Pelosi correct – Trump impeachment proceedings would be a waste of time

I have always thought that Donald Trump was completely unfit to hold political office – and there hasn’t been a thing that has happened during the past two-plus years to make me think I was wrong.

PELOSI: Trump not worth her time

His continued hold on the presidency is a true embarrassment to our society – particularly those people who seem determined to support him no matter what he says or does.

YET THE FACT remains that Trump does have that hold on roughly one-third of the public – and they would react very badly if any effort was undertaken to remove him prior to the 2020 election cycle.

For that matter, they’re the ones who would probably support a Trumpian coup d’etat if his reaction to a 2020 electoral defeat was to decide to simply refuse to leave the White House and claim the presidency as being his post for the remainder of his life.

The fact being that Hillary Clinton back in 2016 was merely telling the truth when she made her now-infamous “basket of deplorables” comment about Trump supporters. No matter how much some want to say it was a Clinton mis-step that cost her any chance at the presidency, the reality is that rationality and reason don’t rule these days.

That is why I think those individuals who went through the 2018 election cycle thinking that voting for a Democrat in Congress was done with the purpose of setting the stage for Donald Trump’s impeachment and removal from office were seriously delusional.

TRUMP: Probably offended Pelosi thinks that

IF ANYTHING, EVEN more delusional than those people who will persist in claiming that that Trump has a clue about what he’s doing while in political office.

So here’s thinking that it’s a good thing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is coming out and publicly saying she has no intention of letting those people in her congressional caucus move forward with impeachment talk.

As Pelosi puts it, Trump, “is just not worth it.”

Not worth the procedural hassles you’d have to undertake to hold impeachment hearings by the House of Representatives – or the inevitable trial to be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, with the Senate sitting as jurors.

HILLARY: Wasn't lying about 'deplorables'

THE REALITY IS that the Democratic-leaning House would be inclined to approve articles of impeachment claiming Trump’s incompetence while in office. But then, the Senate with its Republican-leaning majority would ultimately vote to acquit him.

Which, by the way, was the same outcome of some two decades ago when Congress tried to force the removal of Bill Clinton from the White House.

Republican ideologues will forever say that Clinton as president was impeached. That’s true!

But the Senate sure didn’t remove him from office. Clinton finished out his second term as president. The general reaction from the public back then was that the whole process devolved into petty partisan political bickering. Republican ideologues shamefully used the impeachment process to try to achieve an outcome they never were able to reach on an Election Day.

THE SAME THING would wind up happening again if anyone seriously tried to push for Trump’s removal from office. Trying to get a Supreme Court justice to essentially sign off on a coup d’ etat, rather than defeating him at the polling place!

CLINTON: Impeached, but acquitted

Those of us eager to see Trump go down to defeat need to put our efforts into beating “the Donald” on Election Day. Both Trump himself, or on the off chance that he doesn’t run for re-election but touts someone else in his image, his replacement.

While I’m sure ideologue political operatives are counting on the ongoing confusion amongst Democrats and inability to reach a consensus on who would challenge him as their strongest hand in terms of retaining control of the White House.

Focusing on the electoral process IS the way to go about removing Trump. So that if he really does live down to our worst expectations and refuse to leaves office on Jan. 20, 2021, we can send the Secret Service into the White House and have the man arrested, at the very least, for criminal trespass.

  -30-

‘Big 10’ turf to be the key to comprehending 2020 prez election

They're the midwestern states that comprise the Big 10. Or maybe you prefer to think of them as the places where the Great Lakes are a daily reality of life.

Will Milwaukee get honors of helping 'dump Trump'

Our region of the nation is going to play a key factor in comprehending just how the will of the nation leans come the 2020 election cycle for president. As to whether we get “four more years” of Donald Trump or someone inclined to keep his perspective alive?

OR WILL WE see a return to sanity and a jerk back to policies less selfish and mean-spirited than the ones we’ve had the past two-plus years? Which if you look at the results of the latest Morning Consult “Tracking Trump” poll is the trend the Great Lakes region is heading toward these days.

A large part of the reason why Trump was able to win the electoral college (and a term as president) despite losing the popular vote by a significant margin is that many of the states of our region flipped over to the GOP column.

With many states having their more rural portions turn out to vote in stronger numbers – thereby enabling them to overcome the urban portions of their states.

Illinois may have significantly went for Hillary Clinton’s presidential dreams, along with Minnesota. But the rest of the region, including Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin felt compelled to back Trump.

Who will decide electoral outcome in '20?

ILLINOIS LITERALLY FELT all alone and lonesome in our region that Election Night of 2016. If a Democratic presidential challenger is to have any chance of achieving victory in 2020, we’re going to have to go back to the days when the bulk of the Great Lakes region leans Democrat – with places like Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee turning out and leaving Indiana as the isolated freak of the region.

It is with that in mind that it makes all the sense in the world that the Democratic Party decided to hold their presidential nominating convention next summer in one of the most unglamorous of places – Milwaukee.

Much was made in the news reports of the convention location that this is one of the few times a nominating convention was held in a Midwestern city. Not since 1916 and St. Louis has such an event been held in our region of the nation.

With the exception being Chicago. We had the Democratic convention of 1996, and the historic memories of 1968 still linger in our political mindset. Before that, both major political parties used to enjoy our city.

WHEN RICHARD NIXON was nominated for president in 1960, it was our city that did the honors of hosting the event. Even though most Republican ideologues like to rant and rage that Chicago’s real part of that particular election cycle was providing enough inner-city and cemetery-based voted to ensure that Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy.

Not likely that Republicans would ever consider coming to our city for their political shows. In fact, next year they’ll be doing their honors in Charlotte, N.C. – the city that hosted the Democratic convention of 2008 that resulted in Barack Obama being presented to the nation.

The point being that I’m sure Democratic political operatives intend for a Milwaukee-based event to inspire Democrats of Wisconsin to turn out in force. To make sure that the Badger state’s 10 electoral votes are amongst the ones that wind up in the Democratic presidential challenger’s column.

Which could also inspire Democrats in places like Detroit to make sure that cities such as Grand Rapids, Mich., don’t out-vote them again, or that Ohio’s urban areas around Cleveland and Toledo don’t get drowned out by partisan opposition in Cincinnati.

BECAUSE IT’S VERY clear that if those Great Lakes states swing back over to the Democratic column, we won’t have a “President Trump” or anybody aligned with him any longer. Heck, it’s obvious that if Hillary Clinton hadn’t taken the region for granted in 2016, she would have got the Electoral College majority IN ADDITION to a popular vote win!

Checking out Aaron's one-time home

We would never have had to endure the embarrassment that a Trump presidency would have brought us.

Of course, we’d have had to endure years of partisan nonsense from Republican ideologues determined to show us they could dump on Hillary even worse than they did to Obama or to her husband, Bill.

So next year, when the political attention span of the nation focuses for a week on Milwaukee, keep in mind there’s a reason. Maybe you’ll even find a chance to enjoy a brew – along with being in the city that was home to one of baseball’s all-time greats, Hank Aaron. Or if you're feeling particularly lame, you can skip through the streets singing the "Laverne & Shirley" theme song.

  -30-

Daley the big bucks (sort of) candidate this time around in ’19 election cycle

I’m not sure what to think of the fact that William Daley’s bid for Chicago mayor is the one that has the campaign fund overflowing with largess.

DALEY: The 'big bucks' guy of '19

The Chicago Tribune reported that Daley’s fund now exceeds $3 million – more than any of the other people with dreams of serving as mayor of the city of Chicago. Daley’s list of donors even includes a Kennedy – it seems that one-time Rep. Joe Kennedy II, D-Mass., wrote out a check for $10,000.

BUT CONSIDERING THAT in the last mayoral election, Rahm Emanuel managed to raise some $24.4 million for his own benefit (much of which paid for all those television spots that asked voters to give Rahm a “second chance” as mayor back in 2015), it would seem that Daley is lagging behind.

Then again, we just finished a gubernatorial race that saw the two candidates – incumbent Bruce Rauner and ultimate victor J.B. Pritzker – come up with in excess of just over $200 million to pay for their campaigns.

By those standards, Bill Daley and his $3.1 million is nothing but a political pauper.

Then again, it is evidence of just how ridiculously wealthy the two governor candidates were, and how both probably suffer from delusional personality characteristics that they were able to spend so much of their own personal wealth in order to try to get elected to office.

KENNEDY: Kicked in cash to help elect a Daley

SO MUCH SO that the Illinois governor race of 2018 is a record-setter – at least until someone in 2020 decides to waste away their own fortune to try to buy a political office for themselves.

Neither Daley, nor any of the other candidates running for mayor in 2019 seem capable of doing quite that. Instead, they seem intent on funding their campaigns the old-fashioned way.

PRITZKER: Used to be Dem donor

As in soliciting donations from politically-motivated people who may, or may not, be hoping to buy political goodwill from the people they are giving money to.

If anything, it hurts that Rauner and Pritzker spent so much on themselves. Since in the case of Rauner, he had become the most significant financier of Republican candidates for office.

RAUNER: Would anybody take his money now?

WHILE PRITZKER HAS a personal history of being THE wealthy guy that Democrats turn to for checks of significant dollar amounts to pay for all those expenses that campaigns incur to try to sway voters to cast their ballots for them.

I suspect both men are now tapped out, financially and emotionally, from wanting to think about donating any funds to someone else. Plus, the fact that there are so many people tossing their names into the hat – so to speak – to run for mayor.

It’s going to be hard for any one candidate to build up a significant fund. This could wind up being a pauper’s election cycle – by comparison to recent years.

So maybe it makes sense that Daley, the son and brother of past Chicago mayors and a former White House chief of staff and cabinet member in his own right, is the one with significant political contacts that he’s going to have more money than anyone else at this stage of the mayoral game.

I CERTAINLY DON’T see someone like Lori Lightfoot, or even Susana Mendoza, being capable of making trips (as Daley did) to Boston and Washington, D.C., where he participated in fundraisers for his campaign for Chicago mayor and got donations from assorted Kennedy clan types and one-time Bill Clinton allies.

EMANUEL: Could have outspent everybody, IF he ran again

The trick is to figure whether this financial edge is an advantage or a millstone for Daley.

Because it could be that Daley will appear to be too far removed from the nitty-gritty of Chicago problems by associating with so many out-of-towners – the kind of voters who think city politics is the most important type of government because they pick up your trash or clear the streets of snow during the winter.

The kind of governing that his father, Richard J., so excelled at over all other issues, and which is the reason anybody bothers to pay attention to the Daley name when it runs for any other political post.

  -30-

Now, it’s a free-for-all for who gets to be the new 'Man on Five' at da Hall

We haven’t even cast ballots yet for governor or senator, yet the focus Tuesday clearly shifted to the election cycle scheduled for 2019.

EMANUEL: As 'Hawk' Harrelson would say, "He Gone!"

As in the mayor’s office, the post that many local political people think is more important than any other.

THAT CAMPAIGN JUST became a free-for-all, what with Rahm Emanuel letting it be known he’s NOT going to seek a third four-year term in office. He’s willing to leave it at two – and let his political headstone read 2011-2019.

Which means the bidding for who gets to be the next mayor of Chicago truly is up-for-grabs. There were some dozen or so people who already had expressed interest in challenging Emanuel. While many of them will likely turn out to be long-shots who will be lucky to take 1 percent or so of the vote, it will be interesting to see who winds up becoming the front-runner.

And, by extension, which vision for the city of Chicago we’re driven in as a result.

I’m not about to try to predict who the new front-runner is. Personally, my own thoughts are that Emanuel would have been the number one vote getter of the candidate field, but that the other dozen or so people might well have managed to get a slim majority of the vote in February.

Rahm from his days in Congress

RESULTING IN A run-off election come April between Rahm and whichever challenger turns out to be Number Two.

Which actually seems to be the strategy of everybody who was daring to challenge Emanuel come February – count on the number of people who want “Anybody But Rahm” to total more than the number of people content to have the political establishment candidate prevail, and they might well fluke their way into the history books as the 56^th mayor ever of the city of Chicago.

Emanuel served presidents Obama … 

Without Rahm in the running, it means the dozen or so challengers are going to have to run on their own merits and voters will have to decide for themselves whether the collection of complaining no-names are actually qualified to hold the post – should they manage to prevail on Election Day.

That might actually be better for Chicago, since it reduces the chance that an unfit candidate will creep and crawl his or her way into the Fifth Floor suite of offices used by the mayor and his/her staff at City Hall.

… and Clinton

AS FOR EMANUEL, I’m not sure if I totally believe his story on Tuesday that he wants to spend more time with his family – or as he phrased it, “What matters most is four more years for our children, not four more years for me.”

But the man who was a presidential aide to Bill Clinton, a chief of staff to Barack Obama AND a U.S. senator from the city’s Northwest Side already has established a political legacy for himself. Serving another term would have been purely an ego-booster, and maybe one not worth the headaches he’d have had to endure to achieve it.

At the very least, I’m sure Pat Quinn will claim “victory” in that he got Emanuel to not seek another term – and we’ll probably never learn what the courts would have had to say about the merits of his mayoral term limits proposal that really was crafted in such a way as to kick Rahm out of office.

EDGAR: Will Rahm follow his lead into academia?

In fact, I found it interesting to see that the first politico who felt compelled to issue a statement in reaction to Rahm was none other than Illinois House Speaker (and state Democratic Chairman) Michael Madigan, who issued a sort of back-handed praise about Emanuel’s departure.

“AS CHICAGO CONTINUES to move forward and grow as an international city, we will remain grateful for Mayor Emanuel’s leadership,” Madigan said. Which almost translates to something along the lines of “Good riddance. He’s gone, and I’m still the Boss!”

Emanuel’s departure kind of reminded me of similar actions of two decades ago – when Jim Edgar announced he would not seek re-election to a third term as governor back in 1998. Many people were convinced he was a politico-for-life and could not bear to be away from elective office.

Who will be the new occupant of mayoral office suite?

It should be noted that Edgar has not held elective office since then, and in fact worked his way into academia at the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs.

I must confess; the thought of Emanuel winding up in a similar academic gig intrigues me – a master of blunt-spoken, political hardball tactics morphing into the ultimate goo-goo!

  -30-

EXTRA: Politics ain’t beanbag; or is it?

I’m not quite sure what to think of former President Barack Obama’s comments during his eulogy Saturday for late Sen. John McCain.

Difference between toughness and political bluster?

Both Obama and former President George W. Bush (the men who defeated McCain’s own presidential aspirations in 2008 and 2000, respectively) were a part of the program put together to pay tribute to the Arizona senator on Saturday at the National Cathedral, one day before his burial on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

MUCH WAS MADE of the fact that McCain, before he died a week ago at age 81, asked Obama and Bush to speak in tribute, whereas incumbent President Donald Trump wasn’t even invited.

Obama was willing to go along with the theme of challenging the political style of Trump – which seems determined to challenge the styles of everyone who came before him as somehow being illegitimate.

As Obama put it, “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born in fear.”

But that shouldn’t mean that political activity is meant to be for the meek at heart – for people who can’t handle a punch or two.

REMEMBER BACK TO Peter Finley Dunne’s “Mr. Dooley” character, the 19^th Century Chicago Sout’ Side bartender who told us, “politics ain’t beanbag.”

Meaning it was played for keeps, with the people succeeding the most being the ones capable of fighting it out. Which is what I’m sure Trump thinks he’s doing every time he concocts another insipid tweet on his Twitter account to try to motivate the segment of the masses who actually enjoy this Age of Trump we now live in.

Should we fight back against Trump?

Could it be the difference between Trump and a legitimate political leader is that the former president had ideas – or in the case of Bush knew when to trust more knowledgeable people and defer to their better judgment. Would Mr. Dooley today think our problem is that we need to aggressively fight back against The Donald?

As opposed to the current chief executive who seems determined to have our society think he’s a one-man governmental show; which to my mindset is about as legitimate as a one-man band is to music – usually a whole lot of noise that’s ridiculously out-of-tune.

OF COURSE, I suspect most people will little remember anything either Bush or Obama said. The “quote” of the day seems to come from McCain’s daughter, Meghan, when she said, “the America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

Either that, or perhaps they will focus their attention on another former president. Bill Clinton, along with former first lady, senator, secretary of state AND presidential hopeful Hillary, were at the funeral services in Detroit held for legendary soul singer Aretha Franklin.

That might seem like the more significant event, compared to the McCain services that I’m sure the Trump fanatics will be determined to think of as a gathering of people out-of-touch with the common man.

Will Meghan get more support now from fans of The View?

Truly evidence that the Trump-types are off living in their own world, and who want the rest of us to be forced to live in it with them while in a subservient position.

  -30-

Political arrogance from our presidents! or, Who’s the bigger boob?

It’s got the potential to be the ultimate loaded politically partisan question – who is the bigger nitwit these days; Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump?

TRUMP: Finds self 'not guilty'

Both men, it would appear, have something of a disconnect with the real world, what with the way they are trying to dismiss the criticisms they often get hit with from the public.

IN THE CASE of the incumbent president, Trump is attacking those people who want to see the special counsel Russia probe into his conduct take him down. Which isn’t the least bit surprising.

But Trump is tying this issue in with the concept of all the pardons he has talked about issuing, saying that if conditions really became dire for him, he could easily issue a pardon for himself.

“As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong.” Or so wrote Trump on his Twitter account (and people seriously wonder why I think of the president as the ‘Twit who Tweets’).

For it seems that our president truly thinks he can run the nation (and possibly, the world) in the same way he ran The Trump Organization – barking out orders and expecting minions to carry them out, unquestioned.

OF COURSE, BACK in those days, Trump was running a company that erected gaudy buildings and garish casinos – meaning Trump’s reckless behavior really didn’t impact anybody.

Now, Trump is in a position to do great harm – and he wants to have the right to wave away any moments when he chooses to cut through the red tape in inappropriate ways.

Hence, he thinks he can pardon himself. Even though one of his attorneys (former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani) himself publicly questioned whether Trump should think in terms of using such authority.

CLINTON: Tired of talking about Monica

Think of it this way. Former President Richard Nixon, who had to resign the presidency to avoid impeachment by Congress, had to count on his successor to grant him a pardon to avoid any conviction and incarceration – whom his biggest critics desperately wanted to see happen.

EVEN NIXON DIDN’T think he had a right to pardon himself to make his “Watergate” critics shut up. Even he realized that such an overbearing act would backfire ever so badly.

Think of the presidential clemency authority in these terms. How outraged would the people who are now Trump’s biggest backers have been if former President Bill Clinton had tried to avoid the whole impeachment debacle of 1998 by issuing himself a pre-emptive pardon.

Impeachment was definitely an ideologue act back then, and the people who pushed for his removal from office were doing so for the wrong reasons. But listening to Clinton now get upset when people bring up his behavior with a White House intern and compare it to actions of sexual harassment against other women sounds as ridiculously self-righteous as anything Trump has ever said.

“I dealt with it 20 years ago,” Clinton said during an interview with NBC and “The Today Show,” adding, “I’ve tried to do a good job since then, and with my life and with my work.”

PERSONALLY, I’VE ALWAYS thought that the appropriate judge for Clinton’s behavior back then was his wife. If Hillary had wanted to take it out on him publicly and ruin him, she should have been granted permission to do so.

NIXON: Pardoning self for Watergate?

The fact that she is able to get past this ought to be a sign for the rest of us. Except for those ideologues whose real hang-up is that Clinton ever got elected in the first place, and that they were unable to defeat him at the polling place.

Just as it kind of seems like Trump wants to erase the fact that some 3 million more people in this country wanted a Hillary Clinton presidency instead of him.

So does Bill Clinton owe an apology to Monica Lewinsky? Maybe! Although I’d say that Trump owes the nation a greater apology for his gaudy behavior that embarrasses the nation as a whole.

  -30-

Reynolds ‘done w/ America?’ I thought Chicago was “done” w/ Mel long ago

One-time member of Congress from Chicago Mel Reynolds, the man who more than two decades ago made the phrases “peach panties” and “did I win the Lotto?” words worth snickering at, has added a new one to the lexicon of ridiculous things spoken by political people.

REYNOLDS: From Congress to incarceration

Reynolds, who back in 1995 was found guilty of having sex with an underage girl, was sentenced to prison this week on charges he went four years without filing income tax returns.

HIS REACTION TO getting a six-month prison term?

“I’m done with America,” he said, even though he admitted his sentence was far less than the just-over two years of prison time prosecutors sought, and that it is assured he’ll be free before year’s end.

Reynolds says that after he serves his time and is released, he plans to leave this country and live the rest of his life in an African nation. Possibly South Africa, where it turns out one of his daughters has resided for several years.

Reynolds, in talking with reporter-type people following his sentencing at the Dirksen Building federal courthouse, made it clear he thinks he’s the one being victimized – just another black man being constantly hounded by law enforcement and being sent off to prison just because he’s tried to make something of his life aside from menial labor.

NOW I DON’T doubt that there are elements of our society that do seek to keep black people from accomplishing much; or making any success they do achieve as difficult to do so as possible.

There may even be some who are taking a perverse pleasure at the thought that Reynolds – who served two terms in the House of Representatives from Chicago’s far South Side and surrounding suburbs in the early-to-mid-1990s – is now on his third term of incarceration.

But I can’t help but think that most people who heard of Reynolds’ fate on Thursday got their snicker from what they perceive as the man’s awfully-high perception of his self-importance.

Reynolds is “done with America?” I think it’s more accurate to say that America, particularly that segment of the nation that is Chicago, is “done” with Mel. To the point where most of us haven’t thought about him in ages – and may have even been a little shocked to learn the man is still around.

I SUSPECT WE’LL get over the idea of a Mel-less society, particularly since even the people who were supposed to be his strongest supporters were never that thrilled with the man.

Reynolds was a product of the 1992 election cycle that gave us Bill Clinton as president. There also was Gus Savage in Congress, and his oft-outspoken ways that provoked the sensibilities of non-black people (to be honest, he didn’t care what they thought) created a gap for a challenger.

Which was Mel, a Mississippi-born and Chicago-raised man who got a chance to attend Harvard University and also was a Rhodes Scholar.

I remember that many black people were apathetic about Reynolds, largely because of the perception that Mel thought he was better than everybody else. Which created conditions that – when he got into legal troubles – too many were more than willing to laugh at him and enjoy his misery.

AS FAR AS an Africa-residing Reynolds is concerned, my reaction is to wonder which nation would actually accept him. One of Reynolds’ more recent predicaments was an arrest in Zimbabwe – which makes me think that no matter where he goes, he’s going to manage to tick people off and be harassed by the local officials.

Some people just bring out the worst.

Although there may well be one other bit of significance to the Mel Reynolds saga. The man who once had the whole wide world at his grasp will have lost it all and wind up living off of his daughter.

For his sake, he’d better stay on her good side, since he might not have any other friends left.

  -30-

Do we really care about illicit sexual conduct by our political people?

I heard a pundit-type person recently state the view that the reason why we can’t really crack down on people like Roy Moore – the Senate candidate from Alabama who likes to posture himself as the epitome of Christian morals but may also have a thing for teenage girls – is because of Bill Clinton.

MOORE: Former judge to become senator

Supposedly, the fact that we didn’t remove Clinton from the presidency back in the 1990s for his deeds with a White House intern and with many other women is what lowered our societal standards to the point where we now have to accept Moore – the man who supposedly was intimate with four teenage girls, including one as young as 14 back when he was 32 (he’s now 70).

WHICH IF YOU think about it is a load of bull!

What is most likely means is that many people in our society don’t really care about one’s moral standards one bit. They’re into hard-core political partisanship, and so long as a man comes from the right side of the political divide they’ll put up with anything he does.

Bill Clinton was a Democrat whose presence as president gave strength to the opposition, which is what their real objection was. Bill could have had his flings with as many women as he wanted (they probably would have seen it as verification of his heterosexuality), so long as he’d have been one of them ideologically.

And since Clinton was a modern-day Southern man, they figure he should have been one of them – instead of believing the ideals of the modern-day Democratic party. Let’s not forget the old-school Democratic Party was the one that viewed Republicans as the “Party of Lincoln” and Dems as the segregationist party they preferred.

WHEN THOSE LEANINGS changed during the Civil Rights era, many Southern people switched sides. Or, they prefer to say the Democratic Party abandoned them – so they felt the Republicans were now their preferred choice.

CLINTON: Wrong side of political divide?

Roy Moore, the man who twice got elected, and removed, from the Alabama Supreme Court for his legal behavior, fits in with the leanings of the modern-day ideologues. So many of the same people who will forevermore lambast Bill Clinton as all that is wrong with our world likely will defend to the death a place for Moore in our political structure.

Which could come as soon as next month, if Moore manages to win his bid to fill a Senate vacancy from Alabama in a special election. Will the people of Alabama seriously believe that Moore has more morals than any Democrat could possibly have?

Moore has his backers – they’re claiming the allegations by the women now in their 50s are old, nothing more than he-say she-say, and some wonder if the women consented, despite their teenage ages at the time.

WHAT MAY WIND up helping the Moore self-defense is the fact that Alabama law sets an age of 12 as the minimum at which a girl can consent – in some circumstances. A 14-year-old may fit circumstances that, because of the age of the cases, would be difficult to do anything about.

Personally, I think the appropriate action against Moore is that the then-14-year-old girl’s father (who if he’s still alive would be in his 80s) ought to be called upon to give the would-be senator a whuppin’ like he’d never forget. Or maybe she has a “big brother” in his 60s who can be called upon.

Of course, that would give us the sight of aging men trying to hurt each other, but more likely to hurt themselves by over-asserting themselves – the end-result would be more ridiculous than anything else.

Besides, I’ve also heard some people try to explain the Moore situation as an example of differing Southern values with regards to young-girls-not-yet-women – a view I’m sure has Moore backers talking about “damn Yankees” who ought to shove it up their you-know-whats!

SO AS FOR the former Alabama judge who used to openly tout the need for the Ten Commandments as the basis of our morals, his followers seem to want to believe this puts God on their side. Even though I’m not sure how sexual behavior with a minor female can be acceptable in accordance with those commandments.

TRUMP: His own indiscretions ignored

 These are people who are willing to put partisan politics above all because they want political people who will view their desires as the only ones that matter in our society. Does this mean they would have been Clinton’s most vociferous backers if only he hadn’t have supported a more progressive (at least compared to them) view of our society?

Or maybe if he’d have put his wife in her place and not let her think she could be a legitimate politico in her own right; unlike current President Donald J. Trump whose own wives have had insignificant roles in his business and political dealings.

Then all would be right with the world, at least as perceived by the conservative ideologues amongst us.

  -30-

Where would we be today on Vietnam?

The Vietnam War documentary on PBS ending Thursday night has had many intriguing moments through its 10 parts, but I have to admit the moment that will stick in my mind was one bit that aired Tuesday night.

The downtown Chicago memorial to the U.S. military conflict in Vietnam, just off the Chicago River. Photographs provided by Gregory Tejeda

The moment was some footage of a woman, Jan Howard of Nashville, Tenn., whose son, Jimmy, had served in the Army and been killed in combat. Anti-war activists approached her, asking for her support of their cause – figuring that she’d be grief-stricken and they could claim her son’s death was pointless.

HER REACTION, IN the video snippets, was to tell the activists that her son may have died to support their right to protest, but that she’d shoot them dead if they ever approached her again.

Why do I suspect that in this Age of Trump, there were probably some people who viewed the two-week-long documentary who cheered that woman on – and probably wish that she could turn her ire on the ballplayers who now are protesting racial issues as part of sporting events.

In some ways, we need to comprehend the societal split we endured some 50 years ago – back in the days when a large segment of the populace decided our government officials could no longer be trusted to be truthful or honorable in their conduct because of what happened in Vietnam.

One of few spots where S. Vietnam flag still flies

Because much of the societal split we now have dates back to those days. The “hawks” of the ‘60s are now the grandparents of many of the modern-day types who are touting the rancid rhetoric of President Donald J. Trump – whom they see as leading an effort to take back U.S. society from the “doves” who opposed the war all those years ago.

THEY’RE THE BASIS of the “red” states of America, although I suspect if you had told that woman she was a “red,” she really would have pulled out that pistol and fired. She ain’t no “Commie,” she’d claim.

What always intrigues me about the societal split is the way that the divide plays out.

In the years after the war, the “right” was determined to believe that the “hippie freaks” LOST. That anybody who had ever opposed U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was permanently discredited – a stain that only the passage of time would wash away. The election of Ronald Reagan as president, followed up by the elder George Bush, reinforced that thought.

No dog poop in Chicago's Vietnam memorial

Which is why I always felt that Bill Clinton (and his mouthy bride Hillary) was despised so much by the right. If their theory were true, neither one of them should ever have had a life in the public eye. Yet Bill Clinton gained the presidency, while Hillary had a quarter of a century in the public eye, and came dangerously close (in their eyes) to winning the White House as well.

THE FACT THAT we got a Barack Obama presidency in the mix only further reinforces the notion that the left-leaning individuals of back then are not tainted for life – and in fact have left their mark on our society for the better. A reality that the Trumpites of our time wish they could undo.

Chicago relics of the Vietnam era

When U.S military interests pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, the hopes were that a split status would evolve – a North Vietnam of Communist leanings and a South Vietnam allied with the western world. Similar to what became of the two Koreas. It didn’t happen – the North stormed its way in and took the South two years later.

Although I have to admit that such a notion of a split Vietnam continuing to this day carries a bit of scariness. If you think about it, would we really want a North Korea-like nation in existence – one that would be all too eager to ally itself with Kim Jong Un’s constant threats to resume the Korean War of the early 1950s against the United States?

Which may be a “fight” that the “right” may be yearning for – a chance to undo a military stalemate and turn it into a “win!” Even though sane people have more sensible things to focus attention on.

NOW I DON’T know how all this would play out, if it were to happen. Much of the reason the anti-war movement became so intense was because of the practical fear of many to not want to get killed in combat. Maybe they had enough going for themselves in life that they wouldn’t view the thought of a medal awarded posthumously as a worthy accomplishment.

Nowadays, we have a volunteer military that makes it likely that everybody in service feels they’re gaining something of benefit to themselves. I don’t see the uprisings – except perhaps from the “right” who wish they could create John Wayne-like images for a modern-day military conflict.

PBS shows Howard still upset w/ anti-war movement

USA Today recently had a graphic on their website explaining the concept of the draft lottery that used to exist, and let people see for themselves how likely they would have been to be called to duty – in my case, my birthday was number 11 in the lottery, which means I would have had to scramble for a worthy excuse for a deferment to avoid active duty. Of course, I was only 5 back in 1970 – nobody called on me in reality.

But in my family’s case, I have two uncles who served in the military during Vietnam – one volunteered for the Marine Corps while another was drafted into the Army. Both saw their share of combat activity, but managed to come back in one physical piece – an accomplishment that I’m sure Howard would have wished for her son.

  -30-

Rahm wants to win! What else is new?

Anybody who was shocked or appalled at anything Mayor Rahm Emanuel said this week in speaking to business students at Stanford University is politically clueless or naïve.
 

EMANUEL: Spewing a dose of political reality?

In telling Democratic partisans upset about the current political status quo in D.C. to “take a chill pill,” he came up with a cutesy quip while also reiterating the long-expressed belief that he’s willing to put political tactics ahead of ideological concerns.

THE MAN WANTS to win because he wants to have political control. And “control” is certainly something that Democrats don’t have in the current federal government set-up.

For as much as people want to rant and rage about how loony-toons the current president is, the real long-term threat to our society is that his presence empowers those amongst the Republicans in Congress who are of a conservative ideological bent and are determined to impose their social agenda on all of us.

We have to live in their world, and accept our place as subservient in it, is the way they view our society. For them, the 2016 election cycle was a long-desired dream-come-true because it created circumstances by which they don’t even have to contemplate bipartisanship.

Republican strategy in recent decades (since the days of Reagan, I’d argue) has been based on creating a government by which they dominate and others have to listen. If anything, the GOP becomes incompetent when they’re placed in a position of having to negotiate anything.

Rahm would restore Obama and Clinton ideals...

EMANUEL, HIMSELF A former White House staffer under both presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and also the man who once led efforts to make Congress Democrat-leaning, knows that coming years will be an ugly age for those people who don’t fit the certain profile of the conservative ideologue segment of our society.

Stressing the need to find conservative-leaning candidates willing to run as Democrats in Republican-leaning districts to challenge congressional incumbents, exploiting any differences between GOP officials to create dissention and saving one’s strength for resisting any efforts to redistrict Congress in ways to bolster the Republican caucuses even further are what we expect to hear from Emanuel.

... rather than any specific policy

So when Emanuel says, “If you don’t win (elections), you can’t make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party (Democrats) to accept that principle,” it’s the same philosophy he has always espoused.

Emanuel is the guy who famously (in political circles) tried to talk Obama out of pushing so hard for health care reform because he didn’t want to tick off Republican ideologues into wanting to vehemently oppose anything the president would try to do.

HE’S ALSO THE guy who tried to get Obama to downplay activity toward immigration reform for the same reason, creating a situation where many Latino activists view Obama as a disappointment and have tagged him with that “deporter-in-chief” label.

One that Trump, if he follows through on all his political trash talk, will easily snatch away from Obama. Which may actually serve as evidence that Emanuel has a point. Losing elections enables government officials to behave in ways that are greatly harmful to our interests. “Winning’s everything,” the mayor said.

Reagan planted dream of GOP dominance ...

I found it interesting that the Illinois Republican Party on Tuesday felt compelled to issue a statement denouncing Emanuel for doing little more than going into the rhetorical mode that gave him the political nickname, “Rahm-bo.”

Republicans were particularly bothered by Emanuel’s comment that, “wherever there’s a disagreement among Republicans, I’m for one of those disagreements. I’m all for it.”

AS THE GOP says in a statement, “Mayor Emanuel espoused a political world of trying to foster disagreement and division. During Emanuel’s political lecturing, his hatchet-man was busy slashing school budgets and trying to create a crisis for his boss who infamously advised to never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

... will Trump make that dream grow?

Which might be a legitimate point, if not for the fact that the social conservatives have long advocated disagreement and division, so long as the balance of power leans in their favor and allows them to bully the opposition. Hearing GOP political operatives call anyone else unfair is a laugh!

It makes me wonder if the real fear amongst Republican political operatives is that Emanuel can be a cunning S-O-B with a politically strategic mind, while the current GOP efforts are headed by the chaotic, and politically amateurish, initiatives of Trump himself.

Who very well could wind up shooting himself and the Republican Party’s desired agenda in their collective foot, quite possibly with a “pistol” that Emanuel will conveniently figure out a way to place in their hand.

  -30-