'How does a resolution with 40 sponsors translate into a 29-person vote? Where were the other alderman?'
Ahhh, WTF, welcome to the world of politics, Chicago style. Like the Chicago Hot Dog, it's one of the wonders of the world.
The 'missing' 11 Aldermen were all there, save for our latest antiwar firebrand Bert Natarus, who had to be taken out on a gurney. Had he been there, we would have had 30.
But old hands know that it's one thing to have an alderman 'sign on' to your item, but it's quite another to have them vote appropriately when nitty gets down to gritty, especially if 'Da Mare' turns up the heat.
Perhaps you are an old hand, and your question is a bit rhetorical.
But in any case, we actually did rather well. We wanted the Mayor to hang loose, and let the cookie crumble, so to speak. He did so by going to an urgent funeral.
But Alderman Burke took up Alderman Balcer's cause at the last minute, and turned up the heat as best as he could.
Now you should know that Burke, the finance honcho, is not a minor player in the chambers. The first time around, at the onset of the war, when Bush and Blair had his Irish nationalist dander up, and he turned our way, we knew we had it in the bag.
I'm making an educated guess that a good number of our 'soft supporters' held back their vote and waited to see if we could win without them. If it had taken, say, only a vote or two to put us over, I think enough of them would have broken our way. As it was, we had three votes to spare, so the missing 10 or so went along for the ride, either because they were geniunely conflicted or they didn't want to cross swords with Burke. In any case, we had the nine opposed to us figured out fairly well.
The jingoist pressure was high and thick from the opposition. You have to note that it's one thing to vote against a war before it starts; it's quite another to vote against it when our soldiers are in the middle of it.
Finally, the vote was actually rather representative in reflecting the range of views in the city generally -- a hard minority for the war, a larger hard and soft majority opposed to the war, and a bloc in between that's torn in both directions.
In short, we had a good day, but we have a lot of work and a ways to go ahead of us.
Re: Chicago City Council Votes 29-to-9 for Iraq Pullout
15 Sep 2005
Date Edited: 15 Sep 2005 08:49:42 PM
'How does a resolution with 40 sponsors translate into a 29-person vote? Where were the other alderman?'
Ahhh, WTF, welcome to the world of politics, Chicago style. Like the Chicago Hot Dog, it's one of the wonders of the world.
The 'missing' 11 Aldermen were all there, save for our latest antiwar firebrand Bert Natarus, who had to be taken out on a gurney. Had he been there, we would have had 30.
But old hands know that it's one thing to have an alderman 'sign on' to your item, but it's quite another to have them vote appropriately when nitty gets down to gritty, especially if 'Da Mare' turns up the heat.
Perhaps you are an old hand, and your question is a bit rhetorical.
But in any case, we actually did rather well. We wanted the Mayor to hang loose, and let the cookie crumble, so to speak. He did so by going to an urgent funeral.
But Alderman Burke took up Alderman Balcer's cause at the last minute, and turned up the heat as best as he could.
Now you should know that Burke, the finance honcho, is not a minor player in the chambers. The first time around, at the onset of the war, when Bush and Blair had his Irish nationalist dander up, and he turned our way, we knew we had it in the bag.
I'm making an educated guess that a good number of our 'soft supporters' held back their vote and waited to see if we could win without them. If it had taken, say, only a vote or two to put us over, I think enough of them would have broken our way. As it was, we had three votes to spare, so the missing 10 or so went along for the ride, either because they were geniunely conflicted or they didn't want to cross swords with Burke. In any case, we had the nine opposed to us figured out fairly well.
The jingoist pressure was high and thick from the opposition. You have to note that it's one thing to vote against a war before it starts; it's quite another to vote against it when our soldiers are in the middle of it.
Finally, the vote was actually rather representative in reflecting the range of views in the city generally -- a hard minority for the war, a larger hard and soft majority opposed to the war, and a bloc in between that's torn in both directions.
In short, we had a good day, but we have a lot of work and a ways to go ahead of us.