I got my Topinka dish; and I didn’t even have to go to the estate sale

A Topinka item with no purpose? How appropo!

During my more than two decades of being a political reporter-type person, I have accumulated some pieces of memorabilia ranging from a pot holder depicting the face of one-time Illinois gubernatorial candidate John Schmidt to a ball cap of Bill Bradley – the one-time New Jersey senator.

Yet the item that amuses me the most is a glass dish with lid that I have kept on whatever desk I have worked at since back when I was a Statehouse reporter-type person in Springfield.

THE DISH WOULD be ordinary glass, not even tinted any particular color. But it has embossed on its lid the Illinois State Seal and the name of Judy Baar Topinka – who back then was the state treasurer.

I remember Topinka herself giving me the dish, while also concocting a tale about the many different uses one could put the dish to. Which makes me suspect it’s really just a less-than-tacky little trinket that serves no real purpose.

I also recall the reason she felt compelled to give me the dish was that one of her aides saw all the political junk I had accumulated, and he was offended that Topinka’s persona was NOT represented amongst the mess.

Including Judy in the mess was something he thought she would appreciate.

ALL OF THIS popped into my mind when I learned how Topinka’s family held an estatesale this past weekend; allowing people into her cluttered home in suburban Riverside to give them a chance to find themselves a great bargain on some item they could use for themselves.

Considering that I remember Topinka herself occasionally talking of how she’d shop at second-hand stores and at estate sales, I suspect she’d find it totally appropriate that her possessions were disposed of in such a manner.

Just a few of the items for sale this weekend

I didn’t make it out to Riverside – heck, I already have my Topinka-related possession (which for all I know will wind up at an estate sale hopefully to be held decades from now once I pass on). Although I saw the description on estatesales.net and the photographs of the merchandise that make it clear a lifetime’s worth of possessions were being unloaded.

It looks like the ultimate garage sale was held Thursday through Saturday in Riverside. The perfect place for Topinka-type people to spend an afternoon rummaging for that item they absolutely had to own.

NOT THAT I would expect anything of significant value was for sale. For one thing, Topinka held an estate sale of some of her possessions back in 2007.

The listing back then said much political memorabilia (including autographed photographs of her with assorted politicos) was up for sale, with some of the proceeds given back to the Republican Party that she was a loyal member of for so long – even though she could also get along with Democrats.

Which make me think that our state would be so better off these days if we hadn’t lost Topinka back in December when she passed away just after Election Day but before she could begin serving the new four-year term as comptroller to which she had been re-elected.

Thinking of Topinka and her junk makes me wonder how she’d be reacting to the stalemate taking place these days between Gov. Bruce Rauner and the Democratic leaders of the General Assembly in putting together a budget for the soon-to-be current fiscal year.

I HAVE NO doubt she’d be criticizing Mike Madigan and John Cullerton for their actions – she was a GOPer, after all. But I also have no doubt she would be appalled by the childlike tantrums being thrown by government officials of all political persuasions these days.

I don’t think she would have had that same press conference that current Comptroller Leslie Munger held to blame Madigan and Cullerton for the pending government shutdown (only 16 days ‘til July 1). She would have been trying to find that middle ground that would prevent a shutdown from being necessary.

And she’d probably be the one who – in private – would tell Rauner in rather blunt language what a knucklehead he’s behaving like and how quickly all of this could turn the people of Illinois against him if he lets his partisan desires to whack at the labor unions prevent state government from fulfilling its obligations to the people.

  -30-

Who does Daley back?

Excuse me for not being the least bit surprised when I learned that Mayor Richard M. Daley said this weekend that he has no intention of publicly endorsing anybody who is seeking electoral office in the Feb. 2 primary elections.

It’s not that Hizzoner Jr. doesn’t care about the outcome of next month’s Democratic primary.

BUT DALEY ISN’T about to put his intelligence quotient on the line by putting himself in a position where on Feb. 3 we can look back and see which of his endorsed candidates won and which lost. He gets enough grief from critics for sounding “dumb” when he speaks. He’s not about to do anything that might confirm that impression.

Now some people are trying to claim that Daley’s refusal (officially, Daley said he’s “too busy” being mayor to try to get involved in boosting others to Election Day victory. That makes him the complete opposite of his father.

The late Richard J. Daley always used his role as party chairman to reinforce his municipal authority as mayor. It’s probably evidence of how much times have changed in the past four decades that Daley the younger thinks he bolsters his mayoral authority by staying out of other people’s campaigns.

There are those who are trying to claim that the person most hurt by Daley’s refusal to publicly endorse is Todd Stroger.

AFTER ALL, IF Daley were to get involved in the Cook County Board president primary and start pressuring people to cast their votes for the incumbent (which is what would nominally be expected, a lot of the people who otherwise would complain about sales taxes would shut their mouths and vote for Stroger – even if one of their hands was being used to pinch their nostrils shut.

But that is not happening here. And like I wrote at the beginning of this commentary, that doesn’t surprise me in the least.

I still remember 1998 and the Democratic primary for governor when people aligned with candidate John Schmidt were eager to peddle the notion that Daley wanted his one-time chief of staff to live in the Executive Mansion.

He may have. I don’t think Daley was hostile to the idea. Yet he never game him the public endorsement, and one of his brothers, John, threw some public support to Schmidt opponent Glenn Poshard (who ultimately lost in the general election that year to George Ryan), although another Daley brother, William, did try to push the Schmidt campaign over the top on Election Day that year.

MOST YEARS, IT doesn’t even get that obvious.

For anyone who looks back at the local election cycles that have occurred since Daley the younger became mayor in 1989 would realize that the man rarely, if ever, goes so far as to publicly endorse someone.

The sight of “M.” behind a podium holding a formal press conference to announce that he thinks we the electorate should cast our ballots for ___________________ who is running for _________________ just doesn’t occur.

You would have a greater chance of seeing the Chicago Cubs in the World Series than getting a blunt endorsement from Daley.

IN FACT, HAVING Daley make comments like he did this weekend about formal endorsements being archaic has become as predictable a “news” story as the one produced by sports departments every summer when the Chicago White Sox travel to the Lakeview neighborhood and manager Ozzie Guillen makes comments implying that Wrigley Field is a rat-infested, urine-smelling dump.

So Daley may be correct when he says, “In this day and age, …it’s a completely different environment in politics. I’ll be very frank. Endorsements don’t mean as much as they used to in the past.”

He’s not going to tell us straight out who we should vote for.

Yet that does not mean there won’t be actions behind the scenes. If anything, we’re going to have to be on the lookout for the little activities that crop up around the campaigns to see which candidates are not being hurt by the mayor’s actions.

THERE WILL BE those individual candidates who suddenly get a few extra campaign workers loaned to them for a day or two to handle some project that helps get a political person’s name out in the public mindset.

For in an election such as the one coming up where there is a certain lack of positive interest (2010 is going to be a year people vote against someone or something, unlike ’08 where many people were voting in favor of an ideal they thought was personified by Barack Obama).

There also is the fear that the inclement weather of the past week will extend into early February (although why anyone is shocked that it is cold and snowy in Chicago during the winter is a surprise to me) and could hold down the vote.

The biggest help anyone could give one of this year’s candidates is a little extra help from people who are willing to do the legwork to convince potential voters that their specific candidate is one of the few who isn’t a buffoon.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Is Rich Daley’s refusal to publicly back Todd Stroger (http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1941144,daley-denies-stroger-rift-no-endorsement-121509.article) a political kiss-off, or did Stroger have so many problems that Daley’s thoughts on the matter wouldn’t matter.

The mayor is keeping quiet about Election Day (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03cncstroger.html) while his brother, William, is trying to maintain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/25/AR2009122501283.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) some sort of moderate viewpoint among Democratic candidates. Neither of these actions should be seen as surprising.

Common sense rules as Roland, Roland, Roland avoids perjury, perjury, perjury

When I first learned that Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Schmidt was taking it upon himself to investigate Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., on whether he committed perjury before the legislative panel that ultimately impeached Rod Blagojevich, I figured the motivation was politically partisan.

I figured the chief prosecutor for the Springfield area who is Republican was trying to get himself some legal attention at the expense of one of the top-ranking Democrats in Illinois government. My only question was how blatantly partisan would the resulting case against Burris be?

SO CONSIDER ME relieved when I learned Friday that Schmidt (who is NOT the same one-time gubernatorial candidate whose name sort of “happens”) decided there’s no basis for a charge of perjury against Burris.

Reading the reports about the letter Schmidt sent to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, to explain why he couldn’t justify the charge against the man who once was Illinois attorney general, it almost seemed like Schmidt had read my mind.

Either that, or the commentaries I wrote earlier in the year and published on this site that explained why the people who despise the thought of Burris as a senator are wrong in their eagerness to get the criminal justice system involved.

I’m not so filled with a great sense of my own importance that I think the state’s attorney is truly a regular reader of the Chicago Argus. So I’ll assume that the logic that Burris didn’t commit the offense of perjury was so obvious that even Schmidt saw it.

AS SCHMIDT EXPLAINED in writing, Burris provided vague answers to the legislative committee that interviewed him as part of their proceedings that ultimately resulted in the impeachment and removal from office of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

But then again, Schmidt noted that the questions Burris was asked were vague in and of themselves.

So Burris did not provide inaccurate information in responding to their inquiries. Schmidt also noted that letter Burris sent to the impeachment panel before it adjourned did provide a few additional details.

So in a purely legal sense, Burris made a technical effort to elaborate on his information while the panel could still have acted. So claiming that the offense of perjury took place is too much of a stretch in the legal sense.

NOW FOR THOSE people who are about to respond that Burris’ less than truthfulness means he was not being honest, and that means he lied, which means he deserves some sort of criminal punishment, I have to seriously argue that they need to take some sort of sedative.

Those people are the ones who are the true problem in our society today. They want to take someone who, for whatever reason (either disgust with Burris’ tie to Blagojevich or with any public official who doesn’t use the “Republican” label after their name) they don’t agree with, and they want to put ‘em away in prison.

That is a police state at work, and that is so contrary to the ideals upon which this nation was created that the only phrase I can think of to describe how those people feel is to say they are “un-American” (even though I’m sure some of them will argue they’re the only true patriots).

If anything, there was one part of Schmidt’s letter that surprised me. I had always thought that the legislative panel could have asked more specific questions of Burris. Schmidt agreed.

BUT SCHMIDT DOES not think that is any reason to look down on the Legislature, or to be critical of their performance as an impeachment panel.

He points out that their purpose in questioning Burris was to put out vague inquiries that would help them elicit a lot of general information, some of which they could then hone in on in their attempt to determine whether it was appropriate to remove Blagojevich from office two years prior to the end of the term to which a majority of the people of Illinois elected him.

By Schmidt’s view, the impeachment panel had a larger purpose than singling out Burris, who made an effort to say as little as he had to say when testifying under oath. That actually is a sensible course of action.

In one sense, it is his right (a person has the right not to provide incriminating evidence against themselves). I think anyone who has a problem accepting that concept is confused about what our system of justice is truly based upon.

SO IT WOULD appear that Burris, who on Friday issued pronouncements claiming he is “vindicated” by Schmidt’s decision, can now breathe a sigh of relief.

He has one less venue to worry about. He can be the guy whom people shun in the District of Columbia, while also struggling to gain attention in Chicago. He doesn’t have to cope with the idea of being a criminal defendant in Springfield as well.

But he still has his problems. A lot of people in Washington these days consider him to be “persona non grata” and probably will not have much sympathy when the Senate ethics committee decides what to do with Burris.

They are investigating as to whether Burris’ answers do not comply with the way a U.S. senator is supposed to behave. That requires a much lower standard of behavior to constitute as improper, and the people who are eager to dump on Burris are quick to point out that the Senate could bump him from his seat altogether.

PERSONALLY, I THINK they’re more likely to issue some sort of censure against the man – which would put a mark on his legacy. I’d go so far as to say it would ensure he would not get the Democratic nomination for Senate in next year’s elections, but I think that was already set.

Censure won’t make much difference. But at least he won’t have to suffer his political humiliation from a jail cell of sorts.

He’ll just get to slink back to Mahalia Jackson’s former house in the Chatham neighborhood and live the rest of his life in retirement.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The State Journal-Register newspaper in Springfield makes it possible for us to read (http://extras.sj-r.com/pdfs/burris.pdf) John Schmidt’s actual letter to Michael Madigan.