Who Knew III?
ArchPundit
">
Thanks to Ross at the Bloviator for this one
Uncategorized
Bad Poll for Fitzgerald
and Comments are at the Political State Report.
The 2007 Daley Smackdown
From the comments section:
Considering the general trend in Daley’s opponents, from Harold Washington through Danny Davis through Bobby Rush to Paul Jakes, I predict that in 2007 Mayor Daley will run against the "nine pairs of socks for five dollars" guy from the El.
So what about the rest of you? Who should take on Daley in 2007? Both serious and sarcastic (especially sarcastic suggestions welcomed).
Who Will Daley Hold Accountable?
Sanchez, the streets and sanitation chief or the cop doing his job by giving Sanchez’s driver a ticket?
Pate Philip is really gone
And we know this because a “>gay rights bill made it out of committee. Philip had blocked any vote on this for years. The bill is not sure to pass as some Democrats moved it to the floor who are against it in general.
A Deserved Critique
From a reliable reader (and one whose opinion I respect):
I have read a number of times your obvious admiration for Mayor Daley; indeed, in a recent post you said that your appreciation for him has grown since being exiled to a city that doesn’t work, and that he has molded Chicago into a remarkable metropolis. Although you note occasionaly that he shouldn’t be left unchecked, your and most other people’s admiration of him leaves him just that — unchecked. And there in lies the rub: Mayor Daley has what he has and does what he does because there is no politics in Chicago, which, in effect, means that there is no democracy in Chicago. To be sure, we have elections, but Daley has so effectively neutered his opposition that elections are a sham, a foregone conclusion. Public policy is not debated, the future of the City is not open for discussion, and the Mayor’s agenda cannot be questioned. He is beyond being unchecked — he is a dictator, a benign one for most, perhaps, but a dictator nonetheless.
Democracy is messy; but Daley hates mess. Democracy means you don’t always get what you want; but what Ritchie wants, Ritchie gets. Although many of us — the prosperous ones, the ones who feed at the public trough, the courtiers — benefit form his largesse, his love of the City, many don’t. Those who can’t use the pretty parks because of violence in the streets don’t. Those who need affordable housing don’t. Those who need good schools don’t. Those who need adequate public transportation to get to and from jobs and school don’t.
Visit the Englewood neighborhood, or Robeson High School, or ride the Brown Line.
When democracy fails, inconvenient questions can’t be asked. Like how is it that we can’t find enough money to rebuild schools, or public transportation, yet we can find the money instantly to rebuild Soldier Field, or build the massive boondoggle, Millenium Park. No one can ask about how in the world trees, and flowers, and medians, and wrought iron will be paid for. No one can ask about the Duffs, or Jeremiah Joyce and his clan, or Grace Barry.
Chicago has improved. So have other great cities — but not without having to sacrifice that difficult, messy American institution that, in the end, holds public officials accountable: democracy.
End
Fair enough, and true. I do need to call Daley out more often and I will when it comes up. I hope my bobblehead post on Political State Report makes clear that I do want to see independent voices in Chicago. All of the points above are true.
Part of the reason I think I give Daley so much credit is that I see St. Louis and other midwestern cities struggling with the same problems cited, and yet doing even less than Daley accomplishes. To a point, Daley does more with what he has. That being said, Chicago would be a far healthier place if it had open debates and opposition. Later in the week, I’ll do some flashback posts about Harold Washington and the 1983 race.
What is absolutely unacceptable are his refusal to take questioning seriously ("What do you want me to do, take down my pants?") and his acceptance of shady characters like the Duffs. They are outfit clowns who have no business in the public trough–not only do they cheat taxpayers, but they cheat the workers underneath them.
Denny Gets Mad!
Going to the Calpundit well again…
Denny Hastert is reported to have said:
"What do you want me to do, call the President a liar? George Bush may screw his party. I don’t!" Hastert is reported to have said.
Mr. Fitzgerald is squirming because that means Hastert just might be pissed enough to back Andrew McKenna in the Illinois Republican primary. If Hastert and the President weren’t having problems, I think Rove could clear the field with a strong move–if he has alienated Hastert, he has no leverage.
One Liberal Hawk Sill on Board
But it looks like others are ready to jump ship. I’m the one not looking to jump ship.
Look, I don’t know what the hell the administration thinks it is doing pissing on many of our allies’ legs, but that doesn’t go to what I think the justification for taking out Saddam is. I believe that we will deal with him now or deal with him later. For a whole host of reasons I don’t believe deterrence will work. While Saddam may not be crazy, he isn’t very smart and deterrence requires full rationality on the part of an opponent and from his past actions it is clear that Saddam is not capable of processing information well.
Once I concluded deterrence is highly unlikely to work the question then becomes is there reason to wait? Well, usually there would be, but he is pursing weapons that would make any future conflict harder to fight.
I never had any illusions about Bush giving a damn about democracy (nor about Clinton’s fumbling in Europe as Daniel Drezner points out). Cleaning up Bush’s mess in Iraq, Turkey, Kurdistan (just wait) and several other Arab countries will fall to his successor. However, I’d rather have him get Saddam out of the way to make that fight less bloody and less calamitous.
By far, I’d like Dick Lugar, Bob Dole or John McCain executing this war and cleaning up after. Clearly, in any of those three cases we wouldn’t have alienated our allies and screwed up bribing Mexico and Turkey. And I’d have more trust in the post war Iraqi order. But I’m stuck with Bush.