Anatomy of a Chicago election – Feb, 2011

Thesis: In a calculated attempt to throw the election to Rahm Emanuel, Carol Moseley Braun was chosen to be the so-called “consensus Black candidate” for Mayor of Chicago.

Disclaimer: Since I wasn’t a fly on the wall (nor did I engage in illegal wiretapping), I couldn’t prove my thesis in a court of law. What I’m about to offer is my best attempt to deduce the realities behind this election.

As for the two leading Black candidates:

Danny Davis has been serving in the US House of Reps since 1997. James Meeks has been in the Illinois state senate for 8 years, his term ending in 2012.

Either of these two gentlemen would have had a better chance than Carol Moseley Braun – that is, if they had really been serious about running for Mayor in the first place. Which, I’m convinced, they weren’t. The biggest reason? Neither really wanted to give up their relatively safe positions only to be raked over the coals as mayor. They both, correctly I believe, see that Chicago is in such fiscally bad shape, nothing they would do could pluck this city from the jaws of disaster.

That’s how bad it is. So, you might ask, why would Rahm Emanuel want the job? Answer: To line his pockets before Chicago totally tanks.

Davis and Meeks aren’t stupid. They know Chicago is teetering on the brink of disaster and they don’t want a Black mayor to be the fall guy. They’re perfectly willing to wait for a Black to try to dethrone Rahm, while allowing him (as his reward for service to Obama) to line his pockets as the house of cards comes tumbling down. In that sense, they’re good Democrats trying to please their Commander in Chief.

That’s why they settled on Moseley Braun.

What about Carol?

CMB tried to act all indignant when challenged to produce her income tax records. She had to know well in advance that she would be challenged, along with the other candidates, to produce these documents. But she said, no – basically because she didn’t feel like it. But…the very next day, she produces them. Are we to believe that she hadn’t thought this out? That she didn’t think she’d be asked, though she had been in a previous election? She knew she’d be asked. And she intentionally gave a “flippant” answer [“Because I don’t want to”], knowing she would reverse herself almost immediately.

What people would walk away with, upon analyzing her forms: Carol, who wants to run this city, doesn’t have her own personal finances in order. In fact, one could call her situation a “train wreck.”

She also said she was committed to transparency in government and that her decision to release her tax forms was not a “flip flop.” Like anybody could believe either statement. Which is exactly the point. Nobody could believe those words, which is exactly why she said them. To sink her own candidacy. She doesn’t really want to be mayor.

As if that weren’t convincing enough, she falsely accused fellow candidate Watkins (whose campaign hadn’t gained much traction at all) in these words at a public candidate forum:

“Patricia, the reason you didn’t know where I was the last 20 years is because you were strung out on crack.”

The net effect of her antics is to undermine her credibility with Black voters. If enough of them stay home and don’t vote, Rahm Emanuel will emerge with enough votes (50% + 1) to win the election outright, without forcing a runoff. Of course, there's another possibility: If enough Blacks are disgusted with Carol, they'll vote for Rahm since they think that's what Obama wants.

In summary

Danny Davis and Reverend Meeks purposely participated in a scheme to back the weakest “major” Black candidate, complete with that candidate’s complicity, in order to throw the election to Rahm Emanuel. And they are confident that Emanuel not only won’t be able to save Chicago from (literally) decades of mismanagement, but he doesn’t even want to.

Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins for Mayor

I personally believe Watkins is sincere, though I was a bit crestfallen to see her campaign literature identify her as a Democrat. I’m sure her campaign thinks that was a wise move. Wiser, though, would have been to present her as an Independent since, before too long, Chicagoans will be so sick of the Democratic Party stranglehold on this city, they will be willing to embrace Independent candidates. However, in order for that to work, all 50 aldermanic incumbents will have to be challenged by a coordinated coalition of independents.

I’m also disappointed in Watkins not challenging Chicago’s rampant corruption by saying:

“If elected, I will use my training as a certified public accountant to get to the bottom of previously hidden fiscal chicanery. And I will call in auditors from the state and federal governments in order to finally clear the air of any and all financial mismanagement – legal as well as illegal.”

Watkins could have blasted Gideon’s trumpet on this issue, yet she chose not to. My best guess? Simply that she wants to live. [These boys play rough – believe it!]

Perhaps her current campaign is in preparation for a run against Mayor Emanuel in the next election. Maybe at that time, the media won’t be so obviously dismissive of her campaign by means, among others, of not even including her name on opinion polls. It’s been too obvious that all major media have bought into anointing Rahm, shamelessly I might add.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Whenever oddities or outright strangeness pops up in a campaign, look for underlying strategies” – Steve.

Chicago’s Blacks elect Jewish mayor

If Rahm Emanuel becomes the next mayor of Chicago, our newspapers should run this headline: “Chicago’s Blacks elect Jewish mayor.”

For the only way Rahm can become the next mayor of Chicago will be if Chicago’s Black voters elect him.

And why should Blacks elect Emanuel?

Conventional wisdom has it that a “vote for Rahm” will somehow benefit President Obama. That’s the real gist of the matter – the real argument. But is this argument valid?

No, it is not. The money machine that Obama will need for his reelection is already in place. Rahm’s input will not be necessary in this regard. Whether Obama secures his party’s nomination for a second term will not depend on Emanuel becoming Chicago’s mayor. It will depend on Obama, and as of this writing – Obama has his destiny firmly in hand. At least in terms of any potential challenge from within his own party.

As for a GOP challenger? Again, Rahm won’t have any influence in that regard. Chicago will vote Democratic in the next presidential election, baring any earthshaking blunder on Obama’s part – which isn’t likely.

So there is no truth to the argument that “a vote for Rahm is a vote for Obama.” There’s simply no longer any connection between those two men.

Why Blacks shouldn’t vote for…

Voting for Rahm will not change Chicago’s status as the nation’s most racially-polarized city. When Whitey speaks of Rahm as a man who can “get things done,” he’s talking about getting things done for Whitey.

Voting for Carol, Gery, or Miguel will only be a vote for the regular Democratic “business-as-usual” Party. Translation? Business-as-usual means, the politically connected insiders will continue to profit as the schools and the rest of the city’s infrastructure (especially in the bad neighborhoods) will continue to disintegrate.

William “Dock” Walls III, the only Black male running for mayor, is a somewhat shadowy character. Dock’s days of glory were as an aide to Chicago’s first and only Black mayor, Harold Washington. Since then, he has campaigned for a number of public offices – quite unconvincingly, I might add. I was unable to determine exactly how this man earns his daily bread – he’s not a lawyer (though is a graduate from law school) and he touts himself as the director of the Committee for a Better Chicago. About which I was unable to garner any specifics.

Moreover, exactly why does he call himself “Dock?” If that’s supposed to be short for “doctor,” then shouldn’t he call himself “doc?” What’s up “Dock?”

But why vote for Watkins?

Patricia Watkins is exactly the kind of role model the Black community needs, one who deserves their wholehearted support. She has a Ph.D. in Management and is a Certified Public Accountant. Her work as a community activist is of long duration, successful, and well-documented. And she is an Independent political outsider who won’t be obligated to put the fortunes of the Democratic Party before those of Chicago’s ordinary citizens.

Patricia came from an impoverished background, and she overcame. She admitted she had been a drug user over 30 years ago, but she overcame. Patricia’s name has not even been listed on opinion polls attempting to gauge the public’s interest in the various mayoral candidates. I sincerely hope she will overcome that.

Isn’t this what the Black empowerment struggle is supposed to be all about – overcoming? As in, “We shall overcome?” And yet, the pundits would have you believe that Chicago’s Black community will snub Dr. Patricia Van Pelt Watkins. Those are the same pundits who have treated Carol Moseley Braun as a serious, major candidate. Even though her personal finances are a train wreck and she had the nerve to call Watkins a crack addict (she later apologized for this blatant inaccuracy).

If, however, Chicago’s Black community helps elect Rahm Emanuel, they will have only themselves to blame for what will surely follow. Chicago will remain the most racially-segregated city in the US, with disproportionate attention paid to its minority citizens.

Some day in the future, a young teenage Black kid will ask his dad, “Why do Jews, who are a minority just like us Blacks, seem to have so much power and influence? How did a manipulative Jew like Rahm Emanuel ever get elected mayor in a city with a white minority?”

I hope the answer isn’t, “Well, son, we were decisive in electing Rahm because we thought, somehow, that would help President Obama. Now we know we were conned against voting for our own best interests. We should have voted for the only highly-qualified Black candidate on the ballot. But then, Jews have always been better than Blacks at supporting their own. And they’ve always been better at getting support from constituencies other than their own.

“That seems to just be the way things are.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The rich will continue to get richer, only as long as the poor continue to believe that should be the natural order of things” – Steve.

Dr. Watkins for Mayor of Chicago: A Declaration of Independence

On January 15, 2011, I sent the following email to the (hopefully) next mayor of Chicago:

QUOTE:

I am a “white” resident of Chicago who will be voting for Dr. Van Pelt Watkins on Feb. 22. Chicago will be lucky to have such a fine person as mayor.

For what it’s worth, I wish to offer a few tips which your campaign might find useful. Also, for what it’s worth, I have been a state civil service worker at Northeastern Illinois University for 29 years. I’m about as ordinary and powerless a citizen as can be imagined. However, I do have one minor claim to fame: I was the only candidate in the history of this country to run for US president (in 2008) on the basis of a legally-enforceable contract. If I had been elected, if I had violated any of the 47 campaign promises listed in my written & signed Electoral Contract, I would have forfeited my office.

That leads me to my first tip for your campaign:

Dr. Watkins might consider offering such a contract herself, a sample of which follows:

QUOTE:

Electoral Contract specific to Chicago’s Mayor

This link leads to my blog on which I detail what a US president’s electoral contract [my own contract, back in 2008] could look like:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

The enforcement mechanism, in this case, is quite simple: If I were to violate any of my written campaign promises yet fail to resign the presidency, the Congress could impeach me. However, there is another way which could be included in Dr. Watkins’ contract, since there’s no way to impeach Chicago’s mayor:

“If an opinion poll of registered Chicago voters conducted by the respected polling firm of _____ would ever show 50% saying I should resign as mayor, I would have to either resign immediately or forfeit a ‘bond’ in the amount of ____ held in trust by ____.” [NOTE: Any such poll would have to be paid for the mayor’s detractors.]

Other possible mayoral campaign promises:

ONE: If elected, I would have no part in raising taxes or fees for four years.

TWO:  If elected, I would have no part in granting public money (not even by means of bond issues) for the benefit of privately owned corporations, especially sports franchises, especially in regard to construction of new ball parks.

THREE:  Discretionary money in TIF accounts, controlled by the mayor, would be spent as follows: 50% for school improvement (not for any salary increases), 30% for (other) infrastructure improvements, and 20% to hire more police officers.

FOUR: If the day comes when the city council consists of at least 50% independent aldermen not aligned with any political party, I would seek majority approval by such Council for legislation, that being sufficient for enactment. Also, I would step aside and allow the Council to select its own presiding officer and, in all respects, operate independently of the mayor.

:UNQUOTE.

Other suggestions

Dr. Watkins should emphasize that she is an independent who believes Chicagoans have suffered under one-party, strongman mayor rule for too long. Single party rule dominated by a strongman is typical of stagnant third world countries. And this is not fitting for a leading world-class city like Chicago.

On the other hand, this is not a suggestion that competition in the form of a revived GOP is welcome. What is really needed, here and nationwide, is an end to the Two Party System’s dominance. When elected officials are beholden to a political party, they lose their connection to the people they’re supposed to service.

As mayor, Dr. Watkins would invite City Council members to sever their allegiance to the Democratic Party and declare as independents. Either that, or face challenges from independents who will start to look increasingly attractive to a party-weary public.

It’s time for Chicagoans to declare their independence by voting for independents.

With people like Rahm Emanuel, we don’t know what favors he’ll be expected to grant in exchange for campaign contributions. With the other candidates, they will behave as good servants, doing what’s best for the Democratic Party without any care for the ordinary citizens of Chicago.

As Mayor, Dr. Watkins could lead for renegotiation of the city’s parking meter deal by threatening to lead meter boycotts on certain selected days, saying, “On these dates, I urge all citizens to take public transportation instead of feeding bloated parking meters. We will continue this boycott until this blatantly unfair contract is renegotiated.”

I hope you will consider these possibilities as foci for your campaign.

Sincerely,

Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

:UNQUOTE.

Post Script

I’m going to send another email to the Watkins campaign, suggesting that she add one more facet to her campaign: Advertise heavily that she, if elected, will aggressively investigate Chicago’s more hidden aspects of corruption. She can do this by means of her executive authority as mayor, and by inviting the feds to come in and pour over the books. She can order all agency heads to fully cooperate in this investigation. If this trail of investigation leads to where I strongly suspect, Mayor Richard M. Daley might end up doing the perp walk after all.

In any event, such revelations will be to the good of all of Chicago’s citizens.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors Party

" #1: Anybody but Rahm; #2: Anybody but a Dem/Pub; #3: Watkins is actually a very good option."