Given the way Aldermanic elections work, it doesn't really matter too much to me who any of you put your support behind, so long as it isn't Helen(and we all know she's going to run).
The biggest key is to make sure the batch of reform candidates(Cappleman and Carroll etc) get a total of 50 percent of the vote. Then when we go to the runoff, everyone's support needs to go behind the reform candidate, whomever that may be.
Ah, yes. Let's make sure we continue to vote democrat cuz that $13B state deficit, $1B CPS deficit, and crumbling social services and infrastructure are all the fault of the GOP.
Seriously?
Dude.
Put the bong down for a few.
We need to stop eliminating candidates based strictly on their party affiliation and start *gasp* listening to what they're saying - and base our opinions on that.
I mean, we don't want to be prejudiced, now do we?
I'm a registered democrat and can't think of a party more undeserving of my vote than the gaggling of crooks currently running amok with a "D" next to their names.
Granted, in IL .. there's very little difference between an R and D.
And, as for the "usually that means Republican" ... take a look at a vast array of other campaign literature ... it ain't just the GOP ducking affiliation, champ.
Let's open our political minds a shade, shall we?
Cuz, again, the results of straight party line voting is in no small way involved in and responsible for the rampant violence we're seeing on the streets of Chicago.
What we need is more balance and a government that is effective and fair.
Political inbreeding serves no one well.
Unless, of course, you're happy with the idea of regurgitating failure - in which, case, knock yourself out.
It's one of the bad things about Chicago..the Democratic primary IS the general election, at least for local races...and even then, many candidates don't even have a token opponent to measure how they're doing. (i.e. they could at least use the election as a free opinion poll).
Starck Mad,
that means you won't be voting for ANYONE in the 46th ward election, as Shiller opponents will mention Section 8 and TIFs.
ithink there will be others equally disgrunted about hearing "Cabrini North" and ignoring even affordable home ownership.
Jonathan, don't know if you were around in 1999, but that was the closest anyone's gotten in defeating Ald. Shiller since 1987. The key, however, is winning over about 500 or so votes. As others mentioned about independence...there are a few who do NOT think of Helen Shiller as a saint. But her opponents have ignored lower income (but WORKING) people who have lived in Uptown and not contributed to the crime. They moved to Uptown when it was REALLY rough, and tried to be as successful as they could. They (and others sympathetic to them) know if they have to move out of the neighborhood, the only other place they could afford is someplace like Englewood or Roseland.
If any anti-Shiller candidates had merely HOSTED events to help people become CPAN eleigible, they could sway some of those voters.
There are plenty of people who live in even section 8 who hate the crime. But they won't pour energy into an effort that makes someone else safer, while they get sent to a worse neighborhood.
So that's an issue they have to address.
i am interested to see if there's any pact between the anti-Shiller candidates to support each other in a runoff. CIndi Anderson kept her part of the bargain in 1999. But i wonder if there was some resentment from the Katharine Nathan camp against Sandra Reed, who won by only 100 votes. Sandra's efforts really kicked into high gear in the last week, after much of the season had a lot of Nathan literature sent out.
i just added another blog to read on my list. it's nice to see a candidate willing to communicate with us.
ReplyDeleteKudos to Michael Carroll!
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteMike's an OK guy, and deserves props for getting himself out there - chatting up the folks and demonstrating some concerned effort.
Too early for me to throw my support in any one direction; but, that kind of effort certainly helps to narrow the field.
It seems to me that come next February or April Uptown will find "Better Things".
ReplyDeleteThe question is which better thing.
Cappleman.
Carroll.
Nowatny. I'm unsure how much better Don "really I'm not part of da machine" Nowatny would be.
?
?
In that light I leave you with three different versions of the classic Kinks song "Better Things":
Da original.
Da Dar Williams version with some cute kid.
Bouncing Souls version with just a twist of punk.
Then a totally different song played on the war pipes.
Beware Helen, the end of they career is nigh.
I can seriously appreciate that Carroll is a current/former police officer.
ReplyDeleteAs Yo said, I'm not sure who's camp to 'pitch my tent' yet.
But I'll say this....I'll vote for anyone who doesn't mention:
'fish farms'
'TIFS'
'Meth Clinic'
'Section 8'
'fisticuffs'
Given the way Aldermanic elections work, it doesn't really matter too much to me who any of you put your support behind, so long as it isn't Helen(and we all know she's going to run).
ReplyDeleteThe biggest key is to make sure the batch of reform candidates(Cappleman and Carroll etc) get a total of 50 percent of the vote. Then when we go to the runoff, everyone's support needs to go behind the reform candidate, whomever that may be.
What is his party affiliation? I don't see it mentioned on his website or blog. Usually that means Republican.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise his CV at least looks interesting, and he deserves credit for his police work.
Ah, yes. Let's make sure we continue to vote democrat cuz that $13B state deficit, $1B CPS deficit, and crumbling social services and infrastructure are all the fault of the GOP.
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
Dude.
Put the bong down for a few.
We need to stop eliminating candidates based strictly on their party affiliation and start *gasp* listening to what they're saying - and base our opinions on that.
I mean, we don't want to be prejudiced, now do we?
I'm a registered democrat and can't think of a party more undeserving of my vote than the gaggling of crooks currently running amok with a "D" next to their names.
Granted, in IL .. there's very little difference between an R and D.
And, as for the "usually that means Republican" ... take a look at a vast array of other campaign literature ... it ain't just the GOP ducking affiliation, champ.
Let's open our political minds a shade, shall we?
Cuz, again, the results of straight party line voting is in no small way involved in and responsible for the rampant violence we're seeing on the streets of Chicago.
What we need is more balance and a government that is effective and fair.
Political inbreeding serves no one well.
Unless, of course, you're happy with the idea of regurgitating failure - in which, case, knock yourself out.
*sigh*
yo, I wonder why 49 of the 50 aldermen are Democrats? Maybe it's just luck of the draw. Maybe not.
ReplyDeleteJust Wondering,
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the bad things about Chicago..the Democratic primary IS the general election, at least for local races...and even then, many candidates don't even have a token opponent to measure how they're doing. (i.e. they could at least use the election as a free opinion poll).
Starck Mad,
that means you won't be voting for ANYONE in the 46th ward election, as Shiller opponents will mention Section 8 and TIFs.
ithink there will be others equally disgrunted about hearing "Cabrini North" and ignoring even affordable home ownership.
Jonathan, don't know if you were around in 1999, but that was the closest anyone's gotten in defeating Ald. Shiller since 1987. The key, however, is winning over about 500 or so votes. As others mentioned about independence...there are a few who do NOT think of Helen Shiller as a saint. But her opponents have ignored lower income (but WORKING) people who have lived in Uptown and not contributed to the crime. They moved to Uptown when it was REALLY rough, and tried to be as successful as they could. They (and others sympathetic to them) know if they have to move out of the neighborhood, the only other place they could afford is someplace like Englewood or Roseland.
If any anti-Shiller candidates had merely HOSTED events to help people become CPAN eleigible, they could sway some of those voters.
There are plenty of people who live in even section 8 who hate the crime. But they won't pour energy into an effort that makes someone else safer, while they get sent to a worse neighborhood.
So that's an issue they have to address.
i am interested to see if there's any pact between the anti-Shiller candidates to support each other in a runoff. CIndi Anderson kept her part of the bargain in 1999. But i wonder if there was some resentment from the Katharine Nathan camp against Sandra Reed, who won by only 100 votes. Sandra's efforts really kicked into high gear in the last week, after much of the season had a lot of Nathan literature sent out.