EXTRA: Aaaughh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They may be on bubble-gun cards ...

I have to confess; I barely made it through about 10 minutes of the first presidential debate that took place Monday night.

I couldn’t take any more. The shouting at each other by the two candidates that seemed like the point was to drown out the opposition more than anything else.
 
THAT, AND DONALD Trump insisting that his “facts” were really factual, and that it’s the real world that somehow has it wrong. It all came across as such nonsense. I turned away.

... and think of selves as super-important, ...

I actually lasted a few minutes before changing the channel, then tried again about a half-hour later. Only to find I lasted even less time the second time around. Even though a part of me wanted to do the political equivalent of eating all my spinach, I couldn’t do it.

Part of it is that while I have found it interesting when I, as a reporter-type person, covered debates in person, watching them on television just seems so deadly dull.

They come across less as a real-live political discussion and more like staged hysteria. Particularly when you get blowhards like Trump and Hillary Clinton.

IT LITERALLY REMINDED me of that 1993 interview that late-night talk show host David Letterman did with conservative ideologue radio personality Rush Limbaugh and asked him, “Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and think to yourself, ‘I am just full of hot gas’?”

 

... but Carlos Sanchez was more thrilling!

I had to wind up reading the early news reports, and probably will check out some additional ones Tuesday morning, to figure out what – if anything – was said. Although I really suspect it was nothing of substance.

So what did I wind up doing? The equivalent of eating my dessert without finishing all my vegetables. I caught part of an “Everybody Loves Raymond” re-run (Marie found out that Raymond had a party in her house back when he was a teenager) and several innings of the Chicago White Sox’ victory over the Tampa Bay Rays.

Trust me. Home runs by Justin Morneau and Carlos Sanchez were more thrilling than anything that spewed from the lips of the Donald or Hillary, while debate moderator Lester Holt probably wondered to himself, “What did I do to deserve this?”

  -30-

EXTRA: It’s beginning to look a lot like a strike will take place this autumn

We’ll know more come Wednesday, but it’s becoming more apparent that the Chicago Teachers Union is not likely to reach any contract agreement any time soon in their ongoing dispute with the public schools system.

Union officials on Monday let it be known the results of its recent vote over whether to issue a strike authorization. That’s the step by which the actual teachers give the teachers’ union leadership the authority to decide whether to call for a strike.

AS IN PICKET lines, protests and teachers chanting slogans that take the name of Mayor Rahm Emanuel in vain, all while parents get all peeved that they now have to find alternate daycare for their children – whom they had counted on being able to shuttle off to school.

For the record, 90.6 percent of union members took part in the vote, and 95.6 percent of those people voted “yes” to the idea of going out on strike.

In short, teachers are upset with the idea that school management has tried to make it seem as though it’s their greed that is causing the financial problems that confront the Chicago Public Schools system.

So after going through decades of leadership during the years of Mayor Richard M. Daley without labor disputes, it appears that Emanuel could face the prospect of his third strike to occur during his five years, thus far, as mayor.

THE NEXT STEP is for the teachers’ union’s governing body to meet, and that is scheduled for Wednesday. At that time, the union could proceed to approve the 10-day notice required by law of the teachers’ intent to take to the picket lines.

It also means the first day we could actually see picketing school teachers is Oct. 11 – one day after the official day for celebrating Columbus Day. Which means we could literally get the sight of picketing American Indian activists calling Christopher Columbus a slave trader and a tyrant, followed up a day later by the sight of school teachers coming up with nastier things to say about Emanuel.

There really is no love lost between the two sides, as most people perceive the Chicago Public Schools management as nothing more than a batch of lackeys doing the mayor’s bidding.

Is it all Rahm's fault?

One other potential issue, for those who are religious-minded.

TECHNICALLY, THE JEWISH holiday of Yom Kippur is Oct. 12, with certain aspects of its celebration beginning the night before.

Could someone who is Jewish and who teaches in the Chicago schools claim they’re not working because they’re honoring their religious beliefs? Or would they have to make their religious statement by not participating in the picketing that could place that day?

On a serious note, I realize there are real issues at stake in this labor dispute, and this one religious issue is likely to be a minor point, if significant at all.

But with the proposed cuts that union officials say will hurt special education classes, librarians, counselors, social workers and teachers’ aides – along with leaving many needed teachers out-of-work – we have to find some way of alleviating the hurt that likely is going to spill out publicly in coming weeks.

  -30-

Is Hillary the ’05 White Sox? Does that make Trump equal of “Chief Wahoo”

In a way, it’s a shame that Hillary Clinton never had the sense to be a fan of the Chicago White Sox.

Will Hillary prevail this time?

The lady from suburban Park Ridge who as a child rooted for the Chicago Cubs and in recent years has claimed New York Yankees fandom is running a presidential bid this year that truly bears resemblance to that run for a World Series title that the White Sox made some 11 seasons ago.

AND NOT JUST because the Cubs’ current ownership is a family that has publicly declared its political loyalties in support of Republican challenger Donald Trump.

Daughter Laura Ricketts may have publicly stated her willingness to back Hillary, but the rest of the family has kicked in $1 million to a political action committee supporting Trump. Definitely proof of the old adage, “Money talks!”

Semi-seriously, I feel like Hillary is the political equivalent of the White Sox as she tries to hold on to a lead that various polls indicate is shrinking as Election Day gets closer and closer.

It’s almost like Election Day can’t come soon enough for her, and that the more time we have to contemplate, the more that some people become less bothered by the idea of a “President Donald J. Trump” occupying the Oval Office.

Clinton looks good in 'black and silver' of 'the Good Guys'

SERIOUSLY, REMEMBER THE days following the Democratic National Convention when Clinton had a big lead in so many polls and Trump had managed to make himself appear to be so boorish during his own nominating convention that it seemed the election, to quote White Sox broadcaster Ken 'the Hawk' Harrelson, “is ovah!”

Just like the White Sox of ’05 who, after four months of the season, had developed a sizable lead in the American League central division. It was at that point that baseball people started saying that the White Sox were so far ahead, they could play .500 baseball the rest of the way and it would take a near-miracle for the Cleveland Indians to catch up.

It's obvious Trump never pitched

Literally, the Indians would have to play ball those final two months of the season at a .780 clip in order to tie the Sox.

So naturally, what happened? The final two months saw the White Sox win 30 games and lose 31, just under a .500 percentage. While the Indians did the near-unthinkable – playing winning baseball at a .760 rate.

THEY STARTED WINNING big-time. It’s like they couldn’t lose. That 14 1/2 -game lead the White Sox had at the end of July at one point literally dwindled to a game-and-a-half. There were many pundits eager to predict that the ’05 White Sox were going to be remembered solely as an athletic choke.

Just like the political pundits now who are convinced that Trump will catch Hillary, despite all those people to whom the concept of a Trump political victory is anathema.

It took a strong burst at the end 8 wins out of 10 ballgames for the White Sox to guarantee they would make it to the playoffs, winning their division by 3 games. Is that what the upcoming debates are going to be the political equivalent of?

Is Donald Trump equally insensitive?

And yes, I don’t have any problem thinking of Trump as the equivalent of the Indians – the team that persists in using the tacky “Chief Wahoo” as its symbol. I suspect the same people who defend Wahoo are also Trump backers.

IS HILLARY CLINTON destined to hold her lead in the polls the same way the White Sox managed to hold their lead in the standings all the way through the regular season – setting the stage for that playoff run in which they whomped the Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Angels, then swept their way past the Houston Astros to win the World Series?

Which was a “historic” moment of sorts for the Chicago sports scene, what with it being the first World Series title for a Chicago ball club in 88 years. For all I know, some people may think that’s more historic than the “first woman president” we would achieve if Clinton can prevail.

Now I don’t literally think there’s some cosmic connection between Hillary Clinton and the Chicago White Sox of old.

But the similarity of wishing Election Day would come sooner, rather than later, reminded me of what I felt back in ’05 as that lead over the Indians kept declining daily just like all the various poll numbers.

Will Hillary be able to claim the same?

WHICH MAKES ME wonder if Hillary could use the same act that White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen gave us when it became apparent that the Indians were NOT going to overcome the Sout’ Siders in their drive for a division title.

Because seeing a Donald Trump defeat after all the trash-talk and other tacky behavior (inviting Gennifer Flowers? Really!!! Thank goodness she showed more class than Trump and declined the invitation) he has engaged in would feel like The Donald, in the end, choked big-time!

  -30-

Well, duh! Who’d you think Ted Cruz would wind up casting a ballot for?

One of the drawbacks to being a part of the newsgathering racket is that there are times you can see the way stories get reported and you know it’s nonsense. Yet it still winds up turning out that way.
 

Mission Accomplished - name is in the papers

I couldn’t help but think that about the news reports that went out Friday that tried to make it seem like a dramatic moment in the story of Election ’16 – former presidential hopeful Ted Cruz will vote for Donald Trump for president.

IF YOU THINK about it seriously, who’s he really going to vote for?

This is one of those tea party-type dinks whose political philosophy is based so heavily on believing that Hillary Clinton (and her husband Bill) are exactly what is wrong with this country.

I’m sure that in the mind of the senator from Texas, his biggest regret is that it won’t be himself who gets to take on Hillary and drive a political stake through her heart. He probably would enjoy that image, and would love to go down in the history books as the guy who beat Clinton.

Of course, that’s not going to happen. Because Cruz wound up being a part of that mass of Republican candidates who couldn’t rise above the pack – resulting in the GOP giving its presidential nomination to Trump.

ADMITTEDLY, CRUZ WAS the last of all those 18 people to drop out. He was the final holdout. And some people who remember his performance at the Republican National Convention seriously wanted to believe that Ted was somehow acting on some sort of anti-Trump principle.

Which of these candidates ...

He wasn’t.

What bothered him was that he lost. History won’t record the concept of “President Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz,” at least not in this election cycle. He’s exactly the type who may try running again in future years.

For all we know, he may actually get the nomination. Or maybe he’s just destined to be a perennial joke – constantly appearing on the ballot and screeching to steadily declining crowds as the years pass by.

... makes your blood boil over?

HE’LL PROBABLY MAKE the focal point of his future campaigns the chance to rant and rage about all the actions that will be committed in the next few years by “President Hillary R. Clinton” – if that concept becomes a reality.

The idea that Cruz would ever back Clinton was an absurdity.

If anything, this election cycle is becoming one less about radical change. The idea that people would suddenly vote against their usual political interests isn’t going to happen.

Many Democrats are finding it in them to accept the idea of Clinton as president, while many Republicans (including the Ricketts family, although there’s evidence that daughter Laura thinks that father J. Joe can stick it) are finding it within themselves to back Donald.

THE BIG SHIFT may be those so-called “alt-right” (real people call them “white supremacist”) voters who usually think the Republicans are too wimpy to take seriously. Many of them think Trump has balls enough to stand up to the foreigners and perverts and racial mongrels (which they would phrase more crudely) and all other people who aren’t just like themselves.

 

Really??!?

Could they wind up giving Trump enough political support to win come Nov. 8? Particularly if combined with apathy from certain segments who theoretically should be Hillary-backers?

A lot of it will depend on the incumbent President, who according to the Gallup Organization had a 52 percent approval rating as of Friday. The more people like the idea of Obama, the more they will want to ensure his philosophies will be carried on by the next U.S. president.

That will wind up being what decides the upcoming election – not anything that Ted Cruz would have said or done as he tries to figure out how to remain politically relevant. Which really is the only reason he bothered to make a statement Friday to begin with.

  -30-

From Rahm to Trump, diverse voices take a crack at spinning Chicago’s violent perception to their needs

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is more than willing to play politics with the homicide rate in Chicago – taking his pot-shots meant to scare people into actually considering casting a ballot for him.
 

EMANUEL: In need of a solution to violence

While Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who actually has to deal with the problem, is trying to create the public perception that he has a clue about the level of violence that people who live in certain parts of the city have been forced to accept as an everyday fact of life.

CHICAGO’S VIOLENCE LEVEL wound up being the topic of discussion for both men as they wanted to use the fact that hundreds of people have been killed this year in the city in order to bolster their political standing.

For Trump, he probably likes that fact. Because it makes people scared enough to something stupid like vote for him come Nov. 8. In fact, I suspect that if Chicago had a declining homicide rate, he’d probably concoct some sort of political rhetoric to make it seem like it’s on the up-tick.

Trump, during a program that was aired by the Fox News Channel, made talk about the concept of “stop and frisk,” a policing policy that gives the cops great authority to use their own judgment about when to suspect people of wrong-doing.

The fact that Trump came out in favor of such a policy is just the kind of inflammatory talk that would get people all worked up. Trump, in fact, did back off of his blanket support of the outrageous police policy.

SORT OF.

 

TRUMP: Would be lost if city found solution

For Trump on Thursday said he only favors such an outrageous policy within Chicago. “Chicago,” he says, “is out of control, and I was really referring to Chicago with stop-and-frisk.” As though we of the Second City are mere savages who cannot co-exist with each other as civilized human beings.

It might be thought of as stupid politics to say something so inflammatory. But then again, we in Chicago have long realized how ridiculous Trump is. To the point where he never had a chance of getting our votes, and where his Chicago opposition makes it next-to-impossible for him to even think of having a chance at Illinois’ Electoral College votes.

So what does he have to lose with such nonsense talk? For all we know, Trump may think he gains support in those Midwestern regions that object to Chicago’s predominance over all else.

IT’S TRULY A campaign that is more than willing to engage in trash to try to achieve victory. As to whether trash can help him if he were to win the presidency, it’s unlikely. But I’m sure he figures he’ll worry about that then, and that many of us won’t remember all the mind-numbing nonsense he has spewed.

Then, there’s the predicament faced by Emanuel – who has to figure out a way to bolster the public’s trust in law enforcement. He used an address on Thursday at Malcolm X College to talk about the need for more police officers.

Although there are those individuals who think that having more cops means nothing more than more people in uniform to harass the general public – or at least that segment of the public of a lighter skin complexion than themselves.

Emanuel’s address was by invitation-only, which I’m sure was essential to have an event where the “public” didn’t spend the whole time heckling Hizzoner.

BECAUSE I’M SURE the people who’d most think Trump ridiculous also think Emanuel has too much in common with him. While I’m sure Trump’s biggest backers probably think Rahm is the devil incarnate – and would view him as their ultimate enemy.

 

The Hillary who was a Chicago-area girl

Which means Emanuel had the tougher task on Thursday.

He is trying to sway a city filled with skeptics – some of whom wish we could have a “do over” election for mayor, rather than having to wait until 2019 to pick somebody, anybody, else.

Whereas Trump has the backing of fawning sycophants who will sing his praises regardless of what he says; all because he’s not that certain lady who (if elected) would actually be the first-ever Chicago-born president who gets demonized by so many for such varying reasons that it’s hard to really say why we don’t like Hillary Clinton!

  -30-

EXTRA: Trump will dump on Lester Holt; oddsmakers say that's a sure bet

No, I’m not rushing out in search of a bookmaker who will take my bet with regards to the upcoming debate of the presidential dreamers.

But I couldn’t help but get my chuckle when I saw the odds that were set at SportsBettingDime.com on various aspects of the political event. Which apparently is evidence that some people are pathetic enough to place bets on anything.

EVEN THE COLOR of Trump’s tie (9/5 it’s red) or Hillary’s pantsuit (3/1 it’s blue)!

For the record, the odds are 2/1 that Trump will find something to complain about either during or after the debate with regards to the conduct of NBC News Lester Holt. Yes, the one-time Channel 2 news anchor is going to be moderating the Monday night spectacle.

A solid-enough performance could wind up giving Holt a national rep, and perhaps eliminate all the jokes that get told about people who do jury duty in Cook County and wind up having to watch that explanatory video about the process that Holt narrated some 30 years ago. Of course, one lone gaffe could result in Holt taking the heat from those people determined to believe that the world is conspiring against their beloved Donald Trump and his dreams of being able to tell Congress "You're Fired!' in all his blowhard glory.

By the way, the odds are 1 in 4 that Holt finds something to fact-check about Trump, compared to 4/1 he’ll find something to nit-pick about Clinton.

AND YES, THE odds are 9/1 that a Trump supporter will do something stupid that disrupts the event.

Anyway, check out the odds for yourself, particularly the 1/1 chance (a real sure thing) that someone feels compelled to bring up Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers and his race-motivated protest against the National Anthem as part of sports events, at some time during the debate.

Certainly better than the odds the Chicago Bears can do anything successful when they travel to play the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday – other than ogle the famed cheerleaders while losing yet another game.

  -30-

Does it matter who “wins” upcoming debates? We’ll think what we want

The first debate between the two major presidential candidates won’t take place until Monday. Yet I already can hear the rantings and ragings taking place in my mind over the event’s results.

A classic boxing match

The kind of people inclined to take seriously the presidential bid of Donald Trump are going to vehemently insist he won! They'll make the argument that he wiped the floor with that ugly hag’s face and gave her the smackdown that society should have given her years ago.

IT WON’T MATTER what actually happens. They’re going to want to perceive a victory, no matter what reality says. Heck, Trump could probably make a major gaffe, and his backers will claim it’s really a significant blow to the Clinton campaign.

Likewise, other people are going to see Trump and hear what he says that day when Trump and Hillary Clinton face off, and they’re going to look for every stupid bit of babble that comes from Donald’s mouth.

They’re going to leap all over every tidbit they can find to make the man out to be a complete moron!

Hillary already is the winner, in their minds. The fact is that nothing will change this perception.

ALL OF WHICH is my way of saying that I’m not exactly looking forward to the presidential debates – the first of which takes place next week at Hofstra University in upstate New York.

Worthy of the hype?

If anything, I’m actually more intrigued by the potential for the one vice-presidential debate set for Oct. 4 at Longwood University in Virginia. I don’t expect a repeat of the 1988 V-P sparring match when Democrat Lloyd Bentsen tagged Republican Dan Quayle with the line (“You’re no ‘Jack Kennedy’”) that many people most remember about him.

That, and the bit about using the obsolete spelling (“potatoe”) for the starchy vegetable.

But back to the debates. The Vice Presidential brawl could wind up being the national introduction for both Tim Kaine (a Virginia senator) and Mike Pence (an Indiana governor).

IT COULD GIVE us the lasting impression we carry of both men as they try to create the impression that we could trust them to be president, should it wind up that the person we actually voted for dies or is otherwise incapacitated while in office.

That could be particularly important for Pence, since there are many people who are grudgingly saying they’ll vote for Trump because they’re trusting he’ll surround himself with people who are actually qualified to do the posts for which he’s picking them.

While many Clinton backers are supporting her merely because they’re too appalled by the thought of someone as gaudy as Trump being put in a position of authority.

While for Trump, I’m sure his interest in being president isn’t so much that he wants the office as much as he figures he’s cutting out the middle-man, so to speak.

HE’S A BUSINESS executive who likely has had to deal with countless government officials throughout the years, and probably thinks they just get in the way of allowing him to operate as he’d truly like to.

This may well be the attitude he tries to convey during his three debate appearances. Even though Trump himself has publicly complained about the fact that debates will have moderators. He’d rather have a free-for-all with Clinton, because a moderator (it will be one-time Chicago newsman Lester Holt for the first debate) might actually call him out publicly on nonsense he spews.

Would it matter if Trump did worse than Quayle?

Although I suspect that his followers won’t care. They’ll be prepared to buy the nonsense as fact, or else will be so confused that it won’t matter.

And everybody is most likely to be willing to go along with the spin being spewed following the debates by the political pontificators; all of whom will try to convince you that your preferred candidate is “da winnah, and still champeen!”

  -30-