Could Illinois be the example of rational political thought after all?

All of the cheap rhetoric about the presidential campaigns has had one thing in common – it hasn’t involved anyone from Illinois.

BUSH: Land of Lincoln's front-runner?

It has been a whole lot of stupid talk doing their nonsense elsewhere. We don’t have any local angle on it.

PERSONALLY, I’M GLAD. I’d like to believe it is the evidence that it is the rest of the nation that is absurd, and that we in Illinois aren’t the ones who elevated anyone as vapid as Donald Trump to the ranks of a political front-runner.

Considering that it will be later this week (Thursday, to be exact) that presidential candidates can begin circulating the nominating petitions that ultimately will get them a spot on the ballots come the March 15 primary elections.

Candidates will have until mid-December to gather their signatures of support, and I don’t doubt that the likes of Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson can come up with people in Illinois who will work on their behalf to gather the support that gets them on the ballot.

But it says something that of the 15 or so candidates wishing to run for the Republican nomination for president in next year’s election cycle, the only ones that have the operations in place already are the candidates most detested by the ideologues who are jumping on board the Trump and Carson campaigns – and to a lesser degree, that of Fiorina.

COULD IT BE that we in Illinois have a lesser tolerance for nonsense talk and are more interested in officials who are capable of getting things done? Perhaps the reason why Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, still has his supporters for his refusal to give in to the trash talk of organized labor being spewed by Gov. Bruce Rauner?

KASICH: Backing a Great Lakes guv?

Or maybe it means Illinois Republicans had enough sense to realize that most of the 15 GOP presidential dreamers had no business being on the ballot, and are waiting for the field to boil down before committing to anyone.

Which is why Jeb Bush (who will be in suburban Geneva on Thursday and Chicago proper Friday morning for political fundraiser events), Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John Kasich are about the only ones that seem to have anything resembling campaign operations in Illinois to get themselves on the ballot.

Candidates can trash-talk all they want. But unless someone does the work of circulating petitions to show support, no one will be able to vote for them.

WHICH MAY BE for the best for society if come March, Trump’s name doesn’t even turn up on the ballot. Particularly since assorted polls show he’s not as dominant as he was a month ago.

RUBIO: Ill. preferred Latino pol (not Ted Cruz)

It’s just a matter of time before Trump’s ego no longer gets fed enough by the thought of running for president that he decides to go back to being just a real estate developer who builds really tacky-looking structures.

It would seem that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother and son of former presidents, is the Illinois favorite, with former Illinois House Minority Leader Tom Cross leading up his effort.

The late state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka’s former chief of staff is heading up Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential dreams, while state Sen. Michael Connelly, R-Lisle, is in charge of the Marco Rubio operation.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, state Sen. (and constant political dreamer) James Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove, is also a backer of the guy whom Trump thinks of as a kid too young to take seriously as a presidential candidate.

TRUMP: Withering away to irrelevance?

Even though there are those of us who think that Trump himself is too old and foolish to have any credibility in electoral politics.

Not that I’m inclined to back anyone amongst Bush, Kasich or Rubio. Then again, I think the Democratic presidential field is filled with mediocrities – I haven’t found anyone I think is worthy of replacing Barack Obama come early 2017.

But it is reassuring to know that the Illinois primary election season is likely to be a little more logical than it has been thus far, or likely will be in other states.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Past visions; how much has survived?

I stumbled across a roughly 5-minute video that now exists on YouTube – one that compiles various snippets that aren’t worth much in-and-of themselves.

But when put together, they become a pseudo-documentary by a company called Yestervid of what Chicago was like about one century ago.

THEY INCLUDE WHAT is being billed as the oldest existing footage of Chicago – a September 1896 parade of police officers as they passed by Michigan Avenue and Monroe Street.

Although my own favorite moment was seeing the circus elephants being ridden down Dearborn Street while Chicagoans stood by. It’s not something we’d see ever again – largely because Dearborn is over-congested by auto and foot traffic. It would be too cluttered.

Likely the reason why modern-day parades for downtown Chicago cut through Grant Park on Columbus Drive. Although it’s not like Chicago has changed entirely since the days when we weren’t sure what the 20^th Century would amount to.

The Willis Tower and Hancock Center are missing from the skyline shots – much much else is recognizable. As for the Trump Tower, we’d be better off if that tacky structure were to disappear.

VIDEO OF STATE and Madison streets show a very congested intersection with the very same “el” station just a block to the east. This has been a packed place with people – and with livestock. Check out the bits of video shot at the old Union Stockyards near the (logically enough) Back of the Yards neighborhood.

There is the “oldest” bit of audio – Gamelan (think Indonesia) music from the World’s Fair of 1893.

And even the sight of Comiskey Park before the upper decks were extended to cover the outfield seats. Although it seems the film producers can’t tell the difference between the 1917 World Series (the White Sox beat the New York Giants) and the 1919 version that is best left undiscussed.

So what else is notable about the modern-day Chicago?

‘SECOND CITY’ DEATH TALLY: Eight people were killed this weekend – making it a particularly ghastly weekend for 2015 in Chicago.

It also seems we’re now at 365 murders in the city for the year – enough to average one per day if we were to somehow go the next three-and-a-half months without a fatality due to another human being’s deliberate actions.

It’s also roughly the annual death tally Chicago experienced back in the “good ol’ days” of the 1920s when the Irish and Italian mobs fought it out for control of the city’s criminal rackets – a time period we like to glamourize now despite its bloody nature.

Although it also should be noted that Chicago of today is still far behind the death tallies of the late 1980s when for a few years, the city would push close to 1,000 murders per year. We’re most likely not going to come close to that total for 2015 – a fact that many of us should keep in mind before griping about the homicide rate being out of control these days.

WHO’S REALLY STONED?: Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is going after the guy who was supposed to be the GOP front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, with campaign ads that semi-seriously imply the brother and son of former presidents is still using marijuana.

Bush was the guy who during a recent debate admitted to trying pot when he was in college, and even issued an on-camera apology to his mother! But he also has run a mediocre campaign with its share of gaffes.

Which led to the Trump ad that asks us, “Are we sure it was only 40 years ago?” that Jeb lit up a joint. Which is nonsense, and even Trump knows it.

Which leads us to ask of the public, “How stoned do you have to be in order to think that there’s anything ‘presidential’ about Donald Trump?” One look at his tower on the Chicago River ought to convince you the answer is “Absolutely nothing!”

  -30-

Still way too early to learn much of substance about presidential dreamers

I didn’t bother to watch the Republican presidential debate that was televised Wednesday night – I just wasn’t in the mood to sit through political psycho-babble, particularly anything from the mouth of Donald Trump.

FIORINA: The winner?

Although after reading and watching the news accounts from those entities who felt the need to see the supposedly-top presidential dreamers stand in front of “Air Force One” (the closest most of them will ever get to that aircraft), I don’t think I missed much by waiting until Thursday morning to know what was said.

AND I ALSO don’t think anyone who bothered to watch it live is any better informed about its significance – unless they really needed to pretend that they were there to see it all happen.

My own quirk is that after having covered many political debates (including some that involved presidential prospects), they all seem alike.

So what’s the real point here? I still think this field is overly-broad, and that most of the people who blathered on and on will not be a factor next year when people are actually asked to cast ballots for who will get the right to be the next president come January 2017.

The overview I have heard from many is that former CEO Carly Fiorina somehow showed herself to be the most credible persona of the Republican presidential batch.

THAT MAY WELL be true, although I’d say the reason she stands out is that the rest of the batch is so mediocre – past political failures who are trying again, or people whose only qualification to be the nation’s chief executive is their own over-bloated ego.

BUSH: He's sorry

And as for the fact that the so-called most-tweeted moment was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s apology to his mother for having smoked marijuana when he was young?

It was probably a more honest moment than Bill Clinton back in 1992 when he said he smoked, but “didn’t inhale.” Which all these decades later, I still don’t know what he thinks the difference is.

All in all, not the most enlightening of shows.

THE KEY, OF course, is Donald Trump, whose money and bluster enabled him to take large early leads – with some of the candidates coming in so low they barely register.

TRUMP: Will he still be relevant tomorrow?

Although it is interesting that the neurologist, Ben Carson, has had recent polls showing he is running neck-and-neck with Trump. It could be that about half of those who have an opinion back either of those two.

Evidence that the Republican hard-core wants a new name – no matter how much that person may not have a clue about what is actually involved in being president. It’s not all about having a personal jet plane to fly around on, and you don’t get to “bark” orders to Congress.

Just think how much happier Barack Obama would be if he could have told Congress what he wanted, and they would have been obligated to obey.

BUT THE MOST truthful thing I may have read in recent days was a poll in the Washington Post – 27 percent of people actually have an opinion about who should be president. It’s still early. We’re more than a year away from the general election.

The serious people will probably start giving all this a thought come January. Everything we’re reading or hearing these days is going to be so irrelevant by the time it matters. Don’t forget that Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, has already dropped out (his second presidential failure). More and more will fall to the wayside in coming weeks and months.

Would you mess with the U.S. if this man was present?

Which is why I didn’t feel compelled to watch on Wednesday.  The re-run of “Hill Street Blues” that I watched was more entertaining than learning that Trump tried to back away from his past sexist trash-talk about Fiorina.

I say “Capt. Furillo” for president ("Joyce Davenport" for first lady), with “Mick Belker” ("Grrrrrrr!!!!!") as his personal enforcer. It makes as much sense as any of the people who are really in the running.

  -30-

EXTRA: Talk can be cheap

Read my lips, No new taxes
-- Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush at the Republican National Convention, Aug. 18, 1988.

I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party

-- The pledge that presidential dreamer Donald Trump was asked by Republican Party officials to sign on Thursday.

  -0-

TRUMP: Will he regret Thursday

Democratic political partisans like to say that former President George Bush (the elder) made the biggest broken political promise in history when he claimed he wouldn’t raise taxes, then did so during 1990 and 1991.

Personally, I’d wonder if Trump will top that by claiming he will show loyalty to the Republican Party primary process.

BUSH: Would Jeb make a similar pledge?

IT JUST SEEMS Trump will let his ego dictate his actions, rather than any pledge he signs on Thursday. Particularly since the pledge is not a legally-binding document. Nobody's going to sue him if he runs regardless of the voters' will.

He may decide that the public “needs” him in the White House so much that he MUST continue to run for office – even if the naïve fools of the GOP pick someone else to be their nominee. And those polls out now that show Hillary Clinton winning a general election with most people voting for either Jeb Bush OR Trump outnumbering her support wind up being very accurate.

Which means that whatever Trump does publicly later Thursday at his New York offices may not be worth the paper it’s written on.

  -30-

Presidential candidate packs looking ridiculously nondescript these days

I have to make a confession – I am a political writer who finds the upcoming election cycle for U.S. president to have the potential to be an absolute dud.

The upcoming presidential candidate field ...

Much has been made of the fact that the Republican field of presidential dreamers is overloaded with a pack of guys (and one woman, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina) who have strong enough flaws that a blowhard like Donald Trump actually has the lead in various polls.

THEN AGAIN, WHEN there are 17 candidates who have expressed interest, it doesn’t take much support to have the lead. It could easily turn out that the bulk of GOP voters turn against Trump – who may already have all the support he’s going to get.

But I don’t exactly think that Democrats have any wrap on the general election coming up in just under 15 months.

It may well be that one-time first lady and Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton gets the party’s nomination, only to have all the past negativity that existed toward the Clinton name (both her and former president Bill) come back to whack her.

Take her down and make it possible for a flawed Republican to win the general election.

I HONESTLY BELIEVE that Trump and his over-bloated ego are intense enough that he’s going to be an Election Day factor. I see him more as the independent campaign because he won’t want no stinkin’ political party telling him what he ought to do!

My bottom line is that I don’t have a clue as to who could win. Clinton for the Dems, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for the GOP and Trump as the “none of the above” kind of candidate?

... has all the potential to be something  ...

It could happen. But who’s to say?

To me, the biggest question is the Democratic field. I find it intriguing that the two challengers with the strongest chance of beating Hillary are a pair of guys who aren’t even amongst the unofficial five candidates currently seeking the post.

IT IS ODD that the sitting Vice President isn’t among the five. Although I’m not sure Joe Biden is that strong a candidate. He ought to feel fortunate that the scandals of a couple of decades ago that damaged his political reputation seem to have been erased by him being Barack Obama’s “number two” guy.

And as for former Vice President Al Gore? He had his chance 15 years ago. Which is why I’m glad he’s not actively seeking the post.

Yet those two are bigger names and would draw stronger support than the other four Dems wishing to take on Clinton.

... only political geeks care about

I find the thought of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who campaigned in Chicago Monday night, to be intriguing – in the same way that Paul Tsongas (the former Massachusetts senator) was a curious sight for about five minutes before he faded away into obscurity.

AS FOR THE other Democrats – former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee – they may not be as strong as Sanders.

All of those “formers” included in their political descriptions make them sound like a batch of guys running for president because they have nothing better to do now. They need a job, and a place to live – both of which come along with the “presidential” title.

OBAMA: Not appreciated now

The only thing that may be as weak as the Republican candidate field is the Democratic one – maybe not as buffoonish, but still not the best of choices.

Which could well be the factual basis behind President Obama’s off-the-cuff comment from last month that he could “win a third term if I ran again.” More a sad commentary on the weak crop of candidates we have now; or evidence that we won’t appreciate Obama’s presidency until it is over and done with.

  -30-

Who knows who will really run for president come the 2016 election cycle

I’m not getting too worked up over the debate controversy over whether the Fox television network is unduly influencing next year’s Republican presidential primary with the rules over whom is going to be allowed to partake in their Thursday debate.

BUSH: The front-runner?

With 17 people on the GOP side officially expressing delusions of someday becoming U.S. president, Fox has said it will allow only 10 to be included.

THOSE 10 WILL be the ones who rank on top in an average of five polls. Which could result in some people who might theoretically deserve a review being excluded from inclusion.

Which will result in the public perception that they’re not really in the campaign.

Considering that several polls are showing the real estate magnate Donald Trump at the top of most polls, he’ll probably wind up getting one of those spots. There are those who feel he’s taking a spot away from a more qualified person.

Personally, I think any campaign Trump winds up running will be as a political independent – that way he can make it all about himself and not have to put up with political operatives telling him he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

BECAUSE ‘THE DONALD’ doesn’t take such insolence lightly!

For what it’s worth, it doesn’t surprise me to learn that a broadcast-mentality would not think it worthwhile to have every single candidate in their debate program.

FIORINA: The legitimate business exec

I still remember back in the days when I was a reporter-type person in Springfield, Ill., and a local TV type told me it was irresponsible to have all the candidates in a debate. Weeding out the fringe candidates who have no chance of winning a primary is part of the job, I was told.

I believe that if a candidate gets on the ballot, they deserve to be included – so that their stupid comments can shoot them down in the minds of the electorate and cause them to lose.

GRAHAM: The political pro

BUT AT THIS stage, we don’t have anyone on a ballot. It is still that early. I’m figuring that Fox thinks it will be impossible to include 17 people and give them all time to say anything significant.

Although I wonder if even 10 candidates creates that situation. I doubt we’re going to learn much about anyone, particularly since the focus now is on Trump and how the others will counter him.

RUBIO: The Cuban w/o Latino support

Trump’s money allows him to buy public perception, particularly since the story line being pushed is if any of the other candidates can boost themselves up to the Trump level in the election cycle.

The only reason I don’t get too bothered is because I’m realistic enough to know that most of the candidates who don’t get included in the Thursday debate will likely have faded out and be long-forgotten by Election Day.

HECK, EVEN MANY of the ones who make the debate (we’ll be told Tuesday night which ones will be included) will not actually be on the ballot come Nov. xx, 2016.

CHRISTIE: Noo Yawker for those who hate N.Y.

At this stage, a debate is more about comic relief – as Saturday Night Live once phrased it, a presidential debate is a “chance to avoid saying something stupid.” Thursday’s program is not about educating the electorate about candidates.

It’s more about making people think that the Fox News Channel is at the heart of the campaign action, and that we ought to pay mind to their political spin when deciding what to believe.

Besides, I can already hear the rants about the proposed CNN debate (which says they will split the program into two so they can include all 17 people) – all the people who get put into the program without Trump will complain that they’re on the political “B” team.

  -30-

WALKER: Campaign has $5M in Ricketts family cash

EDITOR’S NOTE: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Former New York Gov. George Pataki. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn.  Real estate developer Donald Trump. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The photographs used here are the ones I think are worthy of consideration. Not that I'd be inclined to vote for any of them.

Must we relive Election Day ’92? It wasn’t that interesting 1st time around

PEROT: Looks good next to Trump

I must confess; I actually gained a bit of respect (sort of) for Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot – but only because Donald Trump comes across as a bigger buffoon than the big-eared would-be politico ever was.

For Trump made it seem like he expects to fill the same niche that Perot filled some 23 years ago when he made his initial presidential bid.

REMEMBER HOW THE 1992 presidential election cycle came down to George Bush (the elder) against Bill Clinton, with Perot deciding that the public needed to pick someone else – and that somebody was meant to be him?

TRUMP: No ears, but bigger ego

There are those people who, to this day, claim Perot was the deciding factor – stealing votes away from Bush and resulting in the two terms of Clinton as president.

Of course, I’d argue that a guy who only got 19 percent of the popular vote nationally and was unable to win the Electoral College in any state wasn’t that much of a factor.

Perot inspired a certain segment of the electorate that usually is politically apathetic to actually get off their duffs and cast votes for president. Without Perot on the ballot, Bill Clinton still would have won, but the voter turnout would have been a record low.

SO WHAT’S MY point in reciting this mini-history lesson? It’s just that it seems we’re going to get the same circumstances arising come the 2016 election cycle.

CLINTON: The better half?

A Clinton (as in former first lady Hillary) against a Bush (as in presidential son and brother Jeb). With a rich guy with an over-bloated ego deciding he’s running for president as well.

That is what Donald Trump has become – just a slightly more urban version of a rich buffoon who thinks he’s entitled to his wealth and anyone he can buy off into thinking he has a clue.

The Hill newspaper out of Capitol Hill in Washington reported that Trump says he’s inclined to back away from his talk of running for the GOP nomination for president because the Republican National Committee isn’t showing him the kind of respect he thinks he deserves.

BUSH: Erasing the taste of W?

IF HE RUNS as a political independent, he can go about saying or doing whatever he wants without anyone letting him know he’s become an embarrassment to the people whom he would theoretically be representing.

Then, Trump wouldn’t be stuck in a field of 16 (including himself, thus far) Republican candidates. He’d be the lone wolf.

Although I think it would expose Trump for the political weakling he truly is. His roughly one-quarter of the Republican vote that polls show he has would actually be ridiculous.

Since the rest of the party would wind up backing the resulting party winner – which could be former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

HILLARY VS. JEB, with Trump also taking some votes. I could envision exactly which kind of people would bother voting for the man who thinks the whole world needs to be branded with the “Trump” logo (Would the White House become the Trump Mansion?).

It may well be the nativist element with a particularly irrational hang-up concerning Mexico – the ones who think that Trump made some legitimate point with his trip to Laredo and who are delusional enough to think an impenetrable wall can be erected.

MEZVINSKY: The first grand-daughter?

And perhaps the ones who don’t trust Bush (the Third) because he married a Mexican woman; making the potential first children Mexican-American by ethnicity.

A truly xenophobic campaign that would wind up being more goofy and embarrassing to the nation than anything Perot ever said or did.

IT MIGHT ALSO be the element that ensures we get the concept of “President Hillary R. Clinton” and Charlotte Mezvinsky as the “first granddaughter.”

Unless the Democratic Party side of the electorate decides that Clinton has campaigned unofficially for so many years that they’re now tired of her before they ever get a chance to experience her.

A topic for another day’s commentary, to be sure!

  -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-