Lightweight vs. Bigfoot could turn out to be a month of campaign nonsense

I happened to be with a group of individuals this week who are amongst those who think that Lori Lightfoot and her mayoral campaign are the city’s saviors – the new vision that is meant to save the very soul of Chicago.

In fact, much of that conversation centered around the mayoral candidates “Lightfoot” and “Bigfoot.” Which is the snarky name they’ve developed for Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s mayoral aspirations.

THEY’RE SO EAGER to trash the years of experience that Preckwinkle has gained through her service as an alderman (the Hyde Park neighborhood) and as the county board president.

You certainly can’t say or do anything that implies Preckwinkle might actually have a clue about the causes of the city’s problems, and that Lightfoot might not actually be ready to take on the role of occupant of the fifth floor office suite at City Hall.

Otherwise known as da mare’s office.

They get rather touchy if anyone dare suggests anything negative about the one-time federal prosecutor and member of the board that oversaw investigations into police misconduct.

PERSONALLY, I WONDER if Lightfoot is the enforcement type who might be best suited to the role of inspector general – doing the investigations into incidents where things get screwed up and making suggestions as to what ought to be done to resolve them.

Preckwinkle 'experienced,; … 

While “Bigfoot,” which was meant to be a derogatory slur referring to the six-foot politico whom some in government circles have used the phrase “Tower of Blunt” to refer to.

Although I’m wondering if this is a phrase whose meaning ought to be turned upside down – as in Toni is the experienced one who ought to be the municipal boss while Lori might just be too touchy and sensitive to handle the post.

I couldn’t help but think such unpleasant thoughts when I learned Thursday of the tiff taking place between Lightfoot and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

IT SEEMS THAT White has endorsed Preckwinkle’s mayoral bid, saying, “We need someone who’s going to run the city of Chicago who has experience.”

… or Lightfoot 'refreshing' for Chicago?

Which led Lightfoot to lambaste White as some form of political hack, saying, “Toni Preckwinkle is the epitome of those entrenched political interests, so it’s not surprising to me that she is seeking people who she has worked with for decades.”

That caused White on Thursday to retort, “Lori Lightfoot seems to feel like she has to attack everyone who disagrees with her. That’s no way to get things done and that’s not what Chicagoans expect in their elected officials.”

While Preckwinkle herself felt compelled to call Lightfoot’s comments about White, “disgusting,” while saying Lightfoot is “point(ing) fingers and attack(ing) her critics.

I’M SURE THE core of Lightfoot supporters are upset that Preckwinkle would say something so nasty. They may be going about as we speak claiming this is more evidence that Toni is a political hack who needs to be replaced – forgetting that the worst thing that happens to her in the April 2 run-off is that she remains as county board president AND Cook County Democratic chairwoman. She ain’t going nowhere.

Who will get to work here for four years come May?

But this kind of behavior does make me wonder – not so much about Lightfoot (who on paper isn’t all that different on the issues from Preckwinkle). But about the Lightfoot backers; who may have created an image of her in their heads that Lori can’t help but fall far short of!

Is there a legitimate reason that Preckwinkle went into this election cycle as the pre-emptive favorite amongst the mayoral candidates? Should we really be quick to dismiss her for the favorite of the segment of the electorate who seems to want to vote for the political “flavor of the month?”

Could it be that if Preckwinkle truly is “Bigfoot,” that she is taking on as her opponent Lori “Lightweight?” Lightweight and Bigfoot – the very thought of all the nasty rhetoric those nicknames will inspire is enough to make me shudder about the upcoming month of an election cycle we will have to endure.

  -30-

EXTRA: To listen to malcontents, everybody in line for a butt whuppin’

There’s something I’ve learned from some three decades of watching the electoral process – some people take themselves far too seriously, have nothing but trash to utter and are convinced that the upcoming Election Day is the one in which the opposition will get trashed beyond redemption.

William Kelly seeking aid of Honest Abe; or is he still busy rolling over from the thought of Rod Blagojevich. Photo provided by William Kelly

This election cycle is no different.

TAKE THE “PRAIRIE State Wire,” an ideologue web site that is reporting how the Communist Party USA is coordinating its efforts to undermine everything good and all-American by offering up support to 24 Democrats in order to ensure the Republican Party loses control of the House of Representatives.

Supposedly, one of the 24 is Sean Casten, the Democratic nominee challenging Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill. Gov. Bruce Rauner has been smacking Casten about with rhetoric claiming he’s nothing more than a Michael Madigan lackey.

Now, we’re supposed to believe he’s a “Commie” (or at least a sympathizer). Perhaps as part of a “Make America Great Again” initiative, we’re supposed to pretend it’s the 1950s and the Red Scare is on.

Personally, every person I’ve ever met who seriously was a Communist was literally someone so inept at politics that they’d be incapable of coordinating any effort that would help them win a thing.

Is it really a Communist plot to take down … 

AND MOST OF them were so uninterested in anything establishment, I can’t see any kind of serious effort that would be worth noting.

This is just more of the nonsense-talk coming from people who are struggling to organize themselves into a winning coalition. Perhaps its just time for the 57-year-old Roskam of Wheaton, following 12 years in Congress and 16 years in the Illinois General Assembly, to start thinking of a new line of work.

His nearly three-decades of time in public service could be complete.

Then, there’s William Kelly, who is leader of the Chicago Republican Party largely because the GOP in the Second City is virtually non-existent.

… to take down Peter Roskam?

KELLY SAYS HE is backing Sam McCann for Illinois governor. As in he’s backing the Republican legislator from Southern Illinois who has created his own political party (the Conservative Party) so that McCann can run for governor.

He’s definitely NOT backing incumbent Bruce Rauner for re-election. Among the reasons Kelly gives for not wanting Bruce? It’s because (in part) Rauner supported Rahm Emanuel for Chicago mayor the last election when Kelly had his own political fantasies of being Chicago’s first GOP mayor since William Hale Thompson of the late 1920s.

I do have to admit one thing – the photograph Kelly provides of himself at Abraham Lincoln’s tomb, pledging to “rebuild the Illinois GOP – free of Raunerites” is just so over-the-top!

LINCOLN: Wishing he could be a Whig again?

Although it does make me wonder how appalled Lincoln himself would be to learn that his name and image were being used by such political rubes. Maybe just enough that he’d want to give second thought to a partisan switch himself, or wondering why he ever abandoned the Whig Party in the first place?

  -30-

EXTRA: Remembering Bernie (and I don't mean Sanders) down in Florida

“Epton for mayor – Before it’s too late.”
--Campaign slogan for Republican Chicago mayoral candidate Bernard Epton in 1983 when he challenged Democrat Harold Washington, who ultimately became the first black mayor of Chicago.

“The last thing we need to do is monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda.”

--Election night statement Tuesday night by Republican governor candidate Ron DeSantis about his challenge against Democrat Andrew Gillum, who could become the first black governor of Florida come Election Day on Nov. 6.

  -0-

Didn't remainder of nation learn from Chicago example?

Some 35 years have passed since Bernard Epton (who in reality was a liberal Jewish Republican state legislator from the Hyde Park neighborhood) created the public perception of himself that he’d never be able to live down.

More than a third of a century later, some things, sadly, remain eternal. Which is why some of us will forever be suspicious of just what is meant during this Age of Trump (of which DeSantis is a strong supporter) and its campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

Will DeSantis be forevermore remembered for Tuesday night?

  -30-

EXTRA: How many chances does Gov. Rauner need to say Madigan is corrupt?

Listening to Gov. Bruce Rauner say this week he wants there to be a dozen formal debates between now and Election Day reminds me of the 1998 election cycle.

Pritzker only wants three

Specifically, the portion of the cycle in which Democrats had their candidates fight it out for who would get to be the gubernatorial nominee who would ultimately take on Republican George Ryan.

THAT ELECTION CYCLE ultimately saw Southern Illinois favorite son candidate Glenn Poshard use his regional base to beat up on urban candidates John Schmidt, Roland Burris and Jim Burns. It also was one in which there were many debates.

It seems the candidates were traveling all over the state, making appearances and trying to make the locals feel like they were privileged to be in the presence of the gubernatorial aspirants.

Sounds great? Not really.

What I remember of that election cycle was that they became less about speaking to the would-be voters, and more about giving every broadcast organization involved in sponsoring an event a chance to pretend that THEIR debate was the ONLY debate that mattered.

Rauner must really want to say "Madigan evil"

WHILE NEWSPAPER COVERAGE wound up making these events all sound so repetitive of each other.

Largely because they were. Candidates mostly ignored the questions they were asked and used their time to issue rebuttals to whatever negative pot-shots were made against them. I can remember sitting through those events and feeling incredibly uninformed.

I was always thankful that election officials in the future went back to thinking in terms of three as the number of debates that were needed prior to an Election Day. Even though I do believe there is benefit to a structured-format event in which the candidates confront each other.

McCann will take 12 too

So to hear Rauner say he wants a dozen debates fills me with dread. How many times do we need to hear the man spew insipid claims of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s corruption? How many times do we need to hear rhetorical links of Madigan’s support for billionaire J.B. Pritzker’s candidacy?

THREE WILL PROBABLY be more than enough. Although I expect Rauner will insist on complaining he’s not being given ample times to screech “Dump Madigan!!!” to prospective voters.

If anything, Rauner is merely confirming my own political hypothesis – which is that the first candidate in any election cycle to complain about the number of debates is the loser.

So I’m inclined to be sympathetic to the Pritzker camp which has suggested three debates – although I’ll admit Pritzker is playing some hard-core politicking of his own in picking where they will be held, and pretty much making it a “take it or leave it” choice for Rauner to accept.

Two of the debates would be held in Chicago, with one to be co-sponsored by the Telemundo Spanish-language television affiliate along with the Chicago Urban League. Where I’m sure we’ll get tons of questions intended to remind us that Rauner is just a rich white guy who doesn’t get it. Along with reminders of all the vetoes Rauner made last week on measures related to immigration.

AS FOR THE one debate intended outside of metro Chicago, it would be set for Quincy, the city along the Mississippi River with a veterans’ home that has been the focus of instances of veterans who died from Legionaires’ disease. It’s probably the one place in rural Illinois where Rauner does NOT want to set foot.

Multiple debates didn't help Poshard win

And as for the traditional debate held by the League of Women Voters, that’s a group most likely not interested in cheap political pandering by any candidate.

I do find it intriguing that Conservative Party candidate Sam McCann is accepting Rauner’s offer of 12 debates. But that’s because he needs as much attention and opportunity as possible to let voters know he exists if he’s to be at all irrelevant come Nov. 6.

Which means it’s really sad that Rauner, an incumbent with significant personal wealth (he essentially bought the post in the 2014 election cycle) feels he’s just as desperate. All the more reason many voters have already shifted their focus to the mayoral election cycle of 2019.

  -30-

Gubernatorial debates more about opponent gaffes than real knowledge

I find it laughable that the gubernatorial hopefuls of the major political parties in Illinois already are fighting over when, and how often, they’ll debate.

Did Pritzker 'one-up' governor?

It’s not like either Gov. Bruce Rauner or Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker really want to speak. They’re more interested in getting their opponent to put their foot in their mouths.

IT MAKES ME think that Saturday Night Live got it right many years ago when they headlined a sketch parodying the ’92 presidential debate as, “The Challenge to Avoid Saying Something Stupid.”

What will be Rauner's response?

Because if we really get the large number of debates that are being pondered as of now, there will be plenty of chances for Rauner/Pritzker (if not both) to say something so inane that it could cause a massive shift in the political sensibilities of the Illinois electorate.

For Pritzker is the guy who definitely has fantasies of Rauner finishing himself off with a gaffe or two. To bolster the chances, he went ahead and said this week he will participate in three debates – one on Sept. 20 in Chicago sponsored in part by the Urban League, another on Oct. 3 in Chicago sponsored in part by the League of Women Voters and a third Oct. 11 in Quincy sponsored in part by the Illinois Broadcasters Association.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Rauner is somewhat peeved with Pritzker over this – because he hasn’t agreed to anything. The announcement sort of publicly commits him to partake in so many events; even though he might actually prefer gatherings under different circumstances.

Would we, the electorate, be better off ...

PRITZKER HAS MANAGED to one-up Rauner on this issue, because if the governor seeking re-election decides to push for something different, it’s going to be spun as though Rauner is ducking debates.

As though he’s somehow being cowardly and afraid to face off against J.B. with the people of Illinois watching on television.

Which, actually, is what these debates will be. Television spectacles. They will be held in television studios and the broadcast stations involved will take great pride in that fact.

... if these cartoons weren't so darned accurate?

If anything, they’ll probably be upset that I’m crediting the Urban League and League of Women Voters for the two Chicago-based debates, rather than the respective television stations, for staging the events.

NOW AS A reporter-type person who has had the chance to cover such political debates, I’ll admit I find them of little value.

Usually, the time restrictions prevent anyone from seriously answering a question – particularly since the candidates themselves find it more a priority to take pot-shots at each other.

While also hoping they can say something that provokes the opponent to say something ridiculous or embarrassing, or just downright stupid! Which is always a possibility when someone is trying to provide an answer in a 90-second time-span, with the entire event lasting just under one hour.

But I can see the point of the debate format in that it forces candidates into equal (almost) terms when it comes to confronting each other, and it sort of forces them to address the issues.

ALTHOUGH WE CAN run into a problem if the particular debate moderator gets into some sort of an egotistical kick of thinking that the particular debate is really their personal interview with the candidates – rather than a chance to see them face off against each other.

Which could become even more intense if this year’s election cycle produces a governor upset that he got suckered into facing off in debate under terms and conditions not of his own choosing.

Activity at the Veteran's Home in Quincy is bound to be a debate focal point

It will be particularly interesting to see about the supposed debate intended for Quincy, where there is a Veterans Home where residents were afflicted with Legionnaire’s Disease and many are more than eager to blame the Rauner administration for the problem.

Would Rauner have preferred a downstate debate in a place like Urbana or Peoria? Of course, there’s really no hiding from the state’s problems – as everyone in Illinois has a gripe these days about the way our state’s government operates.

  -30-

Does Tio Hardiman think everybody should drop out of governor’s primary?

Now we’re moving into the segment of the primary election cycle in which everybody starts talking stupid.

KENNEDY: Wants Pritzker out

Perhaps it’s the fact that the nearly year-long time period during which they’ve been campaigning is making them feel touched in the head. They’re spewing silliness.

HOW ELSE TO explain Chris Kennedy’s rant Thursday that he thinks J.B. Pritzker, whom various polls have shown to be the front-runner, of sorts, for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination should withdraw from the race.

To which Daniel Biss, the state senator from Evanston who’d like to think he can play politics with the big boys, says Kennedy has no business making such a demand. He thinks both Kennedy and Pritzker ought to step aside to allow him to have the gubernatorial nomination.

I found one anonymous commenter on the Internet who says that Pritzker missed the perfect chance to complete the circle by issuing a statement calling for Biss to back away.

Although my reaction is to wonder if Tio Hardiman, the gun control activist who has a primary interest in the level of urban violence we’re confronted with in society, thinks everybody ought to get out of the race so that he might have a chance to win.

HARDIMAN IS THE guy whom the same gubernatorial polls show with about 1 percent support. That is, on the occasions when they even bother acknowledging his existence on the political scene.

PRITZKER: Trying to stay above fray

I did think of making a joke about Robert Marshall being the candidate who wanted everybody else to clear a path to victory for himself. But even that thought was just a tad too ridiculous.

I suspect if Marshall were to become the Democratic nominee for governor, that would drive swarms of people over to an effort to create a third political party, something along the lines of the 1986 election cycle when Adlai Stevenson III had to run a third-party campaign to try to fulfill his gubernatorial dreams.

Because Marshall just ain’t a Democrat, no matter what papers he filed in order to run in the primary.

BISS: Wants Kennedy/Pritzker out

I TAKE SUCH a light-hearted view on this issue, because I don’t expect anybody would seriously consider dropping out of the race for the benefit of someone whom they’ve been bad-mouthing for several months now as being totally unfit to serve.

But the fact that anybody would spew such rhetoric in any way other than as a tacky joke meant to be heard only by their hard-core supporters means, to me, that the wear-and-tear of the election cycle is getting to them.

Not that I can’t sympathize. As a reporter-type person, I have covered the day-to-day grind of a political campaign. I’ve been watching this election cycle from a distance, but it is still tiring.

Personally, I can’t wait for Tuesday night to come and go, and the unofficial election results to become public. I’ll be grateful for a time when I don’t even have to contemplate Marshall’s existence, at least until his next token campaign for office in 2020.

HARDIMAN: Could he win if everybody dropped out?

AND FOR A time when two out of the three of Biss, Kennedy and Pritzker will become ancient history. I’m sure the candidates are awaiting a rest period once the primary cycle is complete.

So what should we think of Kennedy saying, “If (Pritzker) believed in public service and sacrifice, he would sacrifice his own political career in service to the Democratic Party of Illinois and, frankly, to the people of Illinois by dropping out of the race.”

Or Biss saying, “Chris Kennedy and J.B. Pritzker are two sides of the same gold coin.”

If Kennedy and Pritzker are “gold coins,” does that make Biss a Lincoln-head penny of the sort that I have far too many of in my pants pocket’s spare change?

  -30-

Honesty during political debates? Or just more of the 2018 silly season!

First, a bit of disclosure – I didn’t actually watch the debate held Tuesday night between the various candidates seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Gov. Bruce Rauner come November.

KENNEDY: Can't say something nice

So I’m relying on assorted news reports of the event that seem to focus on candidate Chris Kennedy’s moment of rudeness (or is it honesty?) when he couldn’t come up with anything nice to say about the front-running challenger, J.B. Pritzker.

ONE ACCOUNT I read literally noted the number of seconds of silence from Kennedy before he admitted he couldn’t say anything positive.

It has many political observers feeling like he violated one of the great unwritten rules of political debate – not to make the personal attacks such as the Kennedy comment that “J.B. emerges as the poster child of all that is wrong with the corrupt system in our state.”

I understand that after the debate, Kennedy felt compelled to apologize to Pritzker and even touted Pritzker’s “incredible record around providing early childhood education.” On some level, Kennedy had a talking point burned into his brain that he could easily have tossed out to answer the question.

So is Kennedy worthy of our hostility for not playing nice, or by the rules, so to speak?

PRITZKER: Feelings hurt? Or campaign bolstered

OR IS KENNEDY being truthful when he told reporter-type people that his political weakness is “my honesty.”

Now as a reporter-type myself who has covered many political debates throughout the years, I’m fully aware that this question about “saying something nice” about your opponents is a common one.

It always seems to be asked by TV-types who think that it somehow brings a humanizing moment about – one whose sound-bite they will make sure to use prominently in their broadcast reports.

Personally, I always ignored the question and any responses because I always felt they were trivial, and downright phony.

BISS: Says HE was the big winner

SOME PEOPLE CRITICIZING Kennedy these days are pointing out how even Hillary Clinton managed to say something nice about Donald Trump during their 2016 campaign for president against each other.

Specifically, that Hillary had respect for Trump’s family members. Which as far as I’m concerned is about as irrelevant as one can get.

The real news would have been if she had somehow attacked those people who happen to share genetics with Trump – and she likely would have been worthy of all the derision she would have received from people for taking personal cheap shots at people who aren’t on the ballot themselves.

As for Kennedy, perhaps we got a taste of the personal distaste the son of RFK and nephew of JFK feels for his opponent. Which I’m sure will translate into feels of incompetence in that he wonders how could he possibly be losing to this guy.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVEN’T had much in the way of extensive polling in this particular campaign, so whose to say who’s really getting their behind kicked. Except that now, we can claim it’s Chris (or should we call him CGK – it’s George) who’s getting his butt whomped because he didn’t think quickly enough on his feet Tuesday night.

DAIBER: Was he really big benefactor?

Which has already given another opponent, the little-known state senator from Evanston, Daniel Biss, the motivation to claim this campaign has become one between Pritzker and himself.

While I have heard some people claim they’re now going to pay attention to Bob Daiber, the regional school superintendent from the part of Illinois near St. Louis who also is the lone non-Chicago-area person seeking to challenge Rauner for governor.

All of which makes me think my time was better spent Tuesday doing work that helped to earn a living, rather than watching the latest episode of the silly season that other political geeks got worked up over.

  -30-

Is Ives the gubernatorial candidate nobody wants to be associated with?

Jeanne Ives, the state senator from Wheaton who wants to challenge Gov. Bruce Rauner in the Republican primary, is becoming the candidate whom nobody wants to be associated with.

IVES: Offends Kennedy, Rauner

Ives, the woman whose campaign is based on the notion that Rauner is too liberal for Illinois (the reality is that she’s too conservative, but that’s a topic for another day’s commentary), is the woman who was in a candidate forum this week where she managed to offend Democratic hopeful Chris Kennedy to the point where he walked out in mid-event.

ON TUESDAY, IVES’ perception suffered another blow when Rauner himself said he had no intention of participating in a Republican debate against her that would have been held in Springfield.

Considering that the bulk of any Republican candidate’s voter support will come from the part of the state outside the Chicago area, it could be seen as foolish for Rauner to pass up the chance to appeal to his likely backers.

But Ives managed to show on Monday that her rhetoric is likely to be over the top – perhaps just as much as trying to get people to think Rauner is a liberal, even though the bulk of the Chicago-area vote certainly will turn out against him.

Her campaign may well turn out to be the one of the malcontents of our state expressing their opposition to the concept that everybody does not agree with their ideologue hang-ups about life and our society.

WHY SHOULD RAUNER give Ives the public attention of a one-on-one debate between the two?

KENNEDY: Walked out on Ives

I know many conservative-leaning people want to believe that right-wing outrage against Rauner is so intense (he’s not anti-abortion enough to satisfy them) that anybody could beat him come the March 20 GOP primary.

They cite Steven Baer, an ideologue who took about one-third of the vote in the 1990 gubernatorial primary against Jim Edgar. I’d argue that Ives could get about one-third of the vote, which would still make her a loser. And how many real people (as in non-political geeks) have a clue who Baer was? Or will remember Ives 20 years from now?

For the record, Ives’ offensive act was trying to say that we have so much gun violence in our society because we have many fatherless families. Which Kennedy took offense to because he, himself, lost his father as a young child.

RAUNER: Won't give her that much attention

HIS UNCLE, TOO. Remember that? Both of those stories were in all the papers and usually warrant a couple of sentences in the history books.

Personally, I’m inclined to think this would be an ideal world (or as close as we’d ever come to one) if everybody had a set of two parents to help raise them as children. But not everybody does, and we ought to be focusing on trying to help those youth who don’t have such circumstances.

Rather than holding them up to blame for societal flaws, which is all Ives and people of her ilk really are interested in doing!

Make people think that everything that is wrong with life is somebody else’s fault, and maybe it makes them feel a little bit better about their lot in life. But it doesn’t do a thing to make things better for the masses.

I HAVE NO doubt that if Ives were to get a one-on-one forum with Rauner, she’d really let loose with the nonsense talk. She’d probably also have the crackpots all peeved about Rauner not being conservative enough for them ready to proclaim her the winner.

PRITZKER: Will get own share of nonsense

Which wouldn’t really be true. In fact, such a forum probably would add nothing to the public understanding of who either candidate is. Just as I’m sure the various Democratic candidate forums (the first of which will be held next Tuesday in Chicago) probably won’t go any further than candidate J.B. Pritzker being the rich guy trying to buy himself an ego-bloating political post.

It’s bound to be a lot of nonsense-talk. The rhetoric will flow with the sounds of silliness. In that regard, we’re better off without a Rauner/Ives debate.

I’m sure those who merely want to smack Bruce about will have plenty of opportunities between now and the Nov. 6 general election – to the point where he’ll have more than his share of rhetorical bruises.

  -30-

EXTRA: School district consolidation? Those are fightin’ words to many!

Republican gubernatorial challenger Jeanne Ives, the state senator from Wheaton, is most likely trying to appeal to people from mid-sized communities that think they’re the ideal we all ought to follow, and that Chicago is just too damned big on so many levels.

IVES: Ed talk not thoroughly thought out

But I wonder if Ives has any idea how many people she’s going to tick off across Illinois with her latest talk about how school districts should be consolidated.

THE DAILY HERALD suburban newspaper reported how Ives said this week that we have too many school districts. She wants communities to merge their elementary and high school districts into one unit, and for those school districts in rural communities with the tiny graduating classes to consider merging into one with other area entities.

Meanwhile, she’s spouting off a routine claim about the Chicago Public Schools – it’s too big. It ought to be broken up into several smaller school districts.

What it basically amounts to is that Ives has the vision based off what exists in her home community that she thinks everybody in the state of Illinois ought to be obligated to follow.

Which is odd since one of the mantras of Republican dogma is the idea of local control. Local people know best what works for their communities.

SHE DOESN’T SEEM to be a strong believer in such ideals, if she’s really talking about this.

Because the reality for many of those rural communities that have tiny school districts because the overall population is small is that the school district often is the pride of the community, Something they tout as a sign of their individuality and independence.

Does Ives really want to be the candidate who tells certain communities they’re not important enough to have their own school district? Not if she really expects to get the votes of all those rural residents who are disgusted with the performance of Gov. Bruce Rauner!

As for Chicago, wanting to tamper with the Public Schools’ overall structure is just the usual nonsense-talk from someone who thinks they can undermine the schools’ influence by breaking it down further.

I’D EXPECT THAT schools officials across Illinois will now look skeptically at Ives’ candidacy for governor. She’s the one who would threaten to put many of them out-of-work.

It would be similar to those people who think that across the Chicago suburbs, there’s really no need for every single municipality to have its own police department. Let the county sheriff have authority over those communities.

Yet for a lot of suburban public officials, the one bit of significant authority they have is being able to hire (and fire) their own police chief. That’s something they would resist vociferously.

I suspect that a schools’ structure brawl has the potential to create an equal stink. One that I’m sure the Ives campaign would regret bringing upon itself should the issue actually catch on.

  -30-

Rauner calling Mendoza a “Madigan puppet” just an act of misdirection

When I learned that Gov. Bruce Rauner earlier this week went on the radio and denounced Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza as a “puppet” for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, I can’t say I was surprised.

Rauner wants to erase this image of himself

For one thing, Rauner was speaking at a Southern Illinois radio station – one whose broadcast signal doesn’t transmit much further than Carbondale and Marion. He was speaking to an audience eager to believe such nonsensical allegations. He wouldn’t dare say such a thing if he thought anybody local would hear it!

BUT ON ANOTHER level, such charges that Mendoza’s constant actions as head of the entity that actually pays state government bills are meant to benefit Madigan and not the state as a whole are more a matter of distraction.

My guess is that Rauner is going to go through the 2018 election cycle taking special aim at the candidacy of Mendoza – whom he’s still probably bitter was able to defeat in a special election last year the comptroller bid of Leslie Munger.

She’s the Republican whom Rauner tried appointing to fill the comptroller’s post when Judy Baar Topinka – who was elected to a four-year term back in 2014 – died before she could be sworn into office through next year.

If you want to be crude about it, you could say that Munger was Rauner’s puppet – the woman who would have been expected to run the comptroller’s office in ways that benefitted the political partisanship of the governor.

MADIGAN’S PUPPET BEAT Rauner’s puppet, so to speak, and he’s still peeved.

Beating up on Mendoza preferable to him

Largely because it means Illinois government these days is a Democrat-dominated General Assembly with Democrats in every single state constitutional office EXCEPT for governor.

Bruce is feeling mighty lonely. The loss of Munger left Rauner as the lone government official in Illinois willing to bear the Republican label.

And considering that his ideological leanings aren’t always in line on the social issues as the hard-core of right wing fanaticism, even the Republicans these days aren’t all that fond of him.

Was Munger a Rauner flunky?

RAUNER’S RHETORIC ABOUT the evils of organized labor isn’t sufficient for those ideologues – particularly the ones for whom abortion or firearms are the key issues that get them all hot and bothered.

So bringing up nonsense issues about Mendoza being a “puppet” is more about distraction. Focus our election cycle venom on Susana, who has the least seniority of all the Democrats running for statewide office next year.

She’d be the one most vulnerable to a challenger – although it could be argued she’s doing a competent enough job and really isn’t upsetting anybody in Illinois. Except for the ideologues who are going to look for nonsense arguments to make against her as they try to create a Republican ally for Rauner.

Because he certainly needs to have someone to support him. And not just the people running for other offices (mostly state Legislature seats) who are reliant on Rauner’s financial contributions to fund their own political campaigns.

WHEN HE TRIED to show a certain level of sense on abortion earlier this year, he made some serious enemies. When he became so incredibly stubborn for more than two years over state budgets, he managed to offend just about everybody else.

Gov. Rauner in his 'common man' costume

I’m amused to learn that the National Review, the journal of some serious conservative thought (or at least as serious as such thought ever gets) has labelled Rauner as “the worst Republican governor in America.”

With a cover depicting an animated Rauner standing alongside a rural road with a broken-down motorcycle (he owns a Harley and does ride it from time to time). Definitely not an image that Rauner wants catching on amongst the Illinois electorate between now and the March 20, 2018 primary elections.

Better to spew the nonsense-talk about Susana – which hopefully Illinoisans will ignore on the grounds that it’s too stupid to take seriously. Which is probably a good rule of thumb to follow with regards of what 99 percent of candidates for any office say in the months leading up to Election Day.

  -30-