Oh, be quiet, J.B. You're confusing us!

All the more reason we ought to hear less chatter from officials about presidential impeachment who aren’t directly involved in the process. Because it all too often seems like they don’t have any comprehension what it is they’re talking about.

Everybody has opinion on Trump outcome, … 

Take the case of Illinois’ governor, J.B. Pritzker, who back in April engaged in rhetoric that tried to make it seem as though he has long been a supporter of those people who want Donald Trump removed from office by force of Congress.

BUT THEN LAST week, the Politico newspaper published a Pritzker interview in which it seemed our governor was not quiet as hard-line on the impeachment issue. Perhaps he’d rather see Trump lose the 2020 general election and be removed from office that way.

But now, the Capitol Fax newsletter points out that J.B. may be backing away from that stance. Or as the Springfield-based newsletter phrased it, he’s “backing away from backing away.”

As the newsletter quotes the governor, “I think he should be out of office as soon as humanly possible. The only question to me is, is that gonna happen with an impeachment process or is that gonna happen with an election?”

Huh?!?

IT SEEMS TO me that Pritzker wants to be in the camp of people who don’t think much of Donald Trump (which according to the most-recent Gallup Organization poll includes 51 percent of the country). But the ranks of people who think it a national embarrassment that The Donald was ever permitted to occupy the Oval Office are split on this issue.

Pritzker not being able to take a definitive stance on presidential impeachment does nothing more than clutter the public discourse with more vague pronouncements that don’t do a thing to make the issue more clear to the public.

Personally, I’m amongst the ranks of people who’d see the impeachment process as a complete waste of time – largely because even if the House of Representatives with its Democratic Party majority votes to impeach the man, he’d still have to go on trial before the Senate.

… but does Pritzker know enough for it to matter?

Which has a Republican Party majority loaded with officials who are determined to protect the presidential reputation no matter how stupid he gets.

I REALIZE THAT the pro-impeachment types argue they’re making a political statement and that they want to be on the record as wanting to Dump Trump from the White House. They talk of putting the Senate on the record as being for The Donald, because they want to believe it will hold the GOP up to shame and ridicule.

Which, if you want to be honest, is nonsense. Largely because I’m convinced the Trump political backers have no shame. They’re also more than willing to spin the process into a claim that Trump has been vindicated – a word they’d prefer to use over “acquitted.”

Which they’ll hate to use because it would imply there was legitimacy to the charges against Trump to begin with.

Pushing for impeachment could do little more than create a lengthy process that ends with Trump remaining in office – and further motivating the ideologues into thinking they’re morally superior for backing Trump to begin with.

IF ANYTHING, IT’S going to take an outright electoral defeat to actually get Trump out of office (although it wouldn’t shock me if Trump backers were to think in terms of a coup ‘d etat to remain in office beyond January 2021, regardless of what the people say).

Yes, these are irrational political times, and we have to think in such terms, which are appalling but honest and truthful.

So Pritzker might have been right when he told Politico that there might not be enough time to work our way through the impeachment process and actually remove Trump from office. It doesn’t help matters if his stance keeps switching on the issue.

Could Trump return just like Smith did?

But if we look at Illinois political history, there’s an even more-embarrassing scenario – take the case of former state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, who was expelled from the Illinois House in August 2012 following a criminal indictment. Only to get re-elected in the November election that year. Don’t put it past the Trump-ites to vote for the man out of spite to any impeachment attempt!

  -30-

We need to make up our collective minds about Trump impeachment

As much as I’d thoroughly enjoy the concept of Donald Trump going into the history books as the first president to actually be removed from office through the concept of impeachment, I’m realistic enough to know that thinking about it is really nothing more than a complete waste of time.

Not likely to get past coloring book stage

The release of a redacted version of the Mueller report about the Russian government interfering with the 2016 election process to benefit Trump may well have come up with nothing that would warrant a straightforward criminal charge against The Donald himself.

BUT IT REALLY is a complete lie to say that Trump was vindicated in any way by the report. There are enough details to make Trump look like a buffoon in ways that some members of Congress would like to use as justification to proceed with impeachment.

Which is a concept I don’t think much of because I think the ultimate failure would be twisted by Trump as further evidence that he was “vindicated” – which would be a total lie.

Yes, the Democratic majority that controls the House of Representatives does have enough people that they could go ahead and approve articles of impeachment. They could say they “impeached” Trump the same way that Republican ideologues always like to say they “impeached” former President Bill Clinton.

Tickets bearing admission to Johnson, Clinton … 

But to actually remove a sitting president requires a trial before the full Senate – with the Supreme Court chief justice presiding. It would require a supermajority of support to convict and remove him from office.

THERE’S NO WAY the current Republican-leaning Senate would even come close to doing any such thing.

Republican partisans wound up making fools of themselves back in 1998 when they persisted in trying to remove Clinton from office – unable to create a bipartisan movement that actually believed there were legitimate grounds the president needed to be ejected from office.

Do we really need to see the same happen, in reverse?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she’s not inclined to support actions toward impeachment because she agrees it would be a waste of time. Republican ideologues are determined to support Trump no matter how clueless and ignorant he gets.

… impeachment proceedings. Will Trump be next?

BUT THEN THERE is the view of House Intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who told the ABC “This Week” program, “Impeachment is likely to be unsuccessful. It may be that we undertake an impeachment nonetheless.”

So maybe it seems some people are determined to play out the same ignorance of some two decades ago – only to see the incumbent remain in office.

There is one point we ought to keep in mind in coming months as some people continue to tout the “I” word as the only fate that Trump ought to have to endure.

“Impeachment” is a political process – NOT a legal one. Which is very well why it may be possible that Trump didn’t do anything in conjunction with Russian government officials that would be worthy of criminal prosecution, but where his behavior would have crossed over so many ethical lines of appropriateness that officials could talk seriously about removing him from office.

NONETHELESS, I BELIEVE that people interested in removing Trump from the White House ought to focus their efforts and attention on the 2020 election cycle – come up with a candidate who can put together a credible vision for our society that would bring this Age of Trump to an end!

Not as 'final' an act as some might think

Something that, as of now, may not happen – as we seem to have so many politicos determined to think that anybody can beat up on Trump without having a proper vision for our society that they can offer. Which is a formula for failure.

As in we could well get the “four more years” that Republican ideologues will fantasize about and chant for often in coming months by people determined to vote for Trump solely because he offends the vast majority of us.

And all the talk about “impeachment” that some people seem determined to engage in now will turn out to be a complete waste of time!

  -30-

Impeachment just more blowhard chat

Excuse me for not getting all excited at the concept of our very own Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., saying he’s going to lead an effort seeking the impeachment and removal from office of President Donald J. Trump.

GUTIERREZ: Wants Trump Out! of office

Gutierrez isn’t the first member of Congress to engage in chat threatening the political livelihood of Trump – whom my own guess has gotten used to people talking trash about him, and usually responds by engaging in his own trash talk about them.

IN SHORT, IT has been a lively year since the date a year ago Wednesday that 46 percent of the people who bothered to cast ballots decided they wanted nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and enjoyed the possibility of a “President Trump” – in large part because of the way they see it offends the sensibilities of a majority of our society.

So I have no doubt that the Trump backers will be more than willing to talk trash about el Gallito himself – and may even offer up their own countermeasure to threaten to remove Gutierrez from his post representing the Latino-oriented neighborhoods of Chicago in Congress.

In short, Gutierrez says he’ll have articles of impeachment by the upcoming Thanksgiving Day holiday, specifying why Trump should be removed from office.

But I don’t think he, or anyone else in Congress of a partisan leaning inclined to want to impeach Trump will be able to come up with a reason that the political partisans who would actually decide on impeachment and conviction would accept as legitimate.

MY POINT BEING that Gutierrez and others in Congress can threaten all they want. But the fact remains we have a Republican leaning Congress that still sees Trump as being the guy who gave them the authority to ignore the concerns of people who aren’t like them.

Admittedly, Trump’s presidency has shown him to be politically unstable enough that he’ll turn on them. But it is going to take some act that Republicans perceive as political treachery before they think of his removal from office.

In short, it probably would take some action against Republican interests that the majority of our society would actually approve of!

TRUMP: Likely crafting a smug retort already

So when Gutierrez brings up the impeachment talk, it’s mostly about gaining attention for himself and his own partisan causes. Which isn’t unusual. All government officials have some sort of agenda whenever they speak publicly.

WHEN GUTIERREZ CALLS Trump a “bigot” and “bully” for his conduct on immigration-related issues, keep in mind there are those people for whom that’s the exact reason they’ll stand behind Trump until the very end.

The Trump election of a year ago has been all about that segment of our society wanting to resist the changes for the better that have come in so many areas. A part of me has always compared it to being the equivalent of that old school-yard bully who became irrelevant as everybody grew up wanting to assert himself to regain that sense of control he used to have.

As though he thinks that was the natural order of things to reign terror over the schoolyard populace.

Personally, I see the concept of “impeachment” as a last resort in that I think when the people vote stupidly (as can easily be argued the 46 percent did back on Nov. 8, 2016 – perhaps it was something in the air caused by the Chicago Cubs winning a World Series?), they ought to have to live with the results.

ENDURE THE SHAME of having everybody else look upon them with wonderment at just how they could sink to that level of vacuous and stupidity.

On Thanksgiving, we'll want to eat -- not ponder politics

And perhaps the majority of us (the 49 percent who wanted Hillary and the other 5 percent who were so appalled by both that they went for a Libertarian or some other third-party presidential candidate) also need to live with a level of shame that we could be so careless in our system that a 46 percent minority was capable of legitimately winning an election.

So for those who are looking to Thanksgiving to see what formal reasons Gutierrez comes up with for wanting to impeach Trump, it won’t matter much.

In all likelihood, we’re stuck with Trump through at least 2020 when the next presidential election cycle occurs. And if we manage to stupidly let him win another term, it will be no one’s fault but our own.

  -30-

How close to a coup will we come with regards to the fate of Donald Trump?

One of my distant cousins felt compelled to express her disgust with President Donald J. Trump, taking to Facebook to let it be known she’s among the majority of our society wishing he could be removed from office.

TRUMP: How can we dump him from office?

Me, feeling the need to be a complete smart-aleck, responded by saying such talk amounted to a coup d’ tat and was un-American. Although I then added in full sincerity the part I really believe – that we’re stuck with the buffoon in the post of president and commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces and that we’re going to have to suffer a bit.

THAT IS OUR penalty for picking to be our president the rube who thinks all his money buys him sophistication and knowledge. We, the people, picked him, and now we’re going to pay for our moment of vacuousness.

Even though we had an election in which 54 percent of people who voted chose someone other than Trump, the rules under which our elections operate allowed Donald’s 46 percent support to be sufficient to give him an Electoral College majority.

And as various polls show, those who were among the 46 percent are largely satisfied – mainly because they enjoy the thought that Trump’s presence in the political post so offends the people they disagree with.

Considering that those same individuals are the ones who gave Republican interests their current control over Congress, there’s just no way that we get any serious effort toward impeachment.

THE PEOPLE WHO are in control would likely find themselves on the wrong end of the conservative right’s retribution if they were to do anything to harm Donald Trump. As for those who think their sense of shame would become too intense; well, that’s nonsense talk.

What's worse? Trump thinks this is still real? Or worth defending?

Many in government have no sense of shame. If they did, they probably wouldn’t have been able to bring themselves to run for office to begin with.

So for us in the real majority, we’re going to likely have to endure the nonsense of moments such as Trump’s public withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, where he said he did it to support people like those who live in Pittsburgh, rather than Paris or any other foreign place.

Of course, the mayor of Pittsburgh quickly came out and publicly criticized the president for undermining a measure that would go a long way toward making the Pennsylvania city a cleaner- and more-pleasant place to live.

GRIFFIN: Too absurd to take seriously

WHAT I SUSPECT Trump really means is that he did something to benefit those people of the rural parts of Pennsylvania who provided much of the voter support that caused such places as that state, along with Michigan and Ohio, to swing over to the Trump column last election night.

It’s not like Trump is the kind of guy who gets too wrapped up in comprehending the details of his actions – his real quarrel over the environmental agreement most likely is a bad meal he once had while at a French restaurant somewhere in Manhattan.

So what should we expect in the way in expressing opposition to this Age of Trump that we’re now in?

There are the protests such as the one scheduled for Saturday outside the Dirksen and Kluczynski federal complex in Chicago – along with various other cities across the nation. This particular event is going to focus on Trump and Russia and the notion that the president is in an unhealthy collusion with that nation.

WHICH WILL GIVE an outlet to express the frustrations of those of us ashamed to live in a nation with a sizable batch of knuckleheads who had no problem with the image of former President Barack Obama facing a lynch mob but now are grossly offended at the latest nonsensical ramblings and images of comedian Kathy Griffin.

For the key to comprehending Trump’s actions is to realize he’s not fully aware of the details of his trash-talk, which enables him to spew such nonsense. It often may be based on the stereotypes of the past – such as his Pittsburgh comment.

CAPONE: Does Trump think he's still real?

It makes me wonder if something similar is happening every time Trump engages in trash talk of Chicago and its crime rate. Perhaps he thinks Al Capone is still on the loose in the Second City and needs to be reigned in?

Which probably has Trump wondering why that damned G-man, Eliot Ness, isn’t responding to any of his phone calls to order up a federal raid or two on “Scarface’s” South Side operations! Or maybe he's so confused he thinks he's really calling actor Kevin Costner?!?

  -30-

Start of a GOP tide sway against DJT?

I haven’t given any thought to impeachment of the president or any other scenario that would remove Donald J. Trump from his elected post prior to January of 2021 because I realize it’s not practical.

KINZINGER: First of GOP tidal wave?

Not that I’m at all satisfied with the performance of our nation’s president; although I’d argue he’s behaving about as incompetently as should have been expected. Anybody who thought he’d be better was thinking cluelessly.

BUT IT’S THAT I realize options such as “impeachment” are political maneuvers, which means we’d need to have a sense of unity amongst our government officials (particularly those in Congress) that Trump has to go – that we can’t afford to endure one more moment of him in office.

But I also realize that Congress’ current leadership is Republican, and that the election of Trump gave them what they have long desired (and honestly believe is the way government should always operate) – a condition where they can ignore the political opposition and do things their way.

In our modern era, it is the way of politics. We elect officials of the Republican persuasion who seriously see compromise as evil – which causes the Democratic Party opposition to get itself all worked up into righteous indignation in thinking they’re standing up for “the people” rather than themselves.

Meanwhile, we the people have to endure all the nonsense.

BUT THE POINT is that the Republican leadership will keep Trump in his post so long as he serves their needs, and will do whatever it thinks is required to prop him up and support him against the attacks of those of us in the majority who wonder how irrational a president do we have these days.

I’m sure Republican leadership thinks that all the Trump nonsense to date is merely stuff that irritates their Democratic opposition, which is something they probably take delight in seeing.

Which is why it is significant to see that Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., is now coming out and suggesting investigations of this Age of Trump. It’s a tiny little crack in the façade, and I’m sure Republican leadership will try to patch it over quickly before anyone takes notice.

 

PENCE: Thought of him as Prez scares people

But Kinzinger, who lives in Channahon, Ill. (just south of Joliet), is going public in saying he wants some sort of special prosecutor or independent commission to investigate Trump’s behavior. Later in the day Wednesday, the Attorney General's office named former FBI Director Robert Mueller to handle an investigation.

HE’S NOT COMING out and accusing Trump of anything, but he’s bothered enough by the endless rounds of stories concerning the presidential behavior that he wants to get at the truth.

If anything, it will be interesting to see if Kinzinger faces any kind of backlash from his own political party. As in, “Keep yer mouth shut!” and don’t give any encouragement to the opposition.

That probably will be the first reaction of many ideologue partisans who cast their ballots for Trump (the 46 percent) and most of whom remain committed to the man because they like the idea his presence infuriates their opponents – no matter how rational their opponents may be in the majority of our society.

But when we get the rounds of reports hinting Trump may have been careless enough to let classified national information slip to the Russian government, along with the latest New York Times report indicating he tried to pressure now-former FBI Director James Comey to quit investigating his national security adviser, this could be what causes a trickle to burst forth into a flood – turning that crack into a serious gouge in the wall.

OF COURSE, THERE’S one thing we should keep in mind. Removing Trump alone doesn’t change things. For his replacement would be the vice president.

 

TRUMP: Comical? Or terrifying?

And I know many a Hoosier resident who shudder in disgust at the idea of their state’s former governor, Mike Pence, becoming the occupant of the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. in D.C.

That could be what turns the comic relief government of the Age of Trump into a truly politically partisan era that seeks to ram its ideological leanings down the throats of the masses of our society.

Although there is one ultimate political truth; if we want to complain but can’t be bothered to vote in future elections, then perhaps we deserve whatever misery gets handed down upon us in the next couple of years.

  -30-

Taxman’s taking my money; there’s nothing left for political contributions

I can’t help but laugh at the most recent financial pitches I have received through the e-mail seeking my money.

We may fantasize, but is it worth our cash?

They’re coming to me in this weekend when I have to make my annual accounting to the Internal Revenue Service as to how successful I have been financially as a freelance writer, and I have to “pay up!” my share to the government.

SO THE IDEA that I have anything to spare right now, other than marking that one box on the tax return that asks if I’m willing to kick in $3 to the presidential election campaign fund, borders on being humorous.

Although to tell you the truth, a part of me is so appalled by the way the electoral process turned out this past cycle that I don’t know if I want to make the symbolic gesture that is supposed to benefit all of the general election candidates.

A part of me finds the CHC Bold PAC’s request for as little as a $1 donation to be more worthwhile, although if one reads their e-mail, it is quite clear they’re more than willing to take significantly larger donations.

And, of course, the group that wants to promote Latino political involvement in Congress is using a common tactic – they say their records show I have made “no donation” to their effort.

WHOSE PURPOSE IS to promote the concept of impeaching Donald Trump. Which personally is a goal I think will turn out to be pointless. So I’m not about to give up any cash, and not just because I’m a reporter-type person who never gives to such causes.

Actually, it would be more accurate to brand me a cheapskate than say I’m taking a principled stand. But even though I’m amongst the ranks of those displeased with the behavior of our nation’s 45^th chief executive, I realize that the Republican leadership in Congress isn’t about to dump on the guy whose presence gives them the potential for total domination of our federal government.

Do you really think Las Vegas ...

If the House of Representatives were to vote to impeach and the Senate were to preside over a trial, it would be because the conservative ideologues in charge there would think Trump isn’t being irrational enough in his political thought.

So Impeaching Trump, for those of us with a touch of rationality in our thought, just isn’t worth our time or money.

NOT THAT I’M saying we ought to blindly be following The Donald’s lead. We ought to be letting him know at every opportunity that he does not speak for the majority of our society.

... and Bernie Sanders go well together?

Which is the focus of another pair of e-mails I have received during the past couple of days from the Democratic National Committee – one from the party itself and another from new Chairman Tom Perez.

It seems in exchange for my contribution of as little as $3 (or as much as $100, or more, if I wish), I can be entered in a contest of sorts along with other Democratic Party faithful.

The prize? An all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas (and NOT the one in Illinois – remember the old “Green Acres” episode?) where one can participate in a Come Together and Fight Back rally with Perez and (drumroll, please!!!) Sen. Bernie Sanders.

HE BEING THE Democratic Socialist who, after years of trying to maintain his distance from the Democratic Party, decided he wanted the party’s presidential nomination.

Or, he being the guy who couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in the primary – even though there are some political operatives who want to spin the line that Clinton was the candidate so weak she couldn’t even beat Donald Trump come the November general election.

Should 5 percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all

The party claims they’ll pay the flight and hotel costs of someone to participate in the rally – getting to see the political process in action. Although to tell the truth, the idea of spending time in Las Vegas with the senator from Vermont seems less than enticing.

Even if the IRS (and the Illinois Department of Revenue) weren’t about to take my spare money, I think I would have no problem taking a pass on either of these offers. While I now turn to the wise words of wisdom of George Harrison.

  -30-

Impeach Trump? It won’t be for any reason we, the people, approve of!

I almost find it amusing to see certain politically-motivated people getting themselves all worked up into a lather over the concept of bringing the presidency of Donald J. Trump to an end via impeachment.
 

Maybe it's true; Julia Roberts is putting on weight

Going the route that the conservative ideologues tried – and failed, I might add – to use on Bill Clinton. Giving him the unceremonious boot out of office that would have tainted him for life, similar to how some of our parents’ generation wanted to do with Richard M. Nixon and his assorted crimes and misdemeanors against the people.

IF ONLY HE hadn’t have quit first, then been pardoned.

But back to the modern day, where it seems so many of us are offended at the concept of Trump’s presidency that, after only one month in office, we’re willing to semi-seriously engage in talk about his forcible removal from office.

Heck, the City Council in Richmond, Va. – the mind of the Confederacy of old that Trump probably thinks of as his base – took it upon itself to pass a resolution calling for presidential impeachment.

It’s just a resolution. It has no binding legal authority. One can argue that nobody cares what Richmond thinks about this issue. But it does come across as somewhat scary that Trump could have p-o’ed some people so quickly.

IT MIGHT HAVE made sense if the Chicago City Council had passed such a resolution – what with all the ridiculous pot shots Trump has taken at the city in recent weeks. Although I suspect the more creative political minds of the Second City will come up with a more humiliating outcome for the Trump legacy.

Redeemable at a future Trump hearing?

Something that forevermore taints the Trump name and reputation. Which, for all the times he insists on using his name as part of the buildings he builds and projects he completes is something obviously of importance to him.

My thoughts about all of this were triggered by an e-mail message I received Thursday from the Committee for Hispanic Causes – BOLD PAC.

The Washington-based group is trying to raise money to support its efforts meant to make people seriously contemplate impeachment for Trump.

Really???

BUT AS THE e-mail itself said of their plan to raise $1 million by Wednesday night, “We begged. We pleaded. And we failed!”

Of course, the group also made sure to tell me their records showed I had contributed nothing to their effort. Which was the point of the message; to give me one last chance to redeem myself in their eyes and cough up some cash. Something I still have not done, and am not likely to do.

Because while I am as critical of the Trump presidency and the circumstances by which it came about as much as anybody else, I question the point of focusing on his removal.

Not just because I could see how the concept of a “President Michael R. Pence” would be worse because it would put the federal government firmly in the hands of the conservative ideologues who are desperate to impose their will upon all of our society.

I DON’T DOUBT that it is possible the Republican leadership of Congress could turn on Trump and decide they want to remove him. But if that were to happen, it would be for reasons that the bulk of society would not approve of. Most likely for not being conservative extremist enough to satisfy the alleged alt-right that voted in large-enough numbers to create the Electoral College quirk that put Donald into office.

If there is to be a Trump removal, it won’t be for any of the reasons that progressive-minded people would want him out! Which is why I think it is a waste to focus too much attention on the idea of “impeachment.” I’m braced mentally for the idea of being stuck with Trump for the full four years and think the proper alternative is to focus attention on coming up with a solid presidential challenger come the 2020 election cycle who can undo the damage being done now.

At least we’re not at the point in our society that we’re talking about staging a coup d’etat. Or, with all the negative attention Trump has focused on Mexico, giving Donald a fate similar to the 19^th Century Emperor Maximillian – whom the French tried to impose on the Mexican people over their duly-elected President Benito Juarez.

Does anyone envision Trump's fate producing "great" art?

For those who don’t know your history, Maximillian died at the hands of a firing squad. Which may have made for an intriguing series of paintings by Manet, but isn’t the kind of scene we need repeated for the 21^st Century!

  -30-

Are we destined for “President Pence?” Should that scare us more than Trump?

Spending time as I do working as a reporter-type person on the other side of State Line Road, I have found a group of Democrats to whom the concept of the upcoming presidency of Donald J. Trump is not the most terrifying thought.
 

PENCE: From Indiana to U.S.A., could it happen?

For them to really get a jolt of fear down their political spines, it is the thought of “President Michael R. Pence,” their state’s former governor, ascending to the top post of the United States government.

PENCE GAINED HIS national infamy back when Indiana gave us a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that went so far over the top, even the conservative elements that govern the Hoosier State (which is truly a Bizarro-world take on what we have here in Illinois) felt compelled to scale it back.

But it was the measure that would have put the law on the side of those people who wanted to cite their religious beliefs as the reason to discriminate against people who weren’t like themselves.

Particularly when it comes to those who differ based on sexual orientation issues. But it gave Pence a national reputation – one that helped bolster Trump’s chances of getting elected back when the conservative ideologues weren’t sure if they could trust the rich to be president.

Now, Trump is the president-elect, and Pence moves up to the position of being one step down from becoming U.S. president – should something happen that would prevent Trump from being capable of finishing his term.

WHICH IN THIS political environment may well be a real concept – and just because at age 70, Trump is one of the oldest men ever elected president of this country.

There are those who speculate how unlikely it is that Trump will finish out the four years of the term to which he was elected last month and which will begin in January.

Of course, there are different reasons for their speculations.

 

TRUMP: Will he finish what he starts?

Some believe Trump is just too much of a political amateur to realize what he has got himself into, and will either become frustrated or bored when he finally realizes that image of himself as being the guy who bellows “You’re Fired!” at everybody who displeases him just doesn’t work in government.

HE COULD EASILY turn out to be like Sarah Palin – whose government credentials prior to her 2008 vice presidential bid were being governor of Alaska. But she didn’t even finish out that one term – making it only about two years into it before using her newfound VP nominee status to justify moving on to more visible ventures.

Which in her case amount to being a political loudmouth who spews her thoughts to whomever will listen (and usually winds up giving the real majority of us a good laugh).

Would Trump quit when he realizes life in the White House and on Air Force One isn’t garish and gaudy enough to live up to his tastes?

Or there’s the more extreme option – one that says Trump will do something severe enough to warrant his impeachment. I can’t envision what it would be, but anything is possible in this unpredictable political climate.

I COULD ENVISION a scenario in which his alleged Republican allies, some of whom were never thrilled with his presence instead of a more-reliable GOPer, turn on him. Or it could be the ideologues who banded together to give him that likely Electoral College victory next week decide that he’s not keeping his word to impose all those tyrannical measures that Trump talked about during his campaign that THEY TRULY DESIRE!

 

CLINTON: We can only dream of her presidency

Saying he’s not likely to move to prosecute one-time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton like he said he would during the campaign is a serious broken promise – along the lines of “Read my lips, no new taxes” is to more rational people when discussing the legacy of the first President George Bush.

I state it in that sarcastic manner because on a serious level, the only “crime” that Clinton committed was having the unmitigated gall to think she had any right to seek the presidency in the first place.

People who think like that could easily turn on their guy, particularly if they think they have a more stable and reliable conservative voice in place in the form of Pence – of which the thought of him in the Oval Office does give shudders down the back of the progressive majority peeved that the Electoral College didn’t reflect their reality in this particular election cycle.

  -30-

The “I” word

Believe it or not, the thought of impeachment for Gov. Bruce Rauner actually creeped its way into the conversation at the Statehouse in Springfield.

RAUNER: Impeachment ain't happenin'

Not that anyone who is serious about government is thinking of using the Democratic supermajority in the General Assembly to actually kick Rauner out of office.

THIS RANT CAME from Rob Sherman, the long-time activist who is an atheist and pushes to ensure that no traces of organized religion creep their way into government operations.

It seems that Sherman on Thursday showed up at the Illinois capitol building to appear at a hearing related to government operations, then brought up the notion that Rauner ought to be kicked out of office because of his office’s interference (for purely partisan political reasons) with the passage of a budget for the 2016 fiscal year.

I’m equally appalled that we’re going to hit the three-month mark next week – that’s literally one-quarter of the current fiscal year without a constitutionally-mandated budget to dictate how government spends its money.

But bringing up the “I” word manages to harm the cause of those people who think the governor is at fault in his budgetary negotiation behavior. It reduces the issue of budget talks to a clown show. Which does no one any good!

THE IDEA THAT Sherman would be willing to reduce the issue to a level of ludicrousity ought not to be a surprise. I still remember the first time I ever met the man (he showed up at the old City News Bureau offices at about 3 a.m. one overnight to play a tape of, then complain about, then-President Ronald Reagan making an insensitive remark) to know he’ll do anything to draw attention to his causes.

 

So showing up at the Statehouse to complain about the governor? It’s probably one of the most rational actions he’s ever taken.

But it scares me that anyone would think seriously to bring up impeachment, particularly since we have to admit that all Rauner is doing is taking a hard line against the concerns of organized labor.

If we were paying any attention during the primary and general election cycles of 2014, we’d know that Rauner fully intended to do such things. Anybody who is surprised by his attitude wasn’t paying attention during the gubernatorial campaign.

MADIGAN: Won't lower self to ideologue level

EITHER THAT, OR else they’re so clueless that they deserve any agony that is being brought upon them.

My point is that I don’t think the governor’s actions even come close to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are usually the standard for having the Legislature seriously consider acting to undo the results of a statewide election.

We voted for this good, and we probably have to live with that mistake through 2018. Perhaps in the future, we’ll give more serious thought to slacking off of support for the opposing candidate. Political apathy, such as was shown by many Democratic partisans in 2014, can be painful.

Besides, the mood of the electorate is that it takes a lot to get them worked up to the point where they want their officials thrown out of office. They may want to dump the opposition, but it shouldn’t be so easy.

INSOFAR AS TO whether or not impeachment is possible for Rauner, I’m pretty sure it isn’t. Because if it were, I’m pretty sure that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, would have had his political operatives begin the proceedings the instant the fiscal year began without a budget in place.

Or maybe sooner (the day after Inauguration Day?).

OBAMA: How quickly would some impeach him?

Because for one to seriously talk in terms of impeachment would reduce Madigan to a partisan level even lower than anything Rauner has engaged in. It would trash any trace of the moral high ground that the esteemed Mr. Speaker currently has and lower him to the level of the Republicans in Congress who cast all their votes in accordance to what most opposes the desires of Barack Obama.

And probably reduce him to a level of respect even lower than what Sherman gets for his continued rants against the existence of God – who if he does exist ought to start shooting down lightning bolts on our political people any time now because of the lack of a state budget!

  -30-

Does Trot mean more than Richard? Is Milhous merely a Simpsons character?

It has been 40 years since the date that Richard M. Nixon became the only U.S. president to voluntarily leave office – resigning the term that should have run through January 1977 so as to reduce the chance of criminal prosecution.

Because for those whose memories are too short (or who believe nothing occurred prior to Bill Clinton), the mood of the nation toward “Watergate” was ugly enough that Nixon likely would have been impeached by the House of Representatives, then convicted by the Senate.

HE BEAT THE partisans who were out for blood (and who would have loved nothing more than the sight of Nixon serving time in a federal correctional facility), then was spared the possibility of prosecution when – a month later – he was pardoned for anything he might have done by his successor.

But the passage of time, along with the ideologue atmosphere we now live in, makes me wonder if anybody comprehends what we went through back then.

I’ll be the first to admit not fully understanding the happenings back when they occurred. Although I was only 8 years old (6 back when the actual burglary at the Watergate building in Washington actually occurred).

My memory of 40 years ago today was the encyclopedia salesman who showed up at our home that night and made his pitch to my parents – with one of his selling points being that the book was so up-to-date that it included mention of Gerald R. Ford as our new president – which actually didn’t occur until the following day.

I ALSO HAVE memories of going to college (mid-1980s) with people who considered themselves politically-aware who were taught that the whole “Watergate” affair was little more than a plot by “liberals” to discredit a worthy president – with the actual actions not amounting to much!

Since then, we have had many more generations of young people come along. I wonder how many of them think of Cynthia (“Miranda” from “Sex and the City”) or Trot (of the Boston Red Sox) first when they hear the name “Nixon.”

And as for “Milhous,” wasn’t that Bart Simpson’s animated friend?

I wonder how many people are reading all the 40-year anniversary pieces about Nixon’s resignation and are viewing it as more evidence of old farts who can’t move on with their lives. Perhaps they think a real story with lingering interest is whether or not Tupac Shakur is really dead?

IF THEY THINK of Gordon Liddy at all, he’s that bald guy who goes around saying things like President Barack Obama is an “illegal alien born in Kenya” (he really said that on MSNBC). Not as the one-time FBI agent who wound up doing the most prison time of anyone for his Watergate involvement.

The simple fact is that “Watergate” (as in the burglary and attempt to install an illegal wiretap at the Democratic National Headquarters located back then in the Watergate building in southwestern D.C.) was a stupid incident that should have been a one-day story – if not for the fact that the Nixon administration’s reaction to the embarrassment they would have felt for being involved in such an act was to plot the cover-up – with the president personally getting involved.

It created an administration that believed it could break the law for its own benefit.

For those who go about these days screeching “Impeachment” in connection with Obama and who rant about his talk of executive orders to get certain things done (seriously, I have a distant cousin who at a recent family gathering couldn’t shut up about all the “illegal executive orders” that Obama was allegedly issuing), it’s not even close.

NOT JUST BECAUSE the Obama talk is a reaction to the refusal of Republican partisans in Congress to do anything. The difference between wanting to admit refugee children from Latin American nations into the United States and wanting illegal wiretaps so as to listen in on the political opposition is just so grand.

As for Nixon himself, I’ll be the first to concede great actions such as the normalization of relations with China and creation of federal regulations in areas such as the environment – actions that the ideologues would love to dismantle, if given the chance.

But he’s also the man whose “Southern Strategy” of the 1968 campaign cycle (so soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964) made it clear that some political people were more than willing to work with the segregationists of old.

And as for the break-in that resulted in Nixon’s televised resignation speech 40 years ago today (Chicago Cubs fans probably think it more important that 26 years ago, they tried to play the first night game at Wrigley Field, only to have it cancelled due to inclement weather), the pettiness of the act shows that the nation probably did need to get beyond the “Nixon years” sooner, rather than later.

  -30-