Readers,
One of the reasons I decided to catalogue and post as much information about the candidates as possible has to due with the lack of information about the candidates and their platforms, ideas and vision for the ward. Candidate fundraiser details and where to call to get a yard sign is all that is really out there about the aldermanic race in the 41st Ward. Casting a vote for an office as important as alderman based on the number of yard signs a candidate can put up is absolutely ridiculous.
I have been impressed by a few of the candidates and how hard they are working in this race. They have been completing not for profit endorsement questionnaires, canvassing the largest ward in the city, and attending forums prepared to speak to the community about some very complex subjects.
Conversely, I have seen some red flags go up and think it is important for us, as voters in a vital aldermanic race, to be aware and see these problems for what they are... red flag behavior indicative of a possible pattern of the same behaviors while in office.
Examples of Red Flag behavior in this race so far:
1. Chamber of Commerce candidate who accepts an endorsement (financial and human capital support surely to follow) from a special interest group/labor union who she never supported or had interest in prior to the election, allowing herself and her office to be used to cohort special interest power within the city council.
2. Candidate who didn't show up at a forum because he made a decision to attend his own fundraiser instead.
3. Candidates who don't follow through with opportunities to express their platforms/ideas in writing or at editorial board (and IVI-IPO) endorsement forums & appointments for whatever reason.
Some of the reasons given: appointment times aren't convenient for the candidate, political ideology differs from the newspaper editorial board ( this is a really poor excuse....being a politicians means learning how to get along with people with diverse ideologies), dog ate the questionnaire etc...
4. Candidates who show up unprepared to answer questions at forums/debates.
5. Candidates who try to cover up knowledge deficits with attempts at humor, diversion, and disorganization.
6. Candidate who allowed a person banned from ever doing business with the City of Chicago for his involvement in the "hired truck scandal" and tax payer rip-off, to throw her a fundraiser and support her candidacy.
7. Candidate who was fired from the city for not cooperating in a land/zoning corruption scandal.
8. Candidates who don't show up at forums/debates sponsored by community groups
It will be up to the voters to seek out as much information as possible about these candidates through the aldermanic forums & debates, as well as to call/write the candidates yourself and ask them your questions directly. It is our responsibility as voters to educate ourselves about the candidates and cast our vote for the candidate that can best serve the community, our families and ourselves. We need to start asking questions.
In the end, it comes down to character.
ReplyDeleteWe have alot of candidates to choose from. We can set the bar high for this race.
ReplyDeleteRichard Gonzalez seems to be everywhere. Whether or not he is the right candidate who knows?
ReplyDeleteBut this guy wants it more than any of the other candidates.
Richard Gonzalez and Thomas Patrick Murphey are the only 2 candidates actually qualified for this race. Both have the Education, Public speaking ability, and general plan on what they would do if they become alderman. The rest are just noise in the process. I just hope people aren't swayed by who has the signs up in the neighborhood etc. Its not a popularity contest its about who will make this area of the city a better place to live.
ReplyDeleteModerator,
ReplyDeleteIf this posting is too convoluted dump it.
Thanks.
I've been scouring the web for as many 41st Ward 'blog type' entries for over a week now. It did not and still does not matter to me who the editor of each entry is or their political ideology. Having said that, what have I found?
The consensus(conventional wisdom[CW]) seems to be that, here in the 41st as well as all over town, money talks, regardless.
However, the 'consensus' or [CW] just may have it all wrong. Seems that underlying virtually every entry is the supposition that certain candidates, with long standing ties to a major party, a particular union or a Springfield pol, will pull in the most money and thereby win the election.
Hello! We are firmly rooted in the 21st century.
A candidate does have to be able to fund a respectable campaign. But raising the most money is not a guarantee of victory. If the objective is to win a 'Ward' election then it would stand to reason that the candidate would or should be raising his funding from 'Ward' residents. Contributing to his/her own campaign, here, is a given.
If the 'Ward' can not be relied upon and the candidates pockets are empty where does he/she turn? Party help? Union help? Business help? PAC help? If this is the norm, "Red Flags: Start Asking Questions" means nothing because we are then assuming voters look no further than to the superficial.
Let's look beneath the surface at the 41st.
For the most part the 1940's generation, (who are and are not now) living in the 41st, are pushing 70 years old. They have or are(attempting) selling their homes, for the most part. And, could not care less. They are being replaced with young people born in the mid-70's and early 80's.
These young families are educated and earning good money. They could not care less about the 'old-political school' way of handling elections. They know all the stories about how Chicago has been run politically for the last hundred years. They know about Capone, Cicero and you name it. They know how it was that politicians were supported with dollars by the thugs and editorials by the papers. Those days are gone. These voters in the 41st will not support candidates with ties to a major party, thugs, unions or pols out of Springfield.
Where residents of the 41st, who were born in the 50's and 60's, are concerned and we have candidate(s)in this demagraphic, the above described tendacy is somewhat lessened. Sure there is a faction in the 41st who will support/vote for a 1950's(decade) birther. But they are few when compared to the later arrivals.
So does the most money matter? If this is taken with a serious regard for the, "Red Flags: Start Asking Questions" bullet point listing, then NO!
Cleaning up Chicago's political landscape will never be complete. But we can start fresh here in the 41st ward on February 22, 2011 by electing a young (to mean, 'new blood') educated and articulate Alderman. One who, though as a candidate may not have the biggest war chest, has a day to day working knowledge of how city government operates and who can translate that knowledge over to a positive result for the ward and all of its residents and businesses.
Let's show the pundits that we elect with our brain not our affiliations. Dollars and yard signs, a winner it does not make. Remember eleven will run but only one can win.
The ideal candidate will bring: 1) strong qualifications (relevant degrees, training and capabilities); 2) proven relevant experience (what is involved in running an aldermanic operation, who does what in the ward, contacts with city and county, and how to handle constituent services); and 3) solid character.
ReplyDeleteFor the first two, you should read resumes and qualification statements, and attend the forums to observe things like communications ability.
How to judge character? One way is to read the brochures – not much there to rely on. The other is references from people you know. I think those on this forum who are denigrating fund raising and yard signs put up by neighbors are off base. For me, each individual contribution (not those from institutions), and each 41st ward resident who puts a sign on their lawn, represents a character reference, and is a valid factor in deciding how to vote.
I disagree, do people who put up yard signs know anything about the candidates character? or what they can bring to the ward? Looking at yard signs as character references is also flawed.
ReplyDeleteYard signs give candidates name recognizion. Community residents put up yard signs in support of the candidate in general. The reason people post yard signs could be as simple as "someone asked me to" or as complex as "John Smith is my power of attorney and has the power to turn off life support if I don't". I don't think anyone assumes they are a character reference (at least I hope not).
ReplyDeletea lawn sign is a character reference? You have to be kidding.
ReplyDeletethis election, candidates will have to actually put out relevant information about themselves and their platforms to be read by others who have figured out how to use the internet. Candidates are very carefully vetted by organizations who endorse them, because there is so much easy access over the internet to an individual's baggage. Years passed, candidates relied only on word of mouth and yard signs to win elections. Today's voter can be much more informed if they wish to be. I predict the yard sign will go by way of the dinasaur very soon.
ReplyDelete