Alderman Scott Waguespack
(Chicago, IL) — January 2010. Election fence sitters are jumping off their perches.
In Chicago, Alderman Scott Waguespack (D-32nd) has abandoned his neutrality in the Illinois state house race to succeed John Fritchey on Chicago’s north side to back attorney Ed Mullen, according to a source.
Waguespack’s campaign workers dropped Mullen’s campaign literature door-to-door on Sunday and added the first-time candidate to the Alderman’s election day “palm cards”, the source says.
Mullen, who is facing former Illinois assistant attorney general Ann Williams and former Cook County assistant state’s attorney Dan Farley, essentially, confirmed the source’s claim.
“Scott Waguespack is a true independent and reformer, and I am honored to have his support,” said Mullen.
Waguespack will likely catch some heat from his aldermanic colleague Alderman Eugene Schulter (D-47th) who has lobbied the first-term alderman heavily to support Farley.
But Mullen choice makes sense.
Waguespack won his seat–barely–in 2007 campaigning against incumbent Ted Matlak as an independent reformer and winning by only 121 votes. Backing Farley, son of former State Senator Bruce Farley (D-Chicago) would have dinged his independent credentials in the eyes of his backers.
And Mullen might be a winner.
He has worn and ruined shoes walking the precincts of the yuppie and blue collar district for six-months, knocking on approximately 10,000 doors of voters. The value? Face time with voters at their front door: priceless.
However, veteran political strategist and long-time advisor to Mayor Richard Daley, Phil Krone, thinks Waguespack goofed.
Wagspak (phontetic spelling) made a foolish move. With one act he has offended Fritchey, Madigan and Schulter. Not smart.
I thought Wagspak was extremely intelligent. However, he lacks common sense. He may be independent, but his miniscule margin of victory over Matlak (121 votes) was the result of Fritchey’s support; so he is as we would say both an ingrate and a dirty doublecrosser. He’s probably aggravated that Fritchey endorsed Preckwinkle (after he did).
We’ll see tomorrow if Waguespack jumped on the right horse from his fence.
THE iLLINOIS OBSERVER 
It seems clear that Ed has the momentum in this race. Lobbyist Ann Williams has realized that progressives have seen through her smokescreen and is now attempting to smear Ed Mullen with a fictitious hit piece about lawsuits. In fact, Ed Mullen has defended seniors and the disabled community in countless pro bono cases. In addition, Ed is the only candidate who hasn’t taken money from political insiders, corporations, special interests or lobbyists. Ann Williams got less than 1% of her money from individuals.
Posted by BriGRed | February 1, 2010, 11:40 AMThat first comment was obviously a plant. Mullen was the first to throw negatives at Williams, while she was busy fending off the illegal activities of the Schulter/Farley cronies. Speaking of plants, it wouldn’t surprise me if Mullen was a plant supported by Schulter. Split up the progressive vote and the machine has a chance. He’s clearly running a distant 3rd so why would he be attacking Williams, whom this column has reported as the frontrunner. And as for 1%, you might want to go back to school. There are dozens of individuals supporting her both financially and otherwise.
Posted by Real Reformer | February 1, 2010, 12:13 PMWagspak (phontetic spelling) made a foolish move. With one act he has offended Fritchey, Madigan and Schulter. Not smart.
I thought Wagspak was extremely intelligent. However, he lacks common sense. He may be independent, but his miniscule margin of victory over Matlak (121 votes) was the result of Fritchey’s support; so he is as we would say both an ingrate and a dirty doublecrosser. He’s probably aggravated that Fritchey endorsed Preckwinkle (after he did).
Fritchey is at least twice as smart as Wagspack and wouldn’t allow the Alderman’s support of an outstanding candidate deter him from supporting that same person without conditions. Its also interesting that Matlak, rightfully is now running against Fritchey for the County Board in retaliation for Fritchey having supported Wagspack.
I think Fritchey who has been endorsed by both Quigley and Claypool will smash Matlak tomorrow, and either Ann Williams or Farley will be elected State Rep.
My advvice to Fritchey is find another aldermanic candidate in the next few months and replace Wagspack in 2011. Wagspack is not the only intelligent person in the 32nd ward, in fact he may not be intelligent at all. This last endorsement was a doozie. He loses either way..
And Fritchey will be a key player on the County Board. Both he and Sara Feigenholtz lost to Quigley and now they’ll be replacing Claypool and Quigley on the County Board. Working with Preckwinkle, Suffredin and others they will be a formidable (phonetic pronunciation in French: for me dah blay) progressive majority.
Posted by Phil Krone | February 1, 2010, 12:19 PMThe alderman has no campaign workers. The 32nd Ward has no workers whatsoever. Please don’t read too much in to this. The alderman doesn’t have ANY pct reps in the ward and if he were to cover 25% of the 34 pcts in the race I would be shocked. If he does they are from outside the district. Fritchey is the ward commiteeman and he also has zero workers. Take it for what its worth which aint much.
Posted by Luara Spencer | February 1, 2010, 12:34 PMI always wondered how you said formidable in French!
Posted by Real Reformer | February 1, 2010, 12:39 PMReal Reformer,
S’il vous plait, entre nous, prenez-soin de prononcer “formidable” en français parce que l’intonation du mot par la modulation de la voix est très important, sinon, ce sera une catastrophe. Voilà.
Je vous remercie pour votre attention.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | February 1, 2010, 12:59 PM” [Waguespack’s ] miniscule margin of victory of Matlak (121 votes) was the result of Fritchey’s support?” Matlak outspent Waguespack $700,000 to $100,000. I refer you to the History of the 2007 Aldermatic Race at 32ndNLA. In that history, there is not any evidence of Rep. John Fritchey supporting Ald. Scott Waguespack by any public statement or contributions of any kind. Go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/32ndNLA
Joe Lake, Bucktown
Posted by Joe Lake | February 1, 2010, 1:40 PMYou had me at S’il vous plait!
Posted by Real Reformer | February 1, 2010, 2:15 PMWhat a joke how is Ann Williams a progressive? She gave money to a Republican Senator. She attacked Dan first and because Ed is gaining now she’s turning her focus because she will do anything to win.
Posted by Roscoe | February 1, 2010, 2:16 PMReal Reformer,
LOL.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | February 1, 2010, 2:36 PMAnn WIlliams’ latest attack piece shows what a liar she is, plain and simple. She’ll do/say anything to get elected. That’s typical of politicians who’ve tutored under Mike & Lisa Madigan.
If you think things in Springfield are fine just as they are, then by all means vote for Dan Farley or Ann Williams, they will just give us more of the same. If you want to back reform then vote for Ed Mullen.
Posted by Barry Aldridge | February 1, 2010, 4:15 PMGo take a look at the 2007 campaign reports, Fritchey gave (loaned?) Waguespack a decent chunk of that $100k that he used to beat Matlak.
As the Chicago Reader pointed out last week, it sorta’, kinda’ sounds like Matlak is planning to take a run at Waguespack next year. That should be a fun race, my mailbox groans at the thought of all the mailers it will be getting hit with again.
And Phil Krone – Sara Feigenholtz isn’t running for Quigley’s seat. Bridget Gainer has already been appointed to it, and will take it in a walk tomorrow.
Posted by far reaches of the 32nd ward | February 1, 2010, 4:37 PMA review of the Illinois D-2’s does not indicate any money given/loaned by Rep. John Frirchey to the 2007 aldemantic race of Ald. Scott Waguespack.
Joe Lake, Bucktown
Posted by Joe Lake | February 1, 2010, 5:14 PMSorry. Didn’t know Bridget Gainer got Quigley’s seat. I hope she’s as good as Sara. I assume she’s a progressive.
Concerning Fritchey’s assistance to Waguespack. I never said financial support. I rarely give money either, but icebergs are only 10% visible. I would assume that if Matlak challenges Waguespack again, Fritchey will be obligated to support a third person, perhaps a mature person who would serve just one term, so that Sam Royko could run in 2015. How ironic, the son of Mike becoming an Alderman.
I just saw a later posting that showed a Stroger/Fritchey sign. Obviously not done by Fritchey because he’s supporting Preckwinkle and even if he weren’t it would be counterproductive. My first nominee for having done it would be Todd Stroger. It would be smart for him to link his name with the person who has the best chance of winning the seat, even if it means hurting the candidacy of that person. The second possibility is Matlak — a clever way of reducing Fritchey’s vote; or it could be Waguespack for the same reason; but if it is Waguespack he’s not helping Preckwinkle by meddling. I know how hard Fritchey helped Waguespack and most of it was under the radar. One reason is that a leading preservationist asked him to. Even if Waguespack doesn’t think he helped that much, when you only win by 121 votes there are lots of people to whom you should be grateful. And I assure you Fritchey was one of them. As was Jonathan Fine who I would support for Alderman if he lived in the ward and were crazy enough to run.
Posted by Phil Krone | February 1, 2010, 6:45 PMEd Mullen is another “reformer” that thinks that he is going to go down to Springfield and make a change. What’s he really going to do? Be a one man band wagon and vote the Speaker out? Not happening. I am tired of hearing about how much money Williams or Farley took from special interests. That is the way the system is set up. If you don’t raise money, then you don’t win elections. Unless someone wants to do a real reform bill to cap contribution amounts it’s never changing. Williams and Farley don’t have rich friends like the Rickett’s family to take money from. You don’t call that a special interest???
Posted by Eric Holmes | February 1, 2010, 10:40 PMDO,
I like this blog but why are you so enamored of Phil Krone?
He is angry, shallow and especially wrong in his analysis of the Gov’s race. He has nothing positive to say about Hynes. Seems to harbor a personal grudge against Pat Quinn.
Posted by Chas Hampton | February 1, 2010, 10:55 PMChas,
Thank you for your kind words and for reading.
I have met Phil Krone, lunched with him, debated campaigns with him and I think he is one comma short of brilliant. We share different assessments on some candidates, surely, but the play of his mind and dexterity of his pen still earn my admiration. Finally, he’s also the last of his breed–a gentleman.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | February 1, 2010, 11:29 PMIn West Lakeview we heard Fritchey was favorable to Waguespack but never saw him walking door to door which is what won the race. Who knows how many votes were stolen by the machine.
Waguespack does a great job for us, and it sounds like Krone has never met WAguespack. It must be too easy for Krone to take money and say whatever the machine wants.
Posted by Les | February 2, 2010, 5:26 AMIt looks like all the thugs are coming out to attack Williams. Just found a stack of her signs trashed in an alley. My guess is that they’ll be pulling the old school tricks and pull her signs faster than her team can put them up.
Posted by Real Reformer | February 2, 2010, 9:42 AMThanks for the reply David. Just seems like since Krone weighed in your coverage of Quinn has shifted dramatically against him.
Posted by Chas Mahoney | February 2, 2010, 12:25 PMDO, this whole story is totally false. I know for a fact that Scott Waguespack has NOT endorsed anyone in this race and has no campaign workers doing anything. He’s too busy trying to run a ward left in shambles by the previous regime. Where do you get this stuff, and why don’t you check your facts before publishing this nonsense?
Posted by DT | February 2, 2010, 3:50 PMDT,
Not according to the candidate.
Thank you for reading.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | February 2, 2010, 8:46 PMWith all due respect, the candidate isn’t the one who gave this alleged endorsement; Wabuespack is. Did you check with Waguespack before you published? Are there any public statements from Waguespack that you can cite?
Posted by DT | February 3, 2010, 7:49 AMDT,
First, you need to reread carefully what I wrote. I never used the word “endorsement”; I wrote “back” and Mullen said “support”. An endorsement is a formal process. Many aldermen and committeemen back candidates without bestowing an “endorsement” to avoid catching heat from allies and rivals.
Second, last minute decisions by aldermen and committeemen to support a candidate with palm cards, lit drops, etc. is typical in elections without overt declarations. And they regularly deny their involvement. It’s part of the game. Thinking otherwise is naive.
Thank you for your comments.
David Ormsby
Posted by David Ormsby | February 3, 2010, 9:40 AMI have met Scott Waguespack and I have met John Fritchey. Waguespack is slightly more refined and better packaged but Fritchey has a wonderful combination of idealism and realism. I would like to have been able to help Waguespack in the future but he has made some critical mistakes and has allowed himself to lay the foundation for being subsumed.
I’ve never taken a dime (or more) from Fritchey or Waguespack. I don’t know Matlak. But I know the 32nd ward very, very well. Those who know how to understand will understand.
I don’t mind being criticized but it would be nice for those who do to be accurate.
Posted by Philip S. Krone | February 28, 2010, 4:25 AM