-minded organizations like the Friends of the Parks, and to pay lip service to obeying the Shakman decree (Daley is always shocked to hear when his department heads provinding political patronage jobs). In addition, many of the school reforms adopted by Mayor Daley promoted by a Hyde Park reformer named Dick Simpson, who had run for mayor against the elder Daley in 1975.
Basic Fact,
As for proof that the Daley Machine did not support Obama in his Senate run, just look at which ward organizations favored Dan Hynes. They were the Northwest Side, Southwest Side, and South Side ward organizations dominated by machine politicians like Dick Mell (Blago's father-in-law), Eddie Burke, Tom Hynes, and John Daley (Daley's brother). These were the same folks that put Daley into office. In addition, groups like HDO (which consisted of Hispanic city workers led by Al Sanchez from the Southeast Side) pushed for Hynes. Now, if you knew anything about Chicago politics, you would know that if guys like Mell, Hynes, Burke, John Daley, and Al Sanchez are supporting somebody, then the Daley machine is behind that guy.
Now look who supported Obama. Jesse Junior (who is part of the anti-Machine South Side community organization wing of Chicago politics), Jan Schakowsky (who is a North Side lakefront liberal supported by the North Side anti-Machine community organizations), and Sheila Simon (the daughter of the late Senator Paul Simon, and like her dad, a downstate reform-minded anti-Machine Democrat). When people like Jesse Junior, Schakowsky, and Simon are supporting somebody, that guy is not the Daley machine's guy.
Note that the Daley machine guys like Mell supported Obama AFTER he beat Hynes in the primary. So again, the facts favor me.
What facts do you have that the Daley Machine supported Obama over Hynes (or anyone else) in the 2004 Democratic primary?
"Or he clawed his way to the top of the machine. Which sound smore likely: magically, he avoided machine politics in a machine dominated town and yet never reformed the machine and somehow is the only good,pure, and true politician in Illinois history OR he was a good machine duber, working for machine organizations (Chicago Annenberg, anyone) and rising quickly through the ranks?"
I didn't say he avoided accomodating political players from the machine like Mayor Daley, or Gov Blago, or even state senate president Emil Jones. I said that he does not owe his position to the machine. The political support that got Obama his state Senate seat came from the anti-Machine community organizations of Hyde Park. The political support that got Obama the nomination his US Senate seat came from the old Harold Washington multi-racial coalition of South Side, West Side, and North Side anti-machine community organizations, and from reform-minded Democrats outside of Cook County who had supported Paul Simon. He didn't win the nomination because of machine suppot; he got machine support in the general election because he won the nomination.
Since Obama's power base in Illinois politics comes from the anti-Machine elements, he was able to rise to political prominence in Illinois politics without being part of the Machine. Since machine Democrats are Democrats, they supported the guy once he won the Democratic nomination, because that's how party politics work. (The machine Republicans do the same thing when a non-machine guy like Jim Edgar or Pete Fitzgerald wins the Republican nomination.)
Basic Fact,
What proof do you have that the Chicago Annenberg project was a machine organization, either Republican or Democrat? (Annenberg after all is a Republican).
eltoro,
thanks for the trips down political memory lane.
But, I still think Edgar would have beaten Obama. Edgar wasn't a right wing GOP nut. He was a mild mannered, GOP guy that nobody said anything bad about, and Obama was still a Black guy. Edgar was the safe choice that could make folks feel good about voting for him.
Eltoro,
While I don't have time tonight to once again administer the spanking that you so richly deserve----we'll do that perhaps tomorrow or Monday---I will say two things:
"What proof do you have that the Chicago Annenberg project was a machine organization, either Republican or Democrat? (Annenberg after all is a Republican)."
---Fact: the Annenberg foundation granted William "blowing up people is ok if you're liberal" Ayers 49.2 million. Hmm, yes, right wing organizations are very keen on giving left wing terrorists money.
"Just because it was written in 1971 doesn't mean it is irrelevant. The book tells how neighborhoods like Hyde Park were at the epicenter of reform, anti-Machine politics for decades."
----Actually, moron, trying to claim that 1971=the 1990s when Obama made his bones is as stupid as saying the crime rate in 1971 is the same in the 1990s. Neighborhoods change, dumbass. Try something relevant. By your argument, Dorchester (in Boston) should still be all Irish because once upon a time it was. Give some more proof, please, not that "once upon a time, I think this place wanted to get rid of Daley." The 1971 book is irrelevant to our discussion now.
"Moreover, the organizations that promoted anti-Machine politics didn't disappear after 1971. They are still there, and they still play a vital role in city politics."
---Again, proof? Considering the Chicago is legendary for corruption, this "vital role" seems like a toothless tiger.
"Therefore, while reading Boss by itself is insufficient for being properly informed about Chicago politics, reading Boss is certainly a necessary part of it."
---Correction, dumbass. Reading Boss is helpful for understanding politics in Chicago UP TO ITS PUBLICATION DATE. Which would be 1971. Unless you're claiming Boss is a psychic. Given your arguments so far, you may be.
"(It's a shame that you possess a history doesn't matter attitude. I bet that you were a supporter of Dubya and Sarah Palin.)"
-------I don't think the history of a neighborhood in 1971 reflects it now. Consider New York: in the 1970s and 1980s, Times Square was a shithole. By the late 1990s, it was a children's playground. SO if you said "Times square is squalid because in the 1980s it was squalid" people would lauhg their asses off of you, because the people and environment there now are not the people and environment of the 1980s. QED, bizznich.
And love the attack on W. and Palin. You do remember you voted for a guy who thinks there are 57 states, right? And that thousands of people died in Kansas from a tornado? And was oblivious that his pastor was a racist lunatic for 20 years?
And that your knowledge of Palin and W. comes from Tina Fey and Will Ferrell impressions?
"In fact, the role that that the anti-Machine elements play in city politics increased after the death of Richard J. Daley, and reached a high point during the time of Harold Washington."
---Proof?
"While they don't have the prominence they had under Harold Washington, they are still important enough for Richard M Daley to try to accomodate in some ways."
----Since both Daley and "hyde park" (however you define who that is) both think Ayers is a great guy, it seems like their kinda on the same page morally.
"The younger Daley has made a concerted effort to improve city services on the South Side and the West Side, to adopt the agenda of civic-minded organizations like the Friends of the Parks, and to pay lip service to obeying the Shakman decree (Daley is always shocked to hear when his department heads provinding political patronage jobs)."
---Um, here's a history lesson for you: Machines stay in power by patronizing its constituents. And Machines sometimes do some good things, otherwise they would fall prey to reformers. Doling out the goods isn't anathema to a machine. So Daley "improving services" (love that amorphous phrase, btw) isn't at odds with Hyde Park being reform minded; it's Daley rewarding a democratic lock step group with their own graft.
"In addition, many of the school reforms adopted by Mayor Daley promoted by a Hyde Park reformer named Dick Simpson, who had run for mayor against the elder Daley in 1975."
----I love these "education reforms" going on in Chicago.
I notice you don't cite anywhere how Hyde Park is so reform minded. Considering the legacy of corruption still in Chicago, either Hyde Park is ineffectual in its efforts (meaning Obama had to bow to the machine to get in) or else you're lying. Considering this is a neighborhood where Ayers and Dorhn are welcomed with open arms, I don't think they have much moral outrage to begin with.
And please note: Obama's favorite terrorist loving neighborhood wasn't his exclusive base. Remember he was on the South Side, which included the South Shore and Chicago Lawn. Hmmmm.....
"I didn't say he avoided accomodating political players from the machine like Mayor Daley, or Gov Blago, or even state senate president Emil Jones. I said that he does not owe his position to the machine. The political support that got Obama his state Senate seat came from the anti-Machine community organizations of Hyde Park. The political support that got Obama the nomination his US Senate seat came from the old Harold Washington multi-racial coalition of South Side, West Side, and North Side anti-machine community organizations, and from reform-minded Democrats outside of Cook County who had supported Paul Simon. He didn't win the nomination because of machine suppot; he got machine support in the general election because he won the nomination.
Since Obama's power base in Illinois politics comes from the anti-Machine elements, he was able to rise to political prominence in Illinois politics without being part of the Machine. "
---You keep stating that Obama was non-machine person or that he was anti-machine---with no proof. Typical liberal: if Obama says he was anti-machine, he was anti-machine, because Obama said it. Nice circular logic there.
I'm sorry, Occam's razor dictates the opposite: he was a machine guy from a machine town. He got the support of unions who supported the machine for years, worked for machine organizations, and bowed down before machine politicians. What part of his machine politics are you calling "anti-machine?"
Like I said, consider which argument is more likely. "Hyde Park" 1) is not the same as in 1971( 40 years ago!!!); 2) bows down to the machine; 3) hasn't reformed squat; and 4) didn't elect Obama on its own.
You keep calling The Messiah's mentors anti-machine without proof. Sorry, in a corrupt crap hole town like Chicago is, you have to assume the machine guy wins until he proves otherwise. It may be unfair, but that's the town's reputation until it cleans itself up, just like every Olympic athlete who breaks a record is suspected of steroids (hello, Michael Phelps).
"So Daley "improving services" (love that amorphous phrase, btw) isn't at odds with Hyde Park being reform minded;
----Correction: I meant that Daley's improving services isn't at odd with Hyde Park being a machine-loving neighborhood; it's Daley rewarding a democratic lock step group with their own graft.
Apologize for the error.
Tool.
"Actually, moron, trying to claim that 1971=the 1990s when Obama made his bones is as stupid as saying the crime rate in 1971 is the same in the 1990s. Neighborhoods change, dumbass. Try something relevant. By your argument, Dorchester (in Boston) should still be all Irish because once upon a time it was. Give some more proof, please, not that "once upon a time, I think this place wanted to get rid of Daley." The 1971 book is irrelevant to our discussion now."
Basic Fact,
Actually, dumbfuck, the 1971 book is still relevant. The factors that made Hyde Park an anti-Machine neighborhood are still there. The University of Chicago is still there. The predominantly liberal middle class nature of the neighborhood is still there. The community organizations that dominate politics instead of the political patronage armies found in places like Bridgeport are still there, and they still dominate politics there. So the neighborhood has not changed in ways that would make it a Machine neighborhood. As usual, you don't actually bother to argue with any facts.
I have given you plenty of proof for my arguments. As usual, you present assertions without any facts to back you up. But then, you are a moron after all.
the Annenberg foundation granted William "blowing up people is ok if you're liberal" Ayers 49.2 million. Hmm, yes, right wing organizations are very keen on giving left wing terrorists money.
Basic Fact,
How is this proof that the Annenberg Foundation is a machine organization? Bill Ayers is not a machine politician.
"Again, proof? Considering the Chicago is legendary for corruption, this "vital role" seems like a toothless tiger. "
I have given you proof; you just choose to ignore it.
The community organizations played a key role in putting an anti-Machine candidate into the mayor's office (Harold Washington). Mayor Daley has worked in providing equity in the delivery of city services to all neighborhoods (and not just places like Bridgeport), into improving city schools, particularly in minority neighborhoods, and at least pays lip service to the idea that hiring and awarding of city contracts is not based on political patronage (he is always shocked, shocked, when one of his underlings is caught engaging in such practices). These are things that his father never did (if you had read Boss, you would know this dumbass).
Now Daley doesn't do this because he has seen the light. He does it because he knows that if another Harold Washington comes along out of the community organization poliitical circles, he will be out of a job. Remember, Daley is one of the people that Harold Washington defeated. Daley came to power AFTER Washington died.
So the community organizations are not toothless. However, they do need to get their act together and find a viable candidate to unseat Daley. If your argument is that the community organizations need to do more to oppose Daley and get rid of me, you will get no argument from me. However, that's not your argument; that sort of intelligence is conspiciously lacking in you.
"I don't think the history of a neighborhood in 1971 reflects it now. Consider New York: in the 1970s and 1980s, Times Square was a shithole. By the late 1990s, it was a children's playground. SO if you said "Times square is squalid because in the 1980s it was squalid" people would lauhg their asses off of you, because the people and environment there now are not the people and environment of the 1980s. QED, bizznich."
Basic Fact,
We're not talking about Times Square; we're talking about Hyde Park. How has Hyde Park changed since 1971 so that is no longer an anti-Machine neighborhood?
As usual, you don't provide any actual and relevant facts.
:Since both Daley and "hyde park" (however you define who that is) both think Ayers is a great guy, it seems like their kinda on the same page morally."
Basic Fact,
How do this statement counter what I told you about the political prominence of the community organizations in Richard M. Daley's Chicago? As usual, you never provide any relevant facts.
People in Hyde Park would argue that city schools should provide a decent education, regardless of neighborhood. Mayor Daley would also agree with that. However, just because they would agree on that issue, and on Bill Ayers, this does not demostrate that Hyde Park is a machine neighborhood? In addition, how would this demonstrate that Hyde Park and Mayor Daley are on the same page morally?
"Um, here's a history lesson for you: Machines stay in power by patronizing its constituents. And Machines sometimes do some good things, otherwise they would fall prey to reformers. Doling out the goods isn't anathema to a machine. So Daley "improving services" (love that amorphous phrase, btw) isn't at odds with Hyde Park being reform minded; it's Daley rewarding a democratic lock step group with their own graft."
Basic Fact,
That's a history lesson that I taught you. I already mentioned how Harold Washington managed to beat the Machine, with the help of places like Hyde Park. I also mentioned that the community organizations provide a political power base outside of the Machine, and that Mayor Daley recognizes that power and accomodates it (because if another Harold came along out of the community organization circles, and set his/her eyes on Da Mare's office, Daley would be out of a job). Talk about lacking reading comprehension skills!
Moreover, what proof do have that the community organizations have engaged in graft in order to secure improved city services? They have applied political pressure, yes, but that's what citizens do if the government is not providing its services properly. Dismissing that as graft shows that you don't understand what graft actually means. Graft on the part of the community organizations would have to be acts of bribery, not merely acts of political pressure to ensure that government provides the services that citizens are entitled to.
"I love these "education reforms" going on in Chicago."
YOu ought to. The scores posted by Chicago Public Schools have improved as a result of those reforms, even in the worst neighbordhoods in the city. So. progress has been made as a result of those reforms; it is just that even more progress still needs to be made.
Since you are such an education expert, and have a track record in running public school systems, why don't you send some of your proposals for improving Chicago's schools even further?
"I notice you don't cite anywhere how Hyde Park is so reform minded. Considering the legacy of corruption still in Chicago, either Hyde Park is ineffectual in its efforts (meaning Obama had to bow to the machine to get in) or else you're lying. Considering this is a neighborhood where Ayers and Dorhn are welcomed with open arms, I don't think they have much moral outrage to begin with.
And please note: Obama's favorite terrorist loving neighborhood wasn't his exclusive base. Remember he was on the South Side, which included the South Shore and Chicago Lawn. Hmmmm....."
Basic Fact,
Again, you ignored the role that Hyde Park played in getting anti-Machine politician Harold Washington elected to the Mayor's office, and how it is the community organizations, and not the armies of political patronage workers, that provide the power base in Hyde Park. The same applies to neighborhoods like South Shore (not the South Shore) and Chicago Lawn. Therefore, you still don't have any proof that Obama owes his political positions to the Machine. Since it is the community organizations and not the Machine that are the power base in Obama's old state Senate district, Occam's Razor tells us that Obama owes his career to the community organizations, and not to the Machine.(Now if Obama's district had been in Bridgeport or Ravenswood or Hegewisch or Back of the Yardsrson Park, you would have an argument that the Machine gave Obama his career. Unfortunately for you, Obama's state senate district is not in neighborhoods like those.)
Moreover, you keep talking about Ayers and Dorhn, but don't show how that proves that Hyde Park is a machine neighborhood. Last time I looked, the Weatherman were a bunch of left-wing extremists who planted bombs, not an army of city workers who got their jobs from political patronage. In addition, there's no indication that Ayers and Dohrn are still engaging in acts of terrorism.(Considering the priviledged backgrounds of Ayers and Dorhn, I don't see them as garbagemen or sewer workers, and there has been no reports of bombs going off at UIC, even in the teachers' lounge.)
Finally, Hyde Park by itself is not enough to get rid of the Machine from Chicago politics. (I wish it were.) So long as neighborhoods like Ravenswood and Bridgeport and Beverly and Hegewisch and Jefferson Park keep voting Machine politicians into power, Hyde Park and Lincoln Park and Lake View and South Shore and Chicago Lawn can't get rid of people like Daley. It is not that Hyde Park is ineffectual; it's just a handful of neighborhoods can't get rid of Mayor Daley. You need someone like Harold Washington, who can cobble together a large enough coalition to beat Daley and his Machine allies.
Now, if your argument is that Hyde Park, Lincoln Park, aren't doing enough to groom the next Harold, you will get no argument from me. However, you have shown yourself unable to muster an argument that shows command of the facts and keenness of reasoning. All you got are irrelevant facts about neighborhoods in New York and snarky comments about some aging hippie ex-terrorists who work as professors.
"I'm sorry, Occam's razor dictates the opposite: he was a machine guy from a machine town. He got the support of unions who supported the machine for years, worked for machine organizations, and bowed down before machine politicians."
1) Unions also support non-machine politicians, so long as they are Democrats.
2) What machine organizations did he work for? He worked for community organization groups, for law firms, for the University of Chicago, for the Illinois General Assembly, and for the US Senate. He was not a political patronage worker, nor did he command armies of patronage workers, like Richard M Daley, Eddie Burke, Ed Kelly, Ed Vrdolyak, Dick Mell, John Stroger, Mike Madigan, etc. He also didn't work for construction firms or trucking firms that got business from the city, county, state, or the Feds. He never did legal work where he represented clients doing business with the city, county, state, of the federal government. He was never a lobbyist even. No, most of his legal career was spent teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Finally, even though many members of the state legislature and of Congress owe their careers to political machines (this includes Republicans too), state legislatures and Congress are brances of government, not machine organizations (although political machines like to think that they are).
Occam'z Razor leads us to an opposite conclusion from yours; a guy with Obama's background and work history is not a Machine guy. (Guys like Eddie Vrdolyak and Richard Daley and Eddie Burke don't teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago)
3)Bowed down before machine politicians? That's a matter of interpretation. Obama did write an ethics law that wasn't popular with the machine guys, but in the wake of the scandals involving Republican George Ryan, they had little choice but to support it. However, he did work with machine politicians like state Senate President Emil Jones and House Speaker Mike Madigan in gettling legislation passed, such as the death penalty reform act. Moreover, he did endorse Mayor Daley for re-election in 2007.
So while Obama does not owe his political position to the Machine, he certainly has not worked to get rid of it. He definitely has accomodated the Machine, even if he hasn't bowed down before it. One can accomodate Machine politicians though without being a Machine politician oneself. When the mayor of your home town and your home state are Machine politicians, working with them is matter of recognizing political reality, and not a sign that you are secretly one of them. Likewise, Mayor Daley and Governor Blago recognized the political reality that Obama was one of the state's US Senators, and for the good of the state it was important to maintain a cordial ionship with Obama, even though he wasn't one of them. It is even more important when you realize that someone like Obama could easily have become mayor of Chicago or governor of Illinois instead of president.
Basic Fact,
I never said that Hyde Park elected Obama on his own. I said his power base comes from the community organization part of Chicago politics, and not from the Machine. Hyde Park was that way in Richard J Daley's time, and it's the same way in the time of Richard M Daley. The things that made Hyde Park anti-Machine have not changed, and you have failed to provide any facts to support your assertion that Hyde Park is now a Machine neighborhood. (Instead, you have talked a lot of crap about Bill Ayers.)
In addition, you have failed to show how Obama owes his position to the Machine. He was elected to the state Senate through the help of the community organizations, not armies of patronage workers. He won the Democratic nomination for the US Senate against the Machine candidate Dan Hynes, by putting together the Harold Washington coalition of anti-Machine community organizations and merging it with the downstate supporters of Paul Simon, who was definitely not a machine guy. The Democratic machine had to support him then because that's what Democrats are supposed to do for the guy who wins your party's nomination. (The same applies to Republicans, even machine ones.)
It's not the 1st time the Chicago machine has supported someone who isn't one of them. The machine supported people like Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas because they preferred having a Democrat in office, even if he wasn't a Machine Democrat.
"You keep calling The Messiah's mentors anti-machine without proof. Sorry, in a corrupt crap hole town like Chicago is, you have to assume the machine guy wins until he proves otherwise."
Basic Fact,
I never said that Obama's mentors were anti-Machine. Instead, I pointed that he got his state Senate seat through the support of community organizations in his district, instead of armies of political patronage workers. I also pointed out that the anti-Machine coalition that put Harold Washington in the mayor's office provided Obama's base of support in the 2004 Democratic primary, and that the Machine supported Dan Hynes, a 2nd generation Machine politician.
You also don't have to assume that the winner of any political office in Chicago is a machine person. Just look at where that guy's support in the Democratic primary came from. If it came from guys who supplied armies of political patronage workers to get out the vote, then that guys is a Machine guy. If the guy's support came from community organizations, that guy is not a Machine guy.
BTW, Occam's Razor would tell you that your assertion that Obama was the Machine's pick over Hynes is simply ludicrous. A guy whose father was a machine politician, who lives in a Machine neighborhood, who got into office through the help of political patronage workers is far more likely to be the Machine's guy than someone who was put into office by community organizations opposed to the Machine. You would have know that if you actually knew what you were talking about, but since you only know things about Times Square instead of Hyde Park, you're going to make dumbfuck arguments like you usually make, and in bad faith no less.
Bunghole.
"If your argument is that the community organizations need to do more to oppose Daley and get rid of me, you will get no argument from me."
That should read
If your argument is that the community organizations need to do more to oppose Daley and get rid of HIM, you will get no argument from me."
Sorry about the typo.