Video: State Representatives Have Some Choice Words About Occupy Chicago

By JoshMogerman in News on Dec 3, 2011 9:00PM

People are quick to share opinions on our representatives in Springfield in DC, but do you know what the politicos think of you?

Samantha covered the debate over a resolution in support of the Occupy movement before the General Assembly this week. It was a telling look at how state representatives view the First Amendment and political protesters. And if you've been engaged in the Occupy Chicago movement, some representatives were candid about how they view you scary, lazy, downright un-American pawns.

But don’t take our word for it. The good folks at Springfield’s CapitolFax posted a video of the 17-minute debate, so you can see it for yourself. Here are some of the highlights:

Representative Roger Eddy - 109th District (east-central Illinois):

This [resolution] is supportive of a movement that results in multiple arrests; here’s what I think they oughtta occupy, I think they oughtta occupy reality.

… I think if the same amount of energy, time emotion and effort were used by some of the individuals engaged in unlawful activities on obtaining employment, that they would be far better off.

Representative Rosemary Mulligan - 65th District (Des Plaines):

When you have people that tell you that they are afraid to take their children down to the Christmas parade because of what is going on downtown, that bothers me a whole lot. If those people wanted the extra jobs---and those people, some of them need jobs, some of them want to work, but it is a movement across the country that is being fostered on the Internet by who knows who. And the other thing that bothers me a whole lot is there are people who want those Christmas job downtown. If you have people that do not come down and do not shop in the Loop, what happens is those stores don’t hire the extra people for the Christmas time. And some of those people might be able to get jobs there. Umm, these people can do whatever they want, but I don’t think it is appropriate for us to honor them on the house floor, so I will be voting no once again on your resolution.

Representative Ed Sullivan - 51st District (Mundelein):

…Do you believe this movement is lawfully protesting, or are they raping and pillaging and beating people up and murdering? Are they doing some of those things?

[To resolution sponsor, Representative La Shawn Ford] Your legislation is fundamentally flawed because you are saying that they are lawfully protesting. If they are, then why are we having news accounts of rapes and pillaging and murders and beating people up?

To the resolution, Ladies and Gentlemen, I just flat out believe that this protest movement is un-American. I’ll say it. It is un-American. If you don’t believe in capitalism, you don’t believe in the democratic philosophy of this state, then vote for this bill---vote for this resolution. But this is wrong. These protests are wrong. And I won’t stand for it.

Representative Dennis Reboletti - 46th District (Elmhurst):

...This is unlawfulness. This is not what the Founders thought about when challenging their government. I don’t want to shut their voices down. What I want to shut down is the unlawfulness. The arrests. The people who protest on Michigan Avenue blocking average working people trying to get back and forth to their homes.

Don’t get us wrong. We aren’t really sure what the resolution was supposed to accomplish. It certainly was not written in an effort at bipartisanship or bridging political gaps. Nonetheless, it is fascinating to see Occupiers repeatedly referred to as “those people.” It would be interesting to see if similar debates raged in the State House during the 1960’s and whether politicians at the time saw marchers as potential voters engaged in political expressions, or just hooligans.