In our original Howard The Coward post, we noted how Mayor Howard Frimark was afraid to let his constituents vote on an advisory referendum about whether the City should spend millions of dollars on a new police station.
Today we reprise the “Howard the Coward” nickname for Frimark’s latest act of cowardice: his rejection of First Ward Alderman (and mayoral candidate) Dave Schmidt’s proposal of a minimum of eight mayoral debates, one in each ward and one city-wide.
The fact that it took Frimark less than 48 hours to just say “no” to Schmidt’s proposal is no surprise to those of us who have watched Frimark’s performance in public life, first for two years as an alderman and then during his past 3-1/2 years as mayor. That’s because Frimark doesn’t have enough knowledge or understanding of City issues to carry him through more than one or two debates, even with as much prep work as his political brain, Linda Ski, can muster.
According to this week’s Herald Advocate article, “Schmidt wants eight debates” (December 23), Frimark’s objection to individual ward-focused debates is that the mayoral race is city-wide, so separate ward debates aren’t necessary. Apparently “The Coward” doesn’t appreciate the fact that various areas of the City have specific interests that can’t possibly be adequately discussed in city-wide debates – unless they go for six or eight hours.
Hey, Howard, don’t you think those folks up in Mayfield Estates might have some flooding concerns – or related concerns about relief sewers and other infrastructure elements – which are different from those of folks in the First or Seventh wards? And isn’t it possible that the folks in the Six and Seventh wards might have a bigger stake and deeper interest in what is happening with the “Higgins Corridor” than do the residents in the First and Second wards?
Interestingly enough, Howard the Coward has already committed to a debate hosted by the Chamber of Commerce on “economic issues,” so his objection to debates on limited issues rings hollow.
If we remember correctly, the only actual “debate” Frimark showed up for during the 2005 mayoral campaign was the Chamber of Commerce’s luncheon held at the Park Ridge Country Club on March 16, 2005 ($25 for Chamber members, $30 for non-members) – Frimark subsequently used his wife’s fender-bender auto accident as an eleventh-hour alibi to pull out of the League of Women Voters debate at City Hall, leaving then-challenger Michael Tinaglia to do a monologue for a packed Council chambers audience.
Of course, a luncheon debate at the Park Ridge Country Club that costs $25-30 a ticket is likely to limit the audience to a size and type most hospitable to Howard the Coward; and a “luncheon” duration conveniently limits the number of questions he has to answer.
So when it comes to debates about City issues, it appears that eight is way more than enough for Howard the Coward.
19 comments so far
The lengthy debates will never happen. Howard is all over talking behind people’s backs. When it comes to face to face debate he is afraid.
As I have said in other posts, this election is going to be loads of fun!!!!! I am all for debates. It does not bother me a bit!!! We could have a debate every Sunday for the entire election.
But you are honestly telling me that there is such incredible differentiation by ward in a town of approximately 37,000 freakin people that 8 debates are required for the voters to adequately get the information they require to choose a candidate. Of course the candidates are going to need to address any issue that is in hot in a particular ward. I would imagine they will be having meet and greets etc. But an official debate for each ward?? Perhaps we should also add debates by stated religious affiliation – I wonder if the Catholics have different concerns then the Lutherans. What about age? Height? How about shoe size?
How many debates would you like for a governers race? What about a race for president?
So I like to search the web and I found Alderman Dave’s web site. I should stipulate that I like him in gerneral and, unless something dramatic happens, he has my vote. But I looked at the issues tab. These are all general citywide issues. He did not break down his issues by ward. He did not think there was a need to differentiate by ward, or perhaps he did not have time yet. His own web site which is selling and defining him to the citizens of PR does not breakdown issues by ward and yet he throws out a challenge related to a need to have a debate by ward??
It plays very nicely into the whole culture of secrecy strategy. Let the games begin!!!
A12:05,
You slay me! Once again you come to the discussion with your usual “I agree, but…” and proceed to offer all manner of “reasoning” for why what you pretend to agree with is not what you agree with!
I’m wondering how you get dressed in the morning! I envision the process to be something like, “I should wear a shirt that matches my pants, as we all agree that going out in public without a shirt is not all that acceptable. BUT!!!! I don’t think that the law demands that I wear a shirt if I’m out in my own yard on a hot day doing yard work, even if that is considered being out in public! I’m on my own property! Are you going to tell me that I have to wear a shirt? Why? Because you don’t want to look at my fat belly? That’s ridiculous! I know Alderman Schmidt supports the wearing of shirts in public, and I agree with him on that! BUT! Blah blah blah blah”
Absolutely slay me!
I like the one per ward idea. Have you seen the crowds that have shown up at city hall lately? Did anyone attend the City council meetings that got pulled into the gymnasiums of the schools? I would like to attend a debate where I had the chance of asking the candidates a question.
And of course there are different issues for different wards. EOP didn’t affect the 7th Ward and Higgins Corridor doesn’t affect the 1st Ward and the Youth Campus doesn’t affect the 4th Ward and the new casino dosen’t affect the 5th Ward….. If I gave it another five minutes I am sure we could come up with a whole lot more….
anon on 12.26.08 12:05 pm:
Your argument against more debates is just stupid, as shown by your examples…unless you want to identify specific “Lutheran” or “Catholic” city issue, or specific city “height” issues. Equally stupid are your comparison of our race for mayor and races for governor or president.
Debates are the best way to compare candidates and ideas, which explains why a lightweight like Frimark would want no part of them. Heck, we could have one whole debate just letting Frimark answer all the questions and explain his dereliction of duty re O’Hare expansion.
I will definitely attend the debate in my ward. I wonder if Howard will answer truthfully to questions asked regarding his insurance business dealings with the Norwood and PRC developers. I have heard rumors that Howard was given big insurance contracts on Condominium buildings in Des Plaines in exchange for his vote and support with the developers here in Park Ridge. I am so sick of Howard’s deals! I can understand that Robert Ryan’s loyalty to Howard is due to the Traffic Studies that are given to his firm. I am sure Allegretti is getting something out of the deal. But what is Bach getting? or is Bach truly just that stupid?
see….other issues…case and point.;~)
Just because Schmidt doesn’t break out issues by ward on his website doesn’t mean there aren’t issues that affect one ward more than another. And even if there weren’t individual ward issues, the idea of having one debate per ward is still a good idea for getting more people to participate in the process.
A1:55,
One could say that Alderman Schmidt fully recognizes there are issues that affect each ward, individually. That may well be the reason Alderman Schmidt has suggested 7 individual ward debates, while keeping his campaign web site more general in nature, and ultimately more readable.
How many tens of thousands of dollars will Howard the Coward spend this time around to snow the voter while avoiding going one-on-one with Schmidt in debate? I’m betting at least the $80,000 plus he spent in 2005.
Kind of makes you wonder….
Howard spends about 100K on an election for a position that only pays him what? 1k a month? 12k a year? What did Schmidt spend on his campaign for alderman?
My guess would be not very much considering he ran unopposed.
It would be a great way to judge who is more of a fiscally responsible person to compare the money being spent.
If that is a true measurement then we elected the wrong president.
I have never cared how much the politicians spend of their own money. I care how much of my money they spend, or want to spend, and on what they want to spend it.
I generally agree with you, Sunshine, although I think that the amount of money spent in getting elected deserves a little scrutiny, especially in local elections in small communities like ours, where it should be a lot easier for candidates to connect with the voters without spending a ton of dough.
According to Watchdog, Frimark spend almost $28,000 just on Linda Ski during his last mayoral campaign. And I recall that Tinaglia spent as much or more on his political guru. That’s a lot of cash for a $12,000/yr job.
anon 4:02:
I guess I agree with the general premis behind your post. It is crazy how much people to get elected for political positions across the board. The problem is that if I use that as a major deciding factor in who I vote for then I don’t vote for anyone. It seems to me they all do it. They entire system is broken.
As an example, look at the illinois state representative race. I was buried in mailers from the two candidates. My mail man an I had an ongoing joke about it. When you look at what these two spent versus what the position pays it is crazy.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=244429
It would appear that each spent between 2-300,000 K (at least) for a job that pays $55,788.
Of course the biggest violation is the president. Look what Obama spent!! If I am not mistaken the president makes $400,000.
Anon on 12/30/08 @ 8:41 a.m.
The “system” isn’t “broken,” it’s just being manipulated by the special interests – who are enabled in that manipulation by the people who choose not to vote or who cast uninformed votes because they can’t be bothered to actually study and make value judgments about the candidates and the issues.
Granted, the lesser of two evils is still evil, but rejecting the system because neither of your choices is optimal (or even good) is like doing nothing when your doctor tells you that either they amputate your cancerous leg or the cancer will spread and you will die.
The special interests want you to throw in the towel and give up your Constitutional rights to self-governance. It makes it easier for them to control elections with fewer special-interest voters. Why do you think incumbents hate big turnouts?
In 2005, Mayor Coward won his office with a meager 4,889 votes (v. 3,225 for Tinaglia) out of approximately 24,000 registered Park Ridge voters. So a little over 20% of the registered Park Ridge voters elected him.
PD:
I would NEVER not vote!! I am sorry if that somehow came through in my post. I was responding to a prior poster that using spending versus what the office pays as a barometer is virtually impossible becuase all of them spend many multiples of what the office pays.
One could argue that the system could be improved by more solid regulations on contributions and spending limits. Of course, they would always find a way to get around that.
The Obama case is interesting in that one could argue that he was a big part about of turnout and interest in the elcetion was so high and yet he also raised and spent 3-4 times more then his opponent.
Your last paragraph is the most painful. As I have said here before it amazes me about all the seemingly intelligent, motivated and angry I see on the blogs with legitimate concerns about their elected officials, and yet one looks at the stats you provided, or the fact that in many wards the Aldermen ran an uncontested race.
It seems like sometime it takes a great deal of pain before the population in general really gets involved. I know you are trying to do your part.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>