CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in The wrong debate

Re: The wrong debate

Conservative Republican — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:48:11 -0000

Vanilla Man has it right on the money re Truman.

Before we can consider Obama as "Trumanesque", one has to follow up on Vanilla Man's backgrounder and remember that even though Truman earned respect and his stripes after 1940, he was never considered a national figure of consequence. He was a down-the-list, compromise candidate for Vice-President (the candidate of those Democrats who had become appalled with the red-leaning incumbent Wallace and wanted no more "New Dealers" on the ticket) and an accidental President (President FDR died three months into his fourth term (Truman's first term as VP)). Truman basically was a blank slate as a new President in 1945, and fairly little known throughout the country. As a new President, he was more of a Palin than an Obama.

Truman was in fact Obama's opposite: dogged by his machine background, he had to spend years advancing through the Washington politcal scene before he had a modicum of respectability. Then, fortune struck, and he became an accidental President.

Obama, by contrast, has suppressed or at least shielded his relationship with the Chicago/Cook machine and has speedily scrambled to the top of the greasy pole driven by ambition and without any long term Washington experience or Trumanesque seasoning.

Re: The wrong debate

wordslinger — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:44:49 -0000

Based on illegal and formerly secret FBI wiretaps of Outfit guys

Pat, that's based on the books of Bill Roemer, former Chicago FBI agent. He planted them, eavesdropping devices, not wiretaps, my mistake, and he's the one who said they were secret and illegal.

You can look it up. Give him a google and buy his books. They're a great read.

Read Cooley and the Gus Russo books, and find out how this state really works.

Re: The wrong debate

Emily Booth — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:06:39 -0000

I saw the Paul Simon/Chuck Percy debate hosted by the League of Women Voters. One of the best debates ever. Should be mandatory viewing for anyone running for public office or desiring to hold a higher office. Daley doesn't need Obama and I'm not sure Obama needs Daley. Jesse Jackson Jr will be the recipient of any pork headed this way assuming an Obama win. Obama won his Senate seat thru the support of the anti-war groups. They worked for his campaign and got the vote out.

Re: The wrong debate

Louis G. Atsaves — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:12:11 -0000

Rich, I saw your comments earlier and did not disagree with them. But Obama elected to swim with those sharks and has no complaints over the bite marks they left on him.

Re: The wrong debate

VanillaMan — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:03:06 -0000

==Harry Truman came up through one of the most corrupt machines in the country, and no one has seriously questioned his integrity, then or now.==

Yes they did. After Pendergast was dumped and lost his power, Truman had to run for re-election for his Missouri senate seat in 1940. He was grilled as the "Senator from Pendergast", and derided mercilessly throughout the campaign. Pundits believed he was an easy loser because he was so roundly chastised.

When he got his Senate seat in 1934, few US Senators would talk to him. They considered him a Pendergast dupe. He was ignored and laughed at. He was a very lonely man throughout his Senate years.

It wasn't until he showed how he mastered his duties as a US Senator during the Truman Committee WWII years, did he gain any respect beyond being considered a Pendergast stooge. After his surprise 1940 re-election, he continued to demonstrate a strong maverick streak and was on the forefront as a guy not to mess with. Since he wasn't welcomed in DC until he made a name for himself, he felt he didn't owe anyone anything. So he proved his independance.

Truman, and Chester Arthur surprised pundits and critics by revealing powerful personalities in the White House. Both men were machine stooges who refused to tow the line once they got into office. Both were denounced while in office and were extremely unpopular presidents. Truman's poll numbers make Bush's look good. Arthur was so unpopular he didn't even have enough support to be renominated in 1884.

What Obama says, and what he has done since first becoming a state senator are often at odds.

Obama is no Truman.
He doesn't seem to be an Arthur either.

Re: The wrong debate

Just My Opinion — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:39:01 -0000

Obama may be way above Chicago politics now, which will make him a great candidate for governor in 2010. Until that time, he will spend the next 2 years fulfilling his 6 year term as U.S. Senator.

Re: The wrong debate

Pat collins — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:01:01 -0000

an incumbent legislator ever been tossed off the ballot

Getting your petitions right is the basic way to separate a tyro from someone who is serious about running for office.

It's not rocket science. For someone who has a ward machine in his camp, one would think he'd need to WORK at making them bad.

Re: The wrong debate

Rich Miller — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:59:00 -0000

===use the election law to subvert the political process ===

How many times has an incumbent legislator ever been tossed off the ballot by the Chicago Board of Elections? Those petitions must've been pretty darned horrible. It's not subverting the process.

Re: The wrong debate

Black Ivy — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:55:44 -0000

Obama may not have cut his political teeth as a Chicago machine beneficiary, but he has definitely joined the ranks...and it stinks! Keyu characteristic - 1.) use the election law to subvert the political process and 2.)pick off political opponents one by one by using surragates (or public corruption allegations or bribes or whatever).

Re: The wrong debate

Phineas J. Whoopee — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:28:18 -0000

"Me thinks he doth protest too much,"

Ah the Daley's, if only the entire country were Chicago. All McCain has to do is show a clip of Daley's rant and then roll into all the city hall scandals and there you have the next commercial.

Maybe he should just keep quiet and get the guy elected, then we can all laugh about it later.

Re: The wrong debate

Pat collins — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:21:40 -0000

Based on illegal and formerly secret FBI wiretaps of Outfit guys

Was it illegal when it was done? I don't think so.

Paul Simon wouldâ€™ve been a much better governor than Dan Walker?

I will doubt it. Walker was unable to get much done because the machine hated him, and the Rs smelled a governorship next time.

Simon may have gotten along better with Daley, but would he have DONE things much better? Yes, he would have done something, but would it have been a good thing?

Rod B has manufactured his problem with the legislature, and agressively so. Walker had a problem because he was "somebody that nobody sent."

Re: The wrong debate

Bill Baar — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:56:23 -0000

I met Dan Walker during is walk accross Illinois. Obama reminds me a lot of him.

There used to be a hard and fast line between Regular Democarts and Independent Democrats and the defining issue was Race and Open Housing.

Now we just have feuding families among Democrats.

Obama had the power to overcome that and chose not too. I think he could have done a lot of good and lost him little and helped him nationally.

If Obama were born of the machine we'd have far clearer expectations of what to expect from his administration. But he's not and there is really no machine-of-old anymore anyways.

He is very much the blankslate he wrote of, upon whom people project their wishes and desires, and what he will chose to do with all of that if elected will be a fascinating thing to watch unfold.

Hope it turns out better for Obama than it did for Dan Walker.

Re: The wrong debate

The Doc — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:55:02 -0000

Mayor Daley red-faced and/or stammering = somebody somewhere stated the truth.

Re: The wrong debate

ChicagoDem — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:41:32 -0000

VanillaMan..you're right on the mark. I do believe the ad would havebeen more effective and more accurate if the Mayor's face would have appeared instead of his brother's; it would have given the nation an idea of how crooked dealings benefitting the connected few and how scandals continue to prove costly for the taxpayers in Chicago. And as a side note, could you believe the Mayor was indignant over the ad? Pleeeeease!

Re: The wrong debate

wordslinger — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:26:51 -0000

While I think the spot is good and fair, it's old news. Obama has raised $300 million. He'll keep that network whether he wins or loses.

He is so beyond Chicago politics now.

Re: The wrong debate

South Side Mike — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:24:55 -0000

hisgirlfriday,

Obama stayed quiet during the primary, when he could have endorsed Claypool over John Stroger, but then issued a public letter claiming Todd was a "progressive" who would "lead us into a new era of Cook County government." (See: http://blogs.chicagotribune...

I guess Obama was right; Stroger has lead Cook County to a new level of ineptitude. That's the similar problem with Obama's "change" motto. Change is a journey; the destination is what's important.

Re: The wrong debate

Gene Parmesan — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:23:39 -0000

"Harry Truman came up through one of the most corrupt machines in the country, and no one has seriously questioned his integrity, then or now."

Is this from the Joe Biden American History Seminar?

Re: The wrong debate

wordslinger — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:14:39 -0000

Anon 12:51, plenty of people seriously questioned Harry Truman's integrity, then and now. He had major influence-peddling scandals while he was president that resulted in dozens of firings and resignations. That was before the Special Prosecutor Era.

Based on illegal and formerly secret FBI wiretaps of Outfit guys, historians now believe his administration gave early release to Paul Ricca and Johnny Roselli from federal prison due to the Mafia's influence in the Democratic Party at that time.

Harry didn't get rich, but a lot of people around him did. We've heard that song before -- then and now.

Why do we think anyone who would pursue the position of most powerful person in the world is as pure as Ivory Soap? Read some Shakespeare, folks.

Re: The wrong debate

The Doc — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:02:06 -0000

You simply can't compare Obama to the likes of a Daley, Stroger, or Blagojevich. In most cases, there's a smaller sample size, but he's never engaged in some of the more questionable and/or egregious behavior of the aforementioned.

At the risk of getting lambasted, I'm cautiously optimistic that if and when Obama is elected president, he'll bee much less reliant on the resources of the Machine, and will act accordingly. I'm not sure specifically what these actions may consist of, but a good start (albeit nothing more than a symbolic gesture) would be keeping Patrick Fitzgerald in his current post.

Re: The wrong debate

Anon — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:51:32 -0000

Harry Truman came up through one of the most corrupt machines in the country, and no one has seriously questioned his integrity, then or now. You have to work with and get along with the other people in office (unless you're the governor, of course), so the mere fact that Obama works and socializes with machine hacks doesn't imply that he is one of them.

Re: The wrong debate

Anon — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:50:16 -0000

Great work on this post, Rich. Its a shame that you dont get more involved in national politics -- you could be helpful in calling out the BS and keeping candidates honest. Thanks again.

Re: The wrong debate

Vote Quimby! — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:28:10 -0000

and of course the institute at www.siuc.edu/!ppi

Re: The wrong debate

Vote Quimby! — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:27:16 -0000

==Sheila Simon endorsement==

Actually Paul himself endorsed Barack shortly before he died almost 5 years ago.... they didn't film a commercial before his heart surgery so she ended up in the ad. Didn't help her mayoral campaign, I guess....

While we're on the Paul Simon topic, please check out www.senatorpaulsimon.org for info about the museum in Troy, where Paul started his political career! (Events are out of date but I think they are planning something for the 5th anniversary of his passing/80th birthday later this year).

Re: The wrong debate

Rich Miller — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:22:33 -0000

===Many Republicans had their heads handed to them for endorsing and supporting George Ryan. Why the double standard for Obama? ===

So, is this why you feel as you do? Also, did you notice I brought up this very subject above?

Re: The wrong debate

Cassandra — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:21:08 -0000

Alaska.