* The Tribune reports that election day absenteeism by city workers was way down this year…
Four years ago, more than one of every three workers in those city departments targeted by prosecutors were absent from their jobs on Election Day, according to newly released city records analyzed by the Tribune.
But on Feb. 27, the absentee rate plummeted by almost half, to 18 percent from 34 percent. […]
In Streets and Sanitation, 677 workers, or 20 percent, took off on Election Day 2007. Unlike in 2003, employees were more likely to miss work on the day after Thanksgiving and the day after Christmas in 2006.
For the other four departments targeted in the federal investigation, this year’s Election Day did not even rank in the top five for days missed the prior year
* Paul Green had an analysis of Mayor Daley’s win in the Sun-Times today…
…Daley’s original 1989 electoral winning coalition of white ethnics, Latinos and lakefronters (the 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 46th, 48th and 49th wards) has held steady in their overwhelming support for the mayor. Second, Daley’s mayoral opponents have been, as they were in 2007, African-American, and once again these foes centered their energy mainly in the black community. Three, Daley’s support among African-American voters has grown and though in 2007 it was less than in 2003, it still was politically massive. […]
As in the past, Daley’s strength centered on his rock solid electoral base. Margin-wise (based on Brown’s and Walls’ combined vote) seven of his top 11 wards were on the city’s Northwest and Southwest sides (19th, 23rd, 13th, 41st, 45th, 11th, 36th), three others were along the north lakefront (42nd, 46th, 43rd) while the remaining ward was the Far North Side 50th. Each of these wards gave Daley 6,000-plus vote margins.
Daley’s best African-American margin wards were the West Side 29th Ward led by the mayor’s ally Ald. Ike Carothers and the South Side 16th Ward. Among Hispanic wards, another longtime Daley supporter Ald. Danny Solis (25th Ward — Pilsen) and 31st Ward Ald. Ray Suarez (Near Northwest Side) produced the biggest margins for the incumbent.
Percentage-wise, Daley had three wards provide him with 90-plus percent of their vote — 14th, 11th and 13th. All three of these Southwest Side wards are located in Daley’s former home base and are led by such Democratic notables as City Council Finance Chairman Ed Burke (14th), the mayor’s brother and Cook County Commissioner John Daley (11th) and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (13th). Besides Burke’s ward, other top percentage Hispanic Daley wards were the 12th, 31st and 30th. In all the mayor captured 80-plus percent of the vote in 20 wards besides his 90-plus percent big three.
* I held up this entire post until I could do some follow-up work on a startling Beachwood Reporter story today. A nameless writer, who didn’t cite a single source, either on the record or off, claimed without qualification that Alderman-elect Brendan Reilly was already breaking a major campaign pledge…
[Reilly] hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and he’s already sanctioned a controversial new development in the very style of his outgoing predecessor, Burt Natarus. […]
Reilly is going to begin his term by tearing down a fortress of a building with no apparent discussion. […]
So the first act of our new alderman - I mean the new Prince of Downtown - is to advocate for a developer and campaign contributor from Kenilworth (which ironically wants to save its historic structures and ban demolitions) and an Evanston-based tax-exempt university, ignoring the sentiments of his tax-paying constituents and two non-profit preservation groups that seldom advocate for the preservation of the same structure.
Even though there were no actual sources cited by the anonymous writer, for a moment I seriously considered retracting my endorsement of Reilly that I wrote earlier this year. So I got ahold of the alderman-elect and let him have it but good.
Reilly, however, flatly denied everything in the report. Rather than take the time to write them all up, here are some of my notes from the conversation, which I also shared with the Beachwood Reporter’s publisher…
factually incorrect. could not be further from the truth. i’m not sold on the proposed development.
met with planning commission this morning and asked about the project. still gathering the information i need to make an informed decision.
needs to be thoroughly vetted by the community. when i said i wanted a transparent process i meant it.
i didn’t sign off on a demo permit
meeting with all parties. i have yet to speak on this issue. haven’t taken any position yet on a project. it will get a full debate in the community.
[the article was] way, way, way off base and insulting.
instructed developer to meet with entire neighborhood.
not told anyone that i’d sign off on it. i have not made a commitment one way or another.
In other words, Reilly says he didn’t “sanction” the project and he didn’t “advocate for a developer,” as claimed in the article above. Until I see some actual proof from the anonymous BR contributor, I gotta figure that there’s no there there. On the other hand, if Reilly lied to me for the first time in his life today (and we go back a long, long time), his life will be hell. That’s a promise.
* Oops. I meant to blog this fascinating column as well by Thomas Schaller on the collapse of the political center…
Sure, millions of Americans refuse to register with either of the major parties, and they avoid the labels “liberal” or “conservative” to describe themselves ideologically. But what matters more than how they fill out registration forms at their county board of elections or define themselves when pollsters call is the policy opinions and attitudes they espouse and how those opinions translate into votes.
On that score, Mr. Abramowitz demonstrates that not only are liberals and conservatives voting more predictably for Democrats and Republicans, respectively, but their social and economic attitudes are becoming more internally consistent. He says it is easier today to predict, say, how a voter feels about stem cells based on her position on tax policy.
“To a much greater extent than in the past, voters’ opinions on economic, cultural and foreign policy issues are closely interconnected with Democrats overwhelmingly on the liberal side of almost every issue and Republicans overwhelmingly on the conservative side of almost every issue,” Mr. Abramowitz says.
America seems to be coming to the end of a period of partisan dealignment that began with the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. The so-called vital center is collapsing.
Go read the whole thing. Fascinating stuff.
- Steve Rhodes - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 5:31 pm:
Rich, that’s an entirely disingenuous post on your part given what you just told me off-the-record about what Reilly told you off-the-record. Reilly’s process has not been transparent: he’s met with the developer and has asked the developer to meet with residents, but he hasn’t met with residents himself. He hasn’t taken a public stand even as a demolition permit was issued and the ground floor of the building has been boarded up. Preservations groups are on full alert. The writer is a 42nd Ward resident intimately knowlegeable about these affairs (and what was written wasn’t exactly a straight news story). As I told you, Rich, if Reilly wants to dispute what we published, he can call me anytime. I’d be happy to clarify his position. Meanwhile,you checking in with your pal hardly constitutes checking out the story. The fact is that Reilly is doing nothing to stop the demolition.Perhaps his stance will change after inauguration, but this is where we have reason to believe he is at right now. What is he waiting for?
Steve Rhodes
Publisher & Editor
The Beachwood Reporter
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 5:47 pm:
What I would consider to be entirely disengenuous would be publishing a story like that which states hard facts that are simply not true.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 5:49 pm:
Also, you shouldn’t assume that what I told you off the record was told to me.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 5:57 pm:
Something that I tried to get across to you in our e-mail exchange but perhaps didn’t succeed was that you published what was essentially a rumor without any qualifying terms.
There was no “word on the street is…” no “sources claim,” no nothing. It was presented as a cold, hard fact and completely denied by the target of the hit, whose denial wasn’t included in your site’s piece.
What I did was fill that missing part in.
And, Steve, saying he’s “doing nothing” now to stop the demolition is one thing. Saying he is in cahoots with the developer is quite another, and that’s what the article clearly stated in no uncertain terms.
- ZC - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 6:36 pm:
For more of Abramowitz’s argument check out his paper “Why Can’t We All Get Along” at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/Abramowitz.pdf.
But before you are too convinced, also check out Morris Fiorina’s _Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America_. These are a great article and short book to read together; they’re both clear, accessible for non-wonks, and thought-provoking.
- Truthful James - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 6:40 pm:
This a natural result of “Politics being war by other means.”
It was always rough and tumble, but the two major parties have each been a coalition of interests brought together for elections.
This enabled the Federal Senate and House to offer compromise as a way of serving constituents beyond those who voted for a party in the General Election.
America had the unique advantage of not having political parties organized along class lines — which is a precursor of the multi-party systems we see in other nations.
1948 was a pivotal time, when the Democrat coalition broks apart, with separate campaigns by Wallace (Progressive). Thurmond (Dixicrat) and Truman (Democrat) facing a Republican Party divided internally (Dewey, the candidate and the conservative Bob Taft) but not breaking apart. The Truman, big City and Labor coalition won the day.
Intrestingly, the Truman post World War programs with Education and Housing created a desire for better employment and home ownership — the beginnings of a new middle class which started not to vote the straight Democrat ticket.
This was all manageable within the party structures. Compromise was the order of the day in Congress. Presidential campaigns depended on the coalitions of voters even through the Kennedy Nixon campaign.
The Vietnam war caused a period of polarization caused in part by the efforts of the incumbent, LBJ to crush Goldwater, using the spurious second Gulf of Tonkin attack to extract a war resolution almost unanimously from Congress (only one dissenting vote). It was a polarizing event, defeating and then energizing the conservative movement in the Republican Party. The mess was left for Nixon to clean up, but the janitor eceived his share of the blame. Nixon was a polarizing figure for the Democrats who were most pleased with the discovery of the Watergate affair and his departure. The existence of covert political operations was a wake up call for the Democrats to be as nasty.
Reagan built on the conservative agenda, but was not married to it. His personal aura carried great weight with the general public, washing over the internal political struggles in both parties. The first president Bush could not capitalize on those strengths, ran a Dewey like campaign and was beaten by the charismatic Clinton.
The center was fickle, they wanted a leader and with president Clinton they got one. he had his faults.
The impeachment hearings were a sign that political warfare was at hand. On earlier occasions, Presidential peccadillos were easily excused. Lying under oath was not as serious. The political hitmen in the Republican party remembered the treatment of Nixon, which had been shoved in their faces ever after. Democrat hitmen would remember the treatment of Clinton and exact their revenge against GHWB.
In this climate Congress polarized not on economic but on political lines, Honesty betwen the White House and Congress — which in the past had allowed foreign policy differences to stop at the shoreline, which put together the military and economic programs which blunted Soviet advances in Europe, which passed social programs benefiting a cross section of the American people.
Throughout this time elections became more an more expensive, and fund raising had to reach mammoth proportions. This required the centralization of the fund raising mechanisms in Washington D.C. In the State, in the Districts, parties were able to raise less money and thus espouse local positions.
Stridency rules the day. Voters are running away. With the turnout below fifty per cent, the informed center has departed. Each party relies on motivating its own special interests and demonizing the opponents. With each Party as well polarization appears. The republicans are divided between Liberal and Conservative, the Democrats are holding together a wide range of special interest with no other place to go.
What stops the formation of new parties is the cost of establishment. Contributors, especially large contributors, want to see a bank for their bucks. The last major Party formation occurred in the Republican Party. Born out of the Whigs and smaller parties it started as a two issue party, against slavery and for high tariffs. They promptly lost the 2856 general Election, won as a minority party the 1860 election and became a majority party (including the returning states) only after Hayes beat Tilden.
If it weren’t for the cost we might see a redivision of the existing parties to start this coalition business anew. The Middle class, having never known a depression, having never seen a time when the United States was not the big dog, has not adjusted to this new world.
And as long as elections appear to be a trial by fire rather than a political affair theyw ill not come back unless motivated.
The Democrats will paint the current president as an ignoramus in the hands of people with their own interests. That will gain them votes. The republicans will point out that, as in the time of LBJ, the minority party went blissfully along.
In blaming each other the parties will ignore the political middle which is looking towards the future rather than the past. We will probably elect a Democrat janitor to clean up the mess while blaming the other party.
Just perhaps there may come by 2012 a candidate with a platform not polarizing the parties but which offers reconciliation and coalition. he will surely be elected because the missing middle will be energized as well.
- Steve Rhodes - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 6:40 pm:
Rich, we had a long back and forth via e-mail which I won’t bore readers with, but we stand by our story and for the millionth time invite Brendan Reilly to respond if he feels wronged instead of making denials you know aren’t wholly true through you. If Reilly would like to clarify his position, he is more than welcome to. If we have gotten something wrong, we will correct it. But our story is not based on rumor, it is authored by a person intimately familiar with the proceedings. We didn’t include a denial from Reilly because we never spoke to him. Don’t make it sound so devious; I’m sure readers can see that it wasn’t a straight news story. Nonetheless, we stand by it.
- Patrick McDonough - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 6:57 pm:
I am happy to report to all you do gooders, if you have great reporters like Todd Lighty and Laurie Cohen, you can, if concise, have your story published by a major Chicago Newspapers. Chicago’s Department of Water Management has been exposed again. I am happy to Report. I am happy some progress is made for the taxpayer’s benefit for a change. Lots more work to do. Thank you Rich!!!
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 9:23 pm:
Steve -
I just checked my calendar, and Brendan Reilly doesn’t take office for another two weeks. Perhaps you can explain to us all exactly what the sign-off process is for a demolition permit for an Alderman-elect?
And posted on the Beachwood Reporter’s website is a letter from the proposed developer to neighborhood residents, where the developer says he wants to meet with them, at Reilly’s suggestion. Are you suggesting that Reilly should be dissuading residents and developers from meeting? Should developers not share info with residents? Should residents not have a chance to voice their concerns?
Third, and lets not miss this story. The author of the article mentions some unnamed competitive developer. We don’t know who the author is. How do we know the author isn’t just a shill — or even an employee — for another developer who wants in on the action? We don’t.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 9:33 pm:
P.S. Steve, if the Beachwood Reporter is interested in doing any actual “reporting,” perhaps your “reporter” should have called Reilly before you published the story, or perhaps they didn’t teach you that in journalism school?
- Steve Rhodes - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 9:36 pm:
Yellow Dog:
1. Reilly may still not have officially taken office, but, as the letter shows, he’s already intimately involved in the proceedings. He could have very easily asked the developer and the city to hold off on the demo permit, or at least voiced his opposition. He’s seen the plans. There is nothing more to learn.
2. What our writer is suggesting is that Reilly should speak to residents, not send the developer to do it. Reilly has met with the developer, but not residents. He has told Rich Miller a thousand times more than he has told residents. They are upset.
3. I know who the writer is and there is no such agenda. Now, who are you?
- Steve Rhodes - Monday, May 7, 07 @ 9:46 pm:
Yellow Dog:
Our writer didn’t call Reilly before OR after. Just like you didn’t call me before your post and Rich Miller didn’t call anyone besides Reilly. Hello? It’s not a news story. We still believe it to be true, though. And curiously, Reilly hasn’t called or written asking for a retraction. He might not find it so easy to be questioned by someone who isn’t his pal, I guess. We stand by the piece.
- irishpirate - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 3:47 am:
First,
I enjoy both da capitalfaxblog and da Beachwood Reporter. That being said at this point I have to go with Rich Miller as being closer to right.
I almost want to make some comment like “Sneedless to say” when reading that Beachwood story. Maybe we could ask the ghost of “Kup” to comment on the provenance of that “story”.
If some “newsprint” journalist had written something like that I suspect Steve Rhodes might have torn him/her a new orifice.
Your “correspondent” should have talked to Reilly…….or attempted to.
My bias is pro development, but I don’t know enough about that particular building to comment on whether it deserves saving. Maybe it does.
I do know that Reilly should have at least been asked his opinion. If Steve Rhodes can’t see that then he needs to look at the story as he would a “newsprint” story.
We all have biases. Rich Miller is pro-Reilly. Steve Rhodes is generally anti development and anti any politician not named Clinton.
Give Reilly a chance to sell his soul. He hasn’t even taken office yet. Unless he gets caught in bed with a dead girl or a live sheep he will undoubtedly be a better alderman that Natarus.
Reilly will eventually disappoint. Just like any other person. Politician or pirate.
ARRRRRRRRGH
- Bill - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 5:32 am:
Irishpirate,
Reilly will be better than Burton even with he dead girl and live sheep!
- Reddbyrd - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 5:54 am:
Wow this more attention than Mr. Beachwood has received since he was blown out the door at Chicago mag. Attention to detail was not a strong suit there as most will remember.
This perch suggests everyone go back to ignoring the beach.
- irishpirate - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 6:03 am:
Baaaaaaaaaaaagh!
Long night and early morning.
- Steve Rhodes - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 6:47 am:
Reddbyrd: Oh Lord! You’re right, I sucked so bad there they finally had to push me out the door after six years for not paying attention to detail! I’m sure most will remember!
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 6:57 am:
I side with Rhodes on his old gig. He was an excellent journalism critic - the kind of person who would be appalled at the crappy story he stands behind today.
- Bill - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 6:58 am:
Hair of the dog, irish.
- Skeeter - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 7:55 am:
A questions for Miller (and/or others):
Initially, it is clear that the “report” in Beachwood was not real news. Rhodes admitted it, and in doing so effectively said “I am not a journalist. I don’t have the same standards that journalists have. What appears in Beachwood should not be construed as `news.’”
If that is not a fair summary, Rhodes can correct us.
That being said, should blogs be held to different standards of print media? It is not just Beachwood publishing random rumors. Over at Illinoize, Ruberry and Baar engage in very similar tactics on a regular basis [Ruberry’s Hillary Clinton/farm story and Baar’s recent pieces on the CPD are cases in point]. Is there a lowered expectation when it comes to blogs? Assuming that the blogger is not a working journalist [Miller] or a real public figure [Fritchey, Skinner], do people just assume that most of what we read in blogs is at best half-informed?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 8:58 am:
All I would say to that, Skeeter, is you can’t on the one hand present something as fact, as in “He’s cut a secret deal,” and then claim that it’s not a real news story, yet stand behind the reporting because the target of the hit hasn’t called yet to complain. Bush league.
If it’s not real reporting, then the items portrayed as facts should not be couched in such definitive terms. Steve surely knows this. Or at least he did.
- Squideshi - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 12:54 pm:
The political spectrum isn’t truly as simple as left vs. right. That’s an oversimplification not well suited to reality. For example, Libertarians support the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage, while Greens support decentralization and fiscal responsibility.
Also, when looking at the center of the political spectrum, it’s important to know if you’re talking about the entire eligible voting population or if you’re only talking about those people who actually do vote.
If you’re only talking about the current voters, then you’re really talking about a huge minority; and there’s no guarantee that the center of that cross-section accurately reflects the political will of the majority in this country.
Indeed, I argue that voter turnout is dropping because people are becoming less interested in politics. They’re not seeing anything interesting in politics because there isn’t anything interesting–they don’t like their choices, so they’re just dropping out and not participating.
This is one reason that it makes sense to have more than two political parties. There aren’t only two sides to every issue. Contrary to popular belief, parties like the Green Party do not only take votes from Democrats but also energize many new voters, who would not have otherwise voted, and who would have certainly not voted for a Democrat.
Don’t believe me? Just go back and look as the results from the presidental debate in which Ross Perot was included. After viewership had been steadily dropping for years, it shot up that year (There was finally something interesting.) Also, voter turnout shot up, reversing another steady decline. Both went back to a steady decline for the next presidental election, with the standard Democrat and Republican candidates only.
- Truthful James - Tuesday, May 8, 07 @ 1:03 pm:
Squideshi –
And the political leaders like it that way. If the turnout is 50% that means that you need to bring only 25.1% of the voters to your side.
THus you can use items that appeal to a special interesr, you can demonize the opposition. Thus the situation we now see — Politics is war by other means.