What were the lessons learned from Anita Hill with regards to Kavanaugh?

I still remember the moment of the “pubic hair on my coke.”

KAVANAUGH: Purely partisan politics?

As in listening to a radio broadcast of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, when his former colleague Anita Hill recalled a moment of the two of them together when Thomas made his little quip to her.

MY COLLEAGUES AND I couldn’t quite believe anybody could be that lame in thinking such a line would be humorous. Or that Thomas could actually think that such talk would make him appealing to women.

But it really happened, the Senate eventually confirmed Thomas to his appointment that he still holds nearly 30 years later, and I’m sure there are political people out there who think the lesson learned from the whole “Thomas affair” is that such allegations are outlandish and best ignored.

Because, hey, we’ve had a misogynistic sort on the Supreme Court for all these years now, and it hasn’t brought an end to the Republic. Similar to how I’m sure they’re also thinking that it doesn’t matter what President Donald Trump (the man who supposedly thinks the way to appeal to women is to “grab ‘em by the pussy”) may have done in his life.

It only matters when Bill Clinton does it, because he has partisan leanings they are directly opposed to. Taking him down politically is the whole purpose, along with destroying anybody who might be remotely like him in any way.

GORSUCH: Does he need Trump allies on ct?

ALL THESE THOUGHTS have been popping into my head a lot with the hearings taking place concerning the political fate of Brett Kavanaugh. He’s the man whom Trump wants to put on the Supreme Court of the United States – in large part because of a belief he’ll shift the partisan leanings of the court sufficiently enough that the ideologues can start making good on their more-than-four-decade-old desire to do away with the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legitimate medical procedure.

So to try to take him down, we’ve learned about the woman who says that back when she was 17 (and Kavanaugh also was a teenager), he tried to molest her. She had to fight him off.

As if that isn’t sufficient, we’re now learning of another woman who remembers back to her freshman year of college in the mid-1980s when she says fellow student Kavanaugh used a college party to expose himself and try to get her to touch his genitals.

GARLAND: Some still bitter he's not on ct?

We actually have some people making the claim of, “How many women have to come forth before we see Trump’s appointee as unfit for such a position?”

ALTHOUGH I ALSO don’t doubt that Trump-types will never make such an concession – and not only because they just don’t care what these women say Kavanaugh did to them.

It’s all about the fact that Trump himself wants to be able to reform the Supreme Court in his own image, and needs as many people of his partisan persuasion to be appointed to the high court.

He has the one appointment he got because the Senate successfully managed to keep former President Barack Obama from filling the vacancy caused by the death of Antonin Scalia – an act that some find disgraceful. Although I’m sure the ideologues think the real disgrace is that Obama got to make two other appointments – and we now have Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in life-time legal posts.

Now, the conservative strategy is to ensure that Sotomayor and Kagan ultimately become isolated – and we get a whole slew of Supreme Court rulings of the future that come down to 7-2 votes. Which could happen if Trump is the one who gets to pick a replacement someday for 85-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

WHILE THE OPPOSITION will do what it can to thwart Kavanaugh – and theoretically any other opening there might be on the Supreme Court. Perhaps some think they can literally take back the high court seat they want to believe should be held by Merrick Garland (the man Obama tried to pick for the court, but couldn’t).

THOMAS: Does he need companion?

The shame of all this is that the women themselves become a sideshow. The reality of what happened to them all those years ago becomes irrelevant – to the point where back in 2010, Virginia Thomas (Clarence’s spouse) had the nerve to publicly demand that Hill apologize for letting the world know about his awkward-bordering-on-tacky sense of humor

Are we going to get similar demands in the future of the women who now are coming forth to tell their stories of back when they knew Brett Kavanaugh?

While it may be true that his behavior as a young man wasn’t much different from other males, it really doesn’t excuse him. And the fact that we already have Thomas on the high court doesn’t mean we need to have another boor to keep him company!

  -30-

Credit for, or conniving by, Madigan?

It hasn’t even been a full week since the Illinois House Democrats had to fire its long-time chief of staff because of behavior considered by some to be demeaning to women; yet da Dems already have a replacement in place and the new caucus operative is a “she.”

MADIGAN: Does he deserve blame, or praise?

Is that evidence House Speaker Michael Madigan (also the Illinois Democratic chairman) is a conniving political operator masterful in covering his own behind? Or someone who addressed a problem in a prompt manner?

I’M SURE THE way one views this issue is going to depend entirely on their ideological leanings. Because some people are determined to view several incidents of sexual harassment by political people solely in terms as an issue to be used to dump Madigan from political power.

Along those lines, I couldn’t help but notice the stories getting prominent play Tuesday morning about the woman currently suing Madigan because she claims he didn’t do much of anything to stop one of his political aides from his constant barrage of flirtations and sexual harassment.

The Chicago Sun-Times had it as their top story for a few hours that Alaina Hampton herself (the woman with the pending lawsuit) wanted to be the new chief of staff.

Yet I’m also wondering how many people learned of reports about Madigan’s response before they learned of Hampton herself.

BASHAM: The new Dem powerhouse

FOR THE RECORD, the new chief of staff is Jessica Basham, a former director of the Illinois House research appropriations unit – who issued a statement Tuesday saying she’s looking to hire a human resources director and an equal employment opportunity/affirmative action officer in hopes of creating a more fair working environment for the roughly 200 people whose jobs require them to call Madigan their “boss.”

Of course, Madigan will claim he didn’t hire Basham. He actually appointed a committee last week that was to review candidates for the chief of staff post. And yes, the committee was composed entirely of women – although they all were politically connected and most were themselves elected legislators.

With the head of that committee being Juliana Stratton – the woman who currently is running mate to gubernatorial candidate J.B. Pritzker for the Nov. 6 general election.

STRATTON: Had a say in her pick

So the people who were hoping that Hampton’s plea in the press for the political post would help keep alive the stories of Mike Madigan being an insensitive boss who allows his people to harass women and treat them like objects will have to wonder.

IS MADIGAN SERIOUSLY addressing the issue of a problem within his staff (which I really don’t think is confined to the Democratic caucus, or to Illinois state government officials)?

I’d say that argument could be made, with how quickly a new chief of staff was hired.

While I’m not about to say that the “problem” is solved just because a woman is in the position of running the daily operations of the Democratic Party in the Illinois House of Representatives.

The critics (the people who want to go about screeching and screaming “Dump Madigan!” as their solution to all of government’s issues) may well claim that the women who had a say in picking a new chief of staff are too connected to the Democratic Party establishment to be objective.

WHICH MAY WELL be the big objection I have to the notion of sexual harassment being used as an issue to dump political people.

RAUNER: Would he be the only winner?

I suspect the people who are most behind this are the ones who can’t otherwise defeat the Dems on Election Day. I also suspect the last thing they really care about is the plight of women who are getting mistreatment on the job – no matter how hard they work.

Which as far as I’m concerned is the real injustice that we ought to be trying to resolve within our government – and within our society at-large.

That resolution likely involves people with serious approaches that go beyond a partisan attempt to dump someone from office come Election Day.

  -30-

Harassment enough to Dump Madigan?

There are political watchers eager to see Michael Madigan dumped from his many positions of political power who would be overjoyed if all the allegations of sexual harassment were to build up into something that gave the all-powerful “Mr. Speaker” the nudge out the door.

MADIGAN: Ultimate target of harassment

Yet a part of me is skeptical that such a tactic will achieve any success.

IN FACT, EVEN if it turned out to be that Madigan was somehow dumped from his Democratic Party chairmanship and his House speaker role, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that the ultimate victors were the kind of people who think too much is being made of the harassment issue.

The activists who think they’ll achieve some level of success with a “Dump Madigan” type of campaign could find themselves (and all the rest of us) with someone more repulsive (and blatantly sexist) in a position of powerful.

The issue of political people behaving in a harassing manner toward women gained a bit more attention this week when it became known that Madigan’s long-time chief of staff in the Illinois Legislature was facing allegations of harassment.

Allegations were made Tuesday morning, and within a few hours, Madigan demanded the resignation of Timothy Mapes from all the political posts he held that made him a top-level aide to the House speaker.

MAPES: Out of a job for misbehavior

SOME WANT TO see this as another blow to Madigan, who earlier this year had to terminate the political party employment of the brother of the alderman from the ward Madigan lives in – on account of the fact he couldn’t take “no” for an answer to his repeated advances towards a woman who worked on Madigan’s Democratic Party staff.

Some might be willing to see these incidents as ones in which Madigan “handled” problematic situations by firing individuals who misbehaved towards women. Others want to say Madigan only acted because he faced public scrutiny and would have preferred to have done nothing.

QUINN: His brother lost Madigan job

In fact, just this week, attorneys for Madigan filed a legal motion seeking to have dismissed the lawsuit that was filed earlier this year by the woman who was harassed by the aldermanic brother.

I don’t doubt that Madigan – who doesn’t, as of yet, have anybody making misbehavior allegations against himself – wishes this issue would go away, and probably is hoping that public interest in such gauche behavior eventually will die down.

DUNKIN: Facing his own allegations

BUT I ALSO can see where the “other side” of this issue isn’t people who oppose harassment but is actually people who think there is NO harassment and would openly try to fight off all these allegations being made instead of trying to address the issue.

I can’t help but notice the case of Ken Dunkin. He’s the former Illinois House member who managed to tick off Madigan and other Democrats that they, in a sense, fired him. They ran Juliana Stratton to run against him in 2016 and she won – giving her the kind of public attention that now makes her the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor come the Nov. 6 election.

Gov. Bruce Rauner tried to score some political points for himself by picking Dunkin to serve on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District board – a post he began serving in Thursday.

Yet now there are allegations of Dunkin himself behaving like a cad during his legislative days, meaning the guy whom Republicans were supposed to use to take pot-shots at Dems will now wind up reflecting badly upon themselves.

WHEN IT SEEMS Rauner tried asking for Dunkin’s resignation, Dunkin’s response was as blunt and rude a “no way” as he ever gave to Madigan.

RAUNER: Will he get tagged w/ charges?

Could it be that Madigan has the influence to get misbehavers out of office? Whereas Rauner doesn’t. And others of an ideological leaning that makes them believe sexual harassment is a non-issue also aren’t going to side up on this issue?

I’m not saying Madigan is politically safe, nor am I necessarily defending his behavior – which borders on apathy toward the issue rather than any real sense of wrongdoing.

All I know is that I suspect this is an issue where many people are going to go out of their way to cover their own behinds. And the big losers, most likely, will be those individuals most likely to face harassing behavior!

  -30-

Is “too little, too late” for sexual harassment worth $350,000, legal fees?

A one-time aide to the political operations of Illinois Democratic Chairman Michael Madigan is suing both the state Democratic Party and the Friends of Michael J. Madigan organizations, seeking $350,000 (plus legal fees) to make up for the sexual harassment she says she had to endure on her job.

Alaina Hampton is taking Michael Madigan and the Democrats in Illinois to court. Photo provided by Kulwin, Masciopinto & Kulwin law firm

Yet that may be the wrong focus – this ‘story’ isn’t about the money. It’s about wanting to create political embarrassment for people, including Madigan himself, for their refusal to take seriously her early accusations that she was treated as an object of sexual titillation.

ALAINA HAMPTON FILED her lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago late Wednesday, and Thursday morning met with TV-types to ensure that everybody knew all about her legal action.

She claims the fact that she resisted sexual advances by higher-ranking Madigan operatives essentially killed her chances of rising professionally within the Democratic Party ranks, where she worked in a number of roles and campaigns from 2012-17.

One such operative, Kevin Quinn (whose brother is the alderman of the Chicago ward in which Madigan lives) has already been publicly dismissed because of his behavior – which amounts to not being able to recognize that “no” means “no!”

Is there a political path from Fritchey loss ...

In fact, another Madigan aide also has lost his job as a result of sexual harassment allegations.

WHICH HAS MADIGAN-types insisting there’s no problem. The Illinois House speaker learned of allegations, had them investigated, and wound up removing people from their politically-influential positions upon learning of their truth.

Which is true (sort of). Madigan has hired an attorney, Heather Wier Vaught, to look into such matters, and she was the one who uncovered all the harassing and sexually-suggestive e-mail messages that Quinn had sent to Hampton.

But Hampton has implied that it took Madigan quite a while to get off his keister and initiate some action; almost as though he was hoping the problem would go away if it were ignored long enough.

... to eventual Madigan demise?

That ultimately is going to be the issue that will be decided in both this lawsuit, and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint that Hampton filed in February.

WHAT I FIND most interesting about the Hampton situation is how she has managed to cope with the circumstances her professional life has taken.

After realizing she wasn’t going to have a work-life as part of the Democratic organization, she turned herself into a political consultant for-hire who during this most-recent election cycle worked for the campaign of Bridget Degnan.

She’s the woman who ran for a seat on the Cook County Board of Commissioners and managed to win in Tuesday’s primary, defeating John Fritchey – who had been on the county board since 2010.

While I’m sure she can use the money from a lawsuit or eventual settlement, I don’t doubt the biggest desire of Hampton and those people most enthusiastically supporting her is to create bits of political embarrassment that could force political change.

PERHAPS EVEN CAUSING enough embarrassment to put the political pressure on Madigan himself? I’m not certain this can stretch out that far – mostly because I believe the people inclined to want to dump Madigan are also going to have their own ideological hang-ups that would cause them to want to dismiss the significance of sexual harassment.

DEGNAN: First victory for Hampton?

Trying to make Madigan an enabler of people who can’t keep their hands to themselves amongst women might be too much of a stretch. I’m not sure I see a connection that can be drawn from Fritchey’s demise to the dreams of “Dump Madigan!” that Gov. Bruce Rauner and his biggest fanatics will be spewing forth in coming months.

For her part, Hampton said Thursday she is hoping this encourages other women who have suffered harassment to come forth. “They are watching closely to see how my case is handled,” she said.

While also watching closely will be Madigan & Co., watching to see if the issue is capable of gaining any traction between now and the Nov. 6 general election.

  -30-

Will political pressure get Illinois to act responsibly w/ regard to firearms?

The cynic in me wants to dismiss the rhetoric being offered up by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, where he says the Legislature will begin this coming week to review a series of measures calling for responsible regulation of firearms.

Should it really be easier to purchase these ...

Largely because I’m used to the idea of a certain segment of our population being knuckleheads whenever the issue is firearms, and also because I’d have to wonder “Why now?”

COULD IT BE that after all these years, Madigan and the Democratic majority that runs the General Assembly FINALLY sees the error of its lax ways and realizes something needs to be done.

... than this?

Or is this just a matter of Madigan being sick and tired of all the focus being put on the fact his office took its sweet time in dealing with allegations of sexual harassment against certain female staffers? And the perception by some that Madigan is more interested in reducing the political fallout, rather than addressing the problems that many women have in the workplace.

Perhaps I should be thankful that people are willing to address firearms, and not worry so much about the “whys” of the matter. Because it is long overdue for us as a society to realize that nobody ever intended for everybody to own as many firearms as they desire, and for whatever reason.

MADIGAN: Why is he bringing issue up?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights isn’t written that broadly – no matter how much the conservative ideologues amongst us want to think it is.

WHICH IS WHY I find it interesting that Gov. Bruce Rauner in recent days keeps saying we need to be “respectful of our Constitution” whenever he’s asked about the need for laws regulating firearm ownership and use.

Considering the ideologues that Rauner will be trying to appeal to as he seeks re-election in the 2018 election cycle, I suspect that’s really his way of being coy and not coming right out and saying he’s prepared to use the “veto” pen to reject anything that Madigan and Democrats try to do on this issue.

Another reason, in my book, not to get all worked up over this issue and what might happen next week.

RAUNER: Constitutional 'respect' means veto?

For the record, Madigan issued a statement Friday saying the Illinois House of Representatives will take up several bills meant to address firearms.

THOSE INCLUDE REGULATION of gun dealers, restrictions on being able to purchase a military-style rifle and more laws making it clear that people with histories of mental illness probably shouldn’t be able to own such weapons.

They’re hoping that the recent string of incidents involving schools (including the one in Florida where 17 were killed, and it seems police at the scene hesitated before trying to enter) will provide the motivation to get political people to overwhelm the “gun nuts” who usually play too large a role in this debate.

My own belief on this issue (one that I know will p-o some individuals) is that owning a firearm ought to be like owning an automobile. We restrict who can have a driver’s license, how a car can be used, and always insist on saying that car ownership is a privilege – one that can be taken away from irresponsible people.

Will Illinois Statehouse become heated place we should keep our distance from next week?

Now before anyone sarcastically asks me if I ever have read the Second Amendment, I have. Personally, I think it is the part of the Constitution that has become obsolete in the 21^st Century.

BECAUSE IT MAKES mention of militias, which once were thought would be the way the national defense would be provided for without a large standing army, I believe that not restricting one’s firearm ownership ability was because one serving in a militia would be expected to provide their own weapon.

The gun-rights people claim militias and their role are now replaced by the National Guard. Yet I’ve never heard of any guardsman called to duty who had to arm himself.

As far as making it tougher to get a firearm, I’d say it ought to be more difficult to do so than to buy an automobile. So here’s hoping the General Assembly proceeds with its Friday partisan talk.

I’d feel safer on our roads coexisting with bad drivers than with the thought of people who think they’re exercising some “all-American” right by having a pistol tucked in their belt and who – on some level – are looking for the excuse to pull out their weapon and shoot another human being. Wouldn’t you?

  -30-

Is “Madigan” going to be the GOP response to “Trump?” “Dump Madigan!!!” tactic has failed before!

There’s a lot of political outcry these days that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, ought to give up the other political title he holds – that of Illinois Democratic Party chairman.

MADIGAN: Has his time really come?

The way it goes, people say that his slow response to dealing with allegations of sexual harassment by people connected to him shows that, at the very least, he should no longer be the top Democrat in parts of the state outside of Chicago.

PERSONALLY, I’M NOT getting on board this rhetorical railroad because I think many of the people who are spewing it are merely peeved that their own political party is going to have the embarrassment that is Donald J. Trump as a millstone around their own neck.

They feel the need to create a Democratic Party counterpart to the president who, thank goodness, gave up his own claims to once being a Democrat and decided to become a Republican when he began spewing his loony behavior on a political scale.

So I’m sure they are thinking that for every Illinois voter in the March 20 primary and the Nov. 6 general elections who casts their ballot with thoughts of reigning in Trump, they will create an equal number of people who will vote with the phrase “Blame Madigan!!!” burned into their brains.

They hope that they can impose as much damage to Democrats as Trump will cause for Republicans in Illinois. This may well become an election cycle for Illinoisans to reveal whom they despise the most.

TRUMP: Despised by more than anybody

NOW I DON’T doubt that Madigan isn’t that well liked amongst people who don’t pay much attention to government or electoral politics. That’s what happens when you’ve managed to survive on the scene for nearly a half century (dating to 1971, when he was 29). You build up enemies.

But he has the advantage of actually appearing on the ballot in one lone Illinois House district in the area surrounding Midway Airport. Where it seems the local voters enjoy the idea that their state representative is all-powerful and can order about other people.

The idea of beating Madigan himself is a long-shot.

RAUNER: Hopes anti-Madigan vote propels victory

Because he has control of the political party post and can influence how much campaign funding Democratic legislators have, he gets many of the senators and representatives who bear the mark of “D” following their names to go along with him.

WHICH, IF YOU think about it, is similar to the number of Republican legislators who are going to ignore Gov. Bruce Rauner’s ideological leanings on certain issues because he’s the guy dishing out his own personal funds to their campaigns.

This long-shot thought has been revealed in past election cycles.

Let’s not forget that Rauner himself campaigned heavily in 2014 by trying to tie the “Madigan” image to every Democrat (many of whom wound up winning). The same happened in 2010 – only it was William Brady (who has since become Illinois Senate minority leader these days instead of finishing a second term as governor) who tried the tactic and failed.

The bottom line! I don’t think enough people will let their thoughts about Madigan influence their vote. Even if they want to believe that Madigan should have reacted more vociferously (and quickly) to the sexual harassment allegations now underway.

PARTICULARLY SINCE IT can be argued that Madigan seems more willing to sacrifice low-level people so long as he preserves his political structure.

BRADY: Blaming Madigan didn't win '10

Yet let’s be honest; Trump himself has so many similar incidents involving various women in his background – to the point where I wonder that if first lady Melania Trump were to whack her husband upside the head for his behavior, would the Secret Service feel compelled to treat it as a presidential assault or deserved behavior by a wife against a cheating husband?

I don’t see anybody who takes the sexual harassment issue seriously at any level voting for the opposition, or thinking that the Party of Trump is in any way more acceptable on this issue.

Which could make such “Blame Madigan!!!” tactics liable to fail for yet another election cycle – and the 2020 election cycle resulting in 50 years worth of ballots in which “Mr. Speaker” has his name on them, and wins!

  -30-

Madigan has investigation into sexual harassment by clout-heavy aide

I remember once someone telling me what was supposed to be the biggest of secrets into how politics really worked – the reason that Michael Madigan had managed to last so long (now nearly a half-century) as a public official is that he never resisted efforts to investigate himself.

MADIGAN: A sexual harassment firing

The way it was put to me is that any time federal investigators approached Madigan for information, he was always forthcoming with precisely whatever data was sought.

HE WASN’T SOMEONE likely to get caught up in some stupid technicality. In fact, I have heard of many of the political people who have been indicted throughout the years who, supposedly, got caught because Madigan’s staff essentially turned them in.

Meaning Madigan would snitch out anybody if it meant detracting investigatory attention from himself.

Admittedly, the person who told me this was trying to put as negative spin as possible on this – as though Madigan were the moral-less one who was selling out everybody else for his self-preservation.

Or could it be that the long-time Illinois House speaker (a legislator since 1971 and holder of the top leadership post for all but two years since 1983) has that bit of honesty in him that he’s not going to make the mistake of covering up for other officials just because they have that “D” following their names that indicates their Democratic Party leanings.

THIS POPPED INTO my mind when I read the statement Madigan had issued in his name about the dismissal of Kevin Quinn, an aide to the speaker in various roles for nearly two decades.

What also should have made Quinn safe is that he is the brother of Marty Quinn – as in the 13rd Ward alderman (Madigan’s home ward) who has his City Council post largely because of Madigan’s influence.

Yet when Madigan was made aware of complaints by women regarding Kevin Quinn’s behavior to them, the speaker brought in an attorney to investigate.

QUINN: Not enough clout to keep brother employed

That attorney, Madigan said, “recently came to the conclusion that the individual engaged in inappropriate conduct and failed to exercise the professional judgment I expect of those affiliated with my political organizations and the office of the Speaker.”

NOW I’M SURE the political cynics are going to complain that Madigan is only behaving in such a way because of the outburst of complaints we have heard in recent months concerning sexual harassment.

I’m sure they’re going to see this as Madigan selling out one aide so as to protect the overall structure.

But I can’t help but see it as a step in the right direction. Because a large part of the reason why the “old boy’s network” attitude that treats many female officials as potential playthings is because of the perception that the people in charge aren’t going to do anything about it.

This may be a sign that someone will do something about it, although the real acts of significance in Madigan’s statement are his claims that his attorneys have made recommendations for preventing inappropriate behavior and improving methods of reporting such allegations.

WE’LL HAVE TO see what becomes of this. If it results in future action, or just a whole lot of talk about nothing.

Could it be that part of the Madigan legacy (aside from being the longest-serving House speaker from any state) will be that he addressed the sexist culture that some would definitely like to have kept in the 19^th Century – rather than advancing to the 21^st?

DALEY: Had his own morals rules

Or is this just a moralist quirk that allows things to remain the same, similar to the old Mayor Richard J. Daley who supposedly was willing to turn a blind eye to all types of corruption EXCEPT that of government officials engaged in adulterous behavior.

Which would almost be proof of that old cliche, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

  -30-

Silverstein fights for political life; harassment, or should he wither away?

There are some who think that state Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, is interesting because of the sexual harassment allegations he is being forced to confront.

SILVERSTEIN: Fighting for political life

Silverstein is the guy who has a female lobbyist contending his behavior toward her was so upsetting and inappropriate that she had to have herself admitted to a hospital to cope with her hair falling out and excessive weight loss.

THE SENATOR HAS consistently claimed he didn’t do anything deliberate to hurt her and has offered up one of those apologies (he says he’s sorry “if I made her uncomfortable”) that tries to say as little as possible. But that also means he’s refusing to be pushed out of politics because of what he might have done.

He went ahead and filed nominating petitions so he could be on the March 20 primary election ballot and seek another term in office, where he hopes to run against three individuals who seek to challenge him.

The part of this saga that intrigues me is that Silverstein faces a serious ballot challenge that could get him kicked off the primary ballot altogether. The Chicago Tribune reported Monday that Silverstein’s attorneys say they believe he’ll be able to beat back the challenge and stay as a candidate.

Yet incumbent legislators are supposed to be able to enjoy the benefits of incumbency, meaning they’re not supposed to have to fight for their very political existence. Which means Silverstein is going to have to spend much of a campaign fund on the legal fees fighting the ballot challenge.

AT STAKE IS the fact that Silverstein, in order to get himself a spot on the ballot for his Illinois Senate post, had to come up with nominating petitions containing at least 1,000 valid signatures of support from registered voters.

Which for a credible campaign shouldn’t be all that difficult.

Knowing that the definition of “valid signatures” can be flexible depending on how stringent Election Board officials are in reviewing petitions, Silverstein filed petitions containing in excess of 1,900 signatures.

FRANKEN: He chose to fade away

Yet when Chicago elections officials completed their review, they found Silverstein had only 955 valid signatures. Which would put him 45 signatures short of the minimum required, and mean that as of now, he’s off the ballot for March 20.

THE CHICAGO ELECTIONS board on Monday held hearings in which the signatures found invalid were being reviewed, to see if perhaps a mistake was made and some of them really were valid.

If Silverstein can “rehabilitate” 45 signatures, he’s back on the ballot. And yes, “rehabilitate” is the word that Elections Board officials use to describe the process.

Now I’m sure some people are going to try to claim all these ballot challenges are just a way of trying to harass Silverstein off the ballot altogether – pressuring someone who won’t just admit to sexual harassment and resign the way that U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., chose to do when he was hit with such allegations.

I’m not about to claim that Silverstein is the victim in this case. What intrigues me is that it shows just how much of a judgment call it can be to determine what is, and is not, a valid signature on a political nominating petition.

I’D HAVE A hard time believing that Silverstein, who has been a state legislator since 1999, is such a political amateur to think that he really filed nominating petitions that were so flawed – nearly half of all the signatures!

Of course, if a less stringent review of those nominating petitions had occurred, perhaps most of them would have been approved, and there’d be no such political battle such as what is occurring now with Silverstein.

Board to decide Silverstein fate

Some people like to think that these kinds of things are cut and dried and definitive – a signature is either flawed, or isn’t. The reality is that it usually winds up as a judgment call on somebody’s behalf, and perhaps we should be focusing our attention on that process.

Because my own observation from watching the electoral political process throughout the years is that often the people who are being challenged are being harassed by their political opponents. Although if allegations against Silverstein bear any accuracy, then this form of punishment may be letting off scot free.

  -30-

How some can rationalize anything to benefit their own political partisanship

We as a society are going to learn something about ourselves Tuesday, regardless of the outcome of the special election in Alabama to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy from that state.

MOORE: Will one-time 22 point leader prevail?

That, of course, is the one in which Republican Roy Moore (a one-time judge of right wing sensibilities) ought to be the favorite to win. Yet the disclosures of Moore’s past attractions to teenage girls extending well into his adult years have some wondering/hoping/praying that Democrat Doug Jones can prevail.

WHICH WOULD HELP Dems extend their efforts to undermine the amount of Congressional support President Donald J. Trump can count on for his goofy whims of political fantasy.

Trump is fully aware of that, which is the reason why he has publicly endorsed Moore – saying the need to keep a congressional seat Republican is more important than any repulsion that one may feel toward Moore’s attraction to a 14-year-old girl back when he was 32 (he’s now 70).

Just as “the whole world is watching” back in 1968 when protests in Chicago became violent due to police behavior, the world will be watching Alabama on this day to see whether the political party that usually likes to think of itself as overly moral (it’s not, but that’s a debate for a future day) will back someone who, if he’d been caught at the time, could have faced statutory rape charges.

Considering he was an assistant district attorney in his home county at the time, that would have made it particularly repulsive. Moore ought to have comprehended the law well enough to know better.

WE’RE GOING TO see how intense political partisanship is over any true sense of morals amongst the portion of our society that lives in Alabama.

As it stands, the Birmingham News reported Monday on two polls – both of which show Moore with solid leads. A Trafalgar Group report shows 51 percent of people planning to or leaning toward voting for Moore, compared to 46 percent siding with Jones.

JONES: Can former KKK prosecutor overcome?

Another poll by Gravis Marketing showed 49 percent for Moore compared to 45 percent for Jones.

We’ll know by the end of Tuesday how close these polls are to reality, particularly since the ideologues most likely to put partisanship ahead of morals are more willing to cite a new poll done for the Fox News Channel – one that shows Jones leading Moore 50 percent to 40 percent. Which strikes me as a large number of undecideds still; and whose intent most likely is to scare right-wingers into turning out to vote for Moore!

MY OWN EXPERIENCE in watching government and politics is that every now and then, public officials and voters surprise us by doing the right thing. Putting aside their own personal interest and doing what is for the good of the people.

But those moments truly are rare and come as a surprise. So I’m not about to predict how Moore will do in Tuesday’s vote down in the Cotton State. As much as I’d like to think Alabamans would like to put an end to the number of nasty stories about how intolerant their region of the nation is, I’m sure some will be more than willing to add to it by giving Moore an electoral victory.

Now some in Washington, D.C., have said they consider Moore to be unfit to serve in Congress. Perhaps that has some thinking that even if Moore wins, he’ll be rejected and this vote is about deciding which political party will get to pick his replacement.

Although I’d argue that continuing to back someone like Moore (who with all the right-wing nonsense he’s spewed throughout the years was unfit for office even before all the stories about young girls started cropping up) shows Republican leadership in Alabama is unfit to have any say on the issue.

OTHERS, I’M SURE, have their own odd rationalizations. Such as one I read in a public comments section of the Birmingham News.

Are Alabamans eager to add to list of absurdities built up during Civil Rights era?

One reader says everybody needs to vote for Moore because a vote for a Democrat is just too harmful to our societal morals. “Pedophilia will be legal if Democrats have their way! It will become a Civil Right and be protected by Title IX,” one wrote.

Now if one looks up the definition of pedophilia, one learns that it relates to people who have sexual attraction to children 12 and under. Which means that for them, Moore’s okay because his attraction was to girls 14 and up. He's in the clear, morally!

That’s quite a rationalization some are willing to make just to win an election with an unfit official. One whose stain will be smeared over the nation as a whole if he prevails on Tuesday.

  -30-

EXTRA: Dems resigning while GOP still in denial about sexual harassment?

Let’s be honest. We’re not in an age where sexual harassment has become more prominent. There’s just as many women getting their fannies groped now as in the past. It’s just that now, we’re not laughing it off the way we once did.

FRANKEN: Decency to resign

Yet there is one difference, when it comes to the issue and partisan politics.

JUST ON THURSDAY, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., said he would resign in coming weeks – what with the total of women who say he groped them inappropriately rising to eight. Just a few days ago, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., also resigned his Congressional post amidst similar allegations.

Which I’m sure the Republican political operatives are going to claim is evidence that Democratic political people are perverts. Dump them all from office – a Republican-dominated government is what we need to restore morals to our society!

Although the fact is that there are gropers and horny bastards at heart amongst all government officials. All people in general, to tell the truth.

We still have the case of Roy Moore, the former judge who now is running in a special election in Alabama on Tuesday to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy in that southern state.

MOORE: Still fighting for political life

MOORE IS THE guy who faces claims he sexually propositioned many young girls – including one as young as 14 – back when he was in his early 30s (he’s now 70 and married – to a woman he originally met when she was still a teenager).

There are indications he could win the special election and get sent along to Congress, even though people in D.C. have indicated they think Moore is unfit to serve in the federal government.

TRUMP: A Leo Durocher fan?

But President Donald J. Trump has given Moore his endorsement; admitting as much that it’s because he wants the Senate seat to remain in Republican hands. He does not want Democrats gaining extra influence prior to the 2018 elections – or even then.

Trump, like many other political people, is more concerned about partisan politics than an official’s actual behavior.

SANDERS: Trump should resign

THEN AGAIN, TRUMP is the guy who had his own accusations of sexual harassment made by many women. He’s the guy who got caught on tape talking about how his technique for attracting women involved grabbing them by their genitalia.

It sounds similar to the old baseball fan stories told about Leo Durocher, the one-time Brooklyn Dodgers manager who once was suspended for a full season because of his adulterous behavior. Particularly his technique for figuring out quickly whether a woman was willing to be with him -- it bears a remarkable resemblance to that of Trump.

Let’s be honest. While Durocher may have been a “baseball genius,” he isn’t someone whose lead you follow on moral matters.

Then again, Trump has shown his own immorality, along with his political ineptitude.

I FIND IT amusing to learn that Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democratic Socialist who failed in his own presidential aspirations last year, says Trump himself ought to consider resigning on account of the sexual tales told about him.

I don’t expect Trump to even consider resignation. It would make too much of the nation happy, while discouraging the misfits who are prepared to support him to the very end. The same people who are going about talking about Franken’s acts of perversion.

Was Durocher's '69 Cubs result inept like Trump

Although if we want to be blunt about it, Franken offered up a resignation and stepped down for the good of Congress as an institution, compared to people like Moore who are prepared to fight to the death to defend themselves – regardless of how ridiculous it makes Congress look in the end.

Who’s really showing more signs of class and morality on Capitol Hill these days?

  -30-