Do we really like Rauner more? Or can he drop below Christie in the rankings?

Is Bruce Rauner’s favorability amongst Illinoisans really on the rise? Or are we just moving on to other people we despise a little bit more we do our state’s illustrious governor?
 

RAUNER: Can he rise to middle-of-the-pack?

The Morning Consult group came out with their latest survey – one that ranked all of the nation’s governors and senators based on how well they’re liked by their constituents.

THE BIG NEWS of their survey is that Chris Christie of New Jersey, who at various times in the past was supposed to be a presidential favorite AND someone that Donald Trump should consider for vice president or a prominent cabinet post, is now the most unpopular governor in the country.

Which probably shows how rankings such as these don’t mean a whole lot. It’s not like there’s anything about Christie’s underlying persona that has changed significantly. It’s just that we’ve now decided we want to think more negatively about him.

So what does it say about their ranking for Rauner – who supposedly is the 44^th most popular (out of 50) governor in the nation. He’s one notch ahead of Wisconsin’s nationally-known governor, Scott Walker.

Who there was a time way back when he was going out of his way to provoke labor unions in his state when HE would have been the most unpopular, and people likely would have thought Christie was “cool.”

TO GET MORE specific about Rauner, the Morning Consult group says his approval rating has gone up significantly (from 33 percent back September to 42 percent now) while his disapproval rating went from 56 percent then to 49 percent now.

 

CHRISTIE: Can he rise above Rauner?

It’s not that Rauner has done anything differently in recent months to make people like him any more than they did before. If anything, Illinois’ governor has shown himself to be terminally stubborn – digging in his heels with his desire to have a legacy as the governor who undermined organized labor’s influence within state government.

We’re no closer to a budget. Rauner seems determined to believe he can prevail because everyone will “Blame Madigan!” Perhaps he envisions a “South Park”-like song (“Blame Canada”) with Illinoisans singing as they venture to the polling places come the 2018 election cycle?

What will really determine things is whether the cycle shifts that people go back to blaming Bruce, or if that just gets old for would-be voters.

 

Are Richard  Durbin and ...

WILL PEOPLE LISTEN to messages like the one from gubernatorial candidate Ameya Pawar, who on Tuesday blamed Rauner for program cuts to senior citizens, college students, child health care and the mentally ill.

Will we be outraged a little more than a year-and-a-half from now? Or will we get tired of hearing such talk and move on?

He won’t be helped by the fact that this does essentially remain a Democratic-leaning state; even though Rauner’s rhetoric would have you think his 2014 election converted us to being lovers of the GOP elephant – even though many modern-day Republicans seem embarrassed by the fact that Abraham Lincoln was ever one of them.

The same Morning Consult study showed Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., with a 52 percent approval rating, and 50 percent for Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. His having been around longer (more than two decades in the Senate and close to four decades in D.C. overall) does give him a certain ignomy (34 percent disapproval).

BUT HIS APPROVAL is identical to that of Cory Booker of New Jersey (whom some are contemplating as a ’20 presidential hopeful) and Timothy Kaine of Virginia (remember him, he could have been our vice president now).

 

... Tammy Duckworth more like Ill.?

Does that make Illinois a place inclined to see Rauner continue to plummet in the future. Or can he stabilize himself during the next year into an unmemorable governor?

Will Rauner continue to move up the popularity polls to the middle of the gubernatorial pack? Or will the coming of Election Day next year be the factor that puts more heat on him, causing Rauner to drop to the Number 50 slot (being the governor who couldn’t get a budget passed ever during his four-year term is a pretty nasty legacy to have)?

I’m sure Chris Christie himself wouldn’t be bothered in the least to be deposed as the possessor of the bottom slot on the gubernatorial favorability rankings.

  -30-

The anger overflows, and someday it could be all who hate Trump

I don't doubt that people are pissed about the outcome of Election '16.

Someone graffiti'd this house. Will others follow? Photographs by Gregory Tejeda

It seems that in several cities across our nation, including Chicago, protesters marched to let their outrage be known that the rubes of our citizenry banded together to pick as big a buffoon as Donald J. Trump to be president.

IT MADE A mess out of traffic on Lake Shore Drive, amongst other places. I don’t doubt that the contempt will linger on for quite some time.

Although let’s be honest about one thing – I have no doubt that these people are behaving much more civilly than the ones who have spent the past eight years acting as obstructionists of the presidency of Barack Obama.

I also don’t doubt that the people now upset ultimately will show more respect for Trump than the Obama critics ever did for the soon-to-be former president.

Whom I now fully expect will be the target of efforts to try to do a “Soviet-style” attempt at a rewrite of history. As in people will try to erase any trace that the Obama years ever took place.

WHO KNOWS, THEY may full well be capable of coming up with a scenario by which our country went straight from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump! Or maybe they’ll permit us to remember the existence of Bill Clinton; just so they can highlight the fact of his impeachment for kinds of behavior that they won’t want to admit our new president-elect has oft engaged in himself.

I’ll be the first to admit that much of the knuckleheaded rhetoric of the Trump presidential campaign is going to fall short of being fulfilled. Although people who felt we could put up with a Trump presidency because it’s all nothing but hot air ought to be wary.

Because the hard-core element of our society that DID vote for Trump fully expects to get the guy who bellows out “You’re Fired!” at everybody he doesn’t like and wants that nonsensical hard line on Mexico and on Arabs (it won’t matter if they’re not Muslim) and anybody else not like themselves.

I wonder what this Trump-liking truck driver thinks of his counterpart delivering tortillas

If Trump tries to suddenly become Mr. Rationality, his voters will be repulsed and will turn on him so viciously. Likely harder than any of the protesters who spoke out against him this week!

AS FOR THOSE who would be inclined to cry out “I told you so!” when it happens, keep in mind that we all lose if our government winds up delving into levels of nonsensical behavior.

Personally, I expect Trump himself will provide us with loads of trivial behavior similar to all the antics he engaged in that have generated New York Post news copy throughout the decades – possibly antics that decades from now we will be able to laugh at and wonder how we could ever have treated such a man so legitimately. Particularly since when you seriously try to analyze what he says, you can’t because he speaks in vagaries.

I doubt he knows really what he hopes to accomplish as president – other than getting use of Camp David; while probably griping privately about how it’s not up to the luxury standards of his own Mar-A-Lago mansion in Florida.

We ought to be paying more attention to the kinds of people a “President Trump” will put into key positions. Such as one-time House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – both of whom would have been regarded as has-beens prior to this week.

NOW WE KNOW why they aligned with Trump and put up with his nonsense and all the ridicule they received. They’re going to get jobs that could define their legacy (just as how Joe Biden will now be remembered as a Vice President, instead of a goof of a Senator from Delaware).

 

Hillary sticker will wear away!

Considering the leanings of those kind of people, that may well be enough for people to be wary of a Trump presidency. Although we should keep in mind that it can’t last forever. The era will come to an end.

There’s also just way too much that can go wrong for Donald J. Trump, who a year from now is probably going to wish he had never been so egotistical as to think of running for president.

I doubt that a ride on Air Force One will be worth that much to him!

  -30-

It's sad that ideologues have waited for years for this moment to demonize Hillary Rodham Clinton reputation

Many people have made much of the failure of Ted Cruz to explicitly endorse Donald Trump for president and the plagiarism of potential first lady Melania that took place during this year’s Republican National Convention.

 

CLINTON: Her moment to shine comes next week

But what was truly notable about the events of the week just ended were the sentiments expressed about likely Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

FROM THE MOCK “trial” of the one-time Ms. Rodham by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to the repetitious chants of “Lock her up!” that could be heard throughout the Quicken Loans Arena all week, this was not a friendly audience for the one-time first lady and secretary of state.

Not that a nominating convention audience is ever sympathetic toward the political challenger. But this was most definitely a crowd that has anxiously been awaiting, probably for years, for a chance to vote “no” to the idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton as our nation’s 45^th chief executive.

Although I wonder how much of the anger that was seething throughout the hall (overcoming the feel-good vibe that ought to exist in the building that is the home of the NBA champion Cleveland Cavaliers) is devoted to hatred of Hillary, as opposed to having to vote for Trump as president because she’s the only legitimate choice on the ballot.

In this year of 2016, the one with the Election season whose unofficial (but all-too-truthful) theme is “Who Do I Hate the Most?!?,” it became clear that the hatred level of Hillary Clinton runs high.

 

CHRISTIE: Should Hillary put him on trial?

I’M SURE THE people gathered in Cleveland this week to nominate Trump for the U.S. presidency are angered by the many polls that show Clinton favored by more potential voters across the country.

Because to them, there is no one worth despising more than Hillary Rodham Clinton. It’s like these people feed off the hatred and negativity, which likely has built up for the past couple of decades since the days of Bill Clinton as president.

 

CRUZ: Not all like Trump

After all, these same ideologues managed to impeach (if not convict) Bill Clinton. He was supposed to wither away in disgrace, and take that despicable wench of a wife he has with him.

In fact, I don’t doubt there are some who think Bill Clinton’s punishment for being an unacceptable president ought to be to have to live the rest of his life with Hillary.

 

CLINTON: Origin of Hillary hatred?!?

INSTEAD, BILL CLINTON has become a prominent ex-president more highly regarded than either of the Bushes who comprise the former Republican presidents still living.

And now, if a majority of the electorate follows through with their belief that Trump is too stupid, bigoted, maniacal, racist (whichever word you prefer, I personally think egotistical is most accurate) to be president, then Bill Clinton will literally be back in the White House – even if just in the role of presidential spouse who becomes her unofficial top adviser (no actual title, but trying to tell her that Bill Kaine of Virginia ought to be the VP nominee) on issues of policy.

That, I’m sure, is a significant part of the anger we saw on display in Cleveland. If only the Republican Party were not so dysfunctional these days, perhaps it could have picked a better candidate to run against her.

Although the real fear (hope for salvation, amongst the Trump-ites) is that the sense that Hillary has this election wrapped up will cause a sense of apathy. One that results in many people not bothering to cast ballots, which could turn the Trump-ites into a real majority that could win.

FOR AS AN e-mail message from the CHC Bold PAC says, “Republicans LOVE Trump. Republicans WANT Trump to win. Republicans WON’T STOP until Trump is President.” Then, they hit me up for a contribution to the cause of electing Democrats.

 

The sentiment Clinton hopes to convey in Philly

Which is nonsense! The GOP is schizophrenic enough these days they don’t agree with Trump. What they agree upon is “Hillary bad” (although most likely, they substitute another “B” word to describe her).

Which, in a sense, means the Republicans this week failed to give us a single legitimate reason to vote FOR Donald Trump. It’s all about voting against “that woman!”

Which ought to make the true majority of our society take seriously the notion of casting a ballot for Hillary come Nov. 8 – even if it’s just to spite all the angry white guys on display this week. Who in all honesty are going to find something to be angry about no matter who wins this election cycle!

  -30-

Trump can’t have another Admiral Stockdale as his V-P running mate

I’m not about to predict just who Donald Trump will pick to be his vice presidential running mate. Largely because there’s no knowing just what the man will consider to be a priority on any given day.

TRUMP: Who's his Number Two?

Which also is why some people are fearful of what kind of chief executive he’d make if he actually got elected. Nobody cares if The Trump Organization LLC is run by an egomaniac because ultimately Donald himself is the loser if he makes a stupid decision.

BUT IF HE does manage to get elected to higher office, the consequences are much higher. This is bigger than back when Minnesota voters picked one-time professional wrestler Jesse Ventura to be their governor.

Although to tell you the truth, I think the kind of people who made that vote are the same ones telling their brethren across the country to Vote Trump this time around. It’s something of a protest vote by people who resent the idea that they’re supposed to care about government.

So they decide to “clown it up” by doing the equivalent of casting a ballot for “Mickey Mouse.” Except Mickey and Minnie probably have more gravitas as a first couple than do Donald and Melania.

And Mickey would probably give us Goofy as a V-P, with Donald Duck as a Secretary of Defense, while we don’t have a clue who Trump would put in place to succeed him in the event of his demise while in office.

CHRISTIE: A V-P from Jersey?

IF ANYTHING, I suspect Trump would wind up placing any running mate he picks under immediate suspicion that they may try to poison his food in an attempt to gain the top political post for themselves.

Two points to mention. One is that such a motivation is the only reason anyone would want to be aligned with Trump as a running mate. Second is that if one truly wanted to feed Trump something nasty, just keep giving him those “taco bowls” he claims are so wonderful at the restaurants in his hotels.

I’d argue that his opinion of those culinary dishes is evidence that the man has no true sense of cuisine, or elegance. Then again, those 40-foot-high letters spelling out “T-R-U-M-P” on the side of his building in Chicago ought to be evidence of how gauche the man can be.

STOCKDALE: He could have been 'war hero' V-P

So who’s the Trump V-P?

I NOTICED THAT New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was named to be in charge of a Trump transition team as he officially goes from being one of 18 Republican blowhards dreaming of being president to being the GOP’s actual nominee.

Could this mean we’ll soon get the ticket of Trump/Christie running for office, to see which loudmouth can out-shout the other in an effort to lead our country?

Or could this be the sole reward for being willing to give up his own presidential aspirations and be subservient to Trump? Maybe Trump will actually ask Christie’s opinion on who the V-P should be? Then pick someone else based solely on his whims.

Political sense says that Trump, who has never held elective office in his life, needs a hard-core politico at his side. Perhaps such as a New Jersey governor. Or  a member of the Senate (although not Ted Cruz, he’s too likely to think for himself and ignore the latest ramblings of Trump).

THE LAST THING Trump needs is the perception of a rank amateur who’s so clueless that he becomes easy pickings for Saturday Night Live sketches.

Such as the aforementioned Admiral James Stockdale, who was the running mate back in 1992 when H. Ross Perot tried giving us an independent political bid. Political people still laugh at the lines, “Who am I” and “Why am I here” that came from Stockdale during his one debate performance, as though the man were truly too clueless to comprehend his circumstance, instead of trying to answer rhetorical questions meant to introduce himself to the audience.

BREWER: Noooooooooooooo!!!!

Or if Trump were to actually take seriously the suggestion of former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, whose state tried to give law enforcement and local officials greater authority to crack down on Latinos for merely existing. If Trump picked her, we'd see how quickly that any Democratic presidential hopeful would wind up gaining 99 percent of the Latino vote. It would be a pathetic joke.

If anything, that could become the key to figuring if Trump has truly picked a worthy running mate – how quickly can Saturday Night Live turn his choice into a national joke?!? If they can’t, then Trump may have caught on to something.

  -30-

Who knows who will really run for president come the 2016 election cycle

I’m not getting too worked up over the debate controversy over whether the Fox television network is unduly influencing next year’s Republican presidential primary with the rules over whom is going to be allowed to partake in their Thursday debate.

BUSH: The front-runner?

With 17 people on the GOP side officially expressing delusions of someday becoming U.S. president, Fox has said it will allow only 10 to be included.

THOSE 10 WILL be the ones who rank on top in an average of five polls. Which could result in some people who might theoretically deserve a review being excluded from inclusion.

Which will result in the public perception that they’re not really in the campaign.

Considering that several polls are showing the real estate magnate Donald Trump at the top of most polls, he’ll probably wind up getting one of those spots. There are those who feel he’s taking a spot away from a more qualified person.

Personally, I think any campaign Trump winds up running will be as a political independent – that way he can make it all about himself and not have to put up with political operatives telling him he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

BECAUSE ‘THE DONALD’ doesn’t take such insolence lightly!

For what it’s worth, it doesn’t surprise me to learn that a broadcast-mentality would not think it worthwhile to have every single candidate in their debate program.

FIORINA: The legitimate business exec

I still remember back in the days when I was a reporter-type person in Springfield, Ill., and a local TV type told me it was irresponsible to have all the candidates in a debate. Weeding out the fringe candidates who have no chance of winning a primary is part of the job, I was told.

I believe that if a candidate gets on the ballot, they deserve to be included – so that their stupid comments can shoot them down in the minds of the electorate and cause them to lose.

GRAHAM: The political pro

BUT AT THIS stage, we don’t have anyone on a ballot. It is still that early. I’m figuring that Fox thinks it will be impossible to include 17 people and give them all time to say anything significant.

Although I wonder if even 10 candidates creates that situation. I doubt we’re going to learn much about anyone, particularly since the focus now is on Trump and how the others will counter him.

RUBIO: The Cuban w/o Latino support

Trump’s money allows him to buy public perception, particularly since the story line being pushed is if any of the other candidates can boost themselves up to the Trump level in the election cycle.

The only reason I don’t get too bothered is because I’m realistic enough to know that most of the candidates who don’t get included in the Thursday debate will likely have faded out and be long-forgotten by Election Day.

HECK, EVEN MANY of the ones who make the debate (we’ll be told Tuesday night which ones will be included) will not actually be on the ballot come Nov. xx, 2016.

CHRISTIE: Noo Yawker for those who hate N.Y.

At this stage, a debate is more about comic relief – as Saturday Night Live once phrased it, a presidential debate is a “chance to avoid saying something stupid.” Thursday’s program is not about educating the electorate about candidates.

It’s more about making people think that the Fox News Channel is at the heart of the campaign action, and that we ought to pay mind to their political spin when deciding what to believe.

Besides, I can already hear the rants about the proposed CNN debate (which says they will split the program into two so they can include all 17 people) – all the people who get put into the program without Trump will complain that they’re on the political “B” team.

  -30-

WALKER: Campaign has $5M in Ricketts family cash

EDITOR’S NOTE: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Former New York Gov. George Pataki. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn.  Real estate developer Donald Trump. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The photographs used here are the ones I think are worthy of consideration. Not that I'd be inclined to vote for any of them.

Keeping ‘em covered; will we have more hot, sweaty cops during summer?

Why do I suspect we’re going to see a lot more police officers in long-sleeved shirts while on duty, regardless of how hot the temperatures become.

This is my reaction to learning of the fact that the Chicago Police Department is implementing a new policy this week concerning tattoos.

SPECIALLY, OFFICERS ON duty aren’t allowed to show off any tattoos they might have.

They’re not going to be forced to have them removed. But they’re going to have to cover them up. Either with their uniforms, or with matching skin tone adhesive bandages or tattoo cover-up tape.

The order, according to the Chicago Tribune, was issued Monday, and takes effect Friday. No official explanation was given, but considering that it also makes mention of “conservative business attire” I suspect that someone in the higher ranks thinks of tattoos as being unprofessional in appearance.

Perhaps they’re considered a bit thuggish. Almost as though tattoos ought to be on the people who get arrested by police, rather than by the law enforcement officers themselves.

I’LL HAVE TO admit that I find it a bit off-putting to see police officers with tattoos poking below their short-sleeve uniform shirts. It seems to go against the image that police try to create for themselves of a unified force of people.

Which may be why the top brass with the Chicago P.D. would want such a policy. Either that, or require all officers to have identical tattoos. That would probably create a bigger rebellion than the notion of having to cover up one’s tattoos.

Although I’ll also admit that the most heavily-tattooed police officers I have ever seen have been with certain suburban police departments.

And those officers won’t be impacted by this new policy. Perhaps it means that the Chicago officers who have a problem covering up their tattoos can go get jobs in those surrounding municipalities, where the need for qualified cops overrides a concern about appearance.
 

Let's hope Mayor Rahm never feels compelled

SO WHAT SHOULD we think about this new policy? Which also has a provision for headgear – no stocking caps or ball caps, even if they bear the Chicago Police Department logo. Be honest, a ball cap on anything other than a ballplayer during a game does look ridiculous. Think New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in that recent photo from a charity ballgame in New York photo.

I’m sure some people are going to rant and rage about how this policy hits at what little individuality an officer might try to express. They also will complain about how monitoring an officer’s cap or tattoos does nothing to make them behave more professionally while on the job.

In fact, there already is (anonymous, of course) Internet commentary saying that officials ought to be more concerned about police brutality than about officer tattoos.

Although I’m not convinced about the latter. There are some people who manage to make it through the police hiring process even though they have character flaws that make it likely they will use their law enforcement authority poorly. Some of society’s bullies wind up becoming cops – just like some wind up becoming crooks.

WHILE OTHERS WHO get into law enforcement are those who have some noble aspects of their character and use police powers to benefit our society. I’m sure that some of those people, particularly amongst the younger types who now are of age to apply for police positions, are tattooed.

So perhaps this is an issue that needs to be addressed, even though some people who want to complain about everything will now choose to rant and rage about this.

Such a policy may be needed because of the prevalence of younger people who felt compelled to get something drawn on their bodies in their youth (or the youth-like years that they’re refusing to give up on).

And as for those people who managed to get something put on their face? Perhaps those cops will have to go around with cover-up bandages, forevermore telling people that they “cut myself shaving” that morning.

  -30-

No Romney for president in ’16; may we dump all the other recycled dreams?

Call me relieved to learn Friday that Mitt Romney has no intention of actually running for the Republican nomination for president in the 2016 election cycle.

Now if we could only get all the other past presidential candidates to give up their fantasies of working in the Oval Office someday and focus attention on trying to find someone new and forward thinking, then perhaps there’s a chance that Election ’16 won’t turn out to be a complete dud.

THAT ACTUALLY IS the sense I’m picking up at this admittedly early juncture about the people who want to succeed Barack Obama when he leaves the White House in early 2017.

A batch of rejects whom we didn’t think much of before, but who seem to have nothing better to do with themselves than make another bid for the highest office.

Apparently, it didn’t register with them when we, the people who make up the electorate, told them “No!!!!!” before.

They seem to think that if we see them once again, we’ll somehow think they’re more qualified than when they ran before.

WHEN REALLY, THESE repeat candidates remind me of the debate that often takes place when reviewing former professional ballplayers year after year after year for possible inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The player’s statistics don’t somehow magically improve in his athletic retirement. He’s no more qualified for Hall of Fame admission 20 years after he retires than he was when he was first eligible five years after retiring.

So when I look at polls with names such as “Huckabee,” “Paul,” “Perry” and “Santorum” on the Republican side, I think the same thing I felt for the possibility of a Romney campaign.

“You lost!” and “Get on with your life.” There’s nothing new about any of you that the public at-large didn’t previously dismiss. Your perennial presidential aspirations have become about as pathetic as the fifteen years that one-time Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins pitcher Jack Morris kept cropping up on the Hall of Fame ballot – only to fall short every single time!

I DON’T THINK much higher of the possible campaigns of the governors of New Jersey, Louisiana and Wisconsin – all of whom have hinted they might prefer D.C. to their respective Statehouse scenes.

But at least they’d be fresh faces of people to consider for the Republican nomination for president. So I really don’t want to hear anything about one-time Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin either!

Before any of you try to dismiss this as the rant of someone who just isn’t interested in Republicans, I have to admit to feeling something similar for the possibility of Hillary R. Clinton as president.

For what it’s worth, she had her serious bid for the White House in 2008, and she fell short. She came oh so close, but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Do we really need a repeat?

ALTHOUGH I WONDER if from the perspective of developing a political legacy, she achieved more in a career that saw her serve as a senator from New York and as secretary of state than she would have had if she had become president.

After all, she wound up gaining some respect for her performance in those roles, whereas if she had become president she merely would have become the target for all the ideological buffoons who hated her husband as president and would have been determined to “take her down” too.

Having to speculate about whether Hillary will run again for president is merely a reminder that the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to have anyone else with enough ambition to want the top post in federal government.

Particularly since the one candidate whom some Dems are eager to see challenge Hillary in a primary (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.) has already hinted she’s probably not interested in doing so.

  -30-