This article discusses the career implications of Mayor Daley's decision to veto the Big Box Ordinance, and the possible negative impacts it could have on his re-election in the future.
It discusses the previous success of the mayor with the City Council and his ability to work well with them. It brings up the unease that has plagued Chicago recently, however, with federal corruption charges against his patronage chief, who was convicted for doling out political hires. Daley, despite investigation, is said to be in the clear. He has had a good relationship with his City Council because they agree often, which is why this was the first we have seen of his veto power in the 17 years he has been in office. The aldermen voted largely for this ordinance which they knew Daley to be against, a very rare occurrence. This may have been due to a decrease in trust of government in both Chicago and the United States recently.
People are less willing to blindly trust their leader as more stories of corruption appear in the news every day. This came in the season leading up to the Congressional elections, a time when many politicians were being exposed on several counts of misbehavior and further decreasing public trust in elected officials. Daley has definitely felt some of that backlash.
Daley is quoted in the article saying that he thinks these issues should be handled by the state and federal governments, and not on a city-by-city basis. This is unique thinking for a man who has spoken out about starting programs on his own in the past. The article very briefly hints that the three aldermen who changed their minds about the ordinance were most likely "nudged" by Daley to wrestle the appropriate votes out of them. Other keyplayers are the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, a group that has joined rallies to take the fight to state and federal officials. The backers of the measure aren't letting it die and hope to get in on a referendum in the February elections.
Mayor Daley's decision to use his veto doesn't seem like the behavior of a man running for a 6th term in February, although he has recently bragged about all the successes he brought to Chicago's school system, crime rate, and greening efforts. He has not been an oppressive leader at all, and perhaps this is part of his downfall--the article mentions the fact that city aldermen are more afraid of community groups than they are of the mayor. Shifting emotions about the Daley lineage may result in a turnover come February, when some big names are considering running for his position--Democratic Congressmen Jesse Jackson Jr. and Luis Gutierrez are among the contenders. Jackson supports the ordinance, among other issues that the city has grappled with in recent years.
The article seems to be written objectively until the final lines, when the writer says, "If Jackson can pull it off, then Daley might finally know a little bit of what it feels like so often for many of the minimum wage workers the retail measure was aimed at--out of a job and unable to call the shots." This is an awkwardly worded attempt at cleverness, and I thought for sure it was a quote until I noticed the lack of quotation marks. It's a strange thing for a supposedly objective reporter to say that, and it reveals some of the bias that political magazines like TIME can carry.
