Wednesday, July 04, 2007


So I just read the Governor's response to the Speaker's request that he be at the Committee of the Whole in which the Governor appears to say that he won't attend the committee hearing, but will have staff and others there to testify and answer questions.

I'm not even going to attempt to dissect the statement (an amusing but exhausting exercise), but I will put a few thoughts out there:
1. While it's great that he is going to have 'members of (his) administration and financial experts available to testify at the Committee of the Whole on the nature of the pension problem and potential solutions', why does that mean that he shouldn't be there himself? Aren't they proferring ideas that he has okayed? And are they going to be there to defend the specifics (to whatever extent they exist) of his lottery proposal as requested by the Speaker?
I'm really not trying to be sarcastic in my questions, but the Governor's parsing of the English language makes President Clinton's wordsmithing look downright amateurish. You truly have to break his sentences down word by word to figure out what he is, or isn't, saying.
2. The Governor goes on to state, 'But if the purpose is simply to vote down my proposed solution, then it is just more games. It is this type of gamesmanship that has brought us into overtime and has left me no choice but to call the members into Special Session. I must confess that I believe you are more interested in playing games and taking solutions off the table than trying to find solutions to solve real problems. So I will not be attending your Committee.'
First off, isn't voting on proposals why he wants the legislators to be in Special Session? And again, what does this have to do with his attending the committee hearing? HE called the Special Session. HE wanted more interaction with the legislators. Is he only going to attend hearings if we promise to support his proposals?

I am NOT trying to be funny, I just don't understand the rationale of the letter. It contains so much misdirection, it's like watching The Usual Suspects while playing a back-of-the-bus game of three card monte. You just can't keep up with it.
Lastly, he states, 'As I’ve said before, I have put forth my solution, but I am remain flexible as to the means to get there.'
Is this the same Governor that spent the entire regular session saying that anything other than GRT was off the table?

Redundancy alert - I do NOT enjoy being at odds with the Governor, whether he is from my party or another party. The fact that he is my constituent and predecessor makes this less, not more, enjoyable. But I just cannot fathom his thought process at this juncture.

I'm sure that Springfield is enjoyable in August. I guess we'll find out soon enough.


At July 5, 2007 at 8:01 AM, Anonymous Milo's Billions said...

As predicted several days ago:

Milo's Billions said...
Rod has no bills nor plans to present to anyone.
All he want's is the money and the power, no questions asked.
He'll be a no-show or come empty handed.

With letter to Madigan.......

Impeach this lose canon!

At July 5, 2007 at 8:02 AM, Blogger Bridget said...

Oy. Keep on truckin', Fritchey. I enjoy reading your updates (and constantly wonder why no other state legislators blog!).

At July 5, 2007 at 8:51 AM, Anonymous Ravenswood Right Winger said...

Democrats engaging in in-fighting. Priceless! Almost as funny as the shenanigans with the flyers at the Gay Pride Pride. Hey John, what is Blago thinking?

At July 5, 2007 at 9:36 AM, Anonymous lake county democrat said...

John, did you read Carol Marin's column on Madigan and his letter to the Guv in today's (Thursdays) Sun-Times? If so, how about finally giving some comments on Madigan. You keep bashing the Governor over and over (and Marin doesn't let him off the hook, and I strongly oppose his sale/leasing of state assetts), but not a word about Madigan, who is much more responsible for this budget mess and clearly obstructs the governor to help his daughter's political future. You DON'T think Madigan's letter is similar game-playing? If you want to call this "GRT or nothing" bluff then, as Cyndi Richards keeps bleating, offer some alternative funding scheme. Or join Cross and say you aren't going to raise taxes. This debate generates more heat than light -- for every 10000 words about the Guv's antics, I see 1, no make that .1, words about policy.

In any event, after a dozen posts about Blago, how about one on Madigan?

At July 5, 2007 at 1:54 PM, Blogger Rich Miller said...

Fritchey can defend himself, LCD, but he is a primary co-sponsor of HB 750, which raises all sorts of taxes. So he has, indeed, proposed an "alternative funding scheme."

At July 5, 2007 at 2:44 PM, Anonymous lake county democrat said...

Rich, fair enough, but that's not my point. Madigan is the one who matters in this negotiation. John has been bashing the Governor for months now, I don't think it's unfair that he address the Madigan aspect just as Carol Marin did today. Implicit in "I don't enjoy being at odds with the governor" is "I'm not at odds with the speaker."

At July 5, 2007 at 4:23 PM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...


While I disagree with your 'implicit in "I don't enjoy being at odds with the governor" is "I'm not at odds with the speaker."' comment, your request that I comment on the Speaker is a fair one.

Give me a couple days and I'll put something together for comment.

Also, I have gone out of my way to address the Governor's actions and not make personal comments. I believe that his leadership tactics are fair ground for comment, and I simply disagree with them. Vehemently.

Believe me when I tell you that I would have vastly preferred being in consensus with him. Personally, politically, and on behalf of the party.

While you may agree with my comments or not, I have at least been willing to put my views out in the open for public comment, something not many others (maybe wisely) have been willing to do.

Trust me, it would be much easier for me to simply not do this blog. I have been attempting to blur the lines between electeds and the general public. I hope that you, and others, can appreciate that.

At July 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...


Thanks for weighing in. You hit it on the head. I have long maintained that while HB750 may not be the optimal solution, it was a concrete way of moving the funding discussion forward, something which I firmly believe that it has done.

For quite some time, detractors have been against 750, without being for something.

To the extent that GRT is held out as some type of alternative to 750, (although they are in no way analogous), I would put the support that 750 has against that of GRT any day. Granted that's not saying much, but you get my point.

At July 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM, Anonymous lake county democrat said...

You got it -- take all the time you want, and the blog is truly appreciated (not just because it's a blog -- most politicians blogs/podcasts/etc. are worthless). You've come a long way from the car pool lane proposal (the first time I recall you popping up in the media)!

At July 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM, Anonymous Disgusted said...

As this so-called legislature grinds on, it's becoming harder and harder to follow what the Big 3 are talking about. It's always been hard with Emil (hard to believe he was a teacher). Madigan is the master of double speak and Milarod just loves to hear himself. He repeats phrases and sentences over and over like a trained parrot. There is no substance there under that coiffeur and I suspect there never has been. What a depressing mess!

At July 6, 2007 at 1:54 AM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...


You have an uncanny memory. (I kind of liked the HOV lane idea). Thanks for the kind words.

At July 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM, Anonymous cook county voter said...

Leave it to someone outside of the county of COOK to make the observation about the need for some critical analysis of Madigan! He is a master at this game of hardball...and it serves no one but Madigan and his interests. This guy has been down there for years...years of voting on underfunding this and underfunding that while his cronnies get $250,000 for a horse show. Carol Marin leads the way. Hopefully more will follow and help spread this blame game around to all!
I too look forward to hearing the Representatives comments here.

At July 7, 2007 at 10:56 PM, Anonymous Uptown Chicky said...

Say what you want about Madigan and he certainly bears plenty of the blame on what's wrong with Springfield; but quite frankly he's been the adult in this whole fiasco. I know, I know he still is saying, "the House has passed a budget." well they did. Not a very good one though. It is woefully short on addressing Illinois issues.

G-rod likes to fight and is the master of hear and speak evil. Why this guy threw his own father in law under the bus and now it's the whole Democratic party!

He has alienated almost everyone in the party and his staff looks at him like he's a crazy man.

To a previous blogger...Emil never taught school, how could he? He has merely a high school diploma. Ever wonder why he piles on money to Chicago State? to get rooms and building named for himself and honorary degress cause he ain't got one.

At July 9, 2007 at 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're going to comment on the Speaker, can you confirm what Rich Miller reported that he never called the Governor after the 2006 election? I've been in enough election-night suites to know that those calls are the currency of all future personal political relationships, and -- if true -- there's no way it was an oversight.

At July 11, 2007 at 2:33 PM, Anonymous hot rod movie said...

Perhaps you could get Speaker to draft such a proclamation and publicly present it to the President.

(25 ILCS 15/1) (from Ch. 63, par. 191)
Sec. 1.
A special session of the General Assembly may be convened at any time by a joint proclamation issued by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, stating the purpose of the session and the date and time for the session, and filed with the Secretary of State and by notice to the members as provided in Section 2. Only business encompassed by the purpose stated in the joint proclamation, together with any impeachments or confirmation of appointments, may be transacted at the special session.
(Source: P. A. 77‑1783.)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home