EXTRA: Shutdown ends, GOP at fault

The shutdown of the federal government came to an end Monday with both chambers of Congress passing an interim spending deal, with Republicans promising they will give serious discussion to the immigration issue in the near future.

It was the tying together of those two issues that caused the inability of federal officials to move forward.

NOW AS TO whether those future discussions will amount to anything remains to be seen. Nobody has pledged to change their stance, and it’s very possible the hard-core ideologues will remain solidly behind policies that will eventually result in increases in the number of deportations.

But the sight of the U.S. government doing nothing will come to an end, and there’s less chance of lingering harm being caused by the partisan politicking.

As for who gets the blame for the partisan nonsense that’s already occurred, I found a quickie poll conducted by Morning Consult for Politico to be interesting.

Technically, more people blamed Democrats than any other one group.

BUT THAT MEANS 35 percent of those surveyed are anxious to blame the party of Clinton and Obama, compared to 34 percent who want to say it’s Donald Trump’s fault. As for another 15 percent, they say it’s the fault of Republicans in Congress.

It also seems that 47 percent of those surveyed said immigration and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program were a worthy cause to bring other government activity to a halt, while 39 percent said it was not.

That compares to a similar poll taken earlier this month in which the sides were evenly split 42 percent apiece on that very same question.

So it’s likely that Democrats gained a superficial boost from the day of inactivity – although I do find it interesting to see that their opposition splits between placing blame on Trump and Congress. It seems we have 15 percent who are just determined to refuse to say that Trump did anything wrong – even though I doubt that anyone in Congress would have moved toward a shutdown if not for The Donald whispering all those sweet nothings into their collective ears.

  -30-

Federal government shutdown shows we really likely are that shallow

The federal government came to a “shut down” during a weekend, meaning most people likely haven’t noticed one bit of difference. It could be come Monday that things start being impacted publicly.

TRUMP: Blame? Or praise?

Although I have to admit, my initial reaction to learning our Congress is ideological enough to be stubborn and let daily government activity come to a halt was to check on how this would impact U.S. Postal Service delivery. I get paychecks in the mail.

YES, MAIL DELIVERY is one of the so-called essential services that will continue even if the United States government is supposed to be closed for the duration.

But what is going to happen, particularly since President Donald Trump on Sunday engaged in political trash talk – saying he thinks Republicans ought to go ahead and just stick it to their Democratic Party opposition. Change the rules that give minority parties some say and make it impossible for the GOP majority to just ramrod their desires through into public policy.

Which is something they could easily do. In fact, it is the reason that Democrats say Republicans deserve full blame for any disruption of government activity. How can a Republican president and Republican-dominated Congress blame somebody else for nothing happening?

Personally, I have long realized how petty partisan and ideologue leaning government officials can be. I’m fully aware that for some government officials, being able to say they dumped on Democrats would be the very purpose of government’s existence.

SO ON SATURDAY, when my father asked me whether I thought the government would really shut down and officials would really be so hard-core hostile toward immigration policy and the DACA kids, I politely told him that “Yes” they could.

While deep-down, I had to hold back a temptation to laugh in his face and mock his naivete.

Keep in mind that my father is one of the normal people; as in those who don’t really pay much attention to daily government activity and procedure, and I suspect deep down thinks I’m a tad ridiculous for giving it much thought myself.

The focal point of how partisan politics does impact our daily lives

I don’t doubt many people are like that, and they’re the ones who most likely are watching the activity taking place out of the District of Columbia these days and wondering to themselves, “Why?”

IT’S BECAUSE WE have those people who are determined to muck up the process that might allow for a more sensible federal immigration policy to move forth.

Specifically, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy that Trump wants to see wither away in a couple of months. But he has oh, so generously offered to let something remain in place IF Democrats give him one of his longest-running pieces of political rhetoric – the barricade built along the U.S./Mexico border.

Democratic officials in Congress will never do anything to support that concept. They’re using the powers provided to a minority party to stall a vote from being taken in Congress toward funding that would keep the government’s operations from occurring.

Democrats don’t have the power to pass anything. They can merely thwart; just as Republicans did for years during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

THERE WERE GOVERNMENT shutdowns, most famously the one of 1995 when Republicans led by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia thought they’d have the nation’s backing in openly thumbing their nose at Clinton. They didn’t -- the shutdown was a significant part of Gingrich’s decline as a public official.

Which is why I’m sure Republicans are convinced they’re now due for a shutdown-related victory. They probably believe that Democrats MUST take the blame for whatever inconveniences are caused by this current shutdown.

They still have to work during shutdown

While I’m sure many Democratic-leaning people are convinced this will be perceived as yet another GOP screwup; and one that can be a prime part of a Trump legacy of governmental incompetence.

All of which I’m sure will come to a head when people start seeing how our government (which we’d like to boast is the finest form of self-governing in existence on Planet Earth) is just as cheap and petty as the people whom we elect – we really do get what we deserve. We put these people in office to begin with.

  -30-

“Chicago” West?

Should we, the people of the world’s greatest city (in my opinion, and I don’t care if you disagree) feel complimented, or offended, that entertainer Kanye West and his celebrity wife, Kim Kardashian, chose to name their newest daughter after our municipality?

Announcement Kardashian posted of daughter's name

Or should we just count down the years and days until the newly-named Chicago West becomes old enough to go to court and have her moniker changed to something less likely to draw attention?

THE NEWS REPORTS spilled out Friday about the fact that Kanye West, who grew up in Chicago and is often regarded as one of our city’s celebrities, picked his home for his daughter’s name.

Although I wonder how the girl will feel about her name when she learns that our city was named for the wild leek (a type of onion) that grew along the shores of what is now the Chicago River.

Supposedly, the whole area stank from the onions, with the smell reminding those of that of skunks. At least according to those of the Miami tribe that were once native to the shores of Lake Michigan.

When you think of the name in this context, it makes me wonder if we should consider the naming of this child some form of abuse? Are they pre-punishing her for any mischievous behavior she may commit later in life?

THEN AGAIN, CHICAGO West wouldn’t be the only pseudo-celeb to carry a burg’s name as their own.

Let’s not forget the international soccer star David Beckham and his Spice Girl bride Victoria (a.k.a., Posh Spice) who named their son Brooklyn. Supposedly, they were in the New York borough when he was conceived.

Should we take this to mean that Kanye brought his bride to visit his home town when they made their third child, and second daughter? Or is it just a quirk of Kanye that he’d think Chicago could be a proper name?

Perhaps it’s a way of showing spite toward the mentality that now shouts its way into the public discourse in this Age of Trump every time the president feels compelled to say something stupid about our beloved home city.

KANYE WEST IS showing that “Chicago” can be something beautiful, no matter how trashy Trump tries to depict it as being.

Or maybe it’s just a recognition that Atlanta, the city in which Kanye West was actually born, doesn’t have as nice a ring.

Really, “Atlanta West” just wouldn’t work. It would be too likely to rile up the natives into a revolt. Although there are times I suspect that southerners are looking for any excuse to revolt about anything possible.

Anyway, it appears that Chicago West was born Monday, and came in at 7 pounds, 6 ounces. Does this mean we can now start thinking of “Chicago” as having a new birthday? And speculate about how the girl will be 19 when her namesake city turns 200 (come the year 2037)?

The original namesake of 'Chicago'

OF COURSE, WE could all realize this is far too much speculation about the creation of a new girl who probably deserves a degree of privacy – but certainly won’t ever get it on account of who her parents are.

I can’t envision anyone with a Kardashian connection wanting to be low-profile about anything in life.

As for anybody who feels compelled to want to mock this family for their moniker choice, I can only speculate – as I have for just over 600 words.

That what really has their undershorts all bunched up is the fact that THEIR city name wasn’t picked. Because something like “St. Louis West” or “Indianapolis West” would just be too ridiculous to contemplate.

  -30-

Chicago makes 1st Amazon.com cut, but does that mean one makes the team

I wonder if Chicago, along with places such as St. Louis, Detroit and Gary, Ind., felt the same way I did some nearly four decades ago when I actually tried to make the baseball team back in high school.

Could the one-time Michael Reese Hospital on the South Side become the site of Amazon.com corporate dream?

I still remember the day a bunch of us would-be ballplayers were lined up outside a coach’s office, checking out the list to see which of us were still in the running to be on the team and which of us just weren’t deemed worthy enough to play.

FOR THE RECORD, I didn’t make the cut (which really wasn’t surprising, since I was never much of a ballplayer in my youth).

Which means perhaps I can identify with what is going through the mindset of some of the other Midwestern U.S. states that learned Thursday that Amazon.com’s dreams of building a second corporate headquarters do not include them.

Chicago learned that it is among the 20 municipalities still under consideration, as is Indianapolis. But the other places that had hoped they could get an economic boost learned they were out of the running.

Detroit’s rejection had many observers somewhat surprised. It was speculated that Amazon.com might find it a challenge to be a part of the revitalization of a major city – which would put that city’s officials in eternal indebtedness to their corporate priorities.

THE ONE REJECTION that caught my eye was that of St. Louis. Since that was the bid that had the endorsement of Gov. Bruce Rauner, who supposedly also was backing the Illinois-based bid of the Chicago area – which officially says there are 10 possible sites within the city or suburbs that Amazon.com could choose from.

Which means we’re not setting up the chance of an Illinois political civil war, with a governor trying to figure out whether his best interests involve supporting his state’s major city or the portion of another state’s major metropolitan area that happens to fall within Illinois’ borders.

Sears used to be retail giant; could structure regain significance by becoming part of Amazon.com complex downtown?

There are those who wonder if Rauner secretly would have rather seen a St. Louis bid prevail because he could take some credit amongst Southern Illinois voters while undermining the Chicago interests he sees as his politically partisan enemy.

The fact that Chicago made the cut means Mayor Rahm Emanuel was able to boast of “Chicago’s great strengths, access to talent, transportation, higher education, affordability and quality of life, which are the keys to growth and prosperity.”

WHETHER THOSE ISSUES will remain relevant as Chicago now has to go up against 19 other municipalities (three of which are the District of Columbia and nearby suburbs in both Virginia and Maryland) will remain to be seen.

As I recall from several decades ago, there were still several somewhat talented ballplayers who made that first cut, but wound up not making the roster when springtime came around and the baseball season began.

Personally, I wonder if the fact the city hasn’t united behind one single location may be a factor that goes against us (although I know the conservative ideologues amongst us are determined to believe that it will be Chicago’s Democratic leanings that will harm our city’s bid in the end).

Oak Brook campus that used to train McDonald's managers could become part of Amazon

If we can’t even decide where it should be, why should we expect Amazon.com officials to be capable of picking a place. Maybe they really will want proximity to the nation’s capital city, or a spot in Atlanta, Austin (as in Texas) or Boston for the headquarters campus they want to supplement the existing facilities in Seattle, Wash.

BUT FOR THE time being, Chicago can still dream about the possibility of a downtown complex that might even incorporate part of the formerly-known-as Sears Tower. Or maybe the old Michael Reese Hospital, or the suburban Oak Brook campus that once served McDonald’s.

U.S. Steel still dominant presence in Gary, Ind.

Unlike St. Louis or Detroit, who now will have to move on to other projects to dream about as a way of revitalizing their communities and creating jobs.

Or a place like Gary, which although Hoosier-based is close enough to the Illinois/Indiana border that Chicago could dream of some spillover benefits.

But instead will now have to set new ambitions for their existence, just as many a failed athlete has had to accept the fact he wasn’t good enough to make the team.

  -30-

Gutierrez offers Kelly an apology, and all it took was the White House chief of staff implying Donald Trump, misspoke

I always take apologies by government officials half-seriously.

GUTIERREZ: A 'lo siento' from 'el Gallito'

They’re usually less-than-sincere, and more motivated by some official’s desire that the public stop talking about something perceived as a gaffe.

RARELY ARE THE officials actually regretful that they said something stupid. They just wish everybody else would agree with them instead of the other guy.

So when I learned that soon-to-be retiring Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., was apologetic Wednesday toward White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, I was skeptical.

Gutierrez, who has used his decades of time in Congress to try to make himself the Voice of Latinos across the nation rather than just in his Latino-enclave district in Chicago, has been critical of Kelly for saying he opposes the demise of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program.

The program is meant to make it possible for young people who came to this country without a valid visa to exist openly in this country. It is a part of the Barack Obama presidential legacy that Donald Trump is most anxious to abolish.

GUTIERREZ HAS SAID that Kelly, a former Marine Corps general, is “a hypocrite,” “mean” and “a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear.”

Ouch!

But on Wednesday, when Kelly met with several members of Congress to discuss the future of DACA and immigration reform, the Chicago politico who has been outspoken since his days as an alderman made a point of publicly apologizing for his past rhetoric.

KELLY: Accepted the apology

The Washington Post reported that Kelly accepted the apology, telling everybody “we all say or do stupid things.” But then later told Gutierrez that the public apology “means a lot.”

NOW MAYBE GUTIERREZ wants to create the impression of being the bigger man in the ongoing immigration debate.

But one also has to consider that at that same meeting with congressmen, many of whom were members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Kelly tried to give the impression that all of his boss, Donald Trump’s, talk about demanding a barrier be erected along the U.S./Mexico border before any talk of immigration reform or DACA preservation could proceed was, to put it simply, cheap.

Now one can argue the cliché “talk is cheap” applies to all government officials.

But Kelly let it be known that, deep down, Trump knows that a border wall along the 1,900-mile stretch of desert separating the two nations is impractical. He even told them they shouldn’t take it too seriously when Trump says he’s going to force Mexico’s government to pay for the barricade that Trump insists will cut off the flow of people headed northbound into the U.S.

TRUMP, OF COURSE, continues to insist he really means it when he makes such threats. In recent days, he has insisted that DACA will die, no matter how much it will hurt young people who have established their lives in this country. And it’s all the Democrats’ fault because they won’t go along with his wall talk.

Kelly, however, said that Trump’s hostile talk during his 2016 presidential campaign was that of an “uninformed” candidate, and that he is learning about the ways of government. It’s that old argument we shouldn’t take Trump too seriously. Which sounds much like the old line about Mayor Richard J. Daley’s inarticulate manner of speaking when they said, “write what (Daley) means, not what he says.”

TRUMP: Who knows what he really means!

Perhaps such talk from Kelly did put Gutierrez in the proper frame of mind to want to say “I’m sorry” to someone who had in the past spoken out against the interests of the people whom Gutierrez sees as his larger constituency.

Or maybe he was just wanting to make sure Kelly didn’t wind up using him as an excuse to later come back and shoot down some immigration deal, just because Gutierrez once felt the need to be critical. Then again, anybody familiar with Chicago politics throughout the years would know Luis didn’t get the nickname of El Gallito (the little rooster) by being meek as a mouse!

  -30-

EXTRA: Ives a movement, or nobody?

Just in case you think I'm underestimating the chances of Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jeanne Ives, a new poll released Wednesday would make it seem that Bruce Rauner is likely to win at least his primary bid for nomination to be in the Nov. 6 general election.

The poll conducted by the We Ask America organization indicates Rauner has 64.59 percent support -- and the Ives people would like us to think that is because the rest of Republicandom is solidly behind her.

BUT IT SEEMS the state senator from Wheaton only has 20.51 percent support -- with a remaining 14.9 percent being undecided.

Also not faring well for Ives is the fact that when asked their general of Ives, the most common response was "never heard of." Some 68.43 percent had that response. Only 13.92 percent gave her a favorable ranking.

Of course, just as those people who are determined to view Donald Trump favorably no matter how much of a rube he behaves as, I don't doubt the 13.92 percent are hard-core enough to think only their opinion matters.

It seems Ives has a long way to go to let potential voters even know she exists, if she's to have any chance of avoiding becoming a political nobody come March 21 -- as in the day after the Republican primary.

  -30-

Is Ives the gubernatorial candidate nobody wants to be associated with?

Jeanne Ives, the state senator from Wheaton who wants to challenge Gov. Bruce Rauner in the Republican primary, is becoming the candidate whom nobody wants to be associated with.

IVES: Offends Kennedy, Rauner

Ives, the woman whose campaign is based on the notion that Rauner is too liberal for Illinois (the reality is that she’s too conservative, but that’s a topic for another day’s commentary), is the woman who was in a candidate forum this week where she managed to offend Democratic hopeful Chris Kennedy to the point where he walked out in mid-event.

ON TUESDAY, IVES’ perception suffered another blow when Rauner himself said he had no intention of participating in a Republican debate against her that would have been held in Springfield.

Considering that the bulk of any Republican candidate’s voter support will come from the part of the state outside the Chicago area, it could be seen as foolish for Rauner to pass up the chance to appeal to his likely backers.

But Ives managed to show on Monday that her rhetoric is likely to be over the top – perhaps just as much as trying to get people to think Rauner is a liberal, even though the bulk of the Chicago-area vote certainly will turn out against him.

Her campaign may well turn out to be the one of the malcontents of our state expressing their opposition to the concept that everybody does not agree with their ideologue hang-ups about life and our society.

WHY SHOULD RAUNER give Ives the public attention of a one-on-one debate between the two?

KENNEDY: Walked out on Ives

I know many conservative-leaning people want to believe that right-wing outrage against Rauner is so intense (he’s not anti-abortion enough to satisfy them) that anybody could beat him come the March 20 GOP primary.

They cite Steven Baer, an ideologue who took about one-third of the vote in the 1990 gubernatorial primary against Jim Edgar. I’d argue that Ives could get about one-third of the vote, which would still make her a loser. And how many real people (as in non-political geeks) have a clue who Baer was? Or will remember Ives 20 years from now?

For the record, Ives’ offensive act was trying to say that we have so much gun violence in our society because we have many fatherless families. Which Kennedy took offense to because he, himself, lost his father as a young child.

RAUNER: Won't give her that much attention

HIS UNCLE, TOO. Remember that? Both of those stories were in all the papers and usually warrant a couple of sentences in the history books.

Personally, I’m inclined to think this would be an ideal world (or as close as we’d ever come to one) if everybody had a set of two parents to help raise them as children. But not everybody does, and we ought to be focusing on trying to help those youth who don’t have such circumstances.

Rather than holding them up to blame for societal flaws, which is all Ives and people of her ilk really are interested in doing!

Make people think that everything that is wrong with life is somebody else’s fault, and maybe it makes them feel a little bit better about their lot in life. But it doesn’t do a thing to make things better for the masses.

I HAVE NO doubt that if Ives were to get a one-on-one forum with Rauner, she’d really let loose with the nonsense talk. She’d probably also have the crackpots all peeved about Rauner not being conservative enough for them ready to proclaim her the winner.

PRITZKER: Will get own share of nonsense

Which wouldn’t really be true. In fact, such a forum probably would add nothing to the public understanding of who either candidate is. Just as I’m sure the various Democratic candidate forums (the first of which will be held next Tuesday in Chicago) probably won’t go any further than candidate J.B. Pritzker being the rich guy trying to buy himself an ego-bloating political post.

It’s bound to be a lot of nonsense-talk. The rhetoric will flow with the sounds of silliness. In that regard, we’re better off without a Rauner/Ives debate.

I’m sure those who merely want to smack Bruce about will have plenty of opportunities between now and the Nov. 6 general election – to the point where he’ll have more than his share of rhetorical bruises.

  -30-