A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): The Election Day 2016 hangover?

Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore, and now, Hillary Clinton -- those are the five individuals in U.S. history who managed to win the popular vote when they ran for president, yet didn't win their electoral bids.

George W. has something in common with Donald

 
In the cases of Jackson and Cleveland, they both later tried again and won the presidency. While Clinton is likely to wind up in the category of Tilden and Gore – whose political careers ended with their electoral defeats.

I BRING THIS up because it seems that Donald Trump will gain a historic Fdistinction that I’m sure he won’t want to acknowledge – a majority of the people who voted didn’t want him.

He only gets to call himself “president-elect” these days because of the vagaries of the Electoral College process, which allowed him to gain the political support of states with sizable rural areas that could overcome their metro population centers.

In places like New York, California and Illinois (which have the three largest cities in the nation that dominate their state political processes), it was a good day for Clinton. Yet elsewhere, we get to see a national map of red – with blue blotches that clearly show you where all the cities of any size are located.

For the record, as of Wednesday morning there were 59.34 million votes for Clinton, compared to 59.18 million for Trump.

I DO FIND one bit of irony, in that amidst all the political speculation leading up to Election Day there were people who speculated about the concept of the popular vote and the Electoral College producing differing results. Yet all the people who discussed the idea did so on the basis that Trump would be the choice of “the people” and that it would be Clinton who would somehow only gain the presidency through the Electoral College process.

Which was identical to the George W. Bush/Al Gore election cycle of 2000. Gore got the popular vote total (50,999,897 votes), even though many people were willing to presume that it would be Bush (50,456,002 votes) who would be the pick of the masses.

Why are we so eager to believe that “the people” want these political officials willing to pander to the ideologues, who if they had any sense ought not go around ever complaining again about the electoral process being rigged.

So what else are we pondering these days, aside from the fact that suburban Park Ridge native Clinton will not give us a second consecutive president with strong Chicago ties?

THE HOARDS HAVE REALLY OVERRUN THE LAND OF DuPAGE: I realize Illinois has changed – being one of the few places nationally that gave comfort to Democratic Party political interests.

Yet learning that in a GOP-leaning year, Hillary Clinton managed to win DuPage County so solidly is such a shock. She took 53.9 percent of the county’s vote, compared to only 39.8 percent for Trump. In fact, Clinton won all the suburban counties surrounding Cook, including Lake County in Indiana (58.4 percent) even though the Hoosier State was actually first in the nation for Trump – except for up in far northwest McHenry.

Where Trump managed to take a slim 50.7 percent voter majority.

This really became a matter of a rural majority that Trump managed to milk for all it was worth, with many interests that should have backed Hillary falling short of anticipated support.

COME TOGETHER? OR SHUT UP!: Just a thought about the victory speech that Donald Trump made just before 2 a.m. Central Standard Time. It is being spun by some as a sign that Trump wants to work with all and the people who opposed him were being so irrational in their fears.

 

KIRK: Setting a standard for concessions?

When Trump says we need to “Come together as one united people,” my gut reaction is to hear a grouchy grandpa say, “Shut up and do what you’re told.” That sentiment would certainly be consistent with all the trash talk that Trump spewed during the campaign cycle.

Anyway, now we move on, and accept the reality that a Trump administration is likely to give new political life to people like Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich and also enable New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to have a future – none of which would have been possible prior to Tuesday.

And as for the coming together, we’ll see how conciliatory the meeting on Thursday is at the White House between Trump and President Barack Obama. Although I wonder if soon-to-be-former Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has the right idea – a beer at the Billy Goat with his political conqueror, Tammy Duckworth.

  -30-

EXTRA: Does Kirk gain bonus points politically for speaking Spanish?

KIRK: Habla en Espanol

I'm sure that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., thinks he gained himself some political points when, during a final debate held Friday between himself and Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth, he reverted to the use of the Spanish language.

He showed off his bilingual abilities when asked a question by Univision-Chicago broadcaster Erika Maldonado about where he stood on immigration reform, saying, "I'm going to answer this question in the language for whom the issue is most meaningful."

DUCKWORTH: Fighting back in Thai

HE THEN TRIED to say in Spanish that he has been a supporter of the issue, while most of his Republican colleagues in Congress have not. He also tried rubbing it in by saying, "My opponent does not speak any Spanish."

Of course, it could be argued that by trying to portray the issue as purely one impacting Latinos, he is trying to isolate it off so that other voters don't give it much thought. There's also the argument that by giving his answer of moderation in Spanish, he ensures that many of the people who are most hard-core xenophobic in their thought process won't have a clue what he said.

And won't be reminded just how much they disagree with Kirk on this issue, and many others. After all, if he were really in line with their thoughts, they'd probably be backing him and it could be argued that a Donald Trump presidential candidacy would have coat-tails strong enough to carry him back to the U.S. Senate.

I also couldn't help but notice the wire service news accounts of the debate, which indicated that while Duckworth may not speak Spanish, she did show off her skills in the Thai language when answering questions from reporter-types.

  -30-

It was nice knowin’ ya, Kirk. Welcome to the Senate, Tammy Duckworth

The most embarrassing part of Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., managing to put his foot in his mouth during his debate this week with Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth?
 

KIRK: Still removing foot from mouth

It’s the fact that Kirk gave Donald Trump and his political camp a legitimate reason to mock the man.

KIRK HAS BEEN going out of his way to distance himself from the Trump presidential campaign for being too sexist and bigoted to be representative of the people. So naturally, Kirk makes a remark during the debate that is interpreted as an ethnic slur on Duckworth – who was born in Thailand to parents with U.S. citizenship who lived and worked in several Southeast Asian nations before she settled in this country at age 16.

Anytime that Trump political operative Kellyanne Conway can call out Kirk for stupidity, you know is a bad moment that you don’t recover from politically.

The fact that Conway used Twitter to make her attack likely only makes it all-the-more lasting. That tweet ain’t goin’ noplace. It likely will keep cropping up for the remainder of Kirk’s life, and may even make it into his eventual obituary. That attempt at an apology he made Friday? Already forgotten about!

So what was it that happened during Thursday night’s debate between Kirk – a former Naval Reserve officer – and Duckworth, who wants to make sure the world knows she lost her legs while serving in combat during the Gulf War of the early 1990s?

DUCKWORTH HAS ALWAYS made a point of letting people know of her support for military issues and causes, and likes to talk of how she comes from a military family. Supposedly, family members fought as far back in time as the American revolution.

 

DUCKWORTH: Illinois' new senator?

Which could be true, as her father served in the Marine Corps and he was far from the first in the family to enlist for a stretch of military service. Except that Repubicans usually want to believe that if they were a "legitimate" military family, Republican partisan genes would have taken root. The fact that Tammy turned out Democrat must make her suspect -- in GOP minds.

Kirk came up with the wisecrack that I’m sure he thinks is particularly witty and was meant to put that woman in her place. As in, “I forgot that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington.”

The VoteVets organization on Friday trashed Kirk. Group Chairman Jon Soltz called the wisecrack “racist” and said, “Mark Kirk can say whatever he wants, but (Thursday) night he made clear that he will run his campaign, and the office of senator, the same way Donald Trump has run his campaign – based on racial and ethnic slurs, insults and tarring non-whites as not sufficiently American.”

 

CLINTON: Equally responsible for Duckworth

DUCKWORTH HERSELF ISSUED her own critical statement, although the key part of her effort was less to blast Kirk than to ask people for money. “Can you chip in right now to help me respond to this disgraceful attack?” she said.

Which makes me wonder how she would have asked for the campaign contribution if Kirk had kept his mouth shut and behaved himself Thursday night.

The sad thing is this won’t be the reason that Kirk likely loses his re-election bid a week-and-a-half from now. His campaign already was lagging due to the fact that Illinois leans Democrat and likely has a majority of voters fully comfortable with both of the state’s U.S. senators being of the Democratic persuasion.

In the interest of disclosure, I should point out that I was among those voters when I cast my own ballot this week through early vote. Perhaps Kirk would have a better chance of getting re-elected if he were seeking the Indiana seat – although even there Democrats are hopeful (although maybe too optimistically) they can win this year.

IT’S ALL ABOUT the concept that Trump has spread so much rhetorical manure that he’s given an overall stink to the concept of being a Republican.

 

CONWAY: Used Twitter to treat Kirk like a twit

Which is why it is sad that Kirk would get caught up in this particular bit of nonsense – since it probably gives Trump and his backers some sense of cockiness in thinking they would have looked out for Kirk if he had really been one of their own.

But since he wasn’t, then forget him!

And the likely outcome will be a Duckworth victory. Only she had better be careful, because her re-election bid of 2022 will not have a presidential campaign to leech off of. She’ll have to convince Illinoisans she’s worthy of retention – unless she wants to be nothing more than a one-termer.

  -30-

Pondering Mexico’s “independence” at a time when Trump wants to use ethnicity as a political punching bag

It’s Independence Day in Mexico, and if by chance you live near a Mexican enclave in this country you probably got to see and hear a taste of the celebration last night spilling over into Friday.

TRUMP: Will his defeat bring celebration?

Heck, even Gov. Bruce Rauner felt compelled to take part Thursday night in a replication in Chicago’s Harrison Park of “el Grito,” the cry for independence that acknowledged the 1810 breaking away of Spain’s colony into a free and separate nation of Mexico.

WE HEAR A lot about the growing Latino population in this country and see evidence that it is influencing the masses as a whole.

Yet I also don’t doubt there were some individuals who saw and heard the celebration that took place in parts of this country and wound up gnashing their teeth in anger.

These are the people who have their own nativist leanings whose own xenophobia has turned into a particularly irrational hang-up with regards to anything having to do with the Spanish language – particularly as it applies to Mexico.

Which makes sense, in a sense, because it is roughly two-thirds of the Latino population in this country that is specifically of Mexican ethnic leanings. I could see where people who are inclined to be clueless would think that it is “Mexico” that is somehow taking over.

NATURALLY, THERE’S BOUND to be someone inclined to use such leanings to their own benefit. That may well be Donald Trump.

RAUNER: Even Bruce celebrated Mexican freedom

The New York real estate developer who now says he wants to be president has made a point of anti-Mexico rants in his campaign rhetoric. He began by bashing Mexican people in this country as being rapists and drug dealers and all other sorts of slurs.

Of course, many Mexican Americans think of Trump as nothing more than a pinche pendejo (look up a translation yourself) and a baboso. The impression that the level of contempt being contemplated is mutual. There will be many of the people who celebrated Mexican independence who will be prepared to see Trump go down to defeat.

It is a safe bet to say that Trump will NOT take the Latino vote on Election Day. The only real question is if he will set a record low for a Republican candidate. Because many Latinos who vote will be casting ballots against him just as they did against John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

KAINE: Language an advantage?

WE REALLY DIDN'T think that highly of Barack Obama – it was more a sense that we saw him as less objectionable than his opponents. Which really is the case with Hillary Clinton in her bid against Trump; who if Latinos had had their way would have been the Democratic nominee back in 2008.

But I know there are those political observers who are unsure of what will happen because of the sense that the nativist element of our society is excited about Trump BECAUSE OF the fact he’s willing to talk so much trash about Mexicans and is willing to give them the fantasy of a government that will be openly hostile and push for mass levels of deportation.

KIRK: Turning to Spanish to save self politically

It may well come down to the 2016 election cycle being a showdown between the xenophobes and the growing Latino population. I’m sure the nativists are viewing this as a chance to put the foreigners in their place.

While Latinos, including all us Mexicans (my own grandparents came to this country in the 1920s and wound up settling in the South Chicago neighborhood) may use this election cycle as a chance to silence those people politically, once and for all.

THOSE PEOPLE OF sense will see this. I find it humorous that Clinton chose the Spanish-speaking Timothy Kaine (he once worked with Catholic missionaries in Honduras) as her running mate, particularly whenever political pundits feel compelled to say that his language skills are meaningless.

They’re probably the ones who also are peeved with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who recently cut a Spanish-language campaign ad for himself – one in which he talks about his own disapproval of Donald Trump. It could sway the Latino vote in his re-election bid against Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.

While the top priority will still be the presidential campaign. If you think the celebration last night and Friday was out of line, just envision the Latino reaction to a Trump defeat.

Think of the remains of all the piñatas in Trump’s image that will be littering the streets after being smashed to smithereens in joy!

Will Trump be in tatters on the streets of Mexican enclaves everywhere following Election Day?

  -30-

Presidential insults; what else is new?

One of the most intriguing parts of the museum and library in Springfield, Ill., devoted to Abraham Lincoln is the exhibit showing samples of all the hostile rhetoric used to denigrate “Honest Abe” back when he was alive.

 

OBAMA: Would he let insults stop him?

With such harsh and hostile sentiments existing about the man, it’s no wonder his election resulted in people taking up arms against the nation – something that has not happened in recent years even though there are people who detest the very concept of “President Barack Obama.”

THERE HAVE BEEN so many slurs uttered by so many people of varying beliefs about Obama that I honestly have lost track of them. And it’s not just the conservative ideologues – let’s not forget the many Latino activists who voted for him but refer to him as the “deporter-in-chief” because of his inability to change the federal policies that have resulted in many individuals being removed from this country.

It is in that context that I have to admit to not getting so worked up over the recent wisecrack by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who referred to Obama as the “drug dealer in chief.”

It was Kirk’s attempt to criticize the dealings our federal government under Obama has had with Iran, while also trying to appeal to the hard-core ideologues who otherwise might think Kirk is too wimpy to represent their interests.

 

KIRK: Merely the latest of trash-talkers

People who likely would be happier if a Trump-like person (as in spewing rhetorical nonsense about so many issues) were on the Republican ticket for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

KIRK’S CHALLENGER, DEMOCRAT Tammy Duckworth (herself a member of Congress from the northwest suburbs) has said such trash talk is unbecoming a U.S. senator. Yet there are times when I wonder if the standards for political talk have declined so much that the idea of something being unbecoming is a quaint concept.

For the record, Kirk refused to apologize during a candidate forum in Normal, Ill., on Wednesday. I suspect if he had been apologetic, the crowd would have turned on him something fierce.

LINCOLN: What president hasn't been insulted?

As though he was better off keeping his mouth shut and not causing even more damage for himself. Because we're in an era where such hostility is what passes for political talk -- why else would we take Donald Trump seriously?

Which is why I can’t get too worked up. I don’t doubt that Kirk is representing a viewpoint held by a certain segment of society – and he wants their votes. Because it’s pretty clear that the kind of people who oppose such a viewpoint will never vote for him come Election Day.

BESIDES, I COULDN’T help but notice an e-mail message I received Thursday from the Duckworth campaign. She wants to make sure we know just how offensive she thinks Kirk’s comments were. “Illinois deserves better than a senator who employs such extreme, offensive rhetoric,” her political director, Cameron Joost, wrote.

Of course, Joost then got to the point of the e-mail – the Duckworth campaign wants my money.

In fact, the e-mail was set up in such a way that I could just click on a link and make a campaign contribution. Show my outrage by kicking in a few bucks that can add up into a significant amount of money to support her election bid.

Somehow, the appeal for campaign cash comes off as just a bit crass. I have a feeling similar to that of “Ralphie” in “A Christmas Story” when he realized his newly-acquired Little Orphan Annie decoder ring was just a means of sending messages advertising Ovaltine.

“A CRUMMY COMMERCIAL!,” he said, before uttering an epithet that would have got many of us a bar of soap in our mouths from our mothers.

So much for the noble appeal to our higher ideals. Not one likely to get me to reach into my wallet, because like I’ve said before hostile political rhetoric is oh, so common. If Obama is a big boy, he can take it.

Besides, the kind of people who indulge in such trash talk wind up invariably hurting themselves my coming off as so lowbrow.

And in the end will come off making those people look as ridiculous as those who tried to label Lincoln as, “Abraham Africanus the First.”

  -30-

Is getting elected to office really nothing more than a quirk of fate?

The whimsical nature of the electorate can truly be stunning – particularly in the way that a political candidate’s fate gets determined by factors beyond their control.

 

KIRK: Is he done already?

They can do nothing wrong, except for failing to satisfy whatever attitude is trending with voters in any particular year

TAKE THE CANDIDACY of Illinois’ junior senator. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., already has the stink of death hovering over his candidacy even though it is nearly four full months until voters have their say.

The problem is that Kirk, who prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate served in Congress from the North Shore suburbs, isn’t as ideologically-motivated as many of those who are now the leaders of the Republican caucuses in Congress.

He’s not conservative enough to appease the mentality of those individuals who actually think Donald Trump’s whims are fit to be president.

Back in 2010, Kirk’s moderate nature was the key to his electoral victory over
Democrat Alexi Giannoulias – who I’m sure is kicking himself these days wishing he could have run against Kirk this year instead of six years ago.

BECAUSE NOW, WITH Kirk’s leanings likely to be the factor that takes him down (the ideologues are emboldened in a way they weren’t in 2010), Giannoulias could actually win without doing a thing differently than he did six years ago.

 

DUCKWORTH: Perfect timing?

Instead, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., of the northwest suburbs will be the beneficiary – she gets to be the challenger who can take on a Kirk who isn’t really any different now than what we, the people of Illinois, voted for in ’10.

We’re also getting another example of a matter of timing in our neighboring state of Indiana – where one-time Gov. and Sen. Evan Bayh has decided he wants to return to electoral politics in the form of a comeback in his old Senate seat.

 

GIANNOULIAS: Wishing he could try again?

That was the post he voluntarily gave up in 2010 because of the national trends that indicated it was going to be a Republican-leaning year; and the benefits of incumbency might not have been strong enough to ensure his re-election.

BUT NOW, WITH Trump managing to offend just enough Republicans with his attitudes (including saying that Kirk is a “loser” because he doesn’t react in knee-jerk motion with Donald himself), it has Bayh thinking that now is the perfect time to return himself to office.

BAYH: A comeback?

Particularly since he’d be able to attach himself to the image of Barack Obama as president, and some people willing to vote for Democrats just because they want to vote to continue that legacy.

Speaking of Indiana, that state’s governor, John Pence, appears to be someone that Trump is taking seriously as a vice-presidential running mate. Would a governor be willing to give up his statewide post to be Donald Trump’s Number Two?

PENCE: Decisions, decisions!?!

Some think it possible because they want to believe Pence would face a tough re-election bid, and might find the prospect of being a vice presidential running mate more attractive than a losing governor. Although I wonder if Indiana is knee-jerk Republican enough to make Pence the favorite no matter who he manages to offend on the job.

BUT THE IDEA of timing one’s exit from a political post properly is not a new idea. Take Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who could easily have been the one-time Congressman from central Illinois who lost his seat 20 years ago.

DURBIN: Master of timing?

Durbin served seven terms as the Congressman from Springfield, winning narrowly for the final time in 1994. Which, of course, was the year that gave us all that “Contract with America” rhetoric and saw Newt Gingrich rise to prominence as Republicans across the nation did well.

One can argue that Durbin only won that year because opponent Bill Owens was a John Birch Society member who laid on the ideological talk a little too thick to be taken seriously. A more serious challenger could have beaten him, which motivated Durbin’s rise in 1996 to the Senate – making him a statewide official rather than a central Illinois Dem serving in a GOP-leaning district.

Hence, we still have Durbin all these years later – having served on Capitol Hill for more than a third of a century and living out the dream of just about every elected official. Which is to not humiliate themselves on an Election Day of the future!

  -30-

Who deserves the political blows in upcoming Tammy Duckworth trial?

It has become the legal case that only political geeks will care about. Many of whom probably couldn’t tell you where Union County, Ill., is located without checking first on a map.

DUCKWORTH: Legal trial? Or political witch hunt?

I’m talking about the lawsuit currently pending against Democratic Senate nominee Tammy Duckworth because of some of her actions from back in the days when she was head of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.

DUCKWORTH, HERSELF A veteran of the early 1990s version of a Gulf War who lost her legs as a result, has in the past been criticized for that part of her record. After all, it was then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich who picked her. So she has to be tainted; to listen to her political critics.

Most of whom object to her primarily because as a military-oriented person, they think she ought to be opposed to Democrats, rather than identifying with them.

In this particular case pending in the rural Southern Illinois county where Cape Girardeau, Mo., is the largest major city nearby, two former employees of the Anna Veterans Home claim they were punished on the job as retaliation for their personal politics.

The lower courts had previously rejected this lawsuit, but politically-motivated ideologues have been more than willing to do what they can to revive it. Which means the Illinois attorney general's office is required to continue to fight against it, and tax dollars continue to be spent on it.

AS THOUGH THE thought of the continued existence of a pending lawsuit is more important than actually trying to resolve the situation involving these two workers.

After all, what else can they use to beat Duckworth symbolically over the head with if not the image of a lawsuit claiming she mistreated military veterans?

Now I don’t know personally the specifics of the cases involving these two workers. I’m influenced heavily by the fact that it has lingered through the legal system for so long that it has become old and moldy.

So I found it interesting that the Chicago Tribune reported that the judge involved in the case, Mark Boie, wants the sides to come together for a pretrial conference out of hopes all the sides can come to an agreement and settle the case out-of-court.

IN SHORT, TURNING the Aug. 15 date back into just another one of the dog days of the summer – rather than the beginning of a civil suit trial that Duckworth’s opponents would just as soon see drag out into early-to-mid October.

After all, wouldn’t it be keen from their viewpoint to have the possibility of a negative court judgment coming down in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 8 elections in which Democrat Duckworth is trying to depose Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.?

Which is really what this case is all about.

It is why Kirk is eager to keep the case alive, and complained this week that any effort to settle out-of-court amounts to an injustice. He wants that day in court his campaign is desperate to believe will allow him to out-military Duckworth in the public eye.

WHICH IS REALLY a shame, since Kirk was the longtime Naval Reserve officer who had a military record of his own, even though there have been the past allegations that he tried to exaggerate his claims.

Certainly, I doubt Kirk or many other people really care if one of the women was fired from her job at the Anna facility as retaliation for allegedly complaining about her boss (she was later reinstated), or if another woman got a poor job review that cost her a pay raise.

This is about wanting to politick through the court system. And I’m sure the only thing that would shut up the Duckworth opponents is if the judge were to ultimately issue some sort of ruling in her favor! 

  -30-

Kirk gains nothing from the Grand Ol’ Party – at least not this election cycle

Call it the quirkiness of electoral politics. Sometimes it just isn’t one party’s turn, and sometimes the party label that made one attractive one year is a total detriment the next time around.

KIRK: Downplaying his political party

Take Illinois’ Mark Kirk, the junior senator who back in 2010 won largely because he was a Republican. It didn’t matter that his ideological positions weren’t completely in line with the right-wing leadership that has taken over the one-time Party of Lincoln.

IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY a Republican year (Pat Quinn won for governor, regardless), and Kirk won a six-year term in the U.S. Senate.

That term is now approaching its end, and Kirk has the disadvantage of seeking re-election in a year expected to be favorable to Democrats. There’s political speculation that says all Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth has to do is remind everybody she’s running against a Republican – and a majority will vote for her.

Kirk, who served several terms in the House of Representatives from the North Shore suburbs prior to winning a Senate seat (beating Alexi Giannoulias, remember him?), is downplaying who his political allies are.

Most recently, he let it be known this week he won’t be attending the Republican National Convention to be held this summer in Cleveland. Not that I blame him for thinking there are better places to be than the shores of the Cuyahoga River.

USUALLY A SENATOR would be expected to be among the leaders of his state’s delegation to the convention. It would be the place for him to show off in front of the party leaders who will then go back home and stir up their local voters to get off their duffs come November and vote for Kirk and other Republicans.

But this is going to be the nominating convention that turns into the Donald Trump circus. Or the Ted Cruz affair. Or the evil, twisted plot (if you listen to either Trump or Cruz) by the Republican Party establishment to deprive those men of the political prize for which they have busted their behinds for the past year or so.

It probably makes some sense for Kirk to not bother going. Because all he can do is get dragged into the morass that is the Trump/Cruz show. Nobody would bother to pay attention to anything Kirk said or did in Cleveland. There’s nothing to gain.

 

DUCKWORTH: Not a shoo-in for '22

But it is a sad affair that what should be his primary chance to gain some attention for his campaign and have a chance to become something other than a one-term senator is getting flushed away.

PERHAPS THE IDEOLOGUES amongst the Republicans won’t mind much – after all, they only reluctantly backed Kirk in 2010 because it was the chance to take the Senate seat previously held by Barack Obama himself. Maybe they’ll envision that come 2022, they can find someone more of their own ideological leaning to run for office.

Which may be the key for Duckworth to understand come her own future. She may well win this election cycle. But there’s always the chance (a very good chance, actually) that she’d have to seek re-election in a year where her party label is a hindrance.

She’d better realize that getting elected because of a party label is about as uncertain a political ground as one can stand upon.

Because in the natural order of things, candidates come and go and political parties shift around – particularly at the national level.

BEFORE YOU START complaining about the process, keep in mind that it’s a good thing things shift back and forth. It prevents either political party from becoming too entrenched in power.

Which is totally different from the local political scene, where Chicago has been perpetually Democratic since the days of Anton Cermak and back when Hack Wilson was the big sports star of Chicago.

And where other parts of Illinois have such entrenched Republican structures that there are locals who claim they’ve never met a Democrat.

Perhaps we’d be better off locally if there were a little shakeup periodically.

 

 -30-

Merrick Garland; our 'hometown' boy who's likely to become nothing

So what is destined to be the legacy of Merrick Garland – the appeals court judge for the District of Columbia whom President Barack Obama has proposed to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States?

GARLAND: What will he become?

There has been a lot of rhetoric spouted about the suburban Lincolnwood native who went on to bigger and better things once leaving the Chicago area.

MANY OF OUR political people have been eager to attach themselves to his name. Both of our state’s senators have publicly said Garland is qualified to be on the nation’s high court.

That even includes Mark Kirk, our state’s Republican senator whose own party leaders are the ones heading up the effort to ensure that Garland never even gets a hearing – let alone a vote – from the Senate with regards to his confirmation.

Even Obama got into the act – on Thursday, he appeared at the University of Chicago law school (where he once worked as an instructor while also serving in the Illinois state Senate) to tout the merits of Garland.

As though he thinks he can shame the leadership of Republicans desperately opposed to the idea of letting this particular president have any more authority than they’re willing to grant him.

WHICH IS MY long-winded way of stating that they have no shame. They’re more than stubborn enough to follow through with their threat to refuse to even hold confirmation proceedings for Garland.

Probably because they know that if legitimate hearings were held, Garland likely would come across as judicial enough to impress the American public. The GOP’s blatantly-partisan maneuvers would be exposed for what they are – a tacky tactic meant to impose their own vision (rather than anything desired by the public) on our society.

OBAMA: Touting Garland in Chicago

So what really becomes of Garland? What is the point of him enduring the upcoming 2016 and all the non-activity that will happen if, in the end, he’s not going to actually get the post?

Is Garland deluded enough to think that the partisanship of the Republican caucuses in Congress can be cracked? Or does he merely like the idea of the label of “Supreme Court nominee” attached to his name?

I’D THINK AT the very least it becomes a little easier for him to get a quality reservation these days at a restaurant within the District of Columbia.

Because in future years, it’s always possible that people will struggle to remember the name of “that guy” whom Obama tried to put on the Supreme Court. Or, as I’m sure the Republican ideologues perceive it, had the arrogance to think he had any right to nominate.

KIRK: Garland makes him less likely to lose?

Who does this president think he is, thinking he can fill three of nine vacancies on the Supreme Court – just because all of them happened to occur during his presidency?

I’ve heard from some people who openly admit this fight is about ideology – the Supreme Court must be dominated by people who have a conservative bent to the way they perceive the law.

OTHERS HAVE BROUGHT up the name of Robert Bork – the former Nixon administration aide and appeals court judge whom then-President Ronald Reagan tried to nominate to the Supreme Court in 1987, only to be rejected because his own ideological leanings were so far to the right. They claim that GOP treatment of Garland is merely payback for what Democrats did to Bork.

BORK: Got his hearing. Why not Garland?

Which is nonsense.

Bork got hearings. He got the chance to state his case – which is something that Garland will never get from the current Congressional leadership. And only the hardest-core of ideologues remembers Bork -- the man who carried out Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" of 1973 -- in any sort of sympathetic context.

It’s creating a situation in which the name “Garland” will not be the lingering memory come future years. It will be the Republican leadership whose inactivity on this appointment will be among several facts that will create the “shame” they will have to live down when their legacies are written.

  -30-

EXTRA: Kirk, Ricketts family, both on political 'naughty' list -- does the GOP like anybody these days?

So it seems that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., is choosing to side with the latter part of his identifier, rather than the former.

KIRK: Chose state over party; will it hurt him?

As in he’s an Illinoisan more than a Republican.

FOR KIRK ON Monday took a stand with regards to the replacement of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States.

As is turns out, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Kirk says he wants President Barack Obama to make a nomination to the high court later this spring, with the U.S. Senate to review that nomination probably sometime during the summer.

The new justice could be in place long before Election Day, the way Kirk sees it.

Of course, that creates the political dynamic of having Kirk challenge the leadership of his own political party – as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was quick to claim the post should be left vacant for the rest of this year.

AFTER ALL, HE wants the chance of a Republican president in this year’s elections making the appointment as one of his first actions upon victory. Presuming, of course, that a Republican actually wins the November election.

Now this shouldn’t really be a surprise, because Kirk has never been as hardline ideologue as some of his Republican caucus colleagues when it comes to social issues. He is a former military man, which likely is the primary reason he chooses to be a Republican even though he’s from a Democrat-leaning state.

So the fact that he doesn’t want to give either Tammy Duckworth or Andrea Zopp an issue to use against him come the general election cycle makes his public statements predictable.

Who is more angered? Mitch at Mark, or...

Particularly since Kirk also said he thinks any person nominated to the high court by Obama ought to be of a moderate political persuasion. Meaning the leftist ideologues might have to temper their fantasies of a societal takeover.

BUT THIS CAN have consequences because it means Kirk is challenging the hardline that his political party wanted to take – NOTHING for Obama! Could it be the party bigwigs wind up putting the pressure on the big money influences that offer support to Republican candidates; ensuring they cut off Kirk’s share of the cash flow from the political spigot?

Could he wind up hampered enough to the point where he can’t compete against the possibility of an adequately-funded campaign by either Duckworth or Zopp (it’s not going to be Napoleon Harris – no matter how much the one-time NFL football player fantasizes about going to Washington, D.C).

... Trump at the Ricketts?

It seems Kirk is putting his stake in getting the love of Illinois residents, rather than that of his political party, which is likely to start treating him like a pariah!

Probably similar to how would-be Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is trying to treat the Ricketts family. They’re the wealthy ones from Nebraska, with several of their children living in the Chicago area, who have as a hobby their ownership of the Chicago Cubs.

THE RICKETTS ARE the type of wealthy people who like to express themselves with their checkbooks – and in this election cycle have given money to the presidential dreams of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.

In short, they’ve backed just about everybody EXCEPT Trump. Who doesn’t need their campaign money. But it’s the principle – how dare they express political love for everybody BUT him!

Will Wrigley Field protect from Wrath of Trump?!?

Trump used a Twitter account, according to the Chicago Tribune, to publicly make his criticism, writing that the Ricketts’ family, “better be careful, they have a lot to hide!”

Which makes me wonder what kind of retribution he has planned for people who aren’t “loyal” to his ideals. Perhaps he’s the type who’d seek payback against Kirk for suggesting that Trump himself shouldn’t be entitled to make the Supreme Court pick all by himself without the “advise and consent” of the U.S. Senate.

  -30-