Trump too eager to win the “Who Do I Hate The Most” contest amongst voters

I don’t know if Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump really is a bigot.

 

Will real-life Trump recover from Election Day fall?

Personally, I’d be inclined to think that anybody with his kind of money would have moved out of New York City and given up any ties to the place years ago, because it exposes him to the kind of people his campaign is criticizing so often.

WHICH IS WHY I don’t find it ludicrous that there are gay rights activists from New York who say that Trump is actually one of the most reasonable business people they have dealt with.

We may well be getting a version of Trump best thought of as Candidate Don – the one who spews trash talk and blathers on incoherently at times if he thinks it will garner him votes come Nov. 8 – a.k.a., Election Day!

Family man Don may well be a completely compassionate human being whom we masses will never get to know.

Yet I have no problem with the rhetoric that Trump gets tagged with accusing him of being a small-minded bigot whose vision of “making America great” means going back to the early 19^th Century.

AN ERA IN which power and influence were put in the hands of certain white men (not all, in many ways poor people might as well have been black for all the influence they had back then).

But that aspect seems to have been forgotten by those in our society’s lower economic rungs who somehow envision that it is our interest in equality and justice for all that has somehow deprived them of the benefits they think they’re entitled to.

And it is those people to whom the Trump campaign is relying upon if they’re to have any chance of winning the Electoral College vote in November and Trump to take the oath of office in January, with Melania at his side while perverts the world over fantasize about what she’d look like if she took her top off.

This segment of society sees the political coming of Trump as the chance to take back what they view as wrongly being usurped by someone else, someone much less deserving than they are.

HONESTLY, I CAN’T help but feel that if the modern demographics of the 21^st Century really prevail on Election Day, it will be a Trump defeat. Someone is bound to ungraciously go out of his (or her) way to call him a “loser.” (Just like he did to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.).

But just as McCain’s 2008 presidential bid didn’t get any credit from Latinos for the efforts he had made previously to seriously revamp immigration policy, Trump will be ravaged by the Latino segment of the electorate.

That’s what he gets for kicking off his own campaign with an attack on Mexicans (who are, after all, a significant share of the U.S. Latino population). There are various polls showing that Trump will take even less Latino votes than did the Mitt Romney (a.k.a., Mr. Self-Deportation) of 2012.

And it’s not like just Latinos are inclined to look down on Trump. There may well be people who have been awaiting their chance for years to vote against Hillary Clinton. But Trump has the equal negatives because of whom he chose to rely upon for electoral support.

I CAN’T FEEL too much compassion for Trump. After all, he picked his own electoral strategy – and from all appearances is openly defying anyone who tries to offer him advice on how to conduct himself like a legitimate candidate for government office.

It’s just a shame that his idea of “Candidate Don” was one so brash and garish. Just think of what he might have been able to accomplish had he shown a little less arrogance in presuming that his real estate developer skills gave him a sense of how to run a country.

This is, after all, the election cycle where the predominant thought amongst voters is, “Who Do I Hate The Most?!?”

It’s a shame that Trump seems determined to get a majority of voters to, “pick me, that’s who!”

  -30-

Worrying about ‘tallest building’ status? We’re acting like batch of rubes

Do you want the ultimate evidence that the concept of “New York sophistication” is a myth?

I’d say we’re getting it these days from those New York interests who are arguing so intently to have the status of “tallest building in the United States” placed on the new World Trade Center that is soon to be complete.

OF COURSE, IF that structure (built on the site of the REAL World Trade Center that collapsed in flames from the impact of two aircraft hijacked by religious extremists in the name of Allah) gets the “tallest building” status, it means that the Willis Tower, our very own, will be diminished to second-rate.

There actually was time spent last week by the members of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat – which held hearings in our city to hear the arguments so they can reach a verdict in this extremely crucial (sarcasm intended) matter.

We had a lot of people get all worked up, thinking that their civic pride is somehow at stake. A classic Chicago vs. New York battle. Although anybody with sense realizes the ultimate Chicago vs. New York fight would be a World Series involving our cities ball clubs – and we’re behind (a win in 1917, losses in 1932 and 1938) in that department!

But back to buildings. As far as I can tell, it seems that the argument from New York amounts to the concept that the country’s tallest building MUST BE in that city, particularly since it is at the World Trade Center site.

IT WOULD BE evidence of our national supremacy that the tallest building would arise from the ashes of the bad memories of Sept. 11, 2001.

The ultimate Chicago victory over N.Y.

Except that anybody who believes that is just being ridiculous. If anything, I wonder if this nonsense-talk winds up trivializing the memories of what happened that day 12 years ago – perhaps even more than all the trivial nonsense emanating from Boston these days that desperately wants to believe that the Red Sox’ World Series victory this year was something the city was entitled to following the explosion at the Boston Marathon that killed a few and wounded many others.

Boston Strong!, my butt.


You have to admit, it's a bit much

Except that some of the talk coming from Chicago interests is coming across just as silly.
 

THE DEGREE TO which some people seem prepared to fight to ensure that Willis remains on top of the heap.

Personally, I think the greater blow to the building’s image was when it lost its long-time “Sears Tower” name (even though that’s what I still think of it as). “Willis” just brings up to many dinky jokes about the “Diff’rent Strokes” television show.

I still wonder if an “Arnold Tower” (about half the height of Willis) will someday be built a couple of blocks away.

For the record, I’ll concede the simple fact. It’s the decorative ornamentation atop the new World Trade Center that would give it a claim to “tallest” building. The top floor of Willis Center is higher in the sky than the top floor of World Trade.

YET I DON’T think it matters much. And I think the people getting worked up on both sides are being silly. Chicago won't have one less homicide this year, or one more baseball victory, if the "tallest building" status stays here.

Now if we really wanted to respond to this in a true Chicago style, we’d try to one-up the new World Trade Center. We’d find a developer who’d come in and build a new gigantic skyscraper that would put World Trade in its place.

Perhaps it could even top those skyscrapers being built in Arab and Asian nations that have the title of “World’s Tallest” building. THAT was the distinction that should have gotten people all worked up when Chicago lost it.

But I’m realistic enough to know that no one’s going to build anything like that anytime soon in Chicago.

"Tallest building" status won't change what happened here

 

IT JUST WOULDN’T be practical. It would create a heck of a lot more vacant office-space that would wind up going unused.

And harming our own local economy just to prove a point about tall buildings? That would make us look even more absurd than the Noo Yawkers who these days are obsessed about World Trade Center’s status in the nation.

  -30-

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm not touching the battle of which city has the better pizza. I don't think that thin crust stuff peddled as New York pizza is anything special, but the whole concept of "deep dish" is a completely different foodstuff that really ought not to be compared to it on any level.

When it comes to firearms, are we intertwined with N.Y.?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg threw money into the campaign of newly-elected Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., to bolster his own political efforts in his home city to maintain strict limits on legal access to firearms.

So perhaps it is perfect that a legal decision impacting those New York laws has the potential to bolster the interests of those people in Chicago who want equally-strict, if not stricter, measures to apply here.

FOR THE RECORD, the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday said it will not take up a case involving New York’s laws concerning the concept of “concealed carry.”

New York may be among the 49 states that permit some people to carry a pistol on their person while out in public. But the state, along with some others (including California), gives law enforcement officials great discretion to decide who is worthy of such a permit. Most people don’t qualify.

It is a far cry from the situation that the firearms advocates would have us believe is true – that there are 49 states that permit people to “pack heat” in public, and then mean, old Illinois which is denying the public the chance to defend themselves from urban violence.

Those advocates were upset that a Court of Appeals for the New York-area upheld the state statutes. They filed their own appeal to the Supreme Court – hoping that the mentality that seems to prevail among a slim (5 to 4) majority of the high court – would come through and the New York law would get taken down.

IT DIDN’T HAPPEN!

For the high court decided not to touch the issue – which means they’re doing nothing and the appeals court ruling will remain in place. Which means the New York take on “concealed carry” remains the law of that state.

And the police will continue to have a lot of discretion in determining whether or not someone really faces circumstances that make having a pistol a necessity.

So what does any of this have to do with Chicago, and Illinois?

OUR STATE’S GENERAL Assembly faces a situation where a Court of Appeals for the Midwestern U.S. issued a ruling that says the state needs to have some sort of law that permits “concealed carry” for our residents.

What form this law will take is uncertain – other than that something has to happen within two months (the court back in January set a 180-day time limit for action to occur).

The firearms advocates here have been taking a fairly uncompromising attitude. They view the appeals court as setting the proper direction – that a law allowing for more pistols in public is the way to go.

In fact, the reason given by many gun control proponents for not challenging the Midwestern appeals court’s ruling was a fear that the Supreme Court would reject it – and use such a ruling as the mechanism for striking down all sorts of firearms restrictions across the country.

SO DOES THE fact that the Supreme Court was unwilling to alter the New York law mean that it might be inclined to leave alone some sort of effort to place restrictions on who can keep a pistol on them in Illinois?

There is a sense that it would be reflective of the local population (which is the theory that the conservative ideologues like to spout; except when it interferes with their ability to push their morals down everybody’s throat) to have stricter laws on firearms in Illinois than in a place like Idaho.

The states with the most restrictive laws on this issue are California and New York – which contain Los Angeles and New York City. Why wouldn’t Illinois have similar attitudes?

Even if the people in Cairo, Ill., like to boast that they’re closer both physically and in spirit with Jackson, Miss.? And the firearms advocates here have been saying they're going to oppose anything related to Chicago that comes before the state Legislature until they get their way.

OF COURSE, THERE are no guarantees. For all I know, the high court could decide to use any action in Illinois (instead of New York) to take on the issue on behalf of firearms advocates.

But I can’t help but breathe a little bit easier at the thought that the Supreme Court did not feel compelled to address the New York situation.

While I suspect that its motives on this issue were similar to its appearance when hearing arguments concerning gay marriage (many justices seemed as though they wished the issue would just go away), the end result comes out favorable.

“No news is good news” would seem to be the rule of thumb applicable here.

  -30-

Obama fights for election win – in 2012

President Barack Obama is going about the nation partaking in fundraising events to help come up with cash for would-be Democratic allies seeking election (or re-election) come Nov. 2.

Yet I can’t help but wonder if Obama’s real concern is the next electoral cycle – the one in which he will have to seek re-election. Presuming, of course, that he intends to run for a second term as president.

OBAMA IS GOING around describing Republicans as the party of “No We Can’t,” claiming they are for nothing but obstructionism of policies that would move the nation forward – solely because he is the person making those suggestions.

Even his rhetoric with regards to a New York local issue-turned-national (a mosque that would be part of an Islamic community center located just a few blocks from the site of the one-time World Trade Center) seems meant to portray the GOP partisans as the ones out of touch with a sense of decency.

Now I know the Republican activists are getting all worked up. Various polls show they are the ones who are eager for Election Day to come so they can cast ballots in ways meant to show their opposition to Obama being president.

Of course, it’s not like most of those people were ever Obama supporters to begin with. In fact, various polls taken by the Gallup Organization during the past year show that Obama’s support among white people and black people remains at about the same level.

IT IS THE Latino segment of the population that has seen a drop, and that has nothing to do with anything the Republican partisans would view as favorable. Latinos are losing faith in Obama because many feel the president isn’t standing up enough to the GOP hardcore that seems eager to demonize everyone who isn’t like them.

Could it be that by defending the right of anyone of any religion to have a facility in Manhattan near the World Trade Center site, Obama is trying to appease the people who fit into that non-Republican group of people?

I know there will be losses in numbers following Nov. 2. It is standard that after a president gets elected, his opposition gets its act together and bolsters its numbers somewhat. When combined with the unique aspects of an Obama presidency that caused some people in our society to have their hangups about him from Day One, the losses may be larger than usual.

I’m sure that on a certain level, Obama and his aides are looking to minimize the losses suffered by nominal Democratic allies as much as possible.

BUT I REALLY believe the focus for the president is more on 2012.

For a part of me feels that he is confident that if the GOP partisans were to get enough control to start pushing through a blatantly partisan political agenda, the end result is going to be a populace that gets so turned off that it views him more favorably when he seeks re-election.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is trying these days to resuscitate his political reputation by trying to make himself a leader of the political movement against Obama-style politics. Yet Gingrich had the power once, and his place in history is not a positive influence.

If anything, people like Gingrich are the GOP worst enemy whenever they open their mouths. Because they confirm that Obama isn’t off-base when he says the conservative element is not in the mainstream of our society.

HOW ELSE TO explain Gingrich’s comments on a Fox News Channel program this weekend, where he tried trashing the idea of anything affiliated with Islam near the World Trade Center by comparing it to “Nazis…put(ting) up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.”

Comparing all German people today to Nazis would be about as absurd as saying that all U.S. Christians are sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, after all, thinks it is a Christian group promoting “American” values, yet sensible people realize that is ridiculous. Just like they ought to realize how ridiculous it is to think that Islam and its supporters worldwide are somehow reflective of the individuals who were involved in the activity of Sept. 11, 2001, and that there's no legitimate reason to restrict Muslims from any part of New York.

If anything, Gingrich is showing he hasn’t changed much. So why think that he wouldn’t blow it again like he did back in 1995 and 1996, if he were given any serious influence next year.

Insofar as the issue of an Islamic community center near the World Trade Center site is concerned, it is one that many people will come to see as no big deal, once we get past the campaign season and the need for conservative ideologues to rant and scream about the issue for partisan political purposes.

WHICH MEANS WE may well come to see that Obama’s rhetoric last week about the issue wasn’t completely off-base, and that the Democratic Party officials who desperately tried to back away from it (particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.) should have relaxed instead.

When the Republican partisans try to continue such rhetoric for the 2012 electoral cycle, I wonder if there’s a very good chance that the majority of us will be so tired of it by then that we may very well decide to vote against it by casting a ballot for a second Obama term as president.

-30-