Giannoulias “resume” is feeble gimmick

I will give the Illinois Republican Party a little bit of credit. The political entity that likes to flood my e-mail inbox with all kinds of pot shots at the Democratic Party’s ticket (which, after all, is what a political party is for) came up with one on Tuesday that caught my attention.

Specifically, we get to see the resume for Alexi Giannoulias. Not his actual resume, but the one that GOP political hacks put together for him – in short, the way they want us to perceive him through their eyes, rather than honestly through our own.

IT IS ALL part of the strategy to make people so wary of the one-term Illinois treasurer who wants to be Mr. Smith and go to Washington that they will feel better about voting for the guy who has been a part of the Washington scene for a decade (admittedly, in the House of Representatives) – even though the “theme” of this election cycle is that we hate anything tied to Washington or incumbency.

In theory, it ought to be Kirk, the congressman from the North Shore suburbs, who should be struggling with the faulty public perception. Instead, we’re getting whacked-out images of both of the major party candidates – enough that a part of me wants to check out LeAlan M. Jones, the Green Party candidate.

Then, I remember the kind of impractical and unknowing people that tend to get excited about the Green Party, and I come to my senses.

Hence, we get the GOP “resume” for Giannoulias that says his objective is to be, “the first failed banker to serve on the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.” Cute. Get the one-time family-owned bank on Broadway that is now a branch of MB Financial Bank into the mix.

AS THOUGH OUR Congress has never had members who failed in life outside of Capitol Hill. I doubt it. Heck, if Republicans really want to complain about resumes, they ought to look at the inflated one that their party’s nominee for lieutenant governor used during the primary election season.

Actually, the part of their Giannoulias “resume” that bothers me the most is the reference to the fact that Giannoulias as state treasurer actually managed to resolve a problem that had been lingering for decades.

The one-time President Lincoln hotel in downtown Springfield had fallen into the control of the state because its original developers never could bring in enough proceeds to repay the loans they received with state help to build the project (which was intended to be a luxury hotel in the Illinois capital city) in the first place.

As what often happens when you get stuck in a situation like this, you take whatever you can get so long as someone is paying cash up front.

AS THE GIANNOULIAS “resume” tells us, he sold the facility for less than half of its appraised value that “lock(ed) in an $18 million loss” for our state’s taxpayers.

The problem with viewing the issue in that mini-minded manner is that it is unrealistic. No one was ever going to get full value. The people who ought to get “blame” for this issue are the ones who made the loans in the first place.

Of course, those people happened to be Republican allies, since the governor back then was James R. Thompson and there once was a time when Republicans weren’t completely irrelevant in state government (mainly because they didn’t play the partisan politics as intensely as they try to now).

I can remember when then-Illinois Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka tried to sell off the hotel properties in the early 1990s for about one-quarter of what they were worth, and I can remember the Republican Party establishment coming to her defense as trying to make the best of what was a sloppy deal for the state -- with those people trying to score political points for themselves at Topinka's expense being the ones who criticized her.

THEN AGAIN, JUDY has the “R” following her name. So trying to do the same type of action that Giannoulias ultimately accomplished did not get her the same type of trashing. Of course, the fact that Topinka can think sensibly is likely the reason she will do well in her bid for state Comptroller against Democratic nominee David Miller.

Other “points” brought up on the Giannoulias resume include the “Bright Start” college savings plan that turned into a financial mess, and where some people who used the program to save money to pay for their childrens’ future college tuition wound up losing funds – and where we learn that the Illinois treasurer’s office purchased a Sport Utility Vehicle with Bright Start funds.

Then, there also is the trivial. Giannoulias played basketball professionally for one season after graduating from Boston University (not the NBA, the professional leagues in Greece). Usually, anything that can be seen as an athletic accomplishment is touted as reason for praise if it is a Republican official.

Only when it is a Democrat does it come off as trivial in the minds of Republicans.

NOW IT SHOULD not be assumed that I am writing that Giannoulias is above reproach. He has things he has to answer for during this campaign season, and we should be nit-picking him if he does not come clean in his answers.

A problem develops when people become more interested in making attacks on a candidate, rather than trying to find out something resembling the truth. That is when we quit listening because we’re only interested in hearing ourselves.

I have often told people that everything that comes from a political campaign, regardless of its partisan leanings, ought to be scrutinized because there likely are strong elements of exaggeration in it.

This “resume” definitely falls into that category.

-30-

Cohen thinks he’s back; I’ll believe it when I see nominating petition signatures

“Illinois needs honesty more than perfection.”

-0-

Moreso than the stories of holding a knife to a prostitute’s throat or being a deadbeat who fell behind on child support, that line ought to be the political legacy left behind by Scott Lee Cohen, the man who for two weeks was the Democratic Party’s nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor.

By now, anybody who cares has heard that Cohen staged himself a press conference Monday outside the Thompson state government building to announce he is running for governor as a political independent.

SO WE NOW have people getting all worked up that Cohen is in this campaign to wreck his revenge against the Democratic Party for not standing behind him by scuttling the gubernatorial hopes of incumbent Pat Quinn.

Is Cohen, the CEO of State Pawners (the pawn shop founded by his father) the type of guy who would give the people of Illinois “Gov. William Brady” to make himself feel better about the fact that his political career ended before it ever began?

It could be. People who run for electoral office are capable of being that petty.

And it’s not like Cohen was ever the typical political person. He came out of nowhere to run for an office with such a low profile that he figured he could slip into a position where he could then catapult to the top. This isn’t someone who is interested in working his way through the ranks of government and learning about public policy.

WHICH IS WHY I find it laughable that he now portrays himself as the pillar of political honesty.

That particular quote came in response to questions about whether his personal past that caused the Democratic Party to dump on him for lieutenant governor could be overcome in the minds of the voters when they decide Nov. 2 who to pick for governor.

The line that Cohen backers (they do exist, they like the idea that he ran a small-scale business and is unpolitical so much that they will ignore any sordid details about his life) tout is that it wasn’t Cohen himself who ever tried to cover anything up. Some people go so far as to try to blame newsgathering organizations for not thoroughly exposing every sordid detail of Cohen’s life, although I have to wonder how much any outfit would have been laughed at hysterically had they spent any time worrying about the lieutenant governor’s race.

After all, there was a Senate campaign on the Republican side and a gubernatorial fight for the Democrats. Plus, Chicago-area reporter-types were absolutely determined to dig up every detail possible so as to ensure that Todd Stroger didn’t pull off some sort of upset and manage to win the Feb. 2 primary for Cook County Board president.

BUT LET’S BE honest.

People didn’t pick Cohen to be the lieutenant governor nominee because they thought he had any special qualifications. He won because he ran in a field of nobodies (political observers tend to forget that real people had never heard of the so-called front-runner, long-time state Rep. Art Turner, D-Chicago) and used his personal wealth to run enough campaign advertising that his name was probably the only one many people sort of recognized.

Cohen is correct in one regard. We should get more honesty from our political people. In some ways, Cohen isn’t any more sordid than anyone else who runs for political office. I’m not even sure he’s the official with the worst reputation.

Seriously, how low do many people regard Rod Blagojevich? Or has Cohen the alleged wife-beater managed to sink even below Milorod on the Illinois political scum scale? (Which, by the way, contains people of all the major political parties).

BECAUSE OF THE fact that Cohen’s reputation is just so low, I can’t say I take seriously the idea of any independent campaign he might run.

A part of me will be amazed if he can get the 25,000 valid signatures of support required of any political independent (compared to 5,000 for someone running for an established political party’s nomination) to even get on the ballot.

Which means that Cohen’s campaign may have reached its peak on Monday, a month-and-a-half before it officially began.

How many people are going to be willing to sign one of his nominating petitions, except as something resembling a gag (just like all the people who vote for “Mickey Mouse” for president – come to think of it, didn’t he win in ’00 and ’04?).

SOMEONE WHO ISN’T convinced how hard it is to get valid petition signatures for a populist movement ought to ask the League of Women Voters what ever became of their petition drive on behalf of reforming the means by which we redistrict legislative and congressional district boundaries every 10 years.

Their deadline came and went without them even getting close. I could see the same thing happening to Scott Lee. If, by chance, it appears that he will hit the 25,000 figure, I could envision all kinds of people aligned with the Democratic Party crawling out of the woodwork to challenge his legitimacy.

He could wind up having to engage in a massive legal fight for the right to get 1 percent of the vote come Election Day.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Scott Lee Cohen will attract a certain type of person who resents government and will want to vote for anyone who thinks just like they do. People with any sense will, and in fact already are trying to, distance themselves from him.

There were no “good guys” when it came to Illinois’ redistricting proposals this yr.

I may well be the one person who is pleased that both of the major measures that were supposed to reform the way Illinois redraws its political boundaries to reflect population changes went down to defeat.

State legislators affiliated with the Democratic Party used their power to kill off the Republican alternative – the one that actually got the League of Women Voters and other good government groups to sign on. More gloom and doom at the Statehouse on account of redistricting "reform" failing to pass? I prefer to think we were saved from something equally as bad, no matter which plan had passed.

THEN, THE GENERAL Assembly last week failed to approve the “reform” plan that was preferred by Democrats. I write it as “reform” because it was really a measure that was meant to do as little as possible, while letting officials say they voted for something to impose change.

As someone who takes great interest in the reapportionment process because I find it intriguing the way a neighborhood’s partisan representation can be impacted by the way it is carved up by legislative boundaries, I fully realize the flaws of the current measure – the one enacted by the Illinois Constitution in 1970.

All too many people are quick to jump on Illinois’ tie-breaker function, which says that if the Legislature is unable to agree on a political map and if an eight-member commission can’t do it either, then a person nominated by a legislative leader whose name gets picked out of a glass bowl, or a hat, or some other object, gets to be the tie-breaker.

It was thought by the people who crafted the state Constitution that such a random act having the ability to give total control to one political party’s officials would be so terrifying that legislators would deliberately go out of their way to work together to create a map that would reflect all interests.

PERHAPS SUCH THOUGHTS were the after-effect of some late 1960s “acid” trip. Because the effect of that law has been that our legislators don’t even try to compromise on a bill, nor does the eight-member commission (four people from each major political party) do much of anything – until the name is picked out of the hat.

In short, our political people are swayed by greed. The thought that they can get total control if they hold out, and can give their opposition absolutely nothing, is just too tempting an opportunity to waste on actually trying to negotiate a map.

That attitude is the real problem, not the procedure imposed by the Illinois Constitution itself. In fact, I personally have always thought the image of picking a name out of a hat or glass bowl that once belonged to Abraham Lincoln was some sort of cute quirk that made us unique.

I am not convinced that any of the so-called reform measures would have done anything to change the situation in Illinois, in light of the fact that we have a highly-partisan state. The “greed” is still there to want to have everything.

UNTIL THAT CHANGES, no procedure is going to make that much of a difference.

This whole debate actually reminds me of the activity that took place a decade ago with regards to liquor distributors. William Wirtz, who operated the largest distributorship in Illinois and one of the largest in the United States, used his political clout to get legislators to make changes in the law that protected his business interests.

That caused his opposition to go out of their way to stir up so much resentment to Wirtz that the changes were rescinded by the General Assembly a couple of years later. But that issue ultimately came down to two sets of business interests fighting it out in the Legislature – with neither side having a moral high ground (even though I can still remember the lobbyist who became all offended when I disputed her statement that she was the “good guy” fighting against Big, Bad William Wirtz).

This issue is similar because neither side has the moral high ground. It’s all about partisan quarrelling by a pair of groups behaving like political hacks, trying to make themselves appear to be less guilty than the other side of causing the problem.

THAT IS WHY I am glad neither can claim a victory – even if it means that the same procedure that has applied for four decades will now be used for a fifth decade when Illinois officials change the legislative and congressional boundaries to reflect the movement of people around our state (a little less in Chicago proper, many more less in rural Illinois, and increases in parts of the Chicago suburbs).

I know that the “good government” types will claim their reform proposal took control of the process away from the legislators by having eight members chosen by the four legislative leaders (two each, which is the same as now), and having the ninth “tie-breaking” person chosen by the eight members.

That might force people chosen by political parties to have to work together. Then again, it might not. It might just create a deadlock that results in endless delays to create political maps, which will need to be done this year.

Do we really want endless delays of the kind we have seen with the Illinois Legislature in recent years to craft state budgets to now impact the boundaries that determine who actually represents us in the General Assembly and in Congress?

THEN AGAIN, I don’t consider the Democratic alternative to be much better. It talked of “transparency” in the way the commission operates – which basically means we will get to see for ourselves just how greedy our political people get when it comes to reapportionment.

So as much as I find it ridiculous that Democrats denounced their Republican colleagues for not backing their Citizens First Amendment, it was no more absurd than the Fair Map Amendment touted by the GOP. Both sides wanted reform “credit” for doing next to nothing in reform.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Greed and self-interest among elected officials will always find a way to undo any political mechanism created to try to overcome it.

Everybody wants us to believe that it’s the other guy’s fault that truth and justice did not prevail when it comes to reform of the redistricting process in Illinois. People with sense will disregard all such rhetoric.

Who has more Ariz. pull, Quinn or Cubs?

When it comes to all the elements that make our beloved Chicago so unique, who or what has more potential to actually influence all those people in Arizona who actually believe their state Legislature did the right thing in passing a nativist-inspired immigration measure into law?

Pat Quinn, or the Chicago Cubs?

THE SAD THING is that the latter probably would have more influence, although it is The Mighty Quinn who is most likely to open his mouth on the issue.

He did so on Friday, giving us a predictable statement saying he thinks Arizona goofed big time in passing the measure that now requires local cops to take actions in enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Quinn says he agrees with the critics who say that people whom some cop might think “look” Latino or have a Spanish-sounding surname are most likely to suffer harassment, which Quinn calls, “un-American.”

He also said that anybody in Illinois who thinks the Land of Lincoln should enact a similar measure can forget it. He would veto it, and he is among those who wants federal government officials to pass some sort of reform measure that makes it clear many of the people who will be singled out by Arizona’s laws DO belong here in this country.

NOW I PERSONALLY do not have a problem with anything that Quinn said. I like it that I’m not the only person using the phrase “un-American” to describe this measure. In fact, I’d go farther in saying that most of the rhetoric and actions that come from the opposition to immigration reform is “un-American.”

Could it be that these people see all these Latin American newcomers to our country and feel threatened because their work ethic makes it likely they will become more worthwhile assets to the United States than these people could ever hope to be?

That’s laying it on a little thick. I don’t expect anyone to seriously be swayed into a sensible position by it. Which is about how I expect Quinn’s rhetoric will come across. It will be ignored by Arizona nitwits who don’t want to hear anything coming from anyone outside of their home state.

As for people in Illinois, the ones most likely to sympathize with Quinn’s view are the people who already are most solidly in his camp come the Nov. 2 elections. The question I have is how far will Republican gubernatorial nominee William Brady go to avoid saying anything about this issue?

KEEP QUIET AND draw no attention to immigration, and perhaps he can pass unnoticed. Express any kind of view, and he goes further toward driving more nails in the campaign “coffin” that says he’s too much a product of the rural part of Illinois to govern a state where two-thirds of the population lives in the metropolitan Chicago area.

Keep quiet, and maybe he’ll be able to keep part of that 7-point lead that recent polls show he has. Open up, and he fizzles into a loser. I expect Brady to say nothing, so this will likely not amount to much of an issue in our local elections.

But like I said, the Chicago Cubs could be the ones who have a bigger effect on the matter – because they can hit Arizona in its wallet.

Remember that deal Arizona officials negotiated by which a special tax on all baseball spring training game tickets would be charged to raise money to help pay to build the Cubs the upgraded training complex they so desired?

THE CHICAGO WHITE Sox might be able to relax that their fans are going to have to help pay for it, because the same Arizona Legislature that approved the nativist law never did get around to passing the bill that would approve the tax.

So it’s not official yet, and there were clauses in the agreement that the Cubs signed with Arizona officials that allowed them to negotiate with other cities that might want to host Cubs spring training if the Legislature failed to keep its end of the bargain.

Well, the Legislature failed. Could we now get the officials of Naples, Fla., who previously wanted the Cubs to relocate to renew their offer? Could the combination of political ineptitude combined with political idiocy cause the Cubs to think that now might be a good time to leave Arizona?

No matter how many activists picket outside of Arizona Diamondbacks games in Chicago and other National League cities nor threats to pull the All-Star Game from Phoenix in 2011 are likely to sway people. Not even getting baseball officials to join the Major League Baseball Players Association (the ballplayers’ union) in issuing statements condemning Arizona for its actions will do much.

BASEBALL’S BIGGEST HAMMER is all those spring training camps that liven up the economy and bring national attention to the suburbs of Phoenix every March.

Let’s not forget that the Cubs are considered the jewel of the whole Cactus League scene, with their games in Mesa usually selling out and all those Chicago-area tourists deprived of bad baseball being willing to cram their way into other teams’ ballparks to gain a glimpse of their cutesy Cubbies.

I don’t know what, if anything, the Cubs are inclined to do about this situation. But I can’t help but think that our city’s biggest hammer on this issue might very well be the baby bears clad in blue. And if it meant that the team could take a meaningful action, then for once, I might just have to chant, “Go Cubs!”

-30-

Baseball is more than a game, even when it doesn’t want to be on certain issues

It was just over a week ago in the moments right after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put her state at the eye of the storm that is the immigration reform battle that I read a baseball-oriented website that suggested the Arizona Diamondbacks be kicked out of the National League.

The idea was that Arizona had shown itself to be too close-minded to be worthy of a major league baseball franchise, and that someone should move the Phoenix-based team to one of the other cities across this country that would like to have professional baseball at its highest level. Wrigley Field back in simpler times, before protesters ever thought it worth their time to gather at the ballpark to point out the fact that the visiting team comes from the "Show Me Your Papers" state.

NOT THAT ANYBODY within baseball (which has the ability to be 50 years behind the times at all the wrong moments) is taking seriously the concept of a franchise shift. Las Vegas, Portland, Montreal, Mexico City, Monterrey and northern New Jersey are not going to get a team anytime soon.

But there are fans who seem determined to ostracize the Diamondbacks (even though to the best of my knowledge, the only player on their roster who was born in Arizona was relief pitcher Bob Howry – who also has played for both the White Sox and the Cubs, along with the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians and San Francisco Giants) this season.

Hence, we got the sight on Thursday of a few dozen people with picket signs outside of Wrigley Field, along with a nitwit counter-demonstrator who claimed that protesting against Arizona meant protesting against America.

It never fails to amaze me that the people of 50 to 100 years ago who truly believed that the “American Way” of life included segregation of the races have their equivalent in the 21st Century in thinking that this country’s ideals include exclusion.

STILL, MY GUT reaction is to wonder if the pickets outside of Wrigley Field will pick up during the remaining three games of the four-game series that runs through Sunday. Because I am sure there are some individuals who will hear that only about 40 people showed up at the humble abode of one Elwood J. Blues, compared to the thousands who were there to torture themselves with bad baseball being played, and figure that is evidence that they are somehow "morally correct" on this issue.

The USA Today newspaper managed to get one of these fans to say that people using a sporting event to protest a political issue is “silly.”

Then again, I’m sure he had his equivalents 70 years ago when some activists tried protesting the exclusion of black people from the ranks of professional ballplayers. There probably were those people who resented having that issue brought up when they were trying to escape reality for a few hours by watching a ballgame.

Now I will be the first to admit to understanding that latter sentiment. It is the reason I follow professional baseball.

BUT I ALSO have enough sense to realize that professional baseball operates within our society. It is not a world all to itself. It ought to reflect the realities of the world around it. So I’m not bothered at the thought that the Diamondbacks players are going to have to see this sight every day they are in Chicago, and probably every day they travel on the road.

I would expect that all of their road games for the rest of this year will result in local activists showing up outside the stadiums to remind people that their home teams are about to beat up on the boys from Phoenix. For all I know, that recent study about the least popular baseball teams (according to a new computer algorhythm that seems to make little sense) may wind up showing the Diamondbacks as the most despised team when it is recalculated – rather than the Cleveland Indians with their ridiculous “Chief Wahoo” logo on their caps.

Insofar as what Arizona fans will think of this attention being dumped on their team? I’m sure the ballclub itself will be only a small part of the derision that Arizona and its people are going to find themselves receiving.

Already, some business interests are getting concerned about the political situation – although that is mostly because businesses prefer for there to be no controversy whatsoever. Anything that draws attention is considered to be a negative.

SO HERE’S HOPING that the activist types this weekend can get a few hundred of their ranks to show up at the ballpark, even though the Saturday game will coincide with the Chicago protest march that will take a few tens of thousands of people on a walk from the Teamsters offices at Jackson Boulevard and Ashland Avenue to the shadows of the Picasso statue outside Daley Plaza.

Because activity like this will help draw some attention to the Arizona situation, although if Major League Baseball really wanted to get the attention of the Arizona political and business establishments, they’d threaten to pull all of their training camps out of the state and relocate entirely to Florida.

Somehow, I think we’d have an easier time convincing baseball officials to move the Diamondbacks to another city.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Probably the only way to sway Major League Baseball that Arizona’s situation impacts them is for some of their ballplayers to have to endure law enforcement harassment while visiting Phoenix.

I can’t help but wonder about Rodrigo Lòpez Muñoz, one of the Diamondbacks pitchers this season who comes from Tlalnepantla in central Mexico. Because he is desired by a professional sports team, his route to a visa is much simpler than most people (although his can, and will, be revoked the instant he is released by the Diamondbacks). What happens the day Lòpez is late for a “big game” because some cop didn’t want to believe that this particular “Mexican” could have legitimate papers?

Kirk doesn’t want his picture taken with Sarah Palin, will that hurt him Nov. 2?

Every time conditions arise that make people think the political campaign of Alexi Giannoulias is dead and the rotting corpse ought to be buried immediately, something happens that ought to remind us that his Republican opponent has his own problems to address.

So on the same day that President Barack Obama used an appearance in Quincy, Ill., to give the Giannoulias name a positive plug, we get news reports informing us that Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., will not be seen next month with Sarah Palin – the one-time Alaska governor whose political presence is goddess-like among a faction of the electorate that Kirk could use come Nov. 2.

PALIN WILL BE in suburban Rosemont on May 12 for a fundraiser being held by the Illinois Republican Party – a political entity whose top priority these days is trying to win the election for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

Kirk being the GOP nominee for that position, one would think his presence would be mandatory. After all, some of that cash being raised is bound to go towards advertising and other projects meant to promote his image as being Senate-like.

But the Chicago Tribune this week reported that Kirk isn’t going to Rosemont on that date. Instead, he’s staying in Washington, where he will be “aw shucks”-ing it into having us believe that he’s just the member of Congress from the North Shore suburbs, representing the interests of his constituents instead of commingling with the GOP’s latest Country/Western Star (if Dem bigwigs are Rock Stars, what does that make the Republican celebs?).

On the day that his political party is trying to have one of its biggest days in terms of bolstering their image and trying to create an aura of inevitability that Republicans will win big on Election Day, Kirk will be nothing more than a member of the minority political party in Washington.

WHO’S TO SAY that Congress will do anything of significance that day? A chance to latch onto the Palin persona (which he was so eager to do back during the primary election cycle) would seem on a superficial level to be mandatory.

Of course, if one thinks a little deeper about this situation, it becomes obvious why Kirk would want nothing to do with the political persona of Palin that even manages to offend some Republican partisans. Getting too close to Palin puts Kirk in a position to offend voters.

That is something he cannot afford to do. He has to keep all of the “offended” people in the Giannoulias camp, thereby ensuring they see him as the rational alternative. The last thing he really needs to do in his desire to portray himself as the politically moderate alternative who can appeal to everybody is to get too tied to the hard-core partisans of his own political party.

Yet Kirk has the same problem as many other officials. Those hard-cores are the ones who are most behind the constant polls that have many people believing that 2010 is destined to be an excellent election cycle for officials of the Republican persuasion.

A GALLUP ORGANIZATION poll released Wednesday that had 46 percent of those surveyed saying they would vote for a Republican to represent them in Congress (compared to 45 percent saying they want a Democrat) found that the people most “enthusiastic” were the Republican-leaners.

That poll had 57 percent of those “very enthusiastic” about voting this year saying they want the GOP, while only 37 percent want a Dem. That is what overcomes the fact that people who are “somewhat enthusiastic” or “not enthusiastic” about voting actually prefer Democrats in Congress.

We’re talking about the ideologues who are driving this issue – the people who in 2008 were ABO, and whose sense of wanting Anybody But Obama has only intensified during the past year.

Let’s be honest. Many of these people are among Palin’s biggest backers.

WHICH MEANS I wonder how many of them are going to see Kirk’s presence in Washington on the day that Goddess Sarah comes to his home county as some sort of a sign of disrespect. Will it stir up resentment from people, and start them in ticking off the list of issues (gun control, abortion, etc.) where they think he is just “too urban/liberal/freaky/whatever term they prefer” to truly represent the Illinois they want to create?

Some people might respond to me by saying that I’m sniffing some tainted drugs from the Giannoulias campaign’s personal stash. There is a sense that such logic is wishful thinking on the part of the Alexi camp.

But there is also truth to the idea that the Kirk campaign is going to be an intense walk along a balance beam, with conservative razor wire underneath ready to slash him to pieces if he slips up and falls.

Is the act of stiffing Sarah in Rosemont going to hurt him, or help?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: It looks like Mark Kirk won’t be among the people writing out a $25,000 check payable to the order of the Illinois Republican Party so he can have his picture taken with Sarah Palin.

I’ll be watching outside Obama gathering in Quincy for any real campaign news

Quincy, Ill., hasn’t had this many Chicago people pay attention to it since the days some four decades ago when the Chicago Cubs had a minor league affiliate there.

Yet all of the political observers who specialize in Second City, and perhaps even a few amateurs who think the activity on Capitol Hill is as intense, are going to be watching the Mississippi River town of some 40,000 people to see what President Barack Obama does during his visit on Wednesday.

OFFICIALLY, OBAMA IS visiting several “middle-America” municipalities this week as part of what he is billing as a “White House to Main Street” tour – as though popping into Quincy and several other places just like it will suddenly make him more aware of what the people of our nation want from their federal government.

But the Quincy stop is going to get some extra scrutiny because it will be the only one on this tour that puts him within the boundaries of Illinois. Technically, it is official government business, and NOT a campaign stop.

So taxpayer funds will wind up covering the cost of travel and security and all the other nuances that get involved anytime a president takes it upon himself to commingle with the public.

But that distinction between government business and campaign business is going to get blurred, because Obama earlier this week gave invitations to just about every Democratic government official in Illinois – including Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias.

THE LATTER IS facing his own political perception problems that Republican partisans are eager to exaggerate into matters of grave significance – and seeing how Giannoulias deals with this conduct will tell us a lot about whether he is fit to serve in the U.S. Senate.

But there are those who are trying to read into his invitation some sort of support from Obama – a sign that the president is going to take a strong hand in trying to get his one-time basketball-playing buddy back on track from having to deal with the image that Republicans want us to have – one of a mob-tied banker who’s being bailed out by the same taxpayers who are paying for Air Force One to make a stop close enough to Adams County, Ill., that he can be in Quincy.

If this commentary reads like I am mocking the idea that Obama can (or will) do anything of significance to “save” Giannoulias on Wednesday, you would be dead-on accurate.

Personally, I will be surprised if Giannoulias, or Quinn, or anybody who serves on our local political scene, is allowed to say anything of significance that would allow them any specific attention. This appearance is about promoting Obama’s federal governing credentials, not bolstering our local campaign scene.

THE ONLY REAL significance would have been if Giannoulias had somehow been denied an invitation, although I personally would not have considered it to be too much of a snub.

But he didn’t.

Obama invited Giannoulias, along with Quinn (who should be smacking Republican gubernatorial nominee William Brady’s campaign all over the place these days, but isn’t) and just about any other Democrat with a pulse.

It’s not a specific honor. I’d be amazed if Obama said anything that could be construed as supportive because this just wouldn’t be the place for it.

ADAMS COUNTY IS not some Democratic stronghold. Obama lost that county in the 2008 general election by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin to Republican opponent John McCain (although he beat Hillary R. Clinton in the primary there by a 57 percent to 39 percent margin).

In fact, the website of the Quincy Herald-Whig newspaper (I like that name) had a completely-unscientific (but possibly honest) reader poll that had 73 percent of respondents saying they would neither try to see Obama, nor watch him on local television, during his visit.

So for all those people who are convinced that Wednesday is going to somehow influence our local elections, I’d be very skeptical. In fact, about the only reason I’m going to be watching what happens in Quincy is that I’m curious to see how the counter-demonstration progresses.

A group calling itself Quincy’s “Tea Party movement” plans to hold its own rally outside of the hall where Obama is hoping to hold a “town hall” session. Inside the hall will be an impromptu session that is as completely-scripted as any public appearance a president makes.

OUTSIDE WILL BE an event more chaotic, in that who’s to say what these Tea Party types are capable of doing.

Will we get a vocal, but respectful (as in acknowledging the office, regardless of the man in it), voice of dissent? Or will it deteriorate into some sort of raucous mess that winds up making the Republican Party in Illinois have to issue some sort of lame apology and denial that they were even involved?

Be honest. That option is much more likely than the thought of Giannoulias saying anything interesting, or getting any kind of real support while he gets to stand on stage during the event and serve as a presidential prop of sorts.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: They’re already acting in Quincy as though they are being snubbed, pointing out that the president didn’t say much of anything on his arrival in Illinois on Tuesday. He is hitting towns in Iowa and Missouri before returning to Quincy for a Wednesday town hall forum.

No matter how much some people want to believe it so, Alexi Giannoulias is likely to be the least interesting aspect of what will happen Wednesday in the Gem City.