Chicago Politics – The Song Remains the Same

Ok, so I only live in the suburbs of one of the greatest cities on the planet. I do not pay city taxes – not even Cook County taxes (DuPage and Will Counties), and I have not ridden the El train regularly since 1991. However, I grew up in the Chicagoland area, live there now, and did live in the City of Chicago at one point earlier in my life. Even as a teacher back in the 1990s I assigned my high school students a project to locate a statue somewhere in the city and to write a short report about it. I compelled them to go into the city because so few of the suburban kids had ever been. Wow, did I ever get flak from some parents on that (you mean I need to drive my kid into the city?!?)!

So, needless to say, I do feel that I have the right to comment on issues around the Chicago mayoral race. After all, my evening news is full of Chicago political news, so I should have an interest in who is mayor. So it is clear, my interest lies with having Rahm Emanuel take the helm after the Daley reign. His chief opponents, Carol Moseley Braun and Gary Chico label Mr. Emanuel as “an outsider.” Precisely, and that is why he should lead. While Mr. Emanuel is hardly the “Washington outsider” that Moseley Braun labels him, Mr. Emanuel will bring a cosmopolitan style with him that is backed by significant experience in Washington DC. The last thing we need is some entrenched politico who lives and breathes the ethos of Chicago two-bit politics.

The most lively conspiracy theorists will see today’s appellate court decision as a dark-handed attempt to influence the outcome of the mayoral race and to prevent democracy from working. They may not be far off the mark, but that would be giving too much credit to those who are working to undermine the system. Those seeking to have Emanuel removed from the ballot are not capable enough to engineer such a surprising and arrogant decision as handed down by two of three appellate judges. The dissenting judge’s comments speak volumes (see link, pp. 25 on): “The majority’s new standard is ill-reasoned and unfair to the candidate, voters and those of us who are charged with applying the law [and] disenfranchises not just this particular candidate but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him.” Even those seeking Emanuel’s removal from the ballot were surprised by the decision. Bad judicial decisions generally are surprising. Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times agree.

The good news is that Mr. Emanuel is not quitting. He still plans on participating in an upcoming debate, and he has asked the Illinois Supreme Court for an emergency stay to prevent the printing of ballots without his name. He will fight unfairness with his bare knuckles if he has to. Frankly, that is why he should be mayor.  Hopefully his ongoing efforts will upend the sleazy tactics of those around him. Maybe one day we will get the full story behind this challenge to Mr. Emanuel’s candidacy. In short, it is democratic cowardice, brought upon those who can muster neither the votes not the money to win fairly. Certainly, it was not simply a lawyer and his two clients labeled as “concerned citizens.” Chicago politics are too rough-and-tumble to believe that.

Good Riddance?

To be sure, Keith Olbermann will be back.

Where? Who knows. Who will take him? Would you?

There are likely multiple reasons why MSNBC unceremoniously dumped Mr. Olbermann so suddenly: disagreements with management; Olbermann’s suspension late last year over his political contributions to Democratic candidates; the imminent take-over of NBC Universal by Comcast; even, possibly, that Olbermann’s ratings were in danger of upset by his own popular MSNBC colleagues, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.

The list could probably go on. Officially, Comcast denies that Mr. Olbermann was dumped due to any of its influence, but it seems too much of a coincidence that the firing occurred so close to the announcement of the US government approval of the merger.

Maybe Mr. Olbermann’s ungracious fall is all related to the recent criticism of the pugilistic and rhetoric-driven nature of “opinion TV,” a negative light brought about by – among other events – Jon Stewart’s recent Rally to Restore Sanity and the horrific events in Tucson. Not likely, but one could hope. Other than the few moments when the hot rhetoric cooled off a bit after Tucson, we fully expect the negativity on the airways to continue and to generate high ratings on network and cable television. In an interesting twist, it was a political contribution to Ms. Giffords that resulted in Mr. Olbermann’s suspension last year.

So, we are left to ruminate and speculate about what happened at MSNBC and what is next for the TV personality. Mr. Olbermann has been prevented from speaking publicly about the ouster, and he has some restrictions as to what he can do next (ala Conan O’Brien deal with NBC).

Despite the tone of my earlier post about MSNBC, there was value to having Mr. Olbermann spouting his view on television every night. My whole point was that MSNBC should not pretend that they are too much different from Fox News. Just as the conservatives, Tea Partiers and other assorted characters need their daily dose of Hannity, Beck and Palin, it is important for the Left to have its own fighters and opinion-hawkers. MSNBC provided a strong balance. While CNN is often accused of being in service to the Left, their valiant – but unsuccessful – attempt to claim the Middle is very clear when you place the three networks together. Just look at the MSNBC line-up – Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow and O’Donnell. Talking about the “Lefty” assault brigade! But that was the whole point, right (or Left)? MSNBC ratings sky-rocketed the more opinionated its programs became. No surprise, reports are that Lawrence O’Donnell will take over the “Countdown” slot for MSNBC with his own program, “The Last Word.” No word yet of any other changes at MSNBC.

So what about Mr. Olbermann? Although he was a necessary defender of all things liberal, he too often came across as arrogant, spiteful and obsessed. Like too many other TV opinion-makers, he focused too many assaults on his competitors in the media. Sometimes it sounded like no more than a fearful rant against people with higher ratings. Every week that went by seemed to have Mr. Olbermann carrying on-and-on about Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity or one of the other Fox News commentators. That turned really old, really quickly. Viewers of Mr. Olbermann’s show already knew the deficiencies of the Fox News line-up; they did not need the constant reminders. True liberal commentary is much better spent on addressing topics of policy, politics and human rights. We want to hear about what the government is or is not doing for the people of this country; not who over at Fox was the most senseless of the bunch. Maybe it helped his ratings, but Mr. Olbermann did a disservice to the liberal agenda by focusing on the people rather than the policies.

Good riddance, yes – but come on back when you are ready to fight the good fight.

Update (1/23/2011): another article on what lead to the divorce from MSNBC…he was apparently a pain in the tuches…what a surprise!

Update (1/24/2011): a blog post that really tries to differentiate MSNBC, specifically Mr. Olbermann, from Fox, specifically Glenn Beck. Even though the post is full of way too many parenthetical comments (really), the blog post is a good one. However, the poster still gives too much credence to the concept that Mr. Olbermann’s were always based on facts and Mr. Beck’s never are based on reality. Both commentators mix truth and opinion too closely together. That said, I would absolutely agree that Mr. Olbermann is no Glenn Beck.