Nobody ever really knows what's going through the head of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan except for Madigan himself. So the actual purpose behind last week's highly choreographed gun-control and pension-reform debates - ordered up by Madigan - wasn't completely clear to anyone.

That's by design, of course. Madigan prefers to keep people in the dark until he's ready to make his final move.

But I did hear one theory from a Democrat that made quite a bit of sense - at least for a while.

Illinois House Democrats were told during a private caucus meeting in Springfield last week that, despite what Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez says, inaction on concealed carry would have very serious consequences.

A federal appellate court has given the General Assembly until June 8 to pass a new law allowing some form of public carrying of loaded weapons. After that deadline, Illinois' laws against public carrying would be struck down. Illinois is the only state in the nation that totally bars concealed or open carry by citizens.

However, an aide to Alvarez told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the federal appellate ruling means nothing to the state.

"Off topic? I can't imagine what that would be," cracked Governor Pat Quinn last week during a press conference. Just hours before, his lieutenant governor had announced that she would not be his 2014 running mate.

Quinn usually does a pretty good job during his press conferences of convincing reporters to wait to ask off-topic questions until all questions about the subject at hand have been asked. Last week was no exception.

Quinn was holding a presser with U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to discuss her conditional approval allowing Illinois to move forward with an online health-insurance exchange - a major step toward implementing the president's national health-care plan.

"You could get caught by stray bullets," Quinn jokingly warned the folks who had gathered with him to make the announcement. "You don't have to be part of the firing squad," he added with a laugh.

He knew what was coming. Earlier in the morning, the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute had released a poll showing that Quinn was badly trailing Lisa Madigan in a hypothetical primary matchup. By mid-morning, the late Senator Simon's daughter, Sheila, had announced that she wouldn't be running with Quinn again. Simon's aides said she didn't know about the poll from her father's think tank, but the irony wasn't lost on those of us who watch these things.

Governor Pat Quinn used the phrase "our Illinois" (or a variation) almost 30 times last week during his State of the State address

"In our Illinois, everyone should have access to decent health care."

"In our Illinois, working people find good jobs not just for today but for tomorrow."

"In our Illinois, we find a way to get hard things done."

In our Illinois, we are a "community of shared values."

While the phrase was mainly just a rhetorical device for a constitutionally mandated annual address, it is important to point out that Illinois isn't really "one" and doesn't have all that many "shared values."

"Our Illinois" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Imagine trying to govern a state so diverse that it included both Boston, Massachusetts, and Richmond, Virginia.

It's little surprise that a poll taken January 30 of 1,255 likely Illinois Democratic primary voters shows Attorney General Lisa Madigan leading Governor Pat Quinn by a very large margin.

Off the record, most top Illinois Republicans these days will tell you that they want a state bill legalizing gay marriage passed as soon as possible.

It's not that they're necessarily in favor of gay marriage. Many of them are publicly and privately opposed. Some of them do support it, even though they don't feel they can vote for it because it might destroy their careers in the next GOP primary.

The reason so many Republicans would like to see the bill passed is because they know - with the huge new Democratic majorities in both state legislative chambers - that it's eventually going to pass anyway, and they want to get this issue out of the way and behind them as soon as possible. The issue is trending hard against the GOP's historical opposition, and they want the thing off the table before it starts to hurt them.

Bill Daley called the other day. We estimated that it had been about three or four years since we had last spoken to each other, which is par for the course.

Going back to at least 2001, Daley - the brother and son of former Chicago mayors - has mulled a bid for governor. The last time was in 2009, when he publicly considered challenging Pat Quinn in the Democratic primary. And now he's talking about it again.

Before I returned Daley's call, I wanted to check around and see what might be different this time.

"Frankly, I'm not sure they want it," Illinois Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said Tuesday about the Democratic legislative leaders and state pension reform.

It sure looked liked she was right last week, at least in the House, where Speaker Michael Madigan barely lifted a finger for any of the pension-reform bills that were on the table.

His top aides insist that he does indeed want pension reform. Madigan has said he wants a bill to pass. So what will it take to get him off the dime and start pushing for a solution?

January 3 was not exactly a banner day for the Illinois Senate Democratic leadership. In high-profile moves, leadership's attempts to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage stalled, as did bills on gun control. Even a much-needed spending bill was unable to move out of committee. Pension reform went nowhere. The biggest winners were cigarette makers, of all people.

The gay-marriage bill turned out to be a dud. Opponents pointed out some serious issues with the bill's drafting, which, for instance, would have appeared to mandate that facilities owned by churches or religious groups allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. Proponents denied that, but they seemed to be on some shaky ground.

The measure was moved forward at the behest of some wealthy financial backers who appeared to dictate the timing, which is never a good thing in Springfield. Backers say that three senators who were supposed to vote for the bill were not at the Statehouse, and that kept them from passing it. But even if that were true, the drafting questions would likely have doomed the measure in the House. And the millionaire-funded media blitz just didn't work. Media blitzes, no matter how awesome to behold, aren't effective at the Statehouse if the actual bill is flawed and the votes aren't there.

It's difficult to argue with a point by the Washington Post's Greg Sargent shortly after news had broken of the mass murder at a Connecticut school.

"If today's shooting doesn't prompt action on guns," Sargent wrote on his Twitter account, "then nothing ever will."

You'd think that the shocking horror of 20 children and 6 adults murdered at that school by a crazed gunman using a semiautomatic assault rifle with high-capacity ammunition magazines would prompt some action, either nationally or at least locally.

But nationally the NRA has almost completely embedded itself within the Republican Party and allied itself closely with congressional GOP leaders. As a result, when one of its own members (Gabby Giffords) was nearly killed during an Arizona mass murder by yet another crazed gunman, the U.S. Congress did little more than applaud her return to the chamber.

Pages