The not-so-great debate

Gentlemen, do better!

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above.

Below:

• A review of last week’s debate in the Illinois gubernatorial race

• A whack at Amtrak for the Nightmare in Michigan

• Zmail —Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses

• Visual tweets

For those who have not seen it yet, the Tribune Editorial Board Tuesday morning endorsed incumbent Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker for reelection.

For the most part, Illinois has been efficiently run. Pritzker has hired capable people, persuaded them to work as a team, and got some good stuff done.

It’s a measured, balanced look at the race, and the Editorial Board deserves a tip of the press fedora for not holding it against Pritzker that he refused to meet with them during the endorsement process. That refusal was petulant and didn’t speak well of him.

This will likely be the last gubernatorial endorsement you will ever read in the Tribune, since the paper’s hedge-fund overlords announced last week that its publications will stop offering endorsements in races for president, senator and governor.

I’ll have more to say about that decision in Thursday’s issue.

Oof, that debate!

Gov. JB Pritzker is misreading the room if he thinks his airy assertions about the SAFE-T Act are comforting to voters. Let’s replay the excruciating opening of last Thursday’s televised debate with Republican challenger Darren Bailey,

Co-moderator Jennifer Roscoe WCIA-TV (Champaign): Much has been said about the sweeping police and criminal justice reform package known as the SAFE-T Act. The focus has largely been on one provision set to take effect January 1 that will eliminate cash bail in Illinois. A recent Nexstar/Emerson College/The Hill poll found 48% of likely voters think the new policy will increase crime. Governor Pritzker, we are starting with you tonight. You've said you are willing to consider changes to the bill, but you have not elaborated. So what specific changes are you in favor of?

Pritzker: Let me begin by saying that everyone deserves to feel safe in their homes in their communities. And honestly, crime rose substantially during the pandemic. And I take that very seriously. Now the criminal justice system that Darren Bailey and Republicans are standing up for is one that allows murderers and rapists and domestic abusers to buy their way out of jail. And that's unsafe for our families, for our neighborhoods. And, frankly, victims rights organizations are supportive of the SAFE-T Act. If you want to reduce crime, you got to solve crime, you’ve got to do what I've done, which is to increase the number of state police build state of the art crime labs, make sure that we're funding violence prevention, and youth summer jobs programs, and of course, funding mental health and substance abuse treatment. But Darren Bailey is a hypocrite on this subject. I mean, he has voted against all of these things, and he even voted to defund police

Roscoe: This is your chance, now. What specific changes would you make to the SAFE-T Act?

Pritzker: Well, I think that there are clarifications. People ,you know, as you know, the Republicans have put out a lot of disinformation, a whole list of things that they say are non-detainable offenses — there's no such thing under the SAFE-T Act as non-detainable offenses —-And again, it's the goal of it is to keep murderers, rapists, domestic abusers, violent criminals in jail, and a poor young mother, who shoplifts diapers and formula would be kept in for months if she doesn’t have the money.

Roscoe: Governor Pritzker, one more chance. Are you willing to answer the question? One specific change you would make?

Pritzker: Again, I think there are clarifications that can be made in the law to make sure that everyone understands what this law’s all about.

Such mealy-mouthed cowardice! And look, I think Pritzker’s been a good governor and I’ll vote for him without reservation on November 8 assuming I can find my polling place. But his Republican foes have made concerns and misunderstandings about the SAFE-T Act the centerpiece of their campaign against him, and his refusal to speak directly and specifically about changes he wants to make in the law before Jan. 1 has got to leave voters doubting his determination to address and minimize some of the genuine concerns expressed by prosecutors, police and everyday citizens.

Luckily for him, Bailey exposed his own political cowardice in failing to detail where he thinks state spending can be cut and by seeming to run from his views on abortion:

Roscoe: Sen. Bailey … you said in one of your Facebook videos, “I think we're going to end this abortion thing.” Aside from saving the life of the mother, would you ban all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest?

Bailey: Illinois has the most permissive abortion laws in the nation. Nothing's going to change when I'm governor. I couldn't change them if I could. JB Pritzker stays up at night trying to dream up new abortion laws. Those issues are dividing us. My focus is going to be crime, taxes and education. I've been saying that for a long time as well, and you didn't pick up on that. Those are the issues that unite us. Those are the issues that are causing our state to fail. But JB Pritzker wants to fearmonger and put all of this nonsense out there that can't be changed anyway. And it needs to stop. We need to focus on uniting this state.

I don’t know what the tautological expression,“I couldn’t change them if I could” is supposed to mean. “I couldn’t change” abortion laws, which is probably true given that Democrats are highly likely to maintain control of both chambers of the General Assembly in the next session, is a far from from “I wouldn’t change” abortion laws, which is a heretical position in his party and a repudiation of what Bailey has stated on many occasions.

So I suspect this seemingly inartful redundancy was in fact an effort at having it both ways. Because, as I’ve said before, anyone paying attention knows the long game of those who are opposed to abortion rights: Total bans on the procedure in all but the most life-threatening cases, punishment for everyone involved.

And note that the pious blather about divisiveness came from a man who called Pritzker “an arrogant liar” during the debate and declared,“this man is dangerous!”

Once again, I’m left unsatisfied by the format of these joint appearances — the short answers, the rebuttals. I’d like to see the candidates go at one another without moderators, two minutes for one candidate, then two minutes for the other, with a kill switch on the microphone of candidate who doesn’t have the floor. Then, after about 40 minutes of that, I’d let the candidates question one another, 30 seconds for the question, 90 seconds for the answer.

I would have called the debate a dispiriting draw but it was this final exchange that caused me to give a narrow W to Bailey:

Roscoe: If you're a baseball player, what would your walk-up song be? Gov. Pritzker, you can go first .

Pritzker: Well, any song that highlights the big things that need to get done for our state is what I would suggest should be the walk up song. We've gotten so many done over the last four years. I hope that would continue for the next four.

Roscoe: Next for Sen. Bailey. Same question, what would your walk-up song be?

Bailey: “I'm a Hard Workin’ Man,” because these young people I'm going to preserve a future for these young people. And I am going to represent every hard working person out there.”

Now, to be clear, this is a silly question designed to show voters how a candidate thinks when knocked off script, and Pritzker’s robotic, humorless answer was an epic fail, one that suggested his preparation for the debate was limited to memorizing a set of attack lines and that he’s not particularly fast on his feet.

Yet it’s never been obvious to me that the most forceful, felicitous or eloquent debater is the best suited to run a government or sit on a legislative body. Sure, being good at the thrust and parry of rhetoric can be an advantage, but in the end it’s about policy and it’s about leadership and integrity.

(In the post-debate news conference Pritzker said he should have cited “Go Big or Go Home.” Fine. Clever enough. But it’s an example of what the French call l'esprit de l'escalier.)

In their recap, Ann Dwyer and Marcus Gilmer of Crain’s gave Bailey some props:

Given Pritzker’s polish and experience, many viewers probably had low expectations for Bailey's ability to keep up with the incumbent. But, aside from a few moments, the downstate Republican held his own. He was consistent in how he wielded his campaign-long refrain on crime and was able to recycle his talking points from the trail effectively enough.

Patrick Pfingsten’s analysis was similar in The Illinoize newsletter:

Bailey surely overperformed expectations, but let’s face it, expectations weren’t that high for him. It appears that Bailey’s forcefulness and repeated interruptions caught Pritzker off guard. You have to assume Pritzker wasn’t happy about that after the cameras turned off.

Maybe more importantly, this debate nearly went off the rails. The candidates constantly interrupted each other, at times sounding like petulant children. Frankly, the interruptions and shouting and snarky side comments were distracting. They deflected answers, blew off time limits, and spent more time lobbing attacks than answering questions. These two did not act like a person you want in a position to lead the state…

My guess is Pritzker comes out swinging hard when they debate again (for the second and final debate next Tuesday, Sept. 18).

Hell on the Wolverine

The news stories about the ghastly experience of passengers on the westbound Amtrak from Michigan into Chicago that began Friday at 6 a.m and didn’t end until after midnight should be a serious blow to the passenger rail service:

• Passengers recount hours-late Amtrak trip to Chicago without power aboard: ‘I‘ve been on a train that hit a car, a cow...But this is the worst’ (Tribune)

• Passengers flee train during 19-hour ride from Michigan to Chicago (MLive)

• ‘It was madness’: Passengers of Metro Detroit train left without water, heat for hours (Click-on Detroit)

From Will Lee’s account in the Tribune:

Passengers who spoke to the Tribune recounted a trip plagued with mechanical problems and other delays that slowed or outright stopped travel for long stretches of time.

After losing power about 19 miles west of Ann Arbor, according to Amtrak, the stalled train waited for a Wolverine train that arrived two hours later and coupled together, with the electrically powered train pushing the stalled one.

Then more problems arose. A passenger reported a medical emergency and the train stopped again before resuming with the passenger remaining onboard. After starting again, the train had brake issues that slowed the train and emitted a bad smell, passengers said. After that, a power issue related to one of the trains’ batteries caused another stop.

The final straw for dozens of passengers came Friday night during a final unscheduled stop in East Chicago, Indiana within view of the Ameristar Casino. Passengers said the train stopped to swap train staff onboard who has reached their 12-hour work limit. Federal railway safety laws prohibit the number of work hours for certain classes of rail workers.

“Now it’s 9ish at night. The train is dark. It’s cold. There’s no food. They’re handing out glow sticks. It smelled bad. You couldn’t go to the bathroom,” recalled Michael Bambery, a Plymouth, Mich. psychologist who boarded the train with his wife and two children at Ann Arbor for what was supposed to be a fun, carefree weekend.

Yes stuff — like the stuff that was building up in the inoperable toilets — happens. But Amtrak needs to have more and better contingency plans to deal with cascading failures like those that occurred Friday. Backup generators at least so that passengers can have power. Better maintenance. Better contingency planning for emergency transportation so passengers don’t have to abandon malfunctioning trains in the middle of nowhere and set off across fields and railyards seeking help.

MLive quoted passenger Mike Bambery:

We’re feeling like we can’t stay on this train anymore. We’re getting no information from Amtrak. Again, we’re cold, hungry, people need to use the bathroom. It smells awful. And a percentage of people are having acute anxiety symptoms and screaming.

Passengers reported not getting regular updates from Amtrak about what was going on and what to expect.

Amtrak did apologize to passengers and offered transportation vouchers, according to a screenshot of an email sent to MLive:

“Please accept our most sincerest apologies that your trip on train 351 on October 7, 2022 was severely delayed. Despite our best efforts, there are times when circumstances arise that are out of our control.”

It’s hard to imagine any of the passengers on that train trusting Amtrak again. Easy to imagine them telling this story over and over in a way that persuades others to avoid Amtrak. Here’s hoping Amtrak takes a hard look at this nightmarish trip and does more than offer a mealy apology and travel vouchers. Passengers have every right to expect better responses to “circumstances” than what they experienced.

Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses

Some of these messages are in reference to items in last week’s issues of the Picayune Sentinel.

Laurence S. — There has been a lot of news lately about Christian Nationalists and who they are. I know they claim that America should be a Christian country. What exactly does that mean and what do they plan to do?

Christianity Today offered a synopsis in a critical look last year:

Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. …Christian nationalists do not reject the First Amendment and do not advocate for theocracy, but they do believe that Christianity should enjoy a privileged position in the public square. … Some have advocated for an amendment to the Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage, others to reinstitute prayer in public schools. Some work to enshrine a Christian nationalist interpretation of American history in school curricula, including that America has a special relationship with God or has been “chosen” by him to carry out a special mission on earth. Others advocate for immigration restrictions specifically to prevent a change to American religious and ethnic demographics or a change to American culture. Some want to empower the government to take stronger action to circumscribe immoral behavior. .. the sort of attitude with which it is held: an unstated presumption that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square because they are heirs of the true or essential heritage of American culture, that Christians have a presumptive right to define the meaning of the American experiment because they see themselves as America’s architects, first citizens, and guardians.

I find this ominous and utterly at odds with America as I understand it and hope it will be. While I don’t think the Founders envisioned this country as a genuine melting pot — their preference for white males with European religious sensibilities is undeniable — the idea that government should not have an opinion one way or the other about the supernatural strikes me as genius.

It’s bizarre that people whose distrust of government runs very deep in most circumstances are so willing to cede to government decisions about God, what God thinks, what God wants and what God demands. I don’t think political bodies are remotely qualified to weigh in on such matters.

Aviva P. — This tweet in the poll — “If being sexy is a crime, you’re free to go. — @Jake_Vig” — is demeaning. Sexiness is subjective and that kind of comment suggests that there is some standard attribute that defines sexiness and anyone who doesn't meet it deserves ridicule.

It is an insult, obviously. And the joke is that it inverts the reader’s expectation that it will be a complimentary if somewhat excruciating pick-up line — “If being sexy is a crime, then you’re doing life without parole” or something along those lines. It’s currently in 5th place out of 10 entries, suggesting that readers liked it some, but not a lot.

Tim O’B - The tweet about Northwestern University's name being reflection of poor geographic knowledge — “It says a lot about our educational system that Northwestern is smack dab in the middle of the country. —@pittdave13” — is wrong. Illinois and most of the other Midwest states were part of the Northwest Territories before they were states (everything West of the Mississippi belonged to France or Spain back then). So the tweeter's historical ignorance is the issue.

Yeah, but the Northwest Territory — all the land west of Pennsylvania, northwest of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River below the Great Lakes” — stopped being a thing in 1803 when Ohio was admitted to the Union. Illinois joined the union in 1818. Northwestern University was named and established in 1851. So the name was a bit peculiar even then.

Les L. — Regarding your analysis of CWBChicago’s all crime-news website, plenty of good journalism is relevant facts only, without attempts so look at historical context or propose solutions. And when you ask them to stop being anonymous, you're ignoring “cancel culture.” Chicago has a very active progressive constituency, and the likelihood that the individuals behind this nascent journalistic operation would be pilloried for their stories on crimes committed by poor people of color is very, very high.

I’m not suggesting that every story in every publication be contextualized, and obviously there is a place for just-the-facts reporting. But ultimately a responsible publication at least occasionally strives for context and looks for broader meaning.

I gave the example last week of a hypothetical car-crash blog that described and tallied car crashes in a region. The obvious question would be, “to what end?”

As for the fear of “cancel culture,” well, yeah, I suppose, though I haven’t read or seen much in the way of public protest about CWBChicago — no takedowns on the web of any note, no threats of violence. Criticism comes with the territory.

Vytenis L. — What is the official reason why the media does not publish mugshots of offenders?

Various media outlets have different standards and thresholds when it comes to booking photos, and just about every publication and video channel does publish or post some of them, at least from time to time. I doubt there was one outlet in the entire country that didn’t publish Rod Blagojevich’s law enforcement mug shot back in 2008, for example

Generally, editors weigh the question of relevance against the bad light in which such a photograph places a person who is, after all, legally presumed innocent. The argument for publication might be that members of the public might recognize the suspect and be able to offer evidence useful to police and prosecutors.

Ya gotta see these tweets!

I often run across tweets that rely on visual humor and so can’t be included in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template for the poll does not allow the use of images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently:

Jessie @mommajessiec

First came love. Then came marriage. Then came

Midwest vs. Everybody @midwestern_ope

Midwest love story

max〽️ @Maxthepapi

My elbow watching me do a full skin care routine on my face.

Waking the Wytch @SaxyCelt

@Dancing4Jesus @LiveDie4Jesus

Uncle Duke @UncleDuke1969

they’ll figure it out if they get hungry enough

Vote for your favorite. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

.