People willing to play partisan politics, so long as they think it's just someone else's money at stake, not their own

A pair of intriguing tidbits I stumbled across Friday on the Internet – the federal government shutdown affects the IRS employees who would process tax returns. Those people who go out of their way to file their returns promptly in hopes of getting a near-immediate refund will have to wait to get their money back.

IRS to become factor in govt shutdown

I also stumbled across a Facebook-type friend of mine who offered up the opinion that the shutdown will last “until” people start noticing their refunds aren’t coming in.

IMPLYING THAT DESPITE all of President Donald Trump’s attempts to turn the lack of a federal budget in place into a fight for a barricade to be built along the U.S./Mexico border will ultimately end as a fight over income tax return checks.

Or perhaps I should say, the direct deposits made into their bank accounts of their refunds.

And dadgummit, the people will be more than willing to blame Trump for the whole affair – if they think he’s depriving them of their own money.

This whole government shutdown has become pathetic – even by the standards of partisan political battles. It is a complete non-issue that has been elevated to the level of significance during the past two weeks.

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD never have gained any traction has elevated an irrelevant (to the overall budget questions) issue such as immigration policy, and is being turned into something catastrophic.

What’s really sad is we have no real idea how long it could last. For Trump himself has made comments implying both that this is an issue that could extend for months, if not years; and that it won’t. If anything, his admission that it won't sound more realistic, because otherwise, we'd have to think The Donald is dumb enough to make the same mistakes of stubbornness that dragged the Illinois governorship of Bruce Rauner to its demise last election.

Will IRS, credit card co's push Trump to back down

But the, it wouldn't be surprising to learn that Trump thinks he can declare the situation a “national emergency” and issue an executive order to have a border wall built regardless of what anybody else thinks, while turning the budgetary issue into a moot point. Which, truth be told, is the only style Trump has for governing.

If anything, his presidency to date has been evidence of why business executives with oversized egos are completely UNqualified to play politics or govern the public.

WE’RE GOING TO see politics more and more in coming days – what with the newly-elected House of Representatives that has Democratic Party leadership being more than willing this week to take as one of its first actions a vote that puts in place a federal budget that enables the government to operate.

Oh, and by the way, it ignores Trump’s wall “demands” completely, leading many to say Trump will use his “veto” powers and keep the shutdown going – with him them spewing more trash talk to place blame on Democrats.

Particularly on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., whom I’m sure Trump will greatly resent if history winds up recording her as the woman who thumped Trump on this issue, or any other that will come up in the next couple of years.

There are those politicos who are saying that a failure to get something resembling a border barricade built will be the ultimate demise of his presidency. That is, if you believe Rep. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.

WHICH IS NONSENSE talk, except that Trump himself spews so much nonsense that I don’t doubt he’s inane enough to believe it all!

Does it offend Trump ego to deal w/ Madame Speaker?

So I don’t really know how long all of the nonsense is going to last. It may well be that tax return issue that forces action to take place. Because we’re at that time of year where some people like to file their returns immediately after New Year’s Day so they can get a quickie refund – and a cash influx to help pay all those bills they incurred during the holiday season.

Forget the high-minded talk of Democratic ideals or cheap “America First” rhetoric or whatever partisan side’s talk you tend to listen to.

The real demanding presence could wind up being Visa or MasterCard sending people the bills demanding they “pay up!,” which they won’t be able to until that refund check, actual or digital, comes rolling in.

  -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.

Who should bother us more?

Whose “impersonation” ought to bother us more – Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., or the woman who runs the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the NAACP?

KIRK: A 'bro' from 'South Side?' Hardly

Then again, who is really doing any impersonating here? And how much should we really care?

PERSONALLY, I’M MORE bothered by what Kirk said this week than the actions of Rachel Dolezal, even though I’m sure the ideologues amongst us will want to claim that she is guilty of a lie, while Kirk is merely guilty of speaking like a fool for a few seconds.

Kirk is the congressman who earlier this week tried to make a joke about presidential dreamer Lindsay Graham, the congressman from South Carolina who happens to be unmarried.

Kirk thought he was being humorous when he referred to Graham as a “bro with no ho.” Apparently some attempt to gain a laugh from a lame attempt at an African-American dialect.

Even though I’m fairly sure no self-respecting black person would ever use that phrase under any context.

DEMOCRATIC PARTISANS HAVE hopped all over this phrase, hoping it softens Kirk up politically to the point where he becomes extremely beatable in next year’s election cycle.

Some have gone so far as to say “ho” is demeaning and sexist to all women – which it certainly is. Although Kirk’s likely opponent in next year’s election, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., made a point of issuing a statement Friday morning that makes it easy to make a donation to her campaign.

It’s all about the cash for Tammy.
 

DOLEZAL: Do we get to tell her what she is?

I’m actually bothered more by the follow-up line that came from Kirk’s mouth – the bit about how his “ho” comment is “what we’d say on the South Side.”

KIRK COMES FROM nowhere near Chicago’s South Side. His congressional district is the North Shore suburbs – which is about as far removed in character from anything connected to Chicago, let alone the South Side of Chicago.

For all I know, Kirk probably thinks there really is an “east side of Chicago” where his “mama prayed the night Chicago died.” Or so said that silly “PaperLace” song from several decades ago.

It further accentuates the idea that Kirk is talking out of his behind, which is what I’m sure some people want to say about Dolezal.

She is the woman who is coming under ideologue criticism because of reports that say the woman who heads the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the NAACP is a white woman, even though she claims to be a mix of assorted white, black and American Indian peoples.

HER PARENTS HAVE publicly said they think of themselves as white, with an ever-so-slight touch of American Indian in them. The kind of people who are eager to discredit anything that isn’t lily white are anxious to dump all over Dolezal are all aroused by this issue.

Considering how mucked up our society is on the race issue and its ability to deny what it finds too confusing to accept, I’m not so quick to dispute her racial claim. I also wonder how accurate a depiction of the interview a television snippet was – the one that appears to have her say, “I don’t understand the question” when asked what race she is.

The only ones who really seem to have a problem with this issue are those people who can’t comprehend how anyone could not wish they were white – or why anybody would want to be thought of as black.

Which makes me think the NAACP itself had the sensible attitude on Friday when it issued a statement saying “racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard” for a leadership post.

WHAT DOLEZAL’S VIEW of herself and her racial background (which her parents say was inspired by adopted step-siblings she had and a black man whom she was once married to) really comes off as her business, and no one else’s.

Whereas Kirk’s lame joke comes at someone else’s expense and ought to be regarded as an unwritten rule of political campaigning – “Don’t use racial dialects” ought to go down alongside, “Don’t be photographed wearing a sombrero.”

  -30-