Shearer says he has “no regrets” about the Facebook post and isn’t backing off his implication at all.
Only, there’s no proof of that. And, in a somewhat cryptic email, the Chicago financier says he’s innocent.
“I didn’t do ad and never heard of group,” Mr. Rauner wrote. “(I’m) surprised he implied I did, but perhaps rogue staffer (?) . . . I like Aaron and have supported him in the past, even though (I) have disagreed with some of his tax votes.” Added Mr. Rauner, “Seems somebody wants us fighting now.”
Mr. Rauner didn’t respond to other questions, such as how many millions or tens of millions he’s going to drop into his own campaign, and how he would have voted on the tax-cliff matter. Nor is he saying who that “somebody” might be.
What basis is there to pull an ad like this? It seems true… maybe not totally fair, but true.
- Knifefighter - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 10:55 am:
I mean that’s the thing isn’t it? People like Rauner need to come out front and support tougher disclosure requirements for spending like this. Either he’s not behind the ad and disclosure clears him, or he’s behind it and is using the law to cover up his lie.
Rauner admitted it when he said he didn’t do it “but maybe a rogue staffer…” How many rogue staffers can spend a quarter million or more without the candidate knowing? Come on. Yes, Dillard and Rutherford are loving it but the sad fact is they are ruled out becuause neither has the ability to get that kind of money. Rauner can’t win the primary and for different reasons he can’t win the general, but his colunsultants will milk that whale dry as they get rich on the ride. Just ask Blair Hull,Gidwitz, McKenna and Oberweis.
It seems to me that the rogue staffer comment was referring to a rogue Schock staffer (Shearer) implying Rauner’s involvement and not a rogue Rauner staffer creating the piece. That is certainly the context in which I read the comment and not a back door admission by Rauner.
While I am not all that left-wing, I am moderate enough to love this ongoing saga of the far right wing and pretend far right wing eating its own. Fun times. Keep it up Erickson and the rest of the far right wing. Sure, an angry animal, when cornered, will become meaner, but sooner or later that animal is gone. Can’t come soon enough for the far right wing.
Oberweis lost the Governors race by just under 3 points so Rauner can win but has to bring the base on. Dillard didn’t do that last time and lost. McKenna could never win the base because he was always suspect for being the choice of the combine to run against Peter Fitzgerald.
Rauner has to reach out and start a dialog and be the one to introduce himself. Oberweis would have beaten Blago because he had money and would have not have allowed Blago to be the only one on TV early. JBT was out of money after the primary and the “what was she thinking” stuff stuck. Brady stayed in that race telling all he had pollng with him in the 30s when he was at 15%(Brady only got 5,000 more votes when he got the nomination) and Quinn did the same thing to Brady that Blago did to JBT and Obama did to Romney; spent tons of money early and defined who they were. Rauner could stop that from happening.
Erickson, who I didn’t like because his brigades promoted pat hughes, is not a “member of the far right wing”-he’s a regular conservative who is part of the reason we have marco rubio instead of charlie crist, rand paul instead of trey grayson and a lot of other republicans instead of old guard party hacks.
- Woodford vet - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 11:46 am:
Rauner and his wife are members of the left wing Emily’s List which was one of the biggest outside groups that came in to beat Bobbie Schilling. Yes rhe Rauners gave money to defeat Schilling. Why would any goper support such a liberal that Rauner is?
Rauner’s rogue staffer reference is about Schock’s Facebook page post blaming Rauner for the ads. I would read it that Rauner felt Schock probably didn’t make the linkage himself, but that a staffer did and posted without Schick’s knowledge. Rauner is giving Schock the benefit of the doubt and leaving the door open to Schock to apologize for a staffer’s action. This little incident will be illustrative of Schock’s demeanor in a future campaign. His cease and desist order is one place to start looking…
The vote to raise taxes by ending the Bush tax cuts was taken 10 years ago when those Bush tax cuts were enacted for only ten years. Schock was only 21 years old then.
The bill Schock voted for had zero language in it to raise any taxes. The bill cut capital gains taxes, kept the marriage tax penalty from coming back, lowered the estate tax, doubled the per child tax credit, cut marginal rates for most Americans, ended the alternative minimum tax, cut taxes on dividends, and brought back the R & D tax credit. Where in that bill did it raise taxes?
The congressional vote for the tax hike to occur on January 1, 2013 was taken ten years ago when Aaron Schock was 21 years old. The tax hikes were automatic as a result of that vote ten years ago because the Bush tax cuts were enacted for only ten years.
The vote taken on the fiscal cliff in the House on New Years Day had no tax increases in it whatsoever. It contained a remarkable amount of the Bush tax cuts this time to be made permanent. Without a Republican U.S. Senate majority and without the Presidency, the package was the most Republicans could get. We live to fight another day for more tax cuts and in the next two to three months we will have big battles for major spending cuts.
Who ever is running this ad campaign should stop it. No one wants to see more campaign ads right now. Give us a break and this is coming from a political junkie. I actually believe this ad is unfair but let’s just stop the games and focus on the big picture which should be actually winning the gov mansion.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 12:10 pm:
- Woodford vet’s IP address indicates and Arlington, VA location. Hmmm. -
Schock needs to tell his staff to work on their grammar and spelling.
- Woodford vet’s IP address indicates and Arlington, VA location. Hmmm. -
And which of the individuals involved would be most likely to have a, let’s say earnest and eager supporter based in the Washington DC area who just happens to be paying attention to a hyper IL focused blog?
That is the most interesting information I’ve seen in a while. I realize you can’t let us know every bit of IP detail you can see as the proprietor, but when sock puppetry is detected, I for one appreciate your efforts to nip it in the bud.
Woodford vet, any chance your IP address is from the Peoria area, because the Emily’s list screams talking point.
Also I don’t see a Bruce on any of that Emily list stuff, just the name of his wife (or who I suspect is his wife).. FYI I see donations to Schock under that same name as well…
So either you are doing ‘guilt’ by association, so if that is the case, I guess that via an organization my wife belongs to, I guess then ‘we’ have given money to Lisa Madigan and a host of Democrats over the years. I would say you then should also put me down as a supporter of the Girl Scouts, quilting, playing handbells at church.
Also you should assume me wife is a supporter of US Curling as well…
Seems a bit daft, doesn’t it.
If your attack is based of the idea that husband and wife can not have different ideas, different views and give to different entities, political or social, good luck with that.
Oby had a china fund worth over 1 billion at the time,and the diary was expanding every week he spent 5 or 6 million in the primary. There was no cap so Jack Roeser would have kept putting cash in Blago couldn’t outspend him. The market was skyrocketing. Blago was under investigation and everyone expected him to be indited
Cincinatus,you must be an attorney yourself. These outside groups need to prove the facts in their ads. That’s why in Illinois last fall both parties got a couple ads taken off the air. Dillard and Rutherford better brush up on fighting back because it seems if Rauner perceives them as a threat,they are next.
Most people would have read it to mean that the fact he requested a cease and desist order. Fortunately you are here to keep us all in line and make us type our words as you want. Maybe we are all not the idiots you think we are…
I make no judgement on the veracity of this specific claim, but I certainly agree with you that the content of ANY should be true, and that any candidate and his/her campaign, needs to have a plan to respond to any claim an opponent may make, whether the claim is true or false.
Cincy, didn’t think it was that big of a deal. Just pointing out the difference between a request and a judicial order.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 12:57 pm:
As I noted Monday:
“Interesting to consider the possibilities if this turns out not to be Rauner for some reason.
Could even raise Rauner’s status if he comes out with a strong denial and Schock has no concrete proof to push back. Rauner then shifts the narrative and claims Schock is hurling false allegations because he is a weaker candidate afraid of competition from Rauner (accurate or not).”
Way to go, Schock camp. You are elevating your opponent while drawing national attention to a hit piece on yourself at the same time.
Alex Trebek congratulates you for hitting the Daily Double.
I think Woodford’s poor spelling is a bigger clue that he is Schock rather than Woodford’s IP address.
- western illinois - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
Are any other Republicans that voted for the fiscal cliff deal getting advertising against them?
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
I see someone again bringing up the Schock response bringing up Mrs. Rauner’s Emily’s List support as hypocritical because of Schock’s support of Susana Mendoza.
Isn’t Team Schock’s response also hypocritical given all the shady super pac shenanigans he engaged in to ensure Donald Manzullo was destroyed by misleading super pac ads accusing Manzullo of not doing enough to stop government spending and tax increases?
I wonder if these Schock ads are airing on a station in Manzullo’s market. And if they are, if he laughs every time they come on.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 1:29 pm:
@OneMan - James Carville and Mary Matalin would certainly be surprised to discover all the causes they “support” through guilt by association.
Can you imagine Carville’s reaction to something like that?
Meanwhile, Rauner’s moderate reaction to all this so far makes him seem like an adult dealing with a camp full of obnoxious kids just sniping away without basis. Expected Rauner to push back harder, but this is working just fine so far as the Schock campers and sock puppets hang themselves.
Also I think he is just raising Rauner’s profile, again most of this state 98% have no idea who the dude is, why give him an inch of free media.
- Brian Piccolo - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
Rauner makes Gidwitz look like George Clooney. Of course the leach consultants will convince him to run and milk him dry and line their own pockets. I hope he runs so he blows a good chunk of his fortune to finsh 3rd or fourth.
I’m not a Rauner guy in this, but I’ve gotta so far the Schock performance has been ham-fisted. He’s normally a pretty smooth performer, but my guess is any other GOP primary candidate will try to paint him as too young and immature to become the governor of Illinois.
Rauner–and by extention the rest of the GOP field–could definitely turn the tables on Schock’s organization and paint him as tempermental and immature for hurling accusations without the appropriate facts to back it up.
It’s interesting that Rauner showed restraint here and is giving Schock an opening to de-escalate this….
This is a major misfire for Rauner any way you look at it. 1. Rauner should want as many prolifers in the race as possible. 2. Rauners rather incoherent responses certainly demonstrate he is not quite ready for prime time. 3. While this earned media debate isn’t driving a whole lot of points those that are reading it are not seeing a very flattering pic of Rauner.
I hope somebody on Schock’s team is digging into who is behind this “Jobs and Progress Fund.” Seems like that would be a better first step than giving your opponent so much attention.
A brief googling reveals that Ohio lawyer David R. Langdon may be the agent who filed paperwork to create the committee. That same person may also have been Joe the Plumber’s lawyer too, and might also be the lawyer involved with an organization affiliated with pro-marriage forces.
If any of that is accurate (and I’m not vouching for my own 10 minutes of internet research), it points to somebody without a state agenda. Langdon, coincidentally, is from Cincinnatti, near John Boehner’s neck of the woods.
Again, make of that what you will, but it sure seems like the people behind this ad are more interested in tarring Congressman Schock rather than possible gubanatorial candidate Schock.
- Old and In the Way - Wednesday, Jan 16, 13 @ 9:53 pm:
Don’t have any opinion on this but did want to caution everyone about using IP’s to trace location or identity. Spoofing IP’s is child’s play and as such is commonly used by a lot more people than you think. Just sayin’………