"I’m aware that the president of the United States likes to go on television and beg me to call and ask him for troops."

"I find this extraordinarily strange as Chicago does not want troops on our streets … I refuse to play a reality game show with Donald Trump."

Said JB Pritzker, quoted in "JB Pritzker: is the Illinois governor the Democrats’ best hope?/Clashes with Trump have boosted his profile, and while a third Illinois term looks assured, a tilt at the White House could see old scandals return to haunt him" (London Times).

We're told that Trump "continues to mock Pritzker’s bulk, posting an AI video showing him as a sumo wrestler grappling with Chris Christie, a large former Republican governor." In case you're having trouble picturing that:

pic.twitter.com/KBZz0iosQX

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2025

Isn't it amazing that the President of the United States is fooling around — and fat shaming — like that? Trump is fat too, of course. I think he fairly cheerfully admits it.

There's also this quote from Frank Luntz: "If you’re the California governor, you have to defend San Francisco. If you’re the Illinois governor, you have to defend Chicago. Democrats do not know how to talk about crime and they do not know how to lead about it, because, quite frankly, they’re seen as being in bed with the criminal and being too distant from the victim.... I actually think that Rahm Emanuel is a better representative because Chicago was better off when he was mayor.”

"It takes one to know one, on the weight question. And the president, of course, himself, is not in good shape. So, he ought to respond to that from me."

"I would say also that his personal attacks on me are just evidence of a guy who’s still living in fifth grade. He’s the kind of bully that throws invectives at people, because he knows that what he’s saying is actually commentary on himself."

Said the rotund Illinois Governor Jay Pritzker, quoted in "Pritzker responds to Trump’s weight comments: 'It takes one to know one'" (The Hill).

This forces me to look up what Trump said, which would otherwise have been erased from my brain (if it was ever there). Let's see... here:  "We will solve Chicago within one week — maybe less.... Chicago's a disaster and the governor of Illinois should say, 'President, will you do us the honor of cleaning up our city? We need help.' They need help. They need help... We may wait -- we may or we may not. We may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do.... I hate to barge in on a city and then be treated horribly by corrupt politicians. The bad politicians, like a guy like Pritzker. He ought to spend more time in the gym actually, the guy is a disaster."

"In truth, Republicans may have more cards to play in an all-out redistricting war in 2026 than Democrats do."

The NYT concedes in "California Democrats Look to Redraw House Map to Counter Texas G.O.P./As a Texas senator summoned the F.B.I. to round up Democrats, the redistricting war that began in Texas was spreading, with California aiming at five Republican House seats."

... House maps and redistricting laws in Democratic states present significant hurdles. Illinois, for instance, is already so skewed to Democrats that flipping even one of the three Republican seats left would be extremely difficult for mapmakers.

That's a funny use of the passive voice: "is already so skewed." In other words, Democrats have already done what they could to advantage themselves in Illinois. They've already used the practice they now want to condemn as nefarious.

Illinois governor JB Pritzker is quoted saying: "If they’re going to cheat, then all of us have to take a hard look at what the effect of that cheating is on democracy. That means we all have to stand up and do the right thing. So, as far as I’m concerned, everything is on the table."

"If they’re going to cheat..." — as if the Republicans started it. You've just accused your own party of cheating. What is the "right thing" — cancelling the other side's cheating? You are essentially crediting your adversaries with doing the "right thing."

Meanwhile, in California, Gavin Newsom is also talking about the "right thing":

Unlike in Texas, where politicians control the process, California’s congressional districts have been set by an independent commission that is not allowed to consider partisanship in drawing the lines. Mr. Newsom has proposed putting that system on hold for the next three elections to help Democrats counter the Republican plan in Texas. He wants the California plan to contain a provision saying that it goes into effect only if Texas approves new maps mid-decade.

“It’s triggered on the basis of what occurs or doesn’t occur in Texas,” Mr. Newsom told reporters on Monday. “I hope they do the right thing, and if they do the right thing, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”'

But if they don't do "the right thing," then Newsom is ready to do the wrong thing. But can he? The system he is talking about putting on hold is a matter of state constitutional law. To amend it, he would be asking the people to vote on a ballot initiative to undo the reform they voted for in 2008 and 2010. 

Imagine the campaign against that reform, so recently touted as the right thing to do in California: We're doing it right, but if Texas is doing it wrong, we've got to seize the power to do it wrong like the way we did in the bad old days.

A dark-horse contender in the VP race offers a new — better? — concept than weird: Bewildered!

Out with Tim Walz and his "weird." It's JB Pritzer and he's got a new word to sell you: "bewildered."

I'm reading: "Pritzker says Trump 'bewildered' by Harris, new Dem excitement" (The Hill).

Now, I'd written Pritzker off. I just didn't think it could be him. But he's jumping to the top of the headlines at Memeorandum, and I am tantalized by his use of a single word, a funny word — "bewildered" — so I'll bite:

Biden drops out!

The NYT reports.

After three weeks of often angry refusals to step aside, Mr. Biden finally yielded to a torrent of devastating polls, urgent pleas from Democratic lawmakers and clear signs that donors were no longer willing to pay for him to continue.

Mr. Biden’s decision abruptly ends one political crisis that began when the president delivered a calamitous debate performance against Mr. Trump on June 27. But for the Democratic Party, Mr. Biden’s withdrawal triggers a second crisis: who to replace him with, and specifically whether to rally around Vice President Kamala Harris or kick off a rapid effort to find someone else to be the party’s nominee.

My longstanding tag — "biden drops out" — has come true.

MORE: Will he be able to avoid the pressure to resign as President? From "Biden Drops Out of Race, Scrambling the Campaign for the White House/The president’s withdrawal under pressure from fellow Democrats after a disastrous debate cleared the way for a new nominee to take on former President Donald J. Trump in the fall" (NYT)(free-access link):

"The Department of Justice today filed a statement of interest in an Illinois federal court in support of a lawsuit filed by Illinois state representative Darren Bailey challenging certain actions of Governor J.B. Pritzker..."

"... in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Statement of Interest is part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s April 27, 2020 initiative directing Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, to review state and local policies to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic.... According to the lawsuit, the Governor’s actions are not authorized by state law, as they extend beyond the 30-day time period imposed by the Illinois legislature for the Governor’s exercise of emergency powers granted under the Act.... In its statement of interest, the United States explains that this dispute belongs in Illinois state court... Although the complaint does not raise any federal constitutional claims, the statement explains... states must comply with their own laws in making these sensitive policy choices in a manner responsive to the people and, in doing so, both respect and serve the goals of our broader federal structure, including the guarantee of due process in the U.S. Constitution."

A press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

So... it's an Illinois state law question that belongs in Illinois state court, which is where it is but was and the Department of Justice would like to say that states should follow their own laws and should make policy choices carefully because it's at least conceivable that there could be a federal law issue in there somewhere. Might violate due process in some way, might not "serve the goals of our broader federal structure" — whatever that means.

If you're trying to remember the recent post here about Darren Bailey — it's here, 2 days ago. He was the one Illinois legislator who refused to wear a mask in the legislative chamber and got kicked out.

CORRECTION: As the heading of this post says, the case is in an "an Illinois federal court," so I was wrong to write "it's an Illinois state law question that belongs in Illinois state court, which is where it is."

ADDED: Here's a Chicago Sun Times article explaining that Pritzer filed on Thursday to remove the case to federal court, which he has the right to do under federal law if Bailey has stated a federal cause of action: "The governor made the move on the grounds that Bailey alleged a violation of his federal constitutional rights. [Bailey's lawyer] denied that Bailey had raised such a claim." Another Bailey lawyer says the effort to remove to federal court is “perhaps the most outrageous invocation of federal jurisdiction imaginable" and "an egregious attempt to neuter a state court."

So the DOJ's statement isn't about the hint of federal law in the background. It's about the federalism value letting state courts determine the meaning and application of state law. This isn't just a matter of  letting states function separately in our federal system. It's a matter of getting an authoritative interpretation of state law.

"You want to send me or anyone else outside the doors today, I understand. Go right ahead. But know this: If you do that, you’re silencing millions of voices of people who have had enough."

Said Rep. Darren Bailey of the Illinois General Assembly, the quoted in "'A callous disregard for life': GOP lawmaker kicked out of Illinois legislative session over refusal to wear mask" (WaPo).

He was the lone holdout on the mask requirement. He seems to be framing mask-wearing as a free-speech issue. He has a point of view and his form of expression is not wearing a mask as he takes his place in the legislature, and he characterizes himself as representing "millions" who are being "silenced" if he cannot "say" what he has to say in the form he prefers.

From the position of his antagonists, he is engaging in an action and the action is dangerous, and that outweighs his interest in saying what he has to say in the form he wants to use. It's a neutral rule that wasn't, presumably, motivated by the desire to suppress a viewpoint, so it's highly unlikely Bailey could win the argument that his free-speech rights are violated, but he isn't claiming to make a legal argument, just to protest in the language of freedom.

And yet, Bailey is suing the governor — J.B. Pritzker (D) — over the lockdown (he "won a temporary restraining order against Pritzker’s stay-at-home order last month, which only applied to him").

On Wednesday, Bailey told The Post that he believed the mask rule... was “not about health” but was instead “just another Democrat bullying tactic.” He said he would wear one if he were concerned for his health, but he isn’t, and doesn’t like being told that he must. “This whole thing that it’s concern for other people? I don’t buy that at all,” he said....

I understand that skepticism. The idea that the mask protects other people works to deprive the individual of the ground to say I will decide for myself how much risk I want to take and what freedom not to cover my face means to me. That doesn't mean the experts aren't right when they say it's for other people. It just means that people decide for themselves what to believe and this is the sort of thing that can make you skeptical. It's so convenient.