Pelosi correct – Trump impeachment proceedings would be a waste of time

I have always thought that Donald Trump was completely unfit to hold political office – and there hasn’t been a thing that has happened during the past two-plus years to make me think I was wrong.

PELOSI: Trump not worth her time

His continued hold on the presidency is a true embarrassment to our society – particularly those people who seem determined to support him no matter what he says or does.

YET THE FACT remains that Trump does have that hold on roughly one-third of the public – and they would react very badly if any effort was undertaken to remove him prior to the 2020 election cycle.

For that matter, they’re the ones who would probably support a Trumpian coup d’etat if his reaction to a 2020 electoral defeat was to decide to simply refuse to leave the White House and claim the presidency as being his post for the remainder of his life.

The fact being that Hillary Clinton back in 2016 was merely telling the truth when she made her now-infamous “basket of deplorables” comment about Trump supporters. No matter how much some want to say it was a Clinton mis-step that cost her any chance at the presidency, the reality is that rationality and reason don’t rule these days.

That is why I think those individuals who went through the 2018 election cycle thinking that voting for a Democrat in Congress was done with the purpose of setting the stage for Donald Trump’s impeachment and removal from office were seriously delusional.

TRUMP: Probably offended Pelosi thinks that

IF ANYTHING, EVEN more delusional than those people who will persist in claiming that that Trump has a clue about what he’s doing while in political office.

So here’s thinking that it’s a good thing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is coming out and publicly saying she has no intention of letting those people in her congressional caucus move forward with impeachment talk.

As Pelosi puts it, Trump, “is just not worth it.”

Not worth the procedural hassles you’d have to undertake to hold impeachment hearings by the House of Representatives – or the inevitable trial to be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, with the Senate sitting as jurors.

HILLARY: Wasn't lying about 'deplorables'

THE REALITY IS that the Democratic-leaning House would be inclined to approve articles of impeachment claiming Trump’s incompetence while in office. But then, the Senate with its Republican-leaning majority would ultimately vote to acquit him.

Which, by the way, was the same outcome of some two decades ago when Congress tried to force the removal of Bill Clinton from the White House.

Republican ideologues will forever say that Clinton as president was impeached. That’s true!

But the Senate sure didn’t remove him from office. Clinton finished out his second term as president. The general reaction from the public back then was that the whole process devolved into petty partisan political bickering. Republican ideologues shamefully used the impeachment process to try to achieve an outcome they never were able to reach on an Election Day.

THE SAME THING would wind up happening again if anyone seriously tried to push for Trump’s removal from office. Trying to get a Supreme Court justice to essentially sign off on a coup d’ etat, rather than defeating him at the polling place!

CLINTON: Impeached, but acquitted

Those of us eager to see Trump go down to defeat need to put our efforts into beating “the Donald” on Election Day. Both Trump himself, or on the off chance that he doesn’t run for re-election but touts someone else in his image, his replacement.

While I’m sure ideologue political operatives are counting on the ongoing confusion amongst Democrats and inability to reach a consensus on who would challenge him as their strongest hand in terms of retaining control of the White House.

Focusing on the electoral process IS the way to go about removing Trump. So that if he really does live down to our worst expectations and refuse to leaves office on Jan. 20, 2021, we can send the Secret Service into the White House and have the man arrested, at the very least, for criminal trespass.

  -30-

‘Big 10’ turf to be the key to comprehending 2020 prez election

They're the midwestern states that comprise the Big 10. Or maybe you prefer to think of them as the places where the Great Lakes are a daily reality of life.

Will Milwaukee get honors of helping 'dump Trump'

Our region of the nation is going to play a key factor in comprehending just how the will of the nation leans come the 2020 election cycle for president. As to whether we get “four more years” of Donald Trump or someone inclined to keep his perspective alive?

OR WILL WE see a return to sanity and a jerk back to policies less selfish and mean-spirited than the ones we’ve had the past two-plus years? Which if you look at the results of the latest Morning Consult “Tracking Trump” poll is the trend the Great Lakes region is heading toward these days.

A large part of the reason why Trump was able to win the electoral college (and a term as president) despite losing the popular vote by a significant margin is that many of the states of our region flipped over to the GOP column.

With many states having their more rural portions turn out to vote in stronger numbers – thereby enabling them to overcome the urban portions of their states.

Illinois may have significantly went for Hillary Clinton’s presidential dreams, along with Minnesota. But the rest of the region, including Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin felt compelled to back Trump.

Who will decide electoral outcome in '20?

ILLINOIS LITERALLY FELT all alone and lonesome in our region that Election Night of 2016. If a Democratic presidential challenger is to have any chance of achieving victory in 2020, we’re going to have to go back to the days when the bulk of the Great Lakes region leans Democrat – with places like Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee turning out and leaving Indiana as the isolated freak of the region.

It is with that in mind that it makes all the sense in the world that the Democratic Party decided to hold their presidential nominating convention next summer in one of the most unglamorous of places – Milwaukee.

Much was made in the news reports of the convention location that this is one of the few times a nominating convention was held in a Midwestern city. Not since 1916 and St. Louis has such an event been held in our region of the nation.

With the exception being Chicago. We had the Democratic convention of 1996, and the historic memories of 1968 still linger in our political mindset. Before that, both major political parties used to enjoy our city.

WHEN RICHARD NIXON was nominated for president in 1960, it was our city that did the honors of hosting the event. Even though most Republican ideologues like to rant and rage that Chicago’s real part of that particular election cycle was providing enough inner-city and cemetery-based voted to ensure that Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy.

Not likely that Republicans would ever consider coming to our city for their political shows. In fact, next year they’ll be doing their honors in Charlotte, N.C. – the city that hosted the Democratic convention of 2008 that resulted in Barack Obama being presented to the nation.

The point being that I’m sure Democratic political operatives intend for a Milwaukee-based event to inspire Democrats of Wisconsin to turn out in force. To make sure that the Badger state’s 10 electoral votes are amongst the ones that wind up in the Democratic presidential challenger’s column.

Which could also inspire Democrats in places like Detroit to make sure that cities such as Grand Rapids, Mich., don’t out-vote them again, or that Ohio’s urban areas around Cleveland and Toledo don’t get drowned out by partisan opposition in Cincinnati.

BECAUSE IT’S VERY clear that if those Great Lakes states swing back over to the Democratic column, we won’t have a “President Trump” or anybody aligned with him any longer. Heck, it’s obvious that if Hillary Clinton hadn’t taken the region for granted in 2016, she would have got the Electoral College majority IN ADDITION to a popular vote win!

Checking out Aaron's one-time home

We would never have had to endure the embarrassment that a Trump presidency would have brought us.

Of course, we’d have had to endure years of partisan nonsense from Republican ideologues determined to show us they could dump on Hillary even worse than they did to Obama or to her husband, Bill.

So next year, when the political attention span of the nation focuses for a week on Milwaukee, keep in mind there’s a reason. Maybe you’ll even find a chance to enjoy a brew – along with being in the city that was home to one of baseball’s all-time greats, Hank Aaron. Or if you're feeling particularly lame, you can skip through the streets singing the "Laverne & Shirley" theme song.

  -30-

Hillary politically active, despite some wanting to view her as damaged goods

I’m sure ideologues are all riled up with anger at the very notion that Hillary Clinton was out this week on the campaign trail.

CLINTON: Backing her financial backer

Sure enough, Clinton made Chicago-area appearances Monday on behalf of the Illinois gubernatorial campaign of J.B. Pritzker. She’s letting it be known she thinks the wealthy fundraiser who contributed many millions of dollars to support her presidential aspirations of 2008 and 2016 is a worthy pick to be our state’s governor.

OF COURSE, TO listen to the ideologues, Hillary Clinton is supposed to be the woman living out the rest of her life in shame and disgrace. She’s supposed to be someone who we find to be so repulsive that other political people ought to be running in the opposite direction every time they see her approaching.

They certainly shouldn’t be seeking her political support, or be viewing her positively in any way!

Yet in the ultimate evidence that this Age of Trump we’re living in is really a mindset of a minority segment of our society, we have Pritzker more than willing to be seen with Clinton – perhaps riling up a majority of Illinoisans to think that picking Pritzker is Step One towards undoing the notion that Trumpian ideals are in any way in control of our country.

While also reminding the nation as a whole that Illinois is NOT part of the reason we have a “President Donald J. Trump” in the first place. Don’t blame us! We didn’t vote for the boob!

PRITZKER: Gave Hillary $14.7M in '16

TO WHICH I’LL offer an immediate apology to boobs (and nit-wits) everywhere for implying in any way that Donald Trump is on the same level as them. He's worse!

But back to Hillary, whom some people like to say is the worst candidate ever to be nominated by a major political party. The real reason, they want us to believe, that Democrats lost the 2016 election cycle to Trump.

Those people always want to disregard the level of bigotry that backs Trump to this day. It’s as though they don’t want to have to acknowledge issues of gender, race and ethnicity that they have contempt for, and don’t want to be called out on the fact that their contempt was so great that they voted for the worst candidate who ever actually managed to win a presidential election.

TRUMP: He's Hillary's ultimate target

So for Hillary Clinton to be out campaigning publicly, allowing herself to be seen and for her support to be gladly accepted by people with their own political aspirations? It’s a mighty blow to the oft-twisted ideals that the right-wing elements of our society want to think we all ought to have.

JUST AS I’M sure they view Bill Clinton as equally offensive. He’s supposed to be the president who was impeached, and by whom anybody with any association to him was forevermore supposed to be tainted beyond reproach.

Instead, they seem to keep coming back into influence, largely because it seems the ideological leanings the critics espouse are the ideals that many of us find to be truly repulsive.

Almost as if that old cliché about “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is the way many of us – even those who are apathetic towards the efforts of the Clintons to moderate liberal and progressive ideals out of a belief that it is the only way to win an election – view Bill and Hillary.

Particularly in the case of Hillary, we might not be all that enthused about her continued political presence. But appearing to back her in any way – such as J.B. Pritzker is doing now – is a very practical way of reminding voters that they’re not aligned with anything coming out of the White House administration of “The Head Cheeto” himself.

  -30-

EXTRA: Politics ain’t beanbag; or is it?

I’m not quite sure what to think of former President Barack Obama’s comments during his eulogy Saturday for late Sen. John McCain.

Difference between toughness and political bluster?

Both Obama and former President George W. Bush (the men who defeated McCain’s own presidential aspirations in 2008 and 2000, respectively) were a part of the program put together to pay tribute to the Arizona senator on Saturday at the National Cathedral, one day before his burial on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

MUCH WAS MADE of the fact that McCain, before he died a week ago at age 81, asked Obama and Bush to speak in tribute, whereas incumbent President Donald Trump wasn’t even invited.

Obama was willing to go along with the theme of challenging the political style of Trump – which seems determined to challenge the styles of everyone who came before him as somehow being illegitimate.

As Obama put it, “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born in fear.”

But that shouldn’t mean that political activity is meant to be for the meek at heart – for people who can’t handle a punch or two.

REMEMBER BACK TO Peter Finley Dunne’s “Mr. Dooley” character, the 19^th Century Chicago Sout’ Side bartender who told us, “politics ain’t beanbag.”

Meaning it was played for keeps, with the people succeeding the most being the ones capable of fighting it out. Which is what I’m sure Trump thinks he’s doing every time he concocts another insipid tweet on his Twitter account to try to motivate the segment of the masses who actually enjoy this Age of Trump we now live in.

Should we fight back against Trump?

Could it be the difference between Trump and a legitimate political leader is that the former president had ideas – or in the case of Bush knew when to trust more knowledgeable people and defer to their better judgment. Would Mr. Dooley today think our problem is that we need to aggressively fight back against The Donald?

As opposed to the current chief executive who seems determined to have our society think he’s a one-man governmental show; which to my mindset is about as legitimate as a one-man band is to music – usually a whole lot of noise that’s ridiculously out-of-tune.

OF COURSE, I suspect most people will little remember anything either Bush or Obama said. The “quote” of the day seems to come from McCain’s daughter, Meghan, when she said, “the America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

Either that, or perhaps they will focus their attention on another former president. Bill Clinton, along with former first lady, senator, secretary of state AND presidential hopeful Hillary, were at the funeral services in Detroit held for legendary soul singer Aretha Franklin.

That might seem like the more significant event, compared to the McCain services that I’m sure the Trump fanatics will be determined to think of as a gathering of people out-of-touch with the common man.

Will Meghan get more support now from fans of The View?

Truly evidence that the Trump-types are off living in their own world, and who want the rest of us to be forced to live in it with them while in a subservient position.

  -30-

Political arrogance from our presidents! or, Who’s the bigger boob?

It’s got the potential to be the ultimate loaded politically partisan question – who is the bigger nitwit these days; Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump?

TRUMP: Finds self 'not guilty'

Both men, it would appear, have something of a disconnect with the real world, what with the way they are trying to dismiss the criticisms they often get hit with from the public.

IN THE CASE of the incumbent president, Trump is attacking those people who want to see the special counsel Russia probe into his conduct take him down. Which isn’t the least bit surprising.

But Trump is tying this issue in with the concept of all the pardons he has talked about issuing, saying that if conditions really became dire for him, he could easily issue a pardon for himself.

“As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong.” Or so wrote Trump on his Twitter account (and people seriously wonder why I think of the president as the ‘Twit who Tweets’).

For it seems that our president truly thinks he can run the nation (and possibly, the world) in the same way he ran The Trump Organization – barking out orders and expecting minions to carry them out, unquestioned.

OF COURSE, BACK in those days, Trump was running a company that erected gaudy buildings and garish casinos – meaning Trump’s reckless behavior really didn’t impact anybody.

Now, Trump is in a position to do great harm – and he wants to have the right to wave away any moments when he chooses to cut through the red tape in inappropriate ways.

Hence, he thinks he can pardon himself. Even though one of his attorneys (former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani) himself publicly questioned whether Trump should think in terms of using such authority.

CLINTON: Tired of talking about Monica

Think of it this way. Former President Richard Nixon, who had to resign the presidency to avoid impeachment by Congress, had to count on his successor to grant him a pardon to avoid any conviction and incarceration – whom his biggest critics desperately wanted to see happen.

EVEN NIXON DIDN’T think he had a right to pardon himself to make his “Watergate” critics shut up. Even he realized that such an overbearing act would backfire ever so badly.

Think of the presidential clemency authority in these terms. How outraged would the people who are now Trump’s biggest backers have been if former President Bill Clinton had tried to avoid the whole impeachment debacle of 1998 by issuing himself a pre-emptive pardon.

Impeachment was definitely an ideologue act back then, and the people who pushed for his removal from office were doing so for the wrong reasons. But listening to Clinton now get upset when people bring up his behavior with a White House intern and compare it to actions of sexual harassment against other women sounds as ridiculously self-righteous as anything Trump has ever said.

“I dealt with it 20 years ago,” Clinton said during an interview with NBC and “The Today Show,” adding, “I’ve tried to do a good job since then, and with my life and with my work.”

PERSONALLY, I’VE ALWAYS thought that the appropriate judge for Clinton’s behavior back then was his wife. If Hillary had wanted to take it out on him publicly and ruin him, she should have been granted permission to do so.

NIXON: Pardoning self for Watergate?

The fact that she is able to get past this ought to be a sign for the rest of us. Except for those ideologues whose real hang-up is that Clinton ever got elected in the first place, and that they were unable to defeat him at the polling place.

Just as it kind of seems like Trump wants to erase the fact that some 3 million more people in this country wanted a Hillary Clinton presidency instead of him.

So does Bill Clinton owe an apology to Monica Lewinsky? Maybe! Although I’d say that Trump owes the nation a greater apology for his gaudy behavior that embarrasses the nation as a whole.

  -30-

Which way will Rahm swing in upcoming election for aldermanic post?

I always thought one of the most humorous predicaments ever faced in electoral politics was that by Rahm Emanuel back during the 2008 election cycle.

EMANUEL: Political predicament reminiscent of '08

But watching the circumstances that are developing in advance of the 2019 elections for municipal office – including the seats on the Chicago City Council, make me wonder if Emanuel is going to face an equally-difficult predicament.

AT STAKE IS the 30^th Ward aldermanic post – one that represents a heavily-Latino ward Northwest, and one currently represented by Alderman Ariel Reboyras.

Reboyras, who chairs the council’s Public Safety committee, has developed a reputation as an alderman as a political supporter of the mayor. To the point where some people are inclined to think he’s “too close” to Emanuel, and that perhaps the ward and its residents would be better off with someone else.

That seems to be the line of logic that Jessica Washington Gutierrez plans to use in her efforts to challenge Reboyras in the Feb. 26 non-partisan elections.

So who will Emanuel side with when it comes to the election? Standard political logic says he backs the incumbent, particularly one who has been as loyal to Emanuel as Reboyras has been.

REBOYRAS: Thinks he's earned Rahm's backing

BUT THEN WE run into the complicating factor, Gutierrez is the daughter of soon-to-be retired Congressman Luis Gutierrez.

Luis would love it if his family were to become a part of that oldest of Chicago political traditions of multi-generations holding electoral office. Particularly since Luis himself was once an alderman back in the days of Harold Washington as mayor.

Luis also has become an Emanuel supporter in recent years – taking actions that helped bolster Rahm’s re-election chances the last election cycle in 2015. I don’t doubt he figures that the mayor owes him in the form of support of his daughter’s political aspirations.

So who does Rahm Emanuel wind up siding with? Or more important, who does he decide it will hurt him less to piss off?

Can Jessica's father gain her aldermanic seat?

REBOYRAS ON MONDAY said he thinks he has done enough to be entitled to the mayor’s support – and the financial support his campaign would receive from the mayor’s campaign coffers.

Which would mean squatting all over the aspirations of Jessica Gutierrez – who is engaging in her first political campaign and will try to feed off the votes of those people who liked Luis as their political representation and would like to see the name live on.

But does Emanuel really want to do that – particularly since it could result in having Gutierrez stir up resentment within the Latino segment of the electorate? Which could come back to bite him on the derriere.

Although several other Latino aldermen are saying they think the “right thing” for Rahm to do is stand by Reboyras. Either way, it’s going to be an Election Day headache as people will be parsing every word and action of Emanuel, even though my bet is that he’s going to go out of his way to say and do as little as possible.

JUST LIKE HE did back in the spring and summer of 2008. Remember that Hillary Clinton sought to be the Democratic nominee for president and figured she’d have the political establishment all locked up, thereby ensuring her an easy primary victory over all the other Dems who had the nerve to think they could run against her.

Would Hillary be president if Rahm backed her

Instead, we got the rise of Barack Obama, who took a few early primary victories and he wound up engaging Clinton in a brawl that dragged out all the way through the primary cycle. It wasn’t until the very end that Clinton conceded. Which put Emanuel, then a member of Congress from the Northwest Side and a former White House staffer during the Bill Clinton presidential administration in quite a political pickle.

His responses to “Obama vs. Clinton” questions were even more vague and nonsensical than the way Gov. Bruce Rauner now answers questions involving his "support" for President Donald J. Trump. Rahm didn’t come out and endorse Obama for president until the day after the final primary when Hillary herself conceded defeat.

Watching someone who, by nature, is outspoken and antagonistic as Rahm Emanuel having to keep his mouth shut was a sight to see. The idea we may get a repeat of it during coming months is something we’ll likely never forget.

  -30-

Is federal government chaos best protection for those young people with uncertain immigration status?

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly let it be known that young people brought to this country as children by their parents without valid visas shouldn’t feel threatened.

Kelly having to correct  ...

He says such people are not going to be a priority for deportation, regardless of whether or not the legal protections that were offered those individuals during the Barack Obama presidency do wind up disappearing next month due to the actions of President Donald J. Trump.

NOT THAT I believe any individuals who went to the trouble of registering with the federal government under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are going to feel the least bit relieved.

Then again, it could mean the ultimate protection for those young people who have lived the bulk of their lives is the inability of our federal government leadership to figure out what it wants to do.

It could wind up that will hold in check those individuals who seriously thought that a vote for Trump just over a year ago would wind up instant deportation of all these “foreigners” who “don’t belong here.”

That is, of course, when they were not fantasizing about their other “priority” – the instant incarceration of Hillary R. Clinton (remember chants of, “Lock her up!”?).

... his boss, Trump, so often ...

KELLY’S WORDS THIS week to reporter-types in Washington, D.C. that these “dreamers” are “not a priority for deportation” and that those individuals will be left alone so long as they avoid any criminal record and “stay out of anyone’s scope” ought to offer some comfort to those individuals who seriously wonder if the election of an ideologue who doesn’t really have a clue how government works provides a threat to their futures and the lives they’re trying to build.

But then again, it was just over two weeks ago that Kelly told members of Congress that it was likely even Trump knew his constant demands for a physical barrier be built along the U.S./Mexico border were not going to happen.

Only to have Trump himself come back and insist that it was Kelly who didn’t have a clue – and that his demands for a border wall to keep all those dreaded Mexicans out of the United States really was going to happen.

... is a sight we didn't get in the days of Rahm ...

Does this mean that tomorrow’s “story” will be Trump denouncing Kelly for once again speaking on this issue, and that all those young foreigners really are going to face deportation once the DACA protections of the Obama era expire come March 5?

COULD IT BE that this ongoing battle over the fate of a group of young people who really have done everything they can in life to assimilate to this country and merely want a bureaucratic obstacle removed from their path to complete the journey is going to be what keeps the federal government from acting?

Because I don’t believe our Congress is going to come up with a magical solution to this issue by March 5. The courts, thus far, have ruled in ways that would thwart action toward deportation.

Yet there are too many members of Congress who are determined to keep any long-term resolution of the bureaucratic mess that is our federal immigration policy from being reformed.

There are too many people whose ideological hang-ups benefit from a chaotic immigration policy. A real solution is going to include the eventual replacement of Trump as president with someone who wants to look at the issue rationally.

... advising his boss, Obama

WHICH IS A situation I must confess I don’t see occurring anytime soon. I can see a lot more irrationality occurring on the issue of immigration reform before anyone gets willing to be serious.

Until then, the safest bet for those young people whom some are determined to view as the problem (instead of political nonsense) could be the chaos itself – which could prevent any ideologically-motivated actions with long-term consequences.

And one other thought – about how absurd our federal government has become. Can anyone envision former President Obama so often being contracted by his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, for not having a clue?

  -30-

Do we really wish we still had the Obamas to kick around politically?

I’m sure for the ideologically-minded amongst us, the news of recent days has been particularly dreadful.

Most admired? Invited to royal wedding?

For Barack Obama keeps cropping up in ways that remind us he will be remembered as a respected public official, no matter how much the ideologues want to disrespect his memory.

WHILE THE CURRENT occupant of the Oval Office most likely will never be taken all that seriously – no matter how many times the ideologues rant and rage that he is the ideal of what a president ought to be.

For what it’s worth, I’m not getting too worked up over these particular news reports because I’m fully aware we’re in that time period between the holidays. It’s the end of 2017.

Anybody with sense is finding reasons to take time off. Little of significance (unless it’s dismal) will happen this week. Meaning a lot of trivia will manage to find its way into filling up space and air time for news reports this week.

So am I really getting all giddy that Prince Harry wants Obama invited to his wedding to Northwestern University alumnus Meghan Markle, and British officials are trying to urge him not to issue such an invitation out of fear that Trump will take it as a personal snub against himself?

Feeling snubbed by Brits AND Gallup?

IS IT REALLY all that interesting that Obama gave an interview to the prince who most likely is too far down the royal pecking order to become King of England? Yes, Harry has a program broadcast by the BBC, and from what I gather, the most interesting thing Obama said was that he’s still getting used to having to cope with traffic – rather than his presidential days when security would ensure the roads were cleared for his path and no one caused him a delay.

Or as the president said, “I didn’t experience traffic. I used to cause traffic.”

I could care less about presidential traffic jams. As for Trump’s ego, I don’t doubt he would find reason to take offense to an Obama invitation. Particularly since the whole purpose of a Trump presidency thus far appears to be to erase any evidence that Obama ever was the nation’s chief executive.

'16 voters AND '17 polls prefer Hillary

Which probably is what Trump’s voters most want. The ability to go into denial that they are so far removed from the mainstream of society, and that all their talk of “making America great again” is more about ensuring the exclusion of people so unlike themselves.

WHICH IS WHY I’m sure those individuals are shocked and appalled at the latest Gallup Organization study – the one that says Obama is the “Most Admired Man” in the United States. Which I’m sure is made worse by the notion that Hillary Clinton is the “Most Admired Woman.”

Because to the ideologues, it’s not so much that Trump ought to be thought of as “Most Admired,” but those two individuals are supposed to be the most repulsive examples of what our society offers. Even though to the majority of us, it’s Trump who fills that role.

Although when one looks at the figures Gallup offers, it becomes clear there is no dominant persona that our society thinks highly of.

Bush's No. 2 higher than Trump

For the second-most Admired man in our society? It’s a tie between Pope Francis and George W. Bush – which, if you think about it, may be a concept even more appalling to the Trump types than the presence of Obama.

WHILE AS FOR the women, our city’s formerly very own Oprah Winfrey came in second, while former first lady Michelle Obama finished third – in a tie with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Michelle falls right behind Oprah

As Gallup points out, this is the sixth straight year Obama has been “most admired,” which means that all of Trump’s rancid rhetoric hasn’t really diminished the strong sentiments some of us feel toward him. It just means those in support of this “Age of Trump” are just very loud about shouting out their attacks to make sure they’re overheard amongst the majority of us.

And as for Trump, he didn’t even factor into the rankings. Heck, even Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney got minimal support for “Most Admired.”

Which makes me believe all the more that Trump-ites live in their own little world, and they think the majority of us (including the Obamas) should have to live there with them in a place of subservience! Ugh!!!

  -30-

‘Give it back! as ridiculous a command from GOPers as ‘Lock her up!’

Are Durbin and Duckworth (below) ...

The Illinois Republican Party is trying to do its part to overhype the degree to which Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., is thought of as the ultimate pervert when it comes to political people, rather than Ray Moore of Alabama.

While I understand why they would engage in partisan politics on this issue (I don’t expect them to come to the defense of a Democrat), I can’t help but think of the tactic as one that reeks of absurdity.

... really obligated to give back anything?

HEARING REPUBLICANS ARGUE that Sens. Richard Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats, are obligated to get rid of any money that was raised for their campaigns through Franken’s celebrity status is just ridiculous.

Hearing them say the two should give it back is as ridiculous as a year ago when they were constantly getting themselves all worked up in frenzied chants of “Lock her up!” whenever the name of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came up.

About the only thing those chants really accomplished was angering the segment of the electorate not disposed to back Donald Trump’s presidential dreams – to the point where Trump had better hope he never actually gets caught doing anything illegal.

FRANKEN: Is he really Moore's equal?

Because you just know there will be some people inclined to show up at a future Trump sentencing and chant “Lock Him Up!” at the moment punishment is imposed.

BUT THAT SEEMS to be the way the Republicans think these days – even the ones in Illinois who like to think they’re not quite as extreme as the Trump mentality, but would have withered away into insignificance if not for the personal money of Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Is Moore really as believable ...

Which often makes me think I should clarify in copy that the “R” following the name of GOP elected officials ought to stand for Rauner Party, rather than Republican Party.

So what’s the latest issue that’s getting the Illinois Rauner Party (I’m sure seeing what happened to the entity once thought of as the “Party of Lincoln” would make Honest Abe roll over in his grave more than anything that Rod Blagojevich ever did) soiling their drawers?

... as Trump would have us think he is?

It’s the fact that Franken is not a standard issue elected official. He has a certain celebrity status that he has used to help his colleagues in politics raise money to support their campaigns.

SEVERAL OFFICIALS HAVE to admit to having received contributions from Franken – who now has a couple of women claiming he behaved in a manner that was probably worthy of the response of a slap across the face.

In the case of Durbin, who has been a D.C. public official from Illinois for 30-plus years, it comes to $21,000. Which isn’t the largest amount in the world. Although it’s tremendously huge compared to Duckworth, who only has $5,000 to account for with Franken connections.

Neither one of those amounts of money are huge. Yet that’s not the point of the Republican actions.

It’s a matter of distraction, trying to get people to think that Franken’s heterosexual behavior is worse than any of the teenage girls that Moore is now alleged to have been involved with back when he was in his early 30s (he’s now 70).

CLINTON: Will Hillary get last laugh?

THEY’D LIKE IT if people would focus attention on Franken, but would probably settle for it if they would think of him as the Democratic Party equivalent of Moore.

Which is just too ridiculous a claim to take seriously.

Now as for Durbin or Duckworth giving back money (or actually, making charitable contributions of an equal amount), I stand by my belief that doing so doesn’t mean a thing. But here’s a thought – how about looking into the financial records to see which people or groups are giving campaign money to Moore, despite knowing of his proclivity for young girls?

Those people are the ones whose political and moral judgments ought to be questioned.

  -30-

Where would we be today on Vietnam?

The Vietnam War documentary on PBS ending Thursday night has had many intriguing moments through its 10 parts, but I have to admit the moment that will stick in my mind was one bit that aired Tuesday night.

The downtown Chicago memorial to the U.S. military conflict in Vietnam, just off the Chicago River. Photographs provided by Gregory Tejeda

The moment was some footage of a woman, Jan Howard of Nashville, Tenn., whose son, Jimmy, had served in the Army and been killed in combat. Anti-war activists approached her, asking for her support of their cause – figuring that she’d be grief-stricken and they could claim her son’s death was pointless.

HER REACTION, IN the video snippets, was to tell the activists that her son may have died to support their right to protest, but that she’d shoot them dead if they ever approached her again.

Why do I suspect that in this Age of Trump, there were probably some people who viewed the two-week-long documentary who cheered that woman on – and probably wish that she could turn her ire on the ballplayers who now are protesting racial issues as part of sporting events.

In some ways, we need to comprehend the societal split we endured some 50 years ago – back in the days when a large segment of the populace decided our government officials could no longer be trusted to be truthful or honorable in their conduct because of what happened in Vietnam.

One of few spots where S. Vietnam flag still flies

Because much of the societal split we now have dates back to those days. The “hawks” of the ‘60s are now the grandparents of many of the modern-day types who are touting the rancid rhetoric of President Donald J. Trump – whom they see as leading an effort to take back U.S. society from the “doves” who opposed the war all those years ago.

THEY’RE THE BASIS of the “red” states of America, although I suspect if you had told that woman she was a “red,” she really would have pulled out that pistol and fired. She ain’t no “Commie,” she’d claim.

What always intrigues me about the societal split is the way that the divide plays out.

In the years after the war, the “right” was determined to believe that the “hippie freaks” LOST. That anybody who had ever opposed U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was permanently discredited – a stain that only the passage of time would wash away. The election of Ronald Reagan as president, followed up by the elder George Bush, reinforced that thought.

No dog poop in Chicago's Vietnam memorial

Which is why I always felt that Bill Clinton (and his mouthy bride Hillary) was despised so much by the right. If their theory were true, neither one of them should ever have had a life in the public eye. Yet Bill Clinton gained the presidency, while Hillary had a quarter of a century in the public eye, and came dangerously close (in their eyes) to winning the White House as well.

THE FACT THAT we got a Barack Obama presidency in the mix only further reinforces the notion that the left-leaning individuals of back then are not tainted for life – and in fact have left their mark on our society for the better. A reality that the Trumpites of our time wish they could undo.

Chicago relics of the Vietnam era

When U.S military interests pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, the hopes were that a split status would evolve – a North Vietnam of Communist leanings and a South Vietnam allied with the western world. Similar to what became of the two Koreas. It didn’t happen – the North stormed its way in and took the South two years later.

Although I have to admit that such a notion of a split Vietnam continuing to this day carries a bit of scariness. If you think about it, would we really want a North Korea-like nation in existence – one that would be all too eager to ally itself with Kim Jong Un’s constant threats to resume the Korean War of the early 1950s against the United States?

Which may be a “fight” that the “right” may be yearning for – a chance to undo a military stalemate and turn it into a “win!” Even though sane people have more sensible things to focus attention on.

NOW I DON’T know how all this would play out, if it were to happen. Much of the reason the anti-war movement became so intense was because of the practical fear of many to not want to get killed in combat. Maybe they had enough going for themselves in life that they wouldn’t view the thought of a medal awarded posthumously as a worthy accomplishment.

Nowadays, we have a volunteer military that makes it likely that everybody in service feels they’re gaining something of benefit to themselves. I don’t see the uprisings – except perhaps from the “right” who wish they could create John Wayne-like images for a modern-day military conflict.

PBS shows Howard still upset w/ anti-war movement

USA Today recently had a graphic on their website explaining the concept of the draft lottery that used to exist, and let people see for themselves how likely they would have been to be called to duty – in my case, my birthday was number 11 in the lottery, which means I would have had to scramble for a worthy excuse for a deferment to avoid active duty. Of course, I was only 5 back in 1970 – nobody called on me in reality.

But in my family’s case, I have two uncles who served in the military during Vietnam – one volunteered for the Marine Corps while another was drafted into the Army. Both saw their share of combat activity, but managed to come back in one physical piece – an accomplishment that I’m sure Howard would have wished for her son.

  -30-