EXTRA: Whose side will people take with regards to Daley’s debate absence?

B. DALEY: Took union endorsement over debate

It will be interesting to see whether Bill Daley’s mayoral campaign takes a hit, or receives a boost, from the fact he blew off a televised debate Thursday night that would have given him some serious exposure in the upcoming election.

Daley, one of 14 candidates with dreams of becoming Chicago’s next mayor, let officials with WFLD-TV know Thursday afternoon that he wouldn’t be participating in the program that Channel 32 had planned for Thursday night.

MENDOZA: Daley a sissy?

DALEY INSISTS HE found out last-minute that local 130 of the Chicago Journeyman Plumbers and Technical Engineers union wanted to do an evening event by which they’d endorse his mayoral campaign.

Saying he saw it as a choice of being with political people or “normal people,” he chose to take the endorsement. By an old-school way of viewing things, I could see how this works – if he can successfully spin this as a chance to spend time with the kind of people who might actually vote for him.

But others think the fact that the Chicago Tribune published a story Thursday morning implying that he only passed a licensing test some four-plus decades ago to sell insurance because someone tampered with it.

BLAGOJEVICH: Pol of  testicular virility

It surely would have been an issue that he would have been questioned on during any debate. Was Daley merely hiding from some serious questions about an old issue?

MAYORAL OPPONENT Susana Mendoza thinks so. “There’s one bad story about him and he wilts like a little flower,” she said, adding that this may well be evidence he’s not fit to be mayor of the metropolis of Chicago. Is she calling him a political sissy?

She might as well have accused Daley of lacking the “testicular virility” that one-time Gov. Rod Blagojevich once claimed was his biggest strength as a government official.

R. DALEY: Man of the people?

Of course, that line is now recalled as one of Blagojevich’s most buffoonish moments as governor. Will this absence from the debate – which already was considered controversial because Daley was among the five candidates invited to participate while nine other candidates were excluded – really be seen as evidence that the Son of Hizzoner himself is too weak to hold office?

Or is it Daley deciding to hang out with the so-called “normal people” his way of trying to play politics the way his father would have – as it was “Old Man” Daley who once said, “No poll can equal the day-to-day visits of the men and women of the Democratic Party.”

  -30-

Does anybody think a 14-candidate forum works – except to create chaos?

I’m usually of the sort when it comes to candidate forums and debates that it’s wrong to think in terms of fringe candidates and paring down the field to only certain political aspirants.

Can we 'decide' amongst mayoral candidates if we don't see them side by side? Or would such a forum be little more than political chaos?

If a candidate manages to get a spot on a ballot and will be an option come Election Day, I say its downright reckless to try to exclude them. People have a right to know exactly who the ding-dongs are whose names are before them when they make choices for political office.

BUT I HAVE to admit; that viewpoint of mine is being tested by the upcoming election cycle for Chicago municipal government – particularly for that of mayor.

I’m talking about the cycle that’s going to ask voters to pick from amongst 14 candidates who managed to make it past the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners’ process for putting together the Feb. 26 ballot.

WFLD-TV (as in Channel 32) is planning a pair of candidate forums they will televise, come Thursday and Friday.

The Thursday program will feature the campaigns of Toni Preckwinkle, Susana Mendoza, Gery Chico, Bill Daley and Willie Wilson. Friday’s forum will be for everybody else – as in the candidates who are not considered as having as strong of support as the Big Five.

OR, AS CANDIDATE Paul Vallas put it, “we get invited to the children’s table.”

It doesn’t surprise me that judgment calls are being made as to which of the 14 candidates ought to be taken seriously and are worthy of news coverage. It would be kind of ridiculous to equate former Alderman Robert Fioretti’s mayoral campaign with that of Preckwinkle.

But it also means feelings are being hurt by the candidates who are finding out they’re not going to be taken as seriously as the Big Five! Both Vallas and Amara Enyia both complained publicly about their exclusion, with Enyia taking the stance that this is the political establishment trying to pre-determine the Election Day outcome. She’d even be correct in saying that the polls showing the Big Five in the lead actually show no one has a ridiculously-large lead and the “children’s table” candidates aren’t that far behind the leaders.

It almost seems like everybody wants to work out of the Fifth Floor office at City Hall for the next four years

Of course, she’s also getting hammered these days by the Chicago Tribune for the moments of ineptitude she has had in her personal finances and in government posts she has held in the suburbs.

IF ANYTHING, IT would be interesting to have a candidate forum of sorts so that we could see Enyia side-by-side with the bigger names so we could see for ourselves just how much she is lacking by comparison. Although I expect the kind of people who back her because she has a rap music star on her side will not care much.

But I’m not optimistic that such a forum could occur.

Mostly because I don’t have a clue how you’d stage such an event. How could you have a credible debate program with 14 people each trying to respond to each other, and come up with smart-aleck retorts to each other’s insults?

Is this the inevitable outcome … 

When you consider that a debate is likely to be an hour-long event – at most – trying to include everybody would most likely result in everybody getting one question. There wouldn’t be enough time to ask anything more and expect everybody to answer.

AND BEFORE YOU say the forum could be lengthened, I’d retort that, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” Trying to stage several hours of political blather (which is what many political debates devolve into) would insure that nobody sits through and sees the whole thing.

… for an April 2 run-off election?

The tedium would cause so many channels to be changed in mid-debate.

It might well be that this freak-show of an election cycle with so many candidates is just the type of thing that makes for bad television. It certainly wouldn’t be possible to do much of a debate – no matter how much political people try to follow the usual conventions to do so.

Unless you’re really that eager to see and hear La Shawn Ford and Jeremiah Joyce exchange retorts, while Daley sighs at the sight of other people trying to seek the political post that certain types of Chicagoans may regard as his birthright.

  -30-

Avoiding talk of 'Quincy' while in Quincy key to analyzing gov. debate

Thursday is the last of the three official debates the candidates for Illinois governor will hold prior to Election Day, and there’s really one simple way of determining who comes out ahead.

We'll see a Quincy-centric world Thursday

Just how much does discussion focus on the Veterans’ Home in Quincy – the facility where several fatalities occurred from elderly residents who contracted the Legionnaires Disease.

BECAUSE YOU JUST know that Democratic nominee J.B. Pritzker is going to want to turn the entire session into a rant against how those men who served their country wound up dying while in the care of Gov. Bruce Rauner.

That’s actually a gross oversimplification of what really happened, but then again most of what gets said during a political campaign is oversimplification and distortion with only the slightest tidbit of truth to it.

So if we wind up being given the impression that Rauner is personally responsible for dead military veterans, it will mean that Pritzker will have “won” the debate – he will have been capable of having his version of “the truth” predominate.

Whereas if we wind up being given the impression that this election cycle is about a man who had the toilets ripped out of a mansion in order to get a significant property tax break (because it no longer qualified as an inhabitable home), then we can chalk up Thursday night to Team Rauner.

YOU MAY BE wondering “What’s your point?”

RAUNER: Caused negligence that killed vets?

It’s that these circumstances shouldn’t be surprising. Political debates have the great misfortune of being so filled with nonsense that it’s a wonder anything useful comes out of them. There actually are times I wonder why political candidates bother to participate in them.

Personally, what I always try to look for when watching such an event is just how quick on one’s feet one is. How they handle the back-and-forth of answering back.

And also watching for that moment (which can crop up at virtually any point in time, usually most unexpected) when a candidate goes off-script and says something from the heart. Telling us what he really thinks about an issue.

PRITZKER: A toilet-less tax cheat?

OF COURSE, THOSE moments can be dreaded by a candidate because “honesty” can often be ugly – showing us just how insipid a political aspirant truly is and all-the-more reason why we shouldn’t bother voting for that person.

For what it’s worth, Thursday’s debate between Rauner and Pritzker is meant to be the “downstate” debate. Unlike the two previous events sponsored by the Chicago Urban League and the League of Women Voters that were held in Chicago, this one is being held outside the Chicago area.

It will have a panel of broadcaster-types from Quincy, Peoria and Rockford, along with a reporter-type from the Herald-Whig newspaper of Quincy. Which means it may well have questions that focus on the rest of the state – the part of Illinois where Rauner dreams he’s the favorite and that will lead him to a victory over Pritzker.

Now I don’t doubt the downstate Illinois types will vote against Pritzker because he’s “too Chicago-ish” for them. Although how they manage to tolerate Rauner is a mystery. It must be a really tight clothespin tacked onto their nose while they cast their ballots.

EITHER WAY, I’M sure many think this election stinks.

It is a victory for Pritzker’s part that his political operatives were able to get a Quincy-based debate as one of the events, and pressure Rauner into having to accept it. I have no doubt that the governor would rather be anywhere else in Illinois than in Quincy Thursday night.

Will gov candidates muck up the shores of the Mississippi River?

And as for Pritzker, it’s probably a matter of following the old political adage – “Avoid saying anything stupid!”

Because amidst all the cheap shots and distortions that both candidates will make about each other, we need to realize we’re getting our last glance at the two multi-millionaires who want to think that their personal wealth is significant enough to buy the political post of Illinois governor.

  -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-

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-

At least Roskam said “no” publicly, before hiding from voter questions behind disconnected phone call

I’m willing to give Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., one bit of credit – he’s not spewing a whole lot of nonsense trying to justify his refusal to appear at public events where he’d be confronted by his constituents.

ROSKAM: Won't appear in public?

Roskam is the member of Congress from Wheaton who represents the bulk of DuPage County in Washington who in recent weeks has been taking heat for the fact he won’t show up at public forums and town hall events.

THE ELGIN-BASED Courier News newspaper reported recently about a recent event in which Roskam took questions from the public even though he wasn’t present – he called in by telephone.

To the people who wanted to hear from their congressman, he was just a voice on the telephone. And technology being what it is, there were glitches. Poor audio, no sound or some people just got hung up on, according to the Courier News.

But Roskam, who I remember having dealings with back in the days when he was a mere state legislator, doing his time in both the Illinois House and state Senate before going off and becoming a “big shot” in Washington, D.C., seems to think this is adequate in terms of meeting with the people who actually voted to send him off to Capitol Hill.

Now having spent the past quarter century of my life covering political geeks, I’m used to them spewing a sense of double-talk, particularly when the blunt truth would be a response something along the lines of, “I don’t want to answer that question.”

IN THIS PARTICULAR call-in forum, someone tried to get Roskam to commit to participating in a public forum against his opponent come the 2018 election cycle. To which Roskam gave an honest answer – “I am not willing to make any commitments in advance of any sort of campaign. So no, in answer to your question.”

Most political people would have engaged in a convoluted line of double-talk that would have rivaled the legendary baseball manager Casey Stengel’s ability to confuse with the spoken word.

Roskam actually came out and said “no.”

'Town hall' forums often are so staged that little 'truth' comes out of them

Which isn’t surprising. It is rare that political people want to challenge an opponent face-to-face. They’d rather spew rhetoric from a distance, usually rhetoric that has been crafted well in advance and is meant to take cheap shots with a tiny bit of truth attached to it.

OF COURSE, NOW Roskam opens himself up to the charges that he’s hiding from his constituents. But I’m sure he feels more comfortable dealing with that line of accusation, rather than the other attacks that political people find themselves under.

STENGEL: Spewing nonsense better than any pol

Insofar as the people who are upset that Roskam won’t take part in “town hall” forums, I actually find myself agreeing with the congressman when he says he thinks the forums are unproductive.

The “town hall” is a format meant to simulate an actual discussion between a candidate and the voters. But too often, it comes off as rehearsed in its own way. Only certain people get called upon to ask questions, if they can be counted on to ask the “right” questions.

It’s phony public discourse. Unless, by chance, someone manages to slip in who wants to challenge. But then it just turns into a fracas. Nothing real is learned. No one is swayed. Roskam would rather not be bothered playing along.

IF ANYTHING, THERE have been times when I, as a reporter-type person, felt used covering such events, because it was thought my presence and my resulting stories offered a sense of legitimacy to such events – even when I’d point out the elements of phoniness that existed.

As for Roskam, he’s now going to have to deal with allegations that he’s dodging his constituents. Although it seems that many pols get hit with that accusation from time to time.

Is beating Duckworth his sole achievement

We’ll have to see how DuPage voters respond. Will this become a real issue come the 2018 election cycle? Or will bigger issues and more serious controversies manage to take the electoral stage?

Will Roskam wind up becoming merely the guy who once beat Tammy Duckworth for his seat, only to see her go on to become the U.S. senator from Illinois? Which sounds as hollow as when his congressional colleague, Bobby Rush, still tries to boast that HE’s the guy who once beat Barack Obama.

  -30-

EXTRA: Does Kirk gain bonus points politically for speaking Spanish?

KIRK: Habla en Espanol

I'm sure that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., thinks he gained himself some political points when, during a final debate held Friday between himself and Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth, he reverted to the use of the Spanish language.

He showed off his bilingual abilities when asked a question by Univision-Chicago broadcaster Erika Maldonado about where he stood on immigration reform, saying, "I'm going to answer this question in the language for whom the issue is most meaningful."

DUCKWORTH: Fighting back in Thai

HE THEN TRIED to say in Spanish that he has been a supporter of the issue, while most of his Republican colleagues in Congress have not. He also tried rubbing it in by saying, "My opponent does not speak any Spanish."

Of course, it could be argued that by trying to portray the issue as purely one impacting Latinos, he is trying to isolate it off so that other voters don't give it much thought. There's also the argument that by giving his answer of moderation in Spanish, he ensures that many of the people who are most hard-core xenophobic in their thought process won't have a clue what he said.

And won't be reminded just how much they disagree with Kirk on this issue, and many others. After all, if he were really in line with their thoughts, they'd probably be backing him and it could be argued that a Donald Trump presidential candidacy would have coat-tails strong enough to carry him back to the U.S. Senate.

I also couldn't help but notice the wire service news accounts of the debate, which indicated that while Duckworth may not speak Spanish, she did show off her skills in the Thai language when answering questions from reporter-types.

  -30-

Trump wants any edge he can get in upcoming (and final) debate w/ Clinton

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has already shown that in a head-to-head oratorical competition against Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, he’ll get his clock cleaned.

The halls of UNLV will host the final presidential debate

His gut instinct is to spew so much nonsense on pseudo-issues that only the most illogical of people will take him seriously.

SO ANYBODY WHO expects this Wednesday’s political faceoff between the two to produce anything in the way of serious data is kidding themselves.

Heck, there’s the fact that Trump already has tried to make an issue of drug-testing, trying to imply that Clinton is unstable and must somehow be “high” on something. Nobody believes that to be true – except for the nitwits who want to believe the worst in her.

Trump also has been spewing the continued rhetoric of how the election process is being rigged against him – possibly because he thinks it is absurd to let people who don’t support him even have a vote.

To that end, Trump has hinted that he now thinks the two debates he already has done are sufficient and he may not even bother to show up. Although he also has made other statements implying he will participate, but that he intends to behave like a complete horse’s behind.

AS THOUGH TRUMP think we ought to be blessed to be in his presence and let him enlighten us with his nonsense.

A part of me wonders if Trump would think of claiming that the location of the final debate is somehow biased against him – the Las Vegas campus of the University of Nevada. Which usually is a school known for nothing more than its occasionally-talented basketball teams.

Would Trump think his hotel/casino be a more conducive debate forum?

It wouldn’t shock me if he’d think that a more appropriate place to hold a debate would be the Trump Casino – any place where he thinks he’d have the psychological advantage over Hillary Clinton.

If you think this is absurd, take into account the last debate at Washington University in St. Louis. That was the one where Trump kept walking around the stage during the debate so as to constantly be standing behind Hillary.

THERE WERE THOSE people who joked that Trump became Clinton’s stalker during the debate. Personally, I think he thinks that somehow, the fact that his pudgy image was constantly in view meant that people were focused on him – rather than on anything that Hillary had to say.

Which makes me wonder if the only person who might have been “high” during the debate was Donald Trump himself.

Then again, Trump likely isn’t high. It’s just an over-bloated ego on his part – and the idea of having to endure another face-to-face confrontation with Clinton must be a blow to that ego.

Particularly since it would mean more direct evidence that Trump isn’t anywhere near qualified to be a government official at any level, whereas Clinton likely has experience unique to any other president – and not just because her husband was a president some two decades ago.

SO WHAT WILL the point be of Wednesday’s political spectacle, other than seeing how debate moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News can handle the bloated Trump ego – and if he brings any reminiscence of his early 1970s days as a WBBM-TV reporter from the days when Channel 2 news reigned supreme with “Bill and Walter” at the head.

Can one-time Chicago newsman top Trump ego

Debt, the economy, foreign hot spots, immigration, the Supreme Court are all among the topics to be discussed, although I suspect the portion where they’re allowed to discuss each other’s fitness to be president will be the key component most likely to attract attention.

Who comes up with the most outrageous cheap shot against the other’s personal existence may well be the quote of the debate.

And when it comes to being able to spew nonsense that makes for good video, that could be an area in which Donald Trump is capable of coming out on top.

  -30-

Did Ryan really save his caucus, or dig GOP deeper into doo-doo than before?

Much is being made of the endless list of politicos who feel compelled to say they don’t really back Donald Trump for president; no matter how strongly they may have previously endorsed him.

RYAN: Did he help Grand OI' Party?

In fact, some of the strongest rhetoric has been tied to the name of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Minn., who says he’s so offended by what Trump has said about the fairer sex (even if it was supposed to be in private, and many years ago) that he won’t defend him.

RYAN SAYS HIS focus for the final four weeks leading up to Election Day is to work to ensure that Trump's presence on the Republican ballot won't wind up taking down to defeat other GOP candidates seeking Congressional seats.

Because just envision the conservative ideologue’s worst nightmare – both the Senate and House of Representatives develop Democratic majorities under a “President Hillary R. Clinton.” Which, in theory, start acting in partisan ways to shove so many so-called repulsive issues up their partisan behind.

Which actually is a myth. Largely because urban and rural Democrats have never been able to work in unison on issues the way that Republicans can. Just remember the brief times when both presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had Congresses that theoretically were aligned with them.

A whole lotta nothin’ went on, and both of those presidents wound up spending the bulk of their time with Republican-controlled Congresses that were openly hostile toward presidential interests.

BUT BACK TO Ryan, who says he fears Trump’s misogyny is now such a threat that it can’t be ignored. Not that he or other Republicans really are offended by Trump’s thoughts on gender issues. It’s more a matter of they’re upset he doesn’t understand the subtle way of expressing oneself without putting one’s foot in their mouth.

 

Speaking truth? Or his mamma didn't teach him manners?

I once remember a reporter-type colleague who, although working in Chicago, hailed from Georgia, who tried explaining to me a difference of perception on racial matters. Telling me that with regards to a certain “n----r” word, “It’s rude. Even if they think it, only the lowest form of white trash says that in public.”

Does that mean Trump is just lacking in manners; in the ways of behaving when amongst civilized company? If he had piped down what he thought of women, he’d be fine?

But the fact is that some people are, in a sense, rude. A large part of why they’re attracted to the Trump campaign no matter now stupid he sounds is because they sense he doesn’t hold it against them the way they really think.

SO THE FACT that the initial polls didn’t show any large drop of support for Trump even after we learned where he believes women should be grabbed to gain their attention?

There probably will be people who will take Ryan’s attitude as further evidence of how out-of-touch political people are! Which is the part about our society that scares me – the segment of those who equate having manners with so-called political correctness.

It means that when I do my own review of the Election Day facts and figures following Nov. 8 (and yes, I realize there are many people who only want to know “yes” or “no” as to whether their preferred presidential candidate won the election), I’m going to be checking many of these Congressional candidates.

How well did they do? How many of them got taken down? How many of them only got re-elected by the skin of their teeth? How many of them will feel the need to make post-Electoral mea culpas for their attitudes being expressed now?

 

CLINTON: Has she really won?!?

IN SHORT, HOW much of a change in the way our most narrow-minded in our society did Donald Trump’s existence as a presidential candidate wind up creating? How much “cover” did he create for them to think their thoughts – which usually focus on trying to keep everybody unlike themselves in check.

Ryan and other political people may want to view Trump as the aberration who will fade away (remember Michael Dukakis?!?) into forgottonia.

But it may be the lasting after-effect that we’ll have to devote generations to trying to fight off.

  -30-