SO WHAT IS JERRY JOYCE REALLY UP TO? AND WHO WILL BE THE NEXT MAYOR OF CHICAGO?

12/28/18

On several occasions over the last month or so, people have asked me what Jerry Joyce is really up to, or what he’s really after, in his longshot bid for mayor of Chicago.    People ask me this question, I presume, for two reasons.   First, they think that I know something about Chicago politics.   Second, they think that, since I grew up in the 19^th Ward on the Chicago side of St. Walter, I know the players in that ward and thus have such special insight into the machinations of its politics.   In the former, my questioners are correct.  In the latter, they are incorrect.

Yes, I grew up in the 19^th Ward.  And the 19^th Ward, specifically St. Barnabas, was our last stop in the city before we moved to the promised land of DuPage County.   Further, as I have mentioned before, my second vote ever was for Jeremiah Joyce, Jerry’s father, in his ironic insurgent 1975 run for alderman as the challenger to the Machine candidate, a guy named Ryan (Maybe his first name also was Tom, but I can’t remember.) who was the handpicked choice of Alderman and Committeeman Thomas Fitzpatrick to be his successor in the City Council.   “Silent Tommy Fitz” was so monikered because he never said anything on the City Council floor other than “aye” to anything then Mayor Richard J. Daley suggested.   That was the smart move back then.   Speaking of smart moves, my first vote ever was for Mayor Richard J. Daley in the aforementioned 1975 election, his last defense of the office that had been his for 20 years at the time.   This is still probably the best, or at least the proudest, vote I have ever cast, but I digress.  

Despite my having the profound privilege of having grown up in the 19^th Ward, specifically in St. Walter, and still being in fairly regular touch with goings-on in the old neighborhood, I don’t know anybody in the power structure of that ward.   Occasionally, I still see some of the old timers whom I saw a little more often back when I lived in the ward and they were not old timers.  I will say hello and they will, as would most good politicians when greeted by a stranger, do a good job of feigning that they have some idea of who I am.   But the new guys?  They don’t know me and I don’t know them.   At Christmas Eve Mass at Sacred Heart in the eastern reaches of the neighborhood, there was a car in the parking lot with the plate “Ward 19,” so I assume somebody who was somebody in the ward was at Mass, but even in that very small church I couldn’t pick out who it was despite my having helped pick up the collection.   I wouldn’t know the current alderman, Matt O’Shea, unless I had a timely copy of the Sun-Times or the Tribune on hand, if we were sitting next to each other at Wonderburger, the reported re-opening of which would be better news for the ward than anything any politician could do, but again I digress.   So those who might suppose that I know something, other than what I read in the paper, about the 19^th Ward would be wrong.   While they are right when they assume I know something about the politics of my hometown, I have no idea what’s going on in the mind of Jerry Joyce because I wouldn’t recognize him if I were sitting next to him in the Original Pancake House or Lume’s.

All that having been stipulated, I do have some ideas of what young Jerry Joyce might be up to…

First, Mr. Joyce might be running interference for Bill Daley.   People in the 19^th Ward who one would expect to vote for Garry McCarthy tell me they are voting for Mr. Joyce in the preliminary election.   In this very crowded field, if Mr. Joyce can peel away even the cop and firefighter vote in the 19^th, that might be enough to destroy any chance that Mr. McCarthy might have of reaching the run-off.   Then Mr. Daley might get into the run-off, catch lightning in a bottle, and the Daley and Joyce families can get back to their historical roles of controlling the 5^th Floor with the help of some friends in the 11^th and 19^th wards.

While this theory has some surface plausibility given the historic closeness of the Joyce and Daley families and the similar, but not identical, constituencies of Messrs. Daley, Joyce, and McCarthy, it has at least a couple of holes.   The first is that Mr. Daley assumes Mr. McCarthy has a chance at spoiling Mr. Daley’s chances at achieving the run-off.   At this stage, at least, Mr. McCarthy doesn’t look like much of a threat to anybody, though some very smart people seem to think he is.    Why would Mr. Daley go to the considerable trouble of running a straw candidate to draw votes from a guy who doesn’t look like he has much of a chance of causing trouble?   That Mr. Daley also doesn’t have much of a chance of reaching the run-off is not an issue here because we are discussing what Mr. Daley thinks of his chances rather than his actual chances.

The second hole in the “Jerry Joyce as a stalking horse for Bill Daley” theory is even simpler yet more profound, i.e., Jerry Joyce was in this race before Bill Daley entered.    How could Bill Daley set up a straw candidate before he was a candidate himself?   Nothing is impossible in the dark crevices of Chicago politics, but such an arrangement would sound entirely too conspiratorial even for that rather Casablancian forum.  

A second theory of Mr. Joyce’s motivation is that he would like to be a power broker of sorts, amassing enough chips in the form of votes in the first round to get something of value in exchange for his support from one of the candidates who reaches the run-off.   This is a far more appealing theory than the stalking horse theory, especially given that Jerry Joyce learned what he knows of politics from his father, one of the greatest dealmakers in Chicago political history, and that’s saying a lot.   What young Mr. Joyce might be seeking is a source of speculation.  A big job in the new administration is one possibility, but a more likely possibility is strong consideration when city business is doled out.  Again, think about young Mr. Joyce’s mentor’s history with doing business with the city.

A third theory behind Mr. Joyce’s unlikely candidacy is that he actually thinks he can win this election and succeed Rahm Emanuel as mayor of Chicago.     This is perhaps the least likely theory; the apple doesn’t fall that far from the tree, so I assume that young Mr. Joyce is a bright young man.  He can’t possibly think he can win this election…can he?

Onto broader matters…

Yours truly is not afraid of making predictions; who cares if I’m wrong?   And if one is afraid of making predictions, one should neither trade stocks nor write about politics, both of which are favorite avocations of mine.  So here goes…

I still think Toni Preckwinkle is your next mayor of Chicago (See TONI PRECKWINKLE IS THE NEXTMAYOR OF CHICAGO, UNLESS…, 9/22/18), but now that Susana Mendoza is officially in the race, will not split the Hispanic vote with the likes of Chuy Garcia, has survived what passed for a petition challenge, is showing strength, and is going for the same chi-chi near north liberal vote as is Ms. Preckwinkle (and just about every other candidate), I am not quite as confident about Ms. Preckwinkle’s chances as I once was.    So, not going out on a limb in the least, I think it will be a Mendoza-Preckwinkle run-off.    Going out on the same limb more than a touch, I still think Ms. Preckwinkle will prevail.

In any case, this is more fun than just about anything not involving a trip to White Castle…or Wonderburger, if we ever get the chance to do the latter again.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work, or used to work, in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

ELECTION NIGHT POST-MORTEM: SOMETIMES THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS RIGHT…AND A LOT OF PEOPLE REALLY HATE DONALD TRUMP

11/6/18

A little election night quarterbacking…in no particular order…

•   I was flabbergasted by the shellacking the GOP took in the House.   As readers know, I thought they’d retain the House comfortably.  (TUESDAY’SMID-TERMS—GOP HOLDS THE HOUSE SOMEWHAT COMFORTABLY AND PICKS UP 4 IN THE SENATE, 11/4/18) It was looking bad enough for the Republicans pretty much from the get-go, but when the GOP lost in my district (Illinois 6), a district gerrymandered by Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan to be a GOP district, things got really dark really fast for the GOP.  The Republicans look to lose at least two and probably three House seats in Illinois; while there might not have been a blue wave nationwide, there was, to use a cutesy-pie term making its way around political junkiedom of late, a bluenami in Illinois.  That the Republicans got blown out in state races in Illinois didn’t surprise me and that made me slightly uncomfortable in counting on the GOP’s holding all of its national House seats in the Land of Lincoln in making my House prediction.   Rather than making me uncomfortable, it should have made me more logical; how could the Republicans lose every constitutional office in Illinois but hold onto all its House seats?   That’s nearly impossible and yours truly should have seen it.

·         I told my students this morning that if either Peter Roskam lost his House seat in Illinois or Ted Cruz lost his senate seat in Texas, the GOP would be in deep trouble.   Roskam lost, Cruz barely held on.   The GOP was in trouble, though probably not deep trouble; it did pick up a few Senate seats, as I, and just about everyone else, predicted.   So the Roskam/Cruz indicator seemed to work out.

·         There are people who love President Trump and people who hate Donald Trump.   More people hate Donald Trump and almost all of them REALLY hate Donald Trump.   Fewer love Donald Trump, and even fewer of those REALLY love Donald Trump.   But President Trump doesn’t seem to realize this.

·         More important than the last bullet point, there are fewer people voting for Mr. Trump or his perceived surrogates but not admitting it in polite, or any, company.   This was the vote that won the election in 2016 for Mr. Trump.

·         A friend asked me last week why the Republicans didn’t run solely on the economy.   I agreed that that would be the best strategy.    The Republicans didn’t, though, and the consequences were predictable.  The GOP’s failing to run on the economy was partially due to a very good Democratic campaign that forced the Republicans to talk about things like health care.  (See below.) But mostly it was due to Mr. Trump’s insistence on running on ancillary items.   Bill Clinton was, and probably remains, smart enough to know that “It’s the economy, stupid.”   Donald Trump isn’t.

·         Those “ancillary items” referred to in the last bullet point fired up the base but only added to the GOP travails among the swing voters in the suburbs and especially among women in the suburbs.   Not to beat on a dead horse, but if a guy as inoffensive as Peter Roskam can lose in a district designed for a Republican to win because his opponent successfully tied Mr. Roskam to Donald Trump, things look bad for the GOP as long as it is led by President Trump.

·         Lest I get too carried away with the last bullet point, the results in the House are not out of line with historic results in the mid-term after a new president takes office.   Still, Republicans should feel worse about tonight than the raw numbers would indicate.   And Illinois Republicans should feel awful, especially about the future of our state.

·         One item that is neither ancillary nor exclusively on the economy is health care and it is probably an even bigger issue than most people think.   Until the GOP explains, convincingly, how whatever replacement it comes up with for the ACA will protect people with pre-existing conditions, this will continue to be a huge positive issue for the Democrats.

·         The biggest winner for the Democrats tonight was one of their losers…Beto O’Rourke of Texas.  His campaign for president starts as you read this.

·         In the Illinois 3^rd Congressional District, Arthur Jones, an avowed neo-Nazi who through subterfuge and the apathy of the GOP establishment ran unopposed for the Republican nomination, managed to get about one quarter of the vote in the general against Dan Lipinski.   That an avowed neo-Nazi could get over 55,000 votes in a district split between neighborhoods on Chicago's southwest side and the city's near southwest suburbs is a travesty.   No, it doesn’t mean that there are 55,000 neo-Nazis or fellow travelers in the district, but it does mean that there are 55,000 people who are so obtuse and so insouciant about their franchise that they didn’t take the time or make the effort to learn that they were voting for an open and proud white supremacist, anti-Semitic Holocaust denier.   This is the most frightening thing to come out of tonight’s results.

·         Sometimes the conventional wisdom is right.   Tonight was one of those nights; as most people predicted, the GOP lost the House and retained the Senate.  Hence this was not a great night for those who enjoy thumbing their noses at the conventional wisdom…like yours truly.

Onward and upward, ladies and gentlemen…I hope.

TUESDAY’S MID-TERMS—GOP HOLDS THE HOUSE SOMEWHAT COMFORTABLY AND PICKS UP 4 IN THE SENATE

11/4/18

Regular readers of yours truly are familiar with a particular pundit who assumed a permanent place in the Pantheon of Perspicacious Pundits with perhaps the most piquant and portentous (the latter in the sense of eliciting amazement or wonder, not in the sense of being pompous, though some might argue that point) prediction of the modern political era just days before the 2016 presidential election:

TRUMP WILL WIN, AND WIN BIG, ON TUESDAY, 11/4/16

And, no, I will never cease reminding people of that one, but I digress.

Given the sheer outrageousness, and correctness, of that perspicacious piece of punditry, many of my friends and readers have asked for my thoughts on Tuesday’s mid-terms.   I have, until now, declined such predictions.   Making prognostications involving political races, as the aforementioned bold and right on the money 2016 prediction shows, involve more than guesses; in order to predict, say, the balance of the House resulting from Tuesday’s mid-terms, one has to look at every race, or at least at every race in which the outcome is in any kind of doubt.   Given that there are 435 House seats, this is a herculean task, especially for one who, like yours truly, doesn’t do this kind of thing for a living.   Even when one winnows it down to the 75-80 races that could conceivably go either way, this isn’t easy.   The good news is that the Senate, with its relative handful of contested races, is easy, or at least easier.

While I would have loved to make an outrageous prediction, such as the GOP’s picking up seats in the House, I was unable to do so.   Most would consider my vision of what Tuesday’s outcome quite ho-hum.   Others, on the other hand, may think that I am once again, off my rocker.   But here goes…

I approached this predictive task with a methodology similar to that which I used in my stunning 2016 prediction, in which I went over the presidential election state by state.  I looked at all the contested races in the House and the Senate and incorporated the following assumptions to provide a margin of error, so to speak, in the polling numbers.   After all, not everything is science, fake or otherwise, and intuition plays a part in political punditry.

·         The momentum in these final days of the race is with the GOP.   The Democrats thought that the caravans heading to our country’s southern borders and the Kavanaugh hearings would work in their favor.   While these two ephemeral issues may ignite the already intensely pro-Democratic passions of the small crowd with which the paid political punditry hangs, both issues work in the favor of the GOP, to the extent they work at all, because people who don’t live in Washington, New York, or San Francisco still get to vote in this country.  Why these issues work for the Republicans is perhaps grist for another mill.   For now, however, as usual, the biggest thing the GOP has going for it is the Democratic Party and its ever-growing isolation from the American voter who lives outside the aforementioned trendy psychological redoubts on either coast.

·         The economy always has been, and remains, the key issue and the economy is very good; it may even be running too hot at this juncture.   You and I can debate all we want about how much of this is attributable to the sitting administration, but the typical voter generally votes for the people in power when things are going well.

·         The tax cut (i.e., the actual tax cut passed last year, not the imaginary middle-class tax cut Mr. Trump tossed out a few weeks ago as a naked election ploy) is a much larger positive than the experts think it is.   Much to the amazement of Democratic politicians and strategists, people actually like having their taxes cut and would rather take advantage of their larger pay checks than harbor grudges against those whose tax cuts were larger than their tax cuts.   Regardless of how one feels about the macroeconomic soundness of the tax cuts, they will play well on Tuesday.  I’m just surprised the GOP hasn’t emphasized the tax cuts more in this campaign.  Perhaps the best thing the Democratic Party has going for it is the GOP.

·         Rather than being the opportunity to lash out against Trump that the Democrats and their largely sympathetic national media think, this election provides quite a different opportunity.  It provides voters the chance to endorse Trump policies without having to actually vote for the often-reprehensible Mr. Trump.   The majority of people who vote endorse, for the most part, Mr. Trump’s policies but they, understandably, don’t like Mr. Trump.    Tuesday’s mid-terms provide a chance to affirm the former without affirming the latter.

·         The “reverse Bradley effect” (TRUMP, THE“REVERSE BRADLEY EFFECT,” AND THE MAN’S UPCOMING LOSS IN IOWA, 12/23/15) remains in effect, though to a smaller degree than it did in 2016.   A lot of people voted for Trump in 2016 but didn’t tell anybody they did.  Likewise, many, but fewer, people will vote to affirm Trump policies, and keep the guy safe from impeachment, even though they won’t share that in polite company.

 Given my methodology and my intuition, what do I predict for Tuesday?  Sadly, nothing that far outside the conventional wisdom, to wit…

The GOP holds onto the House, losing a net 9-12 seats.   This will perhaps be surprising to those predicting a “blue wave” and perhaps to those who think the night will result in the GOP’s holding a razor thin margin.   But my numbers seem to indicate that the Democrats will come nowhere near picking up the 25 seats they need to pick up the House.   Come to think of it, given the history of the results for the incumbent party in mid-term elections, an outcome such as the one I predict would be a considerable victory for the GOP and hence may come as a bigger surprise, at least to those ostensibly in the know, than yours truly thinks.

The GOP does even better in the Senate, picking up Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota and losing none of the seats it currently holds, resulting in a 55-45 Senate.   If I really wanted to go out on a limb and go with intuition more than the numbers, I might even say the GOP picks up Montana and/or West Virginia.   But the numbers say Tester and Manchin keep their seats, so I’ll go with that.

The net result?   Not much changes.   Impeachment looks like a very long shot and conviction looks just about impossible, barring something even more outrageous, and, remember, impeachable, out of Mr. Trump.  GOPers, of course, remain in control of all committees.  Court nominations will be easier.    And Mr. Trump will have no excuses for failure to perform as advertised, which is always a good thing.

LAST MINUTE UPDATE:

As I finish writing this, I am hearing on the local news that some “expert” group is saying that the Democrats have a 6 out of 7 chance of picking up the House.   Maybe yours truly is indeed once again making an outrageously bold prediction.

TONI PRECKWINKLE IS THE NEXT MAYOR OF CHICAGO, UNLESS…

9/22/18

When Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced he would not be immolating himself on the pyre of Chicago’s imminent financial conflagration by seeking a third term (RAHM EMANUEL TAKES A POWDER; YOURS TRULY IS SURPRISED, BUT NOT SHOCKED, 9/4/18) on the Fifth Floor, my first thought was not about potential successors.   But, like everybody else, I quickly started filling out my mayoral bracket and my initial impression was that Congressman Luis Gutierrez would have to be considered Mr. Emanuel’s most likely successor.   Mr. Gutierrez has been around Chicago politics a long time, can raise a lot of money, has a national profile, is the most politically prominent of an ethnic group, very broadly defined, that is clearly in ascendancy in the city of Chicago, and has made a lot of friends and not enough enemies.   But now that Mr. Gutierrez has kept himself out of the race, and County Board President Toni Preckwinkle has put herself into the race, it is clear that Ms. Preckwinkle will be the next mayor of Chicago.    She has been around city government and politics for a long time, has what passes for a record of accomplishment in local, or any, for that matter, politics, can raise scads of money, has a lot of union support, is at least palatable to the business community, should carry the black vote overwhelmingly, still endears herself to what was once called the liberal lakefront crowd, and has extensive, nearly embarrassing, support in the media.   As a consequence of all the aforementioned, Ms. Preckwinkle is far and away the most visible and experienced candidate in the race.   She has, in abundance, that necessary political skill of being able to pull the wool over people’s eyes, to make people think she’s something she’s not; she even managed, early in her reign as County Board chairman, to bamboozle at least one conservative columnist around town into thinking she was “sensible.”

Sure, Toni Preckwinkle has some negatives, besides having to look up the spelling of her name every time one wants to write it, a trait she shares, by the way, with the two “non-Gary”s in the race.   The most salient of these is the disastrous “sugar tax” and a disposition that is not most accurately described as sunny.   But the “sugar tax” got shot down not by opposition in the city as much as by opposition in suburban Cook, and the revolt against it was led by board members, primarily Republicans, who represented the suburbs.   And since when has raising taxes and a dour disposition hurt the prospects of any otherwise skilled holder of or aspirant to the position of mayor of Chicago?   Look at Chicago’s last two mayors.  But I digress.   It sure looks like Ms. Preckwinkle will be comfortably ensconced on the Fifth Floor on the other side of her current building by next Spring.

But what about Jesus “Chuy” Garcia?   Yours truly has long contended that the only people who voted for Mr. Garcia because he was Mr. Garcia were himself, his wife, and other family members.   Mr. Garcia was able to force Mr. Emanuel into a run-off in 2015 not because of who he was but, rather, because of who he was not, i.e., Rahm Emanuel.   This is not to say that Mr. Garcia is a bad guy; I don’t know him and have never met him, but friends who know Mr. Garcia and whose opinion I respect have plenty of good things to say about him.   He represents the progressive movement quite well.   But his visibility and record of accomplishment were, if not sparse, not sufficiently impressive to have made him an obvious candidate for mayor.  Remember that he was the third stringer in that race.  He was persuaded to run only after Ms. Preckwinkle and Chicago Teachers’ Union President Karen Lewis decided, the latter for medical reasons, not to challenge Mr. Emanuel.   Given how well Mr. Garcia did despite starting late and effectively subbing for better known challengers, it is not at all unreasonable to think that Ms. Preckwinkle, or even Ms. Lewis, may have beaten Mr. Emanuel in 2015 had the latter been more healthy or the former been more courageous.   But I digress.

Things have changed for Mr. Garcia in the last four years.   He has certainly become more prominent by virtue of his first-round success in 2015.   He has become something of a spokesman for progressive politics, and especially for progressive Latino politics, in Chicago and somewhat beyond.  That growing prominence has landed him what should be a coronation next month for a lifetime job in Congress.  He also has few enemies; even those who oppose his politics have little, if anything, bad to say about the guy.   So I might be wrong; the now bigger named Chuy Garcia, and the rapid ascendance of his very broadly defined ethnic group (Note that Mr. Gutierrez is Puerto Rican while Mr. Garcia is Mexican.  Political observers tend to lump both into the category of “Latino” or “Hispanic” politicians.   Such observers may be doing so at their peril, but, that is grist for another mill.) could make him a viable challenger to Ms. Preckwinkle and set up a nearly thrilling run-off in April.   But yours truly doubts it.   Only Mr. Gutierrez has the name and support to challenge Ms. Preckwinkle. 

How about the other declared, interested, or otherwise potential, candidates?   Briefly…

State Comptroller Susana Mendoza has a shot at the mayor’s office if Mr. Garcia somehow stays out.   But Mr. Garcia’s staying out is highly improbable and, with Mr. Garcia in the race, these two will be splitting the Hispanic, and maybe, the progressive, vote, resulting in both candidates’ ships’ sinking.   Maybe a deal could be made to run one strong Hispanic candidate who could present himself or herself as the progressive alternative to the “machine” (The very word is laughable in today’s Chicago politics, but that, too, is grist for another mill and, by the way, for my books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics) Toni Preckwinkle.   But a deal between Ms. Mendoza and Mr. Garcia is even more unlikely than Mr. Garcia not running.    So not this time for Susan Mendoza.

Gery Chico and Bill Daley, despite the denials of both, are going after what has to be minuscule share of the electorate…those who yearn and pine for the days when Richard M. Daley was mayor.    Paul Vallas’s raison d’etre is similar (RAHM EMANUEL TO GOD:   PLEASE, LORD, IF I HAVE TO GO TO A RUN-OFF, LET IT BE AGAINST RICHARD M. DALEY, ER, SORRY…PAUL VALLAS, 5/22/18) , though one could logically and legitimately argue that his candidacy is slightly more nuanced.   Richard J. Daley left a marvelous legacy, real or perceived, of effective government and political dominance.   Richard M. Daley did not.   Enough said for Messrs. Chico, Daley, and Vallas.

If residents of suburban Cook could vote in this election, Garry McCarthy could have a chance.   If residents of the entire six county area could vote, Mr. McCarthy could win.   But, unfortunately for Mr. McCarthy, only current Chicagoans, not former Chicagoans, can vote in Chicago mayoral elections. 

Ms. Preckwinkle has taken any air out of the sails that may have provided forward propulsion to the campaign of Cook County Courts Clerk Dorothy Brown, who yours truly once thought had a chance at getting into the run-off even when Mr. Emanuel was still in the race.  (DOROTHY BROWN MAY BE IN THE MONEY, BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS, 8/28/18)

The rest of the candidates?   Why bother?  Time is valuable.

With the expected dominance of Ms. Preckwinkle, this race will not be the political equivalent of a Super Bowl going into overtime that many had anticipated.   That doesn’t mean, however, that it won’t be entertaining.   So expect more posts from yours truly as the battle progresses.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work, or used to work, in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

HERE’S A TIP FOR THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE: SIT IN ON A SECOND GRADE ARITHMETIC CLASS

9/22/18

I wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal last month in response to an article in one of those cutesy-pie weekend sections about a restauranteur who thinks tipping is a bad idea.   Not surprisingly for a number of reasons, the paper didn’t run it, but I thought my readers would enjoy it.   Another reason I am running it is to burnish this blog’s frequent characterization as “eclectic.”

8/25/18

Danny Meyer, the restauranteur behind Shake Shack and the Gramercy Tavern, is advocating the elimination of the centuries old custom of tipping wait staff at his, and presumably all, restaurants.   (“A Restaurant King Fights a Lonely War on Tips,” Exchange, 8/25-8/26/18)   Among the reasons that Mr. Meyer provides for eliminating a practice that has worked well for so many years is that tipping “forced diners to end every meal with a math test.”

At Shake Shack, a hamburger costs what an entire three course meal costs at the local diner my family frequents.   At Gramercy Tavern, a meal for four can easily exceed a typical family’s mortgage payment.   Both of Mr. Meyer’s establishments, one can thus easily conclude, are favorites of New York’s most sophisticated, most highly paid luminaries, including the masters of the universe who, by some strange twist of fate, find themselves in charge of the nation’s finances.  These geniuses consider calculating 20% of, say, $500 at Gramercy Tavern, a “math test”?   Apparently so, because, according to the Journal article “Many diners seemed thrilled to stop calculating tips…”   Maybe it would be easier for these whiz kids if someone explained that one can calculate 20% by taking one tenth of a number and doubling the result, but, then again, maybe not…math is so hard.

Don’t worry, America; your money is in the hands of those who consider calculating simple percentages a “math test.” 

RAHM EMANUEL TAKES A POWDER; YOURS TRULY IS SURPRISED, BUT NOT SHOCKED

9/4/18

Some people have been kind enough to say that yours truly predicted what became today’s announcement by Rahm Emanuel that he will not seek re-election as Mayor of Chicago.   These observers are too kind; I didn’t call this development in 5/29/18’s RAHM EMANUEL WILL NOT RUN AGAIN?   YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS.  CAN YOU?.   In fact, I went so far as to say in that piece, and several times since, that I didn’t think that Rahm would drop out.   But I did outline both a plausible scenario for Mr. Emanuel’s dropping out and a saleable spin in the event he decided to take such a pass, so, yes, I’ll take credit for that and build upon those thoughts in this post.

A caution:   We can’t get into the heads of others.  We can only make guesses regarding people’s motivations from what we know of them and, like most of you, all my knowledge of Rahm Emanuel comes from what I read in the papers.   Any pronouncements I, or anybody, makes about Mr. Emanuel’s motivations or future must be tempered by this caveat.   Now for some fun.   

First, and I hope this doesn’t come as a revelation to any of my readers, Rahm Emanuel is not finished with politics.   He may take a break to make some more money selling his influence, as a lot of far less talented politicians have done and continue to do, but he is not going to stay away from the game.   He couldn’t if he wanted to and there is no reason to think he wants to.   Besides, after a while, it becomes difficult to sell influence one no longer has, so even if Mr. Emanuel wanted only to cash in, he has to keep the larder stocked, if you will, by staying at least very close to the game and, in all likelihood, completely re-immersing himself in the game.  

Second, as I said back in May, becoming mayor of Chicago was never Mr. Emanuel’s ultimate goal.  He has always had his eye on Washington and one suspects it stays there.   Yours truly has long held that Mr. Emanuel took his current job in the belief that turning around the, er, challenge Chicago had become under his predecessor would enable him to get on the Democratic ticket by acclamation.  Further, Mr. Emanuel actually had the ego to believe that he, and perhaps only he, could turn around Chicago.   It may have become apparent that this goal is so daunting that it defies even the considerable talents of the wily and insightful Rahm Emanuel.   While he can still create a plausible story of progress in his rescue mission to this once great city, solving its problems, or even arresting its decline, is impossible.   But bear in mind that, while Mr. Emanuel clearly has some affection for his city and certainly wishes the best for it, what really matters to a career politician like Mr. Emanuel is his political future and viability.   Mr. Emanuel can tell a decent story about his valiant efforts in Chicago, especially with the money and the spinmeisters he has at his disposal, so, from his perspective, all is good.   What matters to one’s political viability is not success itself but convincing enough voters of one’s success.  As I said in May, Mr. Emanuel can leave with a good story, preserving and even enhancing his chances at moving up the political ladder.   Of course, if he were a real Chicagoan, he would realize that there is nowhere up the ladder to go once one has won the only job that really matters to a pol in our fair city.    Did Richard J. Daley want to be president?   What?   And take a demotion?   But I digress.

Third, the thing that really scares me about Mr. Emanuel’s packing it in is the implications of his leaving if I am at all right in the suppositions outlined in the last paragraph.   Has Mr. Emanuel, a smart and insightful guy, admitted to himself, and maybe very privately to a few close friends, that Chicago is beyond redemption?   Has he decided that staying around will only impair his political future because things can only get worse in Chicago?   Again, to a politician, what really matters is himself or he wouldn’t be in the business he’s in.   Mr. Emanuel is not going to throw himself on a Didonian pyre in order to save the city of Chicago.   If he thinks there’s nowhere to go but down for Chicago and hence has decided to board a figurative lifeboat, yours truly genuinely fears for the future of his home town.

Fourth, notice that I have not mentioned the Laquan McDonald case.   I don’t think that this sad chapter in Chicago history is nearly the political issue those comfortably ensconced in the city’s newsrooms think it is and I hence don’t think that the case had much, if anything, to do with Mr. Emanuel’s decision.   I still think that Mr. Emanuel would have won, and quite possibly in the first round, had he elected to run.  It was not the fear of losing, but, rather, the consequences of winning, outlined the last two paragraphs, that led to Rahm Emanuel’s decision.

Fifth, what is Mr. Emanuel’s next step?   Given his lack of the likeability factor, perhaps unelected political office, like a Cabinet position, another stint as presidential chief of staff, or some kingmaker/political financier position at some lobbying firm in Washington, a kind of modern day Clark Clifford role, is in the Mayor’s sights.   But do you really think that Mr. Emanuel believes he’s unlikeable?   We are usually the last to see the, er, qualities that others see in us, and one suspects that Mr. Emanuel thinks he has no problem at all with likeability and hence will not let such considerations keep him away from another attempt at elected office.   To that end, and, again, this is pure speculation, yours truly thinks he has his eye on the 2020 Democratic ticket.   Surely, he is smart enough to know that the Dems seem intent on running to the left in two years; hence, the top of the ticket will feature an Elizabeth Warren type.   The ticket will need balance, and who better to provide that balance than uber-moderate Rahm Emanuel?    Not only that, but remember that the spin that Mr. Emanuel saved Chicago will become imbedded in the American psyche by that time and he will be able to boast the administrative experience to balance and enhance the legislative experience of, say, Senator Warren or Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at the top of the ticket.   It makes sense to yours truly and should make sense to a guy, such as Mr. Emanuel, who knows politics far more thoroughly and intimately than do I.  

Sixth, what does this do to the mayoral race back in Chicago?   There is grist here for plenty of future posts, so at this time I will limit myself to a few observations.    First, this is not a gift to those unnotables who are already in the race.   Already, they are sounding scared at the prospect of more attractive candidates, who wisely passed on a run at Mr. Emanuel, entering the race.   Second, the ideal candidate would be a viable Hispanic candidate given the power of that voting bloc and the clear direction of the city’s future and, currently, there is no such candidate in the race.   That candidate probably is not Alderman Ricardo Munoz (22^nd), who is already talking about jumping into the race.   But it could be.   What, by the way, is Luis Gutierrez, who is the biggest Hispanic name in Chicago politics, is more than decently regarded in the black community, and is soon to be out of a job, thinking right now?    Third, let’s see how things develop in the next few days or weeks; this is going to be even more fun if such a thing is possible.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

LET’S SOBER HIM UP WITH THIS TWO LITER PLASTIC BOTTLE OF OLD OPEN SWITCH

8/29/18

In today’s brave new world of moral relativity, there might be good arguments for legalizing marijuana, expanding gambling, or shaking down corporations for being successful, but the revenue raising potential is not one of them.   As I put another way in this letter to the Chicago Tribune, giving politicians more money to spend is rarely, if ever, the solution to a public body’s fiscal problems.   Giving a politician more money is like giving an alcoholic an outsized gift card to the local liquor emporium.

The letter wasn’t published; like the Chicago Sun-Times, the Tribune doesn’t publish more than a few letters per day so the chances of getting any letter published are slim nowadays.

Here’s the letter:

8/19/18

The Emanuel administration has reached a $10.4 million settlement with Uber and Lyft over the ride sharing companies’ failure to perform adequate background checks of their drivers.  (“Chicago reaches settlement with ride-share companies,” 8/19/18, page 13)   The money will be spent on a youth mentoring program.

Leaving aside the merits of said youth mentoring program, the city of Chicago faces shortfalls, ranging from only slightly terrifying to absolutely horrific, in the pension programs of its workers.   These shortfalls have forced enormous property tax, phone tax, and water bill increases for the city’s residents with more surely to come after the election.  The city’s operating budget is precariously balanced and keeping it in rough balance will require even more “revenue enhancements” after the election.   The city’s bond rating is currently on the cusp of junk status while the bonds themselves trade at junk yields.   Given the fiscal nightmare that is the city of Chicago, did anybody in the Emanuel administration or the city council think that maybe, just maybe, the $10.4 million from the ride sharing settlement should go toward the pension shortfalls, or merely paying some of the city’s bills, rather than to a new program, however meritorious?  Of course not; as soon as new money finds its ways into the city’s, or virtually any public entity’s, coffers, the first thought that comes to the politicians’ febrile minds is how to spend it.    That is why providing politicians with more money, through tax increases, fee increases, gambling revenues, legalizing marijuana or the like, is rarely, if ever, a solution to the fiscal woes of public institutions.   Giving politicians more money is like giving a crack addict more crack.

Surely the politicians will respond that we’re talking about “only” $10 million.   Such a cavalier attitude toward other people’s money should remove any remaining mystery regarding the fiscal abomination that is the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois, and the federal government.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

DOROTHY BROWN MAY BE IN THE MONEY, BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS

8/28/18

The point of writing the below missive to the Chicago Sun-Times was not to defend Dorothy Brown, but to stop the enthusiasm that various investigative agencies and the press may have for getting Ms. Brown from getting in the way of the exercise of common sense.   Did anybody stop and look at the numbers before going off half-cocked in their accusations against this, after all, quite ordinary politician?   The Sun-Times did not publish the letter by the way, which is not surprising given that they publish only two or three per day.

Now that we’re on the subject of Dorothy Brown, don’t count Ms. Brown out of the mayor’s race.   Yes, she has a reputation for being shady and she may (or may not) be one step ahead of various law enforcement agencies, but that didn’t stop her from a landslide victory in her last bid for re-election as Circuit Court Clerk.   Despite her, er, foibles, she has a quite dedicated following in the black community, especially among “church ladies” in that community, that has served her well throughout her career.   In a divided field of black candidates, none of whom is especially salient beyond newsrooms populated by people from ZIP codes far, at least sociologically, from the west and south sides of the city, she could come out of this scrum as Mayor Emanuel’s sole opponent in the run-off.   And if she has anything like the money, or the money raising ability, that has been ascribed to her, that moves things more forcefully in her favor.

Now don’t go around saying that Quinn is predicting a Brown/Emanuel run-off.  If I had to make a prediction today, and I don’t so I’m not, I’d say Mr. Emanuel is going to win in the first round.   I know that makes me sound crazy, but that’s what people called yours truly before what has become my most famous post, 11/4/16’s TRUMP WILL WIN, AND WIN BIG, ON TUESDAY.   And no, I’m not going to stop reminding people of that especially piquant display of prescience.

Here’s the missive…

8/1/18

While one is normally hesitant to defend the likes of Dorothy Brown, one should never be reluctant to defend common sense and dispassionate analysis.

The Sun-Times reports (“Affidavits allege county clerk collected payments of $10,000 per job,” Andy Grimm, p. 8, 8/2/18) that “Brown ‘personally hired’ each of the 2,300 employees under her command and collected payments of $10,000 per job through campaign contributions, business loans, and even a free trip to India, according to affidavits in an investigation of former Brown deputy Beena Patel.”

2,300 employees at $10,000 per head is $23 million.   If these affidavits are true, Ms. Brown either has a campaign war chest sufficiently huge to send even Rahm Emanuel scurrying for the hills or is basking in net worth so brobdingnagian that hiding it would be nearly a full-time job.   We know the former isn’t true.   While one should not discount the latter out of hand, $23 million is a number so enormous that even the most corrupt hustlers in Chicago’s long history of perfidious pols would be genuflecting in awe at the purloining prowess of Dorothy Brown.

Is Dorothy Brown guilty of anything illegal?   The courts will make that determination.    Has she shaken people down to the tune of $23 million?  Highly unlikely.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

WHAT THE RAHM EMANUEL/PAUL VALLAS/ROCKY WIRTZ DUST-UP TELLS US ABOUT STUDIES…AND MAYBE ABOUT SPEED CAMERAS

7/4/18

A relatively consequential story in Chicago politics this Independence Week is the $200 grand that Chicago Blackhawks Chairman Rocky Wirtz has donated, directly or indirectly, to the campaign of mayoral challenger Paul Vallas.  (See my 5/25/18 post RAHM EMANUEL TO GOD:   PLEASE, LORD, IF I HAVE TO GO TO A RUN-OFF, LET IT BE AGAINST RICHARD M. DALEY, ER, SORRY…PAUL VALLAS for more illumination concerning Mr. Vallas’s prospects.)   The well-founded speculation is that Mr. Wirtz is contributing these hefty helpings of spondulicks to Mr. Vallas because he is upset with Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s increasing the amusement tax on large venues to 9% from 5%, refusing to extend a property tax break on Chicago Stadium, and lending hefty public support to the Wintrust Arena, which Mr. Wirtz contends, however unconvincingly, competes with Chicago Stadium for concerts and the like.   The substance of the arguments on either side, however interesting, is inconsequential for purposes of this post; if this story somehow remains alive, yours truly may visit it again in the future.  For now, consider that when the increase in the amusements tax was first proposed, Mr. Wirtz and his partner in the Chicago Stadium, Jerry Reinsdorf, directed Mr. Emanuel and his staff to a study, financed by a group of similarly positioned professional sports big-wigs, that showed that increasing such taxes actually reduces revenue by forcing events into more lightly taxed jurisdictions.   Mr. Emanuel replied “We have run ours (studies) as well and we make money.”

Hmm…

I have long told my students that I have the ability to tell them the conclusion of any study without reading so much as the executive summary.   When they ask how I acquired such powers, I tell them that they, too, have such powers within their grasps; all one has to know to learn the outcome of any study is who paid for the study.   While the competing studies of Messrs. Reinsdorf/Wirtz and Mr. Emanuel do not prove this long-held contention of yours truly, this exercise in dueling studies provides further compelling evidence of this eternal truth, a truth that I sincerely hope my students retain for the rest of their lives.

To this truth…

In the same edition of the Chicago Sun-Times that contained the aforementioned story, the paper reported that Ron Burke, the executive director of something called the Active Transportation Alliance, is proposing more speed cameras near Chicago parks and schools.   Mr. Burke argues

“All around the world and in the United States, all (emphasis by yours truly) of the research shows that, when speed cameras are deployed properly and used to really improve safety and not just to generate revenue, they work.  They really do work.  They save lives.”

While it seems that Mr. Burke doth protest too much, the substance of his argument is not the issue here.   What is relevant to this post is that Mr. Burke is surely wrong when he argues that all of the research shows that speed cameras save lives.   Surely some of the research on this topic was paid for by people who are against speed cameras and, consequently, shows that speed cameras do NOT save lives.   What can be said confidently on this topic is that all the research financed by companies in the speed camera business shows that speed cameras do indeed save lives.

Glorious Independence Day, everybody.

 See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

RAHM EMANUEL WILL NOT RUN AGAIN? YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS. CAN YOU?

5/29/18

The Memorial Day weekend’s Chicago papers were peppered with reports that there is talk among the cognoscenti that Mayor Rahm Emanuel may decide not to run for a third term.   Yours truly’s first impulse was to dismiss such speculation out of hand; surely, Mr. Emanuel, a glutton for power and, apparently, for punishment, will seek a third time.   However, one doesn’t learn much by immediately dismissing contrary ideas, so I took some time to ruminate on the idea of Mr. Emanuel’s bowing out.   It turns out that if one performs sufficient contortions, one could conceivably come up with a nearly credible case for Mr. Emanuel’s saying au revoir to this latest adventure in a career characterized by a continuing concupiscence for power and fame.

If Mr. Emanuel were to bow out now, he could argue, however implausibly, that he has turned around Chicago.   He could contend that he has straightened out the city’s finances, putting it on the path to fiscal rectitude.  He could aver that his wise tutelage has resulted in the city’s crime problem starting to abate.   He could further argue that, due to his attractiveness to the movers and shakers of corporate America, more companies are relocating to Chicago, bringing jobs, tax revenues, and prestige to what one suspects Mr. Emanuel considered a backwater before his arrival on the scene.   In short, Mr. Emanuel can argue that his mission to bring enlightenment and wisdom to his home town has been accomplished.   Therefore, it is time to, of course, spend more time with his family.   After an ever so brief hiatus, perhaps measured in days, from politics, he can then resume his pursuit of his real goal, i.e., power at the national level, perhaps beginning with a spot on the 2020 Democratic ticket.

Before one laughs at such a contention, consider that there is an element of truth to each of these arguments.   Chicago’s financial condition is indeed better than that which prevailed when Mr. Emanuel deigned to return to govern the town in which he was born.   Considering that the city was headed to financial hell on the express train in 2011, this might not appear to be such a titanic accomplishment, but at least the city is now on only the milk run to de facto, or maybe even de jure, bankruptcy.   Further, while crime is still a huge problem, the morale of the police department is on at least a post-Summerdale scandal low, and Chicago looks like something of a shooting gallery compared to New York and L.A., reported crime is down in 2018 on a year-over-year basis.   Finally, some big companies have relocated here, including such iconic American companies as McDonald’s.   And, as unlikely as it might be, there is still a chance that Amazon will relocate its second campus here.  That would be an enormous feather in the cap of a departing mayor trying to portray himself as a modern-day Pericles.

More importantly, Mr. Emanuel has access to perhaps the greatest spin wizards in politics and Hollywood.   They could take the thin gruel of the Mayor’s accomplishments and whip it into a hearty stew of a tale of a conquering hero, a guy who came, saw, and conquered.   The truth may be exaggerated, the story might strain credulity, but the story only has to be good enough to convince a largely apathetic and low information voter base that Mr. Emanuel, who untied the Gordian knot that was post-Richard II Chicago, is the man, perhaps the only man, with the superpowers necessary to address the woes of a post-Trump America.  Given the people the Mayor, his minions, and his brother can access, this shouldn’t be that tall of an order to fill.

Further, consider that the admittedly tall tale of Rahm the Conqueror will only get more difficult to tell four or eight years from now.   The day of reckoning for Chicago has only been delayed, largely, at least on the financial end, due to the admirable efforts of Mr. Emanuel and his courage to make the tough political decisions his predecessor refused to make.   But the day of reckoning has only been delayed.  Say what you will about Mr. Emanuel, but he is not stupid.  He can see that things are only going to get worse in the city of Chicago.   Perhaps he sees the wisdom of leaving now when he is as close to the top as he is going to get regarding the stewardship of what he calls his home town.   Right now, he and his PR people can spin this story to be a lot better than it really is; after a few years, even all of Rahm’s horses and all of Rahm’s men might not be able to put the story of Rahm’s saving Chicago back together again.

So, upon reflection, it might make sense for Mr. Emanuel, who always has his eye on the next prize, to get out of town, take credit for what he has accomplished and for what he can convince people he has accomplished, let his successor take the blame for the city’s nearly inevitable demise, and then argue, presumably with a straight face, that the city would still be prospering had he not elected to step down from the job he loved.   Does yours truly think this is what will happen?   No.  I still think the Mayor will run again and, at least at this juncture, that he will win a third term; you can’t beat somebody with nobody, especially when somebody has access to the spondulicks and the talent necessary to spin whatever tale he would like to spin.  However, after long and serious thought about the issue, I would be surprised, but not shocked, were Mr. Emanuel to suddenly be seized with a suddenly irresistible impulse to spend more time with his family.

And what about that spot on the 2020 ticket?   That is grist for a later post.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

RAHM EMANUEL TO GOD: PLEASE, LORD, IF I HAVE TO GO TO A RUN-OFF, LET IT BE AGAINST RICHARD M. DALEY, ER, SORRY…PAUL VALLAS

5/25/18

The Chicago Tribune didn’t run this letter, but it should have.  Given that Paul Vallas can be, however loosely or tightly, identified with the fiscal fiasco that was the Richard M. Daley administration, Rahm Emanuel has to be salivating at the prospect of running against Mr. Vallas in the run-off.   

One could legitimately argue that Mr. Vallas was a prominent member of the Richard II administration during its early “good” years and was long gone by the time Mr. Daley became the best living argument for term limits in the history of this great country.  But what we are considering here is a political campaign in the city of Chicago, not a political debate in the faculty lounges of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

4/29/18

John Kass is clearly wrong when he contends “What Emanuel doesn’t want:  Vallas in a runoff,” (Tribune, 4/28/19, page 2).    Rahm Emanuel would like nothing more than a one-on-one match with Paul Vallas in which the Mayor and his minions will skewer the former Chicago revenue and budget director, handpicked by Mr. Daley, as the architect of the disastrous fiscal mismanagement of the Daley administration.   Mr. Vallas, rightly or wrongly, will be portrayed as the guy who dug the fiscal cavern from which Mr. Emanuel is valiantly trying to extricate the citizens of Chicago.  Does Mr. Kass think that the timing of the Mayor’s criticism of his predecessor going from tacit to explicit is a coincidence?  The Mayor’s appearance on WLS on April 29, in which Mr. Emanuel came closer than ever to criticizing Mr. Daley by name, is only the beginning of a campaign that will attempt to exonerate Mr. Emanuel for his long line of tax increases by placing the blame squarely on Richard M. Daley and, by extension, Paul Vallas.   And don’t think for a minute that the mayor’s operatives won’t blame Mr. Vallas, Mr. Daley’s school CEO, for the problems of the city’s public schools.  

If Mr. Vallas emerges from the primary scrum to face Mr. Emanuel in the run-off, Mr. Emanuel will make sure that this becomes an Emanuel vs. Daley race.   Given the fiscal train wreck Mr. Daley left the citizens of Chicago, what easier opponent could Mr. Emanuel have?

Mark Quinn

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

DIVERSITY ON SUCH TRIVIALITIES AS IDEAS APPARENTLY DOESN’T COUNT IN OUR BRAVE NEW SOCIETY

5/25/18

I sent the following letter to the Chicago Sun-Times on 5/14/18 in response to an article on yet another quixotic attempt at campaign reform.  The paper published the letter a few days later, i.e., on 5/17/18.   My motivation for sending the letter was not so much making a point on finance reform as my increasing bemusement of the definition of diversity that seems to exclude diversity of ideas and/or thought in favor of defining diversity exclusively in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, age, etc. 

5/14/18

Cook County Clerk David Orr says Illinois’ campaign finance system squeezes out competing ideas.  Unnamed critics of the system says it discourages diversity.  (“Will big-bucks race spur change?”, 5/14/18, page 8)

Given the radically different competing ideas Governor Rauner and J.B. Pritzker have on the origins of and solutions to our state’s problems, Mr. Orr’s contention is laughable.   Given the diversity of the plans of the two gubernatorial nominees, the critics’ contention that diversity is being discouraged by the current campaign finance system is tenable only if one’s definition of “diversity” does not extend beyond skin color or gender to encompass such apparently trivial dimensions as ideas, thought, and opinions.

There may be problems with our campaign finance system, but given the radically different ideas embodied by Bruce Rauner and J.B. Pritzker, discouragement of “competing ideas” and squeezing out of “diversity,” at least of thought, are not two of them.

Mark M. Quinn

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics.