Role of the Mayor

The Mayor of the City of Chicago is responsible for:

• Approving / vetoing city council ordinances and has a line item veto power over appropriations bills.
• Since he's responsible for submitting a budget and has line item power, the Mayor has the power of the purse.
• The Mayor is also responsible for appointments to City Boards:
• Education
• City Colleges of Chicago
• Chicago Housing Authority
• Park District
• Public Library
• CTA (4 of 7 members)- uncertain but he may pick the chairman
• RTA (5 of 16 members)
• Public Building Commission (6 of 11 members) - he himself is currently the Chairman, not sure if that belings to the Mayor or he appointed himself Chairman
• *International Port District (4 or 5 of 9 members) - Mayor's site says 4, IL Port Site says 5. The balance are appointed by the Governor.
• Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (7 of 13 members)
• The Mayor is responsible for picking the Police Superintendent and the Fire Commissioner.

My sources for the above (and I have to admit that some of these sources are severely lacking):

Mayor's Website

Chicago Tribune

RTA Website

Public Building Commission Site

Illinois International Port Site

So to boil down what the Mayor is responsible for and has his hands in, he must:

1. Be a good competent manager and delegate well. He has to be able to pick managers who can drive results. But he is ultimately responsible because he puts them in their jobs.
2. He is responsible for city ordinances - he vetoes or approves them. And it requires the city council to override with a 2/3 majority. Short of that condition, he's responsible.
3. He "controls" outright the CPS, City Colleges, CHA, Park District, Public Library.
4. He "controls" through majority appointment CTA, PBC (he's chairman), MPEA, and possibly IIPD.

If any of the above are deficient in the city of Chicago, Mayor Daley is responsible for not replacing the heads or providing new direction after a certain period of time.

The most straightforward approach this is to go through these different areas, plus understand certain city ordinances and render a judgement.

Daley Evaluation Framework

I'm evaluating whether Mayor Daley is "good or bad." I think this boils down to two fundamental questions:

#1- Is Mayor Daley a net positive or a net negative?

#2- Is Mayor Daley the best option we have?

Question #1 is important, if he's a net negative we should want to replace him. But in a vacuum of political or management talent, he may be the best we have.

Fair Disclosure- I'm biased against Daley. For the purposes of this analysis I think I will be fine to put that bias aside since I like to document and record where conclusions and proof come from. But going in to this I should state where I stand on this. I think Daley is probably a net positive. Some of this may be because of the way the Chicago political machine operates and so he is uber-effective- and he probably is a competent manager. However I think someone not so politically connected would rely less on cronies to get the job done, perhaps increasing the effectiveness of municipal government across the board. Fairer bidding for contracts, more competition for licences, etc. But the data will bear this out.

A couple major tasks/work streams to be addressed:

#1- What is the official role of the Mayor? Does Daley accomplish this (Poorly, Well, Fantastically)?

#2- Was the Olympic bid a good use of city / private citizen resources?

#3- The parking meter deal.

#4- Is he dirty? And if not, why is he content to let people think he is? Why are the feds investigating him?

#5- Where is he leading the city? Is he doing this as well as can be asked (if he's as big a dictator as everyone assumes, could he be doing more)?

I think answering/ addressing these issues leads us to the answers for Question #1 and #2. As you can see, these 5 issues in and of themselves require frameworks or approaches to address. #2 and #3 are current as well- so there may be things that are added and the relevance of them may diminish over time. But as examples of decision making- since Daley's been in office for 20 years, one would hope that if these were colossally bad decisions, someone with his experience would not still be making these.

Recommitting to the Blog - Update

So this was the second long term, unplanned, hiatus I've taken. I hope it will not happen again (but it will). I got behind updating my candidate evals and then the race was over very quickly after that. I've since moved to the South Loop and work had me out of town for two months which made things very busy. Ultimately I ranked my final choice of candidates as follows:

#1 Wheelan

#2 Quigley

#3 Fritchey

But I really, REALLY preferred the top 2 over Fritchey. But I'd like to see Jan Donatelli keep at it and run for an office in the future when she is more prepared. So all in all, a good result and I'm really glad Mike Quigley is the US representative from my former district.

What made me update with a post was a Facebook comment a friend made. It was right up the alley of what I wanted to do with this blog. Everyone seems to hate Daley, why? I have to admit, I don't have many concrete reasons - certainly not enough that justify my conviction that this city would be better off without him. So to get back into the swing of things I am going to to try to answer the question of whether Daley is good or bad. This is remarkably vague and subjective so I will try to apply a framework to my evaluation. This will also be a large undertaking but ultimately will be worth it. It will also likely not have a nice neat ending to it. Daley's in office, month to month, year to year, a cost-benefit analysis of his administration may result in conflicting results.

By the way, the forum was packed

Democratic Candidate Forum- what's to come and introduction impressions

I'm going to try to explain my analysis as best as possible but I took a LOT of notes and explaining my impressions of the candidates with substaintiated examples of all their actions would be utterly draining. I'll do my best.

1) I will provide a candidate scorecard that shows their stance on the issues asked about

2) I'll give my impressions and rankings (both overall and just at the forum)

3) I'll summarize the questions and answers from the forum

4) I'll make a fuller analysis available for those special candidates (those who should be supported and those who should not be supported at all cost)

My Impression of the Forum

The forum was entertaining, informative, and eye-opening.  A lot of the people on that stage did not belong there.  Some of my prejudices were substantited and some were not.  The candidates were introduced by Lynn Sweet, the moderator and were each given 3 minutes to introduce themselves which they also had to use to make clear their position on gay marriage, universal healthcare, and the Oslo accords.  It was made clear it was not a debate.  She then asked questions to 1 or 2 candidates and then took volunteers after that.  That was the basic format.  

I immediately noticed that almost all the non-pols explained that they "were not a politician and we need someone to not be corrupt."  Most of them didn't realize EVERY OTHER non-pol on the stage was going to say that.  What would have been impressive, if one of them would have said, "and when I'm in congress I support A, B, and C measures on how to clean the system up."  Nobody said that.  I should note that I was impressed with Charlie Wheelan's introduction.  He did not play up the non-pol cred at all.  He probably stayed away from it because everybody else did.  I noticed it with him especially because he introduced himself later.  Overall, today was a good ( dare I say, "great") for Charlie Wheelan.

Presentation scores for their introduction (style and substance) 1-10 and my impressions

Annunzio - 5: One of these guys who is the anti-politician.  No proposals on how to change the system or counter corruption.  He is qualified because has knowledge of federal spending practices from being in construction industry.  He is pro single payer.  And when he addresseesd the gay marriage issue, he parsed his words like a politician (although not as smooth).  You had to really pay attention tpo understand that he's pro-civil union NOT gay marriage.  Suprisingly little courage for a non-politician, uness he's really thinks "marriage is between a man and a woman.

Feigenholtz - 7: The theme for feigenholtz was , NO SUBSTANCE.  Even as politicians go she was very poor today.  She is woman focused, that seems to be her only chip to play.  Her stance on the issues which made me put her in the "need for information" category, advocacy for single payer, sounded very wishy washy.  Universal healthcare is the ultimate goal.... weak!  I don't advocate single payer but if you're for it SAY YOU'RE FOR IT.   Didn't say anything about gay marriage.  She dodged a bullet there.  Weak!

Fritchey - 8: Fritchey surprised me.  I'd never seen him speak and his educational pedigree made me think he was a tee-totaler.  This is probably the type of guy who's banged a hooker in his day.  That being said, he's an in your face, these are the facts, yea I said it-type of guy.  It was nice.  It was very easy to know where he stood on isuses.  He probably raised his stock price today.  He said he was proud of his education, he attended a private highschool  in the city then went to U of michigan, then onto Northwestern law all on hardship scholarships (impressive). Said right up front he was not from Chicago (a lot of folks made it a point to mentionthey were from the city or play up their roots....who gives a fuck? You're here now, I hope. Fritchey is by the way).  He said single payer is a "moral construct." He said he had "unwavering support of his friends in the GLBT community on marriage, on ENDA etc".  Very good intro.

Quigley - 8: Immediately you could tell he was a politician, with demenaor and manner of speaking reeked of it.  He was very polished and introduced himselfwell.  Although he and Wheelan were the only ones who asserted they were more qualified than anyone else.  Wheelan did it more diplomatically, Quigley came right out and said, "I am the catalyst for change."  This saddened me.  All the other intros were hokey, sure but they felt honest.  Parts of Quigley's intro felt like he was just telling people what they wanted to hear.  He tried crafting a story about how he's always been for change and little has happened since the election (Obama has been in office for 12 DAYS!!!).  He's pro gay marriage, he feels Hamas needs to recognize Israel's right to exist (this got a HUGE applause.  I t was sort of strange), and he's pro-universal healthcare.  He asserted that he fought Stroger on higher taxes, and some other stuff.  I was annoyed that he's one of these people who pronounce "Illinois" as "E-llinois", like "ell" rhymes with "bell."  Not a substantive issue I know, but that really pisses me off.  Otherwise, a decent guy.

Thompson - 6: From the jump this guy seemed unprepared.  He could barely talk, or complete a thought, and he wasn't wearing a tie or jacket.  I'll be the first to say dress codes are stupid and you shouldn't assert people's motives from meaningless acts.  But I am abnormal in that regard.  And I wear a suit on interviews.  This was an interview.  This guy is not serious.  Probably less serious than Cary Capparelli because he wasn't at the forum.  He probably knows he has no business running and did the pragmatic thing and is dropping out.  This guy should too.  He spoke right after Wheelan and stole his "wealthiest" nation line.  There was one point where I thought this guy knew something and that was when he addressed the Oslo accords portion of the intro question he said, "it is an old agreement, it's unfinished."  At this point he was a dark horse.  And that was best his campaign will ever be.

Donatelli - 7: Her rationale for being qualified was that she worked for the Obama campaign.  She claims to have written policy papers (PLURAL) on transportation, infrastructure, and veteran affairs. I'm going to double check this with her website.  I was pretty certain that it said she contributed to A POLICY PAPER (SINGULAR).  I'm being ticky tacky but as I said with Cary Capparelli, embellishing to win a public office is not acceptable.  She supports a 2-state solution, and thinks single payer should be a long term goal.  

Bryar - 6: My first impression of this guy is that he's a weasel.  That would be supported later in the forum.  He thinks the #1 issue rigth now is to create jobs, and the #2 issue is that he's the anti-politician and he'll fight corruption.  (How?  Exactly)  He's in favor of a made in america tax cut (boo) and will freeze his pay when he's in office (so).  He favors universal ACCESS (yea), gay marriage (yea), and the Oslo accords agreement (I should read more).  

Forys - 6:  This guy meant well but.... he read his speech from paper in front of him and I frankly found it hard to concentrate.  He's a small business owner, he favors civil unions, single payer is not a political possibility right now (I'd argue with his analysis, this may be the best political environment sans economic downturn for single payer in the last 20 years), and he favors a 2-state solution.  

Wheelan - 9:  The man of the day.  Best intro out of all of the candidiates.  He was quick, rational, and substantive.  The economy is hte sinlge most important thing, he is clearly eminently qualified.  Pro gay marriage, no if's ands or buts, for universal healthcare, and supports a 2-state solution.  Because of his policy background he's been on the ground, "not as a toursit" advising diplomats, NGOs, governments etc. in Egypt, Jordan... a bunch of places I don't remember.  I think he has more national government experience than any of the other candidates which might strangley enough make him the most "qualified" to be a congressman.  

Geoghegan -6:  He sounded like he was screaming at first.  Here's another debunked first impression.  I expected him to be a loony super labor guy.  He was super labor, no mistake about it, but he sounded much more rational than I expected.  His intro was rather rambling though.  He wants to increase Soc Security to make it a real livable pension for all Americans, he wants single payer healthcare, he's anti-TARP, pro gay marriage, and oslo accord neutral. 

 

Monteguado - 6:  He's a cuban immigrant.  He sounded pathetic trying to claim to be a local because his wife is from the area and they've "owned a home" in the area for the past 15 years.  This guy is from NY.  at least that's where he's been living.  What have you done to help the community? Go get your shinebox carpetbagger.  I bet if you sat down with Dr. Monteguado he would have some very wise nuanced opinions about policy and the state.  But he just couldn't convert ANY of that intelligence today.  He constatnly stumbled over himself and added nothing to the forum.  He invoked Maslow in his intro (It was SUPER rambling).  He's pro gay marriage, and he's pro universal healthcare (but he's open to other options too). so he's not really for universal healthcare.  Gutless.

Candidate Evals- Fritchey, Quigley, Wheelan, Forys (D)

Everyone in this eval is a, So Far So Good

John Fritchey

John Fritchey is state senator.  I've liked him for a while.  I have reservations that he might be churchy but I ca nevaluate that in greater detail later.  I like that he has a blog and while he doesn't update it quite as much as I might like, he's trying.  And he's had the blog for a while so it's not like he just started it for this election.  I was also able to find some news stories of where he inserted himself into some local issues rather than standing back like it's not his job.  At the forum I will ask to see if he followed up on those programs he enacted and ask for metrics on how he knew it worked/ helped.

Mike Quigley

Mike Quigley is a county commisioner.  I think if this wasn't such a democratic area, he might be a republican.  But his thing is waste elimination and efficiency.  I haven't made it through his authored report from 2002 but I have started it.  People who really want to change stuff issue reports and solicit feedback.  I think this guy is in it for the right reasons.  I haven't seen anyhting to counter that yet.

Charlie Wheelan

Charlie Wheelan is a lecturer at the University of Chicago.  The last one of those we had from Illinois became the president.  Just putting it out there.  I like that he's an economist, he's clearly very smart, he's not a politician, and he's a public policy expert.  Of the non-politiicans (and maybe the politicians as well) he's probably the most knowledgeable about the issueas and solutions that the country faces.  Which is good for a US representative.  

Viktor Forys

Viktor Forys is a physician.  He's donated a lot of time to charity and a clinic he founded.  Think of all the reasons you might want Paul Bryar in office and Viktor seems to be a mirror of that.  I get less of a "R in D clothing" vibe from him.  But as this round of evalutions is only skin deep, a cursory glance reveals a citizen interested in public service with a track record of giving back that will be very qualified on one of the very important upcomeing issues (healthcare).

Candidate Evals- Process Change

I'm going to change the way I'm doing the candidate evals.  Right now I write a long post using my framework and afterward there is some sort of disposition of the candidate.  So Far So Good, Need More Info, and Thanks for Playing.  There are so many candidates and it's been so time consuming that I'm going to be a little less thorough up front, and then drill down later when I can make better comparisons and hopefully there is more information.   

Candidate Evals- Jan Donatelli (D)

Jan Donatelli

Jan Donatelli is a private citizen but has made her way into the google-sphere more than one might expect.  She of course has a website where she spells out her views on a variety of issues.  

Conclusion

Ms. Donatelli earns a "So Far So Good" joining the ranks of Dr. Paul Bryar.  It will be nice to see her at the DFA forum if she comes.  But ultimately she looks like a stand up citizen, someone who dedicated time and effort to the presidential election campaign

Analysis

As far as her stance on issues goes, she's what I'd expect from a Democrat.  There are some positions or stances she takes that I could do without (all the pro-union crap) but overall I think she's solid.  There was an ommission on her issues page which may or may not mean anything.  She talked specifically about Gays and LGBT rights, but ommitted any mention of gay marriage or civil unions.  She does say that she "is opposed to recent state legislative measures that have restricted gay rights." But that is woefully vague.  She's either playing it politically safe or she is against gay marriage.  The first is fine (although in a field of 25 I don't think playing it safe- unless your the establishment candidate- gets you anywhere), the second is not.  I also didn't like her advocacy of eliminating the pre-existing conditions clauses of insurance companies.  

As I said, those are the pieces I disagree with, most Democrats may or may not.  The rest of the stuff looked ok.  But that was just it, it just looked ok.  Nothing in her stances on issues says, "no way no how."  But I'm not really impressed either.  Although, this may be more information than I've seen so far by the candidates I've reviewed up until now.

As far as her background is concerned, she seems fine.   She seems genuinely motivated to do this, the effrot is there.  She has started the groups online (not very succesfully yet, but Rome wasn't built in a day).  LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr.  She's a veteran and an airline pilot.  She worked with the Obama campaingn in some capacity.   She founded Airline Pilots for Obama.  She doesn't tout that she founded it, at least on her website, which is good because the link will show you that it's a group on the Obama-Biden site.  Nothing wrong with that but the way "founding" something sounds overdoes it a bit.  Not unlike a previous candidate who inflated his resume.  She does claim to have helped on a policy paper (a link or an example would have been nice) and canvassed in New Hampshire and Nevada (among other places) for Obama.  She's a pilot, it was probably easy for her to "jump" to those locations.    But, it's more effort than I put in.  I just donated money.

As far as competence goes, I think you have to give her the benefit of the doubt.  That actually goes for most candidates unless they prove you otherwise (Capparelli, O'Connor). As far as the campaign goes, she's held up her end.  She's held an event (in San Francisco), she's made herself available on LinkedIn and Facebook, she has the best website I've seen so far, and she was promoted in the military in service to her country and doesn't seem to be a bad pilot.  I don't knock her for not being a native Illinoisian/ Chicagoan (she's conspicuously silent on the issue) but adults shouldn't care about petty stuff like that, nor do I hold the San Francisco fundraiser against her (I will run for office someday- for something- and my donations will be solicited from business school associates.  Hopefully they'll be rich by then).  

Candidate Evals- Paul Dagher (D)

Paul Dagher

Paul Dagher is no stranger to politics.  A veteran of the Clinton administration and of the Obama presidential campaign, I would classify him as an operator.  

Conclusion

Mr Dagher is probably shaping up to be a no.  It's hard to find information on him despite having served in the Clinton adminstration and previously run for congress in 2002.  I don't particularly think the Clinton Adminstration is a good pedigree either.  Although it does appear that he was an office manager for the Obama campaign.  He hasn't put up his website yet and his positions on issues are unpopular with the population as a whole (not necessarily so with me).  If he attends the DFA forum then I can get some more information, and if he puts up a website I can look at that too.  But he's quickly blending into the crowd.  No final disposition on this candidate yet.

Analysis

He has a place holder for a website here.  It is supposed to be up today.  As of the writing of this, it is still not functioning despite saying it would be by this week.  The only issues that I know for certain that he advocates are ending aid to Israel and helping Iraqi Assyrians.  I know the Israel thing is political suicide so it's not so much as I'm against it (I'm unfamiliar with the facts and arguments on both sides so I can't say that I have an educated opinion) as I think he would constantly be challenged and have difficulty getting reelected.  Or he'd just be a big target for anyone who oppossed him on good legislation because they could hang the "Israel-hater" label on him.  The Assyrians thing is nice, except his family is Assyrian and that's where they're from.  It'd be like if I cared (I do I suppose) a great deal about suburban black kids.  So what, you're supposed to.

As far as his background goes he seems like a patriotic guy.  He's served the nation and worked in the public sector.  Although, he knows his way around the political arena.  I don't consider that a good thing.  If he was so competent and capable he should have no trouble getting a job with the State Department.  Otherwise maybe he should run for office within the city or county and do some good locally.  

It's strange that I can find information on Mr. Dagher here, and here.  But I can't seem to verify any of the information from these places.  The first one is a conspiracy theorist right winger (therealbarackobama?) and the other has a list of accomplishments that seem to check out with other stuff I've seen but I can't find a larger story in the trib or sun-times.  

Other Stuff:

He worked for the Obama Campaign.

He donated $1,750 to Jeff Footlik for Congress.

He's not concientious about his LinkedIn account.

Someone on Facebook liked him enough to start a group.

Candidate Evals- Paul Bryar (D)

Paul Bryar

Dr. Bryar is a private citizen.  The only indepent info I could find on him was this.  But....wait for it....he has a website!  And the website has revolutionary things like, his views on issues! Imagine that.  

Conclusion

Dr. Bryar is a non-pol, who is well qualified to represent the voters of the 5th congressional district on some of the most important issues of the day.  As issues go, I like him.  As his background goes, I mostly like him, but he may be a R in D clothing.  I'll need more information to know if I care about that or not.  He seems competent enough.  

Analysis

Issues- Dr. Bryar seems to have well thought out positions on a variety of issues.  Issues both local and national.  He's my brand of democrat in that he wants more "access" to healthcare and better quality.  He is very clear that he does not want "single payer socialized" care.  But his choice of phrasing makes me think that he's a R in D clothing.  More on that later.  The issues he cares most about, evidenced by the ones he posts his views on are 1) Healthcare (he is a n eye surgeon) 2) the economy, with some misplaced weight on pork 3) Education, which he rightly says is the "most important infrastructure" and 4) Going green.  The last one was his weakest issue, he could have easily advocated ending sugar ethanol tariffs and corn subsidies, which distort the alternative fuel market here, he could have endorsed Picken's Plan, or a variety of other measures.

Background 

Dr. Bryar is a doctor so he's well educated.  He's an eye surgeon to be specific.  My only worry about doctors is that sometimes they are assholes.  Especially surgeons.  But he's an eye surgeon so perhaps my irrational bias is a little misplaced.  Healthcare is the buzzword this year and for the next probably and he has a medical background.  He's also a professor at Northwestern.  The fact that he's an eye surgeon, an elective medical procedure probably gives him a more free-market orientation with the healthcare industry.  And if you think the current healthcare regime has problems (in my view due to some of the distortions of the market place in addition to other things) Dr Bryar is qualified and experienced enough to have nuanced opinions on the subject.

Republican?

If Bryar is a republican in democrat clothing, there are a few things I am considering  1) It's dishonest and its the mark of someone who wants to do anything to win.  It flies in the face of leading by example and fighting the good fight.  2) It's realistic, because this is Illinois, and this is a gerrymandered district.  It's pragmatic. 3) I don't really care if he's a republican, I can see his stance on issues and I like them, regardless of what the letter next to his name is.  4) There are issues he's silent on (it's very short campaign and I don't expect everything to be up there) but if he is a Republican, is he against gay marriage?  Does he condemn the administration of George W Bush? (Not that Bush matters but it's an inidication of the soundness of his judgement)

Competence

Dr Bryar seems to be an accomplished eye surgeon who could put together an informative website.  He also held a meet and greet that I missed.  But hopefully he'll have another.  He is going to the DFA forum so I'll question his Democratic credentials there if I get a chance.  

Candidate Evals- Frank Annunzio (D)

Frank Annunzio

Mr Annunzio is a private citizen.  The only information I could find on him was this.

Conclusion

There is really no informaiton to go on.  You can see he's a decent guy, has worked for the city/ community since being discharged from the Navy.  He doesn't have as much educational pedigree as I'd normally like to see, but that doesn't mean he's bad or he wouldn't be good.  But I have absolutely NO INFORMATION other than knowing his great uncle was a congressman.  We'll have to wait until after candidate forum.  Maybe he's really impressive. 

Candidate Evals- Patrick O'Connor (D)

Patrick O'Connor

Mr. O'Connor is the Alderman of the 40th ward.  There is tons of information available on him and his record.  

Conclusion

This candidate is a machine politician who is too hubrisitic to put forth any effort for this campaign.  LESS effort than Cary Capparelli if that can be believed.  He shows no special insight or knowledge that makes him especially better qualified than any of the other candidates in the race.  In addition, there are major concerns about a conflict of interest of his position as alderman and his wife as a real estate agent.  And he has taken only cursory action to quell the suspicions.  

Analysis

Let's begin with the framework.  Issues.  Alderman O'Connor does not have a campaign website but he does have an aldermanic website.  I can't really get a sense of where he is on any issues because he doesn't state his views with one exception.  He thinks the terror alert system should have only four catergories and the worst should be "Holy Shit!"  At least Cary Capparelli has some views.  

Background and Competence, alderman O'Connor is a 7 time alderman, obviously has a lot of clout and a lot of pull with the city and seemingly has served his ward well.  He seems competent, involved, and has a clear track record of giving back, (even the salary for giving back pays $98,000 a year).  Although of the ~$1.5MM given to his ward by MENU, $750,000 is allocated to "lighting improvement."  I have very specific views on how government money should be spent.  It should improve TFP, total factor productivity.  Unless the vast majortiy of the lighting improvement was to change over to more energy efficient lights, it was just a waste, whne the city is in budgetary trouble.  If I were him, I would earmark the funds for road improvements (using the expensive material that only needs to be replaced 1/4th of the time), offer energy assistance via insulated window vouchers or solar panel subsidies, or a few one-time scholarships.  Maybe there are some serious "lighting" issues in the 40th ward but I'd be interested in knowing whose hands (what companies) that $750,000 ends up in.

Not having a campaign website tells me he's full of hubris.  And according to this Sun-Times article, he's the favorite of the establishment.  I'm not too keen on the establishment, especially when the establishment is run by someone with the last name "Daley."  This position is for someone with a federal eye.  He's been an alderman for quite a while, he's developed an expertise for what's going on in the city and his corner of it, maybe he's too valuable to let leave?  Either way, I don't think he has anymore claim to expertise being a congressman than some of the non-politicians in the race.

And finally, the piece de la resistance, this guy has huge conflict of interest.  Read about it here, here, and here.  He responds to the allegations on his aldermanic website but the fundamental facts of the scenario are unchanged.  there is a conflict of interest.  Even if his wife is not involved in ANY of the projects that he will vote on, builders that she works with are, meaning that Alderman O'Connor could trade them votes for their use, or continued use of his wife as a selling agent on OTHER properties.  The economic incentive can still be wielded.  Everything may be above board, but the situation smells soooo bad.

Candidate Eval- Capparelli (D)

Cary Caparelli

Mr Caparelli is a private citizen so there is not a lot of information to go through.  But I can be certain that I have been thorough because of the limited amount of information. 

Conclusion-

This guy is an unserious candidate.  Just because one feels politics is a broken system does not absolve you from service to your country or your community.  He proudly claims he's not a career politican, and that's good.  We need more non  traditional pols.  But show me what you've done that shows selflessness, service, charity etc.  Show me that you have a passion for giving back rather than just being an opportunist.  I don't see any on his site other  than some board service, for a professional organization.  (There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with board service in and of itself.  But many movers and shakers use boards as a means to another end as oppossed to actually giving two craps about the non-profit.  Mr. Caparelli sits on ONE board, the Illinois Port.  Way to give back).  Further, for something this important, representing your fellow citizens in Congress, he looks like he has put forth almost no effort, and is more than willing to inflate his credentials to win.  

Analysis

 If you go to his website you're immediately struck by how bad it is.  This WOULD BE a minor issue if his profession was not MARKETING CONSULTANT.  Keep in mind that someone who understands marketing knows they need to answer a LOT of questions about who they're talking to, what about, what the best way to reach them is, etc before they create a website or communication.  This is an ugly website with very little informaion that could probably have been (and probably was) thrown together in under an hour.  

Moving onto his biography page, he claims to have an "unparralleled education."  this may be technically true, as in, no one else in the race graduated from Drake University or is a PhD CANDIDATE at University of London, there are several MDs, professors (PhD- one especially whose adviser was Nobel Laurreate sp? Gary Becker), adjunct professors etc.  I would say his education, IS paralleled.  And the way he lists PhD candidate is misleading.  If you browse quickly, it looks like he's claiming to have a PhD.  To defend his PhD, he asserts "GEOGRAPHY MATTERS" but does not really explain why or how it's relevant to the US 5th congressional district.  One could make the argument that when representing a congressional district, ANY experience is relevant , and I would agree, but this is an incomplete idea. Much like the whole website.

I can't find a website for OMNI-Communique but here is the website for Illinois International Port.  The address is this.  For an organization that is headquartered here, I don't know how complex being a board memeber is.  Still, the organization seems legit enough.  

His statement provides no useful information.

But his endorsements page provides more examples of subterfuge.  I read his "endorsement" from the Amici Journal.  They don't endorse him.  It's a news story.  Although the story reads like an endorsement, they never say "endorse."  If you read it, it's a pretty horrible endorsement.  They only endorse him because he's an Italian-American.  Money quote:

Despite a large base in metropolitan Chicago, the Italian-American community, here has not had one of its own in the United States House of Representatives since 1993.  During that time there has been increases in both Afro American and Hispanic metro populations. However, there has been gains in representation made by Afro American, Hispanics, Irish and Jewish. These gains, at least in part, have been at the expense of Chicago’s Italian-American community.

Let's here it for the Amici Journal enciting a race war!  And what grammar.  As I looked around online to get info about the Amici Journal, it seems like it's a legit magazine celebrating Italian American heritgage.  It looks like they print 4 issues a year.  But the website looks like hell and I wouldn't be surprised if Capparelli knows someone there or even if he didn't, was able to send them a self written "story" that they would post.  Whatever the case, the endorsement lacks substance.

He provides no statements from his celebrity endorsers although I don't doubt that they "endorse" him.  But what the hell do boxers and racecar drivers know about the Illinois 5th congressional district?

The platform page  is the best part of the website.  He makes a few substantive statements about where he is on issues (plus) but is extremely vague on some areas (neutral).  I liked that he's for term limits on reps.

Conclusion-

This guy is an unserious candidate.  Just because one feels politics is a broken system does not absolve you from service to your country or your community.  He proudly claims he's not a career politican, and I wholeheartedly will hear the ideas of non-politicians, but show me what you've done that shows selflessness, service, charity etc.  I don't see any on his sight.  Further, for something this important, representing your fellow citizens, he looks like he has put forth almost no effort, and is more than willing to inflate his credentials to win.  

Special Election Candidate Evaluation- The Process

So I've been looking at the candidates and I think I've developed a proto-framework/ strategy of how to evaluate them. There is publicly available information, their websites, news stories etc.  And then there will be a candidate forum for the democrats on Feb 1.  Using that plus a framework (Issues, Background, and Competence) I can narrow the field to the best options.  

The Framework-

Issues is exactly what it sounds like, what is the candidate advocating, do I agree or disagree, are they advocating anything specific?  Obviosly, if you disagreee with my assessment about what is important or not important i nthis country, this piece of my analysis could vary wildly with anyone else.

Background encompasses a lot of things, Career politician? Education, experience, sincerity, ethical issues, on record as having taken principiled stands? etc.  

And finally Competence.  If they are a career politician, how effective have they been?  If not what sort of service have they dedicated to the community.

My Evaluations-

I'm going to go through every candidate and every party, find out what I can about their record and their abilities and make an asessment. Some will require more time, the career politicans will have a plethora of information available and it will take a LOOOOONG time to go through most of it.  I'll try.  Others, I will have to off of Google/ Wikipedia, and their website alone.

I'll toss some easy "no"s early.  To save myself time.  And I'll update evals when new information becomes available.

My Philosophies-

I'm Socially liberal- equality, gay rights, pro-choice, legalize marijuana, etc.

fiscally responsible- evaluate spending needs based on effectiveness and necessity, keep taxes low when possible using an economically sound strategy (raising rates on low taxes, lowering them on higher ones, to reduce deadweight loss), save & spend countercyclically, more defined property rights, lean against unions and unless complete free choice is enabled (you start a job, you can join or not join the union- not mandatory)

Demand ethics reform and transparency in government- public funded campaigns, restrict campaigning to a specified period of time, eliminate conflict of interest, real rationales for laws (no protecting the people from what they oughtn't know such as statistical value of a life considerations).

This will be fun.

5th Congressional District Special Election

Seeing as I am a resident of the 5th, the special election to replace Rahm should be something I can blog about conscience free.  I will post an assessment of the candidates once I have reviewed them.  What do you mean by "conscience free?"  

My general philosophy about starting this blog was really just doing it for myself.  A way to warm my brain up for changing careers when the time came and to keep me engaged in local issues, since it's a civic duty.  There are a million people out there smarter than I and more knowledgeable about legal philospohy, international relations, military strategy, the constitution etc.  And they all have blogs.  Although my goal is not to become another Andrew Sullivan or Matt Yglesias, it would help if the blog caught fire a bit, but it should do so on a level where I am used efficiently.  And a 1,000,001st blog about everything you see in the national and international news isn't helping anyone, that market is pretty much saturated.  I can provide commentary and information about Chicago locally, and maybe Illinois sometimes.  The Blago case is a prime example, hell the guy lives in my hood, but it's a naitonal story so comeetning on it would just be pointless.  Although the dude is a dirty as hell.  And Burris is a bufoon.  I'd like to start a "Remove Burris" campaign.

Illinois Losing Easy Tax Revenue (follow up)

I guess they wisened up.  Illinois 1- Stupidity 0.