Jones III vs. Spanky the Clown?

It gives me a bit of pleasure to learn that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones will retire on top. The 35-year-member of the General Assembly who has been the leader of the Illinois Senate for much of this decade has decided it’s time to step down from electoral politics.

Why should I care that Jones, who is 72, will retire as the Senate president? It’s because I know firsthand how much Jones’ presence in that leadership position has miffed certain types of people.

I WOULD HAVE hated to see anything that could be interpreted as Jones being demoted, because it would have given those people a perverse joy.

Many of those were people from suburban or rural areas who were dismayed that someone who did not come from their background could possibly be one of “The Four Tops,” that nickname given by Statehouse political geeks to the four leaders of the Illinois General Assembly.

Jones was always the one who people would dump on with their nasty rhetoric. As much as they might hate the thought of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, he has been around so long and been a leader with such a strong base that there was no way to seriously think about deposing him.

Jones, on the other hand…

EMIL WAS THE South Sider who rose from being just another member of the legislature’s black caucus to being the leader of all Democrats in the Senate in 1993. Ten years later, when Democrats gained control of the entire Legislature, Jones became the president.

That urban background caused the suburban and rural types to snipe about him. I personally recall one legislative aide (a staffer who worked for then Illinois House Minority Leader Lee Daniels of Elmhurst) who would routinely belittle Jones as “a waste of oxygen” any time Jones and the other three legislative leaders would meet.

I also remember broadcasters who covered news activity at the Statehouse in Springfield who would claim that Jones was worthless for interviews because his rough, gravelly voice was “incomprehensible” to their listeners, they would say.

Yet Jones is the man who devoted his life in public service to looking out for the needs of his legislative district. When he moved up to leadership positions that required him to take a look at the bigger picture that is all of Illinois, he still did not forget the South Side neighborhoods where he came from.

JONES SHOWED A certain dignity in the way he conducted himself as a legislative leader. It may have helped that he never had to endure the lofty rhetoric of being the “first” African American to serve as state Senate president (that was the late Cecil Partee back in the 1970s).

So it probably was no accident that when Democrats in Springfield got themselves caught up in the kind of partisan infighting that is second-nature to local politics in Chicago, those brawls devolved to Madigan vs. Gov. Rod Blagojevich, with Jones on the sidelines or in support of the governor.

It also was his skills that helped Democrats in the Illinois Senate build themselves up in strength, going from the days of the 1990s when then-Senate President James “Pate” Philip of Wood Dale used to love showing Democrats how irrelevant they were to the situation now – where a 37-member Democrat majority gives Jones the ability to override gubernatorial vetoes and flex some muscle of his own.

And should one-time state Sen. Barack Obama of the Hyde Park neighborhood go on to victory in the Nov. 4 elections, the Jones legacy will gain a lasting impact. It was with Jones’ cooperation that Obama was able to rise from the ranks of just another “schlub” in the Senate to being someone who could run for federal office. How many people can say they seriously had a hand in “making” a president of the United States?

IT IS WHY the sniping that is taking place now on various web sites should be dismissed as the babbling of idiots. Most of it comes from people who are upset that Illinois government is not dominated by a majority with a rural mindset.

These are the same people who are persistent in trash talk about the impeachment of Blagojevich (I noticed one wisecrack on the website of the State Journal-Register newspaper that suggested Blagojevich and Jones should have adjoining jail cells – for what, it was not specified).

So what happens now?

Insofar as leader of the Democrats in the Senate is concerned, there are several incumbent members who think they should rise to the top position. Among them is Sen. Terry Link, D-Grayslake, who is among a group of suburban lawmakers whose cooperation with Jones helped turn the Democratic caucus from a Chicago-only group to one large enough to be a dominant presence in Illinois politics.

THERE’S ALWAYS THE chance John Cullerton, D-Chicago, could rise to the top post, which would have the effect of restoring a member of the Cullerton family (which during the past century has had so many members of Chicago city and Cook County government) to a position of prominence.

There’s even the chance that Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, will tout himself for the leadership post, thinking himself worthy of challenging the governor, the mayor, a “President Obama” and anybody else who doesn’t genuflect in his presence.

But when it comes to the concept of succession, Jones shows himself to be (above all) a Chicago politico.

His top concern (as reported by various newspapers) is to think of who will take over the Senate seat he has held for 23 years. It appears the Jones family thinks the same way as the families Madigan, Stroger, Hynes, Cullerton and many others (including Daley).

THE OUTGOING SENATE president says he’d like his son (Emil Jones III) to assume his position in the Illinois Senate – representing the people of the Roseland and Pullman neighborhoods.

Of course, there are some obstacles to that happening. Democratic party officials on the South Side would have to agree to let the younger Jones fill the vacancy that would occur when Sen. Jones formally resigns his ballot spot in the Nov. 4 general election. If that happens, the younger Jones would have to win that Nov. 4 election.

Would Jones the 3rd (who is an accountant on the staff of Blagojevich) get the same hassle that Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., got when his father, longtime Chicago alderman and Congressman Bill Lipinski, suddenly retired to free up a spot on Capitol Hill for his son?

He may not. But if he did, that would be about the only chance that the Republicans would have to win that legislative seat.

FOR AS THINGS stand now, the GOP hopeful is Ray Wardingly – the one-time “Spanky the Clown” who has run so many token political campaigns.

Getting to run seriously against an unknown Jones could be the highlight of Wardingly’s political career, even more so than in 1995 when he actually won the GOP nomination for Chicago mayor, making him the token candidate who got smashed by Richard M. Daley.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Emil Jones is not making the mistake that many political people make (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-emil-jones-retire-webaug19,0,1514613.story) in trying to stick around (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=990) in elective office for too long.

Jones claims he’s not looking for another political position, even if his protégé (Barack Obama) were (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30629) to win the presidential elections this year.

“Spanky the Clown” just ensured that someone (http://www.raywardingley.com/) will actually pay attention to his token political campaign of 2008.

Sheriff tactic so cartoonish it's scary

What does it say about the intelligence quotient of our society at large when the half-wit police tactics of “The Simpsons” work so well in the daily life of the Second City?

When I learned Sunday that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart managed to get a few dozen people with outstanding warrants for their arrests by staging a phony tax rebate, all I could think of was that Dart is now the equivalent of Chief Clancy Wiggum, and that we now have a few real-life Homer Simpsons walking about.

FANS OF “THE Simpsons” television program remember the episode from several years ago that started off with the mythical Springfield P.D. sending out letters promising a “free boat” to everybody who showed up at the police station at a certain time.

Homer: Up and away in my beautiful, my beautiful motorboat! Da da da da!
Bart: But we didn’t enter any police raffle.
Homer: That doesn’t matter. The important thing is we won.

It turns out that the people who received the letters were the ones who had outstanding warrants (Homer had 235 unpaid parking tickets), and police arrested every single person who showed up – before beating each of them, in the words of Chief Wiggum, “to the full extent of the law.”

Now I am not aware of any evidence that the Cook County Sheriff’s police administered similar beatings in recent weeks. But otherwise, the television tactic was applied to real life.

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE newspaper reported that Dart’s staff coordinated a ruse by which they rented out office space, then sent letters to people with warrants for crimes ranging from automobile moving violations to unpaid child support.

Those letters told people they were eligible for a check providing them with an additional income tax rebate. As if the one check they may have received earlier this year (if they bothered to file an income tax return with the IRS) wasn’t sufficient, they were given the hope of thinking they were someone special who was entitled to more.

Of course, I can’t help but wonder if the fact that federal officials are seriously considering giving second rebate checks of a few hundred dollars to certain taxpayers may have confused some of these individuals into thinking that action was being taken.

But unlike the first rebate check where one merely had to file their tax return, then have the check mailed directly to their home (or direct deposited into their bank account, if they so chose), this “letter” told people they had to show up at a specific address to collect their additional rebate check.

ABOUT 100 PEOPLE either showed up at the office or made calls to telephone numbers provided in the letter inquiring about the check. In all, 66 of those people were arrested, either at the office or at their home addresses which police learned of through the sting.

Now some people could be impressed with those totals. After all, that’s 66 people now in the criminal justice system who were not there just a few weeks ago.

But the sheriff’s police, according to the Tribune, actually sent about 5,000 letters to people with outstanding warrants. Of those, just over 1 percent actually wound up being arrested.

When viewed in that context, “Operation Rebate and Switch” was a flop. Not that the sheriff’s police are complaining.

SHERIFF DART WENT so far Sunday as to hold a press conference outside the storefront that was used in the scam so he could boast of his “accomplishment” for the deadly-dull Sunday television newscasts and Monday morning newspapers.

In his stunt to brag about his office’s stunt, Dart said it was the “greed” of those with arrest warrants that caused them to overcome any skepticism they might have had about receiving an unsolicited letter promising them money.

Dart also liked to brag about the fact that many of those who showed up at the “office” were driving on invalid licenses, which gave police the legal authority to impound their cars – requiring the motorists to either pay huge fees to get their cars back or risk losing them at auction.

In all, those fees generated about $6,000, which he said covered about three-quarters of the cost of maintaining a phony accountant’s office for people to collect non-existent checks.

OF COURSE, THE only way a stunt like this works in the real world is if one is dealing with people who aren’t too bright to begin with.

At least one person still expected to get a tax rebate check even after being told he was under arrest. The Tribune reported that Dart said the person wanted to know if he could “sign over” his rebate check to the county to cover the cost of posting bail.

That’s a case of reality impersonating fiction. At the very least, that man ought to be nicknamed “Homer,” as the patriarch of the cartoon clan kept persistently asking for his motorboat, even as the Springfield P.D. did their best impersonation of the Chicago police treatment of protesters outside the ’68 Democratic convention.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: More than five dozen people in the Chicago area now face criminal charges (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-080817-sting-rebate,0,6647828.story) after being caught in a sting operation where they thought they were getting a second tax rebate check.

The Cook County Jail has a few dozen more inmates due to the sheriff’s police new (http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=47944@wbbm.dayport.com&hbx.hra=Chicago-LAN&hbx.cmp.c1=video+91001158&hbx.cmp.c3=641&hbx.cmp.c2=160+x+600+91001158&hbx.cmp=AFC-Chi) sting.

“The Simpsons” television program has managed to survive for nearly two decades on the air (http://www.tv.com/the-simpsons/lisa-the-skeptic/episode/1471/trivia.html) because, at times, it eerily mirrors real life.

Second City's journalism future, past and present came together this week

The past couple of days have given us both a history lesson and a glimpse of the future for what passes for journalism in Chicago.

The Chicago-oriented website published by Arianna Huffington kicked itself into gear this week. While I will concede there is the chance it will get better, its beginnings are just as mediocre as I would have expected.

THE HUFFINGTON POST – Chicago on its first day gave us links to about a half-dozen news stories and features, all of which were lifted from the web sites of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.

The first “lede story” on the site’s first day of operation was nothing more than a link to a column written by Sun-Times Washington correspondent Lynn Sweet. Now I don’t have anything against the work of Sweet, who is one of the top reporters working in the Chicago news media.

She had an interesting column that day, and by and large the stories that were picked up from the two metro newspapers were the top bits of news for the day.

The problem is that because I had already looked at the Sun-Times and Tribune web sites (and the papers themselves) before going to the Huffington Post Chicago, I had already read every single bit of news that Arianna’s vision of the future of news media had to offer.

SHE GAVE ME nothing that first day I didn’t already know. And personally, I’d rather go straight to the websites that are producing copy to get stories firsthand. I don’t need Arianna’s vision of which stories she thinks I should read.

Insofar as the specialty columnists her site offered up, I could do without the ramblings of actor John Cusack – although I’m not going to be as critical of him as some pundits have been. It turns out that the actor who likes to think of himself as the ultimate Chicago sports fan couldn’t properly spell Larry Biittner, Chris Chelios or Michael Jordan.

But his typographical errors were mild compared to some of the whoppers that turn up on websites everywhere.

For those people who are convinced that these understaffed sites somehow give a personal touch to the news, proper spelling and good grammar are something that sometimes get sacrificed by the Internet – particularly if one is working on a business model that only is profitable if one does not have to pay the “hired help” who generate copy.

WITH ALL OF this, I don’t think the Huffington Post Chicago is a “must-read” site. I may check it out again in a month or so to see if it shapes up any (which is possible, I still remember how awful the Tribune Co.’s CLTV was in its first couple weeks of existence back in 1993).

But I don’t feel any need to add a link on this site to the Huffington Post Chicago, even though I try to keep a fairly comprehensive list of Chicago-oriented news organizations and their web sites down the right-hand column of the Chicago Argus.

For the time being, I will stick with reading the actual newspapers (and checking the websites to see if stories get updated throughout the day).

It was by actually reading the papers that I got a bittersweet treat this week – the Sun-Times is trying to give us unsubtle reminders of those days in the late 1970s and early 1980s when their staff combined with that of the now-defunct Chicago Daily News to create one of the top newspapers in the country – one that came very close to matching the Tribune’s circulation (about 700,000 copies sold per weekday for the Tribune, compared to about 650,000 sold per day for the Sun-Times).

MIKE ROYKO IS back in the newspaper. The Sun-Times on both Thursday and Friday reprinted columns he wrote for the newspaper during his six-year stint there, along with little boxes telling us whatever became of the people Royko wrote about.

It was interesting to learn that the Polish immigrant who got mugged and had the police thinking he was the robber did NOT wind up having his status affected by federal immigration authorities.

And it was refreshing to read a column that reported a story with a perspective, instead of just provided a forum for some literary gasbag to pontificate (a trend of which I am sometimes guilty of as well).

But it also had the negative effect of casting a pall over the rest of the paper – almost like it was showing us how much the publication has declined throughout the years. It was just as sad as last week when the Sun-Times editorial page reprinted a column written by Roger Simon.

OFFICIALLY, HE WAS a “guest columnist” filling the space of now-retired pundit Robert Novak. Yet I remember when Royko and Simon were the top columnists providing the Sun-Times with its voice in Chicago.

The Sun-Times is a newspaper whose ghosts have the potential to overshadow its current format. And that is not good.

There’s only so much old copy that can be reprinted before the Sun-Times becomes a nostalgia act. What comes next, the Sun-Times reprints the month-long series from 1977 about “The Mirage,” letting us know that the tavern on Superior Street was once used by the paper to document the degree to which government inspectors “shook down” small business owners?

It is in this environment that the present status of journalism came under scrutiny at the Chicago Tribune. The newspaper let several of its top editorial staffers go last week (including a managing editor, a Washington bureau manager and an ombudsman), and another 40 people were informed on Friday they no longer worked for the newspaper.

THE COMBINATION OF layoffs and buyouts are part of an effort to reduce expenses enough to allow Sam Zell and his people to claim a profit at a time when advertising lineage is plummeting.

When combined with positions that were vacant that will never be filled, there are now 80 fewer journalists working for the Chicago Tribune – although new Editor Gerould Kern wrote in a memo to staff (http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13544) that the truly significant number is 480.

That is the size of the Tribune’s remaining editorial staff, and he claims it to be bigger than any other newspaper publishing in the Midwestern U.S.

To me, what is intriguing about the Tribune these days is how it will cope with the losses of so many high-ranking people at once. Institutional memory is an important characteristic, even though some Tribune executives of today prefer to think of it as “museum-like” and dull.

BUT I CAN’T say I’m shocked that so many long-term Tribune people are willing to leave now. It’s not like the working conditions for those veteran newspeople paid much in the way of respect for their skills.

“Anybody in the newsroom over the age of 50 these days is being made to feel like they’re in Hell,” one veteran Tribune reporter recently told me.

With that kind of attitude prevailing, you can’t blame these people who thought they would devote their lives to disseminating the news for taking advantage of a generous buyout package (about a year’s salary along with continued health insurance benefits for some of the longer-serving journalists) for not working.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: People who think the Internet is about finding video clips of kids fighting each other or cheerleaders landing on their butts might not care, but somebody (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Is_this_the_future_of_Philadelphia_journalism.html) has to figure out the future of who will generate the editorial content for websites, if the sites themselves are determined to take their copy from other sources. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times (which has felt disrespected by its Chicago owners) gave its assessment (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/08/huffington-post.html) of the Chicago Tribune’s newest competitor for the attention of people wanting news and information about Chicago.

More than 11 years after his departure from this Earth (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1107895,cst-nws-royko14.article), Royko’s back!

More jobs than expected (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30622) were lost at the Chicago Tribune in recent weeks. Meanwhile, the Sun-Times couldn’t help (http://www.suntimes.com/business/1110213,trib081508.article) but take a few digs at their competition’s financial problems.

There’s a very good reason I always call political conventions “pep rallies”

For me, the essence of what a presidential nominating convention is all about can be personified by the performance of actor Edward James Olmos when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention of 1996.

You remember that convention – the first held in Chicago since the police riot-filled political bash of 1968 and since late mayor Richard J. Daley declared after the 1972 convention (the year that the Chicago delegates were dumped for a more liberal collection of officials led by Rev. Jesse Jackson) that he would NEVER again allow the Democrats to use his city for their preeminent political event.

SINCE IT WAS a foregone conclusion that the Democrats were going to give Bill Clinton a chance at a second term in office, the real story that year was less about the politics and more about the Second City. Would some Abbie Hoffman pretender try to spark some trouble with protests?

It didn’t happen. The convention itself was fairly uneventful (most people remember Vice President Al Gore’s speech, where he stood stiff as a board, then told the crowd of Democratic partisans that that was his take on the Macarena dance craze).

Self-deprecation. That is what Chicago ’96 is remembered for by many.

But not by me.

I WAS A reporter-type for United Press International at that convention, and on the first day I was on the United Center floor with hundreds of other delegates when one of the first speakers was Olmos.

He gave a brief speech about the need of the Democratic Party to take into account the needs of the United States’ growing Latino population.

Actually, I should say he TRIED to give a brief speech.

What he actually did was worked himself into a frenzy unsuccessfully trying to gain the attention of the crowd of Democratic delegates. Most of the delegates were ignoring Olmos, either milling around the floor of the United Center or engaging in their own little conversations throughout the arena.

“LISTEN TO ME!!!,” he would screech repeatedly, while trying to accentuate his speech with a shrill, piercing whistle.

It didn’t work. Nobody cared about anything that was being said that early in the show. After all, knowledgeable political people knew that the only people who were worth listening to were the ones who got speaking slots in prime time (which is the punch line behind Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s repeated jokes that he will speak at the convention hall men’s room at 4:30 a.m.).

The sad part was that nobody let Olmos in on this fact. He thought he was going to say something legitimate to inspire the nation. It didn’t happen.

These people in attendance at the convention knew that the rest of the rhetoric was nothing more than an excuse to make it appear as though the political parties are putting on complete shows to properly display their presidential nominees.

FOR THAT, ULTIMATELY, is what the presidential nominating conventions have become – a show.

In private, political party officials will be the first to admit that the primary purpose of the nominating conventions these days is to get all the delegates (who are mostly party leaders in the counties across the country) excited enough to care about winning the “Big Game” (a.k.a., the Nov. 4 elections for president).

It’s really little more than a bunch of speeches to the party faithful from the “coach” telling the “team” to win “the big game” – think the cinematic version of Knute Rockne telling Notre Dame’s gridders to, “win one for the Gipper.” Both events are about equally as legitimate.

All these local political bigwigs whose names mean absolutely nothing outside of their home counties get their chance to travel to some far-off city and live it up in semi-luxurious hotels, while also partying it up at special late-night events (I still remember in 1996, the Democrats from California held an event at Buddy Guy’s Legends blues club that was closed to anybody from outside of California).

FOR THE PEOPLE who come from the home states of Minnesota (for the GOP) or Colorado (for the Democrats), they get a chance to puff up their chests and let their egos run amok that their home gets to be shown off to the political geeks from across the U.S. of A.

All of this is done in the name of getting the party faithful enthused enough about the presidential candidates that they go back home and get their neighbors worked up into a frenzy as well.

Now how much of this is really news? Not much, I’ll admit.

Newsgathering organizations tend to be willing to spend some money to cover this “event” because it creates the perception that they are covering something of great public significance.

IT IS ONE of the few times that television stations will be willing to devote significant airtime to broadcasting the nominating conventions live. Various publications will make a point of having several reporter-types grind out as much copy as they can every day – so as to create the appearance that they gave “thorough” coverage to the “historic” event.

Yet the simple fact is that August will end with Barack Obama officially chosen by Democrats as the nominee for president. A couple of weeks later, the Republicans will follow suit and officially crush any hopes that Mike Huckabee had of becoming president, when they nominate John McCain.

In all likelihood, both men will have made their choices for vice presidential running mates just before their respective conventions.

So that is somewhat newsworthy, in that the would-be second-in-commands will get their first significant public exposure at the conventions. But that only becomes real news if one of the running mates succumbs to the innate ability of saying something stupid.

THAT IS ABOUT the only chance that real news will be made in Denver or St. Paul, unless a Rob Lowe wannabe decides to show up in either city and pull off something equally as scandalous as the actor’s behavior in 1988 with underage girls at the Democratic convention in Atlanta.

In fact, I’d argue that the “real” news related to the nominating conventions doesn’t affect the world of politics as much as it does the world of professional sports – specifically, that of baseball.

The Minnesota Twins, who are engaged in a tight pennant race with the Chicago White Sox and who have a tradition of playing significantly better in their home stadium in Minneapolis than they do on the road, are being forced into a 14-day/14-game road trip at the end of August/beginning of September.

Baseball schedulers shifted so many Twins games to the road at that time of year so that officials in the Twin Cities could focus on preparing for the convention. Twins game grounds will not be subjected to fighting their way through the throngs of Republicans who will converge on St. Paul to express their “man crush” for John McCain.

IF IT TURNS out that the White Sox manage to beat out the Twins for the division title this season by only a game or two, having so many late-season road games will certainly be a factor.

In that case, then perhaps Obama (who is a White Sox fan) ought to give a bit of thanks to the GOP bigwigs for staging their McCain pep rally in such a way as to muck up the Twins’ chances.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Slate media critic Jack Shafer may be a cantankerous sort, but he’s not wrong (http://www.slate.com/id/2197433/) when he writes that the news media would be better off letting C-SPAN handle the actual broadcasting of the presidential nominating conventions.

The real news of 2008 for Democrats could be if the Clintons (Hillary & Bill) manage to outshine (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5579194&page=1) Barack Obama at his coronation, er, uh, nomination.

Are the political parties going too far to try to control the expression of opposition thought (http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m8d13-Security-restrictions-for-Republican-convention-under-fire) at the nominating conventions?

Be cautious, someone may be selling “hot” buttons touting Obama campaign

People who attend campaign rallies don’t see the good old-fashioned campaign button much anymore.

The round, metallic pins with a candidate’s picture or campaign logo do not get produced in great quantities, as campaigns often find it cheaper to have batches of stickers containing the picture or logo printed up for use at rallies and other events.

PEOPLE WEAR THE sticker on their lapel for a couple of hours until the glue wears away. Then they dispose of it and get a new sticker at the next political event they attend.

When one does see a traditional campaign button, they usually are for sale – a couple of bucks each, or perhaps three for $5.

People peddling the buttons either have some connection to the campaign (which means the money goes to the candidate), or they are peddling unauthorized buttons with crude slogans (I own a campaign button from 2004 that reads, “I REFUSE to vote for a Son of a BUSH!”) or silly pictures (like then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton with her hair dyed orange and cut like former professional basketball player Dennis Rodman) that the candidates likely wished did not exist.

But for those people who have an interest in electoral politics and also have the habit of collecting junk, the campaign button remains a key item to possess.

WHEN COMBINED WITH the unique character of Campaign ’08, it should not be a surprise that there is a demand for campaign buttons for the presidential aspirations of Democrat Barack Obama.

So perhaps it should not be a surprise that someone may have gone so far as to steal Obama campaign buttons.

At least that’s the situation that police in the Illinois capital city of Springfield were looking into these days. Did someone really swipe a bag of about 200 Obama buttons? What would motivate someone to do such a thing?

Perhaps it is a plot by allies of the John McCain campaign who are sick of seeing Obama’s face plastered everywhere (he literally was on Ellen DeGeneres’ talk show on Wednesday, engaging in light banter with her and making telephone calls to her show’s viewers) and partook in a covert plot to benefit the U.S. senator from Arizona.

WAS THE BUTTON theft a tiny gesture to try to reduce the spread of Obama-mania?

Or perhaps it was just dumb luck and the buttons got disposed of, which would be my guess. But police are not ruling out the possibility of theft.

According to the State Journal-Register newspaper of Springfield, a woman was at the capital city hotel where Democrats were meeting Wednesday for a breakfast gathering of the Democratic County Chairman’s Association – which is one of the big annual political events for Democrats of the rural Illinois persuasion.

Later in the day, many of those same party officials planned to visit the Illinois State Fairgrounds for “Governor’s Day” rallies with Rod Blagojevich.

WITH SUCH A market of Democrats in a semi-celebratory mood, the woman probably figured it was a captive market of people who would be inclined to spend a couple of bucks for a souvenir of the presidential aspirations of our “favorite son” who is running for president.

Of course, she made the mistake of taking her eye off her bag of buttons, which she left on the floor of the hotel lobby (just like one-time Chicago Cubs slugger Sammy Sosa once lost a paper bag with $10,000 cash in a hotel lobby in the Dominican Republic).

Then, the woman noticed her bag was missing. She told police that she was out about $100 – the cost to her to make up the Obama buttons.

Of course, I suppose there’s always the possibility that someone really did take the buttons, seeing a chance to sell them for themselves.

WILL THESE “HOT” buttons now turn up on the market, with some shady character pulling the bag out of the trunk of his car and offering to sell them for less than their usual cost? (Hey, a buck a button, the slogan has a nice alliterative effect to it).

Do I now have to give serious thought to wondering if I am purchasing stolen merchandise when/if I go so far as to get an Obama button or two for my tiny collection of campaign memorabilia?

For actually, I have not yet acquired a button for Obama’s presidential campaign (although I do have one for his 2004 U.S. Senate bid against Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes). He is the one significant candidate whom I did not get during the campaign season (seriously, I have two Hillarys, an Edwards, two Guilianis, and one each of Huckabee and McCain).

Now, I have to be skeptical when I go scouring for an Obama, which just adds to the headache.

NOW I KNOW I could just whip out a credit card, go to the Obama campaign web site, and pick out a couple of the many of different designs they would be more than willing to sell me (and ship directly to my residence).

That just seems too easy. Part of the appeal to collecting this stuff is the sense of scouring for material, and occasionally developing a personal anecdote about how I acquired it.

Take the button I have for the 1998 gubernatorial bid of Democrat Glenn Poshard. I bought it off a campaign aide who literally started begging me to buy the button because the Poshard campaign needed every dollar it could get.

It was true, a lot of the big money types who usually bankrolled Democrats in Illinois were not swayed by the Southern Illinois “charm” of Poshard. I suppose this also makes me one of Poshard’s campaign contributors (all of $3, if I remember correctly) in his unsuccessful bid against Republican George Ryan (for whom I have a blue-and-white “I like George” button).

THEN, THERE’S MY button for the ’96 presidential dreams of Pat Paulsen, the actor and comedian from “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” who made many token presidential bids during his lifetime.

With the campaign motto of “United We Sit,” Paulsen himself gave me the button when I was a United Press International reporter helping to cover the Democratic convention at the United Center.

But if I’m not careful, the story that will develop behind my eventual purchase of an Obama for President button (I would kind of like one design I once saw – green and white with a shamrock, it reads, “O’Bama,”) is that it became the time I dealt in the purchase of stolen goods.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Springfield P.D. (and not Chief Wiggum) are investigating the Obama button caper (http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1485136999/Obama-political-buttons-stolen-from-Crowne-Plaza). Dumb-da-DUMB-dumb.

Sen. Barack Obama and Larry Craig? It appears to be an erroneous button design, and (http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/NEWS03/379507618) one that has a chance to gain some value from political geeks of the future.

My collection of campaign-related memorabilia pales in comparison to that (http://www.startribune.com/politics/26893159.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7EaDiaMDCiUT) of Paul Bengston of Minnesota.

Pat Paulsen (http://www.paulsen.com/archive.html) and his bids for president (in 1968, ’72, ’80, ’88, ’92 and ’96) were capable of drawing some protest votes – once finishing second to Bill Clinton in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.

Both Dems & GOP create “flip flop”-like rhetoric with regards to “abortion”

As one who has always hated the way the issue of abortion plays out in electoral politics (mainly because I think it is an issue that is none of the business of an elected official, unless she happens to get pregnant), I find it amusing the way everybody these days is trying to give the impression that the presidential candidates are not rigidly set on the issue.

When it comes to the ability of a woman to choose to end a pregnancy, Democrat Barack Obama supports it, while Republican John McCain has said he would not object to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding that its previous incarnation was wrong when it ruled in 1973 that state laws outlawing abortion were unconstitutional.

YET THE DEMOCRATIC Party is tampering with its platform (its written rhetoric that is supposed to explain definitively – but never does – what it means to be a Democrat) so as to give some comfort to people whose squeamishness about abortion is so intense that they support the people who want to ban it outright.

And McCain is saying that his choice for vice president does not have to be someone who rigidly agrees with him on the issue. Could the McCain campaign have a running mate who supports the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling?

Both sides are trying to steal away a few voters from the other side by trying to make their guy seem less mule-headed in his position.

Democrats are including legal language in their party platform (which few people ever read in detail) to say that they still support a woman’s right to choose abortion, but also would support expansion of programs that would make women more cautious in their behavior and less likely to become pregnant unexpectedly in the first place.

MEANWHILE, CNN NOTES that McCain told the “Weekly Standard” magazine that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge is not out of the running for vice president, just because he has a record of being one of the few Republicans to support abortion being legal.

Personally, I’m not convinced anyone is going to be swayed by either tactic. For people to whom opposition to legal abortion is important, anything short of supporting the repeal of “Roe v. Wade” will not suffice. The Democrats don’t even come close to that position in their revised platform language.

And with all the problems McCain has had in trying to convince social conservatives that he is not some sort of flaming liberal with a particularly weak (to them) record on immigration reform, he’s not about to play with fire by adding anti-abortion activists to the list of people who think he’s a jerk.

In short, the people to whom abortion is all-important will still vote for the Democrat or the Republican based on their prior understanding of the issue. And the rest of us who are a tad more rational will find other issues upon which to cast our ballot come Nov. 4.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Are Democrats trying to persuade potential conservative voters that Barack Obama is not the “anti-Christ” (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/13/Dems_new_abortion_plank_gets_cautious_OK/UPI-79281218635702/) when it comes to abortion? And does John McCain need Pennsylvania’s significant number of electoral votes so badly that he would risk angering (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/13/mccain-open-to-picking-pro-choice-veep/) the anti-abortion crowd by taking Tom Ridge on as a running mate?

Illinois pay raises not the great political sin the way some want to portray them as

What was the deal about Wednesday?

Was today really some crucial deadline that had to be met if the General Assembly was to be able to do something to spare taxpayers the expense of pay increases for people on the Illinois government payroll?

WAS IT ALL a moot point because, as Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes says, there’s no appropriation of money in the budget that would allow him to approve checks for higher salaries?

Or is it more likely that all the rhetoric being spewed by political people in Chicago and Springfield was nothing more than a chance to try to score points against their opponents?

The way things stand, pay raises for various state employees (including the members of the Illinois General Assembly) were rejected, as the Illinois Senate gave in to political pressure on Tuesday. Although state Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, had long said he thought the salary increases were justified, he ultimately allowed a measure to reject pay hikes to proceed, and it got a 47-0 vote. State officials have not received a pay raise since 1999, although they have received cost of living adjustments every other year, including a 3.8 percent boost this year.

All activity related to state government this week is supposed to take place at the Illinois State Fairgrounds, not the capitol building itself. Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn (below) is keeping himself busy with pay raise-related activity. Photographs provided by state of Illinois.

Now the way political people portrayed this issue, it was a matter of the Legislature giving itself a pay hike. In reality, it was the Legislature having to approve a pay increase for state officials, constitutional officers and judges, in addition to themselves. It was because the concept of salary increases for people on the Illinois government payroll being an “all or nothing” concept that I was never offended by the idea of pay hikes.

THE ILLINOIS HOUSE of Representatives did vote a few months ago to reject pay increases. But the state Senate held out on taking action until Tuesday because they considered it ridiculous to refuse to give state workers a pay hike – just because some people objected to the fact that the legislators themselves would also receive it.

That is the key to understanding the process by which Illinois government decides how much to pay its top staffers. A commission that is supposed to be apolitical and judge the jobs purely on the merits of the work being done and the cost of living decides how much of a pay increase is warranted every two years.

When that commission releases its study, its recommendation takes effect – unless the General Assembly approves a very specific resolution overturning the recommendation.

And it can’t just overturn the idea of a pay hike for some people, while allowing others who warrant a raise to get it. Just imagine the chaos that would be caused if the General Assembly were allowed to play political favorites – giving some people a raise and not others.

IN TODAY’S POLITICAL climate, I could imagine the goofs who would want to score political points by docking the salary of Gov. Rod Blagojevich while allowing others to get the governor’s money.

That is why it must be an “all or none” issue. The people who don’t want the legislators to get more money also have to harm the pay hikes of Illinois constitutional officers, various state agency officials and judges (whose salaries are included in this report too).

Now some people are saying that at a time when the cost of living (gas, food, housing, etc.) are increasing for Illinois residents, it is wrong to raise pay. But in reality, it is those very increases in the cost of living that caused the commission to recommend the pay hikes.

These state employees who do legitimate work on behalf of the people of Illinois also have to support themselves financially. They have to eat, pay the mortgage or rent, fill up the gas tank to get themselves to work.

DOES ONE REALLY believe they should be penalized because they work for the same general employer as the 177 goofs who were duly elected by the voters of Illinois to serve in the state Legislature?

Now for those who object to the Legislature’s tactics (the Illinois House approving a rejection of pay hikes while the state Senate did nothing), it must be acknowledged that they could have done worse – they are being honest in ways that some past legislators were not.

Jones may sound like he is mocking his political critics. But at least he’s coming right out and stating he’s not going to play politics with the issue, just to satisfy some people who will find an ideological reason to oppose him – regardless of what he does to try to appease them.

There have been some years in the past when both the Illinois House and state Senate would manage to approve a resolution of sorts that could be interpreted as a stance against pay hikes.

BUT WHAT WOULD happen is that each legislative chamber would come up with their own resolution, pass it and send it on to the other legislative body for concurrence – which would never occur.

The end result was that every single legislator who felt the need to say he or she voted for a measure against pay increases could do so. But since one single resolution never got approval from both the House and Senate, the raises would take effect anyway and political people would say it was “the other guy’s fault.”

That didn’t happen this year. Instead, we’re going to get the political rhetoric from various factions that comprise the Statehouse Scene.

I couldn’t help but notice Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn going so far as to hold a press conference in Chicago on Sunday and picket a gubernatorial appearance on Monday, claiming that pay hikes were bad and that the legislators didn’t deserve them.

HE EVEN WENT so far as to say he would donate the additional money from his pay increase to some charitable cause, which is a cute gesture. Of course, what he really wants is to draw attention to his new web site (http://www.nopayraise.org/), which is set up to allow people to automatically send hostile e-mails to either Jones or Blagojevich in protest of the pay raises.

For what it is worth, the Illinois governor’s salary would be increased from its current $171,000 to about $192,000 by July 2009.

That may sound like a lot of money. But there are officials elsewhere who get more.

Chicago’s police superintendent earns nearly double the governor’s salary, and Mayor Richard M. Daley also takes in nearly $70,000 more per year. Heck, even Daley’s press secretary earns more than the governor.

NOW AS SOMEONE who personally has never taken in a salary of more than $35,000 annually, that might sound like some great sum of money. It might even be distorted into some great outrage that a mental mediocrity like Blagojevich could get such a salary.

But ultimately, all of this rhetoric about pay increases being wicked is dishonest. It comes from people who want to nitpick at the current political leaders in Springfield because they’re envious of their control. That nitpicking is an alternative to focusing their attention on trying to defeat them come the elections of 2010.

In short, talk about pay raises being “bad” is just partisan political rhetoric that should not be taken seriously. It would have been best had the state Senate had some backbone and ignored it.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Some people are willing to kill pay hikes for legitimate state employees (http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1101871,edit081108.article) to score political points against the Legislature.

Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is back to using press conferences on Sunday to try to gain attention for (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-quinn-payraises,0,5466116.story) his pet causes.

Legislators are more than willing to use the pay raise issue to try to score political points against (http://www.wbbm780.com/Lawmaker-Pay-Raises-Always-a-Tricky-Subject/2762796) their partisan opponents. Criticism has nothing to do with legitimate economic concerns.

In the end, the state Senate went along with the idea of holding off on salary increases for state employees (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/08/house-meets-for.html#more) for this year.