Is anyone shocked by ‘the Gipper’s’ quip? It explains so much trash talk

The latest bit of historical trivia to make it into the “news” – former President Ronald Reagan said something racially offensive.

REAGAN: Would he be proud of old quip?

It was back in the days when Reagan was governor of California, and when he made a telephone call to then-President Richard M. Nixon – which means it was one of many that got captured on audiotape.

SO WE KNOW that Reagan was calling to tell the president the United States ought to drop out of the United Nations. Specifically, he was upset with a U.N. vote that sided with mainland (as in Communist) China over the island of Taiwan.

Which it seems members of the Tanzania delegation began dancing about when the vote was taken in 1971 (a year before Nixon made his own visit to mainland China to try to restore relations).

And resulted in the Reagan-esque line, “to see those … monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

To which Nixon chuckled, according to the tapes that are the source of reports in The Atlantic, which told of how the quip originally was withheld due to privacy concerns – which Reagan’s death in 2004 made a moot point.

THERE ARE THOSE acting as though this disclosure is some sort of revelation of great significance. As though we ought to be shocked and appalled that a public official could say or think anything quite so vulgar.

But let’s be honest; this was Ronald Reagan – the one-time actor who probably wishes we’d all remember him solely for playing the part of one-time Notre Dame football player George Gipp.

Remember that line about “Win one for the Gipper” that supposedly was a motivational speech to get future Fighting Irish gridiron guys to march to victory? And was one that Reagan fanatics used to like to play off of to describe their own attachment to the man?

But Reagan also is the guy who used to use the line on the California campaign trail, “A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane and smells like Cheetah.” Which was always good for a laugh amongst ideologically-inclined supporters who might then write out a campaign contribution check.

The 'trio' that made Reagan politically

WHICH CERTAINLY SOUNDS like it’s in the same spirit as claiming Africans were barefoot AND monkeys.

Heck, I suspect that if the line had become as publicly known as his “Tarzan” quip, the same people who thought that funny would have found the “Africans” line hilarious! And quick to dismiss people who are offended as being overly touchy.

Something to keep in mind whenever we’re forced to contemplate the legacy of the Reagan presidency – and the 1980s, in general.

For the real Reagan wasn’t anywhere near as polished as the cinematic image. Perhaps he should have had Robert Buckner, the writer of “Knute Rockne, All American” to script out his political life, as thoroughly as he did that film, which is recognized by the Library of Congress as a classic of American cinema.

Reagan's highlight? Or lowlight?

ALTHOUGH I MUST admit to always finding it a bit ironic that Reagan would mock “hippies” with Cheetah the chimpanzee.

Since the future president’s most prominent role as an actor was in the 1951 comedy film, “Bedtime for Bonzo,” where he was a college professor who helped to try to raise the namesake chimp with human morals.

Did Bonzo grow up to be a Republican ideologue spouting off much of the rhetorical nonsense we hear passing for political theory these days?

That would certainly explain a lot of 21^st Century trash talk!

  -30-

I laugh in his face at the thought of giving Trump any campaign cash

As far as I’m concerned, this week’s horrific arctic-like weather is the ultimate proof of damnation. Hell truly has frozen over!

TRUMP: He wants your cash!

How else to explain that someone, somewhere out there made a decision that I might be inclined to make campaign contributions to support the continuation of President Donald Trump’s political aspirations.

IT’S TRUE. MY load of e-mail messages included, amongst with all the other junk I often receive, pleas in the name of Trump himself and his daughter-in-law Lara – insisting that I respond by Midnight to show my support to The Donald and overcome the hysterical nuttiness of the Hollywood crew.

Whom they insist are trying to raise significant amounts of cash meant to support a serious Democratic Party presidential challenger come the 2020 election cycle.

Obviously, I let that deadline come and go. I was not a part of any attempt by Trump to get people to give his campaign at least $1 million by the FEC reporting deadline that has passed.

Which was so important to the Trumpster because his ego felt the need to make a statement showing that people actually like him. Rather than all the ego-bashing he’s been enduring as the public (the true majority) made it clear we were more than willing to blame him for the federal government shutdown that lasted more than a month – and could theoretically resume in a couple of weeks IF Trump is so inclined.

LARA TRUMP, IN the plea attributed to her (it’s actually the Trump Make America Great Again Committee that’s issuing all this e-mail traffic) says “all the top Democrat contenders for the White House have been raising big money from Hollywood donors to jumpstart their presidential campaigns.”

Which is something I find amusing because Trump, by engaging in such tactics, almost makes it seem like he’s channeling Sally Field and her famed Oscar acceptance speech of “You like me, you really really like me” that she never actually said.

But the man’s ego is such that he feels compelled to make a grandiose gesture. In that regard, he’s like the organization Democrats within Chicago government – who often have trouble accepting the idea that people might legitimately not support them on Election Day and honestly believe near-unanimous voter outcomes are to be expected.

LARA TRUMP: Trying to help father-in-law

I have no doubt on some level that Trump will never truly get over the fact that some 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that he only won due to a glitch within the Electoral College process.

HIS GOAL PROBABLY is to try to get something he can claim to be a majority in 2020. So he can then try to re-write history to erase the facts of Election ’16. Similar to the old Soviet ways of rewriting history to reflect the perception the powers-that-be want to be remembered.

Perhaps that’s the real attraction between the Trump persona and the ways of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Regardless, it is ridiculous that we see the modern trend of electoral politics is that of government officials of significant wealth trying to buy their way to Election Day victory. I suspect they think if they buy their way to office, then no one can tell them what they can or cannot do.

But in Trump’s case, if he does get significant amounts of campaign cash, it’s likely to be from those lower-middle-class people who make up the bulk of the roughly one-third of the American population who still approve of the president’s performance in office.

DALEY: Trump fantasizes of his victory margins

IN SHORT, PEOPLE who really can’t afford to make significant donations. Which is all the more reason Trump touts the gimmick that he can “triple” the amount of money one donates.

A $250 donation becomes a $1,000 payout – all in the name of boosting the ego of Donald John Trump. Which is why I’m sort of offended that Trump’s fund-raising plea began by saying, “We haven’t seen your name…,” as though implying I’m under some sort of investigation that could penalize me for failing to support the Trumpster.

The thought that anybody ever seriously thought I’d support this president financially is laughable – until you realize it means somebody noticed my work and put my name on the potential donors list without seriously reading what I've written.

That, I must admit, is a serious blow to my own ego.

  -30-

EXTRA: Trump could have learned lessons from Rauner example in Illinois

I’m not getting all worked up with excitement at the notion that the “shutdown” of federal government came to an end Friday at 35 days – largely because I’ve seen just how stupid political stubbornness can be in my home state of Illinois.

TRUMP: Losing? Or plotting new strategy?

For the deal President Donald Trump is agreeing to is that he’ll sign off on a measure that re-opens the federal government for three weeks, with a congressional committee supposedly studying the “border wall” issue to come up with a compromise plan that will allow for money to erect Trump – the Wall along the U.S./Mexico border.

HONESTLY, I COULD easily envision that three weeks from how, nothing will change, the “shutdown” will resume and everyone will claim that everybody else is to blame for what could become the months-on-end cessation of the federal government.

In fact, I wonder if this three-week reopening of the federal government is nothing more than a conniving plot by Trump to create circumstances that will allow him to claim he’s not to blame. Because it’s pretty obvious that just about everybody IS blaming The Donald for our government failing to live up to its obligations.

Sort of like a “do-over” to try to shift blame to “da Dems.” While letting Trump give his “State of the Union” address Tuesday in the Capitol as intended.

Maybe it’s because the memory of Bruce Rauner as Illinois governor is still so fresh in the minds that I recall how he would up taking blame for the just over two full years of inactivity by Illinois state government.

RAUNER: Trump could learn from Bruce's defeat

EVEN THOUGH GOING through the news “clips” produces stories early on in that shutdown with Rauner insisting he’d be the political victor of any such shutdown.

The circumstances are way too similar.

Rauner had as his crusade that was more important to him than the daily operations of state government his so-called “reforms,” which really were nothing more than measures meant to undermine the influence of organized labor within state government.

While Trump wants to build the barrier he claims will keep all the foreigners from being able to enter the country – even though anyone with sense realizes the foreigners enter the U.S. through airports or the U.S./Canada border – which is must more easily passable than the desert terrain that separates U.S. from Mexico.

PELOSI: The victor? Or just a delay?

RAUNER’S STATE SHUTDOWN resulted when the governor wouldn’t sign off on a state budget without the so-called reforms being included – even though it really was a completely separate issue from daily governance.

Just like Trump’s border barricades really ought to be done separately from the daily operations of the federal government.

But several months passed in Illinois when our officials approved a budget that would supposedly fund the state for six months – thereby giving time for us all to talk and reach compromise.

Which would have worked; if only we had officials inclined to want to negotiate in good faith. All that happened was six months later, the state shut down again – and that ultimately resulted in the combined shutdown of just over two full years for Illinois.

WHICH RESULTED IN the state developing much more severe financial issues and debt that it’s going to take our state years, if not decades, to cope with. I can really, truly see the same situation developing at the federal government level.

BUTTIGIEG: Could he be '20 beneficiary?

Are we truly headed for a situation that can only be resolved by the 2020 political demise of Donald Trump – with the voters taking it upon themselves to be so disgusted that they “dump Trump?” Or 2024, if it turns out the Democratic Party becomes too inept to put forth a credible presidential challenger (always a political reality).

It’s too bad that Trump couldn’t study our situation and try to learn from it for the betterment of the American people.

Then again, Trump is enough of an egomaniac to think he has nothing he could learn from anybody – which is the real reason that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has come out looking like a political genius in recent weeks. With The Donald looking like little more than a chump!

  -30-

Getting in the ‘last’ word

MADIGAN: Still Mr. Speaker

It will be intriguing to see if soon-to-be former Gov. Bruce Rauner manages to figure out a way to take one final pot shot at Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, before he departs his role come Monday.

For it was quite obvious that Rauner is going to forevermore think that Madigan was the one who spoiled any chance that he could be successful during the one term he got to be Illinois government’s chief executive.

RAUNER: Soon to ride off into sunset

OF COURSE, MADIGAN seems equally determined to think ill of “The Rauner Years” and just how little managed to be accomplished in our state between 2015-18.

For what it’s worth, Rauner engaged in his final official public act as governor by giving a speech summarizing what he thinks he accomplished for Illinois during his gubernatorial term. While also using other moments to make comments that clearly can be interpreted as political pot shots.

The recent criminal complaint filed against long-time Chicago Alderman Edward M. Burke is “long overdue,” with Rauner insisting that Burke is not alone.

“I’m ecstatic they finally indicted him,” Rauner said, even though they didn’t really. “There are others that do the same, and worse. They haven’t been indicted yet. I hope they are.”

BURKE: Rauner pleased w/ predicament

AFTER GOING THROUGH four years of governing and a campaign cycle of constant complaints claiming that Madigan himself is worthy of criminal charges because he would not meekly cooperate with all of Rauner’s anti-organized labor initiatives, it’s disappointing to see that he’s determined to go down to defeat with the same stubborn attitude.

Not that Madigan will meekly let such rhetoric go by without a vociferous response. He used the beginning of the newly-elected General Assembly’s session to dismiss Rauner’s gubernatorial term as one of, “four long years of character assassination, personal vilification and strident negotiation positions.”

PRITZKER: Favorable Lege

He also said he sees the coming of a new Legislature (one with majorities large enough in both chambers for Democrats to overrule the governor’s veto power) as being the chance for government to learn from the errors of its ways.

Or, as Madigan put it, let’s, “take lessons, so we can move on to a new chapter where people work with people.” Rather than thinking they can impose their will on ever-so-many issues upon the masses.

WHICH MEANS THAT Madigan is figuring the truth in the old cliché, “history is written by the winners.” He gets to be the noble creature who fought off the potential tyranny of “The Rauner Years.” Anybody who tries to defend Bruce is going to find themselves seriously diminished – if not outright ridiculed.

It will work, mostly because many of us just won’t care to hear from Rauner any longer. We’d just as soon see him fade off into the sunset.

Which he’ll do as of Monday at Noon. We’ll be more focused on the future success of incoming Gov. J.B, Pritzker – who will have the advantage of a sympathetic Legislature that will have an interest in seeing the governor succeed in overcoming the problems of the state.

Many of which were exasperated by that two-plus year time period during which our state government was on hold because of a lack of a budget – which Rauner tried to defend as being a worthy hit for the state to take if some of his anti-union initiatives could become reality in Illinois.

MOST OF US just remember it as a political headache that made us all seem stupid – similar to how the current federal government shutdown motivated by a partisan battle over immigration policy and border security measures is threatening to make the nation look equally ridiculous.

STAVA-MURRAY: Lone vote of 'present'

It may well be that the national Democrats will take their lead from Madigan when it comes to dealing with Trump. There is a majority of our nation that would love to see the current president fade away in as much ignominy as the current governor.

But then again, there will be those who will turn to new state Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, D-Naperville, who insisted on voting “present” instead of “yes” for Madigan to once again be the Illinois House speaker. She was amongst the few who were swayed by all that anti-Madigan trash talk of campaign seasons past.

So who gets the last word? No matter whether it’s Rauner or Madigan, there’s bound to be somebody more than willing to respond, “bull----!”

  -30-

Re-elect Burke? Tough, but the Chicago ‘Rules’ won’t rule out possibility

Call them, if you will, the “rules” by which the Chicago electorate tends to operate when it comes to Election Day behavior.

BURKE: Could he still win Feb. 26?

It’s not wrong to cast a ballot for someone who faces some sort of indictment or other criminal charge. We literally take that “innocent until proven guilty” staple and want to see a criminal conviction before we’ll believe the worst in political people.

TO THE POINT where some people even try arguing that a public official ought to be able to remain in office right up to the day they’re carted off and sent to ‘da slammer.’

The other rule might not be a Chicago rule as just a good rule of thumb for understanding the concept of Latino political empowerment and why the number of Latino elected officials doesn’t equal their share of the population. It’s that the Latino Election Day turnout often stinks to the point of embarrassment.

It also helps to understand that despite what conservative ideologues want to believe, Chicago is NOT some politically radical place. Our Democratic majorities often consist of people who are fairly neutral minded – except to those ideologues whose idea of “moderate” is somewhere to the right of Atilla, the Hun.

It is so unlikely that our city would ever produce a pseudo-radical such as New York City’s new member of Congress, Alejandra Ocasio-Cortez. The woman whose very presence offends the right likely would have been too offensive to Chicago voters, IF she lived here rather than in the Bronx.

THIS LITTLE COLLECTION of pithy comments is the basis of why I’m not prepared to write off the chance of Edward M. Burke getting himself re-elected to another term in the City Council that would give him the beginning of a second half-century as a Chicago alderman.

GARCIA: Can his influence beat Burke?

Now as to whether he can survive long enough to finish out another four-year term running through 2023, I don’t know!

Burke may well be in a deep-enough legal predicament that he won’t be around come that year. He may have to resign himself in ways more significant than giving up the Finance committee chairmanship – the title that allowed him to bop about City Hall like a Lord and treat the rest of the aldermen as his minions.

Personally, I wonder about the legitimacy of the charges, but I also know many people will be swayed by the very fact that the federal government is proceeding with the process that eventually will put Burke on trial – OR pressure him into pleading guilty to something ominous sounding.

WHILE OTHERS ALSO are so eager to see Burke “taken down” for something sounding criminal that they’ll believe it just has to be – even if they really can’t explain it or comprehend why it ought to be illegal.

But whether Burke is guilty of a federal offense or not is really a completely different question from whether he can win re-election.

I can’t help but notice the significant amounts of campaign cash he already has, combined with the fact he had a fundraising event recently to add to the $12 million total he already had. There are many people in the legal community who are now on the record as being willing to offer the greatest act of support they can give a politician – a campaign contribution.

There will be those who will view the growing number of Latinos who live in that particular ward (nearly four of every five residents) as some sort of threat, and Burke’s re-election as maintaining of tradition.

AS TO HOW he tries to appeal to Latinos to not view him as the enemy, it literally has me wondering if he’s out to position himself as a modern-day descendant of the San Patricios. That being the 1840s unit of Irish immigrants who came to this country, enlisted in the U.S. military, then responded to intense anti-Catholic/immigrant prejudice by switching sides during the Mexican/American War.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Too radical to win Chicago?

Traitors to the ideologues, they are heroes to the Mexican people – viewed as Irish allies to the idea of their independence. Which is how I’m sure Burke would like the Mexican/American populace of his ward to think of himself.

Even before the indictment, Burke was going about as making himself a backer of people offended by use of the Gary/Chicago International Airport (funded partially by the city Department of Aviation) as part of the process of deporting people from this country.

Will it work? I don’t know. Just another of the many questions that will make this particular aldermanic race a battle – rather than the usual shoo-in – for Burke. But not, so sayeth the Chicago Rules, an improbability.

  -30-

Millionaire Rauner thinks it wrong his political opponent is outspending him

Listening to Gov. Bruce Rauner complain about how he’s being outspent by Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker’s desires to replace him come Tuesday’s elections strikes me as being the whines of a political crybaby.

RAUNER: Being beaten at own game?

Rauner is seriously trying to get people – at least those of us who live in Illinois outside the Chicago metro area – all worked up over the notion that Pritzker is trying to use his personal wealth to buy the governor’s post for himself.

AS THOUGH RAUNER is the pauper who just can’t compete in such a political environment.

Even though I personally find it appalling to have to pick from so many excessively-wealthy people amongst our candidates, I can’t find any sympathy for our incumbent governor – and not just because I think Illinois will be much better off the moment we send Bruce packing.

For Rauner is very much the reason this trend of needing millionaire candidates with little interest in traditional campaign fundraising has come to Illinois.

Let’s not forget the 2014 election for governor; the one in which a record was set -- $127.3 million was raised and spent by the two major party candidates.

WITH RAUNER ACCOUNTING for some 70 percent of that spending. Rauner IS the ultimate rich guy who bought himself a political office to appease his ego and make him feel like his life is contributing to our society.

PRITZKER: Makes Rauner look like pauper

Of course, Rauner’s personal background (a venture capitalist who buys struggling businesses and bleeds them dry of any assets they have) mean he’s inclined to be sympathetic towards interests that the bulk of us living here are not.

If anything, this election cycle was expected to be more of the same. Remember back over a year ago when it was reported Rauner had already come up with some $50 million for his re-election campaign.

Along with money to support Republican allies in the General Assembly and other state government posts? This was supposed to be yet another year in which a Rauner version of the Republican Party would buy dominance over us all.

QUINN: Treated in '14 like Rauner is now

EXCEPT THAT DEMOCRATS managed to come up with a candidate in Pritzker who could produce his own funds to be competitive with Rauner.

Heck, Pritzker has already spent enough money on his campaign that he alone crushes the 2014 record. When you add in the Rauner bucks, we may wind up at just over $200 million for this election cycle in Illinois.

Is what really bothers Rauner is that his record of ’14 is already crushed into oblivion? Is Illinois Democratic Chairman Michael Madigan’s real political “sin” that he took the Rauner game plan and played it better than Rauner did himself?

It’s why I honestly hear nothing more than “Wah, wah, wah!!!” when Rauner tells a campaign rally in Quincy that Pritzker, “is outspending us by $100 million. Good grief, he’s trying to buy the election.”

HAROLD: Will she be Rauner legacy?

IT TRANSLATES INTO blunt-speak English as, “he’s trying to buy my election away from me!” Or perhaps more like a line from the 1980 film "Cheech &Chong's Next Movie" in which Cheech Marin’s character is upset that someone stole from him the thing he stole earlier that day.

“Somebody just ripped off the thing I ripped off,” Marin said. A sentiment that Rauner may very well sympathize with these days.

Does Rauner identify these days with Cheech?

Because as things now stand, all the money Rauner has pumped into himself and other Republicans to try to rebuild the one-time Party of Lincoln in his own image may have all been for naught. It may wind up that the only Republican who prevails Tuesday is Erika Harold’s state attorney general bid (it’s possible that some voters will be backward enough to reject Democrat Kwame Raoul’s campaign just because of a funny name).

Then again, carrying the taint of taking Rauner’s campaign money may be enough to drag her down, and make this Rauner era of Illinois government a complete and utter failure.

  -30-

Six more months of retaliatory Rauner bashing by organized labor interests

It almost seems like a stereotypical image to the point where it is amusing – the sight of a couple of guys in a bar wearing ballcaps talking about how the interests of everyday people benefit from organized labor.

Will these 'guys' become TV regulars between now and Nov. 6?

With Gov. Bruce Rauner being the guy intent to undermine the influence that labor unions have within Illinois state government. How dare he!?!

OF COURSE, WHEN one considers the large amounts of money that Rauner and business-oriented organizations have spent in recent years to try to push the message that the unions are all that is wrong with our state (and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is their corrupt champion), this may be a long-overdue bit of political payback.

What motivated me was a few hours I spent earlier this week with my grandmother, who at her age isn’t the most mobile of people around. Which means that for a bit, we had the television on.

Somewhere between “Judge Judy” and the local television news (which usually gets her all worked up into how stupid our political people can be, and at her age of 96, she’s seen a lot of nonsense spewed in the name of government), I saw the latest advertising spot by the Fight Back Fund.

From what I can tell, the group is headed by a suburban Countryside attorney, Marc R. Poulos, whose own interests are in defending the political people who have been taking quite a rhetorical beating because of their refusal to think of labor unions as some sort of criminal conspiracy.

ACCORDING TO THE group’s web site, they are, “tens of thousands of workers who are standing up for middle class families by standing up to politicians and profiteers who seek to serve their own special interests rather than the greater good.”

Aside from putting together political spots for television, the group says it has worked to prevent Illinois from becoming a “right-to-work” state (one in which businesses can openly behave in ways meant to discourage their workers from joining labor unions) and to force Indiana officials to adequately maintain state highways.

But what caught my attention was the advertising spot, which I’m wondering if we’re going to see much of over and over and over again between now and Nov. 6.

I’m talking about the spot set in a bar with many people enjoying an alcoholic beverage or two following a hard day’s worth of work. The focus is on two particular guys, one black and one white (got to keep a sense of balance, which I’m sure will offend the ideologues amongst us) talking about how peoples’ work benefits us all.

NOBODY’S HERE IN a suit. We’re talking ballcaps, with one of the men in a purple sweatshirt and the other in a green t-shirt.

A vision of the “common man” upset about the political people who want to use them as a punching bag to benefit their own Election Day interests.

Not that this should be surprising. I have long wondered how long it would be before the union interests started fighting back against all the cheap shots that Rauner & Co. have been spewing out in their direction.

A part of me has wondered why it took this long. Although I’m sure the level and intensity will step up later this summer when the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat J.B. Pritzker begins spending his millions of dollars to put up their own ads that will directly bash Rauner upside his head in its desire to “Dump Rauner!” come Nov. 6.

SO AS FOR these purple and green guys taking up the cause of the working man, are we going to see far too much of them this summer? Will they become regular characters in a series of ads that mean to tell us of the evils of Republican politicos (and Democrats who feel compelled to suck up to conservative ideological interests)?

Are they going to become a 21^st Century equivalent of Harry and Louise – the characters of those 1993 television ads who told of us the evils of then-first lady Hillary Clinton’s efforts to bring about health care and insurance for all people; rather than just those who were fortunate enough to have jobs that provided it?

I literally wonder if these guys are going to get names and develop backstories of their own, as though we’re supposed to think they’re real people instead of characters in a commercial spot we see on television?

Considering that we’re nearly at the six-month mark (it’s Sunday) until Election Day, that’s going to be a lot of advocacy television spots we’ll have to endure between now and then. Will it become so much that we’ll have to hide from our TV sets?

  -30-

Political bipartisanship is in a coma; I'd certainly hate to think it's deceased

About the only real concept up for argument is whether the notion of  bipartisan cooperation -- the idea of people of various ideological leanings working together to ensure that everybody can claim a piece of political victory -- is dead, or lying unconscious in a coma from which we have no clue whether it will ever regain consciousness.

Would Rauner, Trump backers hate this sign?

For both at our state and federal levels, we got evidence that our officials aren't the least bit interested in working together. Even when some try to work together, there are others who are determined to work to see that nothing happens.

PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE they realize many people are more interested in results than ideological victories, no matter how much it might sound for one side to take all or how vengefully delightful it might sound for one side to get absolutely nothing!

I got somewhat worked up at learning earlier this week of the failure of the "grand bargain" to advance. For those of you not paying attention to the nuances of the Springpatch Scene, that is the phrase being used by people to describe the state budget deal supposedly being concocted by the Illinois Senate.

It was something resembling a compromise plan and it would have included minor provisions that Gov. Bruce Rauner once included among the so-called reforms he was asking for.

Most importantly, it would have put the state in the direction of finally approving a budget plan for state government operations -- something that state officials have been unable to do since the days of Pat Quinn as governor.

SERIOUSLY, WE'RE NOW approaching two full years of real time during which state government operations were halted due to a lack of a budget -- except for those agencies performing functions so essential that the federal courts are now essentially telling Illinois how to operate!

Rauner and Trump not political twins ...

Nothing wound up happening because even though Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, was helping to negotiate the deal, none of her Republican colleagues were willing to support it. They were following the lead of Rauner -- whom it seems is more interested in maintaining his partisan stances (his priority always has been to undermine organized labor in Illinois, to the extent that he'll extend his wrath upon the people of the state).

For what it's worth, praise is being offered by the Liberty Principles political action committee, which issued its own statement that called attempts at negotiation nothing more than, "the same old power politics presenting the same false choices" and also said it was prepared to lead people in voting against Rauner if he does NOT maintain his ideological hang-ups.

They also went so far as to lambast former governors James R. Thompson and Jim Edgar of selling out the state -- even though I still remember the days of the early 1990s when Edgar was the guy who held out in budget talks against the same Michael Madigan that Rauner now says is standing firm against him.

... but they do bear similarities

PERHAPS A LITTLE bit of the old Edgar sense of priority in maintaining the daily government operations is what ensured that he got re-elected to a second term, and probably would have won a third term if he had tried to seek it back in 1998. Because at some point, we have to start laying blame on Rauner if he thinks he can go an entire four-year gubernatorial term without an operations budget.

I experienced similar feelings this week when President Donald J. Trump shut down his Twitter account for a few moments and tried speaking to the people. Some are determined to say that Tuesday was the evening Trump became presidential in character.

Yes, I heard his comments about how it was time that people on both sides find a way to come together, with the end result being that we could actually live up in reality to his campaign them of "Making America Great."

Now I know some political pundits, particularly those of a conservative ideological bent, have said that this was a fantastic strategic move by Trump because now it puts the pressure on those of us of a more sensible approach to life to figure out ways to come closer to HIS way of thinking.

THAT COULD ACTUALLY have a bearing of truth, in that I don't doubt for one moment that Trump and his believers seriously think that we wouldn't have any problems in our society if only everybody who didn't agree with them would merely "shut up!" and do what they were told.

CULLERTON: Should all heed his advice?

It was the same sense I felt given off by much of the overly-nationalistic rhetoric spewed in the days following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon back in 2001. Perhaps some people need for us to be in a "disaster" mode in order for them to think we're moving forward as a society.

Perhaps they also think that peacetime and working together is just a little too dull. Even though one could argue that such dullness is the ultimate evidence that things are functioning properly and that we're all alright.

It also makes me wonder if state Senate President John Cullerton's advice to Rauner is something that also could apply to many other ideologue politicos -- saying of the governor, "he's got to grow up!"

  -30-

Impeach Trump? It won’t be for any reason we, the people, approve of!

I almost find it amusing to see certain politically-motivated people getting themselves all worked up into a lather over the concept of bringing the presidency of Donald J. Trump to an end via impeachment.
 

Maybe it's true; Julia Roberts is putting on weight

Going the route that the conservative ideologues tried – and failed, I might add – to use on Bill Clinton. Giving him the unceremonious boot out of office that would have tainted him for life, similar to how some of our parents’ generation wanted to do with Richard M. Nixon and his assorted crimes and misdemeanors against the people.

IF ONLY HE hadn’t have quit first, then been pardoned.

But back to the modern day, where it seems so many of us are offended at the concept of Trump’s presidency that, after only one month in office, we’re willing to semi-seriously engage in talk about his forcible removal from office.

Heck, the City Council in Richmond, Va. – the mind of the Confederacy of old that Trump probably thinks of as his base – took it upon itself to pass a resolution calling for presidential impeachment.

It’s just a resolution. It has no binding legal authority. One can argue that nobody cares what Richmond thinks about this issue. But it does come across as somewhat scary that Trump could have p-o’ed some people so quickly.

IT MIGHT HAVE made sense if the Chicago City Council had passed such a resolution – what with all the ridiculous pot shots Trump has taken at the city in recent weeks. Although I suspect the more creative political minds of the Second City will come up with a more humiliating outcome for the Trump legacy.

Redeemable at a future Trump hearing?

Something that forevermore taints the Trump name and reputation. Which, for all the times he insists on using his name as part of the buildings he builds and projects he completes is something obviously of importance to him.

My thoughts about all of this were triggered by an e-mail message I received Thursday from the Committee for Hispanic Causes – BOLD PAC.

The Washington-based group is trying to raise money to support its efforts meant to make people seriously contemplate impeachment for Trump.

Really???

BUT AS THE e-mail itself said of their plan to raise $1 million by Wednesday night, “We begged. We pleaded. And we failed!”

Of course, the group also made sure to tell me their records showed I had contributed nothing to their effort. Which was the point of the message; to give me one last chance to redeem myself in their eyes and cough up some cash. Something I still have not done, and am not likely to do.

Because while I am as critical of the Trump presidency and the circumstances by which it came about as much as anybody else, I question the point of focusing on his removal.

Not just because I could see how the concept of a “President Michael R. Pence” would be worse because it would put the federal government firmly in the hands of the conservative ideologues who are desperate to impose their will upon all of our society.

I DON’T DOUBT that it is possible the Republican leadership of Congress could turn on Trump and decide they want to remove him. But if that were to happen, it would be for reasons that the bulk of society would not approve of. Most likely for not being conservative extremist enough to satisfy the alleged alt-right that voted in large-enough numbers to create the Electoral College quirk that put Donald into office.

If there is to be a Trump removal, it won’t be for any of the reasons that progressive-minded people would want him out! Which is why I think it is a waste to focus too much attention on the idea of “impeachment.” I’m braced mentally for the idea of being stuck with Trump for the full four years and think the proper alternative is to focus attention on coming up with a solid presidential challenger come the 2020 election cycle who can undo the damage being done now.

At least we’re not at the point in our society that we’re talking about staging a coup d’etat. Or, with all the negative attention Trump has focused on Mexico, giving Donald a fate similar to the 19^th Century Emperor Maximillian – whom the French tried to impose on the Mexican people over their duly-elected President Benito Juarez.

Does anyone envision Trump's fate producing "great" art?

For those who don’t know your history, Maximillian died at the hands of a firing squad. Which may have made for an intriguing series of paintings by Manet, but isn’t the kind of scene we need repeated for the 21^st Century!

  -30-

'Bipartisan cooperation' most definitely “dirty words” from the political past

I remember a moment from just over two decades ago when I overheard then-Gov. Jim Edgar engaging in political chit-chat with one of his aides.

MICHEL: Tried to bring pols together

Their subject? The retirement of long-time Peoria-area Congressman Bob Michel from Capitol Hill – including his post as leader of the House Republican caucus.

THE GIST OF their conversation? Wasn’t it a shame that Michel, who served for 38 years in Congress until his decision to retire following the 1994 election cycle, never got a chance to be Speaker of the House of Representatives?

Sure enough, the era in which Michel was a part of Illinois’ congressional delegation was one in which Democrats had control over the U.S. House the entire time.

Michel was the leader of Republicans for the final 14 years of his time in Congress, and developed a reputation as a person who could reach a deal with the opposition.

Which from his perspective meant he could achieve some goals for his constituents, even though technically he and his supposed allies were in the minority. Bipartisan cooperation as it can work, if everybody is willing to give a little and doesn’t adopt the attitude that political victory means squashing the opposing caucus into dust!

WHICH MOST DEFINITELY is the prevailing attitude of today – one that Republicans brought to bear in Washington right upon Michel’s demise. Because that election cycle in which he retired was the one in which Republicans gained a House of Representatives majority for the first time in decades.

 

TRUMP: Is his presidency the anti-Michel?

Not that anybody believes Michel should have held on for another term or two to be a boss on Capitol Hill. Because it usually is regarded by political observers that it was the change in leadership that helped cause the Republican rise to power.

Because it was the election cycle that resulted in Newt Gingrich becoming something more than just a congressman from Georgia, but a national figure who gave us the “Contract with America” that was a blatantly partisan political document meant to establish the ideals of a rural segment of our nation.

It certainly is a significant part of the path that has led our nation to our current predicament of a president openly hostile toward anyone who doesn’t share his own ideological agenda and more than willing to be vindictive to those not exactly like himself.

GINGRICH: He sides w/ Trump

I REMEMBER MICHEL being replaced in his congressional seat by Ray LaHood, his one-time chief of staff who later became Transportation secretary under President Barack Obama and, it turns out, became one of the few Republicans who rejected the Contract with America concept, and was also one of the few people amongst Republican ideologues who didn’t denounce Michel as a part of the failed concept of cooperation.

As though war and hostilities with the opposition party were the only way to achieve the goals one desired, while also crushing anything other people might want. It certainly isn’t a coincidence that the modern-day Gingrich was one of the few Republicans who openly backed Donald J. Trump’s political aspirations throughout last year’s election cycle.

Michel was a Republican, but he was one that I often heard older Democratic political operatives speak highly of – just because it was possible for things to be accomplished, unlike the age of ranting and raging that was developing then and has matured some two decades later, so to speak, into an obnoxious adulthood.

LaHOOD: At times, carried on Michel's spirit

It is one that I often wonder if it is to blame on my own generation, since it seems that many of the political operatives of today came of age back around this era and aren’t that much older than I am now. Or as Michel himself told the D.C.-based “Roll Call” newspaper in an interview not long ago, “I have to sometimes shake my head and say ‘My God.’ It is a far different place than it was in those days.”

MICHEL, OF COURSE, crops up into my mind on account of his death on Friday at age 93 following a bout with pneumonia. How amenable was he? Consider that for his 90^th birthday, a party managed to include former House speakers of both political persuasions to pay tribute to the man who once tried to bring people together. Both Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., were on the guest list, along with our state’s very own Denny Hastert.

RAUNER: Could he use bipartisanship lessons?

That nature was acknowledged by Gov. Bruce Rauner, who issued his own statement praising Michel’s memory. “Best known for his bipartisan style and working cooperatively with Democrats and Republicans alike, he was beloved by all,” the governor said. Ironic, considering how much trouble the governor has in grasping the concept of bipartisan cooperation.

Perhaps the death of Michel is a moment we can use to reflect upon what has been lost by our own ability as a society to come together and use the government process to try to achieve things on behalf of our society.

In this “Age of Trump,” that seems like such an alien concept – in that the have-nots have to worry about what government intends to do TO them so as to assuage the presidential ego! And the inability to work together stretching into a third year without a state budget.

  -30-