Why we must play by 'Chicago Rules' in the 2004 GE

[Padraig18]

I am sure that most here will remember Sean Connery's famous line from The Untouchables, "If they put one of ours in the hospital, we put ten of theirs in the morgue--- that's how it's done in Chicago."

We Democrats must come to understand that the only way we will prevail against GWB and KKKarl Rove next fall will be if we adopt "Chicago Rules"; far too many prominent victims have spoken out about our party's failure to do so in the past, most recently former Massachussetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. We can never again sit back and allow our nominee to be 'Gored' or 'Dukakised'.

I don't think any of our candidates are incapable of understanding the neccessity for this approach, but I do think that Governor Dean understands it on an instinctual level. He understands that these are NOT nice people, and he will not be afraid to 'punch them in the nose' by saying so; furthermore, he has shown his resilience in response to the inevitable counterpunch: he gets back up, dusts himself off and punches again, repeating as neccessary. The one thing he does NOT do is stay down, or fail to fight back.

I see that trait as a huge plus in a potential nominee.

:)

[knight_of_the_star]

1. He's not the only one

Clark understands this as well, he just does it with a smile :).

[Padraig18]

2. Great!

Regardless of technique, we must disabuse ourselves about ANY notion that they will follow the Marquis de Queensbury's rules.

:hi:

[patricia92243]

3. Couldn't agree more. If we don't adopt these methods, we will not win -

real simple really.

[Padraig18]

5. Mmm hmmm...

We also need to remember Rule #1: "Never jump in front of a perfectly good train wreck."

There is this insane compulsion to be the first to respond verbally to some disastrous event that befalls GWB or the country, and we have to STOP DOING THAT! We need to let the disaster become full-blown, deliver a few discreet kicks to the head and ribs and THEN respond.

Trust me--- it works best that way. :evilgrin:

[JVS]

4. I plan to organize car pools to get republicans to the polls...

and then not have the cars show up!

[Padraig18]

6. LOL!

A plan worthy of "Hizzonor" himself! :evilgrin:

[windansea]

7. but why is Dean using "chicago rules" tactics

in a Dem primary??

[Padraig18]

8. He's not.

You'd know, if he was.

[Cha]

11. Really, Paddy, Really!

:toast:

[windansea]

12. sorry but I think he is

Josh Marshall writes:

"The analysis on today's ARG NH poll release concludes thus ...

Over the past 2 days of calling, a number of older respondents registered as undeclared voters have reported that they have received telephone calls from a campaign informing them that they will not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary because they missed the deadline to switch parties. A respondent discovered, however, that when she told the caller that she was thinking about voting for Howard Dean, the caller told her that she would be eligible to vote.
The clear implication of this comment is that someone from the Dean campaign is making some sort of push-poll trying to depress the turnout of a voting group that leans against Dean (or at least isn't his strongest), i.e., older voters."

This is unproven...but is being looked into to

Dean just fired 2 people in Iowa...will he be firing someone in NH next week??

[Padraig18]

13. Trust me--he's not.

as regards the second question, I would hazard a guess: if it's proven that it's anyone associated with his campaign doing this, then they will be summarily canned, just like in Iowa.

On that note, a personal observation: the attacks came loudly, fast and furious about the Iowa incident, but the silence that followed the campaign's correct action in unceremoniously and IMMEDIATELY firing the ass hats who did it has been deafening. *sigh*

[windansea]

15. firing someone working for you

does not absolve you of guilt

it's more evidence of Dean's sleazy campaign tactics

such as "I am the only anti war candidate" BS

If the NH allegations of senior voter intimidation are proved I guess Dean will fire whoever did it and this will be further evidence that Dean is a good little boy.

Where there is smoke there is fire...and the evidence is mounting

[Padraig18]

17. See?

Sorta proves my point: Dean doesn't do 'the right thing', he's bad; Dean DOES do 'the right thing', he's STILL bad. :eyes:

[JVS]

18. If he had any honor he'd quit running.

There is no pleasing some people here. The candidate's actions are bad because the candidate is bad. The fruit must be bad because the tree is bad, becaus we all know that a tree is known by its fruit.

[windansea]

19. he did the right thing

but if he keeps having to "do the right thing" it makes his campaign look bad....have any other campaigns had to fire people for sleazy tactics??

anyway...if Trippi is playing tricks on seniors in NH...it will look really bad and get LOTS of press

[Padraig18]

20. A BIG 'if'.

I prefer to wait for evidence. Pre-emptive lynching just isn't my style.

[poskonig]

9. Politics here in Chicago is the same way.

Our groundwork is so good, Democrats even from the grave make it to the polls. :P

[Padraig18]

10. LOL!

I know--- I cut my political 'teeth' there. I find all the angst about the alleged 'attck's, etc., rather amusing. If these folks think that our primary has been nasty, they'd be whimpering, quivering mounds of Jello by the third day of a contested race for alderman, back home! :P

[patricia92243]

14. lol

[Padraig18]

16. I've never said the words that usually go through my mind.

When I hear one of these "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, that Mr. Dean is being mean to my candidate!" statements, the thoguht that usually goes through my mind is "What a candy ass!"... :P

[Padraig18]

21. Kick

:dem:

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

23. Among the many reasons I switched to Dean

is his campaigns willingness to do what it takes to win. I've never believed in softball style campaigning when you know your opponents are going for the juglar. All this whining about Dean being mean really turns me off about their candidate. This is NOT mean stuff, this is so minimal that if they think this is over the top, they obviously are not ready for prime time. Dean was ready from day 1.

[Padraig18]

25. That 'feisty little bastard from Vermont'...

... is how my 88 y/o Gran refers to him (not original, I know), and she loves him for it!:)

[jonnyblitz]

31. some milquetoast polite guy who claims to be above the fray

and who claims not to be a politician in a political game is going to get slaughtered against these ruthless Republicans. Look what they did in 2000 to win. I agree. I want a fighter.

[Padraig18]

32. I want someone who knows what a knockout punch is!

I also want someone who is willing to be TWICE as vicious, if neccessary.

[bain_sidhe]

49. Now be fair...

(I can hear Padraig's thoughts from here: "Be fair? What a candyass!" ;-) But seriously...)

"some milquetoast polite guy who claims to be above the fray"... whilst slipping the stiletto in...

Clark is a fighter. He's just a different KIND of fighter. As Padraig and I have noted below, we disagree on the apropriate technique, not on the goal, which is GETTING RID OF BUSH!

EYES ON THE PRIZE, GUYS!

[JVS]

53. We've never seen him fight

Why should we risk it?

[bain_sidhe]

56. Just 'cause you don't see it

doesn't mean he's not doing it. I imagine Shelton and Cohen - who opposed intervening in Kosovo - didn't *see* him fighting either. And yet, there we were. And Clark supposedly isn't "fighting back" on the campaign trail, but *somehow* things keep breaking his way, and he keeps rising in the polls. Sometimes the best way to win a fight is when your opponent doesn't even know he's IN a fight.

So I'll put my "sneaky bastard" up against your "feisty bastard," and may the best man win. And I'll get behind whichever one does. Will you?

[Padraig18]

57. I'm ABB!

If Gen. Clark is 'the man' at the convention, I'm a foot soldier from that night onward--- money, canvassing, phone-banking, whatever it takes. :)

[bain_sidhe]

58. Fair enough, and good enough for me

Go to it for your man, I'll go to it for mine, and I look forward to working with you in the... er, general (sorry, couldn't help myself) election!

:toast:

(I just hope it's not that Lieberman guy, 'cause if it is, I'll spend more time crying in my beer than hoisting it!)

[Padraig18]

59. Yeah.

But Hell's bells, JL is at least 10 orders of magnitude better than Shrub, which only tells you what a TRULY sorry bastard Shrub is, eh? :toast:

[bain_sidhe]

64. AH! New slogan for the general election

the Feisty (or Sneaky) Bastard vs. the SORRY bastard!

Whaddya think?

Hmmm...

Ok, maybe I should work on it a bit more...

[Padraig18]

67. LOL

A bit long for a bumper sticker, but that's the gist. :P

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

22. Agreed 100%

Yep.

[Lobo_13]

24. If your enemy brings a knife

you bring a gun.

If your enemy puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue.

It's the Chicago way.

[Padraig18]

26. Thanks!

I knew my quote wasn't 100%, so I went for the sense of it. :hi:

[dogman]

27. Yeah right.

That's why he stood behind the anti-Clark fliers his supporters handed out at the Clark meetings.

[Padraig18]

28. They weren't anti-Clark.

The truth is the truth, whether one is comfortable with it, or not. That's a love-tap, compared to what KKKarl Rove will dish out in spades next fall, my friend.

[dogman]

29. They weren't the truth.

Yeah Rove is going to call him a R. However rove might also lie about his stand on tne IRW even though he has written volumes on the subject before .

[Padraig18]

30. they WERE true.

They've been reposted here several times. What statement in them was NOT true, specifically, and using the exact language of the pamphlet?

[dogman]

33. Again?

He's a R. No Independent like 90+% of Ark.
He supported IRW. No he supported resolution to be used as bargaining chip same as Dean.
Go to prior posts and see arguments presented their. This is so worn out.
Would you like to go back into the fact that Dean lied about his brothers military service again? I'll wait for Rove to use that in the GE but I haven't seen a rational defense of it yet. So I am prepared to defend Clark, you had better be prepared to defend Dean since I can't.

[Padraig18]

34. He didn't say he was a Republican.

I'll not provide the proof; the burden of doing so is on the party asserying the claim. I know what they said and didn't say, and every single statement in them was true.

[dogman]

42. Reminds me of a quote.

It seems like the description of Bush by O'Neil." A blind man in a room full of deaf people." The party asserting the claim belongs to Dean. Where is the proof?

[Padraig18]

44. What?

Read further down in the thread; one of your own co-supporters admits that the statements in the brocure are accurate, since they are verbatim quotes out of Gen. Clark's mouth. I remain confused by your post, however.

:wtf:

[dogman]

47. I stand by #33

If that person concedes that's his business. As you said this has been rehashed often. Clark has admitted to voting R but some times Independents do that,hence the name. he is on record supporting the troops in the IRW but not the IRW itself. The point of the quote could also be summed up as "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". No matter how many times you have been shown the truth you do not believe. Since I'm not an evangelist I really don't care. Half-truths may not be lies but the intention is the same.

[Padraig18]

48. Whole truths are whole truths.

The words are his--verbatim. Like Judge Judy says, "You married him, not me". If the truth of his words and record are so troubling, then perhaps another candidate might be a more comfortable fit, because next fall KKKarl Rove is going to make the Dean flyers look like a love fest, in comparison.

[dogman]

50. I don't think the Dean campaign is interested in the whole truth.

It hasn't been a priority yet. As you stated above the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Show me the verbatim.

[Padraig18]

51. Ummm...

You were the one who said it wasn't true. However, you can find the brochure on the Clark blog, if you doubt my veracity, or your fellow supporter's veracity.

:hi:

[Padraig18]

52. Update: the flyer

"WESLEY CLARK: REAL DEMOCRAT?

Clark PRAISED Bush and Cheney Until Deciding to Run for President

May 2001: "As you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And rm very glad we have got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell. Don Rumsfeld. Dick Cheney. Condoleezza Rice. Paul O'Neill, people I know very well. our president George W. Bush. We need him there. . ."

January 2002: "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush," January 22, 2002 speech, Harding University

January 2002: "Af1er Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. ... But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it. Word was that Karl Rove, the president's political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. 'I would have been a Republican,' Clark told them, 'if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.' Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race -- as a Democrat. Messaging Newsweek by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a 'humorous tweak.' The two others said it was anything but. 'He went into detail about his grievances,' Holtzman said. 'Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked.'"

Clark VOTED For Republicans for Decades
"Clark has said he voted for Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988."
Clark NOT a Registered Democrat Until October 7, 2003
Clark declared his candidacy for president on September 17,2003. He registered as a Democrat on October 7 - 20 days after he declared. And nearly 38 years after he turned 21. W. 9/17/03 and 10/7/03]

Clark SAYS Democrats Are Soft on National Security
Wesley Clark was on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews 12/8, and spoke on why he's running as a Oem after voting for several GOP WH candidates: "I voted for people who were strong on national security and national defense."

"I'll tell you why General Clark voted for . General Clark spent 30 years in the armed forces. He wasn't that active in politics. And I think his focus was really on military affairs, national security..."
Clark BELIEVED Bush's Compassionate Conservatism
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark in September offered this explanation for having praised President Bush at a Republican fund-raiser. "It's been an incredible journey for me and for this country since early 2001," he said. "We elected a President we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead. we got neither conservatism nor compassion." The retired Army general gave a different story here in New Hampshire the other day. In this version. it was only American voters who got suckered by Mr. Bush's 2000 campaign -- not him. "I never believed that George W. Bush was a compassionate conservative." he said.

Clark BRAGS About Having No Strong Party Affiliation
"If this party is going to win in the future," he said, "it's going 10 need a lot of people like me . .. people who don't have strong party affiliation." -Clark, in New Hampshire

(back side)

WESLEY CLARK: PRO-WAR

CLARK PRO-WAR
OCTOBER 2002: SUPPORTED War Resolution "Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race. He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate."
Clark Wanted to "Go Ahead" with the War "The credibility of the United States is on the line and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us."
September 2003: SUPPORTED War Resolution AGAIN "Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race. . . . General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. . . . 'I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position - on balance, I probably would have voted for it.'"
When Clark's press advisor, Mary Jacoby, asked: "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution," Clark responded, "Right. Exactly."

4. October 2003: SUPPORTED War Resolution a THIRD TIME When asked whether he favored the resolution, Clark said: "The thing was, I would have voted for it for leverage.

CLARK NOW ANTI-WAR

October 2003: "I've been against this war from the beginning," he declared. "I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

November 2003: Explaining away the September 18 interview, Clark said: "At the time I'd made this statement, I was having what I thought was an informal--I wasn't clear whether it was on-the record or off-the-record discussion abut the philosophy of sort of entering the presidency and somehow the Iraq question got thrown in." <60 Minutes II, 11/19/03>

Paid For by Dean For America
Produced In House, Volunteer Labor

http://chat.forclark.com/comments/2004/1/7/23747/58243/230#230

[bain_sidhe]

61. short-form response

I've been meaning to do the research to repond to the actual *substance* of the flier for a couple of days, but keep getting distracted by RL stuff. But the short form is, none of the quotes on this flier (as far as I've been able to find) are untrue. What they *MEAN* on the other hand, is mainly a function of what you want to believe. If you want to believe ill of Clark, these quotes provide some rationale to do so. If you want to believe well of Clark, you might want to consider the following points:

While the actual quotes are accurate, the "headlines" impose a misleading interpretation on the quotes. Example:

Headline:
Clark SAYS Democrats Are Soft on National Security

Actual quote:
"I voted for people who were strong on national security and national defense."

Reagan's first opponent was Carter. MOST people in the country didn't think Carter was strong on defense. Reagan's second opponent was Mondale. MOST people in the country didn't think Mondale was strong on defense. Bush Sr.'s opponent was Dukakis... who made a POINT of wanting to concentrate on domestic matters. So it's fair to ask if he was saying DEMOCRATS were soft of defense, or if he thought that the particular candidates being offered by the democrats were soft on Defense.

Headline & "claim":
Clark VOTED For Republicans for Decades
"Clark has said he voted for Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988."
Clark NOT a Registered Democrat Until October 7, 2003

this conveniently leaves out who he voted for SINCE 1988 - Democrats - implying that he voted for Republicans until "October 7, 2003."


Or take the speeches:

Clark PRAISED Bush and Cheney Until Deciding to Run for President

A lot of Clark's income after retiring came from speaking fees. He was a "hot property" on the lecture circuit. He was asked (was he paid, does anybody know? I don't) to speak at the Pulaski Cty Republican dinner, and he gave a speech on a topic of interest to his audience - what was good and right about Republicans. He also gave speeches to Democratic groups, to technology groups, to groups having nothing to do with politics. Speeches represented the bulk of his business income in 2001 and 2002 (see this article "captured" from the NYT before it was archived http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg109145.html ). And he had actually worked with many of the people in the Bush administration and thought well of them... until they started screwing up, of course. And I would point out that during the January 22, 2002 speech, we were still fighting in Afghanistan, and the beginning of that campaign had gone better than expected - it was the follow-though that was screwed up, and the lack of follow-though is the reason that we're STILL fighting in Afghanistan. And Clark has said that, too.

The war resolution

Yes, he's said many times he supported it as a means to get Saddam to the table, and the U.N. on board. He thought Bush needed the "leverage" of a credible threat of force. One of the things that he felt hamstrung the Kosovo campaign was that Clinton took the threat of ground-troops off the table before the war even started. He's also said that he wasn't following it closely, but the resolution he *thought* he was asked about required coming back to the Congress.

Bottom line, as I said: If you want to think poorly of Clark, you will, and the material in the flyer will help you do that. But if you want to take a "fair and balanced" view, you'll find that the material is selectively edited and misleadingly presented. And if you want to think well of Clark, you'll look at the outrageous slant and say "HEY! NOT FAIR!" ;-)

[Padraig18]

62. War is hell...

... but it isn't nearly as tough as politics, i.e, in war, you can at least 'fire for full effect' at the 'enemy', something you can'[t do in politics for fear of hitting potential 'soldiers' you may need down the road. A bitch, isn't it? :P

[bain_sidhe]

66. Yeah, and "friendly fire" is the worst

because it counts double - it takes out your own foot soldiers while not taking out any of the REAL enemy's soldiers.

But hazing, now, that just toughens you up. That's how I'm trying to look at it.

[Padraig18]

68. Same here.

I defend my candidate but, unless there is a BLATANT distortion, I don't go into 'attack mode'. :)

[bain_sidhe]

35. Well they *were* anti-Clark

but not out of bounds, IMHO. And Clark's response was dead-solid perfect (also IMHO).

I think we're talking about the difference between a fist-fight and ju jitsu when we compare Dean to Clark. I think both can get the job done. Or, another analogy, a meat-axe vs a stiletto - one leaves a bloody mess on the floor, one is done without creating a spectacle - which I think might leave the country governable AFTER the election.

But, if the Democrats decide to go with meat-axe guy, I'm there. And I'm not saying I wouldn't have a gawker's interest in the bloody mess. I'm not the type to take part in it, though.

[Padraig18]

36. As you define 'anti-Clark', I would agree.

Your definition is much more narrow than 99% of your fellow supporters, I would point out. Frankly, anything one says about any opponent that isn't a verbal 'pat on the back' is probably 'anti', in that regard.

Call it a gut feeling, but I just think a 'meat-axe' candidate is going to be neccessary against * in November, because I don't see those evil bastards going down without a take-no-prisoners, down-in-the-mud-the-blood-and-the-beer street brawl first.

:hi:

[bain_sidhe]

41. Maybe, maybe not

I freely admit, I don't know. I've been noodling an idea about Dean v. Clark for some time now, and this thread is bringing it clear. I'll probably make a separate post rather than hijack your thread though, it's not so much about meat-axe vs stiletto as it is about country vs. party... still noodling the contstruction.

Anyway, back to your point. I still think there's two ways for these guys to go down - as you say, the "street brawl" way, or the "WTF happened and why am I bleeding?" way.

And yes, I define "anti-Clark" differently than I guess some people do. Essentially, the flyer was making an argument against voting for Clark. "Anti" as in "against." But the information on it wasn't false in and of itself, in that it used actual quotes. They were simply collected, arranged and edited to leave a false impression.

:hi: back atcha

[Padraig18]

43. Now see, I think we 'could do business'.

In fact, I think the vast majority of Dean and Clark supporters could, the asshats in both camps nonwithstanding. Like a surgical problem, we may disagree on the best technique to employ, but not on the fundamental need for the surgery itself.

:)

[bain_sidhe]

45. Exactly - it's the technique, not the goal

that MOST of us disagree on. I just wish some of your fellow supporters and some of my fellow supporters could achieve clarity on that!

While we argue about who's got 20% vs who's got 24% of Democrats (or whatever it is now) please let none of us forget that Bushco* is still pulling 50% and above in national head-to-head matchups.

Like I keep saying:

EYES ON THE PRIZE, GUYS!



**edit: !@#$ typos!**

[Padraig18]

46. "EYES ON THE PRIZE, GUYS!"

*nod*

:hi:

[hellhathnofury]

37. No more Mr. Nice Democrat.

[Eric J in MN]

38. Why hasn't Dean done a tv interview or tv ad to counter Club for Growth

Why hasn't Dean done a tv interview or tv ad to counter the Club for Growth latte-ad?

After his supporters were stereotyped as a "volvo-driving, latte-drinking, NY Times-reading, left-wing freak show," shouldn't he say something?

[Padraig18]

39. He will.

There's production time, etc., involved. 'Instant response' isn't feasible, but one is coming, I can assure you. :)

[hellhathnofury]

40. We're kinda occupied with Iowa and NH right now.

All in good time.

[NoPasaran]

54. Meat Ax or Stiletto, I hope we're ready to fight this time

For way too long we Democrats have been showing up at Republican knife fights armed with spoons.

[Padraig18]

55. No shit!

I think we've learned our lesson on being the nice guys the hard way, and next fall America will see a VERY different Democratic campaign. :evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

60. Kick

[Bread and Circus]

63. Padraig, what do you mean "Chicago Rules?"

What do you suggest should be done?

[Padraig18]

65. "Chicago Rules"

Basically, the term derives from the rough-and-tumble style of Chiacgo ward politics. There are MANY individual rules (e.g., 'never step in front of a perfectly good train wreck', 'never lead with your chin', 'always get the 1st shot off in any gun fight', etc.), but overall they boil down to this: "Never bring a knife to a gun fight, and if they put one of yours in the hospital, put one (or ten) of theirs in the morgue."

For a change, I suggest we fight back, and be just as dirty as they are, because they're not going to go quietly into political oblivion--- they will have to be shoved kicking and screaming into the grave. Hell, we may even have to whack them with the shovel to quieten them down long enough to shovel the dirt in.

:evilgrin:

[Bread and Circus]

72. Cute, very cute.....but have you ever read Animal Farm?

[Padraig18]

74. Yes, I have.

Why? :)

[Padraig18]

69. Kick

[Padraig18]

70. Kick

:dem:

[RetroLounge]

71. Hear hear. Dean is a fighter, and when he say something

I want to jump out of my chair and yell YES! and then join him in the street fight that's gonna be the GE.

The opposite end of the spectrum is Lieberman. When he get mad at a debate and pumps his fist, it just makes me Laugh. I just want to pat him on the head and say good boy Joe, now go have a lie-down.

[bain_sidhe]

73. "good boy Joe, now go have a lie- down."

Oh, thank god somebody else admitted to this reaction. I was feeling SO petty. Of course, I still do, but petty loves company, right?

[Padraig18]

76. I have the same feeling, sort of...

I find myself wanting to say "There, there, Joe, I'll get you a nice cup of tea and we'll discuss it." :P

[lib 4 all]

75. when I hear "Chicago rules" I think stuffing ballot boxes

and dead people voting.

[Padraig18]

77. Used to be true.

Actually, elections in Chicago are relatively clean these days, in terms of voting; in terms of campaigning, however, there is no place in America that is more vicious.

[lib 4 all]

78. perhaps, but Chicago will forever have that stygma

so you should probably choose your words more carefully.

[Padraig18]

79. Ehh...

I'm not a huge fan of parsing my thoughts in advance for every possible nuance--- I leave that to other campaigns. :P

[lib 4 all]

80. fair 'nuff

but I don't know how you could have possibly overlooked that "nuance".
:P

[Padraig18]

81. I've only lived in Chicago since '94.

So that sort of thing is all 'history', to me. :)

[lib 4 all]

82. I've never lived there or even been there in my life

but I still know Chicago's political history.
Never heard of Mayor Richard Daley?

[Padraig18]

84. Of course.

Just not having lived through it (in fact, having lived in another country altogether until '94), I just don't make the automatic asociation. :)

[cthrumatrix]

83. agreed