We don’t like Bruce Rauner; what else is new? Do we like any politicos?

Is there such a thing as a political person whom we actually approve of? I’m starting to wonder.

We don't approve of Bruce Rauner...

It seems like every time we hear of another poll of a government official, the result is that we don’t approve of the person. We can’t stand them. It’s a wonder we ever elected the bum in the first place.

ALL OF WHICH makes me think that these surveys of likeability and approval ratings probably don’t mean much. We voted that person in, and in most cases likely would do the same when given the chance again.

It comes across as our complaining because we don’t have fantasy candidates – who because they are fantasy exist merely in our imaginations.

I was inspired by the Morning Consult study of governors that showed our very own state chief executive had dropped to a 34 percent favorable rating, with a majority (54 percent) going so far as to say they disapprove of Bruce Rauner and his performance.

It’s no wonder, what with the approaching a year-long stalemate over preparing a budget. Even the people who voted for Rauner back in 2014 likely are disgusted with the politically partisan mess that has developed. 

NOT THAT IT should be said that the public has turned on Rauner. My guess is that if a poll was done of the likeability factor and approval for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, it would be equally as high against him as it is against Rauner.

The truth most likely is that we don’t like anybody who’s foolish enough to actually run for political office, once they assume the position and become responsible for getting things done.

Which is hard for political people, because they inherently have the desire to be liked by the public – if not downright worshipped. It’s the reason they run for public office in the first place.

 

... and don't think much of Mike Madigan either

They may talk about the desire to do the public good and the people’s business. But it really is about their egos enjoying the idea that it is them who has the power to get those things done.

SO I’M NOT all that swayed by the high negativity ratings for Rauner. Heck, I’d be surprised if they weren’t terrible.

Even the fact that he’s the sixth most unpopular governor in the nation shouldn’t be a surprise. Although I’m sure that the five people ahead of Rauner on that list aren’t too enthused, particularly Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback – who comes off as Number One on the list of most disapproved of.

In fact, it often surprises me to learn of President Barack Obama’s approval ratings. As of Thursday, 52 percent of the public finds him favorable, according to the Gallup Organization. Also, a study by Gallup back in March found that 45 percent of people think Obama deserves praise for making this country “more prosperous.”

A statement to which I’m sure a certain segment of the electorate will blatantly despise. They’ll claim there’s no way it could be true, and that the pollster must be flawed because they were never asked what they thought.

SOME PEOPLE ARE just determined to complain when it comes to electoral politics.

Someday, we'll despise Donald Trump too

Which is something that perhaps Donald Trump ought to learn if he’s serious about going forward with a presidential campaign.

For all the people who now say they can’t stand the idea of Trump getting the Republican nomination for president, there are others who are all gaga about the idea. Yet even they will eventually turn on Trump – particularly as it becomes more apparent that he could win.

Should that happen, Donald could easily find himself the most despised person in the nation – which is a concept that I’m not sure his ego could handle.

  -30-

Governor, Ill. House speaker should drop to knees and praise Rahm for detracting negative attention

Rahm Emanuel may have his share of outspoken enemies determined to take him down, and that is all the more reason why Bruce Rauner and Michael Madigan ought to drop to their knees and kiss the ground he walks upon.

EMANUEL: Number 26, says GQ

Almost as though Rahm were “his holiness” himself – the pope.

FOR EVERY BIT of attention paid to Rahm Emanuel these days by people determined to spin his story into the ultimate master-minded criminal conspirator, that’s one bit less time spent contemplating the fact that we’re nearly halfway through Illinois Fiscal ’16 without a budget.

And that some people are seriously having their livelihoods threatened because of the inability of certain state agencies and programs (the ones that don’t have the clout of a federal judge insisting they remain operational) to continue without impediment.

Yes, eventually we’re going to get the tale of someone who died because of the lack of state services that they relied upon to remain alive. The sheer stupidity of it (it may already have happened, yet we just don’t know about it yet) is amazing.

So I don’t want to hear that the Rauner/Madigan dispute is purely political while Emanuel’s alleged inaction nearly covered up a police killing.

NOT THAT I’M trying to defend anyone It’s just awesome this era we’re in during which we really despise our elected officials whom we picked o the last Election days.

Who do we hate more – Rauner or Emanuel? Or is the eternal despising of Michael Madigan by everyone who doesn’t actually live in his Southwest Side legislative district overcome all of them?

RAUNER: Is he falling into background?

The simple answer to those questions is that we hate Emanuel more. Because he’s “da Mare,” the head of city government, which is the only one that really matters (to the quintessential Chicago mindset).

The state and its officials are supposed to be subservient and go along with what they’re told to do. So naturally any hostility toward Emanuel (particularly by those who have never been able to defeat him at the ballot box) is more intense!

I DON’T SEE GQ magazine declaring any of our state officials amongst the worst people in our society of 2015 (Rahm ranks number 26, higher than football player Johnny Manziel but not nearly as bad as Kim Davis or Bill Cosby).

MADIGAN: Overshadowed?!?

Although I can’t help but think all of this will wither away into a generic sense of loathing that will linger, although we won’t be able to remember any of the details (“Gee, why do we ‘hate’ Rahm?,” we’ll wonder to ourselves a few months from now).

It’s our short attention span – it makes it tough for anything to linger. Heck, many of us probably can’t remember the details of why we’re upset with either Madigan and/or Rauner – only that they must have done something wrong because they’re elected officials.

Which usually is a good rule of thumb for us to follow, regardless of who the official is or what political party they’re allied with!

OF COURSE, THERE also is the fact that our mayor has a wonderfully-timed sense of vacation. He’s in Cuba with the wife and kids on what his staff insists is an educational sojourn – he’s not just enjoying the Cuban beaches and cigars (he probably doesn’t care about Cubano beisbol, getting his fill of it on the rare occasions he sees the White Sox play ball).

With all the government rigamarole involved, a trip to Cuba has to be plotted out well in advance. No one, not even a former White House chief of staff, can just catch a flight out of O’Hare International (or Midway, if they’re looking to be cheap) straight to Jose Marti Airport in Havana.

The sarcastic side of me wonders if Rahm Emanuel is considering going into exile now that he’s in Cuba – just like all those revolutionaries of the early 1970s who fled the U.S. to escape the hostile environment that existed in this country toward their activities.

Although it wouldn’t shock me to learn that with the worldwide spread of this story, that even in Havana there are those who’d want to run Rahm out of town for his inactivity!

  -30-

Quinn the most unpopular governor? Let’s not give him that much credit

It always amuses me whenever I see a poll saying that Gov. Pat Quinn’s approval ratings are dismal.

QUINN: Apathy, not disapproval

I don’t doubt that they are. But I also can’t help but snicker at such polls, including one published this week by Public Policy Polling that says Quinn is the “most unpopular governor” in the nation.

FOR IT JUST seems that some people don’t really get the political dynamic involved in Illinois, particularly with that of Quinn. We don’t hate the man. We really could care less about him personally, except for the conservative ideologue types who are still bitter that their preferences are so far out of the Illinois mainstream.

The fact is that there are four officials who are at the top of the political pyramid in this state – the mayor of Chicago, the two U.S. senators from Illinois and our state’s governor.

Yet when  it comes to the politically aware amongst Chicagoans, it is always clear that the governor is easily Number Four among them in priority. He’s the one we care the least about – and that is true regardless of which person actually holds the position.

So for me to think that there’s anything about Pat Quinn that makes him so despised? I really have to ask, “What makes you think he’s so special?”

FOR THE RECORD, the new poll I referred to says that Quinn only has the approval of 25 percent of Illinois residents who were surveyed – with another 64 percent of people saying they “disapprove.” The remainder, I presume, are too preoccupied with other things to care. Although you could argue that  even most of the “64 percent” are apathetic when it comes to state government.

Or maybe they think we’re asking about the appellate court judge Pat Quinn – whom I remember from his days a couple of decades ago when he was one of the top assistant state’s attorneys at the courthouse in suburban Markham.

The same poll also compares Quinn to various prospective political candidates (both of the “D” and “R” persuasion), and finds Quinn lacking.

Although I couldn’t help but notice that the number of “undecideds” is high for all the questions that pitted Quinn up against a GOPer. All of which means that the 2014 election cycle could well turn out like the 2010 version.

A CHICAGO-AREA MAJORITY of voters wound up casting ballots for the Democratic candidate in Quinn, rather than the Republican William Brady whose conservative rhetoric on so many issues wound up offending them.

Perhaps if he had piped down just a bit, we’d have “Gov. Brady” these days and Quinn would be off in political retirement.

Quinn won then because the opposition got people to actually pay attention to the race and decide it was important to them to defeat the Republican opposition who was trying to demonize the city’s image. It could easily happen again.

If anything, Quinn’s vulnerability is in the primary election – and only if someone decides they’re willing to risk a bloody partisan political fight amongst Democrats. Which is a long-shot, no matter what ego-stroking rhetoric they spew right about now (although a part of me has always wondered what Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is waiting for – she’s not a “kid pol” any longer).

ALTHOUGH THERE COULD be problems there. Most of the people who most vehemently whine and cry about Quinn are those who want something of a rural bent to our political scene (they see 96 counties versus six, rather than two-thirds of Illinois’ population living in the six urban counties).

Those people aren’t going to get all excited about the idea of the son and brother of a “Mayor Daley” deciding to run for Illinois governor – even though certain Chicago-based political geeks used to fantasize about what it would be like if we could have a Mayor Daley (as in Richard M.), a Gov. Daley (as in William) and a Cook County Board president (as in John) all at the same time.

That’s too much Daley for anyone to comprehend – and it’s not going to happen.

But so much of these polls are so early and there are so many factors that will kick in that ultimately will get the bulk of those Democratic partisans to cast their votes in their reliable manner.

THAT “64 PERCENT?”

It’s probably people who aren’t really concerned about Quinn one way or the other – combined with Republican partisans whose real objection is that the whole wide world doesn’t cast ballots in a knee-jerk partisan manner favorable to their political party.

  -30-

 

Where’s Bob Wallace?

I’ll admit it. I watched WBBM-TV, Channel 2’s 10 p.m. newscast last week Friday just to see how the return (for a single night) of Bill Kurtis and Walter Jacobson would come off.

The reminiscing was intriguing, although I’m wondering how many 20-year-olds were turned off by being reminded of the significance of an era occurring before they even existed. Then again, who am I kidding?

TWENTY-YEAR-OLDS don’t watch television news, they just watch the clips of a story or two off the station website, before going to YouTube to find a “cool” video of somebody doing something stupid.

Clumsy cheerleaders, anyone?

I am old enough to remember the days when WBBM was a significant player in the Chicago news scene (and when the idea that “happy talk” WLS-TV, Channel 7 would ever top them would have been considered absurd).

When my mother and I watched the newscasts on television in my household during my youth, it was always Channel 2.

SO IT WAS nice to see the chatter between Kurtis and Jacobson and Harry Porterfield (before showing us that freaky magician doing that levitation trick with cigarettes). It was even amusing to hear the youthful sports anchor say he only got to be on the air that night because Johnny Morris was busy (although us real old-timers remember the days when Brent Musburger was the local sports guy who would have been covering Morris the football player for the Bears).

I chuckled when I learned that Jacobson’s “perspective” commentary about life these days at City Hall so got under Richard M. Daley’s skin that Hizzoner Jr. felt compelled to bash back. Like father, like son.

But I hope that WBBM officials have enough sense (they probably don’t, most television executives don’t) to realize the fact that they got a ratings boost that night (WBBM was Number Two in that timeslot with a 7.3 share, not that far behind WLS's 8.3 share) was exactly because the Kurtis/Jacobson pairing was a one-time event.

For better or worse, times have moved on. Trying to pretend we’re back in 1973 with Bill and Walter giving us the news from the ‘BBM newsroom (with Jacobson using a specially-crafted chair to cover up the fact that he is a height-challenged man) would fail.

THE GAG WOULD get old too quick.

Besides, in my mind, two factors were missing from Friday night. One would have been Mike Royko to write a newspaper column the next day finding some reason to puncture Jacobson’s pomposity.

The other was the absence of the one-time feature reporter, Bob Wallace, whose cutesy reports from assorted festivals and events across the Chicago area still linger in my mind some three decades later.

A part of me believes semi-seriously that WBBM hasn’t been the same since the day Wallace stopped covering food festivals for Channel 2 news.

-30-

Do we love him, really love him?

I must admit to being unsure what to think of the fact that Forbes magazine picked President Barack Obama “numero uno” on its list of the most powerful people on Planet Earth.

I realize its more symbolic of the influence that every U.S. president has, than anything Obama himself has accomplished during what is coming on his first year in office.

BUT COMING SO close after the U.S. elections that many political pundits were all too eager to interpret as a blow to Obama’s influence makes me wonder how premature those blows to Obama’s reputation were.

Or could it be that any attempt to legitimately analyze the Obama presidency is premature. It most likely is an activity that won’t seriously begin until some time about the year 2020.

Honestly, I don’t know if I buy into the notion that the Obama presidency has been all that powerful, in that it has been stagnated by the Republican opposition that views its success record as being how many accomplishments can it deprive to Obama’s record.

If Obama is truly the Number One powerful person on Earth, does that mean the Republican caucus is Number One-A?

I WOULDN’T GO that far, so the idea that Obama ranks Number One is most likely an effort by Forbes to put people on top of the list that they think potential readers will have heard of, combined with a few picks (such as the narcotrafficker from Mexico who made the list at Number Forty One) meant to stir up controversy.

But I also never bought into the thought last week that the elections taking place around the country were a sign that the people of the United States of America had managed to turn away from Obamamania and were now showing they wanted Republicans to govern us.

That is just as ridiculous an idea as thinking that Obama’s receipt last month of the Nobel Peace Prize was evidence that he is one of the all-time greats to live in the White House (it merely means some elements are hoping to give him some more credibility so he can achieve that all-time great status).

What makes me downplay such a thought in my mind is the fact that the Obama critics these days are of two separate mindsets. There’s no way they will ever unite into a single force, because each considers to be the other the central focus of all the problems confronting this country these days.

WE HAVE THE social conservatives who are disgusted by the fact that Obama is president and whose vehement opposition was expected. It will last until the day that Obama is no longer president (whether that comes in 2013 or 2017 has yet to be decided).

But there also are those liberal elements of our society who wanted a hard-core change in the way things were being done. To those people, Obama is way too concerned about reaching out to the conservatives and trying to get at least minimal support for his ideas.

They are the ones who think the lesson Obama should learn from the health care reform process this year is that his opposition doesn’t want to be engaged in the process, and in fact merely wants to throw a wrench into the gears of government to prevent much of anything from happening.

In short, if Obama truly were reaching out to the latter group, he would have the conservatives even more worked up than they already are.

I KNOW SOME pundits are pondering that the more liberal elements who are disappointed with Obama will wind up staying home on future election days, thereby making it possible for the conservative element of our society to be a large-enough segment of the electorate to win elections.

I’m not convinced that will happen, not even because Republicans managed to win elections in Virginia (which by my “book” is a southern state that is part of the GOP base, the fact that Obama took it’s Electoral College votes in 2008 was probably a sign of how weak an opposing candidate John McCain was).

The reality is that there are going to be many incidents in the coming years that will constitute the “ups” and “downs” of the Obama presidency. Barack will have his good days and bad days. It is only now that we can see the whole of the presidency of George W. Bush in its entirety that we can start doing serious study how how ineffective the era was.

Perhaps it is the one-time history student in me that is talking (where I was trained to look at the big picture, rather than the minutia), but trying to figure now how good Obama is in the West Wing is just an exercise in trivia.

WHICH MEANS I’M not about to rush out to buy myself a copy of Forbes magazine just because they came up with a list that puts Obama two slots ahead of Russia Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Because by the time I finally do see the magazine on a newsstand, there’s likely to be some other event or incident that will be interpreted by the more shallow among us to claim Obama is back in the dumps again.

-30-