Will anyone vote for Gary Johnson just because the Chicago Tribune said to?

It was about a month ago that I, while having lunch with some former work colleagues, made the bold prediction that the Chicago Tribune would wind up eating crow and endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential bid.

JOHNSON: Trib pick for prez

It was made clear by the newspaper back during the primary that Hillary Clinton was not an acceptable option. In fact, the newspaper back in March dissed the entire Democratic Party primary process and anyone who was looking there for national leadership.

THE ONE-TIME “WORLD’S Greatest Newspaper” actually backed Marco Rubio in the Republican primary even though it was already clear by that point that Trump was well on his way to securing the GOP nomination.

I figured that since they had so clearly rejected Clinton as an option, they’d have to find some rhetorical way of taking back their Trump hostility. Probably something along the lines of the need to support someone who’d back conservative Republican principles and pick GOP operatives to handle the actual work of governing. Which is something that Hillary certainly won’t do.

Well, it seems I was off a bit. While most newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times that shares Tribune ownership, and the Chicago Sun-Times, are begrudgingly endorsing Clinton (the Arizona Republic out in Phoenix says she’s the first non-Republican they’ve ever backed for president), the Tribune had to figure out its own way of being different.

The Chicago Tribune on Friday let word get out that they are officially backing the presidential aspirations of Gary Johnson, He’s the former New Mexico governor who has the Libertarian Party’s nomination for the Nov. 8 general elections.

IT SEEMS I was right in thinking that the Tribune would not be able to get in line with the concept of “President Hillary Clinton.” But the Tribune, which calls Johnson “a principled option for U.S. president,” is now the newspaper of choice for those political malcontents who wish they could cast idealistic votes.

Will Republic readers care more about coupons?

Although I find it humorous that the people most anxious to find an alternate political party are going out of their way to ignore Jill Stein and the Green Party. None of that liberal freakish nonsense for them.

They’re willing to ignore the portions of libertarian ideology that says laws against narcotics use, restricting abortion and a military draft are bad (on the grounds that government shouldn’t be involved in such things) because they like the idea that firearms restrictions, public schools and taxes, in general, are equally abhorrent.

Natl. Enquirer picked Trump during primary season

That’s what the Tribune has thrown its lot in with, at least for this election cycle. Come 2020, they’ll be back in bed with the Republican Party – which, I suspect, they were looking forward to rejoining this election cycle following two terms of bringing itself in line with backing Barack Obama.

BECAUSE I’M PRETTY sure the Tribune made that decision largely because they knew their readership would revolt if they had dared to go against the hometown boy – even if he was really born and raised in Honolulu (with a stint of his childhood in Malaysia).

As it is, Hillary Clinton (if elected) would be the first Chicago-born U.S. president. But she went out east to college, then followed her husband to Arkansas. Meaning she wrote us off, so they can justify writing her off as a hometown girl made good.

Oddly enough, the Tribune may have got one-upped in their attempt to gain public attention for their Libertarian endorsement.

Because it seems the Detroit News made the same selection, publishing an editorial that, like many other newspapers, apologizes for not picking the Republican for president this election cycle after generations (143 years, to be exact) of having done so.

THEN, THERE WAS USA Today, which came up with its own editorial that didn’t tell us who to vote for. It said we should NOT vote for Trump; calling him “unfit for the presidency.”

Johnson doesn't know 'Allepo?' Do voters know either of these guys?

It really is the trend this time around. “Don’t Vote for Trump!!!” Which makes me wonder how many would-be voters would feel compelled to listen. I suspect the minions who are backing Trump will react with revulsion. Just like at the Dallas Morning News, which said that its “Vote Hillary” endorsement resulted in significant subscription cancellations!

There are very few newspapers (such as the Santa Barbara News-Press) willing to publicly pick The Donald as their endorsed candidate. For two of them – the New York Post and the New York Observer – it can be argued that those publications have relied on Trump’s boorish antics for so many years to generate their news copy that they need a Trump presidency to create stories.

Something has to fill all that otherwise-white space in the paper that goes around the ads for testosterone-production pills that run on Page 17.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: As for those people who are getting all worked up now that Gary Johnson didn’t know any world leaders, I suspect 90 percent of the electorate doesn’t know either – and many probably think the people who do know have way too much free time on their hands. That may be the real problem our society faces these days -- and why Trump does as well as he does in public polling.

Enjoy it while it lasts, for Illinois becomes irrelevant again after Tuesday

At least insofar as the presidential campaign is concerned – because those of us who live here know we’re the crown jewel of the Great Lakes states. Where else would you find a hot dog stand paying "tribute" to a presidential candidate by offering 3-inch-long wieners?

From the 'inevitable' image Hillary wants to create for herself, ...

But let’s be real. The presidential campaigns have been operating for months in distant places, barely giving us a thought.

... to a leader who tells everybody 'You're Fired" ...

AT LEAST UNTIL Wednesday night, which is when it seemed the candidates started sticking themselves in our faces to try to gain our attention long enough for us to consider actually casting ballots for them.

That activity seemed to peak on Friday when multiple presidential dreamers insisted on cluttering up our personal presence. Even Donald Trump – who with his University of Illinois at Chicago rally has many of the activists all riled up. So many, in fact, that Trump wound up cancelling the event at the last minute -- citing security concerns.

... many political hopefuls are here ...

Admittedly, some people engaged in petition drives to have Trump banned from the near West Side campus. Which was a nonsense attitude to take.

The real way to deal with a political knucklehead is to let him say something stupid so we see what a knucklehead he truly is. Get in his face, so to speak.

ALTHOUGH I DON’T doubt that the security types Trump had on hand were all geared up and ready to deal with anyone they even remotely thought was troublesome – particularly if that person had an excess of melanin showing up in their skin complexions.

... to try to win our votes.

Now I’m sure the Trump backers think they’re sticking up for themselves and their candidate when (in other cities) they have beaten those protesters. Although I’d argue all they’re really doing is showing that Trump is the knucklehead candidate who attracts nitwit supporters.

In the end, the Trump presence could be nothing more than a very vocal minority that only wins if the real majority decides to sit on its duff and do nothing come Election Day.

Wishing he could join our party!

In which case, the idea of a “President Trump” would be exactly the punishment they would deserve for not voting!

BUT IT WASN’T just Trump who felt the need to be in Illinois in hopes of getting our state’s delegates and (ultimately) our Electoral College votes. We do, after all, have more of those to offer than any other Midwestern state – largely because of the presence of Chicago and all its population.

We had Ted Cruz on Friday in the northwest suburbs, while Hillary Clinton was out there on Thursday, and Hillary will be back in the state on Monday in Springfield. While husband Bill on Friday was in Peoria to support his wife’s political aspirations, after making a similar appearance in Evanston.
 

Is the former president that eager to once again live in the White House and enjoy all of its life perks?

We even had John Kasich in our state, with his aides saying the Ohio governor is counting on his home state and ours to keep alive his desire to call himself a presidential candidate.

WE ILLINOISANS COULD become the people who kill off his dreams – thereby making the idea of candidate Trump a reality. That is a goal we ought desperately to do everything we can to avoid achieving. We don’t deserve to be blamed for that; do we?

Lest I forget, even Bernie Sanders made appearances in the area, including a Friday night appearance in suburban Summit at Argo High School – the alma mater of one-time White Sox slugger Ted Kluszewski. Somehow, I think the locals will take greater pride in “Big Klu” than they will  the presence of “the Bern.” Although his appearance Saturday with Rev. Jesse Jackson may get him more favorable attention. 

Personally, I'll take a Big Klu over all of them

In fact, about the only presidential hopeful we’re not going to see in coming days is Marco Rubio – whose own chances for political survival are so tied to the Florida primary on Tuesday he can’t afford to leave the state. So much for any personal contact with the man the Chicago Tribune seriously believes ought to be our nation’s 45^th president.

There is one thing to keep in mind – this personal attention is fleeting. Come Wednesday, the candidates will have moved on to thinking about Arizona, Idaho and Utah; the states whose primaries come a week later on March 22. And in their dreams, they’ll be focused on the days before March 26 – when they can think about staging a campaign event or two in Hawaii to try to gain that state’s voters.

  -30-

EXTRA: Will Bernie Sanders repeat Michigan victory next week in Illinois?

Much is being made of the fact that presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders managed to pull off a primary victory Tuesday in Michigan.

Will Ill. follow Michigan's lead, ...

He won by some 4 percentage points over Hillary Clinton – even though the polls in Michigan had anticipated Hillary would easily win the state with some 20 percent margin of victory.

THERE ARE THOSE who say that Sanders now has a chance in the fellow Great Lakes state of Ohio in that state’s primary election come Tuesday – and that the Great Lakes states (or Rust Belt, as some seem to prefer to dismiss the region) is going to be the great savior of the Sanders presidential aspirations.

Which is of interest locally because we, too, are in those Great Lakes states. We, too, have a primary coming up next Tuesday. Are we about to ignore the fact that Hillary is a suburban Chicago native and dump all over her chances of winning the White House?

Not likely, although it should be noted that the Chicago Tribune had a poll this week showing Hillary taking two-thirds of the Democratic primary supporters – and with a 42 percent victory margin.

Illinois must love Hillary even more than the polls claimed Michigan did. Will Illinois wind up being different from the other Great Lakes states? Or will Sanders trigger an even bigger surprise in the Land of Lincoln than he did in Michigan?

... or will we stick with one-time hometown girl?

IF SO, IT would be the most influence Illinois has exerted over a presidential campaign in decades

Of course, the same Tribune-published poll also had Donald Trump leading in the GOP primary – with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., finishing third (21 percent support) and desperately relying on his own home state’s primary come Tuesday to keep his campaign alive.

I wonder at what point does contempt for the concept of “President Trump” provoke Democrats to get off their lazy keisters and cast a ballot to ensure their party has a strong opposition candidate? And no, I don’t want to hear anyone claim to me that the salvation of our nation is the candidacy of Willie Wilson!

I’d like to think it could be the very same Chicago Tribune, which on Wednesday published its official endorsements for the presidential primaries – Rubio for the Republicans, and nobody for the Democrats.

The Tribune's presidential fantasy

BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY NONE of the Dem candidates are talking in any terms the one-time “World’s Greatest Newspaper” can take seriously. Then again, they don’t think much of Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and are going for a man who may well wind up bringing his campaign to a close once he suffers crushing defeats next week. Because NBC News/Wall Street Journal have a new poll showing both Sanders and Clinton beat up on Trump nationally!

I’m not sure what to make of our state’s primary activity – for a place that likes to think it is crucial to the nation’s government (having a president from our city for the past seven years has inflated our egos a bit), we’re going to be awfully disappointed if it turns out the rest of the nation makes its presidential pick in 2016 without much regard for what Illinoisans think.

Is this vision worthy of a presidential hopeful?

Although it would be amusing if, after all is said and done, Hillary (a Park Ridge native) winds up joining the ranks with Abraham Lincoln (Springfield), Ulysses Grant (Galena), Ronald Reagan (born in Tampico, raised in Dixon and educated in Eureka before he left us for swimming pools and movie stars in California) and Barack Obama (the Hyde Park and Kenwood neighborhoods) of U.S. presidents with ties to our state.

All of which is better than having a president whose local tie is having his name emblazed on a garish building along the Chicago River!

  -30-

What’s more scary – Trump thinks Latinos like him? Or that they do?

I’m not sure which concept confounds me the most – the idea that Republican presidential fantasizer Donald Trump believes that Latino voters actually like him?

TRUMP: Thinks Latinos love him

Or the idea that they actually do?

THOSE ARE NOT contradictory concepts. It actually is very possible for both to be true, once we realize that those numbers Trump touts from the Nevada caucus this week (the first state in which there is anything resembling a significant Latino population) are quite so limited.

So it may well be true that those exit polls (the only data available, since no one officially keeps track of the ethnicity of every person who bothers to show up to vote) show more Latinos who participated in the Republican caucus backed Trump instead of any of his GOP opponents.

Not even either of the Cubano boys – Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida – who also have dreams of being the guy who gets to repeal President Barack Obama’s executive orders that tried to impose immigration reform bit by bit.

But the simple fact is that most of the Latinos who bother to get politically involved wind up (often by default) on the Democratic side of the equation.

A STUDY BY the Miami-based Latino Decisions organization put it well – 44 percent Latino support for Trump (the figure he claims) is most likely only about 7 percent of all Latinos.

Which may be more than either Cruz or Rubio got. But it still is a pitiful figure. It would seem the reality is that most Latinos who in Nevada were politically active enough to participate in the caucuses were going for Bernie Sanders – and Trump’s gauche flaunting of his wealth makes him the absolute LAST person they’d ever consider backing on an Election Day.

SANDERS: Likely the real Nev. Latino preference

Although I’m sure more Latinos are interested in Hillary Clinton for president as well, and will wind up backing whichever Democrat prevails come the November general election.

That’s what happens when you kick off you campaign with trash talk about Mexico and Mexicans – all Latinos realize the kind of people who spew such trash talk are too dumb to make nationality distinctions, and are going to be sympathetic all the way around.

SO THE IDEA that Latinos like Trump? Pure caca! Unless you’re Trump, who has shown that fact and truth have no place in the nonsense he’s willing to spew on the campaign trail.

CLINTON: Also preferred by Nev. Latinos

But within the Republican election cycle, I have to admit that I’m more intrigued by the idea that Trump got more Latinos to vote for him than any other individual candidate – including both Cruz and Rubio, who some people think Latinos ought to vote in knee-jerk reaction for.

But if either of them were to win the Republican presidential nomination, I have no doubt that both would find themselves widely ignored by Latino voters nationwide. The perception on both is that they’re so willing to appease the conservative ideologues who have a touch of xenophobic and nativist thought in their ways that both would wind up siding against Latino interests on so many issues.

The crude way to say it is that they both probably wish they were white boys. I’ll be the first to admit there are some Latino people who think, and feel, that way.

That Rubio and Cruz can't take GOP Latino vote ...

BUT RATHER THAN vote for a Latino who shares your self-centered thought process, it seems they picked Trump. Why vote for a Latino white boy-wannabe when they can vote for a real-live white boy like Trump.

Particularly one who’s rich and you can pretend on some level he actually cares about you. Which he really doesn’t – and that’s his appeal to the so-called uneducated vote whom Trump now boasts like him as well.

... from Trump truly is sad

Cruz and Rubio – who I’m sure would resent the Latino label and would prefer to be called Cuban if you want to think of their ethnic origins – can’t even get Latino people just like themselves to support their political dreams.

Which winds up offering aid and comfort to the delusions of those who think that a garish real estate developer from New York is somehow fit to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” on that upcoming cold day of Jan. 20, 2017, when all this presidential campaign trash talk becomes just a collection of bad memories.

  -30-

Ted Cruz’ Iowa caucus “victory” not a boost for Latino political empowerment

There are those people trying to make something of the fact that a man of Latin American ethnic origins (Cuban, to be exact) came out the “winner” of the caucuses held this week in Iowa.

CRUZ: The Latino leader, for now

There also are those who find it intriguing that the two Cuban-American types who were in the field of candidates running for president finished first and third in the caucuses – with their combined level of support totaling 51 percent.

THINK ABOUT IT, if you will.

A majority of people choosing to identify with the Grand Old Party whose alleged front-runner was that nitwit New York real estate developer who started off his campaigning with a rant bad-mouthing Mexicans wound up having no problem picking someone from Latin America to be their party’s presidential nominee.

Of course, there’s also that 24 percent of Iowans who actually thought that Donald Trump was fit to be president. Then again, some people are just terminally silly, if not outright stupid. Particularly since Trump's response to losing the caucus was to demand a do-over -- as though he were some sort of third-world dictator.

Now I’ll be honest. I don’t expect Cruz to wind up as the Republican nominee for president when the GOP has its convention in Cleveland.

IF ANYTHING I think the same people who were willing to listen to Donald Trump’s nonsense talk about Mexicans and who live in other states will wind up thinking twice before following the lead of Iowans – who come from a place whose total Latino population is just under 6 percent (or about one-third the percent of the nation’s Latino population).

Cruz may well have experienced the highlight of his political career Monday night. It will never get better for the senator from Texas than this.

RUBIO: Putting Latinos into Iowa majority

As for the fact that his 28 percent support in Iowa and the 23 percent support garnered by the senator from Florida combines to a slight majority overall, that really is a political fluke.

I can’t help but want to respond to people bringing that “51 percent” figure up in a way similar to how Charlie Brown once responded to Lucy when she rattled off statistics about how bad their baseball team was.

“LUCY, TELL YOUR statistics to shut up!” Just as how I think the people spewing that stat are merely trying to divert attention from the fact their political party wants to use hostility toward Latinos to its benefit.

The fact is that even if Cruz or Marco Rubio were to somehow win the Republican nomination for president, the Democratic Party’s nominee would still take the bulk of the Latino vote come the November general election.

CLINTON: The REAL Latino voter preference

Both Cruz and Rubio have too many issues in their political records that make them appear to Latino voters to be politicians more interested in gaining white people voter support than anything else.

Let’s also be honest in acknowledging that both Cruz’ and Rubio’s ethnic origins are specifically to Cuba. Whose segment of the Latino population in the United States is dwarfed by those from Mexico or Puerto Rico.

IF REPUBLICANS REALLY think they’d take the Latino vote with either Rubio or Cruz (but Cruz in particular), they’ll learn pretty quickly how Mexican-Americans will dis them both as a couple of Caribbean-oriented fools too out-of-touch with REAL Latinos.

So the idea that 51 percent of Iowans participating in Republican caucuses found it in themselves to support a Cuban-American (which is what Cruz really is, despite all those fools who want to tag the label “Canadian!!!” on him) will find that they will be remembered in the political history books as some sort of aberration.

CASTRO: The ultimate Latino winner?

If there was a Latino political empowerment story to be found in this week’s caucuses, it may well be the efforts of Julian Castro – the one-time mayor of San Antonio, Texas, who has tossed out hints of wanting to be the vice-president and made an effort to campaign in Iowa on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Her narrow victory puts him on the “right side” of the Democratic Party’s nomination process, and could put the name “Castro” closer to someday becoming U.S. president than either Cruz or Rubio will ever be – a thought that I’m sure appalls all who have ties to Cuba.

  -30-

Rubio made his choice on immigration, now he has to live with ramifications

I can already hear the confusion and criticism that will be spewed later on by conservative ideologues with regards to the presidential aspirations of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

RUBIO: Lying in bed w/ ideologues?

They’ll claim that the growing Latino vote is somehow being hypocritical for not blindly following his every whim. It is a sign, they’ll claim, of how would-be Latino voters are being irrational in the way we think – just like they’re claiming it is racist for Mexicans to beat on Donald Trump piñatas!

WHICH, OF COURSE, is nonsense! But it won’t stop the kind of people who actually think Trump is presidential material from saying something so stupid.

For the fact is that Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba just before the Castro revolution that saw many of their countrymen flee in exile to the United States, has pretty much ensured he’s not going to have much of the Latino vote on his side.

Those Latinos inclined to want to vote will go for just about anybody else but him. Even though Republicans themselves will want to demonize Rubio for being too pro-Latino (there is a significant segment of the GOP that thinks open hostility toward the Latino population is the way to go).

For Rubio this week let it be known that he’s willing to back away from his desire to have a comprehensive immigration reform plan enacted into law before he’s willing to see the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program come to an end.

THAT PROGRAM WAS the Obama Administration’s effort to ensure that people brought to this country as children who have lived the bulk of their lives in the United States would not face deportation just because of their parents’ uncertain immigration status.

It means those young people have registered, and we know exactly where to find them. They have Obama protection.

But because it was created by an Obama executive order, it could easily be wiped out by a future Republican president who wishes to score political points with the nativist crowd of our society.

Those people who now have protection could wind up facing deportation because some people would rather coddle to the xenophobic desires of some in our society.

AND RUBIO, IN trying to score voter points with that segment of the electorate, made it clear this week he’s more interested in reaching out to the nativists rather than to the Latino population – which is supportive of the Obama efforts because we realize too many xenophobes can’t (or don’t want to) tell the difference between someone of Latin American ethnic origins who was born in this country, and someone who was not.

Rubio made his choice, just as back in 2008 when one-time immigration reform leader Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., backed away from such talk to say he favored the nativist desires espoused by the overly-vocal part of his political party.

Now, Rubio is going to have to live with the consequences of his choice. If he were to become the Republican nominee for president in next year’s election cycle, he’d wind up losing the Latino vote – and perhaps by a big margin.

The ideologues would try to claim something irrational about it, but it really would make sense. Why would the Latino voter bloc be supportive of someone whose desire for ideologue votes make him act as he does?

I’M NOT SHOCKED by Rubio’s desires. He wants to be a Republican, even though it could be argued they really don’t want him – or anybody like him – within their ranks.

This may all be theoretical, since it is highly unlikely the GOP will wind up nominating the member of the Miami Cuban exile community to be their standard bearer for president.

Rubio and his actions may well have just ensured he will lose the primary fight by a lesser margin; which in his mind may justify what he has done.

Because if he can’t even win the primary, what difference does it really make what would happen to him in a general election fight that will never occur?

 -30-

We’re frustrated w/ Rubio “frustration”

I comprehend the idea that Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida with presidential dreams, is “frustrated.”

RUBIO: Frustrated? Or stubborn?

We, the American people, are all frustrated, if now downright repulsed, by the fact that we have a Congress so bogged down in political partisanship that nothing gets done.

LARGELY BECAUSE OF the segment of the Republican caucus that believes the way our government ought to work is that they dictate their ideological desires to us – and we just shut up and do what we’re told.

A very un-American way of thinking, to my mindset. One that Rubio is often guilty of participating in himself.

We’re in an era in which the partisan mindsets are engaged in battle with each other – and it is likely that what the Obama presidency ultimately will be remembered for is the way in which its desires got tangled up in the ideological hang-ups of Congress.

But back to Rubio, who tells the Washington Post how his dislike for Congress is so intense that he doesn’t want to run for re-election when his six-year term ends next year.

IT MEANS THAT Rubio is throwing his political future into getting elected as president come next year. If he doesn’t get picked to replace Barack Obama in January 2017, he’ll be politically finished.

Like many political people, Rubio went to Capitol Hill with a touch of “Mr. Smith” in him, hoping to become a real-life version of James Stewart’s famed character – only perhaps a little bit schmaltzy.

Does Rubio see himself as the Cubano sequel?

There was a time when Rubio, a Cuban-American whose parents came to the United States just before the Castro revolution that chased many people away from the Caribbean island nation, thought he was going to be the Republican who could persuade his GOP colleagues to realize that Latinos weren’t necessarily “the enemy” who needed to be put down.

That there could be some serious reform to the nation’s immigration policy – which people with sense realize has always been necessary.

BUT IT DIDN’T quite work out that way. Those Republicans who led their ideology dictate everything stood in the way, just like those with the ultimate misnomer of the “Freedom Caucus” have killed off GOP House speakers who aren’t ideologically hardline enough for them.

 

OBAMA: A Rubio role-model?

Rubio’s allies aren’t all that friendly. But it’s not like Democrats have been any better toward him. They were more than willing to kill off his AGREE Act that was billed as a job-creation plan and was regarded as about as non-partisan as anything get these days.

This is a Congress where it could be argued that one of the few things Rubio sponsored that actually got passed was a resolution praising the Miami Heat for winning one of their National Basketball Association championships.

Considering how many basketball fans were repulsed by that whole stretch of winning that took place in Miami due to LeBron James and his friends that could be held against him.

YET THIS ATTITUDE of frustration is also what is wrong with our government – which by its very definition is designed to encourage compromise. Rubio saying he doesn’t want to be in the Senate any longer because it won’t do what he tells them to do comes across as a political whiner.

Personally, I think he’d be showing himself to be more potentially presidential if he’d learn to work with the opposition – and quit worrying about those hard-liners who are beyond redemption.

BENTSEN: Remembering comparison

Although I’m sure that, to Rubio’s mindset, he’s thinking that Obama was only 47 when he was elected president in 2008 – compared to Marco who will be 45 on Election Day next year. But the differing attitudes toward compromise (Obama is such a compromiser to the point where some Democrats wonder if he gives up too much) and Rubio’s stubborn streak are the real story.

Where it almost makes me want to paraphrase one-time VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen against Dan Quayle in telling Rubio, “Senator, you’re no Barack Obama.”

  -30-

Could Illinois be the example of rational political thought after all?

All of the cheap rhetoric about the presidential campaigns has had one thing in common – it hasn’t involved anyone from Illinois.

BUSH: Land of Lincoln's front-runner?

It has been a whole lot of stupid talk doing their nonsense elsewhere. We don’t have any local angle on it.

PERSONALLY, I’M GLAD. I’d like to believe it is the evidence that it is the rest of the nation that is absurd, and that we in Illinois aren’t the ones who elevated anyone as vapid as Donald Trump to the ranks of a political front-runner.

Considering that it will be later this week (Thursday, to be exact) that presidential candidates can begin circulating the nominating petitions that ultimately will get them a spot on the ballots come the March 15 primary elections.

Candidates will have until mid-December to gather their signatures of support, and I don’t doubt that the likes of Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson can come up with people in Illinois who will work on their behalf to gather the support that gets them on the ballot.

But it says something that of the 15 or so candidates wishing to run for the Republican nomination for president in next year’s election cycle, the only ones that have the operations in place already are the candidates most detested by the ideologues who are jumping on board the Trump and Carson campaigns – and to a lesser degree, that of Fiorina.

COULD IT BE that we in Illinois have a lesser tolerance for nonsense talk and are more interested in officials who are capable of getting things done? Perhaps the reason why Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, still has his supporters for his refusal to give in to the trash talk of organized labor being spewed by Gov. Bruce Rauner?

KASICH: Backing a Great Lakes guv?

Or maybe it means Illinois Republicans had enough sense to realize that most of the 15 GOP presidential dreamers had no business being on the ballot, and are waiting for the field to boil down before committing to anyone.

Which is why Jeb Bush (who will be in suburban Geneva on Thursday and Chicago proper Friday morning for political fundraiser events), Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John Kasich are about the only ones that seem to have anything resembling campaign operations in Illinois to get themselves on the ballot.

Candidates can trash-talk all they want. But unless someone does the work of circulating petitions to show support, no one will be able to vote for them.

WHICH MAY BE for the best for society if come March, Trump’s name doesn’t even turn up on the ballot. Particularly since assorted polls show he’s not as dominant as he was a month ago.

RUBIO: Ill. preferred Latino pol (not Ted Cruz)

It’s just a matter of time before Trump’s ego no longer gets fed enough by the thought of running for president that he decides to go back to being just a real estate developer who builds really tacky-looking structures.

It would seem that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother and son of former presidents, is the Illinois favorite, with former Illinois House Minority Leader Tom Cross leading up his effort.

The late state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka’s former chief of staff is heading up Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential dreams, while state Sen. Michael Connelly, R-Lisle, is in charge of the Marco Rubio operation.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, state Sen. (and constant political dreamer) James Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove, is also a backer of the guy whom Trump thinks of as a kid too young to take seriously as a presidential candidate.

TRUMP: Withering away to irrelevance?

Even though there are those of us who think that Trump himself is too old and foolish to have any credibility in electoral politics.

Not that I’m inclined to back anyone amongst Bush, Kasich or Rubio. Then again, I think the Democratic presidential field is filled with mediocrities – I haven’t found anyone I think is worthy of replacing Barack Obama come early 2017.

But it is reassuring to know that the Illinois primary election season is likely to be a little more logical than it has been thus far, or likely will be in other states.

  -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.