Changing the Subject: Mark Kirk May Answer Press Questions

Like just about anybody who could possibly be considered an influence on public opinion (and you can be sure they defined that *very* broadly), I received a ***Media Advisory*** from Kirsten Kukowski last night at 6:13 PM. It declared:

Kirk to Discuss U.S. Senate Race

Congressman Mark Kirk will discuss the U.S. Senate race Tuesday, highlighting his vision for creating jobs, renewing economic growth and tackling the important issues facing our state.

Given my frequent observation that Mark Kirk won't take questions from average voters, let alone the media, you'd think that I'd be all excited. You'd think.

However, the press conference is not in Chicago, but in Northbrook, an area in which Kirk feels very comfortable. And this location limits the opportunity to those news organizations that can send a van or car out there. Press credentials are required, as determined by Kirsten Kukowski. The fact that I get all the Kirk campaign's releases (sadly, none from Alexi) doesn't allow me the opportunity to ask any questions.

The big kicker: the press conference is being held two blocks from Kirk's office, and provides a quick getaway -- just in case the questions get too uncomfortable.

Given the location, I suspect not too many journalists will show up. This will probably limit the number of questions Kirk answers, since Kirsten will pull her candidate if a journalist starts asking too many questions.

So, although I was invited, they didn't really mean it. I guess I was just "informed." Nonetheless, here's some questions I'd want to ask if I had the opportunity:

1. Why would you (Kirk) exaggerate about your solid military record?
2. What political activities were you (Kirk) engaged in while on (reserve) duty that the Pentagon felt the need to counsel you?
3. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate your duty station during the Iraq war?
4. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate your duty station at the Pentagon (war room)?
5. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate (first) Iraq's threat, and (then) Iran's threat to its neighbors, including Israel?
6. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate the intelligence on Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
6. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate your college experience as a part-time nursery aide, claiming to be a teacher?

Of course, there are other questions I'd like to ask Kirk:

1. I'd like to ask about his unconditional support of Bush's selective (and distractive) invasion of Iraq
2. I'd want to ask about his defense of Rumsfeld's belief that Iraq was the center of al-Qaeda activity
3. I'd like to know more about his falling for Saddam Hussein's giant con that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction
4. I'd also like to ask about his comments about how the American government shouldn't be trusted while he was visiting abroad
5. I'd like to ask about his "micro-solutions" to so-called suburban issues that would expand the reach of government into our homes

But, then, Mark Kirk would never answer these questions. He won't "lower" himself to answer questions from voters or the Illinois media in the capital, or downtown Chicago, or anywhere else other than his "home" or safe district. He can always duck out and run to his office (which is two blocks away).

I get it. Mark Kirk needs to change the story. The fact that he's unavailable -- to the press or the electorate -- won't change with a *rare* press conference or public appearance. Kirk's "Rose Garden Strategy" is attractive, as long as no one notices that you won't leave your safe place and mingle with the "small" people. But everyone's noticed. Republicans are now awaiting Mark Kirk's second act. Democrats are licking their chops...

Fabricating Connections with Rod

You can't blame Republicans for trying. After all, Democrats would do the same thing. But, still, I had to chuckle at this item in the Hotline On Call blog from the National Journal:

RGA Ties Quinn To Blago

The GOP's biggest asset in their race to oust IL Gov. Pat Quinn (D) isn't the Dem or his GOP rival. It's Quinn's predecessor, ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D).

Now, as Blagojevich's corruption trial kicks off in Chicago, the RGA is running ads linking the 2 governors, even though Quinn supported Blagojevich's impeachment last year.

You would think that, after all the controversies surrounding politicians fabricating their resumes, politicians would be more circumspect about fabricating connections between other politicians. The lesson from the resume-inflation scandal should be relatively simple: voters don't like being lied to.

So why lie here?

Anyone who has met Blagojevich or paid attention to Illinois politics over the last decade will realize that there isn't a lot to connect Rod Blagojevich with Pat Quinn -- or any other politician in the state. There were no "Blagojevich Democrats," as it were -- unless you want to count Capitol Fax Bill, the former governor's most loyal defender through it all.

And that's the way Blagojevich wanted it. The most outgoing of pols (Blagojevich couldn't pass up a hand to shack, even if you didn't want your hand shaken), he was the most introverted -- or, rather, isolated -- governor possible. People in southern Illinois may have complained about the (then) governor not spending any time in the Governor's Mansion, but everyone in Illinois had a right to complain about Blagojevich not spending much time in the Governor's office at the Thompson center.

And when he did come downtown, it seems like he had the whole building blocked off (presumably for his convenience, but Blagojevich also seemed to like the whole security detail aspect of it, which I assume fed his ego). Blagojevich claimed to have worked mostly out of his house (perhaps an imitation of his ambition to work out of the White House), and he intentionally kept the other Constitutional officers at arms length. Blagojevich was much more likely to take pot shots at his fellow elected officials (including Pat Quinn) through the press than talk to them on the phone, let alone face to face. Even in joint appearances, Blagojevich tended to be in and out, and it's safe to say that he spent little time with other politicians in Illinois.

So Republicans are largely reduced to inventing connections between Rod Blagojevich and other Illinois pols (Democrats or Republicans). Which is why the Rod Blajojevich effect on this November's elections is not likely to be that substantial.

Sure, Rod Blagojevich was corrupt. But this is Illinois, and corruption is not only a bipartisan endeavour, it is also largely ignored by the electorate. Don't get me wrong, it is shocking the level to which corruption is tolerated by people in the state. And there's not much to lead one to think that 2010 will be any different. Especially given the fact that the Republican candidate for Governor, Bill Brady, has already used his legislative position for personal gain -- something that hasn't exactly created an uproar around the state (or the Republican party).

But the Democrat's best defense in light of the onslaught coming during the Blagojevich trial is that no one was out there defending the governor when he was under fire by federal prosecutors. You won't find Democrats saying that it was a witch hunt, or that the (then) Governor was being rail roaded by those mean Federal prosecutors. Nor will you find Democratic legislators talking about voting to impeach Blagojevich as a "difficult decision," "tough vote" or even something they had to think long and hard about. Nope. I heard one longtime legislator call it "the proudest vote" he'd ever taken.

So the best Republicans have is innuendo, the inference from photoshopped images that suggest some form of connection.

I know this is contrary to conventional wisdom, but it's hard to see Blagojevich effecting Democratic prospects this November. Blagojevich did this himself, isolating himself from the rest of the party, carrying on his "imperial" governorship, whining constantly about the lack of respect he got from other party leaders -- which seemed to only isolate him even more.

Come what may, Democrats built their organizations, their loyalties, their relationships independent of Rod Blagojevich. And broadcast images won't change that. If Democrats do poorly in November, it won't have anything to do with Rod Blagojevich. And if Democrats do better than expected, it won't have anything to do with Rod Blagojevich. It's not the rest of the party that isolated itself from Rod Blagojevich, but the former governor who isolated himself from the rest of the party. Voters may be mad, voters may even be disgusted by the rather despicable budget quandry that Blagojevich left as his primary legacy, but the Blagojevich trial won't be the straw that broke the voter's back. And the voters who do come out and vote this November aren't as likely to be the low-info voters that could be more easily persuaded by these Republican tactics.

Blagojevich dug his own grave. He won't be taking Illinois Democrats with him, because he didn't have much to do with Illinois' Democrats. This is the pol that seemed to want to circumvent the party and take everything "directly to the people." Which doesn't mean that Illinois' Democrats have an easy path before them. They just don't have the Blagojevich albatross dragging them down. Blagojevich won two primaries and two elections, but he didn't take over the party. This election will be fought over the state of the economy and how well the recovery is creating jobs in Illinois. I don't think either party can (credibly) promise to end corruption in the state, but voters might be interested in which one can (credibly) return Illinois to a predictable, stable job-creating environment...

OFA-Illinois' Sheena Patton talks to Team HOPE

Concerns about Alexi Giannoulias misguided

Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, taking his cues from Karl Rove, wants everyone to know that "people are concerned" about his Democratic opponent, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. One of these "concerns" that people are supposed to have is over Alexi's fund-raising prowess.

You see, Alexi only raised $1.2 million to Kirk's $2.2 million in this quarter. Kirk, of course, has benefitted greatly from his support from Wall Street firms and Big Banks, which he voted to bail out in the fall of 2008. And they are certainly rewarding Kirk for his support for the big banks.

Alexi, though, has taken a different tack. His ethical guidelines prevent him from taking money from corporate PACs, like those who have contributed more than 2 million dollars to Mark Kirk. Alexi is running to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate, not Wall Street. Kirk has already proven he'll sell his vote to the highest bidder (which rarely includes Illinois).

But, like most of Kirk's criticisms of Alexi, this one doesn't stand up, either. Alexi is squarely in the middle of Democratic Senate candidates, both incumbents and non-incumbents. No reason for concern -- unless you're Mark Kirk.

Alexi raised more money than Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector -- who's in a tight primary race right now. He raised twice as much as Democratic candidates in New Hampshire, Indiana and Ohio:

NV SEN: Sen. Harry Reid $1.75M
NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand $1.6 M
MO Sec/State Robin Carnahan ~$1.5 M
CO Sen. Michael Bennet $1.4 M
IL Treas. Alexi Giannoulias $1.2 M
PA Sen. Arlen Specter $1.16M
NH Rep. Paul Hodes $665 K
IN Rep. Brad Ellsworth $625 K
OH LG Lee Fisher $550 K
LA Rep. Charlie Melancon $543 k

So what's all the fuss about? Oh, yeah. Instead of talking about jobs, Kirk wants to attack Alexi. Instead of talking to the people of Illinois, Kirk wants to -- remember? -- attack Alexi. Whatever the question is, Kirk's answer is to attack Alexi.

The Karl Rove school of politics. Divide the nation, and suppress the vote. Sound familiar?

Democrats are supposed to be demoralized because we've nominated a bright, young, attractive reformer to be our nominee to fill Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. While Alexi Giannoulias can point to his head-of-the-pack leadership to save the jobs at HartMarx, Mark Kirk can point to... ANOTHER ATTACK on Alexi Giannoulias. Sense a theme here?

Mark Kirk thinks we're stupid. He thinks that if he can make Alexi a bad boy, Democrats will stay home, not vote or skip the race. And you can understand why. Conservatives are too fond of Kirk. Kirk's actual base may not go far outside his North Shore Congressional District. You won't see any Mark Kirk signs at a Tea Party rally (and don't say his name too loud, if you go). They aren't fans.

Alexi faces a stiff head wind. The national political environment doesn't favor Democrats. The economy is still in the dump for many of us. And Kirk is one of the most formidable candidates Republicans could offer.

But this is Illinois, and -- more importantly -- this is Barack Obama's old seat. Mark Kirk wants to make this race about Alexi Giannoulias, because he understands that Illinois would never elect him if this were about issues, if this was about who bests could represent OUR state in the U.S. Senate.

As this quarter's fundraising totals suggest, Mark Kirk has stepped-up his game. And now Alexi Giannoulias needs to do so, as well. Alexi remains an overly cautious candidate, one who stays well within his comfort zone. He's going to have to step outside that comfort zone and start pushing the envelope. But, in the end, this election is going to be about Illinois, not Alexi Giannoulias. It's going to be about who can best support our favorite son, in his Agenda for Hope and Change in Washington, D.C.

We understand that the East Coast corporate Fat Cats like Mark Kirk. There was really never any question about that. The question is, will Illinois elect someone who will carry Mitch McConnell's and the conservative Southern Republican leadership's water. Because no one expects Mark Kirk to bring an independent voice to the Senate. He's been George Bush's and Donald Rumsfeld's trooper in the House, and you can reasonably expect him to be Mitch McConnell's trooper in the Senate.

Illinois can do better than Mark Kirk, and we will...

Mark Kirk fails to answer questions (again)

Half way through the latest Congressional vacation, the AP headline said it all: Kirk won't say if he wants health care repealed. Kirk won't say -- again. Still. In perpetuity.

Mark Kirk is more than willing to talk to the New York Times and the Washington Post. He'd tell them, *if* they were interested in the Senate election here in Illinois. He's their boy. The ultimate D.C. insider, Mark Kirk is quick for a quote to the ultimate beltway insider media. But if the people here in Illinois have a question?

Mark Kirk won't say.

Mark Kirk had two weeks to spend here in Illinois. Did he sit down with the major media outlets like Alexi Giannoulias did for a whole day in the last month? Nope. Kirk couldn't be bothered.

Did Kirk spend more than a few minutes taking questions at any of his appearances around the state? Not according to any report I've seen.

Makes you wonder what Mark Kirk is hiding.

Look, I understand. Mark Kirk voted to bail out the big banks, but criticized Alexi Giannoulias for the fact that his family's community bank is in trouble. We'd like to know why Kirk wants to save the banks that have been his faithful campaign donors, but is so cavalier about banks that actually help people here in Illinios. And we'd like to know why Mark Kirk assured the conservative Club for Growth that he'd lead the efforts to repeal this historic Health Care Reform law, but has now changed his mind. Kinda sound familiar? He did the same thing with Cap and Trade. First he was for it, then he's against it. About what you'd expect from the ultimate Washington, D.C. insider.

People here in Illinois want to understand Mark Kirk's role in the GREATEST INTELLIGENCE FAILURE in our lifetime. We want to know why Mark Kirk has never stood up and voted against his very conservative leadership without their permission on a single whipped vote. We want to know why Kirk always seems to say one thing in private and another thing in public. We understand that Kirk has been dominated by powerful figures -- eg, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush -- and we are concerned that Kirk will go to the Senate and be dominated by powerful figures (like Mitch McConnell or John Coryn). We wonder why Kirk is so secretive and why he seems to know more about China than he does Illinois. Most of all, voters in Illinois are concerned that Mark Kirk is more likely to represent the hyper-conservative Republican leadership than he is the state (and voters) of Illinois.

This two-week Congressional recess should have given voters (and media) in Illinois the opportunity to get our questions answered. But Mark Kirk won't say.

These questions have been around for awhile (hence the video above). But Kirk continues to run a stealth campaign. An inside-the-beltway campaign. We get that Mark Kirk is a busy man, an very-important-person inside the D.C. beltway. But now he wants our votes to represent our state in the Senate seat formerly held by the President of the United States. Here in Illinois, we are still proud of our presidents. So electing someone who's primary goal will be to prevent our favorite son from achieving the goals that this country elected him to do doesn't exactly seem in our best interests.

But Mark Kirk won't say. Is it arrogance? Hubris? Are we an inconvenient burden for Kirk? Or has Kirk simply decided that we don't deserve to understand his thinking, or that he doesn't deserve to explain his part in our government failures?

Mark Kirk won't say, so he's attacking Alexi Giannoulias for things over which he (Alexi) had no control. Mark Kirk assured his constituents that he knew where the WMDS were in Iraq, but he won't explain why none have been found. Yet he was directly responsible for making that assurance -- assurances you can be sure he also made to the New York Times and the Washington Post in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq.

I get it. We're just little people here in Illinois. And Mark Kirk is a Very Important D.C. Insider. We shouldn't question him. We should just take the scraps that he's given us and accept them. Hey, isn't Kirk waving a flag? See! That should be good enough!

In other words, Kirk is telling us to trust him.

I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly in a trusting mood with regard to politicians. Especially Very Important D.C. Insiders. If Mark Kirk won't answer our questions, then Mark Kirk doesn't deserve our votes. Kirk represents what is wrong with Washington, D.C. He certainly hasn't demonstrated any interest in fixing the place.

Illinois Statehouse News offered another, more telling headline last week: Mark Kirk Says he won’t lead. This is a Senate seat with some history to it. Some of us would like a Senator who can lead, someone who can stand up to powerful interests (like Michael Madigan) and come away with a victory. We don't need a Senator who always says No -- there are things we'd like the Federal Government to do. We need a Senator who knows how to say Yes to Illinois, Yes to Illinois' interests and will represent them when he goes to Washington. The choice couldn't be more stark -- Mark Kirk, the ultimate beltway insider, or Alexi Giannoulias, an independent reformer who listens to the people here in Illinois and has gone out of his way to answer our questions...

Not even his supporters Trust Mark Kirk

You can't trust Mark Kirk. Even the right-wing conservative Club for Growth doesn't trust Kirk:

Now the Club for Growth, the powerful, well-funded conservative group, is ripping into Kirk for his sudden indecision, and making it clear that they expect him to live up to his promise.

“He said that he’s going to do this,” Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly just said by phone. “We expect him to live up to his pledge.”

Kirk has signed on to the Club’s repeal pledge, which states: “I hereby pledge to the people of my state to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

“He’s made a promise to the people of Illinois,” Connolly continued. Asked if failing to follow through could cost Kirk the Club’s support in a general election, Connolly said: “We’ll have to see.”

The Club's concern comes after Mark Kirk "repeatedly" refused to say "whether he wants the legislation repealed."

Mark Kirk is campaigning for Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat with a Beltway Insider strategy. He doesn't talk to Illinois voters, or local media, although he continues to take calls (and get covered) by the New York Times and Washington Post. But they don't ask him tough questions (like would he really -- REALLY? -- follow through with his pledge to repeal universal coverage, or ending denial for pre-existing conditions, or the practice of recission and lifetime limits on health coverage.

Instead, Mark Kirk dodges questions by Illinois voters and local media.

Apparently, because Kirk believes he can. Kirk's strategy in this campaign has been to attack Alexi Giannoulias for whatever he can think of. Broadway Bank followed the advice of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Attorney General's office with regards to enticing members of organized crime into disclosure and participation in the (above ground) economy? Mark Kirk won't tell you that numerous mobsters have been convicted and sent to prison (eg, Al Capone) because of the disclosure statements they gave to bankers -- because that would make his personal attacks on Alexi seem, well, ridiculous.

Nor will Mark Kirk tell you if he really means it when he promises to take away health care insurance from kids, young adults and older Americans.

The question we should ask ourselves is this: if Mark Kirk's most adament supporters can't trust him, why should we?

The dilemma Illinois voters face in contemplating their vote for U.S. Senate is this: Mark Kirk has never demonstrated any type of political courage during his service in Congress. He didn't stand up George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld when they were making decisions to invade Iraq based on the greatest intelligence failure in my lifetime. He's never stood up to the conservative Republican leadership on a whipped vote (without their permission) since he's been in the U.S. House. And now he can't stand up and admit that he's taken a controversial decision, one that isn't supported by the electorate here in Illinois or stand up to the right wing conservative Club for Growth when they are demanding that Kirk stick to his pledge.

You just can't trust Mark Kirk. He's never given us reason to trust him, and now his supporters are starting to recognize Kirk's lack of fortitude. There's no reason for Illinois to send him to the Senate. These tough times demand someone who can help bring the country forward, out of the abyss into which George Bush has driven us...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

How could public perception of the President's Health Care Bill change so dramatically since it was passed? Polls taken before the vote (eg, Bloomberg & CNN) showed less than 40 percent of those polled favored the legislation, while more than 50 percent opposed it. Yet right after the vote, the USA Today/Gallup Poll asked if respondents thought "it is a good thing or a bad thing that Congress passed this bill?" 49 percent said it was a good thing, while 40 percent thought it was a bad thing. that's a ten percent swing among results expressing favoring the bill, and almost a 20 percent swing among those who didn't (using the CNN results). How could that be?

Republican pollster Bill McInturff's analysis appears to have been right. McInturff told the Rothenberg Political Report that:

“People have a stunning amount of information about the fight over health care reform and Democratic efforts to pass a bill. There is the perception that there have been backroom deals — with Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, and with labor unions — to get support for a bill that isn’t to the public’s advantage.”

“People have come to the conclusion that it must be a bad bill, since if it were a good one, Democratic leaders wouldn’t have had to do what they did to get the votes to pass it,” McInturff continued.

I'd alter McInturff's conclusion just a bit: People seemed to have concluded that it must have been a bad bill (especially in light of all the negatives out there on both sides of the political spectrum), because if it were a good bill, Democrats would have the votes to pass it. Once Democrats *did* have the votes, the electorate flipped in its opinion about the bill.

We love our winners.


I love Art Turner. I voted for Art Turner. But I don't want the state Democratic Central Committee to vote him in as our Democratic Lt. Governor nominee.

I'd like to be able to tell you that I voted for Art Turner because he was the most qualified candidate in the race. But that's not why I cast my vote for Art. Rather, I voted for him because he was the only candidate to have asked me (personally) for my vote. I was trying to get him to come down to speak to our Team Obama group here in Flossmoor, but he was having none of it. "But will you vote for me?" Art persisted. So I did.

Art has shown that same persistence in the run-up to today's vote by the Democratic Central Committee members down in Springfield. He is the only one I know who has kept his campaign machinery intact, and used it effectively. Having said that, I don't think Art is the right person for this slot.

When Art Turner was running in the February primaries, we had no idea what the November ticket would look like. Justin Oberman was pounding Robin Kelly on television, and Robin never had the resources to answer. Raja Krishnamoorthi was on television touting his connection to Barack Obama, and David Miller was just introducing himself to the state. Outside of Lisa Madigan and Jesse White, we had no idea who would be on the Democratic ticket this November.

Now we do. We now know that three of the six positions for state government will be represented by African American Democrats. This should make us proud! No one can argue that African Americans would be demoralized by choosing someone other than Art Turner to run with Governor Pat Quinn.

No one has asked me, but it seems to me that one overriding concern and two secondary concerns should dictate who the State Central Committee chooses as our Lt. Governor nominee. First of all, who gives us the best chance for winning in the fall? This has to be the primary factor in electing a replacement for a(nother) candidate who would just have embarrassed Democrats. But a number of candidates would help Democrats win. So secondary consideration should be given to who will best help Governor Quinn and who would best help the Democratic party in Illinois?

Here's the unique aspect to this place that Democrats in Illinois have found themselves in: No downstate Democrat (meaning, no Democrat outside of Cook County) is likely to win statewide office in a contested primary. Look at what happened to Paul Mangieri of Knox County in 2006 (with the Democratic endorsement and its money) and Terry Link of Lake County in 2010. Cook County represents such a huge portion of the Democratic primary vote that it is difficult, if not impossible, for someone outside of Cook to win in a contested primary.

But this isn't the primary. Now we are talking about the general election, where Cook County is, at best, a third of the likely vote. My issue with Art Turner's selection is that this would lock Quinn and Democrats into a Chicago-centric race with an exhausted, and perhaps even demoralized, political organization being expected to turn out the votes. No political strategist wants a single pathway to victory, partially because it makes one's strategy obvious to everyone. Republicans would be handed the initiative, the ability to choose among various political strategies by which to neutralize Gov. Quinn and the Democratic ticket.

If I had my druthers, I'd have wanted a candidate out of Will County, just because it would geographically have optimized all possible paths to victory. Of course, there isn't a candidate from Will County, and hypotheticals get us nowhere.

Choosing a candidate from downstate gives the Democratic ticket not only geographical diversity, but it also gives downstate Democrats a reason to stay engaged in the party. Downstate Democrats could hope to be the next U.S. Senator -- or the next Lt. Governor. Regional diversity is just as relevant as other forms of diversity, and we shouldn't ignore it. We should also realize that there are not that many opportunities to promote regional diversity, so we should take advantage of this one while it's here.

The fact is Democrats could lose this fall. Mark Kirk is perhaps the strongest Republican on the ballot in recent memory. Rod Blagojevich will rear his ugly head this summer. Judy Barr Topinka begins her "I told you so, Illinois" tour at the same time. Republicans have targeted Democratic seats here in the Congress, in the state Senate and in the state House.

Sure, we'll still have Toni Preckwinkle, and Democrats in Cook County could very well begin a new era of Reform and Renewal under her guidance.

What Democrats of all kinds have to accept is that the Democratic Party is a BIG, F*@king tent and we don't always agree (let alone get along). We are a multicultural entity, even as we are constantly fighting for our own to get ahead. Today is the day for that tradition -- that albatross, at times -- to persist...

Our President, in "Preacher Mode"

President Obama, in preacher mode before he returns to professor mode...

Sen. Hutchinson: "We haven't been doing that for the last 25-30 years"

State Sen. Toi Hutchinson gave an impassioned speech yesterday for ending Illinois' budget crisis that has paralyzed Illinois' economy, paralyzed Illinois' social agencies, and paralyzed Illinois' future.

"We are in a crisis," Hutchinson says. "We're in a crisis right now."

Hutchinson's comment comes at a time when Illinois -- and the country -- is divided, and distrust of government is near all-time highs. But Sen. Hutchinson argues that Springfield is broken, and it's time to stand up, fix it, do the right thing and have the courage to lead.

This is not your father's Democrat.

Sen. Hutchinson is not risk-adverse. She believes in speaking the truth -- even when it's not what people want to hear (but we need to hear). Hutchinson is not only a newly-appointed state Senator (surviving a brutal nomination process), but she serves the 40th Senate District, which includes several of the most active Tea Party chapters in Illinois. A straight-shooter, Hutchinson previously wrote:

I remember all of the things I used to say about the General Assembly -- as a taxpayer, a voter, and a mom. I wanted representatives who believed in people, who could engage in meaningful and principled debate, and who weren’t afraid to fight for basic democratic principles. We need more from our legislators.

It’s a toxic political environment, which makes for pretty rough waters. But master sailors are never trained in calm seas. Leaders lead, regardless of the consequences.

That has not been the tradition in Illinois politics of late. While the 1990s saw the growth of "the Combine," the election of Rod Blagojevich toppled many of the prior assumptions in Springfield. Blagojevich's desperate need to be viewed as "top dog" (or should i say, the King) paralyzed Illinois state government long before the economy was paralyzed by the worst recession since the Great Depression.

But neither Blagojevich or his nemesis, Speaker Madigan, can be blamed for the ponzi-scheme financing that state governments undertook to achieve "balanced" budgets in the last decade or so. These accounting tricks and various sleights of hand were invented elsewhere, and utilized by all sides (Governor and legislature, Republicans and Democrats) in virtually every state to hide the true costs of government. In the 21st century, Americans expected to get everything for less, including government -- although we grumbled when that expectation effected our incomes.

That bubble has now burst. Governments at all levels have kicked the can down the road, borrowing against our futures to fund public services (like roads, public safety and education), and the bills are now coming due. More significantly, the Republican theory that charity, not government, could step in to provide the economic and social safety net that our unemployed, our poorest, our most disadvantaged citizens require has been proven wrong. Charities, non-profits and social agencies are critically threatened -- some even closing their doors -- due to the economic downturn, just as they are needed most. It doesn't help that the state is behind in its payments to the agencies that contracted with the state of Illinois to provide public services to people in need. But the economy has simply meant that fewer people are able to donate, and their donations, when they give, tend to be smaller.

Sen. Hutchinson understands. "We cannot afford to continue to do phantom economics and voodoo accounting," Hutchinson said, "and balance this budget on the backs of the people who need us most. Their backs are broken now."

Hutchinson lashed out at the Party of No that says "No to Families, No to Children, No to Social Services that keep our most vulnerable people safe, we are playing politics with people's lives."

No one wants to pay higher taxes -- everyone wants to get stuff (like services) for free. But our days of paying for government on credit or hiding its real costs have come to an end. As Sen. Hutchinson says, "Funding government is the right thing to do." Government has an important role in our society, and an important role to play in a healthy economy. Contrary to what some believe, a strong government is vital to a strong free market economy. Economies are transactional in character, amoral in nature, and require a perception among participants that those transactions are fair, transparent and above board. Weak governments tend to spawn oligarchic economies, where consumers are exploited, and socio-economic mobility is virtually unheard of. A global capitalist economy like ours requires a strong government with the ability to enforce its rules, not just here at home but abroad. There is no free market without a strong government.

For those who want to argue with examples like Hong Kong, and other free market economies that grew under the protection of the U.S. government, I merely note that, yes, we paid for their protection, too. That's what happens when one is a superpower. We're number one. But that has both costs and rewards. We must bear those costs to reap those rewards.

Illinois has fared worse than other large states because it was an anchor in our manufacturing base. Not as bad as Michigan, but bad nonetheless. So Illinois has to face the challenges of the worst economic downturn most of us have ever seen, a political paralysis that could have been a script to a Keystone Kops film, an economic engine (Chicago) that has had its own difficulties crawling into the 21st century, and a political/legislative system that has struggled to keep up with all these changes.

Sen. Hutchinson offers a vision for a better future for Illinois. Her challenge is for our political leaders to, well, lead:

I will continue to push for a solution that will result in Illinois getting back on solid financial ground because it is a fight worth fighting. There is a direct correlation between the taxes we pay and the services we provide. The state of Illinois has a responsibility to educate our children, ensure the safety of our residents, and care for our seniors and veterans. On top of all of that, and especially in this time of recession, we cannot cut services that vulnerable citizens rely on to get back on their feet. Fear, hunger, drug addiction, homelessness, aging, foreclosures, or unforeseen health challenges are all equal opportunity stressors for many people in our communities.

These are not Democrat or Republican issues. Just reality. I’m not fighting for taxes; I’m fighting for people.

That's the kind of politician we need in Springfield. A reality-based leader who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and brings a shovel when she comes to work. Because there is lots of work to do.

Hat tips to Progress Illinois and much appreciation for all the work they do!

Who Will Replace Linzey Jones as Mayor?

Olympia Fields Mayor Linzey Jones won the Democratic nomination in the Lipinski vacancy in the 15th judicial subcircuit, virtually guaranteeing him a spot on the bench next year. As a judge, Jones will vacate his position as mayor. So the question is, who will replace Jones as mayor of Olympia Fields?

Several people have suggested to me that former Trustee Al Riley would be the "best" replacement for Jones, but Riley has dual positions as state Rep and Rich Township supervisor. But most people, including the Rich Township Democratic committeeman, think that unlikely.

Others think that one of the Olympia Fields Trustees (Carolyn Gibson, Shirley Nale, Susan Ormsby, Willis Pennington, Debra Meyers-Martin and Kelvin Oliver) will replace Jones. If that is the case, then someone will have to be appointed to replace them on the Board of Trustees.

I won't speculate as to who will replace Linzey Jones as the mayor of Olympia Fields, but it is certainly something I am watching, given its impact on the rest of the South Suburbs.