The “enemy” is out to get you – or so political operatives want you to think!

As a reporter-type person myself, I have often heard the argument from ideologues of all sorts how it is a good thing that the old means of disseminating information are being knocked on the ropes, so to speak.

It is now possible for people with varying ideas to get their messages out to the public (or at least that segment of the public they want to reach) without having anyone try to edit them into any sense.

ALTHOUGH I’VE COME to believe that this is just a batch of nonsense from ideological types who can’t survive in a true world of ideas – and think their only chance is to be able to outshout the opposition.

We’re in the campaign cycle, and in a few weeks will begin the most fervent activity prior to the Nov. 4 general elections.

So it’s to be expected that things are stepping up now. But part of the reason I have come to detest my smartphone is the flood of nonsense that is popping up through my e-mail accounts.

Now one of the drawbacks to publicly posting an e-mail address for this weblog is that there are some people who want me to hear what they have to say, and they feel compelled to put me on their automatic mailing lists.

HENCE, I GET many dozens of messages per day from political activists who are convinced they are going to sway me to their side.

And yes, I get the messages from all sides. Some people will beef up their mailing lists by putting anyone on.

So just this Friday afternoon, I got a message from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee telling me that if I don’t make a donation (which I can conveniently do via the Internet) to their efforts, then, “If we can’t cut the Republican advantage THIS WEEK, our chances of beating (House Speaker John) Boehner’s Republicans drop to zero.”

Along with a message from the House Majority PAC telling me of the ad buys by Republican operative Karl Rove that self-respecting Democrats just can’t let go unanswered.

“IF WE WANT a Democratic majority, we can’t afford to let Karl Rove’s latest ad blitz go unchallenged,” they write. Heck, earlier this week I got an e-mail message apologizing for the number of e-mails sent in the names of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi -- then asking me for yet another donation.

All of which comes across as a little bit whiny – poor little Dems who are getting bullied politically by the big bucks of wealthy individuals of a conservative ideological leaning who want a Republican-run government to bolster their interests.

But whining isn’t limited to anyone of a particular ideology. In addition to those messages, I got one from Jim DeMint of the Heritage Foundation that “liberals know how to reach the American people” and how they need my money to help them fight back to ensure that the conservative-leaning interests prevail.

As DeMint told us in his mass-produced e-mail, “Why is it that liberals continue to win victories despite decades of big government,” adding later, “We conservatives need an answer, and fast.”

FOR THE RECORD, I’m not sending money to any of these people. In fact, once I finish writing these commentaries, I’m deleting them from my log. Because as far as I’m concerned, they all amount to people whining and claiming “victim” status to get my money.

These people want me to vote against someone else, rather than telling me why I should vote for them. Which may well be the biggest flaw of the electoral process as it exists today!

Although I have to admit I find it laughable to read DeMint’s claim that liberals know how to reach the people. If they truly did, then there wouldn’t be so much circumstantial evidence indicating the GOP’s interests may wind up prevailing on Nov. 4.

Although it does have an element of truth as well. Because it seems the election cycles of recent years where there is respectable voter turnout are the ones where Democratic Party interests prevail.

THE ONES WHERE the people become apathetic about the electoral process are the ones that turn into “big years’ for the Party of Lincoln that often acts as though it is ashamed to have his name associated with them.

“Apathy” and “shame” most definitely are a pair of words I would use to describe the political mood I see amongst the public these days.

  -30-

Can we really reform redistricting? Is the ‘human’ element just too strong?

I always get a giggle whenever I log onto my e-mail accounts and see a prominent name as having “sent” me a message.

EDGAR: Pleading for my money

Not that I’m delusional enough to think that the aforementioned person has any clue who I am, or really cares what I think. But the way in which activist causes try to create that image can go far – particularly when they’re asking for money.

IN THE LATEST instance, I got a message on Thursday from former Gov. Jim Edgar – who apparently is now part of the Yes for Independent Maps crusade.

They’re a group that looks at the sorry situation we have where partisan politics has completely taken over the way things get done, and thinks the key to breaking up such political hard-headedness is to change the way in which legislative and congressional district boundaries get drawn.

After all, if political people don’t have such a strong influence in determining that their districts are drawn in ways to include only supporters and their opponents’ districts containing all the opposition, then maybe people might have more of a say.

As Edgar put it in the e-mail, the current redistricting measures, “harms communities across the state and creates a system where we, the people of Illinois, are no longer choosing their representatives.”

NOW I’M AWARE this is a generic form letter sent out by the group to many people who wound up on their e-mail lists (you should see the ones I constantly get from allies of Barack Obama, and even a few of Obama’s harshest political critics).

The real thing they want is for me to donate money. This latest e-mail contained a convenient link so I could easily whip out a credit card and make a contribution to the Yes for Independent Maps group (based in Chicago).

I don’t really believe that Edgar has given me any thought since the day he ceased being governor back in January 1999 (and I doubt he gave me much thought even when he was governor and I was one of the Statehouse reporter-type people who tried to document his every political move).

A noble cause?!?

But maybe he is sincere about this latest involvement in redistricting reform.

BECAUSE I REMEMBER that while he had a generally sympathetic Illinois Senate when he was governor (and for one brief two-year period had complete Republican control of state government), it was often those alleged political allies of the GOP who were his most outspoken critics.

And some of them who now wish he’d just go away as a relic of the past, rather than trying to influence current political policy.

When it comes to this particular issue, it really is a flaw of both sides. We hear a lot of complaining about how Democrats have used their influence over state government to disregard a significant swath of the state.

Yet I also recall that two-year period as one in which Republicans did exactly the same thing to the people they wanted to perceive as their opposition.

I CAN’T SYMPATHIZE with those GOPers who think they’re being dumped upon now by Democrats because it always comes across that they’re not interested in fairness as much as being able to be the ones who do the dumping on others.

The only problem I have with these activist-types who say they want to reform the process is that I’m not sure if we’re just going to get political geek-types with their own ideological hang-ups drawing boundaries.

For those who say the process should be done by a computer program that draws maps without regard to special interests, I’d wonder if the person who writes the program has his own hang-ups to deal with.

Because some of those “interests” – particularly all of those concerning districts promoting the interest of certain non-white persons in our society – do have to be acknowledged.

SO WHEN SOMEONE comes up with a way that can seriously disregard bias by all to prepare political boundaries, perhaps then I could get on board in support.

Until then, I won’t be taking up Edgar’s e-mail plea to donate my money. I’m skeptical.

And yes, I’m also cheap!

  -30-

Come Wednesday, no more $3 pitches

There is one aspect of the post-election cycle period that I’m looking forward too – the fact that my e-mail box associated with this weblog will no longer be cluttered with attempts by the Barack Obama presidential campaign to solicit my money.

OBAMA: $3 at a time

I can’t remember the last day that went by without my receiving something (usually several) asking me for something resembling a donation.

AND FOR WHAT it’s worth, the Obama people seem to like to play up the guilt factor more than my own mother ever did with me.

How many times have I been informed that some big corporate interest has a political action committee that just kicked in many millions of dollars – so now it’s up to me to help Democratic political interests try to match that so that Obama and his potential political allies don’t get grossly out-spent!

There also are the personal pitch e-mail messages meant for me to think that allegedly important people are taking the time to contact me personally.

Obama himself quite often, along with first lady Michelle. Then, there’s the celebrity crowd. I don’t really believe that singer Barbara Streisand took the time to write me a note – even though I got something from an e-mail account in her name.

THE SAME WITH comedian Al Franken – although my brother reminded me that the 1980s were the “Al Franken Decade,” which means his time to be influential is long-past!

Perhaps he can write a sequel book to his previous volume (entitled, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”) about his use in this campaign cycle.

ROMNEY: Going for bigger fish

The guilt factor even played on Sunday, as I received a message informing me that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (which is trying to get a Democrat-leaning House of Representatives in place to back Obama) has records indicating that I have donated NOTHING during this particular election cycle.

It also tells me that, “it’s critical that (I) make (my) donation immediately.” Or else it will be my fault if an Obama presidency gets stuck for the next two years with a Congress openly hostile toward his goals and desires.

MATCH THIS UP with an e-mail message I also received Sunday, telling me I should go to the campaign office nearest my home so I can help work the telephones for the next two days – all to try to persuade people to make a campaign contribution on behalf of Obama.

It has got to the point where I usually delete most of these messages from my e-mail box unread. It isn’t worth my time to read these generic pleas that are meant to appear as though they are personal.

In all honesty, I figure that Barbara Streisand is really trying to contact me about as much as that guy in Nigeria is a real-life human being in need of my assistance (and not just access to my bank accounts).

Why do I suspect that if it were possible, the Democratic political interests would just ask me to cough up an account number so they could make withdrawals as desired?

OF COURSE, I shouldn’t make this sound like purely a Democratic Party tactic. Republicans have their own ways of playing political hardball to get people to make financial donations to help pay for their political candidates who wish to overthrow the memory of the past four years. I also got an e-mail Sunday from "Mitt Romney" telling me how much he appreciates my "intensity" (and financial help) to bolster his own campaign.

And I got onto some Republican and Libertarian candidate e-mail lists (I get Gary Johnson updates, but nowhere near as many as the Obama camp sends out) in the same way I got onto the Obama lists – I signed up for e-mail alerts out of the hope it would give me an occasional tip as to what the campaigns are doing!

I haven’t donated to any campaign, ever in my life, and not just because I’m a cheapskate. It’s about that desire to appear disinterested in the outcome of Tuesday’s elections. I’m not among those who on Wednesday will be wishing they had written out “One More Check” to pay for another negative campaign ad on behalf of their candidate.

Because the bottom line is that the republic will continue to exist; no matter which side on Wednesday is convinced that the “End of the World!!!” has arrived because their guy lost!

  -30-

EXTRA: So much for cost-savings!

A part of me is wondering if Cook County Commissioner Bridget Gainer, D-Chicago, is one of the few elected officials with any level of common sense.

GAINER: Stating the obvious

That sure was the impression she gave off on Monday during the county board’s session.

IT WAS DURING the portion of the meeting devoted to the board’s Finance Committee. After approving various settlements of lawsuits (including one related to the bad behavior of now-incarcerated police Commander Jon Burge), the board members heard a revenue report.

A fairly routine procedure, I might add. Except for the fact that committee Chairman John Daley, D-Chicago, ended the report by waving his blue-bound copy and telling his colleagues that in the future they would not be receiving such printed reports.

Instead, beginning with the report intended for the county board meeting on June 5, the report would be sent to each of the 17 commissioners via e-mail.

Then, Daley said, the commissioners would be able to print it up for themselves.

WHICH STRUCK ME as a nonsense move, since it was supposedly meant to be a cost-saving measure (less printing, along with less paper and ink). But if each commissioner is having  their secretary print up their own copies (somehow, I suspect most of the board members get confused trying to figure out their laptops), where’s the savings.

Apparently, I wasn’t the only person to have that thought pop into my head.

Because right after I thought it, Gainer came out and said it.

“The secretary (to the board of Cook County Commissioners) may save (printing up) 100 pieces of paper, and the officials will now print up 100 more pieces of paper?” she asked.

IF THE COUNTY’S objective is to get people to think in terms of reading things off their screens, then perhaps the move makes sense. Although for those of us who remain more comfortable reading large sums of copy in an ink-on-paper format, then there just isn’t any real savings to the change.

And it certainly won’t save a penny if people start thinking of the matter in the way that Commissioner Joan Patricia Murphy, D-Crestwood, did. She semi-seriously said she would need to start purchasing a better quality of paper for her computer printer to make her own copy of the report.

“You’d better increase our budgets for our offices,” she said.

So much for a routine report remaining routine!

  -30-