Dan Farley
(Chicago, IL) — December 28, 2009. The Independent Voters of Illinois–Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO) state board of directors has rejected the local district endorsement of Democratic state representative candidate Dan Farley and has scheduled a re-vote for Tuesday, December 29.
Multiple IVI-IPO voters casting their ballots for Farley, a former Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney who is seeking the House seat on Chicago’s north side being vacated by State Rep. John Fritchey, were disqualified, according to a well-placed source.
The board noted an unusual spike in number of endorsement voters and launched an inquiry to determine who actually voted and their qualifications. Some the disqualified voters had only recently acquired IVI-IPO membership and voted, a violation of the group’s rules.
Ouch.
Farley and the race’s other two challengers, attorneys Ann Williams and Ed Mullen, will also be able to resubmit their candidacies to IVI-IVPO for reconsideration.
Farley’s campaign has hit a rough patch.
Last week, the campaign issued an e-mail campaign endorsement from U.S. Mike Quigley and issued a quote attributed to Quigley taking a non-too subtle jab at Williams for her past employment as a lobbyist for Wyeth, the maker, among other things, chapstick.
Problem? Quigley affirmed the endorsement but disavowed the quote. Never said it.
After a polite spanking from a Quigley spokesman, the Farley campaign was supposed to have issued a correction. No correction has been forthcoming. Zippo.
In the meantime, the fabricated Quigley quote has been also printed and mailed throughout the district by Farley campaign. Oops.
Can’t unring a bell.
Anyway, it’s always easier to ask for forgiveness and than permission.
Gov. Pat Quinn
Did you ask your well-placed source what the original vote was? I would be curious what the numbers are. Certainly your well placed source can supply you with this info. Just Asking.
Posted by sandy | December 28, 2009, 11:49 AMDear Sandy,
No.
Thank you for reading.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 11:52 AMI hope that people will come out and vote against Farley. I know everybody is burned out from the Obama election, but we can’t afford to have someone like this placed in office. First he … [DELETED by Administrator] … on his resume, then puts out malicious false quotes, is supported by machine candidates Schulter et al. He has more signs on abandoned buildings than Fritchey did in his congressional race. And let’s not forget about his … [DELETED by Administrator]. I don’t care if its Williams (my first choice) or Mullen, we can’t afford to let this one go to the machine.
Posted by Real Reformer | December 28, 2009, 12:03 PMPerhaps I can shed some light on this. You need 15 votes in order to have a quorum and the totals were 13 Farley, 3 Mullen and 0 for Williams. Since there were not enough people on hand to establish a quorum there has to be a re-vote on Dec 29. This comes from a person in the room. Check it out with the candidates themselves. If they don’t verify this then they are flat out lying. There is a reason that Williams received 0 votes and its not because the deck was stacked against her. Three voters changed their votes to Farley after hearing their credentials and listening to them speak. Again check with the candidates and ask each one what transpired in the ROOM itself. Your well placed source is not telling you the facts. Good day!!
Posted by sandy | December 28, 2009, 12:12 PMDear Real,
Thank you for commenting, we’ve like the back and forth, the up and down here. But’s let’s generate light as well as heat. That’s why I deleted portions of your comments. Nevertheless, I appreciate your zest.
Thank you for reading.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 12:16 PMI’d like to hear more about Mr. Farley’s duties as chairman of the IVI-IPO’s Tax Rollback Committee.
Posted by Mom Squad | December 28, 2009, 12:24 PMSandy,
Hmm. There are 15 votes needed for a quorum? There were 16 votes? So what was the problem?
By the way, a source provided the information and I confirmed with one of the campaigns. But thanks anyway for advising this ex-reporter on how to write a story. Advice is always welcome.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 12:26 PMKey word one of the campaigns. Why not all three campaigns mr ex-reporter? You need at least 15 endorsement votes for it to be official. Your lone campaign source left that out. How convenient. If you were truly a “reporter” you would call have called all three campaigns and check the “FACTS”. Your bias is showing again. Good day.
Posted by sandy | December 28, 2009, 12:34 PMSandy,
Thank you for clarifying your information.
As you may have noticed, this is a personal blog; it’s a hobby, not a job. Within my time constraints of my real job, I write on state politics and with my personal and informed perspective. And if the Farley campaign was in the habit of responding to my recent questions, I would be in the habit of publishing his comments. But these days, he’s not.
However, since you are in the position of “all knowing” it was unnecessary to tell you that. No?
Thank you for reading.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 12:43 PMSandy:
Maybe you can tell me more about Mr. Farley’s tenure as chair of the IVI-IPO’s Tax Rollback Committee?
Posted by Mom Squad | December 28, 2009, 12:48 PMDear Mom,
Why do I think you’re fishing for a rumble?
Ok, hang on, let me get the popcorn.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 12:52 PMMaybe I just like a good mystery, David. And with Detective Sandy on the case, this one is sure to be solved!
Posted by Mom Squad | December 28, 2009, 12:54 PMI see. My hobby is reading your blog when the weight of the world is not on my shoulders. When I read things that are not factual I respond. If you feel that since this is a “hobby” that gives you a license to fudge the facts then I fell a need to set the record straight. If that is a problem for you then I am sorry. If you prefer that I not comment in the future then let me know.
Posted by sandy | December 28, 2009, 12:56 PMOh this is getting fun. First of all thank you for editing my comments before. Sometimes I step over the line. I was just on the IVI site and didn’t notice anything regarding their rules. However, I thought it was quite interesting looking at who they are endorsing. They are supposed to be representing the Independent Voters of Illinois, right? Good government since 1944, right? Some of their endorsements are way out there. Matt Reichel for the 5th? Come on. He was an ex-pat who said he didn’t think he’d ever come back to the U.S. Did they get 15 votes on him too? I think more than the 11th race needs to be reconsidered here. Here is the link for the endorsements: http://www.iviipo.org/2010%20Primary%20Endorsements.htm. I would love your feedback on their choices.
Posted by Real Reformer | December 28, 2009, 1:09 PMSandy,
I welcome your comments.
And I welcome your questioning of the “facts” that I report and your questioning of the written judgments that I make for all to see. What is unwelcome is the questioning my motives of which you know nothing. I write because I like to write and know a bit of state politics. Ok?
Now that that’s settled, don’t be a stranger. You’ve got zip. I like that.
David Ormsby
PS Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 1:10 PMAll is well. I will be reading as the election season unfolds. Happy New Year to all .
Posted by sandy | December 28, 2009, 1:13 PMReal reformer-i can’t explain that one (Reichel) but everyone else represents good government and reform. Look at all of them and see what you think. They all look legit to me.
Posted by sandy | December 28, 2009, 2:25 PMThe Schulter machine’s hand-picked candidate represents good government and reform? Only in the Bizzarro World of Chicago politics.
Posted by Prairie Pundit | December 28, 2009, 3:32 PMwhy does it snow on your blog? Jesus, I thought I was having an acid flashback….sorry for the off topic post.
Posted by Tom | December 28, 2009, 3:51 PMTom,
It’s a frigging holiday feature. Ho.
LOL.
DO
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 4:02 PMPrairie Pundit,
Warning: you are going to get Sylvie and Dan worked into a lather.
I’m keeping my head down.
Thank you for reading.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 4:05 PMDavid:
Lathered up? I’ll happily donate the bar of fancy soap that Santa dropped in my stocking.
While I’m at it, I’ll toss in a bottle of Head & Shoulders. It’ll cure your Website’s problem dandruff right up–and spare poor Tom another involuntary flashback to his college years.
Posted by Prairie Pundit | December 28, 2009, 4:11 PMPraire Pundit,
LOL.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | December 28, 2009, 4:19 PM