What’s an Omarosa?

Remember back to 1985 and the film “Back to the Future,” where the “Marty McFly” character informs the 1955 version of “Doc Brown” that Ronald Reagan was the president, which inspired the response, “Who’s the vice president? Jerry Lewis!”

The punch line being that one entertainer (remember “Bedtime for Bonzo”) would turn government into a whole crew of entertainers. How ridiculous!

OF COURSE, IT would seem that the ludicrousness of three decades ago is all-too much our modern-day reality. Things we never would have thought credible are the norm of now.

That’s how I’m regarding this whole ongoing situation regarding President Donald Trump and one-time staffer Omarosa Manigault-Newman. The one who these days supposedly says tape recordings exist of Trump using racial slurs, which causes The Donald to now openly refer to her as “that dog.”

The connection between the two goes back to the days when Trump was host of reality television shows, and Manigault was one of the contestants. From what I can tell, her character was the sort-of nasty personality on the program – which I suppose fits some role in the overall show.

I write “from what I can tell” because I have to admit, I never actually watched the show. I never heard of Manigault in those days, and even after I learned that the Trump presidency gave a job to someone who had been a character on his show, I didn’t care enough to really find out who she was.

MEANING I HAD to do some instant research on Tuesday to try to figure out what the big deal was with this instance where Manigault felt compelled to tell of secret tape recordings of Trump and also took the non-disclosure documents she was asked to sign in order to get a job working for Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign and provided copies of them to the Washington Post.

I went all this time without bothering to find out who she was because I really didn’t care. I would have presumed that the idea of anyone affiliated with the Trump presidency back in the days when he played television show host would not have been considered a credible persona to be working in the White House.

Shows you how little I know.

Although to tell you the truth, it shouldn’t be surprising that someone as much a political amateur as Donald Trump would put a whole crew of amateurs into positions of power and authority.

SUCH AS MANIGAULT, who may have been a government staffer back in the days of Al Gore as Vice President (personnel people from back then now say she was “the worst hire we ever made”). But her real credentials are the fact she was on The Apprentice and The Ultimate Merger television programs.

So is she really now as incompetent as Trump is trying to make her out to be? She may be. He may be telling the truth, for once!

But why should he have any reason to be shocked? Who did he think he was hiring when he picked her for a spot in the White House Office of Public Liaison (which basically means she was responsible for presenting Trump’s image to the public)? He certainly had no reason to think she had any real credentials for a public service job.

I’d take this whole controversy (yes, I think it sleazy for someone to go about secretly tape-recording their boss to slip him up) as further evidence of how grossly unqualified Trump is to be this nation’s chief executive and how the 2020 election cycle can’t come soon enough to give the electorate the chance to replace him.

ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE been so many more incidents during this Age of Trump to show us how unfit he is to hold public office – and how delusional that segment of our society is that still, to this day, thinks his election in 2016 was a good thing for the country.

Meaning now that I have bothered to look into this, I wish I could undo it. For I fear that bothering to learn who Manigault is has managed to squeeze some more essential (or interesting) knowledge from my memory.

And as for that old “Back to the Future” joke, it doesn’t seem quite so funny anymore.

Because compared to all the level of nonsense that has occurred in this Age of Trump, the idea of Jerry Lewis as Vice President doesn’t seem anywhere near as absurd.

  -30-

Could ‘Dubya’ wind up having his rep resuscitated in this Age of Trump?

It’s pretty obvious that one of the priorities of our current presidential administration is to erase any trace of his immediate predecessor – the people whose objections to the days of Barack Obama were racially-motivated probably would like it if none of the Obama policies were to survive into the future.

BUSH: Will we detest him less, due to Trump?

Kind of like the old Soviet way of rewriting history to eliminate happenings that were considered undesirable; and there definitely are people in our society who feel that the fact a majority of us ever wanted Obama in office is something shameful.

BUT IT MAY also turn out that Trump will wind up impacting the way we remember another of his predecessors. Remember the dunce-in-chief days of George W. Bush; when the bulk of us used to seriously wonder how we could ever pick someone so insipid to be our nation’s chief executive?

It seems we now have both Bush-the-younger and Obama going about questioning the intellect of Donald J. Trump – wondering what it says about our society that he was able to gain control of the launch codes. And all the other perks and responsibilities that go along with the presidency.

Bush this week made one of his few public appearances since leaving the White House (he’s mostly been even more invisible than Obama during his post-presidential years), and he let it be known he didn’t think much of the way racial politics have taken such an ugly turn during the Trump time in office.

OBAMA: Paired with Bush in Age of Trump?

“Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication,” Bush said. While taking care not to say by name who he was talking about, the implication was clear. Although he’s the same guy who supposedly described Trump’s inaugural ceremonies as “some weird” poop – so to speak.

WHAT MAKES THIS somewhat ironic is that I remember the days (it hasn’t been that long, although the agony of enduring the Age of Trump makes it seem like he’s been around forever, spewing his nonsense-talk everywhere he goes) when the kind of people who are the base of the Trump supporters were similar to those who gave us George W. as president – and are the ones who think it somehow just and proper that Al Gore’s majority popular vote of 2000 didn’t result in an Electoral College victory.

TRUMP: Bush's unnamed target?

Of course, Bush-the-younger had his share of verbal gaffes that often left people confused as to what he was trying to say, and he was living proof that having an education at Ivy League schools does not automatically mean one is intellectual.

But many of the Bush gaffes came across as something we could laugh at – how could we let this boob into office. Even though it was often clear his amenable personality meant he was someone you could have a talk with – provided the ideology didn’t get in the way.

Whereas in this Age of Trump, “the Donald” seems determined to remind certain people in our society that they’re beneath him – and he’s more than willing to play into the hateful nature of some in our society to advance his own goals.

I DON’T THINK George W. Bush ever meant to hurt anybody; his vacuous nature meant some got harmed accidentally.

Whereas I don’t doubt Trump is more than willing to take down people if it benefits himself and his goals. Which may not actually be too deep.

I don’t doubt Trump probably regards the details of running the federal government to be boring; something to be delegated to the little people. He’d rather be the guy getting the nation all worked up over all those football players who have the nerve to think their position gives them a forum to express views on social issues – particularly those involving race.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not singing the praises of the Bush-the-younger years. Anyone who bothers to reread the commentaries I wrote in the early years of this weblog will see just how little I thought of those days when they actually occurred.

BUT I ALSO remember that a large part of why the conservative ideologues turned on George W. Bush was when he tried, toward the end of his presidency, to implement serious reform of the nation’s immigration policies.

The ideologues wanted nothing to do with reform – they just want venal policies meant to abuse individuals who aren’t exactly like themselves.

So the idea that Bush-the-younger is now somehow on the side of sense and compassion? It shouldn’t be too surprising.

Personally, I always thought that George W. (a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team) was someone I’d like to go to a ballgame with someday. Whereas I suspect going to a game with Trump would be a miserable experience – he’d be the obnoxious guy who peeves everyone sitting around him and security winds up having to eject from the ballpark for being a boor.

  -30-

EXTRA: Treasurer-elect Mike Frerichs

It seems we finally have a new state treasurer. And no, we didn’t have to endure a lengthy legal fight along the lines of the Gore v. Bush battle of 2000.

It was Wednesday morning that Republican nominee Tom Cross decided to concede defeat to Democrat Mike Frerichs in the Nov. 4 elections. Even Illinois Republican Chairman Tim Schneider went along and issued a statement along those lines, although he seemed more interested in praising Cross than admitting GOP defeat.

THEN AGAIN, I don’t think Frerichs – a state senator from Champaign -- cares, so long as the record shows he got more votes than did Cross – a state representative from Oswego and former Illinois House Republican leader.

For the record, it seems that Frerichs got about 9,400 more votes than did Cross – taking barely over 48 percent of the vote to Cross’ just under 48 percent. The remainder of the ballots actually cast went to Libertarian nominee Matthew Skopek.

There are those who are ranting that Chicago and suburban Cook County “stole” the election – mostly from people who truly do not comprehend how small their rural counties are compared to the inner part of the Chicago metropolitan area.

Although for those who were going out of their way during the past two weeks to see daily updates about the vote (as assorted mail-in and provisional ballots continued to be counted) noticed that Frerichs crept into the lead earlier this week and managed to hold it BEFORE the final Chicago/suburb totals were in.

FOR THOSE WHO want to think Chicago rammed a Democrat through as state treasurer against their will, it would seem that what the Chicago-area vote did was bolstered the margin of victory.

Instead of winning by a few hundred votes, Frerichs becomes treasurer-elect by a figure just low-enough that it can’t be rounded off to 10,000.

Which is still a close result for a statewide election in which about 3 million people cast ballots. If anything, it may be some of those outer counties that kept Cross from the office that way too many political observers wanted to believe he was going to win.

Frerichs actually won Will County with 58.5 percent of the vote, and also took north suburban Lake County. And his suburban Cook percent was only 53.67 percent.

WHICH COULD WELL be why Cross chose not to get involved in any kind of demand for a recount – which is not something Illinois law allows for on an automatic basis.

He saves himself significant legal expenses, leaves open the option of a political future (by not being a sore loser), and only manages to offend the hard-core Republican partisans who can’t get over the fact that having a gubernatorial nominee who took 101 of 102 counties does NOT mean a political wipeout of the opposition.

As for those who are going to rant about “stolen” elections, I don’t think the rest of us should be too concerned. Those people were going to be offended no matter what happened – and they’ll probably revert back to ranting about Kennedy/Nixon of 1960 before long.

  -30-

Obama campaign these days has the “aura” of a winner, or so says the poll

When it comes to the polls, likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has a slight lead in support – if Election Day were held Monday instead of five months from now.

The Gallup Organization’s daily tracking poll shows Obama with a 46 percent to 42 percent lead over Republican opponent John McCain, which is not insurmountable since 12 percent remain undecided and could easily put McCain over the top. It’s not like Obama is taking a majority of the country by storm.

OR IS HE?

What intrigued me was the “other” poll done by Gallup. They did a survey of potential voters (822 people from across the country represent the views of all of the United States of America) asking them not who they would vote for, but who they think will win.

In short, who do you think everybody else is going to vote for?

To that question, Obama whomped on McCain – by a 52 percent to 41 percent tally. Seven percent of the “American people” remain like me – confused, and unsure how this election cycle is going to pan out.

GALLUP NOTES THAT 76 percent of all people who identify themselves as Democrats think Obama is a winner come Nov. 4, compared to only 67 percent of self-identified Republicans who will say they think McCain can win in November.

What helps Obama, Gallup notes, is that half of people who use the political label of “independent” say they think Barack is a winner, compared to only 41 percent who think McCain can succeed.

So what does all this mean?

It is early in the campaign season. Despite all the political rhetoric being passed about these days, serious campaign activity doesn’t really get underway until after the presidential nominating conventions in Denver and St. Paul, Minn. The Labor Day holiday weekend is the time when hard-core activity will commence.

MY POINT IS that it is still early. There is still plenty of time for both candidates to “say something stupid” that changes the public perception.

But the people who are trying to pass the rhetoric that Obama is a “terrible” nominee who has nothing in common with the “American people” need to quit spewing the political equivalent of flatulence. The “people” aren’t buying it.

There is a good chunk of the populace that can accept the idea of a “President Obama.” Either that, or they are accepting the inevitability of a concept they detest – this same Gallup survey shows more than one-quarter of the Republican portion of the electorate saying an Obama presidency is possible.

We shouldn’t underestimate the latter idea – people accepting that something “horrible” such as an Obama victory can occur. They are the ones whose activity needs to be watched during the campaign season, because they are the ones who are most likely to try the extreme activity out of some belief that they need to “take down” an Obama candidacy on Nov. 4.

I’M SURE IT also helps Obama that President George W. Bush is seeing his presidency sink. A separate Gallup poll released Monday showed him with only a 30 percent “favorable” rating, and the Republican-controlled Supreme Court with only a 48 percent “favorable” rating. Even Jimmy Carter of 1980 never sank that low in the disgust with which the “American people” regarded him.

It also is why the Obama campaign ought to be using this “down time” between now and the nominating conventions to try to shore up their base of support. Trying to appease some of the women who legitimately wanted Hillary Clinton to get the presidential nomination ought to be (and appears to be) a priority.

I personally got a kick out of learning that Patty Solis Doyle, the sister of a Chicago alderman who once was Clinton’s campaign manager, is now working for Obama.

She was given the title of chief of staff to the vice president, which I find amusing since there technically is no vice president yet – Obama has not named anyone to run with him on a Democratic Party ticket, and in fact is still looking for a replacement for Jim Johnson, the Fannie Mae executive who was going to help find a running mate but had to resign his campaign post after it became public knowledge that he received favorable rates on his personal mortgage.

BUT HAVING SOLIS achieves three goals – it shows that Obama is willing to accept a high-placed Clinton ally in his inner circle, is willing to have women in significant positions of his campaign and is a Latina.

Her connections with Hispanic pols in Chicago will carry over into trying to persuade a number of skeptical Latinos that they are better off voting for Obama on Nov. 4, instead of staying at home and voting for nobody as a form of political protest.

Heck, Obama could have exploited Solis’ dismissal from the Clinton campaign earlier this year to try to gain Latino voter support – if he hadn’t had a campaign that at times appeared to be so timid in trying to gain the support of Hispanic people.

That timidity is the exact opposite of the gregarious nature that has inspired the youth of this country to think Obama is a candidate for political sainthood (no government official, in my opinion, deserves to be regarded that highly).

BUT THERE IS time for Obama to overcome this flaw. He has the advantage of coming out of his primary fight with Clinton somewhat bruised, but more experienced in the ways of a rough-and-tumble campaign.

And he didn’t muddy himself up so much in defeating Clinton that he is permanently stained, which likely would have been the case if he had run the crushing campaign that would have knocked her out of the box two months sooner.

So for the time being, Obama gets the aura of being a “winner.” People are starting to accept the notion that perhaps, a bi-racial man whose life would have been the ultimate in fairy tales a generation ago could someday be the Leader of the Free World.

IN FACT, THERE is one bit of evidence that Obama has a chance to win the Nov. 4 election, and it goes beyond the latest Gallup poll. Obama now has all the political geeks of the Democratic Party who were hesitant to say anything before now crawling out of the woodwork to give the impression that they were always captivated by the spirit of Obama-mania.

How else to explain the fact that former Vice President Al Gore on Monday came out in support of Obama? He only waited until about two weeks after the rest of the country accepted that Obama would be the Democratic nominee before saying he, too, would Back Barack.

Trust me when I say that if Obama had the stink of a loser clinging to him, there’s no way Gore would have come out and said a word. Not now, not ever. Instead of sharing his aura (largely from his recent Nobel Prize) with Obama, he’d be keeping it all to himself.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: East, Midwest, South and West. Women and men. Old and young. They all seem to think (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107995/Americans-Predict-Obama-Will-Next-US-President.aspx) Obama can win Nov. 4. In fact, the young are among the most skeptical (only 48 percent think Obama will win, compared to 45 percent for McCain).

Did Patty Solis Doyle, by accepting a high-ranking post within the Obama campaign (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/16/clinton_insiders_take_umbrage.html?hpid=topnews), ensure she won’t be on the Clinton Christmas card list in the future?

Gee. Even Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., committed to Obama long before former Vice President (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/gore-to-appear-with-obama/) Al Gore did.