CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Falling for the game

Re: Falling for the game

Bobs yer — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:20:07 -0000

Last couple years, I've thought that we should reduce the House to 1 member, since only Madigan has power (Didn't Quinn claim we could do that when he did his 1/3 reduction?). Let him run statewide and see if the voters wants him to control that whole function. Save some money too.

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:02:38 -0000

"...a small handful of legislators could bypass committees..."

ah, the sanctity of the committee process

"Republican lawmakers blasted Democrats' decision to vote on the measure quickly, without any hearing in committee."

Re: Falling for the game

Easy — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:37:02 -0000

my point on emil is this, although it took a call from the soon-to-be president to get it done, emil called a special session to pass regulations on who can contribute.

Cullerton and Madigan, in a much more reform-oriented environment are stalling.

trust me, this is much less a defense of emil and much more an indictment of the inaction and self-interest of the cullerton and madigan.

Re: Falling for the game

Tom Joad — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:29:51 -0000

I think moron has met McCarthy, Charlie McCarthy

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:14:49 -0000

Criticize the legislative leadership and you're automatically tagged as dangerous and playing a game.

"...the reformers are trying to hold the budget hostage to their agendaâ€¦ â€œFor the legislature to turn around and say, â€˜We are going to raise your taxes, trust us,â€™ without doing anything to show they have cleaned up their own house is a very dangerous proposition,â€ said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Coalition for Political Reform. Thatâ€™s a very dangerous game she wants to play. Putting the fate of millions of Illinoisans on the line to â€œwinâ€ a debate over something like campaign caps is audacious in the extreme."

"Putting the fate of millions of Illinoisans on the line" - that's not "around the bend"?

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:04:59 -0000

"... a small handful of legislators could ... perpetually tie up the GA ... "

um, isn't that exactly what we have now?

Re: Falling for the game

Rich Miller — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:53:32 -0000

Yep. Criticize a reform and you're automatically tagged as defending the status quo. Moron, meet McCarthy.

Re: Falling for the game

Squideshi — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:49:49 -0000

I fully support Republicans making the proposal and moving to have it discharged from committee. It doesn't matter if they know that the Democrats will block it or not--if the Democrats block it, those Democrats deserve to be listed individually.

Re: Falling for the game

Ghost — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:25:22 -0000

But yet you claim that everything is meaningful shows that you have no understanding of meaning. Claiming that all activity must ipso facto be meaningful is by defintion illogical for its underlying assumption. Refering to Thompsons ability to negotiate as being outdated and illogical without actual explanation is just name calling, which by definition means you have no substantive point and are falling back on unsupported derogotory descriptives to subsititue for actual concepts.

As for the ivory tower, argument ad homniem, when you lack credible support for a position attack the commentor directly. Perhaps VM you should come down from your ivory tower that meaninless GOP activity should not be identifed as pointless games in derogation of the needs of the state and face uncomfortable truths.

If you think Thompson style of working across the aisle is outdated, then sums up the whole problem with your position. By defintion you define governemtn as the required refusal to bargain or negotiate regardless of the issue.

Re: Falling for the game

VanillaMan — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:53:12 -0000

Claiming something is meaningless only shows that you are unable to find meaning. It is a subjective term you have conveniently applied to cover your error. Claiming that since Thompson could negotiate thirty years ago, and that he was a GOP governor, so any GOP leader could do the same today, is obviously illogical on many levels.

Rod Blagojevich took actions that most claimed were meaningless, yet we are discovering that he had reasons for doing so we simply didn't know at the time.

Unless you are some kind of political seer who is empowered to understand everything, you need to come down from your ivory tower on this one.

Re: Falling for the game

anon — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:17:04 -0000

whatever they're doing - it must be working...

Re: Falling for the game

Ghost — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:31:55 -0000

VM I disagree that there is no such thing as meaningless action, but I do agree that the minority party should be keeping the majority party on its toes. At the same time a party is "keeping the other on its toes" it should also be subject to being called out for meaingless activity if that is what it is doing.

Thompson found many a way to negotiate deals across the aisle instead of just flooding the process with meaningless legislation. Some would argue that a legislator who refuses to discuss real solutions to problems and instead dedicate themselves to frvoulous activity should be kept on their toes by being called out for meaningless action and failure to lead.

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:29:33 -0000

It's great that the defenders of the status quo have a blog they can call home.

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:27:03 -0000

"You also support a procedural process that would allow ... "

Exactly. I support procedures whereby the lowliest frosh legislator from Buxtahooty can put the wizen old gits from Chicago on the record on a given issue.

Re: Falling for the game

Rich Miller — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:22:12 -0000

===you fear democracy ===

You need help. Seriously, seek attention.

Re: Falling for the game

VanillaMan — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:18:28 -0000

There is no such thing as meaningless action in the General Assembly if you take into consideration how important it is for the minority party to keep the majority party on it's toes - political opposition is always good, especially when it is unwanted by the majority party.

And it doesn't matter which party is the majority party either.

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:18:22 -0000

you guys would really like the Chicago City Council, it's a model of efficiency

you guys sound like the apologists for Chicago aldermen, the alternative to a rubber stamp Council is chaos

you fear democracy

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:14:21 -0000

All hail efficiency! Silly me, power sharing with minority views would just bog things down. Tyrannical control of the agenda by the majority leadership, how's that working out?

Re: Falling for the game

Rich Miller — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:54:17 -0000

BTW, moron, just so you know, this "paper storming" referenced by Ghost actually did happen here. The year was 1994, and the House GOP filed countless floor amendments designed to gridlock the process. It worked. The next year, the HGOPs changed the rules to prohibit Dems from doing the same thing.

Re: Falling for the game

Ghost — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:46:18 -0000

=== getting legislators on record - arenâ€™t games, isnâ€™t that just basic good govt ===

SO moron you define good governemn as meaningless actions designed only to create talking points but acheieving no real ends? You also support a procedural process that would allow any minority party to grind governemtn to a halt Mr. Smith fillibuster style by paper storming meaningless bills? That may be moronic governemnt, but there is nothing good about it.

Re: Falling for the game

Rich Miller — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:36:12 -0000

"We" fought on the beaches so that a small handful of legislators could bypass committees and perpetually tie up the GA with innumerable demands for roll call votes?

Really?

Seriously?

Re: Falling for the game

L.S. — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:16:07 -0000

So, The Chicago Tribune is now the voice of "The People" ? Madigan, who was the ONLY one to fight off Blago's attempts to steal even more is now "The Enemy" and Emil Jones was a "Reformer" ...It must be May in Springfield.

Re: Falling for the game

moron — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:06 -0000

"Was not one of COllins experienced comissions reform ideas to force bills to vote based on a small amount of co-sponsors?"

Respecting the rights of the minority, respecting the rights of individual legislators even, fighting for up-or-down votes, getting legislators on record - aren't games, isn't that just basic good govt, what we fought for on the beaches? What am I missing here?

Re: Falling for the game

Boxing Cross — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:02:14 -0000

The edit board noise shows:
1. how easily they can be duped
2.how quickly all their rants can be ignored
3. how easy it is to them to ignore their own Wrigley and ESOP scandals
Shades of their Wrigley Field lights scandal

BTW lets remember they Circular Firing Squad is the snrinking minority becuase of their attempts to make hay with procedural roll calls

Re: Falling for the game

Anonymous45 — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:01:37 -0000

I think both Cullerton and Emil II both leave alot to be desired...what should us peons who weren't invited to the online lovefest with Harmon, Raoul, and Schoenberg make of this PR stunt?
Is there a generational split in reform efforts within the IL Senate? Or is it that these youngsters haven't been there long enough to love the system that has perpetuated the graft? I couldn't help crediting Cullerton for his deft usage of his younger members for political cover...