Is a boycott the new ‘norm’ for political behavior within our Congress?

What’s the difference between political malcontents of the Republican and Democratic political persuasions?

SCHAKOWSKY: Don't want Trump to be the norm

It could be that the former is determined to make a public stink out of the formal events that comprise government activity, while the latter is more than willing to let their silence speak for themselves.

THERE ARE THOSE who will never forget Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who screamed out “You lie!” at then-President Barack Obama during a presidential address in 2009 when Obama said (rather truthfully) that his desires to provide healthcare reform would not benefit those non-citizens who were living in this country without a valid visa.

Because there are those who are just determined to believe (no matter what reality says) that those “filthy foreigners” are leeching off of decent “real Americans.”

Now there are those people who believe that our current president, Donald J. Trump, is incapable of saying anything truthful, and I’m sure the “you lie” sentiment will be passing through the minds of many in the Democratic caucuses of Congress when they listen to the president’s State of the Union address come Tuesday.

The speech being the annual statement made by the president to give the public a sense of his priorities for the upcoming year. It will be interesting to see how many factual whoppers Trump comes up with to make it appear as though he’s the most productive president this country has ever had.

LEWIS: Not the first time he dumped Trump

BUT WE’RE NOT likely to hear any epithets being barked at Trump during his address. In fact, the most notable part of the atmosphere of the address come Tuesday may be the sound of silence – and no, I don’t mean the old Simon and Garfunkel tune.

I’m aware of at least six Democratic members of Congress saying they’re not going to show up – including Rep. Jan Schakowsky from Evanston and the North Shore suburbs of Chicago.

Schakowsky told the Chicago Sun-Times she thinks Trump’s governmental behavior during the past year has been disrespectful to our society, and she doesn’t want to make it appear as though she regards it as the “normal” way our government should conduct itself. “The American people have been subjected to a year of racist and erratic and divisive behavior, she said.

TRUMP: How wonderful will State of Union be?

Other Democrats who say they’re not showing up Tuesday include Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, John Lewis of Georgia, Frederica Wilson of Florida and Maxine Waters of California.

NOT THAT ANYBODY viewing the presidential address on television will notice. The usual atmosphere of congressional applause coming at key points in the speech will continue to be heard.

It just means the Republican side of the aisle will provide all of the clapping noise meant to make it appear as though Trump’s thoughts are garnering wide support from fellow politicos.

Those viewing the event inside the Congressional chambers will side Democrats sitting looking bored, but with large pockets of empty seats – depending on how many members of Congress decide to follow the lead of Jan Schakowsky; who even when she was a member of the Illinois House of Representatives a couple of decades ago was a critic willing to speak her mind even if it disagreed with the official stance her political party (a.k.a., Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan) took.

I wonder if this is going to be something we’ll see in future years – or at least until Trump is dumped from public office.

CONSIDER THAT TRUMP’S presidential inauguration just over a year ago saw some 56 members of Congress refuse to show up to see The Donald take the oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution – albeit in ways many consider totally bizarre.

WILSON: He believes Trump

In fact, Lewis – a 16-term congressman and one-time activist during the Civil Rights movement – didn’t show up for that event either.

There likely won’t be any repeats of a Joe Wilson-like outburst on Tuesday, particularly since Trump and his nonsense talk appears to be the kind of president that Wilson himself appears to prefer.

So what is the “State of the Union” these days? Best described in one word – divided.

  -30-

EXTRA: Run Lisa, run!!! Or, is Sheila the big loser of Madigan’s decision?

Lisa Madigan gained my vote for governor of Illinois. It’s just too bad that it was her announcement that she would not run that caused me to want to support her.

MADIGAN: Postponing a 'promotion?'

Her announcement Monday afternoon caught me off-guard. I bought into her previous talk that she would wait until August to say what she’d do – thereby causing a whole slew of other political people to have to wait before announcing the electoral intentions.

BUT SHE NOW says it would be a problem for her to be governor while her father, the mighty Michael Madigan, served as speaker of the Illinois House of
Representatives.

And her father isn’t giving her any sign that he’s the least bit willing to consider stepping down from the post he has held (with a two-year exception in the mid-1990s) since the early 1980s.

Admittedly, he’s getting up in age. Who’s to say how long he will be able to keep getting re-elected – unless he’s willing to go the Sidney Yates route. As in the one-time member of Congress from the North lakefront neighborhoods who was the butt of many “senility” jokes by the time he finally retired in the mid-1990s.

The fact that Lisa Madigan was willing to come out and bluntly say it would not be practical for state government to have two “Madigans” in prominent posts is a certain honesty that I’m not used to seeing, or hearing, from government officials.

IT MAKES ME want to have someone like her in office – and not just re-election to a fourth term as Illinois attorney general.

MADIGAN: Holed up, and going nowhere!

It makes me wish she were able to run for governor. Because a part of me wonders if she’s going to be in that attorney general post for so long (always being thought of as the “future” governor) that she will go from being the future of the Democratic Party to being its past – without ever being its “present.”

Such as the situation involving the one-time state Sen. Howard Carroll – who served in the Illinois Legislature for many years waiting for the aforementioned Yates to retire so he could move up to Congress.

But by the time that retirement came and his “turn” came about, another candidate came along and wound up winning the post. Which is why we have Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., amongst our state’s congressional delegation.

COULD IT BE that someone else will wind up coming along and swiping away a gubernatorial nomination from Lisa Madigan in some future year, because she felt the need to hold off from running in this election cycle – one in which she would have had ample funding to run a credible campaign?

DALEY: One less 'name' in his way

That will be the question to which we’ll never truly know the answer.

So now, we get Gov. Pat Quinn with one less opponent – and his primary challenger, William Daley, will face the same problem that Madigan would have faced. As in certain people not willing to even consider voting for him because he has a “connected” name. Although certain others will vote for him just because of that.

Personally, I wonder more about the people who were betting on Madigan to move up so they could have her attorney general post.

SIMON: What will she do now?

HER DECISION TO stay put may have ensured House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, remains in that post, while the big loser may well be another product of a political “family.”

Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon had already said she was not interested in keeping that post, and had dreams of being the “AG.”

She’s going to have to scale back her ambitions if she wishes to remain a political player beyond next year.

  -30-

EXTRA: At least he won’t be forgotten

It seems that “Roland, Roland, Roland” won’t be remembered just for turning the theme music to “Rawhide” into his own personal anthem.

The National Journal has come up with this year’s version of its “most liberal’ and “most conservative” members of Congress, and it seems that Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., made the list. So even after Burris leaves Capitol Hill in January 2011, there will remain some evidence that he once existed within the District of Columbia.

SERIOUSLY, BURRIS MADE the Top 5 (all are Democrats) for liberal political people, which really shouldn’t be a shock. This is the guy who likes to think his life is a civil rights saga in and of itself (listen to him tell about how her personally integrated the public swimming pool in Centralia, Ill.), so it would make sense he would support most causes considered liberal.

Besides, this guy has so many eyes watching him that the last thing he needs to become is a renegade political person of some type. So is it really a shock that Burris got an “88” score on the Journal’s “liberal” scale? (For what it’s worth, Illinois’ other senator, Richard Durbin, only got an “85” score.

No Chicago-area officials made the “most conservative list” (which, by no surprise, was all Republican), but there was one other area politico who made the “liberal” list.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., of Evanston, made it among the five most liberal members of the House of Representatives.

HER COMPOSITE RATING for “liberalness” was 95.2, which puts her on top of Burris. Considering the composition of her congressional district, I wouldn’t be shocked to learn she’s celebrating tonight.

One other score caught my attention, that of Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., whose conservative score was “93.2,” with only two other political people less liberal than he. Just in case you’re wondering what kind of person takes pride in being able to say he delayed the approval of legislation to extend payment of jobless benefits or payments for unemployed worker health insurance through the COBRA program.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Check out your own congressman to see how “loyal” he is being toward your own politically partisan (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2009voteratings) views.

Where have you gone, Paul Simon? Illinois turns its lonely eyes to you

One could almost hear echoes of Paul Simon in the decision by Jan Schakowsky not to run for a seat from Illinois in the U.S. Senate.

Simon, of course, is the late senator from Illinois who used to complain about the expense involved in running legitimate campaigns for elective office and the amount of time he had to devote every day of his stint in Washington to trying to raise money to ensure he could remain there.

IN TELLING PEOPLE that she does not plan to try to move up to the Senate, Schakowsky, currently a member of Congress from Evanston, said the expense of such a race awed her – even though she thinks her connections could have helped her come up with sufficient cash.

As Schakowsky put it, “I would have had to become a telemarketer five or six hours a day.”

The Pioneer Press newspaper group that publishes weekly papers in and around Schakowsky’s North Shore hometown quoted her as saying the cost of running for U.S. Senate from Illinois in 2010 would be $10 million for the primary election, and another $16 million for the general election.

That’s a lot of money. For that much, the White Sox could get a shortstop and center fielder who aren’t as incredibly frustrating as the batch of ballplayers who have tried (and failed) to grab hold of those jobs on the South Side.

SCHAKOWSKY’S DECISION TO back away from the Senate and remain in the House of Representatives intrigues me because I always thought she was one of the legitimate contenders to replace Barack Obama (legitimate as in qualified for the job, which is most likely why Rod Blagojevich never gave her serious consideration).

It also helped her political prospects that she gave up a seat on the Springfield scene to move to the District of Columbia. Without having to change her style much, she went from being a shrill voice to being one of reason.

Could it be that the Capitol Hill types are a little more deep thinkers than those who populate our Statehouse Scene?

Why do I say she hasn’t changed much? I got my kicks out of learning how she made her decision public not to be a Senate candidate any longer.

SHE MADE A video of herself and put it on YouTube, then also made an appearance before a fifth grade class at Devonshire School in Skokie, where she happened to bring the subject up.

Which is why the Pioneer Press types got themselves something resembling an “exclusive.” Who else would think to cover such an appearance?

It’s too bad that some smart aleck fifth grader couldn’t toss out a good quip. Because it was the smart alecks who were going to try their best to trash a Schakowsky candidacy.

Just about anyone who was a reporter-type in the early 1990s in Chicago remembers Bob Creamer, an activist for many liberal causes whose group wound up getting caught up in enough irregularities that Creamer himself now has a criminal conviction for the way he tried to handle the group’s financial problems.

I REMEMBER ENOUGH people who chuckled at Creamer’s plight, thinking him a bit too self-righteous. But I can’t believe that anyone else would have cared much – even though we would have heard enough “she has a corrupt husband!” allegations to last a lifetime.

There is one aspect of her decision that catches my attention. It could very well turn out that this year was Schakowsky’s one shot to move up on Capitol Hill.

She may have to settle for an elective office career in the U.S. House – having to get herself re-elected every other year (instead of having the luxury of a senator who only runs every six years).

Not that that is such a bad goal in and of itself. The bottom line is that the field of candidates remains cluttered.

EVERYBODY IS TROTTING out the list of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (maybe), Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (most likely) and Chris Kennedy as the biggest beneficiaries of Schakowsky’s decision not to run.

The only thing I will say is that it is most likely that there will be a serious contender whose name does not get talked about much these days – and that person will bear a grudge for the fact that no one is paying attention to them.

The truth is that nobody who’s being honest has the slightest idea who will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for Senate next year. There are just too many unknown factors and so much time.

And with a likely total tab of $26 million – how does incumbent Sen. Roland “The $845 Man” Burris, D-Ill., expect to be competitive?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: She’s staying in the House (http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/) for now, rather than trying to win herself an electoral promotion.

Does Illinois owe U.S. a black senator?

I have mixed thoughts when it comes to the notion that Gov. Rod Blagojevich owes it to the people of Illinois (and the nation) to choose an African-American person when making his pick for the vacancy in the U.S. Senate.

I believe Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., is the best-qualified person for the post. More than a decade in Congress from the far South Side and surrounding suburbs give him the federal perspective on issues, while his family background gives him the solid Chicago knowledge.

SINCE HE IS black, he would fulfill the notion held by some people that since Barack Obama is the only person with African-American racial background in the entire Senate, his replacement for the remaining two years on his Senate term ought to be, at the very least, a non-white person.

Yet I’m also realistic enough to know that Blagojevich is going to pick a replacement for Obama based on what solidifies his own political status (he desperately needs allies in high places). The namesake son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson would be way too independent to help the governor.

So he’s not going to get the appointment.

And I’m not sure that the pool of candidates ought to be limited to who is left among the African-American public officials from Chicago or the rest of Illinois, just because the rest of the country has been negligent in developing African-American officials who could run for the U.S. Senate.

FOR THE RECORD, of all the names that I have heard discussed for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois, two stand out. Jackson and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who I still remember from her days as an outspoken legislator from Evanston in the Illinois House of Representatives.

I like the idea of a legislator who can speak her mind. And the thought that her appointment would “tick off” a few social conservative types is just an added bonus, as far as I’m concerned.

But I think Schakowsky has as legitimate a chance of getting Blagojevich’s support as does Jackson. Outspoken equals independent, which is worthless to Blagojevich.

I have written before that I think the two candidates with serious chances are retiring Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, and Illinois Department of Veterans’ Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth.

BOTH WOULD PERCEIVE their political status as being totally due to Blagojevich, and therefore would likely be willing to publicly support the governor when people continue to insist he ought to be indicted in U.S. District Court.

And if he were to go with Jones, Blagojevich would satisfy the desires of those who want an African-American person in the post.

But Jones is an aging political person who is only available because he has retired from Illinois government following a 36-year career in public office. Which is why I’m starting to think that when Blagojevich talks up Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., in recent days, he’s throwing us a hint.

Davis would also allow an African-American person to be in the post.

YET I’M NOT sure that the West Side politico (a former county board member before moving up to Congress) is really the best qualified person our state can come up with to replace Obama.

I can’t help but wonder if Davis’ chances are being boosted solely because of his racial background.

Now I can understand why people would be concerned that the U.S. Senate could soon be entirely Anglo (there are a few Latino legislators in the Senate, but they’re all pale complexioned enough to be considered “white”). Both chambers of our Congress are better off if they have some sense of reflecting the makeup of the nation.

The House of Representatives has its share of African-American members because the districts break down by regions or certain neighborhoods, thereby allowing voters to pick someone who is close to their region.

IN THE SENATE, the members are picked statewide – which results in the Anglo majority of a state to overwhelm any other interests.

It is no accident that most states in the United States have NEVER sent an African-American person to represent them in the Senate, and that the bulk of the few black people who have ever served in the Senate have come from two states – Massachusetts and Illinois.

I’m not complaining that Illinois has produced both Carol Moseley-Braun and Barack Obama.

But I am wondering if there are people who are now going to start counting on Illinois to be one of the few places that can generate enough support for an African-American person to win a statewide election for the Senate.

WHY SHOULDN’T ILLINOIS try to advance the cause of Latino political empowerment (Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.) or more women (Schakowsky). Either of those would advance the diversity of the Senate’s makeup as much as an African-American appointment would. Should Illinois really be the only place that produces non-Anglo legislators for Washington?

I’d hate to think that Illinois’ choices for a member of the U.S. Senate would be limited because most of the rest of the nation has yet to get over its racial hang-ups when it comes to political people.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The Chicago Sun-Times on Monday joined the parade of people saying Jesse Jackson Jr. ought to be named as the replacement for Barack Obama in the (http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/jackson.sun.times.2.877150.html) U.S. Senate. Which is probably all the more reason he won’t get the appointment.

Is Danny Davis really now in the running (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/blagojevichs-slip-fuels-davis-speculation-2008-11-28.html) to be the new Senator from Illinois?

Illinois likely will not give the U.S. Senate (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gutierreznov26,0,1555756.story) its third Latino member.

Replacement lists too parochial to take seriously

They already have been popping up in newspapers and broadcast news programs, and they will continue to occur throughout the campaign season.

“They,” in this case, are stories that speculate about future political maneuvering that will take place, if such and such a politician is successful in his or her bid to win a higher office.

SPECIFICALLY, WE IN Chicago are subjected to the stories of who would replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, should he actually succeed in being elected the 44th president of the United States.

For those of us who live in parts of Chicago or Illinois near the Great Land of Hoosiers, we get their overflow stories, most of which are trying to tout the concept that a President Hillary R. Clinton would want Evan Bayh – the former Indiana governor and current senator from Indiana who also is the son of a long-time Hoosier politico – to be her running mate.

I’m going to reveal one of the great “secrets” of political reporting – such stories are a crock. They fill newspaper space or broadcast airtime, and they appear to be filled with substance. But they are little more than lucky guesses. Hoosier voters would like to believe that this is the face of the next vice president. Photograph provided by U.S. Senate.

Should it turn out that Bayh does become vice president under President Clinton the second, or that Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes does move up to the U.S. Senate to be an ally of President Obama, there will be reporters who will tout out their yellowing clips as evidence that they somehow knew way before everybody else what was going to happen.

IN REALITY, NOBODY knows how these maneuvers are going to work out because it is way too premature to be seriously expending brainpower on such issues. You could come up with just as accurate a guess on how future political succession would take place by merely throwing a dart at a board with the names of various politicos written on scraps of paper.

Whoever you hit is the person you can say you’re predicting for greater things (or maybe you want to use your dart points to “kill” the political aspirations of government officials you can’t stand).

What got me going on this topic was the big story in Monday’s editions of the Munster, Ind.-based Times of Northwest Indiana, which wants to think that one of the next great politicos in this country will be someone they have been covering for years.

Their story touted the work Bayh has done to push the Clinton campaign across Indiana, with the possible end result that Clinton (not Obama) would actually win the Hoosier primary on May 6 (deadline for Indianans to register to vote was Monday). His reward, the newspaper would like us to think, would be the V-P slot for the next four years.

TO HIS CREDIT, Bayh isn’t trying to claim the political prize (which really requires nothing more than a pulse, on the off-chance that the president ceases to have one). He told the Times, “She should be totally focused on winning the nomination. It would be wrong for me to even speculate about anything like that.”

Of course, Bayh as V-P would be a moot point should Obama manage to keep his delegate and popular vote leads and ultimately go on to claim the presidential nomination for himself at the Democratic convention in Denver.

But a “President Obama” would create his own set of political speculations – who would replace him in the U.S. Senate?

A Senate seat in Washington is one of the top political prizes for a government official whose focus is on Illinois (Chicago mayor and Illinois governor are the others). Getting the right to finish up the last two years of Obama’s term in office and go into the next election cycle as an incumbent would be a significant career boost.

UNDER STATE LAW, the Illinois governor gets to pick the successor – and there are no set guidelines he must follow for picking an Obama replacement. He can go for whomever he wants, for whatever reason he thinks is worthy.

I’ve heard the speculation of Hynes or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan getting picked by Blagojevich. Both hold high-enough ranking posts within Illinois government that tabbing either for the U.S. Senate would not look like a Blagojevich joke, and it also would have the bonus for Blagojevich of eliminating potential rivals for the gubernatorial post.

Particularly in the case of Madigan, that would be a factor, since political observers have long speculated that the reason her father, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, groomed her so carefully for political office (an Illinois Senate seat for a few years, then the attorney general’s post) was so she could someday be Illinois governor.

Of course, there’s always the possibility of promoting an Illinois politician who already is a part of the Washington scene – one of the members of the House of Representatives could be shifted over to the Senate, which would then lead to speculation about who would be the new U.S. House member from Illinois.

REPS JESSE JACKSON Jr. and Jan Schakowsky (the latter of whom knows Blagojevich from when both served in the Illinois House in the mid-1990s) are considered the favorites there. Either would make a qualified senator, and the advantage of a Jackson selection is that picking the namesake son of the civil rights leader would stir up the anger of many a social conservative who would see it as the ultimate evidence that Illinois politics is little more than a sewer.

If I had to pick who would get sent to Washington to replace a “Senator Obama,” I literally would put those names on the dartboard, then start throwing with my awkward right-handed motion that quickly reveals why I never got to pitch for the New York Yankees.

It really is too soon to seriously speculate about this. We really have to wait until after the nominating convention in August before we can seriously guess who might get picked. Anything before then is just a wild guess.

In fact, there’s only one possibility that has come up in recent weeks that I will go so far as to comment on definitively – anybody who seriously thinks that Rod Blagojevich is going to pick himself to serve as U.S. senator from Illinois is delusional – quite possibly from not taking their medications.

IT’S TRUE THAT Blagojevich theoretically could pick himself. But it makes no sense.

A post in Washington, to the Chicago political mentality, is a move “up and out.” In other words, it is a “promotion” to a political world that has little to no say in the day to day operations of Chicago politics. These are the reason why Rod Blagojevich would never seriously consider appointing himself to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, should Obama succeed in winning election to the presidency. Photograph provided by State of Illinois.

Why would a governor give up his post to move to Washington? He already ranks among the Top Four politicos (currently, Richard M. Daley, Richard Durbin, Obama and Blagojevich – all Democrats) from Illinois.

There’s also the fact that Blagojevich has already done the “D.C. Scene.” He served six years in the U.S. House of Representatives from Chicago’s Northwest Side, and gave up any chance of moving up in the Congressional hierarchy in large part because he and wife Patricia wanted to live in Chicago.

BLAGOJEVICH ALREADY GETS enough grief for being the governor who doesn’t want to live with his family in Springfield – even though the state provides a fully funded and staffed residence for its governor.

There’s no way he could ever get away with being the Senator who won’t live in the District of Columbia. And his wife (the daughter of Chicago alderman Dick Mell) would kill him if he seriously tried to move the family to the D.C. suburbs.

So, sorry folks. For those of you who despise Blagojevich and were hoping an Obama victory could be an excuse to get rid of him, it just won’t work that way. You have a better chance of getting a “recall” election for Blagojevich, than you do of someday seeing “Senator Rod.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., already has a place to live (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/880337,CST-NWS-senate06.article) in Washington, unlike Lisa Madigan or Rod Blagojevich. She’d like to move up to the Senate.

Some Hoosier political observers would like to see if they can reduce Birch Bayh from a long-time D.C. powerbroker in his own right to nothing more than the father (http://nwi.com/articles/2008/04/07/news/top_news/doca7a5ca844213521486257423007ec4a5.txt) of a vice president.

Rod Blagojevich wasn’t exactly the most anonymous politico Chicagoans have sent to Congress (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000518/), but he wasn’t exactly a Washington power hitter either.