2009 IL Primary Elections – Blue Skies Falling Endorsements

Posted by connor on February 2, 2010

It’s very late in the day, and I’ve only recently gotten around to researching any of these candidates. That said, if you haven’t voted yet, and you’re interested in a pseudo-informed opinion, here’s who I’m going for this round.

GOVERNOR – PAT QUINN (D)
U.S. SENATE – DAVID HOFFMAN (D)
CONGRESS – IL 9TH DISTRICT – JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D)
COOK COUNTY PRESIDENT – TONI PRECKWINKLE (D)
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT – MARIYN SPYROPOULOUS (D), TODD CONNOR (D), KARI STEELE (D)

My most enthusiastic endorsement goes to Todd Connor, for his strident argument in favor of closing the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the spread of Asian Carp into Lake Michigan. It seems that almost every politician I’m aware of has vocally supported keeping the locks open, a horrible choice to favor short-term expediency over long-term stability and fairness. The contention also illustrates one state’s ability (and nobody can doubt that Illinois is the most powerful state in the region) to blatantly disregard the interests of other states. In this, one of the most important of county offices, we need qualified candidates who are willing to act on principle, and Connor appears to have exemplified this in his response to the Asian Carp crisis.

It is interesting for me to note that all three of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District candidates listed here were endorsed by the right-leaning Chicago Tribune Editorial Board as well as the environmentally-conscious Sierra Club. This level of concord among such different crowds suggests that these are extraordinarily qualified candidates.

My least enthusiastic endorsement goes to Pat Quinn for Governor. Both candidates ran attack ads of the variety that call the integrity and mission of their campaigns into serious question. There is no sugar-coating the vigor and virulence of political debate in Illinois, but the ads of both candidates completely occluded any discussion of their policy differences, which were, in many cases, little easier to disentangle from their public statements… at least from my point-of-view. I disagree with Pat Quinn on a variety of issues; he supports ease of recall elections, which is ironic given pledges to reduce the deficit, and Hynes makes a very well-reasoned argument that recalls are a gateway for special interests. However, I got a better sense of Quinn’s specific stance on many of the most important issues, and he seems to have a stronger focus on the hard-hit middle and lower-classes in the midst of recession. So: “I’ll punch the card for Quinn, or whatever.”

My primary protest vote of 2010 goes to David Hoffman for U.S. Senate. Our political machine has been infected with all sorts of nasty financial shenanigans, and Alexi Giannoulias seems to typify many of these. However, I would like to add that Hoffman represented himself well overall in Tribune interview.

Share
Categories: Political

Event: Election Post-Mortem.

Posted by connor on November 6, 2008

I couldn’t post yesterday; I was just too exhausted. I won’t post tomorrow either; I need at least a brief break. On election night we hosted a breakfast-at-dinnertime party while the results came in, drank orange juice and ate sausage and potatoes. A loud sound went up at Pennsylvania, then Ohio, and then, when Obama passed 270, everyone freaked out. It was like crowds at the Super Bowl or Lollapalooza, only bigger and better. The champagne flowed and we all went out into the streets, and the news was all about people running into the streets.

* * * * *

Yesterday I was nursing a hangover all day long, but by evening I felt better. I met up with some friends at Metropolis, and we all took a walk. Just to take a walk. To enjoy the unexpected late fine weather and to muse on just how big and momentous this week has been.

So this, then, is my election post-mortem.

It is good that Obama won the election so decisively. Already, this one move has served to bolster our status in the world. The breadth of Obama’s support has opened up states that have not been in play to Democrats in decades. The Great Lakes region was united behind a presidential candidate for the first time since 1972. The press has been quick to point out the significance of this election as a civil rights victory; they are right to do so. We should not forget that it is also a victory for Democrats, who have been resurgent since 2006, for the Left, which will (presumably) be better represented by Obama than by it would have been by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, as an emphatic refutation of Bush-era policies of division and marginalization.
And yet… concessions are already being made and it would seem that there is little time to rest on our laurels.

It is also good that the Democrats picked up seats in congress; it would have been better if they had picked up a supermajority. I’ve commented to a few people in the last several days that whenever one party achieves dominance, things start to go south for them pretty quickly, and I suspect it’s because interal rigor and discipline become a liability in a rush to fast action. I believe this argument, and yet it is meant to be a qualification of, not a dissent from, victory as a unilateral Democratic majority.
In the first place, the U.S. is too sheltered from the effects we have on our neighbors and the world at large. There is a pendulum in U.S. politics, but it’s motion is strictly determined by a relative understanding of what is “liberal” and what is “conservative.” It is fine to consider these differences meaningful, but we needn’t consider them objective. While I don’t believe the U.S. is definitionally a center-right nation, it functionally is at this time. Our policy needs to move to the left in general to accomodate crises that can only be addressed through action that is both democratically and collectively determined.
In the second place, the horrific damage rendered under the Bush administration, propogated by Republicans and sometime abetted by Democrats in congress over the last 14 years, and often upheld by an inconsistent judiciary, are huge in magnitude and can must be addressed by broad and sweeping executive and legislative action. Given the abysmal performance of our congressional Democratic leaders (we’re all thinking of Reid and Pelosi), we need a sufficient “vote cusion” to make action possible. In our current crises, action is necessary, and therefore, Democrats and Independents should hope to see more Democrats in office.
In the third place: The Republican Party of the 2000s is much like the Democratic Party of the 1850s: it is broken. While it still stands upright, it only wreaks damage on itself and those it represents. Today’s Republican Party represents not a free market but a fanged market; it represents not American patriotism but American nationalism. The riven Democratic party of the 1800s recovered, and I believe that the Republicans will as well. But first they have to be broken. They have to reconstitute themselves along their original premise of individual liberties upheld at the expense of collective prerogative, of a correspondent expectation of individual sacrifice, and of a government that tries to excise unnecessary intervention. That Republican party, a party recognizeable to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, can contribute to our political landscape. But this Republican party, hateful, angry, alienating, divisive, invasive, unscrupulous, and increasingly regional: it is walking around broken. It is wounded and wounding, and as such, this broken party needs to be further broken. It needs to be crushed. Only then can it recover.
Now the Democrats didn’t get a supermajority, but they picked up enough support to pursue an agressive progressive agenda with executive support. I do hope they use that strength with rigor and discipline. But make no mistakes: I hope that they sustain and increase it, and above all else, use it.

Finally, it is good that some good ballot amendments passed: I’m thinking most fondly on Michigan’s Proposal 2, which allows research on embryonic stem cells, and California approved a bullet train, which is pretty cool, and which may in the long run offset the two other environmental proposals the state rejected. Sadly, the success of Proposition 8 in Califoria would seem to trump many progresses made around the country, as it revoked marriage rights in one of only two states where gays and lesbians can truly enjoy marriage equality. Beneath the hubbub over California, similar amendments passed in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. And yet… amid all this… the challenges have begun, and they are built upon firm constitutional ground.

* * * * *

It is deceptive of the graveness of our times to pretend that this election was an unmitigated vitory; in fact there is more to worry about now than ever. It is equally deceptive to underestimate the genuine power, the profound importance of what was declared last Tuesday; as Tom Brokaw said on election night, “just over 150 years ago, Mr. Obama could have been owned, as a black man.” The emphasis is mine, but the emphasis is what gives this often unspoken statement its force. I think that Clay Bennett said it even better.

To fall back on a common declaration these days, yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

Be delirious.

Be deliriously happy.

Take a day, a week, a month to feel this happiness, and as you do, use that energy to infect and infest your labor and your conversation.

We just lived through a big thing and it was good

and …

… it has foreshadowed some of the hardest work our nation will ever have to do.

END OF POST.

Share

Event: Election Pre-Post Mortem.

Posted by connor on November 5, 2008

I won’t have enough time for a thoughtful post until later today.

In the meantime, read this:

CNN Politics.com: Obama win sparks celebrations outside White House.

It’ll make you smile.

Share
Categories: Political
Tags:

Event: Blue Skies Falling endorsements, 2008.

Posted by connor on November 4, 2008

MY ARGUMENTS:
Information. Where to Get It and How to Use It.
What is Socialism? Is Obama a Socialist?
MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-02 : Embryonic Stem-Cell Research.
California Proposition #8.
MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-01 : Medical Marijuana.
Why I’m Voting Against Jan Schakowsky in the Illinois 9th District Race.
Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.
“Here’s how Gov. Sarah Palin’s Clearwater visit unfolded”
The Executive Branch is a Committee, with an Economic Example of Why it Matters.
Palin is a Footnote; Clinton is a Chapter.
A Few Thoughts on Abortion for Voting Catholics Like Me.

OTHER ARGUMENTS:
Chicago Tribune: Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president. The Chicago Tribune has a respected conservative-leaning editorial staff. Barack Obama is the first Democrat they have nominated for President since the newspaper was founded in 1841.
The Economist: An Endorsement of Barack Obama. The Economist is an editorial magazine based out of the United Kingdom. It has a well-respected global perspective, and is considered to be politically moderate by the standards of most American political discussions.
The Economist: Global Electoral College: What if the Whole World Could Vote?
EGAD or, (de)mythologizing the fetish of place: Flames.
New York Times: Barack Obama for President. The New York Times has a respected left-leaning editorial staff.
Purple Scarf: Harold and the Purple States.
Purple Scarf: In the Real America…
Third Rail Themes: Get Me a Beer, Bitch!
Third Rail THemes: Palin(g) in Comparison, Part the Second

A brief comment on “protest votes”: Protest votes were one of many things that earned us the first Bush Administration, and unfortunately this entire class of political opportunity (theoretically equivalent to what is possible in Unions through striking) seems interminably linked to Ralph Nader.
Yet 2008 should be a great year for protest votes in low-risk national races. Many congressional Democrats will win by a large margin; yet since 2006, when the Democrats retook Congress with a mandate, their leadership has failed time and time again to use to tools at their disposal to stand up to the Bush Administration.
We don’t want to unseat Democrats; a protest vote is a bad tactic in a closely contested race. However, votes are the ultimate currency in politics, and we can use it to demonstrate that our loyalty comes with a price. Democrats ought to behave as Democrats. Our Democratic led congress has lower approval ratings than President Bush; this is due to disillusionment by a base that feels that they have been represented by an unassertive and unmotivated congressional party leadership.

A brief comment on third parties: There is no time or space here to wade into the myriad and complex arguments about why we should or should not encourage the growth of third party movements in the U.S. My operational premise is that, while third parties in general expand our options and encourage a more mature and nuanced political perspective (both among the electorate and office holders), in the U.S. they are often manipulated by the major parties against each others. Voting Green, for example, is often promoted by the Republicans as a way of whittling away support for Democrats (and Republicans often lead in financial support for Green candidates). With this in mind, I generally discourage voting for a third party candidate unless, 1) you think they could actually govern well and 2) they have an active chance of winning. When these criteria are met, vote-away! For cases where the criteria are not met, but you still want to register a protest vote, consider a write-in instead.


MY ENDORSEMENTS

PRESIDENTIAL

Barack Obama – Democrat

MICHIGAN

U.S. SENATE
Carl Levin – Democrat
Please follow up your vote with a letter to Senator Levin that he is on notice until he justifies through legislation that the Wall Street bailout is administered with both robust oversight and strict penalties for mismanagement among recipients.

U.S. CONGRESS – DISTRICT 5
Dale Kildee – Democrat
Please follow up your vote with a letter to Senator Levin that he is on notice until he justifies through legislation that the Wall Street bailout is administered with both robust oversight and strict penalties for mismanagement among recipients.

PROPOSAL 1 – Yes.

PROPOSAL 2 – Yes.

ILLINOIS

U.S. SENATE
Dick Durbin – Democrat
Please follow up your vote with a letter to Senator Durbin that he is on notice until he justifies through legislation that the Wall Street bailout is administered with both robust oversight and strict penalties for mismanagement among recipients.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – 9th DISTRICT
Morris Shanfield – Green

STATE SENATE – 7th DISTRICT
Heather Stearns – Democrat

STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – 13th DISTRICT
Greg Harris – Democrat

BALLOT MEASURE
Illinois Constitutional Convention – YES

JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENTS

COOK COUNTY – 4th SUBCIRCUIT
Pat Rogers – Democrat

COOK COUNTY – 12th SUBCIRCUIT
Pamela Elizabeth Loza – Democrat

North Side Judicial Ratings can be found at:
http://democracyforamerica.com/groups/247.

Share

Event: Illinois Constitutional Convention

Posted by connor on November 4, 2008

In 2006 the Democratic Party was propelled by a slim but decisive mandate into control of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. And yet, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both bodies failed to substantally challenge President Bush and the Republican minority in a substantive way on any major issue, from the unending and futile Iraq war to the recent punitive measures attached to the recent Wall Street bailout.

Many Democrats feel that we should secure a more substantial majority before “holding their feet to the fire.” I don’t see why we can’t do both at the same time. As a result this year I am registering a protest vote against Jan Schakowsky of the Illinois 9th district who voted for both the Wall Street bailout and promised to vote down legislation to fund the Iraq war without a withdrawal timetable before repenting at the last minute.

But Schakowsky is partly a product of her political situation; the Illinois Democratic machine is the home of many stereotypes, and they are more justified here than in many other parts of the country. The moneyed and connected Democrats have a lock on primary nomination and guarantee of success in a general election (except Harold Washington). This system is in nobody’s benefit. I write this from a progressive perspective: Illinois is not prosperous when Chicago is not prosperous, and the Democrats have the sane policies this generation. However, Democrats here still lack the spine or drive or temperament to act on their constituencies impulses, and the Schakowsky votes illustrate this.

A constitutional convention is one more opportunity (whether a successful opportunity remains to be seen) to disrupt the all-too entrenched and stubborn local political dynasties. I’m not optimistic about its hopes for success, but a chance is better than none.

Vote for the constitutional amendment. With Democrats perpetually in control of the state senate and house, there is little to fear. With ruling dynasties having benefited from the current constitution for as long as anyone can remember there is very, very little to lose.

Share