Illinois may be Midwestern island of distrust, but few think much of Trump

We’ve now endured just over a year of Donald J. Trump as our nation’s president and have even seen the sight of the Orange one delivering a State of the Union address.

Does anybody like Donald Trump?

What does it say that only 38 percent of the public approves of his performance – far less than most past presidents. Even Barack Obama, who at this point in his presidency had a 57 percent majority of the people approving of him.

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION showed a state-by-state breakdown this week of what we think of the Trump administration.

We here in Illinois give the man a 33 percent approval rating, slightly lower than the national average and less than all the surrounding states.

But it probably should be noted that even in places like Indiana, Iowa, Missouri Wisconsin, Trump does not exceed 50 percent approval amongst those that Gallup surveyed.

In the land of Hoosiers, a place that gave Trump Mike Pence as his vice president and a place that Trump likes to praise as a model for what Illinois and Chicago ought to try to be like, Trump only gets a 44 percent approval rating.

IN FACT, ONLY 12 of the 50 states give Trump a 50 percent-or-more approval. The only one of those anywhere near to us is Kentucky (51 percent) – which borders up against the southern end of Illinois, but is a land where the locals like to point out that they’re closer physically and in spirit to places like Jackson, Miss., than to Chicago.

Pence presence not enough to make Hoosiers like Trump

I’m sure on some level, these figures will bother Trump – although I’m sure he’ll come up with some nonsense rhetoric intended to make it appear as though the American people adore him.

Will it rival Sally Field’s Oscar acceptance of 1985. “You like me, you really like me.” Which sounded cutesy and adorable coming from the “Places in the Heart” actress, but would most likely sound insipid coming from Melania’s husband.

As for Illinois, the notion of a 62 percent disapproval rating sounds right, although I’m sure rural parts of central Illinois won’t want to believe it.

Did we really like her?

THEY’RE THE PARTS of Illinois that Gov. Bruce Rauner is relying upon if he’s to have any chance of winning a second term in his office. But for the statewide disapproval to be that high probably means a Chicago disapproval is in the 80s (percentile).

That’s just a guess on my part. But it would appear accurate, particularly since Trump used his first year in office to make more than his share of barbs against our home city. This would be payback.

We wouldn’t have any love lost for a foul-mouthed man who besmirched our otherwise elegant urban skyline with that self-promoting, not-quite-1,400-foot-tall structure that has the feel of a bully trying to overpower its surroundings.

Will we someday sing similar praises to Obama?

I know there are those who will try to claim Chicago is some sort of aberration not only in the nation but particularly with the Midwest.

BUT THEN YOU look at the Gallup findings and show that the man known as Trump isn’t really that beloved anyplace. In Iowa (52 percent disapproval), Michigan or Wisconsin (both 55 percent disapproval) or Minnesota (58 percent disapproval).

The blowhard’s rhetoric has worn thin, and we’re possibly stuck with three more years of his administration.

It almost seems as though a new generation will be singing the question, “Where have you gone, Barack Obama?” just as Simon and Garfunkel once lyrically pondered the same of Joe DiMaggio. That fact, I’m sure, would be the biggest blow to the Trump ego and the sensibilities of those who voted for him.

Is this really our nation's only hope?

As for the rest of us? We can wonder about the future (a la the sensibilities of Matt Groening); one in which a "President Lisa Simpson" bails us out, with the help of her ne'er-do-well brother, Bart.

  -30-

Does President Donald Trump give “patriotism” a bad name these days?

I got my jolt for the day from the results of a new poll by the Morning Consult group with regards to what we think of President Donald Trump.
 

The blunt-spoken confusion of Archie Bunker, or ...

No real surprise here; most of us don’t think much of the Trumpster – only a 41 percent approval rating in this poll. By comparison, the Gallup Organization’s daily tracking poll Friday had Trump at 38 percent approval.

THE BAD NEWS for Trump goes further, as people were asked whether various terms applied to Trump’s presidential performance. Those included “arrogant” (77 percent), “reckless” and “not willing to admit mistakes” (both 60 percent), “strong leader” (43 percent), “knowledgeable” (41 percent), “has the judgement needed to be president” (34 percent), “trustworthy” and “steady” (both 32 percent).

But then, there was the term “patriotic.”

To which 53 percent of those people surveyed by this particular poll said “yes” (34 percent said “no” and the other 13 percent presumably are clueless and can’t make up their minds).

That just strikes me as a bit of a contradiction. Someone whose performance is so negatively thought of can also be thought of as “patriotic?”

NOW BEFORE ANYBODY starts sending me their rants, I realize that the ideological right has done a number with the concept of patriotism – spinning the idea of love of one’s country as being the same as supporting their social issue ideals.

Even though one could argue that many of the people with different ideals are trying to make this a better, more fair country – and in some ways one more closely tied to the ideals written into both the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

That is a statement I don’t doubt will offend many of those conservative ideologues; that their rants on social issues aren’t what this country is supposed to be all about.

 

... the 'Vulcan logic' of Mr. Spock?

That may well be what is being reflected by the idea of people thinking that Trump’s political trash talk makes him a “patriot.”

IF ANYTHING, PEOPLE have a questionable comprehension at times of the Constitution. Such as that esteemed political philosopher of 1970s television, Archie Bunker (played by actor Carroll O’Connor) who once in a discussion about gun control responded to wife Edith (actress Jean Stapleton) who thought the Second Amendment referred to not making graven images by saying, “That ain’t the Constitution, Edith. What you says is the Gettysburg Address.”

Before you denounce the point as being that of a fictional character from four decades ago, famed television producer Norman Lear who created “All in the Family” has said that Trump shows “utter contempt” for the Constitution.

All of which makes me question how we’re defining the concept of “patriotism” these days. Is it really nothing more than blind faith to someone no matter how absurd the utterances from their mouth in public become?

Consider that the same Morning Consult poll showed 58 percent of people think Trump’s decision to share classified intelligence information with Russian government officials was “inappropriate” and that 50 percent think Trump was wrong to try to sway former FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

ARE THESE REALLY the actions of a patriot? Or do we really not fully comprehend the concept of supporting one’s’ nation?

TRUMP: 6 percent say he's patriotic & don't like him

Which to my mind has always meant holding the nation’s needs above that of any one individual – while Trump always comes off as thinking that HIS needs outweigh the masses.

Writing that last line reminded me of yet another cinematic moment; “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” As in dialogue from the 1982 Star Trek film “The Wrath of Khan.”

Perhaps Trump, and many in our society would be better off if we’d pay heed to the words of Mr. Spock, rather than Archie Bunker!

  -30-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

CHRISTIE: Can he rise above Rauner?

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

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

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

 

Are Richard  Durbin and ...

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

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

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

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

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

 

... Tammy Duckworth more like Ill.?

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

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

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

  -30-

We really don’t agree on anything; so where do we as a society go now?

I do some work these days for a newspaper over in Indiana and encountered a sight this week that it seems a significant number of people in our society would consider to be downright subversive.

Gary, Ind., has an 84 percent black population, so this sight really shouldn't be surprising. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

For in Gary, Ind., their Common Council has decorated their council chambers with banners in kente cloth patterns, along with a sign paying tribute to Black History Month – with pictures of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and none other than Barack Obama himself.

PERSONALLY, I’D SAY it’s not much of a tribute (you should see the way they garishly decorated the chamber back during the Christmas holiday). It’s not something that anybody with sense would get worked up over.

Yet then again, sense isn’t something that prevails these days – where partisan political rants and rhetoric have been risen to a new level in this Age of Trump!

It is why I took particular notice of a poll done by the Morning Consult group for the D.C.-based publication Politico – whose point was to show that the people who voted for Trump are satisfied with the raging loon the rest of America sees and is embarrassed by.

Specifically, people were asked about the concept of February being Black History Month (or African-American History Month, or whatever other label you choose to use).

IT SEEMS THAT 39 percent of people who voted for Trump to be president think the government does too much to acknowledge the concept of recognizing that black people have made significant accomplishments to our society.

Only 10 percent of Trump backers think there is too little done.

For what it’s worth, those figures compare to 24 percent of people at large who think too much is being done.

TRUMP: Mr. 43 percent?

Then again, the same poll shows that 90 percent of people who voted for Trump are pleased with his government behavior thus far, with only 5 percent feeling any voter’s remorse for the way they cast their ballot.

THIS COMES AT the same time when Trump’s approval rating amongst the general public is dropping significantly (46 percent, according to this particular poll, while the Gallup Organization had Trump on Wednesday gave him a 43 percent approval rating).

Not that any of this ought to be a surprise – the kind of people who voted for Trump back in November did so because they wanted someone who would pay exclusive attention to themselves and ignore the segments of our society who aren’t like them. Except when coming up with policies meant to hold those segments in check!

So the idea that a large share of people would have hang-ups about some ceremonial measures (which often wind up trivializing black people more than anything else) ought not to be surprising. Since their ideals of society often include the notion that black people just don’t exist in their neighborhoods.

It’s the same attitude that allowed presidential spokesman Kevin Spicer to say with a straight face that the reason no Latinos were part of Trump’s presidential cabinet was because Trump only wanted the “best and brightest” of people.

IN THAT LIGHT, perhaps it is significant that first daughter Ivanka it seems used her influence to get her father to downplay the potential hostility towards gay people that the ideologues wanted Trump to sign. Of course, it really is Trump doing what the true majority of our society sees as the incredibly obvious.

It is all evidence of the divisions we face now in our society, and ones that don’t have easy answers (because there are those who merely want the have-nots to accept their “negative” position and shut up about it). It is why it is understandable that the same Morning Consult poll says 56 percent of people identifying as Democrats want obstructionism to Trump to prevail, while 34 percent want to work with him on policies – hoping perhaps to reduce their hostility.

The only problem is that, as seen during the Obama presidency, many of those ideologues have no interest in working with anyone else. It could be a majority of Dems are merely facing political reality.

And as for that “Black History Month” decorated council chambers in Gary? Perhaps it is a sight that the ideologues amongst us can choke on in having to further acknowledge not everybody agrees with their nonsense.

  -30-

Could Obama have beaten Trump? We might as well argue ’05 Sox vs. ’16 Cubs, it won’t happen in reality

I’m trying to figure out who’s the bigger nitwit at the White House these days – the guy who’s on his way out or the one who soon will be in; and probably is envisioning a bonfire of all the building’s belongings on the grounds that they’re contaminated by the touch of the previous occupant.
 

OBAMA: Could he beat Trump? Maybe!

Seriously, I can’t help but find the whole “debate” a trifle silly about whether Barack Obama would have beaten Donald Trump in a head-to-head election.

THE BRAWL WAS inspired by Obama saying he would have beaten Trump if he could have run against him. Obama tried to raise the intellectual level of the discussion by saying how he thought Hillary Clinton was too timid and perhaps didn’t properly address the harsh level of attacks she drew from Trump backers.

But the simple fact is that Obama did NOT run against Trump. He couldn’t have. The U.S. constitution makes it clear that every president since John F. Kennedy has been ineligible to serve more than two terms of his own.

Obama’s eight years are nearly over. He had his chance, and it is time for the nation to move on.

One can make a serious argument about whether the direction the country is taking is one of incredible stupidity and pettiness, but it is the direction we are headed in. Those with a problem ought to be devoting their efforts to working to ensure that great harm does not befall the nation just because Donald J. Trump has an overbloated ego.

SO IT REALLY doesn’t matter much whether we believe Obama could have won again. Reality reflects that he solidly defeated John McCain and Mitt Romney and had his eight years in office – which will come to its end on Jan. 20.

Reality will also show that those eight years were thwarted largely by a partisan policy set forth by Republicans that certainly was not willing to put the good of the American people ahead of their own political leanings. But that is a shame that many of these Republican officials will have to live with.

 

TRUMP: Biggest presidential ego? Of course!

We talk about the legacy of Obama. The GOP legacy of this era is one of pure obstructionism.

Which means that when now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said his goal was to make sure Barack Obama was a one-term president, we ought to consider that he failed in that attempt. In fact, Obama’s approval rating during the week of Christmas this year (according to the Gallup Organization) was 56 percent.

THAT MAY BE the basis for which Obama thinks he is loved by enough people that he could have won another term. Although I also think there are those who are willing to like Obama – now that they know he’s on his way out!

Trump, of course, is using his latest Tweet from a twit to say “No way.” Or actually, “NO WAY!” The man seriously believes he’s beloved. Not fully appreciating that it is the quirks of the Electoral College that made him president, and that his presidency will carry an asterisk bigger than anyone would dream of putting on Barry Bonds’ home run records.

I say that because I note Trump’s 46 percent of the vote. That’s 54 percent against him, and a potential butt-whuppin’ if only Clinton had been able to take it all – instead of splitting it up with the Libertarian, Green and other fringe presidential candidates.

I don’t know who would have won an Obama/Trump brawl – it’s possible that Trump could have got the bigot vote worked up enough into making this election cycle a “race war” of sorts even more than he actually did. The very people who are publicly saying they will turn on Trump if he doesn’t follow through with all the rancid talk he spewed during the campaign.

BUT THAT IS so theoretical. Thinking about it would give me a brain cramp bigger than the majority of this country experienced back on Nov. 9 when we learned Trump REALLY WAS likely to become president someday. Thinking about it is a waste of our mental capacity, and our time.

We’d be better off arguing whether Superman would beat up Batman, or vice versa.

The winner?

In fact, if we’re going to have theoretical debates for which there is no definitive answer, I’d just as soon argue whether the ’05 World Series-winning Chicago White Sox really would knock this year’s World Series-winning Chicago Cubs flat on their backs.

Because at least that debate would likely be held while consuming a beer or two by sports fans, and wouldn’t be inclined to result in a brawl by someone convinced he’s defending the honor of his “race” by defending the name of Ivanka’s daddy.

  -30-

Negative political approval ratings nothing to be surprised about these days

Let's be honest. We can't stand the people we elect to political office.

27

Seriously, most people vote these days against the person they absolutely cannot stand. It has nothing to do with picking the person whose ideals most represent ours.

SO SHOULD IT be any wonder that our government is bogged down in politically partisan nonsense? We have government officials who can't play nice. It's no wonder we can't stand them!

The latest bit of evidence of this concept came Monday from the Chicago Tribune, where the newspaper published the results of a poll showing only 27 percent of those surveyed approve of the job performance of Rahm Emanuel as mayor.

All those negative reports about the police department under Emanuel singling non-white people out for abuse are taking their toll, with the hostility being most intense amongst African-American people.

It seems white people are a little more tolerant of Emanuel's behavior. Although not enough to say they approve. I suspect many just wish we'd stop talking about the issue altogether. Actually fixing the problem is something that goes far beyond anyone's expectations.

YET I DON'T think Emanuel is in any danger of being removed from office anytime before his scheduled 2019 end-of-term. That is, unless he just gets sick and tired of the whining and screaming that occurs about his name.

Because the reality is that the public probably would despise anyone who tried to replace Rahm as mayor. We the people have a cynical enough view of our government that we just don't trust it -- in large part because we really don't agree upon what its purpose ought to be.

36

For all those people who expect government to maintain certain services to support the public at-large, there are others who have such a limited viewpoint of government and what it ought to attempt to do.

I remember once covering a municipal hearing as a reporter-type person in which a man said he believed the only function of government ought to be to maintain a police department. Doing anything else was a waste of taxpayer funds, and of stuff that people ought to be permitted to do for themselves.

20

WE DON'T AGREE. And I'm sure some of us merely mistrust anyone who would want to think of running for elective office. Hence, the knee-jerk reaction is to say we "disapprove" of anything government-related.

Take one Illinois Policy Action poll from last year, which showed only 39 percent of people approved of Gov. Bruce Rauner, compared to 20 percent for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and 9.8 percent for the Illinois General Assembly as a whole.

38

All of that inability to put together a budget and keep government functions running will take its toll.

A We Ask America poll also had Madigan at a 20 percent rating. Not that it matters. Because the only people who vote for Madigan proper are those in his Southwest Side legislative district -- and they like the idea of having as their local representative the mighty Speaker of the House of Representatives.

LET'S ALSO REMEMBER that Republicans have failed in past election cycles when they have tried to brand all Democrats as Mike Madigan lackeys. It came across as sour grapes by political losers.

There even was former Gov. Pat Quinn, whom Rasmussen polls had at only 38 percent approval rating back in 2010 -- when he managed to win re-election as governor against Republican Bill Brady.

People might not have liked Quinn personally. But they voted against the idea of a blatantly rural politico being in charge of the state back in that election cycle.

And even though they picked Bruce Rauner to be governor over Quinn in 2014, it seems that Rauner now has disapproval ratings in the majority, with only 36 percent liking the job he's doing, according to polls by the Simon Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

7

SO I'D SAY that Emanuel's approval rating (about one in four people actually like the job he's doing these days) certainly isn't pathetic. It's not as bad as the 7 percent approval ranking that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich sank to.

But even Milorod was never actually defeated by the public. He won his bid for re-election in 2006, and it took the legislators themselves to remove Rod through the impeachment process.

The same legislators who themselves have less than a 10 percent approval rating -- if these surveys are to be taken at all seriously.

  -30-

How ugly will the legislative battle be?

I’m a fairly regular reader of the Capitol Fax website who got my chuckle Friday from their “Question of the Day.”


“Which happens first?” As in the release of former state Rep. Derrick Smith from the West Side; or the agreement by Gov. Bruce Rauner and the General Assembly on a budget for state government for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

WHAT’S FUNNY ABOUT that is the fact that Smith is the legislator who earlier this week was sentenced to five months in prison on federal charges he accepted bribes.

Under the federal system, he’ll have to do 85 percent of that time. With five months, that means four-and-a-half months of real time served. He’ll get just a couple of weeks off for good behavior.

That means he’ll be a free man sometime in September. Probably right after Labor Day he will have paid his debt to society, and we can go back to forgetting we ever knew who he was (his stint in Springfield before getting caught in a criminal investigation really was that short).

But the partisan political differences between Gov. Bruce Rauner (the man who is supposedly liked by 40 percent of the electorate and disliked by 36 percent – with the remainder clueless about what to think) and the Democratic-leaning state Legislature are so large that it is likely Smith will be free and there still won’t be a budget in place.

EVEN THOUGH THE General Assembly is expected under usual procedure to approve a state budget for the upcoming year before their spring session ends at the end of May.

Remember that one year when Rod Blagojevich was governor when the differences of opinion (that’s putting it mildly) between he and the Legislature were so great that the matter didn’t get settled finally until about early December?

That could wind up looking like a tea party by comparison to what could happen if both Rauner and the Legislature’s leadership remain as pig-headed as they are capable of being.

I remember back to 1991 when the budget didn’t get approved until the early hour of July 19 and people thought that was some sort of record moment that would never again be achieved.

UNTIL IN FUTURE years when it kept taking until early July to settle a spending plan for state government. All of this was basically about then-Gov. Jim Edgar and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, showing who could go longest without blinking.

Personally, I get the sense that Rauner has so many ideological points he wants to score that he’s willing to remain stubborn on budget issues, which are serious because of the fact that the budget approved last year really made no sense unless you presumed the General Assembly would come back later in the year and approve the extension of the state income tax hike that started withering away at year’s end.

We still have those pension funding issues. We have a governor who seems to think he can merely force his views upon the public (which may be why nearly half of all those who have an opinion disapprove of him).

And, quite frankly, we have a House speaker with a veto-proof majority who’s more than willing to make an effort to let the new governor who the real boss is of Illinois government.

I HAVE READ my share of gags on the Internet about how Smith may wind up being released from prison and somehow get himself back into the Statehouse just in time to vote on the final budget proposal.

Although I think it more likely Smith will wind up spending the summer months at a minimum-security prison facility serving his sentence, reading the news and shaking his head with contempt at the knuckleheads in Springfield who are letting this budget mess drag on and on.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Putting limits on ‘term limit’ talk?

Part of the reason I don’t think it’s such a big deal that Gov. Pat Quinn has that “26 percent” approval rating that some people like to toss out over-and-over is that the reality is that most people don’t think much of anybody in our state government.

MADIGAN: Truly the exception

The contempt isn’t solely for Quinn. There’s the recent Gallup Organization poll that showed, among other things, only 28 percent of people approve of the way Illinois’ state government works over all. Both Republican and Democrat.

AND I STILL recall that Chicago Tribune poll that had Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, with only a 13 percent approval rating.

So I wasn’t surprised to learn of the study released this week by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute – 79.5 percent of those surveyed either strongly or somewhat favor term limits for legislators. And 82.7 percent would support the idea of limiting how long someone could serve as a legislative leader.

It’s just the usual contempt some people feel for government when they don’t comprehend its actions. Although much of what I see and hear anecdotally indicates that what most people feel is that they want their officials to remain – and everybody else’s to go away – so that their views will prevail!

I also sense that many are amazed at the concept of Michael Madigan being in charge for as long as he has (a member of the Illinois House from the Clearing neighborhood since 1971, who became House speaker in 1983 and has been in charge ever since – except for that two-year period when we experienced the concept of “Illinois House Speaker Lee Daniels, R-Elmhurst”). Their overwhelming support for the idea is a gut reaction to that.

DANIELS: Did 'speakership' really happen?

YET THAT IS the very reason why I’m skeptical of term limits. That, and the fact that Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Rauner seems to want to use this concept to build traction for his own campaign against Quinn.

 

Madigan is the exception to the rule. Just about everyone else who has ever been a legislative leader in Illinois hasn’t come close to the amount of time served that would limit them out of the post. Should we really want to make long-term changes to our laws because of the exception that may never occur again?

In part, because Rauner thinks if he can’t beat his opponents in a head-to-head fight, he’ll just try to eliminate the opposition altogether. Which, to me, is as cynical a reason to do it as any in politics. As bad as those who use redistricting processes to limit the ability of people to challenge incumbent candidates.

What else is notable these days on the southwestern shores of the thawing-out Lake Michigan, where our residents fear that fully shaking off winter coping mechanisms will result in bad karma and us getting hit with one more winter snowstorm?

78 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR: Gov. Pat Quinn wants to make sure he takes the vote of the female segment of the electorate come Nov. 4.

Quinn trying to be Kennedy-esque?

Or maybe that’s just a cynical way to interpret the event he held Tuesday to show he supports the concept of equal pay for women. It turns out that it was Equal Pay Day across Illinois, even though I suspect most people didn’t have a clue.

“Here we are in 2014, 51 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, and women on average still don’t earn as much as their male counterparts in the workplace,” Quinn said. “We won’t be satisfied until all workers are equally compensated for the same work, regardless of their gender.”

He also pointed out that during the past decade, the state’s Equal Pay law has resulted in 709 complaints about unequal pay for women, and the resulting investigations have resulted in $690,000 in back wages being paid.

3-4 & 2-4 – 25 MORE WEEKS TO GO:  Those are the won-loss records for Chicago’s two baseball clubs, following the first week of play. It’s early, but it seems neither the White Sox nor Cubs are going to be pennant contenders.



This season's highlight?

Thus far, the one-time Cuban beisbol sensation Jose Abreu has shown some ability. I still am impressed with that three-run triple he hit against the Minnesota Twins – except that the White Sox seemed determined to blow that ballgame.

How long Abreu can keep it up will be intriguing. He could be legitimate. Although that aforementioned game may wind up being typical of the season – losing despite themselves.

As for the Cubs, it’s going to be another lame year. Fans will turn out to play along with the whole “Century of Wrigley Field” celebration, where they will fondly reminisce about all the past losers they rooted for – while trying to ignore the current incarnation of the “lovable losers.”

  -30-