So essentially you argument is no matter who is running, vote Republican. The Republican Party could put up two complete idiots against the two Democrats you mention above and they would have received your endorsement.

I have to imagine that Mr. McAuliffe and Ms. Sweeney must be at home at the moment simply beeming at your kind words and endorsement!!!!!

As an aside, I already voted and, related to the Sweeney/Moylan race, I did so while holding my nose. The nightly mailers from each candidate (or PAC) hammering their opponent with no explaination of their own policies or solutions was enough to make me puke!!!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not only could the Republican Party put up “two idiots,” it could put up two morons or two ibeciles, thereby exhausting the lower-archy of mental defectives. And in each case, the State of Illinois would be better off if those idiots, morons or imbeciles would prevent Mike Madigan from retaining the Speaker’s chair.

While we happen to think that Mr. McAuliffe and Ms. Sweeney are capable candidates who deserve to be elected to the House on their own merits over their opponents, the point of today’s post is that Madigan is a virulent cancer that already has metastasized throughout the General Assembly and threatens to become terminal if not removed. And since his own district is a hopeless cause, only the election of a Republican House majority can accomplish that.

While getting rid of Madigan is an admirable goal, simply voting Republican isn’t the solution. And blaming “pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-voucher, pro-pension” voters for failing to step up to the plate? I don’t think so. Corruption in Illinois crosses party lines, as your list of shamed governors indicates.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Getting rid of Madigan is not “an admirable goal”: it is a sine qua non imperative for restoring good, honest, responsible government to this state. And anybody who votes for a Democratic House candidate is helping condemn Illinois to at least another two years of irresponsible, corrupt, cronyistic government.

How dare those broads think that self-determination when it comes to when and if they have children to support in this faux pro-family environment has anything to do with economics?

EDITOR’S NOTE: For most people, two martinis is enough. In your case, one is probably more than sufficient.

Thanks, PW. We don’t really trade up with Republican candidates (Hi, Rosemary Mulligan!) but Sweeney, McAuliffe and O’Donnell (for State Senate) will definitely help rein in spending, and perhaps even rein in the income tax hike.

Abortion on demand will remain law in Illinois. I don’t think we’ll see any Dakota-style legislation to send as a “test case” to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have very big fiscal problems with lots of zeroes that need to be tackled right away. And Madigan isn’t doing it because he gets a lot of the zeroes.

I just took my small step to get Illinois back on the right path. Thanks for helping me see this in the right light.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re welcome.

I’m glad I checked your blog this morning. The only race I hadn’t made up my mind on was Sweeney/Moylan. Seeing that you seem so sold on Sweeney. I will be voting Moylan.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Glad to help. We’re sure Speaker Madigan is grateful for your continuing support.

How can you even think of saying Sweeney is a capable candidate…..based on what experience?

EDITOR’S NOTE: For starters, based on her lack of those kinds of “experience” that have let politicians like Moylan and Madigan turn this state into the sick joke it is. We also think her views, ideas and goals are every bit the equal of, or better than, Moylan’s.

But going back to the point of the post, unlike Moylan, Ms. Sweeney is not going to be a Madigan lackey. And that, all by itself, should be all the endorsement needed.

I’d rather have a Madigan lackey then another Trizna lacky.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for demonstrating the enduring correctness of one of H. L. Mencken’s best-known quotes: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Sweeney does not even live in her District. She is a tool for the Republicans.
Moylan has my vote all the way!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Illinois being the dysfunctional mess that it is, Sweeney can legally run for the Madigan/Democrat-gerrymandered 55th district seat without living in that district.

And poetic justice being what it is, if Moylan wins you’re likely to get the kind of government you deserve.

I don’t normally mind a Trizna lackey – the current park ridge mayor and a number of other good government repugs are. But I do mind Trizna, mr. financial responsibility, shilling for an empty suit-ette like Ms. Sweeney. Her heartless and brainless positions represent Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” very nicely.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In these kinds of discussions, “heartless” usually is code for “doesn’t want to spend other people’s money foolishly.” But “brainless” is far too benign a term for somebody who would analogize Ms. Sweeney and her campaign positions to Adolph Eichmann and his Nazi war crimes.

Time to tilt your tin-foil hat in a different direction, Zippy.

Susan was so close. The local GOP officials in Maine Township showed tGOP wing of heir true colors. They are the epitome of the “Combine” which has brought this state to its knees. They should all resign, starting with each and every member of the Maine Township Board who sold out Susan to cozy up with a Madigan acolyte and ending with Rosemary who is and has always been am embarassment to the Republican Party.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No offense intended, Huh?, but the Republican Party in Illinois is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. It appears to have no precinct organization, and what passes for its “leadership” at the state and county level is almost laughable – with the Maine Twp. “organization” being an outright joke.

But we expect the sun to come up tomorrow, so life goes on.

I agree completely with your editor’s comment. Susan ran as a true Republican and nearly won without the local Republican organization lifting a finger to help her (except for the GOP Women who appear to be the only game in town now). And now, the Maine Township Republicans are directly responsible for helping maintain Madigan’s control over this State. Shameful.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Big Jim” Thompson sold the soul of the Illinois Republican Party when he was governor; “Slim Jim” Edgar let it stay sold; and George “Color him Convict Orange” Ryan nuked whatever was left of that soul. Tom Cross and Christine Rodogno and Pat Brady don’t have the chops to reclaim that soul – they’re playing checkers while Madigan is playing 3-dimensional political chess – so unless and until Illinois adopts legislative redistricting on the Iowa model rather than the traditional gerrymandering, the Republican Party is unlikely to have any realistic chance of a resurgence anytime soon. And that leave Illinois in the hands of Madigan.

“…..No offense intended, Huh?, but the Republican Party in Illinois is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. It appears to have no precinct organization….”

It seems that the R party also has organization issues on a national level. That is a part of the explaination for why Mitt lost to an administration that has by no means set the economy on fire. But (you knew there was a but)…….

It is also policy!!!!! I know your argument was very simply vote against Madigan, and I understand the argument. Unfortunately for your case, people do look at policy. When you as a party have what many folks see as very extreme poitions (along with some visible nut bags…..bye bye Walsh!!!) it makes it a very difficult climb, especially in a state like Illinois.

To restate the case, you wanted the electorate to only focus only on the Illinois financial crisis and Madigan. In discussions with many of my PR friends and neighbors Sweeney was linked (justifiable or not) to many of her parties extreme positions (economic and social).

So you can talk organization and gerrymandering all you want, but policy played a role as well.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Like “policy played a role” in the re-election of indicted-and-already-expelled-from-the-General-Assembly-once Rep. Derrick Smith?

The state and local Republican organizations couldn’t run a one-car funeral, which just makes it even easier for Madigan to keep kicking their butts.

Totally agree with the comments about the Illinois GOP. The current party legislative leaders aren’t the ones who will bring it back. I don’t know who will.

The other thing I’m not sure about: Will it be January or February when Madigan makes permanent the 67% income tax increase?

EDITOR’S NOTE: So long as Madigan continues to run Illinois and is allowed to gerrymander/redistrict the states legislative districts, the Republicans are toast except for the occasional one-offs.

Your post was too broad in scope and didn’t focus enough on good candidates that are running in Park Ridge area. I voted for Sweeney and would have loved to see her win.

Your blog could have focused on the two candidates for that district over the past ninety days and help make the case for her.

Instead you tried to paint a broad base case of why we need to get rid of Madigan. While I agree with you 100% that he needs to go, the effort has to be done locally of which your opinion has influence.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Frankly, if getting rid of the one elected official most responsible for the death spiral of this state for the past 30 years isn’t enough motivation to vote AGAINST Moylan and FOR Sweeney, there is nothing else – absolutely nothing – we could have done.

Well now. What a great night for America. You and your Tea Party friends must be scratching your heads. Oh and I know what you’re going to say…”I’m not a Tea Party person.” Please. You, your girlfriend and the rest the group, all the way to the top of ticket, got your “role of government” heads handed to you last night.

But now, let’s look away from the big picture and back to little corner of the world you belong… After years of this political death march in trying to promote the “role of government” as nothing more than a dictate to do as little as possible, you and your Mayor have really screwed this town. Instead of working with elected government officials to secure Park Ridges’ interests, you have alienated them.

I’m sure your “editor’s note” will call in question what you and your Mayor could have possibly done cause that? Look around. The recent redistricting was not a mere redrawing of the lines. It was a deliberate “slicing and dicing” of Park Ridge to eliminate any elected official (Republican or Democrat) from having to deal with the current regime. In the last few weeks of the election all the campaigns pulled their major guns out of Park Ridge because the actual polling showed the slicing had in fact neutered it. For years Park Ridge was a political force to be reckoned with. Now, thanks to you and your Mayor, we are nothing but “a small contingent of voters.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: For the record, the editor/publisher of this blog thinks every election is “a great night [and day] for America.” Moreover, he has no affiliation of any type with any “Tea Party” organization – whatever that term might mean to you or anybody else. Nor is anyone affiliated with this blog “scratching [his/her] head” in wonderment about what went on yesterday – other than to wonder just how far under Madigan’s thumb this state has slipped that not only can he retain a Democratic majority in the House so easily after a 30-year record of corruption, decline and decay, but that he can engineer the re-election of a representative, Derrick Smith, who is not only under indictment for accepting bribes but who has been expelled from the Illinois House once already.

The only other thing we wonder about is just how delusional you need to be to even claim that this one blog and its editor have so terrified Mike Madigan that he cut up Park Ridge into three sections in order to “neuter” the hotbed of insurrection we have created here in Park Ridge. Park Ridge hasn’t been “a political force to be reckoned with” since Marty Butler was mayor.

Rosemary was the only UN-embarrassing thing about the Republicans because she stuck with the good government financial issues and did not insert the government into families’ personal decisions, even under pressure from her party. If her turning purple was partly revenge on the Maine Twp. cabal, it’s no worse than what they did to her, “accidentally” messing up her petitions. Educated suburban women will not relinquish their own control of their own destinies, especially when it takes two incomes for many families to give their children a middle-class existence. In the national fight between Susan Sweeney and her “let’s hope the fellas do right by us” mindset and Rosemary Mulligan, a majority of Catholic, Republican, fiscal conservatives will pick Rosemary and whomever she annoints. The reader you malign about martinis and tinfoil hats is not the one under the influence or getting messages from outer space.

EDITOR’S NOTE: At least two problems with your argument: (a) not even 500 of those “Catholic, Republican, fiscal conservatives” were willing to validly sign Rosie’s nominating petitions; (b) as the Republican committeman, Rosie was the head of that “Maine Twp. [Republican] cabal” that “accidentally” messed up her petitions, so she wears the jacket for that half-baked organization; and (c) only 46 of those “Catholic, Republican, fiscal conservatives” were willing to write in Rosie’s name on the primary ballot, v. 2,223 write-ins for Ms. Sweeney.

Rosie wouldn’t know “good government financial issues” if they bit her on the butt and announced “we’re here.” She got elected as a one-trick pony Republican, and she leaves the legislature as a one-trick pony Democrat.

Dear Anon. 9:09 am: Let’s define what you mean by “role of government”. I’ll give you my definition.

What it is: Smaller government, yes. Focuses on public services such as police, fire, ambulance, schools, etc. Like Reagan, I believe in a true safety net.

What it’s not: A license to use taxpayer money to pay off an empire full of political patrons who bankrupted Illinois. That’s my issue with Madigan, et. al.

@9:09, I am happy that Obama has been re-elected but I don’t for a second think that national politics has anything to do — or needs to have anything to do — with how PR is run from a fiscal perspective. Being “a political force” or not should have no bearing whatsoever on a City government that is non-partisan.

Why are you happy Obama’s been re-elected?

Why are you happy Obama’s been re-elected Mr. Touhy? I’m not 2:13 PM and I’m not speaking for him/her, but there is not a reason, when you compare him to Romney, that I am not happy he’s been reelected. However, since we are the subject, I will give on absolute. It is Obama’s opinion of the role of government….

“The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function as commander-in-chief, that is something that I’ve worked on and thought about every single day that I’ve been in the Oval Office.

“But I also believe that government has the capacity, the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the American people can succeed.”

Dear Anon. 11.07 at 9:08 pm: Can you please be more specific as to what those “ladders” and “frameworks” really are? It sounds like the kind of language central planners use in a Washington, D.C., conference room, oblivious to the fact that they rarely work in the real world. Please be specific. Bonus points for citing where in the U.S. Constitution the specifics are cited.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The U.S. Constitution? Seriously, FWT? That was written by a bunch of dead white guys – what did they know? 🙂

Can’t we all just get along? Maybe we need to have a beer summit like our dear leaders.. Maybe at the new Whole Foods after it’s built? Say, 5:05pm a week after it opens? Wouldn’t want to injure anyone on the way home!

And Pub Dog, you should tell your minion, err, the mayor that he should keep running this town EXACTLY as it has been run. You both are doing a great job! 🙂 In all seriousness, Mayor Dave has my family’s support and has been one of the better supporters of Park Ridge in recent history!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We dislike “minion”s – as well as “shills,” “lackeys,” “puppets,” “tools,” “sycophants” and such ilk. Even when they agree with us. But we do think Mayor Schmidt is doing a damn sight better job than his predecessor…which we realize was not a very high bar in the first instance, but Schmidt has soared over it.

To FWT, I’m not Anon. 11.07 at 9:08 pm but off the top of my head I can name a couple “ladders” that you seem to be so skeptical about…Pell grants, disaster/drought assistance, energy assistance.

I’m guessing based on the tone of your question that your response would be that because you don’t benefit personally from those programs, they are without merit. I disagree. As does much of the electorate, as Tuesday’s results indicate. As much as people may wish it were so, we don’t live in a bubble.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re right, we don’t “live in a bubble”: we live in a country with a national debt – already at $16.25 TRILLION – that (depending on whose figures you believe) is growing at the rate of anywhere from $3.5 billion to over $4 billion per day! That’s $1.277 Trillion a year.

Even Simpson-Bowles – that Draconian plan to chip away at our annual deficits that would have required tax hikes and a 15-cent federal gas tax, that would have killed or capped most tax deductions and credits (including deductions for home mortgages and employer-provided health insurance), that would have chopped Social Security payments, that would have imposed deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, that would have chopped military spending, and that would have cut into “Pell grants, disaster/drought assistance [and] energy assistance” – wouldn’t prevent the national debt from continuing to INCREASE through at least 2022, by at least another $3 Trillion.

Unfortunately (or fortunately for all you big government spending fans), neither the socialist-types like Jan Schakowsky nor the reactionary-types like Paul Ryan who were on that Simpson Bowles committee could bring themselves to support its recommendations; and Pres. Obama walked away from those recommendations even though he himself commissioned the commmittee.

It’s been reported that approximately 1,870,000 households make up the top 1% of household incomes, and their average annual income of is $1.2 million. Cumulatively, therefore, their incomes total $2.244 Trillion. So if they were taxed at 50%, the amount of their incomes confiscated by the U.S. Treasury would just barely cover the current annual debt increase.

Is that a plan you can get behind, Anon, or would you prefer a higher tax rate than 50% on those one percent-ers?

Dear Anon. at 11:15 am:

How dare you presume that my “response would be that because (I) don’t benefit personally from those programs, they are without merit.”

I will have you know that I give away about 15% of my income to charitable organizations. I’m quite happy to do it, precisely because others benefit.

Government is a far different matter. Pell grants, for example, sound great — but where in the U.S. Constitution is it prescribed that the federal government should pay for people’s college education? Closer to home, is it right for $400,000 of property tax money to be used by Napleton for cleaning up his abandoned car delaership property? That’s corporate welfare.

Disaster relief? We might consider that a proper example of maintaining the safety and security of the republic. Fair enough. What do you mean by “drought assistance”? What do you mean by “energy assistance”?

We don’t live in a bubble; we live in a republic, which is governed according to a time-tested Constitution. True, the Constitution doesn’t forbid “energy assistance” but as the editor of this blog points out, we’ve been spending too much and we now face some hard choices.

Who is going to make those hard choices? As you pointed out, there was an election this past Tuesday. We all sent back a president, 100 senators and 435 representatives who are charged with figuring it out. The Constitution tells them the rules. They now have to make the decisions.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Calm down, FWT. There will always be people – unfortunately, the number seems to be increasing in this country, on both the left AND the right – who want to ensure their profits are privatized, but that their losses are socialized by the government (a/k/a, the taxpayers), thereby minimizing the risks of every decision they make. And that’s occurring locally, as you touched on with your 15% voluntary contribution to charitable organizations v. the involuntary City-mandated tax-assessed contributions to local community groups that were the rule until recently; or the $350K interest-free loan the City Council foolishly made to former city manager Jim Hock, who already has missed his repayment deadline and now wants the City to carry for another year while he waits for the real estate market to let him recoup more of his purchase price.

Thanks for the soothing words, PW, but the facts you cite just rankle all the more.

In other news….

• A public hearing on the D-64 tax levy will be held at 7 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 12 at Carpenter School, 300 N. Hamlin Ave., Park Ridge. Public comments also are invited at the start of the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m.

• Comments or questions may be directed at any time to members of the board of education or Supt. Philip Bender.

Bender can be reached at [email protected] and board members’ contact information is available on the Dist. 64 website.

• Public comments also are invited prior to adoption of the final levy, which is scheduled for the regular board meeting on Monday, Dec. 10 at 7:30 p.m. at the Dist. 64 Educational Service Center (ESC), 164 S. Prospect Ave., Park Ridge

Full story at http://www.journal-topics.com/news/article_0ef34988-2aaa-11e2-86e3-001a4bcf6878.html

EDITOR’S NOTE: The City Council’s first levy discussion is at tonight’s COW, 505 Butler Place, 7:00 p.m. We love the fact that all these tax levy decisions – which already are too arcane for the vast majority of the taxpayers and most of our elected officials – seem to be scheduled for the holiday season and all its distractions.

FWT, I apologize for my assumption. Giving a portion of one’s income to charity is commendable but the fact remains that the growing number of people living in poverty need don’t have that luxury. They can barely feed their families. That’s what those “ladders of opportunity” are meant to help mitigate. Who knows when any of us may find ourselves in the same situation.

I don’t disagree that the decisions involving our fiscal mess are hard ones. Let’s hope those in charge can set aside their differences, figure it out, as you said, and get to work.

PWD, regarding your assertion that “the number of people who want to ensure their profits are privatized, but that their losses are socialized by the government (a/k/a, the taxpayers), thereby minimizing the risks of every decision they make” is growing. That’s exactly the attitude that’s fostered and exacerbated the divisiveness that’s so depressingly, maddeningly prevalent. It’s not the reality I know or want to leave for my kids, which is why I work hard to counter that type of inflammatory rhetoric whenever I can for them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Like facts, reality is a stubborn thing – and it doesn’t care what we think.

Our criticism was directed to the whole gamut of opportunists who feed at the public trough and/or expect taxpayer bailouts any time things don’t go their way, starting with the multinational corporate opportunists and their grossly overpaid executives; the Wall Street pirates; the defense and energy industry price-gougers; the middle class residential real estate speculators; the public employees with their guaranteed but underfunded pensions; and the chronically/generationally poor who exacerbate their precarious condition with addiction, irresponsible procreation, indolence and victimization.

In 1964, President Johnson declared a “war on poverty” and began the establishment of a massive network of federal, state and local programs to wage that war. The cost of that war over the last 48 years runs in the trillions of dollars. But guess what? Poverty – according to many of the staunchest proponents of those programs – is arguably more widespread and worse today than in 1964. The Einstein definition of “insanity” would appear to govern once again.

And if you like how well the “war on poverty” has gone, you should be a really big fan of the current “war on terror.”

Speaking of charitable giving, reports are that the shelves at the Maine Township Food Pantry are alarmingly bare. A friend has tried to mobilize as many neighbors as possible to try and fill those shelves before Thanksgiving and holidays. I would encourage readers to consider a donation as well.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s a fine message, and the Maine Twp. Food Pantry performs a fine service. But before Park Ridge residents mobilize to fill the shelves of the Maine Twp. Food Pantry, shouldn’t we first make sure all our needy fellow Park Ridge residents are taken care of before expanding our efforts beyond our borders? Who’s in charge of that triage?

This paragraph of yours is a pretty nice capsule of what left and right should both be able to get behind:

“Our criticism was directed to the whole gamut of opportunists who feed at the public trough and/or expect taxpayer bailouts any time things don’t go their way, starting with the multinational corporate opportunists and their grossly overpaid executives; the Wall Street pirates; the defense and energy industry price-gougers; the middle class residential real estate speculators; the public employees with their guaranteed but underfunded pensions; and the chronically/generationally poor who exacerbate their precarious condition with addiction, irresponsible procreation, indolence and victimization.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: And that ain’t all.