I laugh in his face at the thought of giving Trump any campaign cash

As far as I’m concerned, this week’s horrific arctic-like weather is the ultimate proof of damnation. Hell truly has frozen over!

TRUMP: He wants your cash!

How else to explain that someone, somewhere out there made a decision that I might be inclined to make campaign contributions to support the continuation of President Donald Trump’s political aspirations.

IT’S TRUE. MY load of e-mail messages included, amongst with all the other junk I often receive, pleas in the name of Trump himself and his daughter-in-law Lara – insisting that I respond by Midnight to show my support to The Donald and overcome the hysterical nuttiness of the Hollywood crew.

Whom they insist are trying to raise significant amounts of cash meant to support a serious Democratic Party presidential challenger come the 2020 election cycle.

Obviously, I let that deadline come and go. I was not a part of any attempt by Trump to get people to give his campaign at least $1 million by the FEC reporting deadline that has passed.

Which was so important to the Trumpster because his ego felt the need to make a statement showing that people actually like him. Rather than all the ego-bashing he’s been enduring as the public (the true majority) made it clear we were more than willing to blame him for the federal government shutdown that lasted more than a month – and could theoretically resume in a couple of weeks IF Trump is so inclined.

LARA TRUMP, IN the plea attributed to her (it’s actually the Trump Make America Great Again Committee that’s issuing all this e-mail traffic) says “all the top Democrat contenders for the White House have been raising big money from Hollywood donors to jumpstart their presidential campaigns.”

Which is something I find amusing because Trump, by engaging in such tactics, almost makes it seem like he’s channeling Sally Field and her famed Oscar acceptance speech of “You like me, you really really like me” that she never actually said.

But the man’s ego is such that he feels compelled to make a grandiose gesture. In that regard, he’s like the organization Democrats within Chicago government – who often have trouble accepting the idea that people might legitimately not support them on Election Day and honestly believe near-unanimous voter outcomes are to be expected.

LARA TRUMP: Trying to help father-in-law

I have no doubt on some level that Trump will never truly get over the fact that some 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that he only won due to a glitch within the Electoral College process.

HIS GOAL PROBABLY is to try to get something he can claim to be a majority in 2020. So he can then try to re-write history to erase the facts of Election ’16. Similar to the old Soviet ways of rewriting history to reflect the perception the powers-that-be want to be remembered.

Perhaps that’s the real attraction between the Trump persona and the ways of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Regardless, it is ridiculous that we see the modern trend of electoral politics is that of government officials of significant wealth trying to buy their way to Election Day victory. I suspect they think if they buy their way to office, then no one can tell them what they can or cannot do.

But in Trump’s case, if he does get significant amounts of campaign cash, it’s likely to be from those lower-middle-class people who make up the bulk of the roughly one-third of the American population who still approve of the president’s performance in office.

DALEY: Trump fantasizes of his victory margins

IN SHORT, PEOPLE who really can’t afford to make significant donations. Which is all the more reason Trump touts the gimmick that he can “triple” the amount of money one donates.

A $250 donation becomes a $1,000 payout – all in the name of boosting the ego of Donald John Trump. Which is why I’m sort of offended that Trump’s fund-raising plea began by saying, “We haven’t seen your name…,” as though implying I’m under some sort of investigation that could penalize me for failing to support the Trumpster.

The thought that anybody ever seriously thought I’d support this president financially is laughable – until you realize it means somebody noticed my work and put my name on the potential donors list without seriously reading what I've written.

That, I must admit, is a serious blow to my own ego.

  -30-

Does Trump yearn for old Everly Brothers tune; “When will I be loved?”

I’m sure the people in our society who gave us Donald J. Trump as our president (the 46 percent who actually voted for him) are wondering right about now what it would take to appease the rest of us.
 

COMEY: Trump got to fire somebody

For many of us are disgusted with the conduct of now-former FBI Director James Comey. Some of us believe it was his handling of an investigation into those “dreaded” e-mail messages by Hillary Clinton that gave a last-minute momentum push to the Trump campaign to put it over the top on Election Day.

THE POINT BEING that many of those who are saddened that we’re not now experiencing the deep spiritual experience of our nation having its first female as a chief executive aren’t going to feel much sympathy for the fact that Comey is now among the ranks of the unemployed.

Although it will be interesting to see how quickly somebody manages to put him on their payroll as an adviser or consultant or some other make-work post that enables them to provide him with something resembling an income.

The ideologues probably want to believe that all of us (the majority of the electorate that wanted Clinton or someone other than Trump to be president) have now got our way, and we ought to just “Shut up!” about our Trump criticisms or anything else we have to say.

Of course, the conservative ideologue type usually just wants everybody to “Shut up!” and do what the ideologues tell us to do. So there’s nothing new there.

BUT THE TERMINATION of Comey’s employment did manage to catch the nation off-guard, what with its timing Tuesday night. I’m sure there were conversations taking place across the country during the evening hours by people speculating on how erratic the behavior of our president truly is.

There is the speculation that Trump fired Comey so as to thwart any investigation the FBI might be doing into whether or not Russia government officials or operatives in any way committed any acts that might have influenced the election outcome.

Did the thought of a woman as U.S. president so bother the thought process of Russian leader Vladimir Putin that he felt compelled to get involved?

 

TRUMP: Wants our admiration, even if by force

Other people are bringing up the “Saturday Night Massacre” of 1973 when then-President Richard M. Nixon wanted to fire a special prosecutor so as to try to knock down investigations into the Watergate burglary, and wound up having to fire several levels of officials in the attorney general's office before he could find someone (William Bork, remember him?) who was willing to do the presidential “dirty work.”

BUT A PART of me wonders if it is something more basic, in that Comey in recent weeks has continued to talk about his actions with regards to Hillary Clinton and e-mails and why he was bothered enough by what he learned to keep the issue alive in the public eye.

He recently made statements indicating he was bothered by Clinton spouse (and former president in his own right) Bill having that private meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, which he said created the perception that HE was trying to tamper with FBI investigations into his wife’s behavior.

The point being that by continually bringing the issue up, Comey was reminding the public that it was NOT a majority of people who wanted Trump to be president. Although supposedly being the factor that made Trump president, he was becoming the reason some of us will NEVER regard this Age of Trump as being a legitimate expression of the sentiments of our society.

Whereas if Comey could have kept his “trap shut” and let the issue wither away, the reality is that most of us would have forgotten the details. Then Trump with his knack for “alternative facts” could have come up with a version of reality that would make us think we “like me, you really like me” as much as Sally Field felt at that Academy Awards ceremony of long-ago.

BUT THAT IS likely never to happen, although it is also true that we’re likely to never know the truth of what really happened, or how Russian operatives could have tampered with our electoral process or if it was more our own incompetence that could let something happen.

Yet this is Donald Trump, the real estate developer from Manhattan who likes to build gaudy structures around the globe and brand them all with his name – thinking that it means we associate the mention of himself with class, elegance and sophistication.

Instead of just tacky trash that comes in overpriced.

Which is why I often get the image in my brain of our president in some secluded room, singing to himself that 1960 hit by the Everly Brothers – “When will I be loved?”

  -30-

Somebody’s delusional, but whom?

I know that here in Illinois, there are those who are convinced Gov. Pat Quinn is doomed – his approval ratings are so low there’s just no way he can win.

QUINN: Winner by default?

Heck, they’re convinced no matter who takes the Republican primary come March, THAT’S the next governor of Illinois.

OF COURSE, THERE also are those who think the GOP is so chaotic and unorganized that no matter who wins the primary, that’s the loser of the November 2014 general election.

There are those who will tell you in all sincerity that the lack of a presence by Barack Obama himself on the 2014 election cycle ballot means many would-be Democrats just won’t care enough to turn out to cast ballots.

Particularly here in Illinois, where the “Top of the Ticket” will mean voting yet again for Richard Durbin and Quinn himself – the man who supposedly only has the approval of about one quarter of Illinois voters.

But then, there are those who are convinced that the partisan antics taking place these days in the District of Columbia are so appalling to the electorate that many of us just won’t want to cast ballots for anybody carrying the Republican label.

ESPECIALLY IN A place like Illinois, where the two-thirds of the population that lives in urban areas overwhelms the other third in rural areas who see red at the thought that electoral maps don’t depict Illinois as “red.”

So it was with some interest that I learned of the new poll by MoveOn.org Political Action – the one that implies the House of Representatives is seriously likely to flip over to Democratic Party control.

The poll did a survey of 24 House districts currently represented by Republican officials, and found that the discontent is enough that only three of them are safe in next year’s election cycle.

OBAMA: Not on ballot, will his fans vote?

In fact, in 17 of them, people are willing to say they’d vote for a Democrat (any Democrat) instead of the incumbent.

AMONG THOSE DISTRICTS is the Illinois 13^th in central Illinois, the one represented by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill. That’s the campaign where people are mostly paying attention because he’s being challenged in the GOP primary by the one-time Miss America – Erika Harold.

Although if this poll is any indication, people perhaps should be paying more attention to the mass of Democrats who are interested in taking the House seat. That person might be the one who gets the actual general election vote.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has said it considers this particular district (where the Democratic votes from Champaign and the St. Louis area typically are outweighed by the rural swath of central Illinois that connects the two) a priority in their efforts to regain the House.

DAVIS: Doomed to defeat?

As far as whether or not the House of Representatives goes toward the Democratic Party (thereby eliminating the knee-jerk opposition that President Barack Obama faces on every issue), I’d say there’s still a lot of time for things to change.

WHO KNOWS WHAT will happen next November?

What intrigues me is the degree to which this partisan wailing taking place these days continues to impact the future. Will we literally see a backlash against Republicans of all kinds on account of the nonsense being spewed today?

I would find it incredibly amusing if it turned out that this rhetoric literally did stir up the Chicago Democratic vote to turn out to the point that it overwhelms the rural Illinois vote that probably is having delusions these days of being large enough to depose Pat Quinn.

Is the rhetoric enough to overcome a “26 percent” approval rating – which isn’t all that out-of-line with what many government officials get these days; we don’t like any of these people!

A LOT OF people like to say that Obama and Quinn have been extremely lucky in their electoral campaigns – overcoming obstacles that would have toppled many campaigns.

But maybe it’s just that they had weaker opponents – and the fact that we as a society don’t care for the conservative ideologues (they think they’re Sally Field, winning the Oscar for “Places in the Heart”) to the degree that the ideologues think we do.

Then again, I don’t think we like, really like, any political people these days. We vote for the least offensive option.

  -30-

When do endorsements matter?

It never fails to amaze me the degree to which political people think that official endorsements mean much of anything.

QUINN: He wants the state slating!

You’d think the fact that officials see how low they turn up in political polls ranking their approval, and they’d realize that we’d think just as little of the people offering up the endorsements as we do of the officials who supposedly are being supported.

IT IS WHY I’m going to find it amusing if the Democratic Party of Illinois sticks to its plans to meet Sunday in Springfield for a formal slating session.

Of course, the only statewide election of any significance on March 18 where there is a likelihood of a contested Democratic Party primary is the fight for governor.

That is what will be at stake – will the official mechanism of the Democratic Party at the statewide level make a formal statement that it prefers to have Pat Quinn seek another term as governor?

Or will there be enough dissent that the party won’t take a stance – which would leave the state committee chairmen (two from each congressional district; one male and one female) to say whatever it is they really feel next year when the gubernatorial campaigning reaches its peak.

IF THERE IS an official candidate slated for office, it means the party officials have to publicly back that choice. They may secretly want the other candidate, and may do things in private to undermine the slated candidate. But publicly, they will not oppose the preferred candidate.

The Chicago Tribune reported last week that the reason the party is bothering is because Quinn, himself, asked for a slating session. In theory, it means that he’s confident enough that HE will be the official pick.

DALEY: Does he win by losing slating?

In reality, it will be embarrassing for his campaign if the party can’t get a sizable majority of support for Quinn. They don’t have to back the Bill Daley opposition campaign for Quinn to come out a loser.

Will there be enough Democratic Party love for Quinn (or distaste for Daley) that the party officials (particularly those from the rural areas who think the incumbent governor is too Chicago-oriented) put aside the fact that many of them think of the Mighty Quinn as the political equivalent of a cocktail weenie?

AND IF, BY chance, the Democratic Party of Illinois (whose chairman, by the way, is none other than Michael J. Madigan himself) takes a solid stance, will anybody take that endorsement seriously?

FRERICHS: He wants backers

Will anybody in today’s day and age care about what the party officials think?

Heck, I don’t think it means much that the Cook County Democratic Party decided already to officially slate Quinn for governor come 2014!

In fact, to the Chicago city voters who will be the basis of whatever support Quinn does get in next year’s primary will probably think it more important that the Cook County party organization took a stance than that the Illinois party people did.

THIS COMING WEEKEND, if it actually takes place, could wind up being a complete act of futility. Except for the fact that political people seem to want to believe that political organizations can still deliver significant numbers of voters to their campaigns WITHOUT having to go out and deal with those voters on a one-on-one basis. It just sounds so nice to say that an impressive-sounding (to some) organization offering their support means anything.

FIELD: She played a 'first lady,' would she beat a pol?

Which is about the only reason I can think of that the campaign of Mike Frerichs for Illinois treasurer felt compelled to tell us this past weekend that the Illinois Democratic County Chairmen’s Association (the organization that makes the rural Dems feel like they have a say) endorsed his bid in the Democratic primary.

Considering that he’s the only candidate (as of now) in the running for the nomination, the state senator from Champaign who wants to be a statewide name just seemed a little too eager to brag that somebody likes him right now. As in really likes him.

Somehow, I’d vote for Sally Field over Frerichs for just about anything, if I had the opportunity.

  -30-