10/21/11
Today’s Wall Street Journal is filled with articles about the demise of one Colonel Gadhafi, as are most papers, and some of the articles have, mirabile dictu, diverted from the usual ingenuous, dewy-eyed jubilation regarding this particular Middle Eastern madman’s demise to make such sober comments as
He leaves a nation torn by war, devoid of civic institutions, and difficult to govern
which was penned by Richard Boudreaux in his Journal news piece. This is going to be a long, hard slog not only for the Libyan people but also for the United States and the rest of the West, and let’s hope the Libyan action does not become some kind of template for further involvement of our country in conflicts which we cannot afford, in which we have no direct interest, and that will surely drain us of blood and treasure at a point in history in which our inability to afford either is especially acute.
But enough serious commentary on the demise of the crazed Colonel. Take a look at the largest picture on page A8 of today’s (i.e., Friday, 10/21/11’s) Wall Street Journal, the picture in which the late lout looks a lot like Lon Chaney, Jr. just before he turns into the Wolfman. (I have included a link at the end of this post that should take you right to the picture. Given how this system works, however, you’ll probably have to paste it onto your browser.) In the bottom left of that picture is a smaller black and white picture that, apparently, the beastly Bedouin is holding or is somehow attached to his vainglorious uniform. Who is that standing on the far right side (as you look at it) of the group of Gadhafi acolytes depicted in the picture? Is that Ralph Kramden?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203752604576643061691909524.html?mod=ITP_pageone_3
Friday, October 21, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
“I’LL MAKE (HER) AN OFFER (SHE) CAN’T REFUSE.”
10/18/11
This morning, I heard a New York Times columnist on Bloomberg News (Satellite radio, by the way, might be the best invention since White Castle, but I digress.) expounding on his column in which he broached the possibility of Hillary Clinton’s becoming President Obama’s running mate in 2012. I went to the Times website (I don’t subscribe to the paper; there are only so many hours in the day and we already subscribe to four other papers.) but could not find the columnist’s article. Being in the car when hearing the report and obviously not being able to write anything down (Unlike many other drivers, I drive when I drive, but I again digress.), I didn’t even get the reporter’s name.
Note that in my 10/4/11 post, JERSEY BOY, I concluded with
Should Mr. Romney win the nomination, and should Mr. Obama, as is highly likely but not certain (See my 9/16/11 post “I WILL NOT SEEK, NOR WILL I ACCEPT, THE NOMINATION OF MY PARTY…”), be his party’s nominee, Mr. Romney will face a president with maybe $1 billion, David Axelrod, and perhaps a very interesting and appealing running mate. The latter is grist for a later mill. But, for now, suffice to say this will be no cakewalk for the Republicans.
Apparently, this unnamed reporter for the Times has forced my hand and brought his particular mill, hungry for grist, right to my front doorstep. I do wish I could read his column, rather than rely on the writer’s comments on Bloomberg. If any of you know who the writer is, and perhaps what day this column was published, please let me know so I can read it. The good news is that I am not reacting to the article but rather expounding on a topic I have wanted to visit since well before the aforementioned 10/4/11 post.
While I don’t like to make predictions, at least explicitly so, I would go further than the writer of the aforementioned column, who took pains to point out that he isn’t saying that it is likely that Hillary Clinton will be on the Democratic ticket. I will go as far, but no further, to say that the chances are very good, and getting better with each poll that shows weakening support for President Obama, that Mrs. Clinton will be the Dem’s second fiddle in 2012. The advantages for the Democratic ticket are numerous. As I said in the above quote from my 10/4/11 post, the Democrats go into 2012 with more strength than many, and most on the right, think, but this will still be a very tough election for the incumbent for all the obvious reasons: tough economy, budget catastrophe, tough economy, continuing wars of which Americans have grown very tired, tough economy, a disappointed base, tough economy, growing unpopularity among those in the middle, tough economy, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket can’t help but be a tremendous shot in the arm for a number of reasons:
--Recent polls have shown Secretary of State Clinton to be among the most admired of currently practicing politician.
--Mrs. Clinton has done an admirable job as Secretary of State, at least from a conventional, centrist perspective, given the tough assignment running Foggy Bottom has been of late.
--She was immensely popular among her Senatorial constituents in New York and, given her performance in the Senate, understandably so.
--Many Democrats doubtless wish they had supported her, rather than the inexperienced young community organizer who purported to be from Chicago, in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.
--Even those of us who were among her most vociferous critics have come to, if not admire Mrs. Clinton, at least grudgingly give her credit for doing a good job in her public offices and being a very skilled politician.
--There is, understandably, a great deal of well warranted nostalgia for the Clinton era, with which she can’t help but be associated. The peace and prosperity that characterized that era stand in stark contrast to the dystopia that has characterized the Bush/Obama era, and the stature of Bill Clinton grows each day, especially when contrasted with the, to put it charitably, two clownish poseurs and insufferable lightweights who followed him in the Oval Office.
--As hard as it is for someone on my end of the political spectrum (I know, I know…Which end is that? I’m not even sure myself, but I know it isn’t Hillary’s end.), Hillary Clinton would make an outstanding president should she find herself in that office. One of a president’s, and/or presidential candidate’s, first obligations is to pick a running mate who would be a good president. Further, failure to do so can be disastrous for a candidacy for either an incumbent or non-incumbent. Ask John McCain or George H.W. Bush.
--The gender factor, as much as some overly sensitive types would like to argue otherwise, would a huge consideration. Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket would energize plenty of women voters, and many men voters who want to be perceived, for whatever reason, as doing their part for the advancement of women. In a close election, this could certainly make the difference.
The better question is one my sister-in-law asked the other night when I was making the Hillary for veep argument: What is in it for Hillary? This is, as are all better questions, tougher to answer, but I see a few things that would make Hillary want to run with Mr. Obama:
--This is her last chance to get close to the big prize that she has yearned for, and fruitlessly sought, since her husband left office. Being on the upcoming ticket immediately sets her up, win or lose in 2012, as the front runner for 2016, a year in which she will be 69 years old, the same age as Ronald Reagan in 1980 (Can you believe it? Tempus fugit!), and thus facing her last chance at the brass ring.
--The job of Secretary of State has become increasingly thankless and will become more so as President Obama, should he be reelected, continues to follow his predecessor (and, at least in foreign affairs, some might legitimately believe, his mentor or idol) in further bollixing up America’s role in the world. No one who is Secretary of State will go into 2016 looking strong or smart.
--Hillary is a very smart and capable woman and is closely advised by the smartest and most capable politician of the modern era. The Clintons will doubtless cut some kind of very attractive deal, both over and under the table, as part of Hillary’s agreeing to go on the ticket. If she runs and if the Democrats win, she will be the most involved and powerful vice-president in history. Similarly, should she want the job (See below.), the Clintons have already made it politically impossible for Mr. Obama to replace Joe Biden with anyone but Hillary Clinton.
--The President will doubtless appeal to Mrs. Clinton’s patriotism and party loyalty in making his pitch. One doubts that Secretary Clinton will fail to respond favorably to those appeals; she loves her country and her party.
What about Joe Biden? He will be just short of seventy on Election Day, 2012, not too old to be Vice-President or President, but close. He will certainly be old enough to leave the office with dignity and with nothing like the appearance of being dumped. Further, while he has done a more than passable job as VP and is quite popular, he was considered in 2008 in many quarters to be a one-termer, a more experienced hand to contrast with the ingénue at the top of the ticket and to provide the public with reassurance that there would be an adult around to guide the youngster through his first term. Mr. Biden’s leaving will be no problem for him, for the Party, or for the country, or for even those who like and admire Mr. Biden. There is talk of a job swap, in which Hillary goes on the ticket and Joe goes to Foggy Bottom. That could happen, and might be very logical given Mr. Biden’s foreign policy expertise, but such a swap would not be necessary to get Mr. Biden to step aside.
Yes, I know Hillary Clinton says she wants out of politics after the 2012 election, that she will not serve as Secretary of State in a second Obama term and that she does not want to be on the ticket, though she has left a little wiggle room on the latter. But a politician will say anything, and Mrs. Clinton is nothing if not a politician, and a very good and conventional one at that. The woman’s life has been defined by a burning, unceasing, and, at least regarding the top job, unrequited desire for power. She can say all she wants about teaching and writing, but they will never satisfy her. She wants to be President, and being vice-president is a great way to become president, especially for someone with the political skills of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
This morning, I heard a New York Times columnist on Bloomberg News (Satellite radio, by the way, might be the best invention since White Castle, but I digress.) expounding on his column in which he broached the possibility of Hillary Clinton’s becoming President Obama’s running mate in 2012. I went to the Times website (I don’t subscribe to the paper; there are only so many hours in the day and we already subscribe to four other papers.) but could not find the columnist’s article. Being in the car when hearing the report and obviously not being able to write anything down (Unlike many other drivers, I drive when I drive, but I again digress.), I didn’t even get the reporter’s name.
Note that in my 10/4/11 post, JERSEY BOY, I concluded with
Should Mr. Romney win the nomination, and should Mr. Obama, as is highly likely but not certain (See my 9/16/11 post “I WILL NOT SEEK, NOR WILL I ACCEPT, THE NOMINATION OF MY PARTY…”), be his party’s nominee, Mr. Romney will face a president with maybe $1 billion, David Axelrod, and perhaps a very interesting and appealing running mate. The latter is grist for a later mill. But, for now, suffice to say this will be no cakewalk for the Republicans.
Apparently, this unnamed reporter for the Times has forced my hand and brought his particular mill, hungry for grist, right to my front doorstep. I do wish I could read his column, rather than rely on the writer’s comments on Bloomberg. If any of you know who the writer is, and perhaps what day this column was published, please let me know so I can read it. The good news is that I am not reacting to the article but rather expounding on a topic I have wanted to visit since well before the aforementioned 10/4/11 post.
While I don’t like to make predictions, at least explicitly so, I would go further than the writer of the aforementioned column, who took pains to point out that he isn’t saying that it is likely that Hillary Clinton will be on the Democratic ticket. I will go as far, but no further, to say that the chances are very good, and getting better with each poll that shows weakening support for President Obama, that Mrs. Clinton will be the Dem’s second fiddle in 2012. The advantages for the Democratic ticket are numerous. As I said in the above quote from my 10/4/11 post, the Democrats go into 2012 with more strength than many, and most on the right, think, but this will still be a very tough election for the incumbent for all the obvious reasons: tough economy, budget catastrophe, tough economy, continuing wars of which Americans have grown very tired, tough economy, a disappointed base, tough economy, growing unpopularity among those in the middle, tough economy, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket can’t help but be a tremendous shot in the arm for a number of reasons:
--Recent polls have shown Secretary of State Clinton to be among the most admired of currently practicing politician.
--Mrs. Clinton has done an admirable job as Secretary of State, at least from a conventional, centrist perspective, given the tough assignment running Foggy Bottom has been of late.
--She was immensely popular among her Senatorial constituents in New York and, given her performance in the Senate, understandably so.
--Many Democrats doubtless wish they had supported her, rather than the inexperienced young community organizer who purported to be from Chicago, in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.
--Even those of us who were among her most vociferous critics have come to, if not admire Mrs. Clinton, at least grudgingly give her credit for doing a good job in her public offices and being a very skilled politician.
--There is, understandably, a great deal of well warranted nostalgia for the Clinton era, with which she can’t help but be associated. The peace and prosperity that characterized that era stand in stark contrast to the dystopia that has characterized the Bush/Obama era, and the stature of Bill Clinton grows each day, especially when contrasted with the, to put it charitably, two clownish poseurs and insufferable lightweights who followed him in the Oval Office.
--As hard as it is for someone on my end of the political spectrum (I know, I know…Which end is that? I’m not even sure myself, but I know it isn’t Hillary’s end.), Hillary Clinton would make an outstanding president should she find herself in that office. One of a president’s, and/or presidential candidate’s, first obligations is to pick a running mate who would be a good president. Further, failure to do so can be disastrous for a candidacy for either an incumbent or non-incumbent. Ask John McCain or George H.W. Bush.
--The gender factor, as much as some overly sensitive types would like to argue otherwise, would a huge consideration. Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket would energize plenty of women voters, and many men voters who want to be perceived, for whatever reason, as doing their part for the advancement of women. In a close election, this could certainly make the difference.
The better question is one my sister-in-law asked the other night when I was making the Hillary for veep argument: What is in it for Hillary? This is, as are all better questions, tougher to answer, but I see a few things that would make Hillary want to run with Mr. Obama:
--This is her last chance to get close to the big prize that she has yearned for, and fruitlessly sought, since her husband left office. Being on the upcoming ticket immediately sets her up, win or lose in 2012, as the front runner for 2016, a year in which she will be 69 years old, the same age as Ronald Reagan in 1980 (Can you believe it? Tempus fugit!), and thus facing her last chance at the brass ring.
--The job of Secretary of State has become increasingly thankless and will become more so as President Obama, should he be reelected, continues to follow his predecessor (and, at least in foreign affairs, some might legitimately believe, his mentor or idol) in further bollixing up America’s role in the world. No one who is Secretary of State will go into 2016 looking strong or smart.
--Hillary is a very smart and capable woman and is closely advised by the smartest and most capable politician of the modern era. The Clintons will doubtless cut some kind of very attractive deal, both over and under the table, as part of Hillary’s agreeing to go on the ticket. If she runs and if the Democrats win, she will be the most involved and powerful vice-president in history. Similarly, should she want the job (See below.), the Clintons have already made it politically impossible for Mr. Obama to replace Joe Biden with anyone but Hillary Clinton.
--The President will doubtless appeal to Mrs. Clinton’s patriotism and party loyalty in making his pitch. One doubts that Secretary Clinton will fail to respond favorably to those appeals; she loves her country and her party.
What about Joe Biden? He will be just short of seventy on Election Day, 2012, not too old to be Vice-President or President, but close. He will certainly be old enough to leave the office with dignity and with nothing like the appearance of being dumped. Further, while he has done a more than passable job as VP and is quite popular, he was considered in 2008 in many quarters to be a one-termer, a more experienced hand to contrast with the ingénue at the top of the ticket and to provide the public with reassurance that there would be an adult around to guide the youngster through his first term. Mr. Biden’s leaving will be no problem for him, for the Party, or for the country, or for even those who like and admire Mr. Biden. There is talk of a job swap, in which Hillary goes on the ticket and Joe goes to Foggy Bottom. That could happen, and might be very logical given Mr. Biden’s foreign policy expertise, but such a swap would not be necessary to get Mr. Biden to step aside.
Yes, I know Hillary Clinton says she wants out of politics after the 2012 election, that she will not serve as Secretary of State in a second Obama term and that she does not want to be on the ticket, though she has left a little wiggle room on the latter. But a politician will say anything, and Mrs. Clinton is nothing if not a politician, and a very good and conventional one at that. The woman’s life has been defined by a burning, unceasing, and, at least regarding the top job, unrequited desire for power. She can say all she wants about teaching and writing, but they will never satisfy her. She wants to be President, and being vice-president is a great way to become president, especially for someone with the political skills of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Friday, October 14, 2011
“…ALL HE LEFT US WAS ALONE…”
10/14/11
Earlier this week, Mayor Rahm Emanuel formally revealed his previously well leaked budget to the press. (See my 10/13/11 piece, A SPECIAL PICKUP, for some background on one aspect of the budget.) Despite all the, in most cases, justifiable talk of change in Chicago under Mayor Emanuel, at least one thing hasn’t changed around this town: The City Council will rubber stamp this budget, continuing the time-honored Chicago tradition of bleating obediently like the lambs that they are when the mayor, be his name Daley or Emanuel, demands whatever he feels necessary, or just desirable. But I digress.
The Mayor, citing the desperate budget situation his predecessor and sponsor bequeathed him, has proposed increases in water and sewer fees, “congestion fees” on downtown parking, increased city sticker fees for politically disapproved vehicles, and all manner of methods of reaching into the taxpayers’ already nearly empty pockets. Fair enough; the city has, even using the phony-baloney accounting most public entities use, a projected $600mm plus shortfall this fiscal year, and closing a yawning gap of that size will require some tax (er, sorry, fee) increases. However, in announcing these various stickups of the taxpayers, the Mayor nearly simultaneously announced a variety of uses for the money. For example, some of the revenue from the “congestion fees” will be used for a new Green Line station on Cermak Road and for express buses linking our commuter rail stations with north Michigan Avenue. Some of the money from the increased water and sewer charges will be used to dramatically pick up the pace on replacing and refurbishing water pipe and sewers. Such spending is designed to mollify taxpayers, showing them that they are actually getting something for the increased spondulicks they are forking over to the Mayor and his sycophants in the city bureaucracy and Council.
A non-politician, however, might ask how we are going to address the city’s budget problems if we are spending the new revenue generated on new projects, even spending on seemingly worthy projects. We were told we had to come up with more money because Mayor Daley (er, sorry, the woeful state of the national economy, to hear Mr. Daley tell it) left the city in such a fiscal pickle. But now we are being told that the extra money will be used to give us things like better water (Chicago water is already the best in the world, by the way.) and new and better el stops. So what gives?
Doubtless Mayor Emanuel, and his budget, says that only a portion of the increased fees will go to various improvements in the infrastructure and that most, or at least a substantial chunk, of the revenue will go to balancing the budget. But one would hope that the citizenry is not sufficiently naïve to think that things will work out as planned. Here in Chicago, or anywhere, for that matter, public spending projects almost never come in at or under budget; consider, for example, Millennium Park.
Yes, yes, I know; Mayor Emanuel is Superman, so the media tell us, and the days of cost overruns, etc., are over. Okay; let’s concede for a moment that Uber-Manager can keep these projects at or under cost. The new Green Line Station is projected to cost $50mm ($50mm!!!!! Wow! Must be a nice station, but I digress.) and the downtown express bus system is projected to cost $30mm. The “congestion fee” is supposed to bring in $28mm. Suppose a modern day version of the conversion of water into wine takes place and these numbers turn out to be right. Those two projects will account for nearly three years of revenue from the tax (sorry, fee) that’s supposed to finance them. And, yes, as a former bond guy, I understand that we are only supposed to look to the congestion fee to service the bonds necessary to pay for the aforementioned improvements and only a portion of the $28mm will be necessary for debt service. Still, we are not talking small dollars here and such a financing method involves piling more debt on an already indebted city. Yes, yes, I know, it’s capital improvement debt, not operating debt, and therefore it’s good debt. Right.
Any way you look at it, much of the new money raised by the Emanuel fees will go toward new spending, not to pay the bills Mr. Emanuel’s political Godfather has already left us. In a sense, Mr. Emanuel may be following much more closely in his sponsor’s footsteps than the new Mayor would have us believe, leaving us with plenty of debt to service, debt used to finance projects the main objective of which is to assure his continuation in office. Only, in Mr. Emanuel’s case, the ultimate objective may not be remaining in his current office but burnishing his image to the point at which he can seek higher office…and be safely out of town before the bills come due.
Earlier this week, Mayor Rahm Emanuel formally revealed his previously well leaked budget to the press. (See my 10/13/11 piece, A SPECIAL PICKUP, for some background on one aspect of the budget.) Despite all the, in most cases, justifiable talk of change in Chicago under Mayor Emanuel, at least one thing hasn’t changed around this town: The City Council will rubber stamp this budget, continuing the time-honored Chicago tradition of bleating obediently like the lambs that they are when the mayor, be his name Daley or Emanuel, demands whatever he feels necessary, or just desirable. But I digress.
The Mayor, citing the desperate budget situation his predecessor and sponsor bequeathed him, has proposed increases in water and sewer fees, “congestion fees” on downtown parking, increased city sticker fees for politically disapproved vehicles, and all manner of methods of reaching into the taxpayers’ already nearly empty pockets. Fair enough; the city has, even using the phony-baloney accounting most public entities use, a projected $600mm plus shortfall this fiscal year, and closing a yawning gap of that size will require some tax (er, sorry, fee) increases. However, in announcing these various stickups of the taxpayers, the Mayor nearly simultaneously announced a variety of uses for the money. For example, some of the revenue from the “congestion fees” will be used for a new Green Line station on Cermak Road and for express buses linking our commuter rail stations with north Michigan Avenue. Some of the money from the increased water and sewer charges will be used to dramatically pick up the pace on replacing and refurbishing water pipe and sewers. Such spending is designed to mollify taxpayers, showing them that they are actually getting something for the increased spondulicks they are forking over to the Mayor and his sycophants in the city bureaucracy and Council.
A non-politician, however, might ask how we are going to address the city’s budget problems if we are spending the new revenue generated on new projects, even spending on seemingly worthy projects. We were told we had to come up with more money because Mayor Daley (er, sorry, the woeful state of the national economy, to hear Mr. Daley tell it) left the city in such a fiscal pickle. But now we are being told that the extra money will be used to give us things like better water (Chicago water is already the best in the world, by the way.) and new and better el stops. So what gives?
Doubtless Mayor Emanuel, and his budget, says that only a portion of the increased fees will go to various improvements in the infrastructure and that most, or at least a substantial chunk, of the revenue will go to balancing the budget. But one would hope that the citizenry is not sufficiently naïve to think that things will work out as planned. Here in Chicago, or anywhere, for that matter, public spending projects almost never come in at or under budget; consider, for example, Millennium Park.
Yes, yes, I know; Mayor Emanuel is Superman, so the media tell us, and the days of cost overruns, etc., are over. Okay; let’s concede for a moment that Uber-Manager can keep these projects at or under cost. The new Green Line Station is projected to cost $50mm ($50mm!!!!! Wow! Must be a nice station, but I digress.) and the downtown express bus system is projected to cost $30mm. The “congestion fee” is supposed to bring in $28mm. Suppose a modern day version of the conversion of water into wine takes place and these numbers turn out to be right. Those two projects will account for nearly three years of revenue from the tax (sorry, fee) that’s supposed to finance them. And, yes, as a former bond guy, I understand that we are only supposed to look to the congestion fee to service the bonds necessary to pay for the aforementioned improvements and only a portion of the $28mm will be necessary for debt service. Still, we are not talking small dollars here and such a financing method involves piling more debt on an already indebted city. Yes, yes, I know, it’s capital improvement debt, not operating debt, and therefore it’s good debt. Right.
Any way you look at it, much of the new money raised by the Emanuel fees will go toward new spending, not to pay the bills Mr. Emanuel’s political Godfather has already left us. In a sense, Mr. Emanuel may be following much more closely in his sponsor’s footsteps than the new Mayor would have us believe, leaving us with plenty of debt to service, debt used to finance projects the main objective of which is to assure his continuation in office. Only, in Mr. Emanuel’s case, the ultimate objective may not be remaining in his current office but burnishing his image to the point at which he can seek higher office…and be safely out of town before the bills come due.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
A SPECIAL PICK UP
10/13/11
Today’s (i.e., Thursday, 10/13/11’s) Wall Street Journal featured a page A1 article entitled “Chicago Mayor Trashes Politics of Waste Removal.” The article describes Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s efforts to make Chicago city government more efficient (See, for background, my 7/30/11 post RAHM EMANUEL IS NOT TOM DEMPSEY.) and focuses on the Mayor’s attempts to change the byzantine ward by ward system of garbage pickup in the world’s greatest city.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576612851452362670.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0
The article delves into what it implies is the archaic ward system around which delivery of city services must work. The article quotes the Mayor as saying
“The days of having trash pickup by political design only are over. It’s a culture and a mindset …of 50 years.”
Fifty years? Mayor Emanuel, having grown up in the suburbs, being a young man himself, and only becoming interested in city government and politics when the Big Job was opened up for him, perhaps doesn’t realize that the “culture and mindset” that govern how our fair city works go back a heck of a lot more than fifty years. In his defense, though, he is clearly a quick study, a good manager, and an impatient, in a good sense, man and is, so far at least, doing a great job with our city, especially for someone who parachuted in from Washington. But I digress.
My main point is that such articles, and, to a lesser extent, such television shows as the upcoming Starz series “Boss,” whet people’s interest in Chicago politics and the way things really work around here. For those who want to satisfy this curiosity, I recommend my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and its sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. Both books use the story of Eamon DeValera Collins, a fictional old time ward heeler, to weave stories from the annals of the politics of our town into a compelling, entertaining narrative that leaves the reader with a clear sense of the way Chicago operates and an acute ability to put the hagiography of Rahm Emanuel that passes for coverage of our city in its proper context.
Both books are available at Amazon.com, various other online book sellers, and at a number of independent book stores throughout the Chicago area, most prominently Anderson’s in Naperville and Bookies’ on 103rd and Artesian in West Beverly, one of the neighborhoods that comprise Chicago’s 19th Ward.
Today’s (i.e., Thursday, 10/13/11’s) Wall Street Journal featured a page A1 article entitled “Chicago Mayor Trashes Politics of Waste Removal.” The article describes Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s efforts to make Chicago city government more efficient (See, for background, my 7/30/11 post RAHM EMANUEL IS NOT TOM DEMPSEY.) and focuses on the Mayor’s attempts to change the byzantine ward by ward system of garbage pickup in the world’s greatest city.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576612851452362670.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0
The article delves into what it implies is the archaic ward system around which delivery of city services must work. The article quotes the Mayor as saying
“The days of having trash pickup by political design only are over. It’s a culture and a mindset …of 50 years.”
Fifty years? Mayor Emanuel, having grown up in the suburbs, being a young man himself, and only becoming interested in city government and politics when the Big Job was opened up for him, perhaps doesn’t realize that the “culture and mindset” that govern how our fair city works go back a heck of a lot more than fifty years. In his defense, though, he is clearly a quick study, a good manager, and an impatient, in a good sense, man and is, so far at least, doing a great job with our city, especially for someone who parachuted in from Washington. But I digress.
My main point is that such articles, and, to a lesser extent, such television shows as the upcoming Starz series “Boss,” whet people’s interest in Chicago politics and the way things really work around here. For those who want to satisfy this curiosity, I recommend my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and its sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. Both books use the story of Eamon DeValera Collins, a fictional old time ward heeler, to weave stories from the annals of the politics of our town into a compelling, entertaining narrative that leaves the reader with a clear sense of the way Chicago operates and an acute ability to put the hagiography of Rahm Emanuel that passes for coverage of our city in its proper context.
Both books are available at Amazon.com, various other online book sellers, and at a number of independent book stores throughout the Chicago area, most prominently Anderson’s in Naperville and Bookies’ on 103rd and Artesian in West Beverly, one of the neighborhoods that comprise Chicago’s 19th Ward.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
“HUMP? WHAT HUMP?”
10/12/11
My overriding reaction to last night’s GOP debate on Bloomberg TV is the same as my reaction to the previous such affairs, perhaps going back long before this campaign season, to wit: we are dealing with a group of carnival barkers and hucksters with a few sincere, accomplished people thrown in presumably for contrast with the people who actually have a chance at the nomination in the crazy politics of latter day America.
A few specific points are worth making as well. First, for years, GOP debates have substituted group worship of Ronald Reagan for serious debate on the issues. Reagan was a decent, though vastly overrated, president, and avoiding offending anyone by getting all slobbery about the man is probably not quite as harmful as falling back on the usual pabulum that is the stuff of political “debate,” but this practice, which goes back perhaps 24 years, was getting ridiculous. Fortunately, the trend of late has been to ever so slightly tiptoe away from non-stop idolization of Reagan. However…
Has anyone but I noticed that Rick Perry has gone beyond verbally figuratively affixing his lips to Mr. Reagan’s hindquarters and has graduated to trying to look like the man? Notice the way Mr. Perry stands, with his head cocked at an angle resembling that which so endeared people to Ronnie. Take a look at Perry’s hairstyle, best defined as Reagan Brylcream, and the “above it all” grin cribbed from the nonchalant (probably excessively so) Ronald Wilson Reagan. Note these things during the next debate and tell me I’m wrong.
Second, the key moment of the debate came when Herman Cain cited Alan Greenspan as the Fed Chairman to whom he would like his selection for that post be most similar. Ron Paul’s eyes rolled. Rick Santorum, the master of substituting parroting Limbaughesque talking points for anything resembling creative thought, immediately flashed an ear to ear grin, sensing blood in the water. Even Mitt Romney, the Party’s ultimate nominee unless something goes very wrong, saw a huge gaffe in Mr. Cain’s statement. I said to my wife “He didn’t say that, did he?” But he did; Mr. Cain expressed admiration for Alan Greenspan.
Loyal readers will remember that, way before it was popular to criticize Dr. Greenspan, in fact, back when everyone in the business world and the press, financial and otherwise, was treating Greenspan with the reverence that potential GOP nominees reserve for Ronald Reagan, yours truly was referring to Alan Greenspan as the most overrated individual in the history of the world. (With the Kennedy clan in contention, that is quite a statement, but I digress.) Now that the scales have fallen from the eyes of lesser thinkers and they have joined me in assigning a large measure of the blame for our financial morass to the Mad Doctor, one would think that Herman Cain, a man of formidable substance and achievement, would be able to read the signs of the times with enough aplomb, and/or know enough economics, to realize that Greenspan was an unmitigated disaster and that citing him as one’s favorite is no way to get elected to anything. This was very disappointing to those of us who have long liked Herman Cain and are warming to the idea of his becoming the GOP standard-bearer, even if such an outcome is, to put it mildly, remote.
My overriding reaction to last night’s GOP debate on Bloomberg TV is the same as my reaction to the previous such affairs, perhaps going back long before this campaign season, to wit: we are dealing with a group of carnival barkers and hucksters with a few sincere, accomplished people thrown in presumably for contrast with the people who actually have a chance at the nomination in the crazy politics of latter day America.
A few specific points are worth making as well. First, for years, GOP debates have substituted group worship of Ronald Reagan for serious debate on the issues. Reagan was a decent, though vastly overrated, president, and avoiding offending anyone by getting all slobbery about the man is probably not quite as harmful as falling back on the usual pabulum that is the stuff of political “debate,” but this practice, which goes back perhaps 24 years, was getting ridiculous. Fortunately, the trend of late has been to ever so slightly tiptoe away from non-stop idolization of Reagan. However…
Has anyone but I noticed that Rick Perry has gone beyond verbally figuratively affixing his lips to Mr. Reagan’s hindquarters and has graduated to trying to look like the man? Notice the way Mr. Perry stands, with his head cocked at an angle resembling that which so endeared people to Ronnie. Take a look at Perry’s hairstyle, best defined as Reagan Brylcream, and the “above it all” grin cribbed from the nonchalant (probably excessively so) Ronald Wilson Reagan. Note these things during the next debate and tell me I’m wrong.
Second, the key moment of the debate came when Herman Cain cited Alan Greenspan as the Fed Chairman to whom he would like his selection for that post be most similar. Ron Paul’s eyes rolled. Rick Santorum, the master of substituting parroting Limbaughesque talking points for anything resembling creative thought, immediately flashed an ear to ear grin, sensing blood in the water. Even Mitt Romney, the Party’s ultimate nominee unless something goes very wrong, saw a huge gaffe in Mr. Cain’s statement. I said to my wife “He didn’t say that, did he?” But he did; Mr. Cain expressed admiration for Alan Greenspan.
Loyal readers will remember that, way before it was popular to criticize Dr. Greenspan, in fact, back when everyone in the business world and the press, financial and otherwise, was treating Greenspan with the reverence that potential GOP nominees reserve for Ronald Reagan, yours truly was referring to Alan Greenspan as the most overrated individual in the history of the world. (With the Kennedy clan in contention, that is quite a statement, but I digress.) Now that the scales have fallen from the eyes of lesser thinkers and they have joined me in assigning a large measure of the blame for our financial morass to the Mad Doctor, one would think that Herman Cain, a man of formidable substance and achievement, would be able to read the signs of the times with enough aplomb, and/or know enough economics, to realize that Greenspan was an unmitigated disaster and that citing him as one’s favorite is no way to get elected to anything. This was very disappointing to those of us who have long liked Herman Cain and are warming to the idea of his becoming the GOP standard-bearer, even if such an outcome is, to put it mildly, remote.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
“THIS IS A FINE MESS YOU’VE GOTTEN US INTO…”
10/8/11
This weekend’s (i.e., Saturday/Sunday, 10/8, 10/9’s, page A8) Wall Street Journal reports that former CIA chief and current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at a Naval Air Station in southern Italy, chided early critics of NATO and U.S. (As if the two were distinguishable; see my 3/28/11 post IT’S NOT A CHICK FLICK; IT’S A ROMANTIC COMEDY.) conduct during the Libyan conflict, saying, inter alia
“There were an awful lot of questions about the mission overall and I think the critics have really been proven wrong.”
and that the 4,000 sorties western planes flew have given the Libyan people “some degree of hope,” elaborating
“They (the Libyan people) are going to have a chance, as a result of what (western militaries) did, to hopefully establish a democracy for the future.”
On the very same page, in the continuation of a page A1 story, we learn that, as the headline says, “Discord Increasingly Riddles Factions in Chaotic Tripoli.” It seems that the freedom fighters so beloved by the likes of Mr. Panetta, John McCain, and Barack Obama, are breaking into factions to see who will become the 21st century version of the Colonel they overthrew. The factions are split between regions (e.g., eastern Libya and Tripoli) and within neighborhoods in Tripoli. The factions are composed of former Gadhafi loyalist, idealistic democrats, regional xenophobes, Islamists, and dictators in the wings. Fighting is breaking out between these factions and, while others will tell you otherwise, it is probably just a matter of time between something like civil war, though the media won’t use that term, will break out in Libya. None of this is surprising, certainly not to readers of the Pontificator; see, among others, the aforementioned 3/28/11 post, my 4/23/11 post DOG BITES MAN, my 8/22/11 post I HOPE MICHELE BACHMANN WASN’T COUNTING ON LIBYA TO GET OIL TO $2, and my 10/8/11 post THICK AS A BRIC?
Yet Mr. Panetta and his colleagues in both parties whose first loyalty seems to be to the American imperial impulse and the defense contractors that impulse keeps wealthy insist that the NATO campaign that fostered the utter chaos that Libya is on the verge of becoming was a rousing success and that those of us who questioned it have been “proven wrong.” Simply amazing.
Optimism, always overrated, is sometimes okay in very measured doses unless it is blind optimism, based on nothing but good feelings and/or gormless, baseless admonitions to “be optimistic,” that leads one to do silly things. Among those silly things is destablilizing entire regions of the globe in response to such ephemeral impulses as “giving people some degree of hope,” because one likes the sounds of such increasingly meaningless words as “democracy,” or because one is enamored of the innocence of youth and so somehow believes that naiveté can somehow, this time, trump the wisdom of the ages.
This weekend’s (i.e., Saturday/Sunday, 10/8, 10/9’s, page A8) Wall Street Journal reports that former CIA chief and current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at a Naval Air Station in southern Italy, chided early critics of NATO and U.S. (As if the two were distinguishable; see my 3/28/11 post IT’S NOT A CHICK FLICK; IT’S A ROMANTIC COMEDY.) conduct during the Libyan conflict, saying, inter alia
“There were an awful lot of questions about the mission overall and I think the critics have really been proven wrong.”
and that the 4,000 sorties western planes flew have given the Libyan people “some degree of hope,” elaborating
“They (the Libyan people) are going to have a chance, as a result of what (western militaries) did, to hopefully establish a democracy for the future.”
On the very same page, in the continuation of a page A1 story, we learn that, as the headline says, “Discord Increasingly Riddles Factions in Chaotic Tripoli.” It seems that the freedom fighters so beloved by the likes of Mr. Panetta, John McCain, and Barack Obama, are breaking into factions to see who will become the 21st century version of the Colonel they overthrew. The factions are split between regions (e.g., eastern Libya and Tripoli) and within neighborhoods in Tripoli. The factions are composed of former Gadhafi loyalist, idealistic democrats, regional xenophobes, Islamists, and dictators in the wings. Fighting is breaking out between these factions and, while others will tell you otherwise, it is probably just a matter of time between something like civil war, though the media won’t use that term, will break out in Libya. None of this is surprising, certainly not to readers of the Pontificator; see, among others, the aforementioned 3/28/11 post, my 4/23/11 post DOG BITES MAN, my 8/22/11 post I HOPE MICHELE BACHMANN WASN’T COUNTING ON LIBYA TO GET OIL TO $2, and my 10/8/11 post THICK AS A BRIC?
Yet Mr. Panetta and his colleagues in both parties whose first loyalty seems to be to the American imperial impulse and the defense contractors that impulse keeps wealthy insist that the NATO campaign that fostered the utter chaos that Libya is on the verge of becoming was a rousing success and that those of us who questioned it have been “proven wrong.” Simply amazing.
Optimism, always overrated, is sometimes okay in very measured doses unless it is blind optimism, based on nothing but good feelings and/or gormless, baseless admonitions to “be optimistic,” that leads one to do silly things. Among those silly things is destablilizing entire regions of the globe in response to such ephemeral impulses as “giving people some degree of hope,” because one likes the sounds of such increasingly meaningless words as “democracy,” or because one is enamored of the innocence of youth and so somehow believes that naiveté can somehow, this time, trump the wisdom of the ages.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
JERSEY BOY
10/4/11
Chris Christie announced today that he will not be running for president in 2012. By doing so, he increased my, and doubtless countless others’, respect for the man. He said he wouldn’t run and, instead of pulling a cutesy-pie Hamlet act, of the type to which we have become sickeningly accustomed, to draw attention to a campaign on which he intended to embark on all along, stuck by his decision not to run. Even more noble is the primary reason he gave for his reason not to run, to wit
"The deciding factor was that it did not feel right to me, in my gut, to leave (the job of governor of New Jersey) now, when the job isn't finished."
A politician actually wanting to do the job for which the taxpayers pay him rather than use it as a mere stepping stone to the next opportunity at more intense self-aggrandizement? The hell you say! See my 9/5/11 post WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK!
Given my realistic (Some mistakenly call it “cynical.”) attitude toward those who hold and seek public office, I was prepared to have Governor Christie go back on his earlier pronouncements, sincere or otherwise, and decide that he would indeed run for President in 2012. That Mr. Christie has failed to meet my expectations in this regard makes him even more honorable in my, and doubtless countless others’, opinion. Does this mean I will support him should he run in four or eight years down the line? Not yet; I’d have to take a hard look at his policies, especially his foreign policy, before I would support him for President. But at this stage at least, Governor Christie appears to be that most rare of species, a politician who says what he means and means what he says.
This also means that the Republican field is more or less set. While the prospect of a Herman Cain presidency excites yours truly (again, subject to a careful review of his foreign policy; it always pays to be leery of any Republican’s foreign policy, given most of the Party’s tendency to equate any close examination of the “defense” budget with treason), it is quite clear that, while anything could happen and I don’t like to make predictions, Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. This, of course, comes as no surprise to my regular readers. See my 7/19/11 post MICHELE AND SARAH, MAKE ROOM FOR THE FAT LADY.
Should Mr. Romney win the nomination, and should Mr. Obama, as is highly likely but not certain (See my 9/16/11 post “I WILL NOT SEEK, NOR WILL I ACCEPT, THE NOMINATION OF MY PARTY…”), be his party’s nominee, Mr. Romney will face a president with maybe $1 billion, David Axelrod, and perhaps a very interesting and appealing running mate. The latter is grist for a later mill. But, for now, suffice to say this will be no cakewalk for the Republicans.
Chris Christie announced today that he will not be running for president in 2012. By doing so, he increased my, and doubtless countless others’, respect for the man. He said he wouldn’t run and, instead of pulling a cutesy-pie Hamlet act, of the type to which we have become sickeningly accustomed, to draw attention to a campaign on which he intended to embark on all along, stuck by his decision not to run. Even more noble is the primary reason he gave for his reason not to run, to wit
"The deciding factor was that it did not feel right to me, in my gut, to leave (the job of governor of New Jersey) now, when the job isn't finished."
A politician actually wanting to do the job for which the taxpayers pay him rather than use it as a mere stepping stone to the next opportunity at more intense self-aggrandizement? The hell you say! See my 9/5/11 post WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK!
Given my realistic (Some mistakenly call it “cynical.”) attitude toward those who hold and seek public office, I was prepared to have Governor Christie go back on his earlier pronouncements, sincere or otherwise, and decide that he would indeed run for President in 2012. That Mr. Christie has failed to meet my expectations in this regard makes him even more honorable in my, and doubtless countless others’, opinion. Does this mean I will support him should he run in four or eight years down the line? Not yet; I’d have to take a hard look at his policies, especially his foreign policy, before I would support him for President. But at this stage at least, Governor Christie appears to be that most rare of species, a politician who says what he means and means what he says.
This also means that the Republican field is more or less set. While the prospect of a Herman Cain presidency excites yours truly (again, subject to a careful review of his foreign policy; it always pays to be leery of any Republican’s foreign policy, given most of the Party’s tendency to equate any close examination of the “defense” budget with treason), it is quite clear that, while anything could happen and I don’t like to make predictions, Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. This, of course, comes as no surprise to my regular readers. See my 7/19/11 post MICHELE AND SARAH, MAKE ROOM FOR THE FAT LADY.
Should Mr. Romney win the nomination, and should Mr. Obama, as is highly likely but not certain (See my 9/16/11 post “I WILL NOT SEEK, NOR WILL I ACCEPT, THE NOMINATION OF MY PARTY…”), be his party’s nominee, Mr. Romney will face a president with maybe $1 billion, David Axelrod, and perhaps a very interesting and appealing running mate. The latter is grist for a later mill. But, for now, suffice to say this will be no cakewalk for the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
