When is a Latino candidate legit?

Republicans across our state plan to boast a lot this year about the fact that their ticket for statewide government posts is the one that includes a “Latino” candidate (Robert Enriquez of Aurora for Illinois secretary of state), compared to all those Chicago political hacks who populate the Democratic ticket.

Never mind the fact that Illinois comptroller candidate David Miller and state treasurer hopeful Robin Kelly are from suburban Lynwood and Matteson, respectively. The GOP is going to want credit for putting on their slate a man who was born in Honduras and who also lived in Panama before moving to the United States when he was 13.

BUT ALL THIS means is that Enriquez is the guy who gets to be beaten up upon by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who is running for his fourth term in the post. Even the most hard-core of Republicans I hear from expect White to be one of the few Dems “safe” from a serious Election Day challenge. I believe that if they thought they could beat White, they never would have let Enriquez near the ticket.

So excuse me for thinking that Enriquez’ purpose is to help deflect the criticism the GOP will receive when their candidates start engaging in their most blatant anti-Latino rhetoric to sway the mindsets of rural Illinoisans. Check out the commentary at the Argus’ sister weblog The South Chicagoan (http://southchicagoan.blogspot.com/) for more details.

I’m sure Enriquez is an intelligent guy who will continue to do a wonderful job on the Illinois Human Rights Commission, which he has served on since 2005 when he was picked by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

I just don’t expect his name on my driver’s license any time soon.

-30-

Too conservative for “urban” Illinois? That’s what Dems want to think of Brady

With two-thirds of Illinois residents living in the Chicago metro area and another 8 percent coming from the St. Louis Metro East area, we literally get nearly three-quarters of the state’s population being people who think of themselves as “urban” residents.

Democratic campaigns for political office come the November general elections are desperately counting on that fact to stave off the fact that Republican voters (according to various polls) seem more excited about being able to cast ballots this year than do Dems.

THAT WAS WHAT popped into my head when I read recent reports coming from the GOP’s likely gubernatorial nominee Bill Brady (nothing will be official until next month). The Chicago Sun-Times devoted a few inches of space Thursday to letting us know some of Brady’s thoughts for the future.

They highlighted gay marriage, knowing that such a headline would capture attention. Brady, it seems, wants the Illinois Constitution amended so as to make marriage between non-hetero couples illegal, and he also wants to do away with the concept of “civil unions.”

This story is going to be repeated many times in coming months in places where the populace is more accepting of gay couples, as a way of trying to make Brady come off as too isolated in his home region (although his hometown of Bloomington is one of the few communities to have local ordinances offering civil rights protections for gay people) to understand the concerns of all of Illinois.

Now when trying to discuss this issue intelligently, it is important to realize that intelligence really is not a factor here.

STATEMENTS LIKE THESE are more about causing a visceral reaction amongst certain voters. In this case, Brady wants the more rural portions of the state to think of him as the candidate who will stick up for their way of thinking. I don’t think he expects to sway anyone’s thoughts about who they will vote for.

He’s trying to give people that nominally should be in his camp all the more reason to get enthused about turning out to vote on Election Day (or sooner, if they use an early voting center come October).

For the law in Illinois has always been clear that marriage is legal between hetero-sexual couples. In fact, back in the mid-1990s era when the Republican Party had a domination over state government, they passed laws making the issue all the more clear that non-heterosexual marriage is NOT acceptable in Illinois.

In theory, writing it into the state’s constitution would make it harder for a future Legislature to make any kind of change in this issue – even if the sentiment of the future continues to change and the people who become vehemently opposed to gay couples having the same legal rights of marriage as other couples become more and more outside the mainstream of our 21st Century society.

THINK I’M EXAGGERATING?

There are many Southern states that wrote segregationist principles into their state constitutions, which made the effort to get with the program in the late 20th Century with regards to civil rights and African-American people all the more complicated – and sometimes still confuses things whenever antiquated ordinances are discovered to still remain on the books.

I’d hate to think Brady wants to get Illinois bogged down in some future legal mess. I honestly believe he’s just trying to sew up a part of the conservative voter base that Republicans rely upon.

But that also will hurt him with regards to the rest of the state, which has turned solidly Democrat in the past two decades because those suburban areas that used to see the Republican Party as their defense mechanism against Democratic Chicago now identify themselves more with the city than they do the rural portions of the state that the GOP seems more concerned with these days.

THERE ARE MANY people who view this issue like I do – as a matter of butting out of someone else’s private business (which is what many conservative Republicans claim they stand for, at times).

So is this story going to be one we’re going to hear many allusions to in coming months?

Particularly since it also calls for state Constitution restrictions on the Legislature passing tax increases (I think each instance should be considered separately, rather than have harsh restrictions on all) and term limits for state legislators (I think such limits are short-sighted because some people have much to offer in public service, while others don’t even deserve one term).

Those too are issues that could bolster his image among certain voters, while hurt with the bulk of the state.

BUT BEFORE IT comes off like this commentary is a complete trashing of Brady, he did have one worth-while point to make – he would like to see the Illinois State Board of Elections put in charge of redrawing political boundaries for the state Legislature and Illinois’ congressional delegation, believing that the bi-partisan board would do a more fair job than the self-interests of the General Assembly.

I’m not sure how it would work but it is an idea worth considering, since the people on the elections board usually are more knowledgable about the realities of elections and the state as a whole than the legislators – most of whom can’t comprehend anything that happens beyond their own home neighborhood.

-30-

Illinois celebrates the "important" president's day on Friday

Friday marks the day when it has been 201 years since the birth of Abraham Lincoln. It also marks the one-week point since the first official celebration of the birthday anniversary of Adlai E Stevenson II (who if still somehow magically living would now be 110).
.
How long until we someday have people trying to claim that the birthday anniversary of Barack Obama (Aug,. 4, 1961) is worth celebrating? And does it say something that none of these men identified with Illinois were actually born in Illinois? Kentucky, California and Hawaii, are the states where they were respectively born -- to be exact.
.
-30-

POLY SCI 101: Keep Lt. Gov.

The political process that will soon be undertaken by Democrats to pick a new nominee for lieutenant governor is stirring up the rhetoric from those people who want to believe that this state would somehow be better off if the political post were merely eliminated.

Of course, these people are usually the kinds who have some ideological hangup about the concept of government in general. They usually rant about “term limits,” not realizing how shortsighted it can be to arbitrarily boot some people from office, and also usually can’t tell the difference between a partisan and a non-partisan election (they’re the ones who want runoff elections in cases that would be totally inapropriate).

SO EXCUSE ME for thinking their rhetoric is a lot of hot air, and also for being thankful that it is a very difficult process that one has to go through to amend the Illinois Constitution – which is what it would take if one were to want to eliminate the lieutenant governor’s post in this state. Even with Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, introducing a bill calling for such an amendment to do away with the post in 2015, it is a long shot.

I’ll admit it.

I am a defender of the concept of lieutenant governor. Those people who say the state has managed just fine the past year without a lieutenant governor are missing the point (and not just that the state is not doing “fine” these days, but that is a commentary for another day).

My big reason for opposing the elimination of the post is that I think it is a benefit that when we have elections for governor of Illinois, we also learn exactly who will replace that person should there be some sort of tragedy that befalls them.

SOME PEOPLE WILL argue that we ought to just rely on the line of succession (which under the current Illinois Constitution puts the state attorney general next in line after the lieutenant governor to take over the state in the event that something happens to both of the top-ranking state government officials.

They will argue the Illinois attorney general could just take over state government in the event that something happens to the governor.

Now I don’t get as hung up as some people do about the concept of how such a move could result in a partisan political shift in mid-term (when the day comes that we have a Democrat governor and GOP A.G., or vice versa).

That would be awkward, but partisan shifts are a part of what electoral politics is all about.

WHAT I DON’T like is that it means that if something were to happen to a future governor and there was no lieutenant governor in place, we’d have not only a shakeup within the governor’s office, but also in the office of the attorney general.

I don’t like the idea of that much chaos in that many places within state government at one time (although some smart-alecks will quip that we have nothing but chaos spread throughout all of Illinois government these days).

To me, one of the factors in terms of picking a governor ought to be whether or not one can accept the person who is put in line to succeed him in case of an emergency.

If there is a factor in Illinois’ use of the lieutenant governor position that ought to be changed, it is the fact that the position runs separately during the primary elections from the top post. It ought to be a pair all the way through – although it is not uncommon for informal pairings to develop, such as how Andrew McKenna’s gubernatorial campaign this year made a point of telling its supporters to choose Matt Murphy to be his running mate.

IT GOES BACK to the older days of Illinois when the two top posts used to run separately throughout the entire election process. Usually, the mood of the state was such that the same political party won both positions in any given election year.

Except for 1968, when Dick Ogilvie won governor as a Republican, but had to put up with Democrat Paul Simon as his lieutenant governor. Needless to say, Simon was trusted with nothing by his superior. That fact that it was around that same time that Illinois was undergoing another Constitutional Convention to put together a new document meant that the issue was so fresh in peoples’ minds that changes were made.

That is when we got the current setup of candidates running separately during the primary but paired together in the general election. Not even the chaos of the 1986 Democratic primary that paired Adlai Stevenson III with Lyndon LaRouche follower Mark Fairchild has been enough to get political people in Illinois to make a further change – which would be to copy the presidential process by which nominees get to pick their own running mate.

I think that is good because the “choice” often gives us some insight into the top candidate’s character. It can become an issue. As recently as 2008, how many people were inclined to think favorably of the McCain campaign until the senator from Arizona picked “that woman” to be his running mate.

I LIKE IT. I wish we had something similar for Illinois. But we don’t.

Which is why we’re now in a process where the Democratic Party bigwigs are going to pick the new running mate (although primary election winner Scott Lee Cohen’s followers make a point of saying he doesn’t have to formally resign his claim to the nomination until August). Those political party people say they will try to respect the wishes of Quinn, who will get a rare chance to actually influence the choice of his running mate.

Which makes me wonder how long it will be before Republican partisans start their bellyaching about how unfair it is that Quinn may get to pick his running mate, while their apparent nominee, state Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, is stuck running with the 27-year-old neophyte with more than $1 million in family cash who defeated five other Republicans who also wanted the political post that once was described as not worth “a bucket of warm spit,” or words to that effect.

Maybe we'd be better off making the post worth more than "spit."

-30-

Is it a tribute? Or just an excuse to sell more MLB-licensed Vizquel jerseys?

The Caribbean Series is over (the Escogido Lions of the Dominican League now have bragging rights as champions of Latin American baseball), while spring training for the U.S. major leagues is a couple of weeks away (actual games won’t start until March 2).

Yet on this day when Chicago is dominating the national newscasts because we’re getting hit with the heaviest snowstorm of this winter season, I want to forget the wintry weather. So my attention span is moving ahead to the summer months, when for the first time in decades, uniform “Number 11” may be patrolling the infield at shortstop for the Chicago White Sox.

IT DOES NOT mean that a 70-ish Luis Aparicio has decided to pull a Michael Jordan and try an athletic comeback.

But the White Sox haven’t used that uniform number since Aparicio got elected to theHall of Fame in 1984 (although in between Aparicio’s retirement from baseball and that Hall of Fame induction, such unimmortals as Greg Pryor and one-time player/manager Don Kessinger used it on the backs of their uniforms).

Aparicio, aside from being one of the few players associated primarily with the White Sox to make the Hall of Fame (many of the White Sox Hall of Famers also had significant playing time with other ballclubs), brings back the memories of the 1950s when he was paired up with second baseman Nellie Fox (Number 2, also retired) to create a middle-infield combination that is one of the best professional baseball has ever seen. It also brings to mind that White Sox team of 1959, which until five years ago was the only White Sox team to win any kind of championship that living Sox fans had any recollection of. Those teams of 1906, 1917 and 1919 are worth remembering, but how many people still living still do?

THE WHITE SOX , in one of their off-season moves to bolster their club for 2010, picked up the aging one-time star shortstop Omar Vizquel. Back in the 1990s, he was arguably the best shortstop in the game (I don’t want to hear from Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter or Nomar Garciaparra fans).

Now, the White Sox hope his years in professional baseball somehow rub off on his teammates and help the team use its potentially star pitching staff to contend for a championship in ’10.

Vizquel has always taken pride in being a native of Caracas, Venezuela, which also is the native country of Aparicio.

It was with that that when Vizquel could not get the uniform number he has worn throughout his career (number 13, already taken by manager Ozzie Guillen, who is another one-time ballplayer from Venezuela who excelled at shortstop), he asked for, and got, Aparicio’s number.

VARIOUS REPORTS INDICATE Aparicio doesn’t have a problem with it, although some people (most likely the kind who get offended by everything) are throwing hissy fits at the thought of a retired uniform number being recycled.

As much as anyone else, I appreciate the thought of a ballclub paying tribute to its star players of the past. I believe that this past (the American League is the “junior circuit” because it declared itself a major league in 1901) is actually one of professional baseball’s greatest strengths.

But somehow, the idea of feeling the need to wear a number to bring to mind somebody else seems like a lame tribute. While just about every two-digit number has been used by some ballplayer during the 80 or so years that players have worn uniform numbers, I’d like to think Vizquel would be better off creating his own identity in Chicago.

For all this appropriating of Aparicio’s number has done is created many jokes how Aparicio himself could probably play better shortstop these days than the aging Vizquel (who is only old by athletic standards – he turns 43 on April 24).

SEEING “NUMBER 11” on the playing field is going to make me look to the outfield wall at U.S. Cellular Field where star players of the past are honored and remember that the real “Number 11” hasn’t taken the field since I was a young boy.

Now one of the factors that has been brought up is that this is a Venezuela thing. One star ballplayer from the land now taken over by Hugo Chavez honoring another from his homeland. It is a tribute to potentially the best Latin American ballplayer ever to play for the White Sox.

Which makes the team on the South Side more respectful than the other ballclub from Chicago that claims “major league” status. Their greatest ballplayer from a Latin American country is undisputed – it is one-time egotistical outfielder Sammy Sosa, who back in his day wore uniform “Number 21” as a tribute to the one-time Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder from Puerto Rico, Roberto Clemente.

For the first couple of years after he left the Cubs, the team didn’t use that number. But in recent years, it has been used by Jason Marquis and the now-departed Milton Bradley. This year, it is tentatively set for use by Tyler Colvin – a 24-year-old outfielder who made his major league debut back on Sept. 21.

CONSIDERING HOW MUCH Sammy’s colorful image WAS the reason why the Cubs and their fans used to arrogantly position themselves as the only team in Chicago that mattered, it seems like shabby treatment.

No matter how much people want to screech “steroids,” the fact is that era happened and can’t be erased. Considering how big Sosa’s image used to be in Chicago, it just seems all the more odd that the day has arrived when a White Sox star gets more respect than the (in his own mind) all-time greatest Chicago Cub.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: These are the ballplayers who in 2010 could be wearing the uniform numbers made famous (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=123744) by two of the biggest-name ballplayers (http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=502125) for Chicago ballclubs from Latin American countries.

Omar Vizquel will have spent his ballplaying career honoring the memories of fellow Venezuelans Luis Aparicio (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/sports/baseball/09base.html) and Dave Concepcion through his uniform.

A little more about “Little Luis” and his defensive career in various (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aparilu01.shtml) American League infields for 18 seasons.

Giannoulias needs to come up with better campaign answers on bank questions

I’m trying to figure out if Alexi Giannoulias is truly as naïve as he appears to be with the way he has been responding to questions about the financial dealings involving the bank his family controls. Because if he’s truly this gullible, then we have to wonder what ever made him think he was worthy of being a public official.

By the tone of my prose, it ought to be apparent that I don’t believe he’s all that naïve. But exactly how conniving all of this can appear to be is questionable. I’m going to be spending much time trying to figure out what to make of the man who, although he is now at the top of the Democratic ticket for the Nov. 2 general election, is behaving as though he still belongs at the bottom.

AT ISSUE IS the business dealings of Broadway Bank in Chicago, which is the source of the Giannoulias family’s wealth (what can I say, Scott Lee Cohen’s family owns a pawn shop, Jason Plummer’s family owns a lumberyard, and the Giannouliases own a bank – just like former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill.).

Like many other financial institutions these days, there are fiscal uncertainties. Just before last week’s primary election, the FDIC entered into a consent decree that requires the bank to raise more than $50 million to try to straighten out its particular situation.

Republicans usually are the political party of choice for bankers who have to be bailed out because of financial errors or other problems. But now the Illinois GOP can single out a Democrat, painting the image for him that many campaign professionals have tagged Republican candidates with.

He’s an inept banker (unless they feel like being outright rude, then they’ll say he’s a corrupt banker). Do we really want to reward one of these bankers with a seat in the United States Senate?

THIS KIND OF rhetoric can be expected all throughout the campaign Giannoulias is going to hear so many charges made against his family “business” that he had better develop a thick skin. Because right now, he seems to be thinking he can just wish the issue away.

Just before the primary, Giannoulias said he’d be willing to answer questions about the bank’s financial dealings once the primary election was over. After all, who’d care much if he lost?

But now, Giannoulias is dismissing questions by claiming he’s already answered them. After all, the dealings of the Broadway Bank came up during Giannoulias’ 2006 campaign for Illinois treasurer. He managed to get himself elected to a statewide government post despite the matter.

He seems to think he can now ignore the matter. Which, of course, is what provoked the Illinois Republican Party to issue a statement trashing Alexi for what I would call electoral arrogance, but which GOP officials choose to label as a, “blatant attempt to cover up his role” at Broadway Bank.

NOW I CAN dismiss the vigor of the charges made against Giannoulias in this particular statement as electoral rhetoric – which always is grossly overstated, only narrowly connected to the “truth” and should never be taken literally by anyone.

By that same token, I wouldn’t take anything the Giannoulias campaign says literally either. It all needs to be studied closely.

But I have to give the Republicans a bit of credit on this particular issue. This is the point that Giannoulias is going to have to crush early on (preferably now) so that when GOP operatives continue to say the same old things over and over, sensible people can dismiss it as partisan trash talk.

Giannoulias could put this issue to bed right now, and have it long forgotten by real people come November (the advantage to a candidate of an extra-long general election season).

INSTEAD, GIANNOULIAS IS taking that attitude that he shouldn’t be expected to say any more than he said back in 2006 – as though the typical prospective voter has kept detailed files of every utterrance emanting from Alexi’s mouth and can quickly access what exactly he said back durign the ’06 general election campaign.

Besides, the big difference is that Giannoulias in 2006 was running for Illinois treasurer, which is the lowest-ranking of the six state constitutional officers who are elected across Illinois. Back then, he was the guy whose campaign was able to latch on to the tail of a movement that saw Illinois voters pick Democrats for every single office.

Giannoulias got elected because he didn’t offend people enough that they made him the only Democrat they didn’t vote for.

Now, Giannoulias is the top of the ticket. U.S. Senate. Strictly speaking, he has Gov. Pat Quinn looking up to him, counting on the Giannoulias campaign to lead the way and give other Democratic candidates a boost. Which means he has to take the lead on addressing this issue, rather than thinking he can count on someone else to give him a boost.

I’M REALISTIC ENOUGH to know that for real voters in Illinois, the governor’s race is probably most important because it will serve as the “referendum,” so to speak, on the Blagojevich years. Every other candidate will fall into place. It’s only those out-of-staters who from what I have read of their analysis don’t seem to have much of a clue who are putting the symbolic value on the Senate race.

They want to see a victory by Republican nominee Mark Kirk as evidence that Illinois is rejecting the ideals of Barack Obama (even though a Gallup Organization poll released last week found that 65.2 percent of Illinoisans surveyed approve of Obama’s performance as president, compared to 51 percent approval rating nationwide as of Monday). That just isn’t the case.

If anything, it would be a rejection of Blagojevich, even though Milorod’s rhetoric contends that he’s the clean politico who plans to use his summer-months trial to “take down” his one-time Democratic colleagues in local politics.

Which might be the most ridiculous bit of political rhetoric we’re going to hear this year.

-30-

Snow in Midwest in February. Oh My!

I’m not sure what to think of the possible 10 inches of snow that could start falling on the Chicago area some time later Monday.

Is it some sort of cosmic justice for those of us who snickered at the District of Columbia area residents who had such a bad time of things last week coping with a severe snowstorm? Or is this “the almighty’s” way of letting us know he’s bored with the story of Scott Lee Cohen (seriously, we’re now eagerly taking the word of an alleged prostitute as to who is qualified to be a public official?) and wants us to move on to something else?

WHATEVER THE SITUATION is, there’s a chance that we’re going to get the heaviest snowfall (thus far) of the 2009-10 winter season in Chicago. The couple of times it has snowed to date, the amounts weren’t all that bad and it was more the drop in temperatures that caused problems for many people.

Now, we have the potential for problems with people who just can’t get a grasp on the concept of slowing down their driving below the posted speed limit so that their cars don’t go spiraling out of control and crashing into something (or someone) else.

Of course, these kind of people will think it is someone else’s fault for being in the way of their car that was spiraling out of control.

My serious point is that the next couple of days will be interesting. They will be challenging. But they also are something that should fully be expected by those of us born and raised in the Midwestern United States.

IT’S WINTER. IT snows here. It gets cold. This is the real world, not that wimpy weather you left behind in Arizona or Georgia (although watching The Weather Channel on television in recent weeks, I have been surprised by the amount of snow that has fallen in parts of Dixie – not exactly what is expected). In fact, the one group of locals I will sympathize with are those who rely on public transportation and are trying to learn new routes to get to places, because the Chicago Transit Authority budget cuts imposed Sunday caused their old routes to be slashed.

As much as I don’t care for the slop caused by winter snowfall (the cold I can cope with, you just put on another layer of clothing), what really is going to tick me off is going to be the shock and awe expressed on various news reports from people who are going to want to react as though the fact that we get a few inches of accumulated snowfall in a few hours timespan is somehow historic in nature.

It happens every year.

We expect it. It is the reason why we look down on other parts of the country that let snowfall throw them so far out of whack.

SERIOUSLY, WATCHING THAT Weather Channel video of car after car after car sliding on the ice and careening into each other while the anchors/meteorologists act amazed is laughable. Hearing that government officials in other cities behave in ways that make you think a natural disaster has struck them makes me respect our borderline corrupt political people all the more.

At least they can cope with snow.

In fact, about the most sensible thing I heard out of the snowfall that hit Washington, D.C. last week was the reaction coming from the White House and adopted-Chicagoan Barack Obama. Two feet of snow accumulated in the nation’s capital, which caused first daughters Sasha and Malia to consider pulling out the sleds so they could go riding around the White House grounds.

Perhaps the reality of our situation is that we need some snowfall right about now. Too many of us, including probably many people who didn’t even bother to vote in last week’s primary elections, are now getting all bent out of shape.

THE AFOREMENTIONED COHEN (who was the Democratic Party’s nominee for lieutenant governor until he said Sunday he would give it up) is getting most of the attention, but many of the races ended up with absolutely nonsensical results. Illlinois has become a place where someone who can get roughly one out of five votes can actually win an election, because there were so many candidates seeking office and the reality is that NO ONE truly captured the public spirit.

Maybe we need a snowfall heavy enough that there is a school day, or perhaps someone has to take a day off of work because making the daily commute on Tuesday or Wednesday will be next to impossible.

In short, this snowfall could literally turn out to be what gives us all a breath of fresh air – along with slushy snowfall.

If some people take great joy in the concept of a “White Christmas,” perhaps what we need these days is a white Valentine’s Day (it’s Sunday) to help us relax. Clear our heads by shoveling our own sidewalks. Then perhaps we can stop reacting in such irrational ways.

-30-