Will Lightfoot make deferential gestures to Mr. Speaker to get along?

Just a thought about what the relations will be like in coming years between Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and the almighty and powerful Speaker of the Illinois House – Michael Madigan.

MADIGAN: Makes conciliatory remarks

It’s probably going to be up to Lightfoot on whether she desires an antagonistic relationship with “Mr. Speaker” himself!

IF SHE IS willing to show gestures indicating that he’s the guy of prominence within Illinois state government, it would be likely that Madigan would give support to the city’s needs and desires.

Of course, one possible key is that many of the people who were inclined to vote for Lightfoot and view her mayoral election as a moment of great historic significance likely are the same people who wish that Madigan somehow could be voted out of office.

I don’t doubt that at least a few of Lightfoot’s followers eagerly would want her to be hostile and do whatever she can to undermine his political influence.

If that happens, we’re going to see a political relationship that will sour quickly – and will make us think of the “good ol’ days” (heavy sarcasm intended) when people like Bruce Rauner and Rod Blagojevich were in positions of authority.

THIS ISSUE IS coming to the forefront because Lightfoot – although she won’t actually be mayor until mid-May, is making her first trip to the Statehouse Scene in Springfield.

LIGHTFOOT: Will she retort in kind?

She’s expected to be there until Thursday, although Madigan felt the need to issue a statement Tuesday welcoming her (sort of) to the capital city.

“I’m proud to welcome Mayor-elect Lightfoot to a Capitol where women, people of color and members of the LGBTQ community (Illinois House Majority leader Greg Harris is openly gay) are serving in critical leadership roles within the Illinois House Democratic caucus,” Madigan said.

I don’t doubt he’s being sincere, in that he wants all of those groups of people to not view him with hostility. As to whether or not he really believes in Lightfoot as mayor, that remains to be seen. But as long as he doesn’t view her as “the enemy,” perhaps she won’t view him that way either.

IT SHOULD BE noted that Madigan publicly always acknowledges the significance of Chicago’s interests in defining his job. I remember back to the days of Richard M. Daley as mayor when Madigan would always downplay talk of his own political power by saying that the mayor was the number one Democratic political official.

PRITZKER: Says he'll get along fine with Lightfoot

In theory, he’s giving Lightfoot the same treatment – respecting her new job title. Will Lightfoot return the gesture?

I couldn’t help but notice comments she made recently to WTTW-TV where she talked of “not wanting to be part of the (Democratic) party apparatus,” and also hinted that perhaps Madigan has held his dual role as Illinois Democratic chairman (since 1998) for too long.

“I respect the speaker, but I believe in term limits,” Lightfoot said – a line that likely will appease the North lakefront crowd that was the base of her voter support this month but had to have Madigan and his loyalists seething deep inside.

SO WE’LL HAVE to see just what kind of relationship Lightfoot is able to create with the state government officials. For what it’s worth, Lightfoot had dinner last week with Gov. J.B. Pritzker at his Gold Coast neighborhood residence, and he says he thinks he’ll get along just great with the new mayor.

Political amateur Lightfoot gets introduction to Statehouse Scene

But just as we’re still waiting to see how well Pritzker and Madigan manage to co-exist, it will be equally intriguing to see how the Lightfoot/Madigan ties play out.

As Madigan said on Tuesday, “I believe Illinois is strongest when Chicago succeeds and when all are heard.” Which certainly is true enough. But it seems we’ll have to see for ourselves just how sincere he is, and how much Lightfoot is willing to put aside her own ego for the betterment of the public good.

And we’ll have to see what kind of reaction she has the first time someone puts a “horseshoe” before her, that so-called sandwich concoction many Springpatchers try to portray as a culinary delight!

  -30-

Let’s just honor everybody with statues on the Illinois capitol grounds

The “Christmas Tree bill.” It was a phrase I always particularly detested from my days back when I covered the Illinois Statehouse scene.

Do we really need Thompson ...

The term applies to a piece of legislation that gets so many people adding on their pet projects to the original idea (usually completely unrelated) – in hopes that all the other things give political support to something that might not gain political favor if it stood all on their own.

WHAT I AWAYS hated about the phrase was the cutesiness of it; as though people were trying to legitimize the idea of piling on so many unrelated items onto one bill so to force approval of something that many might detest.

But that is the reality of our government – the concept that some people feel they’re entitled to “get” something for themselves in exchange for their political votes.

If you think about it too much, it really is greedy. As well as legitimizing some fairly worthless legislation.

This was the thought that crossed my mind when I read a recent report in the State Journal-Register newspaper of Springfield – one that told of efforts to pass a bill calling for various statues to be erected on the Capitol grounds. Technically, Christmas Tree bills relate to the state budget, so this isn’t one. But it certainly shares the spirit.

... or Harold Washington along ...

THE MEASURE STARTED out with the desire by some to have a statue set up to honor the memory of one-time President Ronald Reagan. He may have lived the bulk of his life in California (and served as a governor there before moving up to the federal level).

But Reagan was born in Dixon, Ill., lived one year of his childhood in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, and attended college in Eureka, Ill. – before leaving the Land of Lincoln for an adult life elsewhere. Let’s not forget his eventual wife, Nancy, was a Chicago native (and a student at the Francis W. Parker School in Lincoln Park).

That has the ideologues amongst us determined to shove his memory down the throat of everybody. To enhance the chance that people wouldn’t vote against it for partisan reasons, there also was a suggestion that another statue be erected to the memory of Barack Obama – the one-time state senator from Hyde Park who eventually rose to the presidency.

... to get a Statehouse tribute to Obama ...

But that’s where the piling on started.

FOR IT SEEMS that some people tried suggesting a third statue – one for James R. Thompson, the man who served as Illinois governor (14 years) longer than anybody else.

That begat thoughts of honoring one-time Illinois State Federation of Labor president Reuben Soderstrom. Others tried throwing into the mix a statue of Harold Washington – a one-time state representative who eventually became Chicago’s first black mayor.

Thus far, it seems that the weight of so much bronze and/or marble is such that it is killing off the entire concept. But the legislator sponsoring the original bill told the Springfield newspaper says it’s natural to include a few extra people in the honors if it means he can get his original intent – which is to make us think of “the Gipper” himself as an Illinois native.

... or Ronald Reagan?

Even though you could argue that Reagan left us Illinoisans behind – unlike Obama, the Hawaii native, who came to us in Illinois and Chicago to achieve his greatness. Similar to Abraham Lincoln – who came to Illinois for an adult life that achieved intense success, which is why his statue on Capitol grounds occupies a prominent place up front.

BUT YOU JUST know the idea of an Obama statue solo would offend some, while others are bothered by the idea of ANY KIND of Reagan tribute.

It reminds me of when the General Assembly some two decades ago renamed a portion of Interstate 88 in the northwestern suburbs for Ronald Reagan. To get others whose memories of Reagan are less than favorable to go along, we got the renaming of the one-time Calumet Expressway for Bishop L.H. Ford. – head of the Church of God in Christ and a man of significance in certain South Side neighborhoods.

FORD: His freeway a Reagan toll road trade

Although as I remember it, even then the Legislature passed separate bills – with all the Reagan backers expected to go along and vote for Bishop Ford as well. Our state government, hard at work!

The end result being all these years of radio traffic reports every morning talking of the latest congestion on the Bishop Ford Freeway. And at least a few wiseacres responding with, “Who?”

  -30-

I didn’t watch State of State (or Union)

I’m sure somebody out there will get outraged and want to call into question my credentials as a political-watching geek. But I didn’t bother to watch any of the government speechifying that took place this week.

Missed Rauner's 'State of State' rhetoric

I avoided the State of the Union address Tuesday night, meaning I didn’t hear Donald Trump’s nasally voice tell us how wonderful our nation would be – if only we’d just shut up and do what he tells us to do.

NOR DID I feel the need to watch the broadcasts of the State of the State address presented during the noon hour Wednesday by Gov. Bruce Rauner, whom I’m sure tried coming up with a way of saying essentially the same thing about Illinois while also droppin' some "g's" to make himself sound like the "common" man.

That, and “Blame Madigan!,” which seems to be the lone message Rauner has to say these days – and which I’m sure he will repeat all the way through to the Nov. 6 general election.

I’m sure some will want to criticize me by claiming I’m ignoring the serious messages these two elected officials have to present to us. They’ll use this to try to criticize anything I might want to say or think, by claiming I’m not following the “facts.”

To which I say “Nonsense!” I read a transcript of the Rauner address before he even gave it, and also enough summaries of what Trump had to say. I probably paid greater attention to the content than anybody who watched television.

THE FACT IS that what I don’t pay attention to are the actual broadcasts. I have no interest in watching this kind of stuff on television. I believe the impression we garner from television is distorted – to the point where I find it phony.

I’m reading enough accounts of the events to garner what was said, and much of the rebuttal – which in all honesty is canned rhetoric written in advance. Talking points that could have been spoken before either Trump or Rauner ever spoke.

Part of this attitude is because I have covered State of the State addresses presented by other Illinois governors, along with presidential events as equally staged as the State of the Union.

Missed the Trump show, and not sorry

Those events can be intriguing to watch, if you can see them presented live. Actually be there in the chambers of the Illinois Statehouse or on Capitol Hill can be a memorable experience.

PARTICULARLY SINCE ONE can see for themselves how all those rounds of applause at key points in the speeches are fake. They might as well erect “applause” signs to let the politicos know when to clap.

Also, the fact that the opposition party will usually go out of their way to sit silent while the chief executive speaks. Which in its own way can be as telling as anything they’d say.

You don’t pick up on any of this on television. You just get to watch a white guy in a suit reading off a teleprompter some pre-written material that politicos will interpret to believe whatever it is they want us all to think.

Which may well be what most offended some people about the administration of Barack Obama – it went against their sensibilities of what a president was supposed to look like, and which those who believe that “Make America Great Again” rhetoric think has been restored by Trump.

YES, I’LL WANT to read the details of what Trump and Rauner had to say. I believe I’ll learn more that way than by actually watching the broadcasts – which to be honest can be deadly dull television.

Something way too easily parodied – you just know we’re getting a Saturday Night Live sketch this weekend giving us a version of Trump’s speech played for laughs. Which will be more interesting than the actual speech presented by either man.

Was more interesting Tuesday than Trump

Then again, I watched reruns of “Murphy Brown” on Tuesday and “Welcome Back Kotter” on Wednesday, which gave me more laughs than I would have got from watching either Trump or Rauner.

Which could mean that if Mayor Rahm Emanuel were compelled to give a major address that was broadcast live, I’d likely be going in search of a “M*A*S*H” re-run. Maybe I’ll find that episode where Hawkeye and Trapper order ribs takeout to Korea from Adam’s Ribs, which supposedly had the best ribs in all of Chicago.

  -30-

Overloaded with symbolism, but will future generations “get” Quinn portrait?

It has been a gimmick of recent men who have served as governors that when they pose for their official portraits that hang in the Hall of Governors in Springfield that there are background details meant to distinguish them.

Quinn making a statement? Or just a political hoarder?

Former Gov. James R. Thompson is posed sitting in front of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln – making it a portrait within a portrait. He also wore an Elgin Watch in his portrait, and made sure to point that detail out.

WHILE IN THE case of former Gov. Jim Edgar, he’s sitting in front of a painting from one of the famed Lincoln/Douglas debates – in fact, the debate that was held in what later became his hometown of Charleston, Ill.

Considering that Edgar, when he was governor, actually had that painting hanging in his office at the Statehouse, it seemed somewhat appropriate.

Even in the case of Thompson, the Lincoln inclusion seemed kind of cute – although I wonder if anyone ever notices the Elgin-brand watch or finds it relevant.

Yet now we move ahead to former Gov. Pat Quinn, who on Monday (a little more than two years after he stepped down from the post) presented the portrait of himself that will hang in the Statehouse halls for generations to come.

THE OFFICIAL WAY we’ll be asked to remember “the Mighty Quinn.”

Which seems like it’s overload.

Quinn had a Lincoln portrait included in the background of his own portrait, along with several objects meant to be symbolic of his time in office.

There’s the photograph of Quinn surrounded by people who happen to be black – which Quinn wants us to know makes them the first non-white individuals whose images will be part of the Hall of Governors; right near Shadrach Bond (the first governor), Joel A. Matteson (whose name pronunciation is now routinely butchered by all the people who live in the south suburb entitled in his honor) and John P. Altgeld (probably now remembered by most as a public housing complex).

OF COURSE, THERE also are illustrations of a wedding photograph of Quinn’s parents, photographs of his sons and other relatives and several specifically-titled books – one of which touts the “Illinois Jobs Now!” program that the former governor would like to believe will be the keystone of his legacy.

If anything, the actual depiction of Quinn seems kind of bland – as though more attention were paid to including items in the background. As it turns out, 44 items to be exact.

Truly a case of the details overcoming the reality of the man.

It makes me wonder if this portrait will ultimately be remembered as a failure. For so many are included that there’s too much to process. Plus the fact that future generations may remember so little of Quinn the details won’t make much sense.

I DID FIND it interesting to learn that William T. Chambers was commissioned to do this portrait. For he’s the same man who gave us the aforementioned portraits of Thompson and Edgar. Which makes him now a politically bipartisan artist.

And yes, Quinn made sure to point out that no taxpayer monies were used to make this portrait. He handled the fundraising himself, which perhaps is why it took just over two years for the work to be finished.

Also ensuring that the only gap we’re going to have for the time being is that of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich – who has been preoccupied with his incarceration at federal facilities in Colorado to be able to pose for a portrait.

Which makes me think it too bad that Quinn couldn’t have included a Blagojevich head shot in the background of his official portrait – since Quinn’s term-and-a-half as governor did start when he was called upon to finish two years of Blagojevich’s term following impeachment.

BLAGOJEVICH CERTAINLY WOULD have fit in with the clutter of Quinn’s portrait. It also would be a blow to the Blagojevich ego since he, in his own self-delusional state-of-mind, thought HE and not Barack Obama, ought to be Illinois’ contribution to the national political fabric.

For those who want to see Rod reduced to nothingness, how much lower could he go than to be merely remembered as a bit player in “the Quinn Years?”

  -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-

Obama ‘farewell’ tour begins Wednesday; there’s nothing more to it

OBAMA: Bringing back memories?

Let’s be honest.

The reason Barack Obama is coming to Springfield, Ill., on Wednesday is to begin the series of stops across the nation that will occur during the next year that are meant to provide a guide as to what the president wants his legacy to be perceived as.

IT KIND OF reminds me of the last couple of months of the Richard M. Daley stint as mayor when Hizzoner, Jr., literally made an appearance in each of the city’s 50 wards so he could boast of some local achievement.

I still remember when he visited my own native 10^th Ward – a stop at the site of the old Wisconsin Steel Works where my maternal grandfather once worked plant so he could brag about a new industrial plant that was being developed there.

No real news, but it was a touchy-feely moment meant to inspire mayoral good will.

That’s the same thing we’re going to get on Wednesday at the Statehouse. Barack Obama will reminisce a bit about his days as a state legislator, then (according to his aides) will offer up a speech meant to encourage political bipartisanship – something that definitely is lacking in Springfield these days.

OF COURSE, THERE wasn’t much in the way of bipartisanship back when Obama was a legislator either. The president’s early days in the state Senate were as part of a minority caucus that then-Senate President James “Pate” Philip went out of his way to treat as irrelevant.

Then, Obama became a significant member of the Democratic majority that Emil Jones used his presidency to let Republicans know what political payback felt like.

In short, the idea of a bipartisanship speech from Obama is too much of a stretch to take seriously. In all honesty, his presidency has been even more ideologically tainted than either those of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

Although that was largely because Obama came into a situation where the opposition party was determined to work to make his presidency a failure. Bipartisanship in the Obama years never had a chance.

Who'd have thought a century ago that someone like Barack Obama could set foot on these grounds as president?

THE ONLY THING that ever really could be accomplished was that the nation got a taste of what Chicago experienced back in the mid-1980s when a majority of the City Council was determined to thwart then-Mayor Harold Washington’s every governmental desire.

Maybe the Congressional types of the past eight years have been more subtle in expressing their bigoted motivations. But the sentiment was the same.

Of course, there’s one other political motivation for having the president speak in Springfield on Wednesday – it comes right after the primary in New Hampshire. Now as I write this, I don’t know who “won.”

But I’m sure there are people prepared to say that, regardless of what the electoral results turn out to be, it represents a repudiation of the Obama presidency. Without a trip to Springpatch, Obama would have to actually come up with answers to dopey questions.

INSTEAD, OBAMA WILL try to get away with talking the moral high ground of political bipartisanship, claiming he wants to work with everybody and it is their own reluctance to do so that has prevented any lasting change from occurring during the past eight years.

It is with all this in mind that I have to laugh at those people who are getting all worked up over the way in which Obama’s address to the General Assembly, to be given in the Illinois House of Representatives’ chambers, is so overly staged.

The capitol won’t be open to the public. Only certain people will even be allowed in the House chambers during the event. News media are being shifted to a separate room where they will watch the event on a television monitor.

There will be an after-party of sorts where people can see Obama – but only if they were pre-invited. In short, it’s a fake event. Completely staged so as to create the illusion of Obama addressing the great unwashed masses.

REAL PEOPLE WILL have to tune in their televisions to whatever local public TV station is broadcasting the event in their part of Illinois. Kind of like a political version of the recently-completed Super Bowl.

Only there won’t be all kinds of inane commercial spots to attract the attention of the politically-clueless. Although there will be all kinds of speculation about who “wins” from the event – Gov. Bruce Rauner, or da Dems?!?

As far as Obama? Heck, he couldn’t even pick the football Super Bowl correctly (he had Carolina beating Denver). What makes you think he can sway our self-absorbed politicos into supporting bipartisanship?

  -30-

Can President Obama bring bipartisanship to Ill. Statehouse scene?

It will be interesting to see what spews from the mouth of President Barack Obama when he returns to Springfield to give a joint address to our state Legislature.

Has it really been eight years?

 We usually don’t get presidents speaking to our General Assembly members so directly, and presidents don’t usually deign to speak to people so low (but who think they’re all important) on the political evolutionary scale.

BUT OBAMA IS a former member of the Illinois Senate (1997 until he got elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004). And the Chicago Tribune reported Friday how the president will make a stop at the Statehouse in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10.

Officially, Obama wants to talk to his one-time colleagues (some of whom actually outranked Obama himself back in the old days) about how to work together to build better politics. “One that reflects our better selves,” the Tribune quotes a presidential travel advisory as saying.

I’m sure that some people are going to ridicule the very concept of Obama being the person who can bring people together. Largely because his presidency has been thwarted in so many ways by politically partisan tactics.

He is the one guy that some people of the Republican persuasion (and even a few of the Democratic leanings) will absolutely not listen to! What makes us think that that those people won’t get all worked up with their ideologue fervor to reject anything that comes from Obama’s mouth on that day?

YET OBAMA IS determined to make an appeal on his own home turf – the place where he was once just one of 177 legislators, and one of a few who represented parts of the Hyde Park and Kenwood neighborhoods in Chicago.

It would be nice if people would listen to such a message – particularly since my own thoughts and memories of Obama from when I covered him as a legislative correspondent and Statehouse reporter was of a guy who wasn’t the hard-core ideologue that many political people were.

In short, a guy who could easily compromise on issues.

How close did Barack come to matching up to the Man of Steel? Photographs provided by Obama for
America presidential campaign

Which offended his would-be allies in the Democratic and black caucuses who felt he was selling out their core beliefs. And the Republicans who would have preferred a hard-core ideologue of their own fashion in his place.

THE GUY WHO some people were determined to lambast as a socialist and a Muslim and an all-about terrible guy who would have been more than willing to work with them on their pet issues.

That is what has become the Obama presidential legacy, and also a part of the Congressional legacy for our current era. We have a government at the federal level determined to hold out for ideological goals and do nothing for now.

And with the status quo we have had in Springfield for the past year, it seems we’re going to get that same attitude coming to the Statehouse Scene. Whatever shall we do, unless we’re content to have a whole lot of nothin’ going on for the next few years?

So what should we expect seriously to come out of Obama’s trip to the Statehouse, which will bring to our memories that day some eight years ago when Obama used the steps of the old State Capitol building in Springfield (the one that Abraham Lincoln himself would have remembered as the Statehouse) to begin actively campaigning for president.

BACK BEFORE THE Iowa caucuses that gave his campaign an early jolt and made us realize he should be taken more seriously than John Edwards or Bill Richardson or even Hillary Clinton herself!

Will Barack have something serious to say about political bipartisanship? Can he become a voice who helps bring Illinois together beyond the perpetual blame game played by Gov. Bruce Rauner and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago?

Which could be the beginning of a process of bipartisanship for the United States of America as a whole!

Or is this just the beginning of the Obama farewell tour – a way of saying goodbye to the nation; a significant segment of which wishes they could pretend he never existed in the first place?

  -30-

Will Oberweis gaffes impact GOP? Will Rauner hurt self more than gov?

I'm sure the official spin we're going to get in coming days (in about 36 hours, once the primary election cycle is complete) is that the political momentum leans toward the Republicans.

Who will rule here? A long ways to go!

After all, it is likely that Bruce Rauner will be the GOP nominee for governor (the only real question is whether Kirk Dillard will finish a close second place, or somewhat distant). He will have all the public attention on him come Wednesday morning.

WHILE NO ONE will have been paying attention to Gov. Pat Quinn, because he didn't have to put any effort into winning his primary bid for re-nomination.

We're going to hear tales about how Rauner (or Dillard, if he really does pull off the political comeback he's been fantasizing about for the past week) is the "It" girl of Illinois politics -- while Quinn is just deadly dull. Nobody will care. How can he top the excitement being generated by the GOP nominee?

If it reads like I'm writing that with a semi-sarcastic tone, I'd say "no." I'm being fully sarcastic.

Because I wonder if we're about to approach the high point of the Republican Party's dreams of returning to relevance in Illinois. I expect it will occur someday. I'm just not sure it's going to be this year.

WHICH IS A shame. Having Quinn and Richard Durbin at the top of the Democratic ticket creates the image of the "same ol' stuff." If Republican operatives had any sense, they'd try to claim to be the political party of "change."

Instead, they seem to be determined to give us the same old stuff. Which is why I'm inclined this election cycle will wind up giving us maintenance of the political status quo.

And that, in large part, is because of the man who really will be at the top of the Republican ticket. It won't be Rauner/Dillard/whoever. It will be James Oberweis, the state senator from Sugar Grove who wants to take on Durbin.

He's also the business executive who has made so many political gaffes in his multiple bids for electoral offices (he's tried running for governor, member of Congress and U.S. senator -- before finally winning an Illinois Senate seat).

I REALLY SEE a situation where he winds up doing something that ticks off the electorate to the point where Durbin will be able to count on a solid victory -- and return to a fourth six-year term in the U.S. Senate.

Already in this campaign cycle, he's getting hit about his residence status. Which is in Illinois, although his wife appears to be the type of person who would just as soon be rid of Illinois.

She lives in Florida, and the Oberweises are wealthy enough that they can actually afford to live in some style with two separate households. Not something the bulk of us could ever dream of doing.

It seems that when we all got hit with the most recent severe winter snowstorm, Oberweis wasn't here with us in Illinois. He was in Florida. He says he wanted to be with her for her birthday, and also told reporter-types how he lost his first wife (to divorce) because he spent too much time devoted to his "work."

OBERWEIS AS A devoted husband? Or just somebody who's sticking with us in the Midwestern U.S. because he sees us as a potential electoral opportunity?

I don't consider this gaffe as severe as the one from campaigns past where he flew around Soldier Field in a helicopter, reminding us that "illegal aliens" slipping into the United States could fill up the Chicago Bears' home stadium with a new crowd each and every day.

But these things do pile on to the degree that Republicans don't really seem to think much of their chances of beating Durbin. They're focusing attention on dumping Quinn.

Yet to what degree does the "top of the ticket" harm the rest of the Republicans?

PARTICULARLY IF PEOPLE start viewing the GOP Top as one headed by two candidates who are rich guys who don't live like the rest of us. For Rauner, homes in Winnetka and a downtown Chicago high-rise, along with properties in other parts of the country?

How long until we get gags about the Illinois Republican big-wigs convening at Oberweis' Florida home? Or the ranch in Montana that Rauner owns? Not exactly the image for a political party that likes to brag of its direct ties to Abraham Lincoln and that house in downtown Springfield, Ill.

Plus, it's just a matter of time before one of the men -- if not both -- winds up saying or doing something that gets converted into the next big scandal.

The Rauner opposition during the primary election cycle was so underfunded, they couldn't come up with anything to make stick on him. Which gubernatorial hopeful William Brady seemed to allude to during last week's final City Club of Chicago debate when told Rauner that he'd probably be an unknown lingering in last place if NOT for all that personal money he spent on television advertising to tout himself in the most favorable way.

QUINN WON'T HAVE that same campaign finance problem. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the first negative attack ad (either from the Quinn camp or from Quinn sympathizers) were to come on Wednesday.

Start chipping away at the veneer he has erected, and see if it can start to stick. And if the GOP nature for gaffes continues, perhaps it really all will come tumbling down.

Now I'm not 100 percent sure what to think of the Quinn campaign. The man is more than capable of doing himself in politically. I'm just not convinced that people should get all arrogant about that "26 percent" approval rating we hear about over and over and pronounce him politically "dead."

Let's be honest. There will be at least a few body blows the Republican challengers will have to to cope with that will be completely self-inflicted!

-30-

EXTRA: Would we have preferred a Capitol renovated on the cheap?

It seems the new dirty “word” for followers of Illinois state government is $669,608.

Maintaining the 19th Century look

That is the dollar figure being placed on the portion of the Illinois Capitol renovation that paid for three sets of copper-clad wooden doors that were meant to replicate what was installed at the Statehouse when it opened in 1871.

WE NOW HAVE people complaining about waste in government, citing the doors that went for just over $220,000 a pair. They were most definitely custom-ordered, and not something that could have been picked up at the nearest Home Depot store and installed by the governor himself, coming into work on a Saturday to do the work and save the state some money.

That ridiculous image might be what some people dream of being done. Yet it just isn’t realistic.

Which is why I personally am not all that offended by the renovation – which is costing the state some $50 million overall. Funded by a bond sale, it will be repaid by the state during the next quarter-of-a-century.

State officials say the reason renovations needed to be done at all related to the ventilation (air conditioning in summer, heat in the winter), fire escape and disabled access – all of which were inadequate in the building that is approaching its 150^th year of use by state government.

PUTTING THOSE KINDS of things in without totally ripping apart the building is naturally going to be more costly. That is just a reality. People who are upset are getting a little too irrational in expressing their partisan contempt for government.

While I’m a little concerned about cost and realize that somebody has to pay for everything, I also realize that doing the job on the cheap would create just as many complaints.

We’d have some people (perhaps even some of the same people) claiming that the Statehouse was somehow defaced with a mediocre renovation that didn’t respect the building’s character.

And let’s be honest, when the structure was built in the years after the Civil War, it was meant to be an ornate palace, of sorts, that celebrated the significance of Illinois and its government.

A CHEAP JOB would have been disrespectful of that concept.

If state officials had delayed the job until a time when state finances are allegedly more sound, we’d either be waiting forever (because there’d always be something they’d want to consider a higher priority) or we’d be hearing complaints about the inadequate escape access in the event of a fire or the difficulty of people with disabilities to get in (and out) of the Statehouse.

My point being that we were going to hear complaints about this renovation no matter what was done. It is why I can dismiss the complaints we’re actually hearing now.

For those who want to say this cost could have been scaled back somewhat, I’d cite another state-built structure on the South Side – U.S. Cellular Field.

JUST A FEW months after the General Assembly was pressured into approving the bonds that would raise the money to build a new stadium for the Chicago White Sox, there was the potential for cost-overruns.

Would we have wanted a government version of this?

 

Knowing there’d be no way of getting legislators to back more money for the project, the design was scaled back. A lot of the details that would have given the building some character were eliminated.

Which led to the rants of a generic, over-bloated building that we used to get (and occasionally still hear) about the stadium. Future renovations added some of those details in.

But I wonder if those complaints would have been heard in excess about the Capitol. The truth being that some people just want to complain – and ornate chandeliers gives them something to gripe about.

  -30-

What qualifies as holiday “festive,” rather than just downright tacky?

CALUMET CITY, Ill. – It’s that time of the year when some people are going to take offense at holiday displays in public buildings; claiming that somehow our rights to believe what we want are threatened by the presence of a giant Christmas tree.

It might not be politically offensive, but City Hall in Calumet City these days definitely overdoes the holiday spirit. Photographs by Gregory Tejeda

Personally, I think the “threat” to our right to believe what we want is threatened more by the people who try to make an issue out of it.

PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO claim there’s a “War on Christmas.” As though we have to have their vision rammed down our throats for all to be at peace in the world!

But the reality is, I don’t get seriously offended by holiday displays (although I still think all these years later that the people who put up a “Festivus Pole” at the Illinois Statehouse a la Seinfeld had way too much free time on their hands.

What does seriously offend me is when the holiday displays get so overbearing and gaudy that they take what should be a solemn holiday for reflection and turn it into a tacky festival.

If anything, I think many of these public displays for the holiday are offensive – and not just because they were erected just before the Halloween holiday.

IF ANYTHING, I’M nominating my one-time hometown of suburban Calumet City for one of the gaudiest holiday displays in the greater Chicago area. It may be the tackiest, although if anyone out there is aware of something more cheesy, feel free to let me know.

 

Government activity inside not as festive as City Hall entrance

What they do in Calumet City is erect lights all over the City Hall, 204 Pulaski Road, and in the trees of Pulaski Park located just across the streets.

Those lights are on a timer so that at the top of the hour all through the day, a light show is displayed. Lights flash on and off with more synchronization than at the Hoosier-based casinos that exist just a couple of miles away in Hammond, East Chicago and Gary.

Considering that Calumet City is among the municipalities that has made it clear they want the south suburban-based casino that Illinois officials keep hinting will someday be built, perhaps this is just a test run for how flashy a building can be made to look.

BUT IF THE light show isn’t enough, the sound system runs through a string of pop songs that pass for Christmas carols.

Personally, I find the Vince Guaraldi Trio’s “Christmas Time is Here” (you probably think of it as the Peanuts’ cartoon holiday song) soothing the first few times I hear it.

Although passing through the area near City Hall in Calumet City and suddenly being startled by the sound of Andy Williams’ “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” definitely threw me out of the holiday mood. In fact, that song may now join that holiday ditty with the barking dogs doing Jingle Bells as pop culture dreck that I never want to hear again.

 

Take your pick which holiday tree you want to see lit up

And yes, I’ll concede that I’m not much of a photographer, although these images taken Wednesday night do convey some of the sense of the gaudiness that area residents have to put up with.

BECAUSE THE VOLUME on the music is definitely loud enough to be heard for blocks around – including into Indiana (which admittedly is only two blocks to the east).

How long until the neighbors (there are houses within a block of the building) take up their pitchforks and storm the building – demanding a silence to the holiday-inspired racket?

So if you have a low threshold for holiday kitsch, don’t say I didn’t warn you in saying to stay away from City Hall in Calumet City – where these days municipal officials are going through the process by which they try to knock their political opponents off the ballot for the Feb. 26 municipal elections so they can run unopposed.

Which makes the mood inside the building most definitely un-jolly!

  -30-