Last-minute partisan acts so common

Wis. GOP trying to keep Walker spirit alive

I’ve been hearing many people complain about the politicians in Wisconsin, where the voters dumped Republican Gov. Scott Walker and a GOP-leaning attorney general.

All of which has the still-Republican-leaning General Assembly inclined to use its authority to impose limits on the kind of powers those two positions will have in the future.

Ill. GOP would do the same, if possible

IT’S AS THOUGH the one-time Party of Lincoln has truly been taken over by this Age of Trump we now live in – they want to make sure the Democrats who now hold those two Wisconsin state government positions can’t do anything to undermine the kind of things that Republicans imposed on the Badger State in recent years.

Sleazy? Authoritarian? Un-Democratic, if now outright un-American? All very definitely true. But also not the least bit surprising.

If anything, I’d be surprised if Republican partisans weren’t trying some sort of measures meant to penalize the kinds of people who (in their minds) had the unmitigated gall to vote against them.

For it could be said that Wisconsin voters, by dumping Walker, engaged in the same kind of sentiment we here in Illinois did by voting Bruce Rauner out of office. In many ways, Walker was exactly the kind of governor that Rauner wanted to be here in Illinois.

BUT WHILE WALKER gained national attention for the conservative measures he was able to enact into Wisconsin law during his eight years in office, Rauner’s national attention was for the way in which he was thwarted by the Democratic Party leanings of the Illinois Legislature.

I suspect Democrats in Illinois will go out of their way to erase any traces of the Rauner years. Similar to how Republicans are using the fact that they still control the Legislature in Wisconsin to force the continued existence of their way of doing things.

Wisconsin's progressive spirit merely history?

To hell with the will of the voters! It’s as though modern-day Republican partisans want us all to think they are the natural order of things, and that it was only the opposition's delusions that took away their authority to impose their will upon us all.

Yes, I believe the Republican actions are ignorant, overbearing and border on corrupt. But I’ve seen enough political people to know they’re not surprising.

THEY ACTUALLY REMIND me of the final days of 1996 – which is when the Republican domination of Illinois government that resulted from the November 1994 elections came to an end.

For the 1996 elections saw the return of Michael Madigan as Illinois House speaker. Which caused the soon-to-be no-longer Republican majority to engage in one final act of overbearance on their part before Madigan regained a say in the legislative process.

Remember back a couple of decades when state officials were determined to oppose then-Mayor Richard Daley’s desires to turn Meigs Field into a public garden of sorts? Which caused the Legislature to vote for a state takeover of the city-owned airport.

Which was little more than a “screw you” to Democrats and to city government officials (who are, by and large, the same thing). Which is why I always got a kick out of the eventual outcome of the Meigs debacle – with city officials sending in the bulldozers to demolish the airport (and carve giant “x’” into the runways to make them unusable) in the middle of the night.

IT MAKES ME wonder if Wisconsin officials will come up with some equally-diabolical means of getting back at their Republican counterparts for trying to limit the powers of future governors.

Meigs Field gone, despite last-ditch GOP efforts to try to preserve it

Which I don’t doubt in the least that Republican legislators would be more than willing to fully restore when the day comes that cheese heads re-elect a Republican to fill the post of the state’s chief executive.

This is all petty and ridiculous, and certainly not in the spirit of a government looking out for the best interests of its citizens.

But it is the reality we have devolved into in this 21^st Century – that of governments that think they can only operate if everything is rigged in their own ideological favor!

  -30-

Will Midwestern U.S. govs display political pettiness for all of Asia to see?

Theoretically, it sounds good to know that our state’s governor was in Tokyo, and will spend this week on a tour of Asian nations, along with business interests that want to get those countries intrigued by the thought of doing business with us.

Can Gov. Bruce Rauner successfully urge Asian business interests to come to Illinois and Midwest? Photograph provided by state of Illinois

Bruce Rauner representing Illinois and trying to get foreign companies to spend their money in our state? It’s a wonderful idea. Yet excuse me for being skeptical that he’s capable of pulling it off.

FOR WHILE SOME people like to think Illinois’ pettiness centers around Rauner’s inability to get along with Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and the Democrats who control the state Legislature, one could argue it is no more petty than the squabbles that occur between the governors of Illinois and the surrounding states.

As much as Rauner tries to portray this trip as his personal meeting with government interests in Japan and other parts of Asia, the fact is that both Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are also along on this trip.

It is a chance for Midwestern U.S. interests to band together to show that this part of the country is an intriguing part that perhaps foreign interests should take more seriously than anything out east or in the land of Dixie (what with all its anti-labor measures that it tries to portray as being the key to a successful business climate).

Will Rauner be able to 'play' nice ...

Yet these are the governors who seem to think that the success of their respective states is to pick away at the business interests of Chicago whose management are petty enough to be swayed by some of those same anti-labor measures that exist in the land of Hoosiers or cheese.

TO TELL YOU the truth, the idea of those three men being put on international display scares me. It makes me think of the potential for some sort of incident that will make our part of the country come across as a batch of rubes.

Which may be enough to send those Japanese business interests off to other parts of our nation and further ensure that our Great Lakes region becomes further decrepit.

... with Govs. Walker and Holcomb?

Which I’m sure the types of people who are supportive of this Age of Trump that we’re now in will be more than willing to blame on Democratic political operatives. Even though these three particular governors are all Republican, and supposedly ought to be allied with each other.

I fear our nation’s petty political climate will be on full display this week.

SO WHAT ARE our region’s chances of benefitting from what Rauner is billing as the first international trade mission he has engaged in since being elected our state’s governor in 2014?

Let’s hope Rauner didn’t engage in gaffes when meeting with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe just before attending the Midwest U.S.-Japan Association conference held Monday.

“Japanese companies have been instrumental in creating jobs and driving economic development throughout the state of Illinois,” Rauner said, during his address to the group.

“It is not that often that we gather together, but when we do, like for this conference, we unite with an unprecedented strength on economic growth,” the Illinois governor said.

“WE NEED TO send the message that our growth is interdependent,” he said.

Government and business officials preparing to talk Monday in Japan. Photograph provided by state of Illinois

All of which sounds nice. It’s what our governor ought to be saying with the heads of the other Great Lakes states, and in fact when dealing with all the regions of Illinois as we address our state functions.

Let’s only hope that Rauner is actually listening to the words that were prepared for him by his gubernatorial staff. If he does, then perhaps there’s a chance that Illinois can gain something of economic value from this trip. Rauner bringing back a business or two with jobs would certainly be better than a crummy t-shirt.

And if he doesn’t? Then let’s hope Rauner at least picks up an interesting souvenir, or else the trip will be nothing more than an overly-elaborate vacation-like journey at taxpayer expense.

  -30-

Redistricting “reform” needs to break into desire of pols to let greed take over

It will be intriguing to see how the Supreme Court of the United States comes down when they ultimately rule on a case out of Wisconsin as to how fair that state’s process is when it comes to the crafting of political boundaries.

So colorful, these boundaries are powerful statements

For as we have seen in Illinois, we go through the once-a-decade spat between the political parties that ultimately ends with a lottery of sorts, a random drawing that determines which political party gets to craft boundaries that advance its own partisan interests while totally messing with the opposition.

I’M SURE THERE are many politically-oriented people who believe this is merely the way things are done – boundaries are political statements and it is absurd to think they can be made neutral. Because even that can become a political statement.

Although some say the situation in Wisconsin was so extreme (GOP Gov. Scott Walker wanted to neutralize the Dem-leaning, progressive tendencies of his state, otherwise his own ideologue tendencies to take on organized labor would have become gummed up in a bigger mess than the budgetary stalemate we now have in Illinois) that something now has to be done to alter it.

My own belief is that many of the states that are most heavily partisan in their political boundaries are Republican-leaning, and they are that way because the politicos know how to protect their partisan interests. So anybody who thinks that redistricting “reform” will mean taking down Mike Madigan as Illinois House speaker ought to take a closer look at a place like Texas.

Where in the Lone Star State the boundaries really are meant to ensure that a white settler-mentality prevails, rather than the people who’d be inclined to remember that Tejas was once a part of Mexico (and the New Spain colonies before that).

AS FOR ILLINOIS, I’m realistic enough to know Republicans really don’t have a legitimate argument about unjust behavior by Dems when it comes to political boundaries. Because I’m old enough to remember the era when Republicans had control of the process, and they behaved just as badly – if not worse.

Much of the reason Illinois leans so heavily Democratic is because it has such a dominant presence as Chicago, which is something that Republican partisans would go out of their way to downplay and neglect to advance their interests.

Which makes it possible for Madigan to make the claim he’s looking out for the interests of his home city in halting those who’d just as soon revert to a mentality that says Illinois is centered around Madison and St. Clair counties (the St. Louis area) rather than Cook and its collars.

Marble halls of high ct. to be mucked up by redistrict reality

For those who wonder how so many people can find it in themselves to back Madigan in political spats, that usually is why.

AS FOR ACTUAL cooperation, there was one instance during my lifetime when partisan leaders were able to craft together a compromise. That was the 1970s – and maybe it was the spillover of love and peace and flower children in the air.

But by the 1980s, Reaganism had clearly erased any thought of working together. We had to resort to the all-or-nothing lottery where Democrats won control of the process in the 1980s, Republicans in the 1990s (anybody remember the two-year time period of “Illinois House Minority Leader Michael Madigan, D-Chicago? I do!) and Dems again in the 2000s.

Technically, the 2010s that we’re now in were an era of compromise, but that’s only because the 2010 gubernatorial election gave us Pat Quinn who signed off on the maps crafted by Dems in the General Assembly.

Democrats can compromise with each other – and the GOPers got ignored. Which actually becomes a key issue for the 2018 election cycle.

A SECOND TERM for Gov. Bruce Rauner would make it impossible for Republicans to be ignored. But considering how budgetary matters are all bogged up, I’d hate to see how the level of partisan hatred will be so high that there’s no chance of the two of them reaching a deal.

It really is about greed – the concept that government officials can do something without having to consider compromise. Which really is antithetical to what our system of government is supposed to be about.

Of course, I’m not sure how the Supreme Court is capable of resolving this situation. They have their own partisan leanings, and if they really tried to undermine Illinois they might well find themselves harming their own interests in other states.

Because, invariably the biggest potential weakness of our political system is that we staff it with people who are politicians at heart. And when we try to staff it with non-political people, we get instances of ineptitude such as “President Donald J. Trump.”

  -30-

Trump’s money may serve one positive purpose – chasing out fringe opponents

I haven’t made it a secret that I don’t think much of the presidential candidacy of New York real estate developer Donald Trump, and wonder seriously about the mental stability of those people who think there’s anything presidential about him.

FIORINA: Could she really be the GOP nominee?

Yet I’m now thinking there’s one very positive aspect to the Trump candidacy – one that ultimately will benefit the electoral process in this presidential campaign cycle.

HE’S A WELL-funded (he can afford to pay the campaign bills out of his own pocket) candidate who will chase away the weaklings who probably had no right to have dreams of someday working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

In a candidate field that has reached as large as 17, two potentially-serious candidates have already dropped out because they couldn’t even fake being competitive against the Trump juggernaut.

Those are former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and current Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – the latter of whom announced this week he’s dropping out.

Both of those governors had the paper “credentials” to be taken seriously. Yet neither could get their act together enough to beat a guy who’s never held elective office and has such a blowhard ego that he’s likely to be an embarrassment if he were actually at the White House.

WALKER: Fell by the wayside

AND A GUY who’s got such a girl-chasing reputation that he makes Bill Clinton look like a prude. Perhaps it wasn’t that the ideologues of our society weren’t really offended by Clinton’s behavior with women – they were just upset he had that “D” connected to his name.

Walker thought he could take his union-bashing tactics in Wisconsin and apply them to the federal government. Yet it isn’t going to happen.

PERRY: Will his ego make him run again in '20?

Perhaps someone like Gov. Bruce Rauner ought to keep that in mind. He acts as though he wants to bring Wisconsin-style politicking to Illinois. But it would seem it’s not a universal trait.

Walker’s failure could become Rauner’s failure on a different scale. He could wind up an equal failure if he doesn’t back off.

BUT BACK TO the presidential campaign, which is now down to 15 candidates all scratching and scraping for a lead while the actual leaders wind up having something like 20 percent or so support.

Will we get this type of gaffe in '16?

There are bound to be more political dreamers dropping out, following the lead of Walker and Perry – who ought to learn that his serious presidential bid was in 2012 when there was a brief time period when HE was the GOP front-runner.

Of course, I remember back to all the times that Ronald Reagan ran for president before he finally caught on in 1980 – remember that Chicago Sun-Times headline saying that Reagan would take former President Gerald Ford as his V-P pick?!

So I’m sure his ego is determined to try again, and again and again yet again.

ALTHOUGH PERRY MAY be the polar opposite of Vice President Joe Biden, who now says he may hold off his own presidential aspirations to 2020. His time, if it is ever to come, IS now. Waiting could turn him into a “never was” with ease.

So what should we think of the presidential field on the Republican side? It could wind up that Trump, retired cardiologist Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina become the serious candidates – they’re the ones who show something beyond 1 or 2 percent support in the polls.

TRUMP: When will his $$ wither away

I can’t say I’d support any of them (if you ever meet my step-mother’s brother, he’s a California resident who still thinks Fiorina is a loon on account of her 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate from the Golden State). But the sooner the Republican field gets whittled down to a manageable number, the sooner people can figure out who to seriously vote for.

And then, people can start thinking for real in terms of whom the Grand Old Party can nominate for president – at which point, the Trump bluster withers away into the nothingness it deserves.

  -30-

Would Rauner gain politically from a strong Walker presence in Illinois?

Back in 2008, Barack Obama’s presidential aspirations gained an early boost from his caucus victory in Iowa, and part of the reason he won there was the fact that politically-aware Iowa voters knew of Obama because he was a senator from neighboring Illinois.

WALKER: Looking to Land of Lincoln?

Which makes me wonder if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has hopes that his own presidential dreams in next year’s election cycle will gain some support from Republicans in neighboring Illinois.

WALKER IS IN the Chicago area on Thursday, making appearances at a pair of fundraisers. One of which will be at the Peninsula Hotel – giving it the potential to attract the extremely-wealthy amongst us who can afford to pay several thousands of dollars for tickets.

Those who can’t quite afford that (but will still pay a bit more than pocket change) can support Walker at Carlucci’s Restaurant in suburban Downers Grove – where the state Republican Party can still cough up GOP votes in significance.

But how much of a difference will it make?

Despite the partisan split that currently exists, the Democratic Party structures in Illinois are stronger than those of the one-time Party of Lincoln.

GOV. BRUCE RAUNER may be using his personal wealth to prop up the Republican Party because he wants stronger caucuses to vote in his favor on his pet issues (particularly all those anti-labor union measures he desires). Whether he’s willing to prop up a Walker campaign financially is a different matter.

Although you have to admit that Walker is probably the governor that Rauner wishes he could be! He could use a political ally, someone with some muscle to fight back against the “might” of Michael Madigan.

RAUNER: Needs a partisan ally

Walker gained his national reputation when he took on organized labor in his own state and managed to undermine the unions. Just like Rauner wishes he could be.

Now this isn’t support for Walker. I know plenty of Wisconsinites who are appalled at their inability to undermine his partisan fight. If I lived in the land north of Rockford, I’d probably be one of his opponents.

I’M SURE THEIR Illinois counterparts are among the ones quietly cheering on the Illinois House speaker as he thwarts the efforts of Rauner to impose his partisan agenda to benefit the financial bottom lines of his corporate-type allies.

DURKIN: Allied to Rauner and Walker

Which could make a Walker win in Illinois some sort of political blow to the people who are preventing him from being able to easily achieve his desires in our home state

How strong is the Walker campaign in Illinois? Probably about as much as any other campaign amongst the nearly dozen-and-a-half Republican presidential fantasizers! Except maybe former Texas Gov. Rick Perry – who already has stopped paying his campaign staff because he can’t afford to.

All those people who claim real estate developer Donald Trump is kicking butt are downplaying the fact that three-quarters of Republican partisans who have been polled want somebody (anybody) else to be their party’s presidential nominee.

THIS IS A political free-for-all. Who’s to say who will be at the head of the Republican pack come the March primary in Illinois?

Wis. vs. Ill. usually competitors, not allies

Walker, however, does have a state chairman in the form of James Durkin – the Illinois House minority leader and the theoretical GOP counterpart to Madigan. Walker may be the closest Illinois Republicans have to a “favorite son” in this election cycle.

Although whether that is enough to win is questionable. Walker’s anti-union stances have enough support amongst the hard-core GOP partisans that those voters may actually give the Wisconsin governor a few minutes of consideration.

Whether he could get the backing of the people who want an ideological stance on the social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) is less certain. For the same reasons that Rauner isn’t “cleaning house” with ease in Illinois – sensible people see through the partisan rhetoric, just like they may with Walker as well.

  -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.

Is U.S. of A. ready for a socialist prez? Or, can Hillary be thwarted again?

We’ve been hearing the rhetoric about how Hillary R. Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president for so long that it feels like it already has happened.

SANDERS: The next Obama? Or Bill Richardson?

Which is probably why there are some Democrats who are eager to find someone else, anybody else, to nominate for the 2016 election cycle.

IT SEEMS SIMILAR to 2008, when the then-former first lady and senator from New York tried running for president by creating the sense of inevitability. She was going to happen. Resisting was a waste of time.

Except that we got the whole Barack Obama phenomenon and a long, drawn-out primary that resulted in Hillary having to settle for Secretary of State (which actually was the best move in that it gave her a legitimate legacy of her own).

This time, Clinton is once again pushing that sense of inevitability – to the point where people are pushing the theme of the general election being between Clinton and whichever of the 15-or-so nitwits running on the Republican side manages to get that nomination.

But then we’re getting Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont who has put himself into the mix for the Democratic Party nomination – even though he’s technically NOT a Democrat.

SANDERS, FOR THOSE who haven’t paid much attention, is the guy who actually ran initially as a socialist. Although he now goes out of his way to declare himself to be a political independent – even though he usually falls into the Democratic caucus for practicality’s sake.

CLINTON: Is it finally her turn? Will it ever be?

I’m sure there are those people who are now thinking to themselves, “There’s no way this country elects a socialist as president.”

Then again, I’m sure they were arguing seven years ago that, “There’s no way this country elects a black man as president.” Besides, there are those people who like to use the “independent” label politically that they may give Bernie a second glance.

The times (to quote Bob Dylan), they are a changin’. Just look at last week, where the people who rant about the merits of the Confederate battle flag got reduced publicly to the level of the crackpots that many of us always knew they were.

POLLS SHOW THAT Sanders may not totally get his butt whomped against Clinton. A poll by WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H., had Clinton leading Sanders by 8 percentage points. Also, it had 45 percent of those surveyed saying Sanders “cares the most about people like you,” compared to 24 percent who thinks Hillary is more like them.

WALKER: His turf's being invaded Wednesday

Of course, you can argue that with Sanders being from New Hampshire’s neighboring state, he ought to be competitive against Hillary.

Similar to how back in 2008, the campaign started up with an Obama victory over Clinton in the Iowa caucus in large part because Iowans had heard of the senator from neighboring Illinois.

Perhaps he ought to be running neck and neck with Clinton. Then again, there is still eight months before people have to start actually casting ballots. Who knows who will change their minds between now and then? Voters can be so fickle!

SO WHAT SHOULD we think of Sanders – who on Wednesday will be the focus of a rally in Madison, Wis., where he’ll also be able to get on the nerves of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – who on Tuesday put out his latest fundraising plea for his own presidential fantasies. Sanders won’t be alone.

There will be members of the Chicago Southland for Bernie Sanders on hand, people from those Far South Side neighborhoods and surrounding suburban communities who will deem it worthy of their time to get on a bus bound for Wisconsin.

They’re even talking about sending people to Iowa to do the legwork of campaigning for Sanders. Who does have a gap to fill – one national voter poll had 59 percent backing Clinton to 15 percent for Sanders.

Then again, I recall back in ’07 when Obama’s name recognition nationally was nil (“Wasn’t he the guy who gave a speech at the Democratic Convention?,” was probably the way most people thought of him). That’s probably the same fantasy the Sanders backers are having now.

  -30-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  -30-

Walker “fight” a waste of time

So Scott Walker gets to keep the political post – governor of Wisconsin – to which he was elected in 2010.

WALKER: Still the guv!



The politico who has been blatantly hostile toward organized labor interests, and working people in general, will remain as the state’s chief executive at least through the 2014 election cycle.

AS MUCH AS Walker’s policies and ideological streak offend me, I can’t say that I feel all worked up over his victory Tuesday in the great recall election – an effort that we’re told makes Walker a “first.”

As in, the first governor to successfully keep his post despite an effort to recall him from office.

Somehow, I suspect that Walker is going to take great pride out of that designation and try to make it into something that it is not worthy of. I just got through reading an e-mail from the Heartland Institute, the Libertarian think-tank based in Chicago that offered me a batch of “quotes” from their leadership for my use telling me just how wonderful Walker’s victory was!

Then again, I also thought the whole recall election effort was misguided. I wish those people in Wisconsin who put their efforts into trying to dump Scott from office in mid-term had instead focused their efforts on trying to build a strong coalition behind a single candidate who could have dumped him from office when his term expires.

INSTEAD, THEIR EFFORTS have given him yet another electoral victory – and one that makes him all-the-more battle-toughened. It may make him harder to defeat two years from now.

And that is what is truly harmful about what has happened in Wisconsin.

It makes me thankful I don’t live there.  And that my own home state does not have the recall election option. Because I have no doubt that our political people in Illinois would misuse it beyond recognition if it existed here.

As I have written here before, I don’t care for the concept of recall. It always strikes me as being the tactic of sore losers. It strikes me as being a move bordering on a coup d’etat.

IT SHOULD BE incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to dump a duly elected government official from office. And that is what Walker is – he won that 2010 election cycle.

If a government official truly turns out to be incompetent or venal, a part of me believes the people covered by that respective government entity ought to have to live with the shame of having such an official.

Walker ought to be Wisconsin’s embarrassment – somebody they have to live with for two more years.

Instead, we have a situation in Wisconsin where Walker will feel emboldened. He’s going to try to claim that this is a “victory” for the people, or at least the segment of the people who deserve to be represented by their government.

WHICH IS REALLY what offends me the most about Scott Walker and other political people just like him.

These are the conservative ideologues whom I often rant about – the ones who want to win by slim margins consisting solely of their equally hard-line political backers.

This way, when they get elected, they can look out for just themselves and can totally ignore the needs and desires of the masses of the populace. These are the people who want to think that “compromise” and “negotiation” are dirty words!

Whereas I find the notion of someone who thinks that only they deserve the benefits of government to be the truly obscene concept.

AND IN LOSING this effort to recall Walker from office, the activists who were most eager to do this have given strength and credibility to this man and his “cause.” Which ultimately will hurt us all.

In fact, about the only concept that gives me any sense of justice these days is the hope that come autumn, the Chicago Bears will knock the stuffing out of the Green Bay Packers and make a whole batch of Wisconsin-ites feel bad.

I’d say that the Chicago Cubs would whomp on the Milwaukee Brewers, but I’m realistic enough to know that that has about as much chance of happening as Scott Walker suddenly developing into a responsible politician concerned about all the people of his home state.

  -30-

Rather bold talk from people who like to think they’re the ultimate “goo-goos”

In my experience, I have always found Wisconsin political people to be a bit off. They relish the image of themselves as the ultimate good government-types.

They want to believe that they not only play by the rules, they take the rules to a higher plane. I have known some Wisconsin political types who are among the most obnoxious, self-righteous people ever.

WHICH IS WHY I found it amusing to read an Associated Press report on Monday that relates to the upcoming recall elections that are meant to cut off the gubernatorial term of Scott Walker.

For it seems that the people who are eager to defend Walker are resorting to one of the oldest tricks in the political book. They’re trying to undermine the opposition by having candidates run against Walker who really aren’t his critics.

“Fake” Democrats, is the phrase used by the Associated Press to describe this tactic.

Gee, putting up token opponents to undermine the opposition, causing them to split up their support rather than converge on one real challenger.

IT SOUNDS LIKE something the Wisconsin people would lambast Illinoisans for doing. And let’s be honest, it has been done in Illinois. Now, it’s being done in Wisconsin, and by the ideologues who like to think they’re superior to us all to the point where they think they should be able to create the world in their image – and the rest of us should be forced to live in it under them.

Not that I ever thought Wisconsin people were superior politically.

I always find it laughable when other states try to lambast Illinois as being corrupt politically, or when rural people try to claim that the matter of political corruption is somehow a trait caused by urban government officials.

Or have we already forgotten the official in rural Dixon, Ill., who supposedly used (at least prosecutors say so) municipal funds to prop up, and enhance, her horse ranch?

NOW, WE HAVE Republican officials in Wisconsin openly urging their counterparts to consider voting for Democratic candidates who aren’t really serious – in hopes that Walker ultimately will have a weak challenger in the effort to knock him out of office.

I’m not going to get all worked up and start condemning Republican officials for even thinking of doing such a thing. It happens.

Quite frankly, if the Democratic Party in Wisconsin is so weak that it can’t fight off such a cheap shot tactic, then perhaps they deserve to “lose” and Walker should remain as governor for the remainder of his term in office.

Heck, there were those in Illinois back in the March primary who talked of flipping over from Democrat to Republican just to vote for a presidential candidate other than Mitt Romney – so as to weaken his support in the Land of Lincoln.

NOT THAT IT mattered much. Romney solidly won Illinois’ delegates to the Republican National Convention.

If there are competent political people in Wisconsin, they will be able to succeed in their efforts to depose Walker – which would be a worthy punishment for the guy who tried to use his government authority to strong-arm organized labor because they were cutting into the profit margins of corporate interests.

I should point out, as I have written before, that I don’t care much for the concept of “recall” elections. They strike me as the tactic of the sore loser. And if the official is really that bad, perhaps the state should have to live with the shame of him for his (or her) term in office (for Walker, that’s early 2015).

But it seems that Wisconsin-ites aren’t really any different than you or I who live in Illinois – or likely any other state in the nation. Except for the fact that their state did away with a death penalty in 1853 (even though Walker ideally would like to bring it back), while it took us in Illinois until last year to catch up.

  -30-