Daley Defends Hastert
So after vetoing the local retail living wage law in Chicago and then last week calling for the federal government to override local minimum wage laws, Daley has stepped up to the plate to defend Hastert over the Foley affair:
“If you took the impropriety of every congressman and senator in Washington D.C. [as an excuse to demand resignations], I don’t think anybody would be left,” Daley said.
So no wonder Daley has no problem with a corporation like Wal-Mart that regularly violates child labor laws. If Daley thinks sexual predation on young people is no special problem, what's a few violations of labor laws?
Advertisement
Time to bring this into some kind of action.
One thing I haven't heard in all this news is that, like every other rep, Hastert is up for re-election. His opponent is a vet [John Laesch], and from what I can acertain, a decent guy. How's about the democrats pouring money into this election, bringing the problem home to Hastert? How's about asking VoteVets.org if they know how Hastert voted on their prime issue? Can you imagine the panic that would follow this? If Democrats want to get tough, this is probably the best place to start.
dc
October 4, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
The Democrats are consistantly their own worst enemy. Rather than keeping quiet when certain stories pop up they sometimes feel the need to defend Bush or some other Republican as happened recently when Nancy Pelosi and Charley Rangel came on TV to condemn Chavez's comments on Bush. These incidents simply reinforce the right wing's belief that they're right. Too many times too many Democrats forget that they're the opposition, something the Republicans 'never' forget.
October 4, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a lifelong Chicagoan, and a lifelong Democrat. Trust me, Daley's not a Democrat. If he didn't need the vestiges of the machine to get out the vote every five years, he would be happy to call himself a Republican.
October 4, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you.
My son, who at the time was completely apolitical, became a pollwatcher for the Progressive Party when his roommate, a girl, was chased off by Daley's crew. Seemed somehow a 200-lb martial arts expert spoke the language better in a hispanic district than a skinny little girl from South America though Pat didn't know a word of Spanish.
The Daley candidate won, as expected, but his numbers were notably down in the precinct.
Ironic was Gore calling on a Daley to challenge the vote in Florida.
Best, Terry
October 4, 2006 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just called Judy Biggert (R-IL-13) my conggresswoman for the second time since Mon. asking if she still supports Hastert and will after the election as speaker. No word as of yet but I implore anyone with a Repub rep to call and ask that question and keep asking it until you get the answer and send it to Josh. It's gutcheck time folks but we're the only ones who can get those answers to a question no Repub wants asked.
October 4, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one haven't forgiven Daley for throwing Durbin under the bus. A pox on him.
October 4, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mayor Daley (Hmmm ... how come that phrase rings a bell?) is one hell of a chip off the old block, no? I'd like to second davcbr's suggestion of pouring some money into the campaign against Hastert. Dems need to pull out the stops on this election so as to build momentum for 2008. A rising Dem tide in 2006 will help start a counter-narrative, maybe, for the presidential election in 2008. And we're going to need a counter-narrative because the Republicans will continue to play to people's fears.
October 4, 2006 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he is called a Lieberman Democrat, or maybe a Lieberman Republican, or maybe a Liebermanite, or maybe an opportunist, or maybe...
October 4, 2006 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read a story about Daley and George H. W. Bush meeting in Chicago high up in an office building.
Every once in awhile, I think about what they might have been talking about.
I'm not sure exactly when the meeting was supposed to have occurred. I think it was around the 2000 presidential campaign.
October 4, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even accepting Daley's point arguendo, it may well be true that more people are guilty of impropriety than are caught.
The point is now that Hastert's impropriety has been discovered, what are we supposed to do, ignore it?
Consequently, Daley's inane statement falls of its weight.
October 4, 2006 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink