del.icio.us
E-mail this
FacebookIf you think back to the good old days of 2006, when the City Council was flexing a little muscle, there were two insurrections that drove Mayor Daley batty: the foie gras ban and the living wage bill.
After the council adopted them, Mayor Daley vowed to rescind them. And like a bounty hunter methodically tracking his prey, he eventually got what he wanted.
On September 13, 2006, Daley strong-armed three aldermen into flip-flopping and voting with him to kill the living wage bill, which would effectively keep new Wal-Marts out of town.
And then yesterday, of course, he rounded up 37 aldermen to rescind the foie gras ban.
Restaurants are now again free to peddle the livers of bird who have been tortured. And thank God for that -- isn't this the kind of freedom our revolutionary forefathers died to defend!
But curiously enough, the mayor hasn't been nearly so quick in bringing Wal-Marts to Chicago. On the contrary, in March he blocked a Wal-Mart from coming to the south side.
So what were those two fights really about?
Power. If anyone's going to ban Wal-Mart, foie gras, or anything else for that matter, it's going to be the mayor and only the mayor, and don't you forget it.
It was also about putting alderman Joe Moore in his place. Along with the city's leading unions, Moore put together the coalition of aldermen who passed the anti-Wal-Mart ordinance back in July of 2006. Daley made an issue of fois gras -- which he hadn't opposed in committee -- for the main reason of teasing, taunting, and humiliating Moore. In this way, he sent a message to other aldermen: here's what happens to those who dissent.
In the last few weeks the mayor's people have been telling aldermen that Daley's keeping out Wal-Mart in order to buy some peace with unions in these crucial months leading up to next year's decision by the International Olympic Committee as to which city will host the 2016 games. (In a bald-faced lie, the mayor has denied this.) If Chicago doesn't get the games, Daley won't need labor peace with the unions. Look for him to stuff a Wal-Mart everywhere he can, sort of like ramming an iron rod down the throat of a goose.
It's Daley's city -- and don't you forget it!
Moore is one, single alderman.
Daley, as mayor, needs every last one of those 37 aldermen and alderwomen to control the city's government.
If those 37 were to act contrary to the wishes of the mayor, the mayor, any mayor, effectively couldn't do shit about it.
And, if the citizens of the respective wards of these 37 aldermen and alderwomen didn't reelect them, they, the aldermen and alderwomen, would return to being 'ordinary' citizens, albeit extraordinarily dishonest ordinary citizens.
We citizens get the government that those we elect, and reelect, give us.
In the end, we, the citizens, are responsible for it all.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
But Joe Moore is a lying, racist, stupid politician who has played soft on crime, played cozy with slumlords, and made enemies in the city council. Joe Moore played the race card in 2007 in the aldermanic campaign in tricks that Karl Rove would be jealous of.
Alderman Joe Moore and his Stroger employed committeman side kick who looks like the cookie monster Fagus did not endorse any Hispanics in the last election and specifically went againt Jose Berrios and Frank Avila. They went with the slated candidate for judge when Moldanado twisted their arm. Some liberals are anti-Hispanic and use Blacks as pawns and think they are the white liberal masters.
A lot of alderman would of gone against the Mayor but Joe Moore made no friends.
Boy, are you in for one helluva surprise.
Were you now?
Is that so?
Ya don't say.
Let's see, Judy 'BattleAxe' Topinka was the best that the Repubs could come up with? Like that was anything close to an attractive alternative.
The Toddler was an Incumbent ONLY due to the fraud committed by his papa's pals; yeah, the old man could have been embalmed and they would still have insisted he's up to the task of being county fraud president.
And even then, Tony 'Pit Bull' Peraica came close, it was all those dead people voting for the Toddler that made the difference.
And Daley? With his 2 hand-picked shills to both siphon off the votes of the dissatisfied blacks and turn off the rest of the non-black voters, with a pathetic voter turnout typical of this city's depressed citizenry, yeah, Incumbents have nothing to worry about.
Sure thing.
Everybody loves 'em.
Everybody.
Everybody, at least, that you know.
The question is, do you know everybody?
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Now how does voting out Incumbent Democrats put "...control in one party-Democratic."?
Are you sure you're not oreo?
Joe Moore sponsored the ban a bit more than two-and-a-half years ago, in the fall of 2005. He had been working with animal rights extremists for months before the introduction.
The proposed ban was referred to the health committee, on which Joe sits. Hearings were held, in October 2005, and nothing was done. First days went by, then weeks, then months, and -- no word from the health committee.
Constant inquiries were made of the health committee by individual restaurants, the Illinois Restaurant Association, foie gras producers, avian scientists and others who were troubled by the proposed ban. All were told that an announcement would be made by the committee about when the measure would go to the floor of the City Council.
The announcement never happened.
Instead, at a meeting two years ago, I believe in June 2006, after a business session that covered a wide range of issues, the Mayor recognized an Alderman for the purpose of passing an "omnibus" measure -- that is, a lengthy list of non-controversial items on which there was complete agreement.
The foie gras ban was included in that omnibus.
There had been no announcement. The ban was not identified. No one said, "Oh, and by the way, contrary to 170 years of practice, this week we have a controversial item tucked into the omnibus on which you are about to vote..." It came as a surprise.
Unlike yesterday, the vote had not been in the news that morning.
Unlike yesterday, opponents had not been informed that the vote was coming.
Unlike yesterday, no alderman was out among his colleagues asking for votes, as Tom Tunney did.
In the discussion after the vote several aldermen said they had never seen a controversial item slipped into an omnibus for a final vote by the council in their entire careers. I am not a historian of the City Council so I don't know if that is true.
But we all know that when Joe Moore was winning with a process that ignored public notice and normal practice he was happy as a clam. In fact, he was on Chicago Tonight, and he could not have cared less about deceiving his opponents. He was right proud of his little ploy.
But now that his colleagues have repudiated both him and the issue which pre-occupied him for more than a year, while 49th Ward kids were struggled below state averages in achievement, he cloaks himself in due process, claiming offense at tyranny and bully tactics.
That's how Joe saw fit to pass his ban. So I am not surprised that the Mayor and his colleagues decided Joe needed an object lesson to learn that as one treats others, one may expect to be treated by them.