Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2015

THE ONE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE SEPTEMBER GOP DEBATE

9/18/15

One can make plenty of observations regarding Wednesday night’s GOP debates:

  • Donald Trump has some chinks in his electoral armor and his opponents are starting to find them.
  • Jeb Bush has a pulse.   That his supporters are touting as a huge positive for his campaign the evidence the debate provided of that pulse’s existence shows how much trouble the fair haired boy of the GOP establishment is in.
  •  Marco Rubio did a pretty good job but, for some reason, the punditocracy didn’t notice.  He might be the establishment’s alternative if Mr. Bush should continue to fail to live up to what look like cut from whole cloth expectations.
  • Mr. Rubio, if he is to inherit Mr. Bush’s well moneyed support, will have to somehow transcend Chris Christie, who performed quite the Lazarus act on his presidential hopes Wednesday night.   Christie was terrific, especially when lambasting the front runners for their obsessions with themselves and positioning himself as an establishment Republican who can still speak for the middle class.
  • Rand Paul’s sensible, sober approach to foreign policy clearly disqualifies him for the nomination of a Party that equates to treason the exercise of caution, prudence, and Constitutionality when putting the lives of young Americans on the line.
  • You can stick the proverbial fork in Scott Walker
  • If the American people were yearning for the Fred MacMurray (the good, My Three Sons Fred MacMurray, not the double dealing, caddish, scheming, Double Indemnity and The Apartment Fred MacMurray) approach to life and politics, John Kasich would be a shoo-in.   But that approach became passé when yours truly was a small child.   Too bad.
  • Ben Carson is probably too smart, and too much of a gentleman, to be president.  Also too bad.
  • The debate was too long.   Even those of us who have yet to overcome our silly addiction to politics were getting bored as the debate moved into the third hour.

While those are all, at the risk of sounding a touch braggadocious, searingly insightful observations, we can only draw one inescapable conclusion from Wednesday night’s debate:  Carly Fiorina is going to be on the GOP ticket.  If she is not at the top of the ticket, still something of a long shot, she will be in the vice-presidential spot.

Mrs. Fiorina is clearly bright, articulate, forceful, and, despite Mr. Trump’s apparent opinion, attractive.  And she is a woman, which certainly has its attractions whether or not Hillary Clinton heads the Democratic ticket.  (See “Something(s)about Hillary,” 9/8/15.)  Mrs. Fiorina is also a cancer survivor, which not only shows courage and grit but is, ironically, a big plus in the increasingly emotional electoral climate we face.  The establishment is more than comfortable with this former corporate chieftain and the social conservatives also like her for her strong pro-life positions.  

Mrs. Fiorina only has two obvious drawbacks.   The first is that her record in corporate America is, to put it charitably, worse than mediocre.   However, the American people seem to be coming to the (correct) conclusion that even someone who did far less than stellar work in a real job is a better choice than someone who has spent his or her life in and around electoral politics, i.e., who has made his or her living having his or her hindquarters smooched and who consequently is terrified at the thought of having to work in the private sector, or even in a public sector job with responsibilities that transcend preening for the cameras, for a living.

The second drawback is that Mrs. Fiorina, unlike Messrs. Kasich, Rubio, Walker, or Bush, has no chance of bringing a swing state, or any state, into the GOP Electoral College fold.   California isn’t going to go GOP regardless of who is on the Republican ticket.   But enhancement of the electoral map by selection of one’s running mate is an overrated strategy, as evidenced by Bill Clinton’s selection of Al Gore, Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden, and Ronald Reagan’s selection of George Bush as their running mates.   Each of these veeps either didn’t bring his state into the fold or was from a state that was already solidly in the fold.   Running mates have an appeal that transcends their home states.   This is especially true in the case of Mrs. Fiorina.


Wednesday, July 9, 2014

THOSE HORRIBLE SOUTH WORKS AND RAHM EMANUEL’S CORE CONSTITUENCY

7/9/14

Earlier this week, in a story by veteran political reporter Lynn Sweet, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that developer Dan McCaffery has proposed placing the Obama Presidential Library on the site of the old U.S. Steel South Works along the shores of Lake Michigan on Chicago’s south side.

Whether the plan to place the Obama Library on the South Works site, or anywhere in our financially strained city, makes sense is grist for another mill.  More interesting to yours truly were the juxtaposed pictures of the old South Works site and the new Obama Library the Sun-Times ran with the story.  The old South Works are portrayed as belching out fumes, dumping detritus into the lake, and just being an environmentally obtuse corporate citizen in a number of ways.  The Obama Library, on the other hand, is, in the artist’s renderings featured by the Sun-Times, is a glowing architectural marvel, adding even further to our lake front’s breathtaking beauty.

The impression the Sun-Times, and other proponents of the South Works site for the Library, wish to convey is obvious:   the Obama Library is very, very good, a symbol of the new Chicago that will further blot out the bad old days of Chicago’s industrial history.  This is the narrative, by the way, that defines the worldview of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the dazzling young urbanites who form the core of his constituency:   Chicago is the new Emerald City, a town of “entertainment venues,” bicycle paths, high tech crapshoots, and Potemkin prosperity, not the bad old sooty industrial town on which we should close the history books.


The U.S. Steel South Works--in a busier (better?) time

You can see why such a narrative defines the typical Emanuel supporter’s view of the world; after all, s/he, having grown up in the suburbs and having no roots in the city, and certainly no recent roots in the city’s working class, care not a whit about what made Chicago Chicago but care very much about imposing their vision of a hip, chic, trendy new age city on all of us. 

But think about this for awhile.

Yes, the old South Works complex was dirty and the neighborhoods it spawned were gritty, tough, and bereft of fern bars, yogurt stores, cutesy-pie “coffee shops” (as currently defined, i.e., trendy Starbucks places, not diners by another name), jazz bars, trendy boutiques, and other necessities of newly urban life.   But the Works, and thousands of factories like it on a smaller scale, provided a decent living for thousands of families, good paying jobs for guys (very few women worked in such environments) trying to grab the first rung on the ladder to the American Dream despite their lack of education or family or political connections.   The Works generated tax revenues for the city and spawned innumerable businesses, mostly small, on its periphery.  The Works, while dirty and sooty and smelly, made some people rich and a lot of people well off enough to buy a small home and maybe send the kids to college.

On the other hand, the Obama Library will surely be environmentally pristine.  It will provide a few jobs for academics who want to further navel gaze about the momentous accomplishments of Barack Obama in addition to maybe a few hundred minimum wage jobs for docents, janitors, security people, greeters, etc.  It will not pay property or other taxes to the city and its wage base will be so small as to provide no meaningful income tax revenue to the state.  Its inevitable gift shop will provide a pittance of sales taxes.   Rather than generate appreciable revenue like, say, a factory, it will require massive subsidies ($100 million, at this early stage) from an already bankrupt state, and maybe city, to build and run.  It will make a very few people (like the politically connected Dan McCaffery and other friends of and contributors to Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama) rich and place an only slightly larger number just barely above water.

This is progress, according to the Sun-Times, the Emanuel Administration, and others with their own imported vision of what constitutes a great city.

Of course the South Works specifically, and steel and other heavy manufacturing, will never come back to Chicago along with their high paying jobs and other economic stimulation; natural economic evolution, plus trade policies seemingly designed to further widen the income and wealth gaps in this country, have ordained such activities on the new urban landscape to a permanent death.   Rahm Emanuel’s supporters cheer the death of industrial Chicago from the comfort of their climate controlled and oh, so immaculate offices and the trendy bars and restaurants they, like the obedient sheep they are, must frequent if they are to be part of the acceptable crowd.

But would it be such a bad thing if Chicago still had an industrial base?   Think about the good paying blue collar jobs huge, and not so huge, industrial complexes like the South Works provided to people with little education but a lot of desire to work to get on that first rung on the inter-generational climb to a comfortable middle class lifestyle.   What if those jobs were still around?   Would we be having the crime problems we are having in Chicago right now if there were jobs around that would afford people throughout our city the opportunity to buy and stay in homes, form families and communities and support those families and communities?  What if men and women, despite a lack of aptitude for high tech jobs, the legal and banking gigs, and other jobs Mr. Emanueland his “better” base deem acceptable, were able to go to work right out of high school, support families, and build some degree of wealth?   Would that be such a bad thing?

Oh, I forgot; giving people at the bottom real economic and financial opportunity would involve making a few yuppies “uncomfortable” with the condition of the environment and the possible spread of blue collar communities into the chic urban habitats Mr. Emanuel and his supporters deem acceptable for people of their lofty stature.   And so the response of the near north upscale crowd to the very notion of an industrial revival must be

“Let them get law degrees and MBAs!”

The Emanuel core need not worry, though; Chicago will never reindustrialize and the lower classes in this town will have to consign themselves to menial, low wage jobs at the “entertainment venues” that seem to form the core of every one of the Mayor’s economic revival proposals…if they can get jobs at all.  And the consequent urban blight will never reach those communities around the core of downtown, with their trendy bars and hipster hangouts and stupid restaurants at which the bill is in inverse proportion to the quantities served, that these bleating sheep inhabit.


 See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 


Friday, June 20, 2014

QUINN ON IRAQ, SHAKMAN...AND THINGS FAR WORSE THAN PATRONAGE HIRING

6/20/14

Yes, I am a bit consumed with Iraq of late, but this story deserves plenty of attention; rarely do we find ourselves on the brink of catastrophic (at least) regionwide conflict in which at least some of the major players are clueless, fanatical, or both.  

Despite the time spent on Iraq, I did mention to commit some apostasy on Chicago politics, still one of my favorite topics, in my first (and thus the last in this reverse chronological list)  post this week.

This week’s paragons of insight included


“ADVISERS” TO IRAQ:   DOES OBAMA REMEMBER VIETNAM?
Our clueless commander-in-chief apparently can’t remember the major foreign policy debacle of his youth.   This post not only afforded me the opportunity to rant in a Cassandric fashion but also gave me an excuse to relate a few stories from the St. Walter School of my youth.  Such stories are bound to be included in my upcoming third book, still in its formative stages.

JOHN KERRY TO IRAQIS TRYING TO STAY ALIVE:   (WESTERN DEMOCRACY) IS WHAT YOU NEED 
Mr. Kerry failed to propose mandatory nightly renderings of Kumbayah.  One wonders why he committed such an oversight.


PARTITION IRAQ?   ANOTHER LOUSY IDEA FROM WASHINGTON
Modern day Metternichs pore over the map of the Middle East.  Oh, yeah, they’re qualified to redraw the world…just like the guys at Versailles in 1919.

PATRONAGE, THE SHAKMAN DECREE, THE CITY THAT ONCE WORKED…AND DAVID COPPERFIELD
http://www.rantlifestyle.com/2014/06/16/patronage-the-shakman-decree-the-city-that-once-worked-and-david-copperfield/
Yes, Mr. Shakman, et. al., there are worse things than patronage hiring.

For more on Chicago’s politics, see my books:
The Chairman:
The Chairman’s Challenge:



Friday, June 13, 2014

QUINN ON IRAQ, SYRIA, ERIC CANTOR…AND $5,000 SUITS

6/13/14

Somehow I was under the mistaken notion that things would slow down with the summer and the consequent lightening of my teaching load, but that has not been the case.  Still, I’ve managed to comment on what I consider the big story of perhaps the year, or maybe even the decade, the goings on in Iraq, and a few other items for good measure:

SYRIA AND IRAQ:  THE BUSH/OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUTS US ON BOTH SIDES OF A RELIGIOUS WAR
..and we continue to elect these Bozos from both parties who are apparently completely ill-equipped to deal with a dangerous world…or any world in which they are not completely insulated from reality, for that matter.


IRAQ ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING A TERRORIST PETRI DISH:   THANK THE BUSH/OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Yes, I will blame Bush…and Obama and Hillary Clinton.  They are all guilty of making the Middle East a fiasco…but none is more guilty than George W. Bush, an utter and complete disaster of a president.


WALL STREET DRESSES DOWN TO SEAL A DEAL
The smart money guys wear $5,000 suits?  O tempora, o mores!


ERIC CANTOR AND THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT GO DOWN HARD IN VIRGINIA
Few elections have ever made yours truly happier.


THE BIGGEST FAILURE OF HILLARY CLINTON AT STATE
Benghazi is only a symptom of a much larger policy failure.

Have a great weekend and a great Father’s Day.  I will.



See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 


Friday, May 9, 2014

QUINN ON SYRIA, PRAYER AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND EMANUEL’S DISPENSING HIS WISDOM ON WABASH

5/9/14

Time is tight, as it has been for the last several months, but a man’s gotta write what a man’s gotta write…

WHY DO SO MANY IN WASHINGTON WANT TO HELP AL QAEDA IN SYRIA?
Contrary to what the likes of John McCain would have you believe, militarism and meddling does not equate to patriotism.


CAPTAIN OBVIOUS STRIKES AGAIN:  SUPREME COURT SAYS IT’S OKAY TO PRAY
Maybe this is the beginning of the end of all the silliness inflicted on us by the freedom from religion crowd…but probably not.


RAHM EMANUEL TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESSPEOPLE:  JUST SHUT UP AND PAY
And have you noticed how the local media, or at least elements of the Chicago Tribune, seem to have turned on their consanguineous champion?  Still…bet heavily on the wise and mighty Rahm’s reelection.  In the screwed up politics of enlightened, modern day America, it’s all about money, and Mr. Emanuel has boatloads of it.


Have a great weekend, everybody, and God bless and thank all of you out there who are mothers.




See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 



Friday, November 8, 2013

OBAMACARE: CAN THE REPUBLICANS OPEN THE GIFT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE JUST HANDED THEM?

11/8/13

As I pointed out a few days ago (THE OBAMACARE ROLLOUT 'S ECONOMIC IMPACT:  “YOU THINK THIS COUNTRY’S IN BAD SHAPE, JUST WAIT ‘TIL I GET THROUGH WITH IT!”, 11/6/13), the debacle at least the initial rollout of ObamaCare has done more damage to the economy than most people think, and certainly far more than the non-event government shutdown about which so many economists continue to wring their hands.   The political consequences of the ObamaCare defecation show, however, are at least as profound, transcend party politics, and will have their own impact on the economy.

The overwhelming reaction to the increased prices, the sieve like jalopy of a website, and the general overall confusion and uncertainty associated with the ObamaCare startup is a now pervasive feeling throughout the land that we have an incompetent in the White House, a guy who never had a real job, is not as smart as he and his most ardent supporters suppose (Nobody is, by the way.), and is in way over his head.  This is damaging to the Democratic Party, for sure, but also is bad for the country and for the economy.  The consequences of a rudderless ship of state for business and consumer confidence and in international political and economic affairs can be devastating.  Money likes to go to where it is treated well and, barring that, at least likes to go where it has a reasonable idea of how it will be treated.  So the follow-on effects of the problems ObamaCare is facing have the potential to be more long lasting and widespread than they appear at first glance.

In the less important, buy maybe more fun, realm of partisan politics, the ObamaCare travails have done incalculable damage to Mr. Obama and the party he heads.   Those middle ground voters are not only being socked with the stress inducing consequences of the ObamaCare rollout, but they are now coming to the conclusion that the whole idea of ObamaCare was a mistake, a costly experiment in social engineering by a group of people who have no idea of how Mr. and Mrs. America live their lives and how challenging those lives have become.  They are disgusted and ready for a change.

The first opportunity to act on these feelings of disgust will come in the Fall of next year.  The bigger opportunity will come in the Fall of 2016.  Both are a long way off in realistic political terms.  But even at this early juncture, one overwhelming conclusion is that if the Republicans cannot capitalize on this dropping of the ball by Mr. Obama and his cohorts, they ought to just fold up the tent and go home.  This is a huge opportunity that, thankfully for the Republicans, did not rely on any skill or intelligence by the GOP; it was a pure gift to a party that, given its political obtuseness, needs to subsist on gifts.

Can the GOP capitalize on this?   Recent history would indicate that it can’t.  But maybe the Republicans can capitalize if they realize that the reason they now have a chance is that the people are tired of incompetence.   So rather than emphasize arcane issues in which many, if not most, people think government should be at best only ancillarily involved, perhaps the GOP ought to emphasize competence…the ability to get things done, an ability long and sadly lacking in Washington.   People are not ideological; people want results.  They may or may not want much from government, but they want government to deliver what it promises.  Government’s part in the life of the populace may not be a major concern in people’s lives, but people certainly want government to do its part, whatever it may be.

Is this an argument for a certain recently re-elected governor from New Jersey who has shown a distaste for ideological arguments paired with an ability to achieve results?   At least at this point, certainly.   If the GOP wants to win, it better nominate the big guy from Jersey.  If it wants to live in an echo chamber, constantly rehashing arguments most people don’t listen to, it can nominate one of the ideological warriors from Congress and continue to get a charge from listening to its imagined unappreciated brilliance.


Friday, September 6, 2013

U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA: ESCALATING EVEN BEFORE IT STARTS

9/6/13

President Obama a few days ago was promising that his intentions for Syria were limited to a pinpoint attack, designed to punish Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people.  He and his minions initially assured us that the attack would feature Tomahawk cruise missiles and the like, weapons that enable us to keep our guys out of harm’s way, to the extent such a thing is possible once combat starts.  (See my 9/2/13 post, OBAMA’S EXCELLENT SYRIAN ADVENTURE: THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER GETS BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS ENEMIES? for only my latest, until now, comments on Syria.)

But now talk turns to the use of manned bombers, perhaps B-1s stationed in the Gulf, B-2s stationed in Missouri, or B-52s stationed in a variety of locations.   The use of B-2s is especially troubling; they are stealth bombers designed not to stand off and fire cruise missiles and the like from afar, like B-52s and B-1s, but, rather, to use their stealthy features to fly right over the target and deliver smart bombs.   So using B-2s means having actual live Air Force personnel penetrating the airspace of Syria, which has among the best anti-aircraft defenses in the world, defenses so formidable that the Israeli Air Force fears to figuratively tread there.



Perhaps this talk of expanding beyond Tomahawks and graduating to weapons systems that put Americans in harm’s way is designed to mollify the likes of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are, as is their wont, hell-bent on getting us deeply immersed in another centuries old, irresolvable, Middle Eastern secular conflict.  And what better way to get a reluctant American public on board for all out war in a place in which we have few vital interests and no chance of coming out on top than the death of a few American soldiers and airmen?  Is this too cynical and conspiratorial?   Does it take too dark a view of the War Party and its most fervent members?   Probably not.   But I digress.

The major lesson to take away from this talk of manned bombers over Syria is that this conflict, which the President promised not to escalate, is escalating even before it starts.   The broader lesson is to never, ever trust a politician, especially when he is preparing to send your kids and your money to war.  In fact, it would be wise to check your driver’s license should a politician tell you your name.


Thursday, August 15, 2013

JESSE AND SANDI JACKSON: JUST HOW CLAIRVOYANT WAS H.L. MENCKEN?

8/15/13

Jesse Jackson, Jr., affectionately, or otherwise, known as “Triple J” in these parts, and his co-schemer and wife Sandi Jackson, were sentenced yesterday for their crimes involving misuse of campaign funds and failure to mention to the IRS their use of such funds for such vital campaign necessities as moose heads, furs, Eddie Van Halen guitars, Michael Jackson memorabilia, and a $43,000 watch.   Yours truly contends that anyone who spends $43 grand on a watch deserves to go to jail on general principle, but I digress.

As regular readers know, I have been deeply intrigued by this story for a long time.  (See, inter alia




and posts in a former blog to which they will direct you.)   So the sentencing of these two felonious finaglers merits some comment from yours truly.



First, the sentences seemed a little light:   a year for Sandi Jackson and two and a half years for Triple J, both far under the maxima under federal guidelines.   If the Chicago Sun-Times Natasha Korecki and Lynn Sweet, neither of whom could be considered hostile to the Jacksons, are to be believed, at least Triple J agrees that he got off easy.  According to Ms. Sweet and Ms. Korecki in today’s (8/15/13, page 4) Sun-Times

Jackson, Jr., 48, who had been blowing his nose and sobbing during his remarks to the judge, appeared to break into a half-grin as the news of the sentence settled in.

And it got better for the Jackson.  Rather than both going immediately to jail (and why has it taken this long?), they will go in sequence, with Jesse going first and Sandi going after him.  And they got to decide the order of their incarcerations.   Who else gets such treatment?

Still, yours truly is kind of surprised that Sandi Jackson got any jail time at all.   It’s not that I don’t think she deserved it.  But so much of the Chicago media and political establishments had bought into the “poor, poor put-upon Sandi Jackson” line of baloney, along with the “these kids need their parents” pile of horse dump that I feared, and suspected, that Judge Amy Berman Jackson (no relation) had drunken the kool-aid.  Fortunately, she didn’t.




Second, Triple J’s still vague emotional/mental malady was taken for the line of cattle detritus that it appeared to be.  Prosecutor Matt Graves, referring to Mr. Jackson’s purported illness, stated

“It’s quite clear there’s no ‘there’ there.”

Some might reply that, of course, Mr. Graves would say that; after all, he was the prosecutor in the case.  But Judge Jackson also gave the mental health angle no credence, pointing out that there was nothing sudden about Mr. and Mrs. Jackson’s, er, lapses of judgment, as would be the case if their thievery sprung from Mr. Jackson’s mental condition.   This was, the Judge pointed out, a continuing pattern of pilferage, and stated that there was

“…only once conclusion, and that is that you (Triple J) knew better.”

Yours truly is no mental health professional, but neither are the vast majority of people commenting on Triple J’s medical maladies.   Further, none of the mental health professionals the Jacksons were able to produce were all that convincing.   Maybe those of us who are, to put it mildly, suspicious of Mr. Jackson’s claims of the psychiatric equivalent of “the devil made me do it” are wrong.  Maybe Mr. Jackson really is sick.   If that really is the case, one suspects that whatever it is that Mr. Jackson has will clear up quickly…very quickly.  In fact, one suspects that his afflictions vanished as soon as his sentence was pronounced.   But they may make a temporary comeback if (when, probably) Mr. and Mrs. Jackson prepare their appeal.


Third, we have been hearing much about “wasted talent” and “a promising career” of “a young man who had the ability to go all the way” being “thrown away,” and other such bullroar from those die-hard liberals in the local and national media who “just wanna believe,” and can’t be convinced otherwise.  

Yours truly never bought into this hype.  Triple J was at best a passable Congressperson, at worst a lazy, entitled son of privilege who was clearly in over his head.   Until recently, he had a very good Congressional attendance record, but one wonders what he did other than attend.  In his 17 years in Congress, he never managed to win a committee chairmanship, despite the sycophancy most of his fellow Congressman showed him due to his last name and the perception that it carries a lot of weight with black voters.  He did manage to win a seat on the Appropriations Committee, but his record of achievement in that all-important Committee, like his overall record in Congress, was slight, at best.   He made a lot of noise about what came to be seen as his pet project, a third Chicago airport in distant Peotone, but there is still no airport growing from the cornfields in that bucolic burg.  He also proposed that each school child in America be given an i-Pad, courtesy of you, the taxpayer.   Hmm…perhaps we should be grateful that JJJ was unable to get anything done.   Even his much lauded oratory was only so much fulmination, much art and little substance, jargon and catch-lines amounting to nothing but pap and pabulum for the already converted.

When Mr. Jackson first came to Congress in 1995, all we heard about was what a terrific, wonderful, super hero of a young man he was, truly outstanding, upstanding, and all around beatific in every conceivable way.  It seemed to yours truly that such talk was just another orgiastic manifestation of the “just gotta believe” phenomenon among starry-eyed liberals with not even a passing familiarity with life on the ground in Mr. Jackson’s 2nd Congressional District.

We had heard nearly the same kinds of hosannas about Mel Reynolds, Mr. Jackson’s predecessor as Congressman in the 2nd District, when Mr. Reynolds defeated Gus Savage in 1992 to assume the seat.   Mr. Reynolds was described in nearly the same beatific tones as Mr. Jackson.   Mr. Reynolds was a Rhodes Scholar and he was….,well, given Mr. Reynolds’ thin resume and an inability to talk in anything but empty platitudes or understand the core of any issue, no one could come up with anything other than his Rhodes Scholarship.   In fact, Mr. Reynolds’ only qualification for Congress, let alone the sainthood his true believers seemed to be recommending him for, was that he was not his race-baiting, anti-Semitic predecessor Gus Savage.  

Mr. Reynolds went on to develop, or maybe just further indulge from a position of power, proclivities toward teenage girls, especially Catholic school girls (“I think I just won the lottery,” Mr. Reynolds response when he was told by what turned out to be an informant that the informant could set him up with a girl who attended a Catholic high school, is perhaps Mr. Reynolds’ most famous utterance, but I digress.) and lie to law enforcement about it.   Consequently, he was provided lodging in a federal facility  and was replaced by the equally underqualified Mr. Jackson.  The same people who just three years before were telling us how terrific Mr. Reynolds was began telling us that we had been visited by an even more celestial personage in Mr. Jackson.  I never believed it because there was never any basis for it other than the “just gotta believe” attitude that affects those whose minds are so open their brains fall out.   But Mr. Jackson’s obsequiants may have had a point; Mr. Jackson had at least one more qualification than Mr. Reynolds:  not only was Mr. Jackson not Gus Savage; he also was not Mel Reynolds.  As H.L. Mencken, one of the truly great figures in American history said,

“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will make a better soup.”



Fourth, there is much talk already about a Triple J comeback.   Don’t discount the possibility.  Young Mr. Jackson is not yet fifty and he’ll be out in about a year and a half.   He managed to win re-election by a landslide in 2012 despite his absence from both Congress and the campaign trail in the wake of suspicions regarding his dalliances with former Governor Rod Blagojevich about Barack Obama’s old senate seat and, of course, the onset of his mysterious maladies.  

Further, as H.L. Mencken also said in a widely misquoted observation…

“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

So we have not yet heard the last from Jesse Jackson, Jr. and his accomplice, Sandi Jackson.   As Mr. Mencken also said, perhaps gazing at the 2nd District from far off Baltimore

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

And, perhaps having a vision of the not yet born Jesse and Sandi Jackson, Mr. Mencken also observed

“Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”


Mr. and Mrs. Jackson are living, breathing, walking, talking manifestations of the wisdom of Mr. Mencken.


See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 


Tuesday, July 16, 2013

PAT QUINN VS. BILL DALEY: “THIS GUY DOESN’T THINK THIS IS A SHOW; HE THINKS IT’S A FIGHT!”

7/16/13

Now that Attorney General Lisa Madigan has opted out of the Illinois governor’s race (See today’s other post, LISA MADIGAN WON’TRUN FOR GOVERNOR:  WOULD YOU WANT THE JOB?), we are left, for now, with a one-on-one Democratic primary race featuring Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) and ex-White House Chief of Staff, ex-Commerce Secretary, ex-corporate bigshot, ex-everything Bill Daley, who also happens to be the son and brother of Chicago’s two longest serving mayors.

Mr. Daley’s chances in the upcoming primary have increased markedly, some might say infinitely (See 6/6/13’s “GOVERNOR BILL DALEY…SENATOR BILL DALEY.   THERE JUST WASN’T THE TIME…”), with Lisa Madigan’s exit, which was more or less forced by Mr. Daley’s entry into the race; again, see today’s other post.   While yours truly would certainly not argue that Bill Daley’s chances of becoming governor are a heck of lot better than they were yesterday, I would not count out Governor Quinn.  (See my 7/10/13 piece, PAT QUINN SUSPENDS  LEGISLATORS’ SALARIES:   FOUR MORE YEARS? and the posts to which it will refer you.)   Don’t misunderstand me; I am not predicting a Quinn victory.  I am simply NOT, for a number of reasons, among those who are saying the man has no chance at re-nomination or re-election.

Cousin Pat (not really, but I like saying that more of late) is the incumbent governor.  In the first quarter, he raised more money than either Bill Daley or Lisa Madigan.   Further, he is running a populist campaign that, while loaded with what some might consider silly, or irresponsible, stunts, like suspending legislative salaries, seems to be striking a chord with the typical voter.  Further, if Mr. Quinn can get the appropriate inspector general off the dime and quickly conduct a review, both of which are big “if”s, he can pull another such maneuver by firing the entire Metra board.  (See another post from yesterday, WE ARE SHOCKED…SHOCKED!...TO LEARN OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE AT METRA and the posts to which it will refer you.)   If you think the voters liked suspending legislative salaries, think how they will react to firing the legion of toadies, lackeys, hacks, has-beens, and wannabes that comprises the Metra board.   And Quinn just might to it.



Further, everyone speaks of Bill Daley’s fundraising prowess, but I wonder.  Now that his brother is no longer mayor and thus cannot deliver a near instant return on donors’ investments, is Bill Daley the “prolific fundraiser” that he is made out to be and indeed once was?   One suspects that Mr. Daley would not embark on this race unless he was confident he had the ability to raise a lot of money, so I might be wrong here, but even Mr. Daley has made miscalculations in his career.  Further, people don’t give political donations in this state, or just about anywhere, because they like the candidate or the party to whom they are giving.  They give because they expect a return on their investment, and the return here is not immediately obvious unless the donors are certain Mr. Daley will go to Springfield.  But they can’t be certain of that unless he gets a LOT of money; you can see the chicken and egg problem here.  While this problem is faced by just about all political candidates, it might be especially acute for Mr. Daley, given his background and his reputation as a “prolific fundraiser.”

One person that I have heard nothing about in regard to the governor’s race is the Mayor of Chicago, that idol of the consanguineous media, Rahm Emanuel.  Mr. Emanuel may protest publicly that he is not taking sides in the gubernatorial primary, but, c’mon, Mr. Emanuel staying on the sidelines of any political race?   And if you were Rahm Emanuel, would you want a potentially very strong Bill Daley to be governor?   Wouldn’t you prefer the weaker Pat Quinn?   Don’t try to argue that Mr. Emanuel has, or feel he owes, some sort of loyalty to the Daley family, which went a long way toward making him what he is today on a number of fronts.   Loyalty counts for little for Mr. Emanuel, unless it is to himself.  Ask the Clintons.

So suppose that Mr. Emanuel, secretly or perhaps not so secretly, puts out the word that he would rather not see Bill Daley in the governor’s office.  What will that do to Daley’s ability to raise money?

All that having been said, one can never factor out two things…the electorate’s general level of disappointment with Governor Quinn or the deal making skills of the Daley family.  On the latter, I smell what one might call a rat, or two rats, if I didn’t have some genuine admiration for what some might call underhanded political tactics.  See, for example, chapter 8 of my first book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics.  What such seemingly malodorous tactics might one be seeing in the upcoming gubernatorial primary?

As of now, the Democratic gubernatorial primary is a two person race.  However, as soon as Lisa Madigan opted out of the race, talk of two other potential candidates started.  The first is state Senator Kwame Raoul of Chicago who is a something of an up and comer among black politicians.   The other is state Senator Dave Koehler, who is from Peoria.  

Hmm…

Pat Quinn’s strongest, most loyal constituency is black voters, primarily in Chicago.   Wouldn’t it be nice for Mr. Daley if Mr. Raoul, who has been known to play political ball, were to enter the race and take at least some, and probably more, of the black vote from Mr. Quinn?

Mr. Quinn is also expected to run well downstate in the primary, not so much because the Governor is so well liked in the “other Illinois” but, rather, because the Daley name is like a pox down there.   Wouldn’t it be nice for Mr. Daley if, say, Mr. Koehler or another downstater were to run and take some of that downstate vote from Mr. Quinn?

I am starting to smell something like current ward of the federal government Rod Blagojevich’s first run for governor in 2002.   His main opponent in the primary, Paul Vallas, had great strength in the black community, largely due to the relatively good job he had done as head of the Chicago Public Schools.   A third candidate, Roland Burris, an at times amiable hack from the south side, emerged to drain Mr. Vallas’ strength in the black community and thus hand the primary to Mr. Blagojevich, who eventually repaid Mr. Burris by appointing him to Barack Obama’s U.S. senate seat when Mr. Blagojevich’s back was against the federal wall, but that is another story.  Did Alderman Dick Mell (See my 7/7/13 and 7/6/13 posts, respectively, DICK MELL USED OUR MONEY TO PAY PEOPLE TO SLEEP: “THEY’RE GONNA SAY…WHAT A GUY!”  and FAREWELL, DICK MELL…SORT OF) have anything to do with Mr. Burris’s entry into the 2002 gubernatorial primary?   Are the White Sox a lousy baseball team?

Similarly, should Mr. Raoul, Mr. Koehler, and/or someone else who is black and/or from downstate enter this race, would Mr. Daley or his minions have had anything to do with his sudden desire to be governor?   Are the Cubs a lousy baseball team?

This is going to be a far more interesting race for governor, even without Lisa Madigan, than most people think.


See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 



Monday, June 17, 2013

SYRIA AND THE WAR PARTY: “AFTER YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT YOU DON’T WANT IT…”

6/17/13

President Barack “W” Obama has decided it’s a good idea to take sides in the Sunni/Shia civil war in Syria (See my 5/24/13 post THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR:  A FRIGHTENING HISTORICAL ANALOGY for a not surprisingly amazingly prescient piece on this aspect of the war for which Mr. Obama now has such enthusiasm.) and has authorized sending arms to the Sunnis radicals to fight the Alawite/Shia radicals; see my 6/15/13 piece SYRIA:   HOW LONG BEFORE WE’RE CALLING OUR STOOGES “BRUTAL DICTATORS”?, only my latest piece on this impending next disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

Suddenly, though, the bipartisan War Party, of which, apparently, “W” Obama is now seeking to become the most salient member, is not satisfied with the small arms it was demanding we send to the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria.   Prominent War Party mouthpiece Senator Bob Menendez (D., but really War Party, NJ) says

“You can’t simply send a pea shooter against a blunderbuss.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R., but really War Party, Ga.) talks of sending more powerful weapons to the “moderates” he is confident we have found in Syria and of enforcing no-fly zones.   Penultimate War Party leader Lindsey Graham (R., but really War Party, SC, pictured with the Dr. Frankenstein to whom he plays Igor, John McCain) says that the rebels can’t bring Bashar Assad down with small arms; they need something stronger.



The old expression regarding giving people inches only to have them demand yards immediately comes to mind.

Senator Mark Udall (D., but really War Party, Colo.) whimpers that he is afraid of a slippery slope but, lest he fall out of favor with the “defense” contractors who keep War Party members well larded and comfortably ensconced in Washington, says

“But I think we ought to be listening to the president, we ought to be listening to the military leadership.”

What Mr. Udall doesn’t understand, or understands but delights in, is that we are already on a slippery slope.  First it’s non-lethal aid, then it’s small arms, next it’s a no-fly zone, then it’s American “trainers” (what the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used to call “advisers,” only the “advisers” knew that they were really “troops,” but I digress.), then it’s….well, you know the logical conclusion of this game.  

Among all this craziness, the voice of reason comes from, of all people, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who asked the West, referring to the Al Qaeda dominated Syrian rebels,

“You want to support these people?  You want to supply arms to these people?  This bears little relation to the humanitarian values that countries all across Europe have been propagating for hundreds of years.” 

It’s not as if Mr. Putin’s horse in this race, Bashar Assad, has his feet firmly planted in the soil from which sprang the Magna Carta, either.   Mr. Putin is backing his thug not only out of a degree of affinity but also out of self-interest; not only is Syria Russia’s sole friend in the Arab world  (See my 5/17/13 post, AMERICAN ASSURANCES IN SYRIA:  A RUSSIAN GUANTANAMO IN AL QAEDA’S COURT?), but if the rebels win in Syria and it either descends into an ungovernable dystopia or becomes a radical Sunni dominated state (the only two options, despite the War Party’s disingenuous reassurances to the contrary), Russia’s terrorist problem, which makes ours look quite mild by comparison, will become virtually uncontrollable.   Mr. Putin is understandably bewildered that the West is so gung-ho about supporting people who mean the West, and Russia, so much harm.   This makes absolutely no sense to him, and understandably so.   For all his faults, the Russian president has something that most western leaders, and certainly the two U.S. presidents he has had to suffer through, lack…a sense of strategic perspective and, well, common sense.  Mr. Putin must be baffled as the United States and its allies sink further into the miasma of another deadly, expensive, and unwinnable conflict in a place we have no business being.

Somewhere, however, LBJ is smiling.  But not nearly as broadly as John McCain, the War Party’s leader, and the arms merchants who support the lifelong ego trip he and his fellow War Party members call careers.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

SYRIA: HOW LONG BEFORE WE’RE CALLING OUR STOOGES “BRUTAL DICTATORS”?

6/15/15

British Prime Minister David Cameron, a normally sensible fellow, in attempting to justify western aid to the group of thugs he favors in Syria in their fight against the group of thugs he doesn’t favor, argued yesterday that Syrian President Bashar Assad is

“…a brutal dictator who is using chemical weapons under our nose.”

Mr. Cameron, his French counterpart, and, presumably, our formerly cautious President Barack Obama prefer General Salim Idris, the latest third world fraud parading around calling himself a “moderate” in order to access western cash and a place to defect to if things don’t go his way.



Let’s assume for a moment that General Idris wins this conflict with generous help, including who knows what at this stage, from the west and becomes the latest western stooge to occupy the seat of power in a Middle Eastern ethnic jigsaw puzzle of a “country.”  Should that be the outcome in Syria, one wonders how long it will take Messrs. Cameron, Obama, Hollande and others who are seemingly so anxious to create another dystopic terrorist breeding ground in Syria to call General Idris

“…a brutal dictator who is using chemical weapons under our nose.”

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past (Only my latest post on Syria is 5/29/13’s RUSSIAN ARMS TO SYRIA:   THANK YOU, COMRADE?; please read it and the posts to which it will direct you.), we have no friends in Syria and there are no moderates, whatever that means, in Syria.   We are left with a choice between the devil we know and the devil we don’t.   We do, however, have a promising course of action, to wit, stay the hell out and tell the winner we are willing to do business with him to the extent it is in our interest to do so.  Mr. Obama, though, has just announced his intention to back, with American arms, trainers, and air cover (but only for a “no fly zone” over the areas in Jordan in which we will “train” the Al Qaeda members and wannabes we will be backing), the devil we don’t.  Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Mr. Obama apparently shares the George Bush view that we indeed can and should save the world and make it over in our image.  Terrific.

We never do learn anything in this country, do we?

Sunday, June 9, 2013

THE “SHIRTSLEEVE SUMMIT”: AN EXPECTED WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY, SOME UNEXPECTED THOUGHTS

6/9/13

The “shirtsleeve summit” between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping in the blazing heat of Rancho Mirage, CA, has just concluded.  As with just about all these summits, a lot of money was spent and nothing was accomplished, but, hey, it wasn’t their money the politicians were spending.



Yours truly, however, did manage to derive some meaning from what some of the participants, or ancillary participants, in the summit were saying.

First, outgoing placeholder for Susan Rice, er, sorry, National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, opined that cybertheft

“…really now is at the center of the relationship (between China and the U.S.).  It is not an adjunct issue.”

Mr. Donilon and Mr. Obama doubtless wish that cybertheft were at the center of the Sino/U.S. relationship, but that does not make it so.  What is at the very center of the Sino/U.S. relationship is that China holds, the last I saw, $1.17 trillion worth of U.S. treasury securities and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of other debt issued by U.S. entities.   We owe the Chinese big time, and that will always dictate the terms of our relationship.   And we can’t blame the Chinese for this; it is we who spent ourselves into oblivion with money we borrowed from the Chinese.


Second, President Xi asked a very profound question at the summit.  When describing the relationship between China and the U.S., he asked, then stated

“What will happen when a rising power and a great power encounter one another?  The U.S. is trying its best to maintain its status quo, in order to retain its hegemony.  China…is eager to become a world power under the rules approved by Western countries.”

This was not at all a kind statement; though the Obama team may have missed it in its ongoing efforts to have hope trump reality, whenever people use words like “hegemony,” they are not speaking favorably of the nation to whom they ascribe hegemonistic aspirations.  Further, that last phrase “…under the rules approved by Western countries” had to be dripping with sarcasm.    Note, however, that President Xi does not feel at all compelled to be nice to the United States for the reason outlined above; though Japan is catching up of late, China remains our largest creditor.   We owe them big time…and they know it.

But Mr. Xi’s statement was interesting for more than its backhanded slap at the United States.  What does happen when a rising power and a great power encounter one another?  Let’s take a look at that largely forgotten subject, history:

Rising Power                                        Great Power                 Winner
Persia                                                   Babylon                        Persia
Macedonia (Greece)                             Persia                           Macedonia (Greece)
Rome                                                   Greece                         Rome
Assorted Germanic tribes                      Rome                           Assorted Germanic tribes
Great Britain                                         Spain                            Great Britain
Prussia (Germany)                                Austria                         Prussia (Germany)
Prussia (Germany)                                France                          Prussia (Germany)

And, on a less belligerent note, after the first two skirmishes…

Rising Power                                        Great Power                 Winner
United States                                        Great Britain                 United States

Now, the sides line up as

Rising Power                                        Great Power                 Winner
China                                                   United States                ??????

Unless one’s jingoism, or the consumption of one’s time with such vital fare as “The Khardashians” and “Dancing with the Stars,” leads one to totally ignore history, it doesn’t look good for the home team.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

WHAT IF BASHAR ASSAD WINS IN SYRIA?

5/21/13

News of Syrian government forces’ making major strides in the civil war in that troubled “nation” afforded Senator John McCain the opportunity to (what else?) call for deeper military involvement in the latest quagmire that has drawn his attention.

“This is a significant and dramatic indicator of the Obama administration’s passivity.  For this administration to sit idly by and watch these events unfold, (sic) is writing a shameful chapter in American history.”

After further ripping the Obama Administration for not racing headlong over this cliff without taking a nanosecond to consider the consequences “optimistic to the point of fantasy,” Mr. McCain then fell back on his standard Cold War rhetoric, pointing out that Russia sees and raises us each time we increase our assistance to the rebels.   What Mr. McCain’s point is in this instance is difficult to fathom, perhaps as much for him as for his listeners, but I digress.



We know what Mr. McCain’s motivation is in urging that American blood and treasure be fulsomely expended in this latest Middle Eastern rabbit hole; he has to look for every opportunity he can to pay back, with your money, the “defense” contractors who have so generously bankrolled the lifelong ego trip he calls a career.   We, as citizens, however, have no debt to repay to the contractors.  Unlike Mr. McCain and his colleagues whose “jobs” consist of having their hindquarters smooched by obsequiants who want a piece of your wallet, we work for our livings, and a good portion of what we make goes to support the likes of Mr. McCain and his fellow barnacles on the ship of state. Before we follow Mr. McCain’s advice to repeat what he considers the stunning successes of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are duty bound to examine the three major assumptions behind the argument that we should get more involved in Syria.

The first assumption is that we can influence the outcome in Syria.  Take a look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam before you accept the idea that we can guide outcomes of civil wars born of centuries of antagonism halfway around the world.  (See my 5/17/13 piece AMERICAN ASSURANCES IN SYRIA:  A RUSSIAN GUANTANAMO IN AL QAEDA’S COURT?)  At least in the case of Vietnam, the civil war was brewing before we got there.   We rekindled a largely dormant civil war in Afghanistan and started the now rampaging civil war in Iraq.  In none of those cases was the outcome good for America.  Well, ultimately things may have worked out for us in Vietnam, but only because our side lost.

The second assumption behind Mr. McCain’s and his bipartisan War Party’s enthusiasm for intervention in Syria is that it would be a good thing if the Assad dynasty was overthrown. 

There is not doubt that Bashar Assad is a thug, as was his father before him.  Neither shows, or showed, any compunction about slaughtering his own people to keep himself in power.   But what is the alternative?  Thugs were overthrown in Libya and, to a lesser extent, in Egypt.  They were replaced with a brutal stew of chaos and dueling thugs striving for power, only the new thugs like us even less, or hate us even more, than the old thugs. 

Furthermore, in Libya and Egypt, Mr. McCain (and Mr. Obama and the entire Western media and foreign policy establishments) seemed to have been surprised that the revolutionaries they backed did not turn out to be the Jeffersonian democrats they had supposed them to be.   In Syria, the War Party can’t even pretend that it is on the side of the angels; there is no doubt (except perhaps in Mr. McCain’s febrile brain) that the Syrian opposition is dominated by Al Qaeda and others who us ill.  As I said in my 4/28/13 piece OBAMA AND SYRIA:  “…AND A MAN IN MY POSITION CANNOT AFFORD TO LOOK RIDICULOUS!”

We have little to no influence on the parties fighting in Syria and, despite elements of our foreign policy apparatus again having fallen for the usual song and dance about “moderate, pro-Western elements,” we have no friends on either side of the Syrian conflict.   We have plenty of people who will flit around Washington professing friendship with America in order to line their own pockets, but we have no genuine friends in Syria.

The third assumption behind Mr. McCain’s war whoop-whoop is that Al Qaeda and its allies in Syria will win, that Mr. Assad will give up and leave the country.   But given the advances Mr. Assad and his Hezbollah allies have made of late, his defeat is far from a foregone conclusion.  As I said to a friend of mine in the Fall of 2011 (in a White Castle on Cicero Avenue in Alsip), when this conflict was just getting started, Assad could very well win this thing because he is at least as brutal as his father, who killed 30,000, many with chemical weapons, of his own people to maintain power.  



So suppose that Mr. Assad does wipe out the rebellion and emerges victorious, a very realistic possibility.  Not only will that expose us to the charges of flaccidity that Mr. McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other bi-partisan War Party members are always hyper-ventilating about, but we would then have to deal with a Syria that owes us nothing but owes the Russians, the Iranians, and, most dangerous of all, Hezbollah big time.   How receptive will a newly entrenched Mr. Assad feel about peace overtures then?  How will he regard Israel, one of our greatest allies whom he regards as little more than a surrogate for Western domination of an area he feels is rightly his?   Yes, Mr. Assad and his father have always despised Israel, but the Assads have kept an uneasy peace, albeit largely out of necessity, with their far more powerful neighbor for the last forty years.   Would that change if Mr. Assad were to defeat the rebels, and their Western backers, with help from Hezbollah and Iran?   Would you like to take the chance that it wouldn’t?

Of course, Mr. McCain and his fellow messenger boys for the “defense” industry will use the growing chance that Assad can win to argue for further U.S. military involvement in Syria; they will use anything to argue for more U.S. military involvement in Syria.  But wouldn’t a saner, and more enlightened, self-interested policy be to stay completely out of this latest Middle Eastern civil war and try to maintain the uneasy peace with the winner?

But who gets rich, or gets his campaign fund generously stocked, with a policy of enlightened non-intervention?