Call It A Comeback
A series,The Chicago Crime, by the Chicago Tribune. In a series of indepth editorials, the Chicago Tribune addresses homicide in Chicago, why it is so high, what can be done about it, and how it should be addressed. I’m a little surprised Talk Left hasn’t covered it. I’ll have more comments on it later, but I thought it was important to point out.
Pate takes a shot at LaHood and back Fitzgerald.
One of the more interesting issues will be who replaces Philip. It appears the main race is between Rauschenberger and Dillard. Dillard is a DuPage County Senator and Rauschenberger is western-Cook/Lake County (I haven’t seen the most recent boundary). Both are socially conservative and well respected by the wingnuts so regardless of who wins the race, there won’t be the bitter feelings that the Cross election created.
Rauschenberger is a serious guy and a budget expert. Dillard is more of the Philip kind of guy. Fiscally conservative with other people’s districts and fiscally liberal in DuPage. To add a little bit of intrigue, Rauschenberger is one of the few guys who gets along with the moderates and the wingnuts. The Illinois Leader likes him and Hastert used him to funnel cash to Illinois Senate races this fall. Additionally, he is probably the only person who can call himself a close ally of Fitzgerald. They were close in the lege.
My sense at this point is that if Philip has anything left, he’ll pass on his sceptre to Dillard in order to maintain DuPage’s influence. Nearly all of the caucus owes Philip so Dillard is the frontrunner. Given his ability to reach across the party and his detailed understanding of the state budget, Rauschenberger would be a better strategic choice in the coming budget battles.
The longest serving legislative leader of the Illinois Lege is stepping down.
On the one hand, he won’t be missed. He is a back-slapping deal maker who thinks middle class American suburbanites are all that matter and has little real interest beyond pork for DuPage County. On the other hand, he said such spectacularly stupid things, it will be less fun having him around to quote.
While discussing problems in the Department of Family Services he once said a big part of the problem was that minority social workers don’t have the same work ethic as ‘you and I’. That Philip thought this was no surprise. That he said it was a surprise. Especially who he said it to: the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. He was then surprised when it ended up on the front page. I believe he apologized at least.
More later on the race to replace him.
UP
DATE: ThePost-Dispatch has the quote. I missed the end
He once said of minorities: “It’s probably a terrible thing to say but I’ll say it — some of them do not have the work ethic we have.”
Reynolds has complained in the past that social scientists don’t take legal research seriously. This is true and not true. Social scientists take rigorous research seriously and the problem with some/much legal research is that it isn’t rigorous. William Eskridge is well respected by political scientists because his research is rigorous. Maybe Glenn should read it after posting this:
Or, if you’re one of those people who see the Court as a largely political animal, you might think that justices on the court who support other "right-wing" outcomes like ending affirmative action might think it useful to balance those by overturning Bowers. I don’t think the Court looks at cases that way, myself, but many people do and I suppose I could be wrong.
Why does Reynolds not address the evidence? There is a growing body of work on strategic behavior by justices. How is it wrong? Or is this a faith based claim by him? Or does he even understand the literature? The hypothesis is testable, has been tested, and has been confirmed by most tests to date. Most of the work criticizing strategic decision-making by courts takes a non-rigorous approach. So why does Reynolds think it is wrong?
I just can’t help myself, but the Illinois Leader is full of stuff and I’ve been behind in linking to it. What is a liberal to the Illinois Leader? Tom Cross, Bill O’Conner, and Skip Saviano. There are legitimate issues to take with Saviano and his, ummm…, ties to interesting people. But that doesn’t make him liberal, it makes him….
But proteges of Denny Hastert aren’t liberal. I suppose if by liberal you mean, not nativist Eagle Forum fruitcakes, yes they are liberal. But not by any reasonable standard.
And I can’t make this crap up. Someone named their kid John Birch? Or is this fruitcake a descendant?
Back from the edge of the wingnut One World Goverment/Religion portion of the Illinois Leader is Kevin McCollough. Kev decides to call the moderate/Combine Republicans stupid. Then he says:
At one point, Speaker Hastert was actually trying to wrestle the constitutional duty of naming the U.S. Attorneys away from Fitzgerald – a contest that the Senator easily won.
A No-Prize to the first person who can name that Constitutional provision. Preferably from the US Constitution, but another one might do.
Additionally, instead of finding something relevant to attack about Steve Neal, like his accuracy, Kev makes several allusions to his drinking habits. Calling a reporter a drunk is like calling a minister religious.
Finally, Good ‘ole Kev seems to not understand the 11th Commandment of Republican Politics–Thou Shall Not Speak Badly of Fellow Republicans. As a side note, I always wondered what Ford thought of this saying? More importantly, Pat O’Malley ran a wingnut campaign that villified J-Ry. J-Ry probably would have lost without that given the deck of cards he was dealt, but McCollough seems not understand that by shifting O’Malley to AG race, the bitter primary would have been avoided and all the money could have been spent attacking Lisa Madigan and the Dem nominee. Instead of wounding their better candidate, they could have had a competitive J-Ry and O’Malley. But no, stupid is as stupid does.
Going to the well again tonight…
Joyce Morrison, one of my favorites at the Illinois Leader, writes about the grave dangers of the What Would Jesus Drive backers to those dimwitted Christians being duped by Gaia worshiping false prophets. The entire screed is amusing, but the amazing thing is there is no evidence of the conspiracy. There are some out of context Al Gore quotes and then smears by association to those out of context questions.
By the end, if one argues for responsible stewardship of the Earth one is either a Gaia worshipper or a dimwit being manipulated by the hordes. Even more strangely is the notion that these ‘radical environmentalists’ are trying to overtake mainline denominations and how horrid such a movement would be. After all, conservatives have been doing the same organizing for years.
Posted on the Illinois Leader web site as the quote of the day, is the following:
"Last week, (Dennis] Hastert’s candidate, Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, was elected state Republican Party chairman. Topinka and Hastert ousted Gary MacDougal, a conservative fall guy, in the process. MacDougal and his conservative allies never saw this coming. They figured that after his appointment last summer, he could somehow hold on to the power. But he was handed the job mainly to silence the right wing…. Everyone but MacDougal and the right-wingers knew he would be ousted after the election. This was a setup from the beginning."
~ Rich Miller, Daily Southtown, December 1
If someone knows any good irony meters out there, I just blew mine.
about L’affaire de Dilulio, but I can’t stop giggling long enough.
First, most academics probably would find it too political. I grant that, but also don’t think we should assume he is necessarily wrong because of that. There is a lot of evidence this administration is one of the most politicized administrations. I don’t find this realization to be News at 11. Changes in media scope and speed mean this is going to be more true as time goes along regardless of party. The problem as I see it is that much of the mainstream press accepts this silly notion that the administration isn’t highly politicized. I don’t blame Rove/Bush for the media’s laziness.
What is interesting about this story is how ham-handed the administration was. What is the worst thing that could happen if the story breaks and Dilulio says virtually nothing? A couple news cycles with some handwringing by pundits. No big deal.
What happens when Dilulio claims the story is groundless and baseless, but there is a letter? A lot of questioning of the administrations’ trustworthiness that last for several news cycles. If the administration had simply let this story die, the information would have been lost on the general public as background noise. Now it gets thrown into the public debate for a longer period. The adults are back in charge.
But what does the denial do? It keeps the story alive in the news cycle.
ArchPundit