Chicago out-conned by Rio de Janeiro?

For all the rhetoric we hear about how venal and corrupt the inherent character of Chicago truly is, I couldn’t help but wonder if the real problem is that our city is run by a batch of goo-goos.

The 'games' that never were

It was the thought that popped into my head when I read reports about the bribery and corruption that is being alleged, tied to the decision more than a decade ago to stage the 2016 Summer Olympic games in Rio de Janiero.

THE OFFICIAL RHETORIC was that the International Olympic Committee decided it was FINALLY time to stage an Olympics in a city south of the equator.

But now, we have a former governor of Rio saying he paid the U.S. equivalent of over $2 million to committee members in order to ensure they voted for Rio over any of the other cities around the world that were competing for those games.

In short, bribes were paid. The process was rigged.

Now how truthful should we think all of this is? Well there’s the fact that former Governor Sergio Cabral already is convicted of criminal acts and is serving a lengthy prison term – at 200 years, it is one he may never be free from.

SO WHAT REASON would Cabral have to lie? It seems he has nothing to gain, or lose, by coming forth now with the testimony he offered in court last week. Or it could be the ultimate reason – political revenge.

There are other officials who will have trials coming up soon – and this could be a desire on his part to take down those officials to make them suffer the same fate that he is now enduring.

Daley's soul supposedly too black, but … 

Attorneys for those officials, by the way, claim it’s all trash-talk on Cabral’s part. He’s got no proof! Or so they say.

Now how is any of this the least bit relevant – or interesting – to those of us in Chicago? It’s because those 2016 Olympic Games were the ones that then-Mayor Richard M. Daley was determined to bring to the Second City. Remember the plans for a stadium to be temporarily erected in Washington Park?

REMEMBER THE GLOBAL battles between Tokyo, Madrid, Rio and Chicago? Remember the sentiment that this was a fight for Chicago to win so as to show our global dominance?

… was Hizzoner really too honest to prevail?

Remember the thousands of people gathered in Daley Plaza on that date in 2009 when the Olympic site was chosen – with fanatics chanting “We’re Number Four” (Chicago’s place on the four-city ballot) only to be suddenly silenced when it was learned that Chicago’s bid was the first to be knocked out of the running.

We really were number four – in terms of actually getting those games. The visions of Barack Obama presiding over an Olympics held in his home city turned out to be fantasy.

Mayor Daley was so disgusted by the city’s failure to win the Olympic games that the city has pretty much given up on attracting the International sports scene. It’s a large part of the reason why the 2026 World Cup tourney for soccer will be played partially in the United States – yet none of the matches will be held in Chicago.

EVEN RAHM EMANUEL had enough of the bad aftertaste to not want to bother with the international sports scene.

But now, we hear the whole thing may well have been rigged. We may well have lost that political fight to Rio de Janeiro because we weren’t corrupt enough. As in maybe we would have attracted the Olympic games and all the international attention that Daley wanted to bring to Chicago if only we were as corrupt as some of the political ideologues would want to insist we are.

The 'facility' that never became!

Not that I’m claiming we in Chicago should have loosened up our wallets and come up with more cash than the International Olympic Committee demanded from the Brazilians.

But it makes me wonder how much those ideologues are choking on their rhetoric at the notion that Chicago was out-corrupted by somebody else. And that it may well have been a Daley who got out-hard-balled politically for being too honest.

  -30-

Lightfoot fantasizes about dumping city parking meter deals – but can she?

It’s not unheard of (in fact, it’s all too common) for government officials to “talk tough” about things they’d like to be able to do – but truthfully would have to admit they don’t have a shot in Hades of making reality.

Haven't parked here in years, even though I used to work right next door

So it’s with that attitude in mind that I regard Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot’s talk on Wednesday that she wants to undo the parking meter deal.

YOU KNOW, THE one where the city (back in the final days of Mayor Daley, the younger) sold the rights to operate parking meters on city streets to a private entity.

City government managed to blow through the payment that Chicago Parking Meters LLC pretty quickly, but that firm still has 65 years to go on the 75-year lease they signed with Chicago.

Meaning there are still decades for them to make big bucks off their one-time investment. Which also means many more lifetimes for Chicago residents to pay ridiculous rates if they wish to park their cars within the city limits – without running the risk of having their cars towed away with even-more ridiculously-absurd fines implemented for one to reclaim their car, if they so wish.

So Lightfoot, who officially becomes mayor on Monday, would certainly be speaking to the choir of Chicago residents who’d love it if somebody could undo the parking meter deal.

LIGHTFOOT TOLD THE Chicago Sun-Times, “the fact that they’ve already made their money 10 or 15 years into (the deal) underscores that it was not a good deal for the taxpayers.”

Which has the mayor saying she wants to study the issue further. “I feel an obligation to take a look at that and see if we can craft a better strategy for taxpayers,” she says.

It would be nice if she could accomplish something along those lines.

But the reality is that the business entity has an agreement with the city – one that has managed to stand up to scrutiny in the courts, with the support of soon-to-be former Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

IT COULD TURN out that for Chicago to get out of the parking meter deal it has now, they’d have to be prepared to give up something of even more value to the company that’s getting rich off our parking meter fees.

Can we afford to buy our way out of one stupid deal by making an even more atrocious one?

Seriously, for all we complain about the need for more revenue to maintain city government services, it is galling to think that in 2018 alone, the parking meter system in Chicago generated some $132.7 million.

That’s real money that could have been put to use by the city. Instead of letting it slip away to a private interest.

SO LET’S HEAR it for Lightfoot, if she can actually achieve something along these lines. Not that I’m getting my hopes up. I’m not counting on any significant change any time in my lifetime (which already has lasted just over a half-century).

LIGHTFOOT: A parking hero? Or cheap talk?

Personally, I use public transportation whenever traveling anywhere within Chicago – particularly if it involves going anywhere in the downtown business district that entails the Loop.

I used to have parking garages where I’d like to leave a car on the occasions I had to go there, and I used to consider them a pricey luxury. I remember one time I had to park my car in a garage for one week every weekday. I was outraged by the $55 the experience cost me.

But then I think of the last time I drove downtown – and parking my car cost me $34 for making the mistake of not getting back to my car within one hour. An experience that turned me into a pedestrian, and I’m not convinced that Lightfoot will be able to do much of anything to change that during my lifetime.

  -30-

Just why shouldn’t Trump finances be scrootin’ed the way IRS does for us?

TRUMP: On tax issue, nunya bizness is his 'tude

Monday was Tax Day, and some 50 million U.S. taxpayers (about one-sixth of the nation) waited until the deadline before filing their returns that acknowledge just how much they need to “pay up” to the guv’mint!

Yes, I must confess, I was amongst them. I made my trek to the post office Monday morning to ensure my envelopes to the Internal Revenue Service and Illinois Department of Revenue got the necessary postmarks confirming I met the April 15 deadline.

NOW BECAUSE I’M working the freelance routine, I’m constantly checking my mailbox for checks – none of which have any money withheld for taxes.

Meaning that for me, this is the time of year I have to acknowledge just how big my share of financial support for the state and federal governments during the past year was. And above all else, I have to PAY UP!

My share isn’t significant. Our nation certainly isn’t going to pay off its debts based off what I provide them.

Although it’s like the thoughts of one-time Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen, who once said, “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

WHICH IS A thought we should keep in mind when our political people quibble over whether President Donald Trump ought to publicly disclose his own income tax returns.

DIRKSEN: A million here, a million there … 

Unlike most contemporary politicos, Trump has steadfastly refused to make his returns public – taking an attitude that’s something along the lines of “none of your business!”

Although I suspect that Trump’s real reason for so stubbornly refusing to let us see his returns – when putting together my own return this year, I couldn’t help but note the many potential tax write-offs that are available to certain people.

The write-offs that make it possible for them to significantly reduce the amount of their overall income that gets taxed. With some people being able to write off so much that they essentially wind up owing the government nothing.

IT WOULDN’T SHOCK me to learn that the roughly one-quarter I owed in taxes this year of the just under $16,000 I earned as a freelance writer during 2018 would be a larger share than what Trump has paid out.

DALEY: Scrootin'ed?

I’m also sure that the average U.S. taxpayer has an income situation closer to mine than to anything resembling the Trumpster. Which means keeping this issue low-key is more about Trump trying to keep the public from realizing how different he is from they are.

We hear talk from Trump about how his business finances are under audit and he doesn’t want to interfere with any IRS review being done. I think it’s more about him being arrogant enough to think it’s none of our business.

Because if it were our business, we’d have the kind of finances that would make us eligible for all kinds of tax write-offs. Since we don’t, he probably thinks we’re just financial chumps – but certainly doesn’t want it publicly known that he truly regards us as peons.

IT WILL BE interesting to see if House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has any luck in swaying the IRS in releasing the past six years worth of Trump’s returns. Or will the IRS conclude that this is merely a Democratic effort at playing partisan politics against the president.

NEAL: Will he get Trump taxes?

We’ll have to see just how much scrutiny our officials want to have done on our president.

Which actually reminds me of the 2001 moment when then-Mayor Richard M. Daley spoke of the concept, saying, “What else do you want? Do you want to take my shorts? Give me a break. How much scrutiny do you want to have? Go scrutinize yourself. I get scrootin’ed every day.”

Perhaps what we really need is for Trump to be scrootin’ed by the masses to make this issue go away. Just like the rest of us are submitting our own finances to by the IRS.

  -30-

EXTRA: History WAS made; with a pathetically-low vote turnout for mayor

There are going to be the people who will spew about the term “historic” to describe Tuesday’s mayoral run-off election – the one that saw a black woman (who also happens to be openly gay) get elected mayor of Chicago.

LIGHTFOOT: Now Herhonor-elect

Which does make us the largest U.S. city to have a chief executive who falls into those categories.

THERE ALSO ARE those who are going to see the roughly 3-1 voter ratio by which Lori Lightfoot defeated Toni Preckwinkle and they’re going to spew out the term “mandate”—as in implying her voter margin is so large that her election reflects the mood of the people. Such as the sentiment that Donald Trump fantasizes he has amongst a majority of the American people at-large.

As in people ought to feel an obligation to go along with Lightfoot’s political desires. As in going against Lightfoot somehow shows one just can’t get with the program. They need to accept her.

It is true that, with some two-thirds of the votes tallied Tuesday, Lightfoot had 74 percent of the mayoral vote – compared to 26 percent of people voting for Preckwinkle; the woman who once was considered the mayoral frontrunner.

But I’m going to admit that while some people are eager to toss out the terms “historic” and “mandate” on the Election Night, the term that keeps coming to my mind is “pathetic.”

PRECKWINKLE: Remains at County Bldg.

AS IN THE voter turnout was less than stellar.

The 2007 mayoral election that was Richard M. Daley’s last campaign may be the record low at 33 percent. But Tuesday saw a 34 percent voter turnout – which as late as 5 p.m. was as low as 29 percent. It took a last-minute surge of voters in the final hours the polling places were open to prevent this so-called “historic” election from being a record-low in terms of voter apathy.

EMANUEL: One more month as mayor

Which, by the way, was the same percentage we saw for the Feb. 26 election that reduced the 14 mayoral candidates down to the two finalists. Basically, two of every three people who were registered to vote decided they couldn’t be bothered.

Which really is odd because of the fact that the reason Rahm Emanuel chose not to seek a third term in office was because he supposedly sensed that the electorate wanted him gone. Could it really be that they likely would have been too apathetic to do much of anything to remove him from office?

  -30-

EXTRA: Daley concedes; a fem win

William Daley conceded defeat late Tuesday, resulting in an apparent victory by Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and one-time federal prosecutor and Chicago Police Board member Lori Lightfoot as the top two vote-getters for a mayoral run-off election to be held April 2.

THOMPSON: The Daley family winner

Some already are getting excited at the very thought that Chicago will have its first black woman as mayor -- regardless of who wins the run-off.

IT WILL BE interesting to see which of the two can prevail in a head-to-head political brawl.

Could it be Preckwinkle, who will get many of the people who were more establishment-minded and aren't anxious to see a grand shake-up of government by someone who doesn't really have any experience.

Or could it be Lightfoot, who will get the support of those people who think a grand shake-up of government is exactly what is needed.

I do have to admit one thing; it is good to see that all those dire predictions of not knowing the outcome for many days, if not weeks, failed to come true. Now we can move forward with an election process that will become a lot less confusing -- now that it's just mano a mano.

ALTHOUGH I'M SURE there are those who are saddened at the thought we're not getting another "Mayor Daley." Maybe they'll be remembering the fact that Richard M. himself lost his mayoral bid in 1983; but came back to win six years later (and we couldn't get him out of office for nearly a quarter of a century afterwards).

Either that, or maybe they'll take their pleasure from the political victory of William Daley's nephew, Patrick Daley Thompson, who continues to serve as the Bridgeport neighborhood's alderman.

  -30-

Friendly around political tables? At best, they manage to tolerate each other

Something I learned early on about dealing with government officials is that they really don’t like each other very much.

 

MENDOZA: Will she still be welcome at da Hall?

At best, they tolerate each other – particularly when there’s something to the advantage of the individual politicians. But they’re also quick to throw each other under the bus. People who think their government is a cohesive batch in cahoots with each other really are missing the point.

THAT CONCEPT COULDN’T have been made more obvious by anybody who happened to watch the WTTW-TV mayoral forum held earlier this week – the one in which Susana Mendoza, currently the Illinois state comptroller, made it clear she’s not all that united with her Democratic Party partisan colleagues.

Even though the Mendoza background is clearly one of somebody who managed to work her way through the legislative and City Hall ranks to get to her current position of running for mayor, she was quick to dump on everybody in sight.

Particularly that of mayoral opponent William Daley and his “first family” of Chicago politics.

I couldn’t help but chuckle at the point in which Mendoza was vehemently lambasting the youngest of all the Daley sons for the infamous deal involving Chicago parking meters.

 

Mendoza managed to attack both William ... 

THE ONE IN which management of the downtown parking meters was leased off to a private company, which will operate them for 99 years. Meaning the city isn’t getting any of the proceeds from those ridiculously-high rates you pay every time you stick your credit cards into the modern devices that replaced the old parking meters you’d dump change into.

It was Mayor Richard M. Daley who negotiated that deal, which Mendoza openly accused brother Bill of having helped to put together.

“It was good business for your family, but it was terrible business for Chicagoans,” Mendoza shrieked. “That’s about as big a lie as you telling Chicagoans right now that you were not a key adviser to your brother during his key caretaker years as mayor.

 

… and Richard M. Daley

“Of course you were,” she said. Which may well be true, since the man who advised Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign and served a stint as chief of staff to Barack Obama as president reached those levels because of his experience advising the family on electoral matters.

BUT FOR MENDOZA to come out so bluntly in making such an accusation was, to say the least, over-the-top.

Particularly because Mendoza is one who has become a part of the political establishment. Not the kind who spouts off the activist-type rhetoric about how corrupt everybody was.

This was the woman who, during the candidate forum, was called out for having her wedding ceremony officiated by Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke – the spouse of long-time Alderman Edward M. Burke, who these days faces allegations from federal investigators of criminal behavior.

Mendoza takes her shots at Toni, … 

To which Mendoza offers up explanations of how she has had to work with various people in politics, even if she didn’t quite agree with everything they did or said.

IN ALL, IT means Mendoza likely is engaging in many acts of rhetorical suicide that will cost her political friendships and alliances. It’s kind of reminiscent of the 1992 election cycle between congressmen Bill Lipinski and Marty Russo – who used to regard themselves as close friends, until they got pitted against each other.

The politicking got personal, and the friendship withered away.

… while both are distancing self from Burke

Likely to happen this time between Mendoza and the Daleys, or the Burkes, or Toni Preckwinkle (who claimed this week she's never truly been allied with the Burkes) or countless other Democrats – whom, of course, the Republican ideologues will insist on saying are really in cahoots with each other.

Because spewing out trash talk about all Democrats being in a cabal with each other is easier for them to understand than the reality – that the egos and self-interest often cause them to dump all over each other in the most petty of political manners.

  -30-

Police replacement a political perk of winning, holding elective office

It’s one of the perks of being elected mayor of any community – you get the power to have your very own uniformed, professional law enforcement type as your police chief, and that chief is totally susceptible to your whims.

JOHNSON: Politics puts job on the line

Whoever wins the office of mayor of Chicago come the Feb. 26 election (and likely April 2 runoff) is going to have the fate of Eddie Johnson in his/her hands. In all likelihood, the police superintendent of Chicago is likely to be unemployed shortly after the May inauguration.

IT’S JUST THE way it is. Being a police chief isn’t a lifelong appointment. It is a job you hold so long as the mayor is approving of you.

So when Toni Preckwinkle comes right out and says she’s going to replace Johnson if/when she becomes mayor, a part of me wants to credit her for being incredibly honest.

Not that I necessarily approve of the reason she has for wanting Johnson out on his keister. But at least she’s not trying to engage in some political rhetoric or high-minded doubletalk about her intentions.

These thoughts came to my mind Monday night while watching one of Preckwinkle’s many mayoral opponents on the WTTW-TV program, "Chicago Tonight." Susana Mendoza had the question put to her directly – would she be intent on picking a new police chief? And who, pray tell, could it be?

PRECKWINKLE: Wants points for firing chief

MENDOZA TRIED TO make it seem as though it is to her credit that she wouldn’t answer – offering up a high-minded rhetorical rambling about how it’s premature to be engaging in such talk about replacing public officials since she’s not actually elected mayor yet.

That sounds nice. In a certain goo-goo mentality way of thinking, it might be admirable.

Yet it also strikes me as being a load of, how shall I say it, horse hockey!

The simple fact is that a police chief post of any type is – by definition – one in which the person serves at the will of the elected official. Invariably, a new mayor brings in a new person to run the police department for them – in ways that are befitting the persona of the new mayor.

MENDOZA: Wants points for not saying

IN FACT, ONE of the few police superintendents in Chicago I’ve ever heard of who didn’t immediately get replaced upon the election of a new mayor was that of LeRoy Martin – who gained the post from Harold Washington and remained in charge of the police even after Richard M. Daley was elected in 1989.

Of course, Daley the younger wound up serving more than two decades as mayor and wound up going through his share of police superintendents after Martin retired in 1992.

The point being that it’s pretty much a sure thing that Eddie Johnson’s time as superintendent – which dates back to 2016 – will end some time next year. The new mayor is going to view having a police chief who owes their presence in the job to her/him as one of the perks of the job!

Particularly if Garry McCarthy winds up somehow winning the mayoral election. Being a former police “chief” in both Chicago (where Mayor Rahm Emanuel fired him in a move he wrongly hoped would make the “stink” over the shooting death of Laquan McDonald fizzle away) and Newark, N.J., I’m sure he’ll have strong thoughts about how his superintendent should behave – and will expect his new “top cop” to follow instructions from City Hall very closely.

AS FOR PRECKWINKLE, she’s admitting she wants to replace Johnson because she says she thinks he is a significant part of the problem in terms of the distrust a portion of the population has for the police department in Chicago.

McCARTHY: Cop turned mayor? Maybe!

“He refused to acknowledge that there was a code of silence in the police department,” Preckwinkle told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I don’t think that’s an honest statement.”

Of course, there are those who think this attitude is more evidence of Preckwinkle behaving like a political “boss,” which is exactly what they’d really like to see removed from municipal government.

Some people may even vote against Preckwinkle for this very attitude. Although if we want to be honest, Johnson’s 30-year career with the Chicago Police is likely to end in retirement – regardless of who prevails on Election Day.

  -30-

EXTRA: Would anyone have dared try to ‘term limit’ a Daley out of office?

Is it really time for Rahm to leave City Hall?

It seems to be the newest tactic amongst those people who are desperate to have Anybody But Rahm to be mayor of Chicago – a term limits proposal that would knock Rahm Emanuel off the ballot altogether for the 2019 election cycle.

It seems such an effort has been under way for the past couple of years, to limit to two, four-year terms, the amount of time anyone can hold the post of Chicago mayor.

Pat Quinn thinks so!

AND YES, THE initiative is being led by former Gov. Pat Quinn – the man who previously in political life led the drive to slash the Illinois House of Representatives from 177 members to 118. On the logic that we really didn’t need so many people running around the Statehouse grounds calling themselves legislators.

So yes, Quinn is just the type who likes to do radical things that shake up the way we perceive our local government.

The “cutback” amendment seriously altered the way our state Legislature operated – and some are convinced not for the better (it did reduce the number of Chicago Republicans and rural Democrats who serve in office).

So I’m sure Quinn isn’t going to be swayed by any arguments about letting the people pick whom they want for office – rather than telling them certain people can no longer hold office.

How would Daley have reacted, ...

THE FACT THAT Richard J. Daley served into a sixth four-year term in office (it took the Grim Reaper to remove him from government) and his son wound up holding the post for just over 22 years (deciding to retire finally instead of seeking a seventh term in office) is something I’m sure Chicagoans think of as a plus.

While I know there are some who think both of those men served at City Hall far too long (and would probably dread it when the next generation of the Daley family produces a mayoral candidate), I’m also sure there are others who will be quick to dismiss those people as malcontents.

And also most likely claim that Quinn is trying to revive his political aspirations by banding together the malcontents into a sizable voter bloc.

... or his son, to anybody daring to suggest term limits

After all, if the people really were anxious to have Quinn back in office, they never would have dumped him as governor in 2014 or might have actually given him the Democratic nomination to run for Illinois attorney general come the Nov. general election.

PERSONALLY, I’M ALL for letting voters decide for themselves who they want to have in office. If the outcry against Emanuel getting a third term as mayor is really so strong, then he will fail to win in the 2019 election cycle.

If it turns out that the assortment of egomaniacal would-be politicos talking about running against Rahm next year has a legitimate mayoral contender, then that person will prevail against Emanuel in a real election.

Knocking out Emanuel by term-limiting him would seem to give us a new mayor from amongst the mediocrities that thus far have lined up to take on Emanuel.

It seems like people think the only way Emanuel can be beaten is to not have him run. Which I don’t consider a plus for the Chicago electorate.

ALTHOUGH I ALSO have to admit to being skeptical anything will become of the term limits proposal. It will take 52,000 valid signatures of support to put such a referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot – where if it passes it would then take effect for the 2019 election cycle.

Repeal term limits if Daley-Thompson ever runs for mayor?

Quinn admits he figures he’s going to need about 100,000 signatures of support to ensure the idea can successfully fight off the inevitable legal challenges that the critics will pursue.

But Quinn, according to assorted published reports, only has about 50,000 signatures, which took him two years to compile. Can he really get 50,000 more within the next couple of months – the deadline for the Nov. 6 elections?

Or would Quinn have a better chance of making himself relevant in the mayoral cycle by trying to run himself for the post against Emanuel and the others – including Paul Vallas, the man who tried to resurrect his own political aspirations by being Quinn’s running mate back in ’14?

  -30-

Valerie Jarrett makes the news by not putting foot in mouth, unlike Roseanne

Valerie Jarrett has quite the life story – a former advisor to mayors Harold Washington and Richard M. Daley. A senior adviser during the presidency of Barack Obama.

Roseanne tried to insult Valerie Jarrett, ...

She’s even a former chairwoman of the Chicago Transit Board (which oversees all those CTA trains and buses) and also has held positions on several corporate boards. She even is the first female student to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That’s a lot more accomplishment than most people achieve in life.

... but wound up trashing herself instead

YET LET’S BE honest. There’s a good chance that in the eyes of the general public, Jarrett is going to be noted as significant for the fact that she took down the career of one Roseanne.

And she didn’t have to do anything directly – only conduct herself with more sophistication than the actress/comedian who seems to want to think she’s the voice of all those people who think Donald Trump represents “real Americans.”

Now keep in mind that it isn’t the least bit unusual for people to use social media accounts such as Twitter to spout out stupid things.

Will 'Roseanne'  rerun rep become as tainted ...

Which is what Roseanne did when she posted a little blurb Tuesday where she managed to use less than 50 characters (much less than the 140 maximum permitted) to defame Jarrett.

AS ROSEANNE PUT it, “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” It’s not at all uncommon for bigots to make wisecracks comparing black people to apes. Some people just have a proclivity for saying something stupid.

But when people tried responding to Roseanne by calling her out on her ignorance, she initially tried responding that calling someone “muslim” isn’t racist and that the whole thing was intended to be a joke.

As though it’s the fault of others who want to call out bigotry. Either that, or else Roseanne is like many other ideological nitwits who think that freedom of speech only applies to themselves and that NO ONE is permitted to respond.

... as "The Cosby Show" rep?

Even though the concept really means we all can retort to each other until our minds are all worn out.

BUT THE OUTCRY became intense enough that Roseanne felt compelled to send out a final twit saying, “I apologize.” While also saying she was through with Twitter.

Not good enough, as ABC has said they’re cancelling Roseanne’s self-named comedy program. The one that gave her a television legacy some two decades ago and which she attempted a reboot this year.

That reboot actually finished up its first comeback season last week and had network executives convinced she was going to be a significant part of next TV season’s programming lineup.

That is, until Tuesday afternoon, when ABC officials decided that the outcry over Roseanne’s Twitter account was so intense that they’d just as soon cancel her. Several of the Roseanne cast members are now going out of their way to distance themselves from her gag. Its very likely that when Roseanne dies and her obituary is written, this will wind up being a significant moment – perhaps even the lede.

Life's lesson; 'Planet of Apes' gags are lame

CAREER SUICIDE IN a matter of hours. And for the record, Jarrett only referred to the incident as "a teaching moment," admitting she benefits from many people willing to come to her defense. Comparable to the way some perceive a level of class and sophistication the Obama years gave our society, compared to this Age of Trump we’re now in.

Not that Jarrett needs to say anything against Roseanne. Why help your critic by doing or saying anything that detracts from their own stupidity?

The sad thing is that the show’s producers tried to make some comedic hay out of the fact that Roseanne herself is a Trump backer and might actually become a way of putting a more positive spin on those people.

Yet did Roseanne unintendedly wind up showing us a real truth with her so-called sense of humor? Which, for those of us who feel a sense of shame that anybody in our society finds these days appealing, makes this incident the ultimate punchline for use against the Trump-ites.

  -30-

What do Daley, Blagojevich have in common -- gaps in the official images

I’m sure that Richard M. Daley and Rod Blagojevich would shudder at the thought of having even the slightest thing in common.

DALEY: Doesn't want picture to be a big deal

But it seems they do – both men are lacking in images of themselves on display at the official government buildings where they both were once bosses.

IT HAS LONG been noted that the Hall of Governors at the Statehouse in Springfield is missing an official portrait of Blagojevich – who was governor of Illinois for six years.

But the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday reported how there is no official photograph on display of the younger Daley as part of a presentation at City Hall of all the men who have been mayors of Chicago.

David Orr, the county clerk and former alderman, gets his photograph up there to acknowledge his six-day stint as mayor in between the death of Harold Washington and the coming of Eugene Sawyer. But Daley, the man who is now the longest-serving mayor ever (22 years) is not to be seen.

As reported by the newspaper, the city has a photograph on hand that could be put in a picture frame and hung on the wall. It also seems the attitude of the Daley family is they want city officials to just go ahead and hang the damn picture already.

BUT CURRENT MAYOR Rahm Emanuel wants to make a big production out of the event. Have a ceremony, with the mayor present and probably his family too.

The Daleys at City Hall again likely would become a big event. One that would distract, for a time being, from the problems of city government of the day.

You want to talk about the Chicago Public Schools or pensions for city workers? Look at the pretty picture of Richard M. instead! Maybe we’ll be told that we’re somehow honoring the history of our fair city.

BLAGOJEVICH: Does anybody care his portrait lacking

I can’t help but think that Daley has the right idea in thinking it’s just a photograph – and probably not one that he specifically posed for to be used on this wall. It probably would be one of the official headshots that he used back when HE was the man working in his father’s old office on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.

IT’S NOT LIKE the official gubernatorial portraits that hang in the Hall of Governors, and where there is a specific reason why Blagojevich’s six-year term as governor is not acknowledged.

Governors, after they leave office, are supposed to do the fund-raising to pay for the thousands of dollars it can cost for a formal portrait oil painting. Blagojevich blew what money he had on his legal efforts to keep from being convicted and sent to prison.

I expect as he copes with life in prison (he has seven more years to go on his sentence), the last thing he cares about is whether or not his portrait ever hangs in a government building in Springfield – a city he went out of his way to avoid when he was governor.

I also doubt that anybody with any desire to maintain an image of respectability for themselves is going to feel compelled to take up the cause of a portrait for Blagojevich.

THEY’LL PROBABLY DISMISS any arguments about the need for historical accuracy by including Blagojevich as being high-minded hooey!

We’ll probably have to wait until the day comes when Pat Quinn finally presents his official portrait to the state to have an addition to the Hall of Governors. And even that action may not occur any time in the near future.

And as time continues to pass, it is likely that people will care less and less that there are “gaps” in these official displays of the people who have been the chief executives of our government.

Could we wind up forgetting outright our city’s longest-serving mayor and the one governor we ever thought so little of that we removed him from office through impeachment? If the Cubs could win last year’s World Series, anything’s possible!

  -30-

EXTRA: Gov. Gridlock? It doesn’t have the same panache as “Gov. No.”

To listen to the communications director for Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Gov. Bruce Rauner is now “Gov. Gridlock.”
 

Rauner as 'Gov. Gridlock'...

The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday how Adam Collins has coined the new nickname for the governor, in response to Rauner saying he will veto a measure the Illinois Legislature approved to try to salvage two city worker pension programs.

NOT THAT RAUNER’S reaction ought to be surprising. He’s willing to play politics with the measure desired by many city officials who see the need for state assistance with regards to the pension issue.

 

... falls behind Jim Edgar's 'Gov. No'

Then again, coming up with that kind of nickname surely shows the willingness of Chicago Dems to take on some partisanship of their own.

It reminds me of the days of old some two decades ago, back when the idea of city and state officials feuding meant Richard M. Daley taking on Jim Edgar – who got the nickname “Gov. No.” In response to the notion that Edgar’s automatic reaction to anything desired by the city was “No.”

Although it also brought up the James Bond-ian image of Dr. No – the evil villain who plotted to undermine the Project Mercury program into space, only to be saved by British agent 007 himself.

NOT THAT I ever thought of Edgar as being reminiscent of the evil villain portrayed by actor Joseph Wiseman. Or Daley as anyway like a British intelligence agent – unless you mean like in an Austin Powers-type world of ridiculous parody.

But it did have a punchiness to the nickname; a certain ring to it.

Rauner's nickname doesn't bring to mind cinematic images

To where I must confess that my first reaction to learning that Rauner now had a nickname was to compare it to that of Edgar – whom I suspect would resent being compared to Rauner on every level.

Because Edgar was a lifelong state government person to whom getting a chance to put together the state budget was the whole point of the job – and not just an excuse to play political games.

  -30-