Stone Slept Here

Ald. Stone and his family have spent a lot of time denying that he takes naps frequently in public. I know that the last few times that I've seen him, he fell asleep.

Some people were even offended that Stone's opponents used the famous picture of him asleep during City Council this spring. "He was just resting his eyes," is the common refrain.

For some unknown reason, the fact that Stone in known to sleep at work, in public, and often is something that he wants to cover up. Now we have new pictures of Stone asleep at a public meeting taken by the person sitting next to him. We have first hand testimony to the fact that Stone was asleep. [These pictures are clearly from Mr. Gernhardt's cell phone. I was wrong; see comments.]

It wouldn't be so disturbing that Stone falls asleep if he didn't do it so often and didn't try to deny it. Why lie about it? We all wish that we could get paid for sleeping on the job. If you are our alderman, you can! No wonder so many people want to be alderman. But don't lie about it.

hat tip: The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park

The Arrogance of Power

I had an interesting conversation with a worker from Streets & Sans last night. He was sort of laughing at me for using the blue bags and my defense of recycling. It's not separated, he said. Our garbage doesn't go to one of the city's MRF's. It goes straight to the landfill. The blue bags that are collected in the 50th don't get removed beforehand.

What was insulting, as I thought about this more, is that they are just laughing at us. It costs us money, real money, to take our trash to the landfill. With recycling, the city actually makes money. Maybe not much, but when you add together what we make from recycling and the reduced costs from not having to pay to add more to the landfill, the savings could be considerable.

Chicago built three or four state of the art recycling facilities in the 1990s. Granted, we are on the edge of the city, but it sounds like it was the alderman or Ward Superintendent who made the decision not to use these facilities.

They must not care if our taxes go up. We wouldn't want to inconvenience them to actually do their jobs! Besides, Stone was probably asleep when the subject came up.

We've been misled. I'm going to blame Stone because he's our point of contact with the city. He doesn't have to be. No one asked him to. He took the blame on his shoulders all by himself. And I'm going to blame Stone because he always tells us that it's his decision (except when it makes him look bad - anybody else ever notice that?)

But I'm not going to stop recycling. Ald. Stone, who has a cushy part-time job (where you can sleep on the job!) that pays more than $100,000, may not care if our taxes go up, but I do. Stone is probably too old to care about the health and beauty of our city, but I do. There's a recycling center at 6441 N. Ravenswood. That's where I'll be taking my blue bags.

Mostly, though, I came away from this conversation amazed at the arrogance of Berny Stone and his people. They truly don't care about us. They just don't get it. They think it's THEIR ward, and that we are fools. Accountability is not a once every four years thing.

Stone's Corrupt Practices Continue

I remember during the course of the campaign, I saw a video clip somewhere, where Ald. Stone described his pattern of corruption along the lines of, "I do something for them, and they do something for me. What's the matter with that?" I'm paraphrasing here from memory.

One of the problems (aside from the outright corruption involved) is that this isn't what Stone practices.

Perhaps my definition of corruption and is a little different than Stone's. Stone seems to think that he has to be caught (by the Feds) with money in his freezer to be called corrupt. I disagree.

But we have a perfect example of why I think Stone is corrupt right now. A prospective new business owner took possession of 6969 Western Ave in January. According to him, he cleaned out the building, which he believed he had to do before he could apply for the necessary permits. When I talked to him about this, he didn't seem to think that he needed a zoning change when he moved in. He suggested that he had talked to the city about all the costs that were involved before he took possession.

It appears that he talked to the wrong person.

Because now he has applied for a zoning change that he isn't required to have. In Chicago, this has notoriously meant that some kind of money changes hands, whether directly or to the alderman's campaign committee. But what interests me about this example is how it is different from the alderman's own words. Unlike the alderman's simplistic description of his corruption above, the alderman expected something upfront, before he'd do anything for the person asking for help. What Stone expected first, before he'd even help this prospective business owner, was control over his window space.

You see, when this person started renting this space on Western Ave, he had no idea he was renting next to (actually, near) Stone's main opponent. And Stone's campaign wanted to use that empty storefront to send a signal to his opponents and the voters in the ward. So instead of helping this gentleman, walking him through the permit process, it was suggested that it would be wiser to wait until the election was over. "Don't want to stir up trouble."

Instead of opening up his business, the alderman interfered and took control of this property. He required something first, before he'd use his office to help start a new business in the ward. This is, to my way of thinking, corrupt. We already pay the alderman almost $100,000 (for part time work) to help the people who live and work in the 50th Ward. They shouldn't be required to bribe or do favors for the alderman to get him to do his job. If Stone needs to be bribed, then he shouldn't be drawing a salary from the city at all.

Outside of Chicago, bribery is most rampant in places where people do not make an adequate living, and they use their office or power for personal gain. No one can argue that Stone is underpaid, that he can't live quite comfortably off of $100,000 a year.

But Stone argues this is how Chicago works. I'd suggest that it is evidence of how Chicago doesn't work. These kind of impediments to starting a business or improving a home (or whole neighborhood) hurt the ward and hurt the whole city. They don't help it. When you walk or drive around the ward and wonder why there is so little business activity here, you will understand. Stone won't help new businesses move into the ward without a little something, something first. So why should they want to move in here? There's lots of better business environments very close to the 50th, without all the political obstacles.

It seems to me that only in Berny Stone's mind can Stone not be considered corrupt. I've tried to convince people to take these kinds of things to Patrick Fitzgerald (after all, the alderman has dared us to do so!). There's more to this story, but I wanted to focus on one aspect: evidence of Stone's unethical behavior and his resistance to change and growth in the neighborhood (that doesn't directly benefit him). Ald. Stone is corrupt, no question about it.

Voter Registration Effort Favored Stone

When I first learned that the 50th Ward had 578 new voters on the rolls for the April run-off election, I thought that this would benefit Naisy Dolar. Dolar had been involved in efforts to register new voters for ICIRR in the past few years. This had been an early emphasis of her campaign. But precinct by precinct totals suggest that efforts by Jewish groups and Ald. Stone's precinct captains were more successful than anything Dolar's campaign might have attempted.

2007 saw Jewish groups begin to refocus on voter registration. Young people who recently turned of age and new residents were sought out and registered. People were reminded of the importance of voting. Voter history was used to remind infrequent voters that there was an upcoming election, and that their vote was important. These efforts clearly paid off.

But voter registration was not confined to the Jewish areas. Precinct 13, which has a highly transient population, was the biggest contributor to the increase in voters, and gave Stone a bigger net increase over February results compared to Dolar/Brewer's vote. This seems to be the pattern throughout the ward. In the seven Red precincts, each of which saw more than 20 new voters registered between February and April, only one (Pr 22) saw Stone with a smaller increase than the February Dolar/Brewer vote. In these precincts, there were 192 new voters register, 242 more voters turned out, 272 more for Stone and only 99 additional voters over the Dolar/Brewer total.

21+ New Voters (Red): 13, 25, 22, 40, 18, 11, 2
16-20 New Voters (Dk Green): 5, 19, 44, 34, 1, 26, 10, 41, 28, 24
11-15 New Voters (Light Green): 33, 17, 23, 43, 32, 37, 45, 8
6-10 New Voters (Light Blue): 42, 16, 30, 6, 31, 36, 29, 35
0-5 New Voters (Yellow): 39, 15, 27, 9, 12, 4, 21, 3, 20, 14, 7, 38

Ten precincts, represented by the Dark Green, saw voter registration numbers increase by 16-20 new voters. These precincts saw an increase of 177 new voters, with 197 more voters than February, of which 216 more votes went to Stone and 131 more went to Dolar (above the Dolar/Brewer February number). Out of the Red and Dark Green areas, Dolar only won two precincts (13 and 22).

It is also interesting to observe that it appears that everyone who could be registered in Winston Towers is registered.

It was a Turn-Out Election

Ald. Stone was right to credit Mike Noonan and the Daley forces for his victory. As Dick Vitale would say, It Was All About Turnout, Baby!

The 50th Ward had a net increase in registered voters (24,709 > 25,287) as well as people who voted in the April 17th election (10,489 > 11,269). The additional 780 people who voted in the April runoff increased turnout from 42.5% to 45%. But what is interesting is where this increase in turnout came.

Of the 24 precincts that gained in turnout above the ward average, all but 6 (Precincts 15, 42, 35, 13, 4 and 7) of them gave Ald. Stone a majority of their votes. The top 12 precincts that gained in turnout all went to Stone, and the top 3 (45, 39 amd 40) each voted more the 73% for Stone. These 18 precincts gave Stone an additional 564 (out of his gain of 896) over what he got out of them in February.

Red: Turnout > 65% (4): 38, 12, 16, 14
Dark Green: Turnout 55-64% (10): 1, 3, 31, 27, 41, 15, 45, 11, 5, 40
Light Green: Turnout 45-54% (12): 30, 7, 42, 21, 36, 2, 39, 25, 18, 44, 35, 10
Light Blue: Turnout 35-44% (12): 4, 19, 37, 20, 6, 9, 33, 28, 29, 34, 23, 43
Yellow: Turnout 25-34% (7): 13, 17, 26, 22, 8, 24, 32

The difference between the Stone campaign's to turnout voters and Dolar's is clear. Outside of Precinct 15, all of the dark hues are west of California, in Stone precincts. This is why Stone won. Stone had a much better Election Day than Dolar. Given the charges that Dolar supporters are making, it appears that Stone was much better prepared, as well.

In contrast, Dolar only got 86 (out of 432) additional votes out of the six precincts that gained in turnout above the ward average. This column combined the votes that Dolar received in February with those of Greg Brewer, who endorsed Dolar in the run-off, which was then subtracted from the April numbers. The working assumption is that a vote for Brewer was also a vote against Stone and thus would transfer to Dolar (if they came out to vote).

Despite gaining 432 more votes than the two received in February, Dolar still suffered a net decline in some precincts. Nine precincts, all but two west of California, gave Dolar fewer votes than she and Brewer combined received in February. Another three, only one west of California, gave Dolar no net increase but exactly what the two of them combined did in February.

Blue: Dolar Decline in April Vote over Feb Dolar+Brewer votes
Green: No Increase in Dolar Vote in April over Feb Dolar+Brewer votes

Finally, seven precincts, all but two east of California, showed actual declines in voter turnout in April. While the rest of the ward was showing up in greater numbers, these precincts (6, 34, 17, 24, 21, 37, 32) had fewer voters turn out.


What we see here is that the SEIU poll correctly predicted that some Brewer voters would not vote for Naisy Dolar. For whatever reason, some voters who were drawn to Greg Brewer could not come out and vote for Dolar. That same poll also predicted that Dolar's voters would turn out for Brewer, which is why SEIU tried to convince Dolar to drop out of the race. The April results seem to support SEIU here.

A Vote Divided

April 17 exposed the wounds. The 50th Ward is unusually divided, and this election showed that.

The final result, with Stone getting 53% and Dolar receiving 47%, seemed like a close election, but that was true mostly in the totals. Close elections tend to bunch up in the middle, with a large percentage of electoral districts returning results between 55% to 45% for two candidates. For example, the 2004 Presidential Election followed the normal pattern, with fully 20 states bunching up in the middle. The April 17th runoff election, in contrast, had 4 precincts bunched up in the middle, between 55% to 45% for Stone (or Dolar).

The 2004 Presidential Election saw one "state," the District of Columbia, with the winner over 75% of the vote in that electoral district. The April 17th election had 14 precincts where the winner had 75% or more of votes (seven for Stone and seven for Dolar). Instead of the Bell Curve that we are all familiar with, the April 17th election had a decidedly inverted Bell Curve, with an overwhelming majority of precincts returning a winner of 65% or more. Only 14 precincts had a winner with less than 65% of the votes. The 2004 Presidential Election had only 6 states return a winner with 65% or more.

Stone

> 75% (7): 31, 12, 16, 38, 11, 14, 44
65-74% (10): 34, 45, 39, 40, 25, 23, 33, 30, 5, 27
55-64% (8): 41, 10, 3, 28, 17, 24, 1, 26
50-54% (3): 19, 18, 2

50-54% (1): 13
55-64% (2): 32, 4
65-74% (7): 42, 29, 8, 9, 6, 22, 43
> 75% (7): 15, 37, 35, 36, 21, 20, 7

Dolar

It's difficult to fathom just how divided the 50th Ward is now. But there does seem to be a big black line (actually California) separating the two 50th's. That separation isn't complete, since precincts 18, 19, 28 and 34 are east of California and went for Stone. But as the graphic above shows, voters west of California do seem to love Ald. Stone, while voters east of California mostly do not care for him.

I would guess that this graphic corresponds closely to the level of city services received in each precinct.

This is What Hatred Sounds Like

As I've said before, the Hate Campaign is a staple of Ald. Stone and his sycophants. One of them, who many of us believe is Ilana, but we commonly identify as CAPSMAN, wrote this:

THE HATE-FILLED AND ETHNIC/RACIAL CRUSADE AND THEIR AGENDA DRIVEN CARPING AGAINST STONE WAS REPUDIATED BY THE MAJORITY. THERE IS NO BERLIN WALL HOLDING ANYBODY HERE,THEREFORE, THOSE WHO LIVE HERE DO SO BY CHOICE. STONE IS OUR ALDERMAN, THIS IS OUR WARD. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION, SO DO YOU, BUT NOT HERE! GO TO CHINATOWN AND GET YOUR OWN ALDERMAN!

This is the Voice of Hate. This has all been said before about African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Irish and Poles, but in this case, it seems to be said about Asian-Americans.

Whoever it is said about, this is the voice of bigotry and intolerance. The fact that this person supports Berny Stone says a lot about Stone and his base. Ald. Stone is infamous for taking people into his office, people who want some kind of normal city service, and berating them, often using ethnic prejudices. While no one believes that this Voice of Hate is actually Ald. Stone, it does represent Ald. Stone.

Be afraid.

A Ward Divided

IN JANUARY 2001 the only thing that was clear was that we lived in a divided nation. Here in the 50th, some people thought Al Gore was our rightful president while others were glad that George Bush would be inaugurated.

It may be said that the same is true in April 2007, except it's not the nation that is as divided, but the 50th Ward. And, unlike 2001, there are some (mostly Stone supporters) who are surprised by this division.

What is clear to me is that Ald. Stone has no one to blame but himself. Like George W. Bush, Berny Stone has a tin ear to dissent. He has made numerous errors in judgment, starting with the selecting of his daughter to be his chief-of-staff. Like many of those who lost their offices this year, the 50th has a staff that does not provide a positive customer service experience. Berny Stone almost lost not because he faced an able opponent (and I suspect that people underestimate Naisy Dolar) but because he's made it easy for people to oppose him. He neglects them, they don't support him.

There have been numerous calls for healing, from Stone and others. But after more than 6 years of George Bush, does anyone believe that the nation healed from the 2000 election? I don't know that it's realistic to expect the ward to heal, unless Stone shows some humility and leadership. Whether the ward heals depends on him and how he treats us. No one else can do anything.

Stone can start the healing in the 50th by firing Ilana. It should be clear that she will never be a delightful staffer. She treats residents as if they were pond scum. I don't see that as likely to change. The rest of his staff takes their cues from her (or perhaps they are rude because Ilana is so difficult to work with).

One reason that I don't think it will change is because I believe she likes that people are intimidated by her. I can't imagine what frightening little old ladies gets you, but it must do something for her. If she enjoys playing the intimidator, she is not suited to have contact with residents in a position of authority.

Another step that Berny Stone can take to facilitate healing is to treat all residents the same. The entire ward should receive city services when they are needed and requested. That shouldn't be difficult. It's a mystery why this doesn't already occur.

If Stone really wants the ward to heal, he will start having regular townhall meetings or public question-and-answer sessions. Hiding in his tower or substituting appearances on NTNM for public meetings is no longer tolerable. Moreover, his performance on the 12th has proven that he can do this. The only excuse now is either age or laziness.

Whether the ward heals is entirely up to Bernie Stone. But our dear readers can also do their part. There are some very angry and bitter people who post here, people who don't seem to care for their neighbors. Yes, the ward is changing and these changes do not help Berny Stone. The election is over, and we will live with Ald. Stone. The real question is, will the Stone sycophants live with the dissent that Stone's presence inevitably creates?

In 2004, George Bush went on to get re-elected. But I think history will show Bush as one of our worst presidents, in part because he neglected the people of this country. Berny Stone risks going down in history in much the same terms. His legacy can be seen with every sidewalk that needs repairing, every rodent warning sign, every piece of trash that swirls around. Only Berny Stone can save the tattered legacy of Berny Stone.

Five (now seven) Brewer Supporters...

I've "talked" to five supporters of Greg Brewer's. I asked them how they voted.

* Two said they voted for Naisy Dolar (one said she held her nose).

* Two admitted that they did not vote. One claimed to have forgotten.

* One friend wouldn't tell me. You know who you are. I suspect he voted for Stone.

* Three of the five agreed they were glad the election was over.

By no means is this a scientific sample. But it is an interesting observation. I believe this is what was predicted by the SEIU poll. What do you think?

UPDATE: Make that four votes for Dolar.

Back to the Stone Age!

Mike Noonan pulls it out:

Alderman 50th Ward 45 of 45 precincts 100.00%
Bernard L. Stone 5,965 52.93%
Naisy Dolar 5,304 47.07%
Total 11,269


Consider this an open thread about the election. Try to keep it positive.

The Case for Berny Stone

More than once in the last week, I've heard my friends and neighbors say, "I can't wait until after Tuesday." The perception is that this has been the nastiest campaign ever. While I don't think that's true, I thought we'd end here on a positive note.

The case for Ald. Stone is straight-forward. He's got 34 years of experience as our alderman. He's devoted his later years in life to managing the business of the ward. No one should question that he has a passion for that. The 50th Ward remains a kaleidoscope of culture, something that I think most people here love. West Ridge/Rogers Park makes Chicago feel like an international city. If the alderman is not responsible for that, he has at least maintained the appropriate environment for it to shine.

Unlike some alderman, Stone has open office hours at night, when most people are not working. He accepts every invitation I know of to speak before a local group. He has been accommodating to requests for zoning exemptions for larger families which has been important to major parts of the community. The media loves Stone because he's always good for a quote. Half the ward has been kept exceptionally clean, and Stone is remarkably responsive to requests from his base. There are many people here who are not ready for Stone to retire, especially a forced one. I don't know if I'd say that Stone is much beloved, but he certainly has a strong following in my neighborhood.

Consider this an open thread about why you support Ald. Stone for re-election. Try to keep it positive.

When is a Debate a Debate?

One commenter challenges the comparison of Stone's debate scheduled for tonight and Dolar's debate held at the Boone School. I won't argue that the analogy is exact, but I do think there is an important comparison.

If I understand correctly, and I know my readers will correct me if I'm wrong, the Boone School debate was sponsored by a group in which Naisy Dolar was a member, and whose referendum she was not only an active participant but devoted campaign resources to in November. I am told that its members are heavily involved in the Dolar campaign. If true, the sponsor could in no way be seen as a neutral party.

Nor can they be seen as the only non-political stakeholder in the community. Stone's collection of sponsors can lay equal claim to that, and certainly have been in the neighborhood longer.

I won't pretend that the Stone debate is any more neutral, merely that neither debate can be viewed as sponsored by an impartial or independent third party. I might even question whether any neutral or impartial parties exist in the 50th Ward. So why should one debate be preferred over the other? The only reason that I can see is that if you support Naisy Dolar, you prefer the Boone School debate. If you support Ald. Stone, you prefer tonight's debate. In trying to be fair, I see no reason to favor one over the other. Neither met the impartial criteria I would have thought necessary.

I don't think the Chicago Tonight appearance can be given equal weight to these two debates held in the neighborhood. It was only six minutes long, and probably had the same viewership as our CANTV-wannabe.

Fairness requires that we set aside the claims of partiality or impartiality here. Both sides have acted in their own interests. Both sides set up their own debates under favorable circumstances. Both sides have sought to skewer the other for not showing up.

But only one side could afford to pass on these debates. Ald. Stone has been the alderman, is well-known to the community, and voters feel they have a good idea what he will (and will not) do. The next four years under Ald. Stone will look basically like the last four years. One side of the ward can expect exceptional city services while the other side of the ward will complain about the lack of the same. Stone's office will remain dysfunctional. He will continue to embarrass us and endure health problems. But many of my neighbors feel he's "our Berny." Warm fuzzies all around, I suppose.

The question then, at least for most voters, is what will Dolar do? And one conclusion that you can draw today is that she won't show up when she's asked. Unless she wants to. Dolar supporters think that sounds harsh. Maybe, but I thought I was to expect more.

Naisy Dolar and her campaign is the one that set up this expectation. They've condemned Ald. Stone's leadership as inadequate, something I agree with. They've offered Dolar as an alternative, even saying that she has demonstrated effective leadership in the past (such as in the 24 hour parking meter "removal").

Ask yourself this question: Did Naisy Dolar demonstrate leadership with her decision about tonight's debate? Dolar claims leadership when the solution was easy for her. But governing the 50th Ward can't be easy, with all the competing interests involved. So the question really is, Is Naisy Dolar up for this job?

Tonight was an opportunity to find out. Was it a trap? Of course it was. But a strong candidate, one who was an effective leader, could have walked into the Lions Den and won over the voters. Dolar denied herself the opportunity to prove that she was an effective leader. She denied the voters the only opportunity to take their own measure of the two candidates side-by-side.

Many voters, but especially those who weren't inclined towards either of these two candidates, look at Character as a decisive factor. I know I do. I look at Berny Stone's character and find it wanting. But I can't really get a handle on Naisy Dolar's character. She's been very erratic, flits from one thing to another. She seems easily persuaded by outside forces. She has no focus. This was an opportunity to show her mettle. It's an opportunity that she declined.

My heart tells me that no one could be worse than Berny Stone as alderman. My head is not so sure. Naisy Dolar hasn't made it easier to vote for her.

He Said What?

So the Mayor and a number of incumbents in the run-off meet. And the Mayor says, "I don't know why people think I have a PAC. What's this PAC everyone says I got?" I'm paraphrasing. Obviously the Mayor is doing a little sidestep here. If you've watched the Mayor at all, you can even visualize his gestures, because they are very familiar.

Then Ald. Stone chimes in: "You know. Terry just gave me a check for $10,000."

Everyone in the room groaned.

That's our Berny. Embarrassing the Mayor, embarrassing the city. Good Old Berny. You can add to that an overconfident Berny. 52% he predicts. The machine will deliver on Tuesday. It's been a tougher race than he had hoped for, but he'll get 52%. His campaign is coming together now. Naisy Dolar, a confident notes, needs at least 1,000 new voters to even have a chance. That is somehow related to the number of absentees Berny is supposed to have come in. You and I, though, have heard that tune before.

I don't pretend to know how this race will turn out. It's hard to bet against Stone because he got 5,000 votes. I'd expect that if he turned out 5,000 votes again, he wins. But I also don't think Jan Schakowsky would back a loser. She must know something I don't in this race.

It is interesting to see commenters try to spin the No Debate decision. We all have our sides. But no matter what you think about this race, Naisy Dolar refused to participate in the only candidate's forum that Ald. Stone was going to do. Trying to compare an appearance on Chicago Tonight to a debate in the neighborhood is silly. Choosing not to participate is a gamble.

If you asked me, and since it's my blog, I'm assuming you did, I don't think that Stone or his campaign could have pulled off a two-party debate. I would have wanted him to focus all his campaign's energies on trying to do so, with only five days left before election day. I would have invited every bit of media out there, and videotaped the whole thing to put up on youtube. Dolar didn't have to do anything, and she could have forced the Stone campaign to spin its wheels in the last week before the election. Meanwhile, her campaign could continue to go after their pluses, with the field virtually to themselves. (No, I don't think Berny Stone can chew gum and walk at the same time.)

But she didn't wanna. Now there's some fast thinking. In the end, it's the neighborhood that loses, because we will never get to see the two of them side-by-side. If Dolar was right to skip this debate, then no one can fault Stone for skipping the Boone School debate. The WRPCO doesn't even register in my half of the ward.

If Dolar loses, as Stone thinks she will, you can point to this decision as an indicator of her forth-coming loss. If she wins, then she should be grateful for the advise she got. They will have been right.

Only the neighborhood will have suffered.

Why Won't Dolar Debate?

I don't have any particular insight into the reasons why Naisy Dolar will not show up to Ald. Stone's admittedly rigged debate. The suggestion that Stone had two chances (the Boone School and Chicago Tonight appearance) is lame and easily dismissed. It's not a real excuse, it must be something they thought of to hide their real reasons for ducking Stone's debate.

The Stone debate was the only opportunity we were going to have to take the measure of the two candidates side-by-side. Dolar slammed that door in our face. While we can criticize Stone's cowardice all we want (and some of us have), now the same must be said of Dolar. She's no different than Stone in this regard. The problem is that this opens the eyes to other things where Dolar may be no different than Stone.

Although I have no idea why she would pass on an opportunity to go toe-to-toe with Berny Stone, it does seem they feel like they are the front runner. Dolar won't show, my thinking goes, because she thinks she doesn't have to. She must think that she's ahead in the race.

Maybe she is. She has a SEIU poll that shows her with a 7 point lead and she has Jan Schakowsky's endorsement (the most important political figure in the ward according to everyone I've talked to; only the Stone sycophants on this site disagree with that conclusion). Maybe she is comfortably ahead enough to choose not to participate.

So who loses? We do. Democracy does. Dolar's word does. There are lots of casualties here.

Naisy Dolar had previously said that she was eager to debate Ald. Stone, and seemed to promise that she would do so under any circumstances. She must have meant eager to debate him only twice. We can't act surprised that Stone or his people would want to control the circumstances of the debate. Nor should we have been surprised by the way this has unfolded. How is it any different from 2003 or prior election years where Stone's been challenged? I suspect incumbents always want to control these things.

What is worrisome to me, though, is that Naisy Dolar is now acting like Berny Stone. She doesn't need to show up so she doesn't. Who does that remind you of? What can we expect from Dolar if she demonstrates she is only going to do what she has to, but not any more? This isn't a good sign if you want to see change in the ward.

Simply changing the face of the alderman is not enough. We need to see a change in attitude and a change in activity to make the neighborhood better. Dolar and her supporters should remember that voters are taking a risk by electing her. The 50th Ward would lose staffing under a Dolar administration, it would lose seniority, and it would lose the Mayor's ear. Dolar has to offer voters reasons to take that risk, and I don't think the bar is set especially high.

Acting like Stone, only doing the minimal necessary, may give pause to those considering taking that risk. If Dolar is no better than Stone, why should we risk it? Maybe Naisy Dolar is ahead enough in this race that it doesn't matter now. I suspect she thinks she is, since she's made the decision to pass on this opportunity. But some voters, especially in this part of the ward, needed her to stand up to Stone and demonstrate that she had what it takes before they could connect the lines for Dolar.

Naisy abandoned those voters yesterday.

Consider this an open thread on why Naisy Dolar decided to pass on Ald. Stone's debate and what that means for both Stone and Dolar. You are encouraged to give your predictions with percentages on who will win on Tuesday.

Will Dolar Show?

All the talk has been around Ald. Stone's debate and whether Naisy Dolar would show up. Let's be perfectly honest here, the April 12 debate is a forum created entirely by Berny Stone and his cronies, and no hint of impartiality exists. But it is also the only side-by-side debate the 50th will get.

Dolar's camp responded to Stone's invitation with a number of conditions that are unlikely to be met. Stone's debate invitation seems to be a take-it-or-leave-it invitation, and they probably have a mailing ready to go saying that Dolar is scared to debate the alderman. This is obviously absurd, but this debate is not up on Dolar's calendar.

Who needs it more? Actually, the people of the 50th Ward do. Another community organization made this little debacle possible by being so heavy-handed in their candidate's forum. If Dolar's crowd is allowed to do this, one would expect Stone's crowd to be able to, as well. It's the neighborhood that is ill-served. No one expects Stone to serve the neighborhood better, but Naisy Dolar has staked her campaign on "expecting more."

Everybody knows that Stone's debate is a trap. His precinct captains have spent weeks coming up with zingers and pointed questions. So while it may appear smart that Dolar passes on Stone's debate, doing so shows that she's running on an empty message.

She set the trap for herself in that regard.

Advantage: Ald. Stone

UPDATE: The Dolar campaign confirms that they will not participate in the Stone debate.

Little Birdie "News"

I didn't expect to be blogging this week. This is a time for family. But now we hear that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky will be endorsing Naisy Dolar tomorrow. Rumors of Schakowsky's support have been frequent throughout the campaign, generally coming from the Dolar camp. One poster even thought it would be a good idea to threaten Schakowsky because she was supporting Dolar.

If true (and remember that lots of rumors have been posted here, some with less accuracy than others), it should sound the death knell for Ald. Stone. Schakowsky is widely respected in our community and is probably our best-loved politician. Her endorsement would be the seal of approval that opens the minds of many people here who were unwilling to let Berny go. It would prove to them that Dolar can "cut it" in the city council.

Perhaps the most important thing is that Schakowsky has the finest political mind in the area. She wouldn't go back on her word to Stone (who asked her to stay neutral in the race) unless she firmly believed that Dolar would win. In the end, Schakowsky has the people to turn the tide on the ground. I don't believe that she would endorse anyone in a race like this unless she was committed to putting her supporters to work.

Stone's Fake Debate Proposal

The joke around city hall is that if you want to see Ald. Stone "come alive," try to get between him and a microphone. Or, perhaps, the joke around city hall IS Ald. Stone. Who knows? It seems likely that we are not the only ones embarrassed by the alderman's antics.

The joke around the 50th is that Berny Stone offered to debate Naisy Dolar. This "proposal" (or joke) came right before the debate lined up by the WRPCO:

Michael C. Moses wrote:

On behalf of the Stone campaign I contacted the Dolar campaign and extended an invitation for a debate between Alderman Stone and Naisy Dolar on April 12, 2007 from 7:00-8:00 p.m.

If you didn't see it, there is no location for this fake debate proposal. A reasonable person might even consider it a trap. If they believed it to be real.

But I was thinking about this. Ald. Stone's proposals take up to a decade to implement. He talks about them, and talks about them some more, as if there is real movement towards his goals. He does this for years. He just doesn't have the power or influence to accomplish anything in a reasonable amount of time.

Why would this be any different?

I have no problem believing that Stone wants to debate Dolar. In a decade. Or so.

Word is that WTTW's Chicago Tonight (PBS, Channel 11) has asked the two to appear. They seem to be doing this for all the campaigns. The Dolar campaign appears to claim that the offer comes whether Ald. Stone appears or not. If Stone doesn't show up, Dolar gets all the air time that would have been devoted to the two of them.

Which brings us back to the joke from city hall. This isn't CAN-TV (where anyone can get on TV, even Berny Stone or Avy Meyers!). Stone's fears of appearing alongside an opponent may be trumped by his need to appear on televsion. Maybe.

No doubt Stone will argue that WTTW is biased. Chicago Tonight has seen many favorable comments about Dolar (eg, here and here). If Stone and his cronies aren't viewers of Chicago Tonight, it's unlikely he'll show. But that would reinforce Stone's reputation as the joke of Chicago. What a dilemma!

I think the odds are 60/40 that Stone won't show. Even if he appears, he might fall asleep! But the pressure would be immense. One weird comment, and it will be repeated over and over on YouTube and the Internet. And who thinks Stone can talk for 15 minutes without saying something bizarre?

Advantage: Dolar.

Organization and Benchmarks

Yahoo News pointed to this article from the Washington Post. It looks at the influence of Saul Alinksky and community organizing in the Presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The article itself is uninteresting. But it discusses something I had been thinking about since the beginning of this campaign. Will the community organizing model work in Chicago politics?

One of the reasons I became disenchanted with Naisy Dolar last summer was over this issue. Her emphasis, it seemed to me, was on organizing rather than beating Ald. Stone. I agree that our neighborhoods aren't organized. But voters could credit Dolar with organizing the neighborhoods and still vote to re-elect Berny Stone. Would they see the link that the organizers wanted them to see? Would it overcome the advantages that Stone has in name recognition, precinct organization and voter contact? These were questions I could not answer, and probably never can.

The Dolar strategy dovetails nicely with the new community organization. And there's no doubt that the 50th Ward is perhaps the worst organized in terms of community groups and neighborhood organizations with the ability to communicate their needs and concerns to city government. But the question is, can you win this way?

I wonder if this is the reason for the Runoff Predictions in the most recent post on Aldertrack. "AlderTrack: 'It's too early to call either the 49th or 50th. Both incumbents may be in trouble here, Ald. Stone more so than Ald. Moore. Check back the week before election day.'" Ten days ago it seemed to be predicting that Stone would lose.

One thing that has become obvious is that the run-offs will be closer than people imagine. Conventional Wisdom says that turnout is lower in run-off elections, and this is sometimes true. But turnout has also increased in run-offs. It depends on how much media attention the race draws.

Which comes back to the benchmarks. I've tried to pay attention to a couple of benchmarks to provide some insight into this race, notably whether the Mayor (and his supporters) would strongly support Ald. Stone and whether Asian-American money flowed into Dolar's coffers and she got the Union backing she expected. Greg Brewer points out that Stone is now following the Mayor's message for incumbents in the run-off (basically, 'I've heard your concerns and am now prepared to address them in full.' It's an open question whether Stone can be believed in terms of this message.). Dolar's disclosures demonstrate that she intends to be a player in this race. There is general agreement that the race has narrowed considerably.

One reason why I was interested in whether Stone was getting the Mayor's full support was because, if Dolar did not get the endorsements of SEIU or the CFL, then Stone would be the only one who had Union mail sent out on his behalf. Terry Peterson, the Mayor's campaign manager, has been facilitating a PAC of the Mayor's supporters, including several unions, who are supposed to be mailing into several wards. Without SEIU or the CFL mailing on behalf of Dolar, voters may reasonably conclude that the Unions are now supporting Stone. Some of them are.

Advantage: Ald. Stone.

Blind Men in the Dark

I was asked yesterday who I thought would win. Who knows? What I see right now is two inept politicians tumbling towards April 17th.

The fact that the Stone camp did not meet with the Mayor last week is a sign. I just don't know what it means. Ald. Stone remains a recepient of the largese being generated by the Mayor's PAC, but does not appear to benefit from the Mayor's advice or troops.

For most other incumbents who had gotten 48% of the vote, this probably wouldn't matter. But this is Berny Stone, who seems to be stuck in the 1970s. It doesn't help that he's been distracted by family problems throughout the campaign. But the faux break-in? Anti-semitic slurs in a Phillipine tongue? That is incredible. NO ONE BELIEVES THAT! There is no clearer indication that Stone and his supporters are behind the recent rash of anti-semitic activity than this. And it is increasingly clear that if you want to calm racial tensions in the community, the defeat of Ald. Stone will guarantee it. Stone and his sycophants are evidently stoking racial tensions, and if Stone loses, they will disappear.

Re-electing Stone only guarantees that they will continue. Imagine what Ilana will do with the knowledge that race-baiting tactics work!

Naisy Dolar looks like she wants to be voted off the island. Anti-semiticism is wrong, and hate crimes should be treated as that, a crime. But Dolar has been acting more like a human rights advocate than a candidate. Not only has she been reacting to Stone's faked appeals, but by elevating them to this stature, she lends her credibility to these anti-semitic acts. Dolar let Stone play the victim, and squashed her own efforts to highlight criminal incidents that cast a poor light on the alderman.

Add to that the spectacle of last night. A group that cast off any thought of impartiality held its candidate forum even though it knew that only one candidate would show up. This legitimized the forum that Stone has put together, without any thought of impartiality. Voters in our community who were interested in a real give-and-take between the two candidates are the real losers here. Stone comes out a winner, since he still gets to dictate the terms of debate in the ward.

Over all, this week only solidified the inherent advantages that Stone brought into the run-off. Early voting begins next week, and these advantages will become more clear. When it is all over, and Dolar is wondering why she lost, she can look to this week as decisive. She started with elevated hopes, raising money and a publicized crime that played right into her themes. And then she relinquished control of the campaign. Hard to see how she can recover the momentum, especially as long as the spectre of anti-semiticism is out there.

Open Thread: Why Won't Stone Debate?

One commenter asks, "why won't Alderman Stone participate in a real debate?" This is your chance to answer the question. Why do you think Berny Stone is afraid to debate an opponent, despite his promise to do so?