War of the women truly going to take down the GOP, no matter what they do

So Donald Trump decides to stomp all over what should have his big day of East Coast electoral victories by insisting the only reason Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is doing well is because of her gender.

Trump’s chief GOP challenger, Ted Cruz, retorts with an act of desperation by giving us his choice of a vice-presidential running mate – Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO who had her own presidential dreams back in the days when there were 18 or so Republicans in the running.

I REALLY HAVE trouble figuring which of these two clowns comes across as more pathetic and which would be the most truly unpresidential person our nation could have as a choice for someone who deserves to legitimately live in the White House.

I’m inclined to think it’s Trump, just because he seems to have a lock on buffoonish behavior.

But you have to admit that the junior senator from Texas has truly adopted his state’s reputation for over-the-top behavior. He’d probably conduct himself with more decorum if he truly were a Canadian!

For it seems that as the Republicans are on the verge of having to admit failure in their effort to deprive New York real estate developer Trump of the ability to use their party’s presidential nominating convention in Cleveland into a personal pep rally for himself!

SO CRUZ COMES up with this image of his presidential campaign as something truly historic – a chance to have a top-of-the-ticket pairing that could put a woman in a place of significance.

It might, in their minds, make some people give up on the idea of voting for Hillary because her gender would be a political statement.

Reading through this probably makes you wonder what kind of medication I’m using to come up with such addled thoughts, and maybe the newly-prescribed blood pressure pills I have started taking is doing something.

But Cruz’ efforts to use the Fiorina image to bolster his own does little but drag him down.

FOR ONE THING, there were a few people who thought Carly would be fit for president. They may wind up provoking the concept that the wrong person was on top – just like it would have been a stupid mistake if Barack Obama back in 2008 had picked Clinton as a running mate.

Besides, we really don’t want to think about running mates until we know who the nominees are! I can’t believe Cruz thinks he can use Carly to bolster what has become his long-shot chances of stopping Trump from becoming the nominee.

Face it, 2016 will wind up being the year of Who Do We Hate More?!? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. It really makes me wonder if a viable third candidate will emerge who can take the votes of people who can’t bring themselves to cast ballots for either one of them.

And as far as the Republicans are concerned, I have to confess that back in the days when there were 18 candidates, Trump and Cruz were always the two who stood out in my mind as the absolute last ones I would want to see get the nomination.

THE FACT THAT they are the ones who have prevailed and that Cruz, the ultimate knee-jerk ideologue, is considered the more sensible of the two is – in my mind – the evidence as to why I can’t take seriously the modern-day Republican Party.

And why I wind up siding myself with a mediocrity like Hillary – who’s going to bring back the two-decade old lame gags about her husband.

I have to confess one potential joy to the notion of Trump feeling compelled to take pot shots at Hillary’s gender at a point when he’s on the verge of primary victory.

The fact that he feels this way means his defeat come November (losing to ‘that dame’) will probably hurt him deep down all the more.

  -30-

So much for “La Revolucion,” we’re getting “four more years” instead

A part of me would have liked to have seen the concept of “Mayor Jesus Garcia.” It even might have been worth all the stupid Star Wars-related gags about a “Mayor Chewy” if Tuesday were to have been a major point in the political evolution of Chicago’s Latino population with a victory for Chuy.

But we’re not going to get that, it seems. The election results were so clear that Garcia made his concession call to Mayor Rahm Emanuel at about 8:30 p.m. – a quick end to what some wanted to believe would be historic election results!

THERE WAS MUCH rhetoric being spewed about how all those polls showing a blow-out election result for Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s re-election fantasies were a lot of trash. Political geeks without a clue as to real people, is what they were saying.

But the apparent 56-44 percent results we saw Tuesday night were about what those polls were showing. Although the key figure to comprehending the Election Day results was 40 – as in the percent of registered voters who bothered to show up to cast a ballot.

It may not be a record low (that would be the 2007 mayoral election where only 33.2 percent of registered voters cared enough to take a stance in what was Richard M. Daley’s last electoral campaign). It may be better than the 33.8 percent from the Feb. 24 municipal election.

But it still stinks!

THERE WAS LOUD, obnoxious rhetoric from those people who wanted to see a Mayor Garcia because he would have made a priority of a segment of the Chicago population that often feels ignored, if not outright neglected.

But the real mood of Chicago is that three of every five people who actually are registered and capable of voting didn’t care enough to take a stance. Let alone the other half of Chicago’s population that, for whatever reason, isn’t registered to vote at all.


The Latino Victory Fund (a national group that tries to bolster Latino political empowerment) can claim that Garcia, "energized the Latino community not only in Chicago, but across the country." But the bulk of us (some 80 percent) didn't care; and probably looked astray at those of us who did get all worked up. I can try to justify this in my mind by claiming that the people who voted earned their right to complain about government’s actions for the next four years.

I’m sure those who didn’t vote are still going to rant and rage on those occasions when some government action grabs their attention. We’re not going to be able to shut them up.

OF COURSE, THAT is something the Emanuel camp ought to keep in mind as they go through the next four years – they may want to think they won Tuesday’s elections by a large majority. But the bulk of Chicago didn’t support him.

The loud-mouthed ones turned out to vote for Garcia, who now gets to go back to the Cook County Board and serve out his term through 2018 as a commissioner from the Little Village neighborhood.

The rest couldn’t be bothered to cast ballots for anybody. Their apathy prevails.

Will Garcia be able to take his sudden burst of public attention from the past few weeks of campaigning and turn it into a higher profile? Could he become one of the people who actually sets public policy – instead of being a county commissioner who merely casts votes in favor of what the real powerbrokers decide ought to be done?

I WILL BE watching to see what becomes of Garcia; whose political career was once thought to be in tatters some 17 years ago when he lost his state Senate seat to a Latino official more willing to cow-tow to the desires of Daley.

Although perhaps we ought to keep out eyes on Emanuel as well; particularly to see if he really becomes a “kinder and gentler” version of the ogre that so many of us detest.

I found it amusing to see the Chicago Sun-Times reporting the possibility of Emanuel being considered as a potential Cabinet member should Hillary R. Clinton actually become president in the 2016 election cycle.

That seems a bit fantastical to think a one-time White House chief of staff would be willing to give up City Hall to take a lesser presidential post.

BUT COULD IT take conditions so extreme and outrageous for the mayor’s office to open up in a way that a “second coming” of Garcia could be coming if we have to pick someone to finish off the remainder (through 2019) of an Emanuel term?

Chuy may have a political future, at least in our dreams!

  -30-

When it comes to elections, didn’t we learn the first time around?

The presidential election cycle of 2016 is starting to take on the character of “Groundhog Day.”

Remember the film starring Bill Murray where he played a weather forecaster who had to keep reliving Groundhog Day until he managed to get it right (as in get the girl, played by Andie McDowell)?

WELL LOOKING AT the data available thus far for the election to determine who succeeds Barack Obama when he steps down from office in January of 2017 makes it seem like we’re going to relive all the past presidential elections of recent years.

We’re going to see which candidate finally “gets it right,” and which candidates are doomed to yet another presidential failure.

There are the Rasmussen Reports polls that came out in recent days that would indicate we’re going to see Hillary R. Clinton run for the Democrats against GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

The Democratic primary poll indicates that Hillary has this thing already wrapped up – even though she has yet to actually declare herself to be a candidate for president come next year!

WHILE ROMNEY HAS more support than any other Republican whose name is being bandied about for the GOP presidential nomination.

Although with Romney supposedly at only 24 percent support in that poll and 10 other people also getting support on the Republican side, it really feels like the 2012 presidential election cycle all over again.

Remember how each of the other candidates had a stint in which they were the favored candidate, until finally support convalesced behind Romney. Almost as though Republicans were desperate to find someone, anyone, who they could support instead of Mitt.

His presidential nomination that year ultimately felt like an act of desperation, rather than a sense of anybody that the public had any faith in to run the country. No wonder he wound up getting his clock cleaned, so to speak, by Obama.

WHILE HILLARY IS the overwhelming favorite of Democrats, what with 59 percent support and six other candidates all lagging way behind.

The sense of Hillary being inevitable, which was the attitude she tried to portray in 2008 until Obama himself managed to win enough primaries early on that her primary coronation turned into a brawl that she ultimately fell short at.

The part of that poll I find amusing is that Vice President Joe Biden only gets 6 percent support – even though he holds the title that usually enables a candidacy to be the pre-emptive favorite.

It seems his chances of success depend on Hillary deciding she doesn’t want to be bothered (which is always a possibility) with the ordeal of a campaign. Then, Biden can beat up on people like Mario Cuomo’s son – who it seems takes 2 percent presidential support at this time.

ALTHOUGH I CAN remember past election cycles in which the late New York governor would tease us beyond belief before deciding that he wasn’t about to run for governor, after all!

Will the younger Cuomo (also a New York governor) be just like his father?

It is interesting to see how the campaigns are likely to try to differentiate themselves this time around. The Washington Post published a pair of stories – Clinton may become the first woman to achieve the presidency, but her campaign backers are a collection of stodgy old white guys.

While Romney, the one-time governor of Massachusetts whose father was once governor of Michigan, has decided to relocate to a state with a more favorable political climate for a candidate who wants the votes of conservative ideologues.

HE’S NOW A native of Utah, which may work out well for him since his Mormon religious faith is not so exotic there. Perhaps he’ll claim he never really fit in with his Midwestern or New England roots.

Just as how the George Bushes (both H.W. and W.) would have us think they are Texas natives, rather than a pair of Ivy Leaguers at heart!

  -30-

We’re looking for leadership. Will anyone rise to presidential challenge?

This past weekend, I stumbled across a question posted by a Facebook “friend” asking people who they would choose for president – IF the choice is a matter of Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., or Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Personally, I said I would sooner lead a write-in campaign for the “friend,” who is a former competitor from my days as a Springfield reporter-type person.

BECAUSE THE IDEA of an Indianapolis-based radio personality as president makes about as much sense as any of the other scenarios being pitched out to the public.

For I don’t have a clue as to who will wind up actually running for president in the 2016 election cycle to replace Barack Obama. There isn’t anybody coming forth who is going to capture the spirit and emotions of the public (at least the portion that isn’t ideologically-inclined to still view Obama as some sort of “socialist”).

Former first lady, senator from New York and secretary of state Hillary R. Clinton has been lingering for so long as the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democratic Party that I can’t help but think most people are sick and tired of hearing about her possible campaign.

Did she do herself in by waiting so long to state her intentions that nobody cares anymore what she does?

WHAT MAKES THIS particular election cycle for president intriguing is not just that Chicago will lose its personal tie to the White House, it is that Vice President Joe Biden isn’t the automatic choice of Democrats to succeed Obama.

I expect Biden will run for the post. But can he win? Would anybody get excited at the thought of a President Biden? Or would he create the kind of electoral excitement amongst would-be Democratic voters that led to the overwhelming Republican victories in this year’s election cycle. A Monmouth University poll shows Biden with only 2 percent support (compared to 48 percent for Hillary).

On the Republican side, I have heard the names of “Jeb Bush,” “Haley Barbour,” “Newt Gingrich,” “Bobby Jindal,” “Rick Perry” and “Marco Rubio,” along with former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels – who might well attract the attention of what’s left of the Illinois Republican establishment, which often acts as though it wishes they could be Hoosiers.

The Republican National Committee is doing a straw poll trying to gauge support for presidential dreamers, and has 34 different names on its ballot, according to the Washington Times newspaper.

MY POINT BEING that in such a large sea, the ideological rants of Cruz could easily catch on with just enough Republican people that he winds up becoming the front-runner.

Cruz vs. Warren isn’t the biggest fantasy in the world, except for the fact that Warren herself said Monday during an interview with NPR that, “I’m not running for president.”

That is, unless the lack of a clear candidate arouses her ego to the point where she decides to change her mind. It wouldn't be a political first!

Because you also know that the moment Hillary does make it public what her intentions are, all the goodwill her name brings up now will dissipate, and the ideologues’ rants and memories of the Clinton presidential administration (“Hide the girls, Bill Clinton’s back in the White House,” is the image they will repeat over and over) will predominate the public debate.

PERSONALLY, IT’S ALL going to make me reminisce more fondly for the days of Obama. That’s how stupid the rhetoric is going to get between the presidential dreamers.

Which is why I can joke about the notion of “Abdul-Hakim Shabazz” as president. Anybody who knew him when he was a broadcaster in Springfield, or who now listens to him in Indianapolis, knows he has the over-bloated ego to be a public official.

Along with a sense of decency as a human being that many in our society – including those who actually will run for president – are totally lacking.

  -30-