Endorsement Batting Average = Piss Poor

We decided to do a little investigation last night. We dug up a copy of the FOP 2012 Endorsements for the Illinois Senate and House and compared it to the way that those people voted for the recent Pension Bill. We saved the file in case anyone over at FOP decides to take down the web page. The results we educational to say the least:

(click on the image for a larger view)

We drew a line between the Senate and House endorsements and hi-lighted the people voting "yes." We lined out those who either lost the election or have since left Springfield for the greener pastures of aldrecreature or lobbyist.

• The Senate members endorsed by FOP were 7 out of 7 voting for the bill
• The House members endorsed by FOP were 14 out of 18 voting for the bill

Now we realize that the pension bill in Springfield doesn't affect Chicago's woes. It is going to be used by Rahm as a road map to gut (aka "reform") our pensions at some point, and some of these politicians might have voted as they did knowing that they don't have to face downstate voters - the Machine will keep them relatively safe.

But as we had a presence at the vote this past week, and the FOP is supporting the We Are One organization, and the FOP made it known that this bill wasn't in the best interests of future issues that will directly impact CPD along with other workers, it's disappointing that our organization would endorse people so out of touch with what we determine to be in our best interests.

21-out-of-25, a full 84%, voted in favor of a bill that we made no bones about being against. That either points to:

1. a complete disconnect of those running with our endorsement;
2. a catastrophic failure of our Political Action Committee to endorse qualified candidates to vote for the interests of the FOP.

Either scenario needs to be addressed somehow.