88 Comments - Knome Sane - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:38 am: So what if he was gay? Even though I don’t agree with his position on marriage equality, he is a steadfast supported of the LGBT community. Isn’t that enough? Speculation about his personal life doesn’t solve one problem facing this state. - Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:45 am: Rutherford could distinguish himself and exhibit courage by supporting the freedom to marry. It’s a conservative issue — family, freedom etc. A few smart Republicans in Springfield (Barickman, Sullivan, Sandack) understand that. The religious objection is a red herring. We’re talking about civil marriage; churches would be free to do (or not do) what they want. Time for Rutherford to grow a pair. - Norseman - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:46 am: Interesting answer to THE question. To me his orientation has never been an issue and shouldn’t be an issue. I voted for him for Treasurer. I will not vote for him for Governor or any other office because of his drinking the pension reduction Kool-Aid. I’m taking the same position on every other candidate. - Norseman - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:47 am: addendum — for Governor. - Long Time Listener - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:49 am: It sounds as if Dan is looking for an avenue to change positions on marriage equality without being viewed as “flip-flopping” on a position he has long held. It doesn’t matter what his personal situation is. It is refreshing to hear a Republican candidate say what needs to be said to the rest of the party - social issues are not what defines the party. He’s right. As soon as the Republican base gets past that, they may have a chance to lead this state again. If they don’t, they will forever be the minority party. - Anon2 - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:51 am: He just invited efforts to prove whether he lied or not. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:55 am: I don’t agree with Rutherford’s stance on same-sex marriage but it’s clear to me from his tone, what he says and what he doesn’t say that he’s open to it becoming law. Not too many years ago I was indifferent to the issue so I won’t judge someone with an open mind harshly. What he doesn’t say is refreshing: nothing about gay people being some special class of sinner intent on tearing down the walls of civilization and ruining the lives of children. He is the best GOP chance in November 2014, and he just might win it all. - Mason born - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:56 am: “While i don’t agree with it theologically it isn’t the job of the State to enforce a relligous belief. As long as Relligous institutions have the freedom to abide by their beliefs I see no problem.” That is the statement which would have made sense as well as being principled. This is the perfect area to use the Libertarian small gov’t approach. As an excuse to change your position. - Wondering When - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:57 am: Well it is August. Mark the date when the Springfield establishment decided to breakout the official Rutherford may be gay card. Dan must be tracking well to bring out this strategy this early. Expect them to put something more ‘concrete’ in play with the stakes this high. - Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:05 am: He’s walking a line between being conservative enough for the primary and moderate enough for a general. I haven’t seen a Republican walk that line as well in a long time. A very impressive interview. - Tommydanger - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:06 am: I could care less if he is gay and would probably admire him more for announcing so as a Republican. I would have a problem if he is gay and is either too afraid to admit or believes voters are too bigotted to look beyond sexual orientation and focus on issues and qualifications. - Mister Whipple - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:08 am: “if we allow gay rights, guns and abortion to be the definition of the difference between a good Republican and a bad Republican, we will be the party of the perpetual minority.” If DR goes out on the trail, repeats this mantra and transitions into job creation, his experience in public and private sectors, etc. he’s going to win the R vote he’s already shown he can win and add plenty of independent and some Dems who are tired of the Springfield circus. And keep in mind this guy got more votes for Treasurer than Pat Quinn got for governor three years ago when Rutherford ran against an African-American woman. - Johnson - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:08 am: I think this may be the start of the GOP opening up. Rutherford is right - they will need open up to minorities and that does mean turning away from some traditional social values. The country as a whole is becoming more accepting of LGBT people, and the more the GOP tries to hold onto their conservative social values –which they believe to be moral– the more they look out of touch. And please, it’s the DemocratIC Party. - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:13 am: I’ve read this three times and all I’ve gotten from it is his use of the term Democrat Party is some kind of signal to the right wing that he’s really on their side. - Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:14 am: So far as the government is concerned all permanent commitments between two people should be defined as civil unions, and they should be available to both same sex and opposite sex couples. Leave the concept of marriage to the churches, they can do as they please. Marriage should not be a consideration for government. Also, regarding Rutherford’s sexuality, whatever it may be: who gives a hoot? - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:21 am: Serious and committed Christians who believe marriage is between a man & a women are expressing their values. Religious objection is not a red herring. “religious objection is a red herring. We’re talking about civil marriage; churches would be free to do (or not do) what they want” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:21 am: ===Marriage should not be a consideration for government.=== That’s such a bogus talking point. You want radical? That would be it. How about all the non-religious folks who don’t want to be married in a church? Peddle that nonsense elsewhere, please. - A little north of I-80 - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:23 am: Rutherford being gay or not will not be a factor in either the general or primary. However, his support from the LGBT community WILL be an issue in the primary…a negative one with the religious right (the dominant voting group in any GOP race in IL). As for saying “Democrat” instead of “Democratic”, it probably just means he listens to Rush Limbaugh. Rush uses it as an insult, but it’s become so ubiquitious that most don’t even realize Rush is delivering an insult when he uses the phrase. - Belle - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:23 am: He sounds like a real Republican to me instead of what Republican has come to mean. I could care less if someone is gay and cannot fathom why anyone cares. But, I live in 60600 where sexuality is generally not a biggie. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:25 am: ===Dan must be tracking well to bring out this strategy this early.=== Dude, the guy sat down for an interview with the Windy City freaking Times. Any idea what that publication is about? This post isn’t a part of some nefarious conspiracy by some nebulous “establishment” to defeat Dan Rutherford. He agreed to a long, extensive interview with the premiere gay rights newspaper in the Midwest. And he said some interesting stuff. That is all. Remove your tinfoil hat, please. - woodchuck - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:26 am: The bigger the stage, the better he does. Doesn’t insult people like Rauner and he could beat Quinn. No other GOP candidate can do that. He could beat Daley too. - shore - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:33 am: This is where I think Bill Brady has a huge leg up in the primary because he’s the only candidate who is 100% clear on social issues and where he stands and I think can clean house with that sector of the primary vote. This wishy washy stuff is easy for him to hammer on and we’ve already seen Rauner struggle with it. I don’t think fact that Mark Kirk has embraced GLBT issues makes it any easier for these folks and you know that Democrats will rightly use him to say to suburban/moderate/independent voters every chance they get in the general election “you (gop candidate) are an extremist and out of touch not just with the state, but your own senator Mark Kirk who is with me on this issue”. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense for Rutherford to do an interview with these folks since it can only cause issues for him in the primary. It says a lot about this blog in a positive light that people aren’t going juvenile on this. It would take about .2 seconds on most other blogs. - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:34 am: I have been seriously considering Rutherford for some time now. This interview solidifies him in my mind as the serious moderate the GOP needs to win in the fall. His honest explaination of what he supports and what he does not, based on his religious beliefs, is refreshing and very statesman like. The name callers and right wing bomb-throwers have driven many moderates out of the Republican Party. I am one of them. Rutherford is the type of candidate that could win me back. I still need to hear more on his position regarding pensions though before I fully endorse him. - champaigndweller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:36 am: I think Rutherford is a smart politician and would run an excellent campaign for governor, given this interview. - Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:38 am: @AFSCME Steward — I respect your beliefs and your right to hold them. I also respect the beliefs of the many Christians who believe that gays and lesbians should have the freedom to marry. I think Congressman Jerry Nadler said it best recently, after the Supreme Court struck down the DOMA: “People can believe what they want. They can go to what church they want, what synagogue, what temple, what mosque. They can believe about marriage or anything else what they want. That’s a questions of religious belief. We’re not dealing with religious belief in all these questions. We’re dealing with what the state or the government does. And we have a separation of church and state in this country. So for government purposes you can be married. The church may not recognize it, that’s their business. And if you don’t want to recognize it from a religious point of view, that’s your business.” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:38 am: ===a huge leg up in the primary because he’s the only candidate who is 100% clear on social issues and where he stands=== I wouldn’t disagree, except that he isn’t raising any money. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:44 am: –I don’t think it makes a lot of sense for Rutherford to do an interview with these folks since it can only cause issues for him in the primary.– These folks? You mean citizens? No gay voters in the GOP primary? Kind of doubt that. - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:54 am: The problem is that the government has alreadyinterferred in religious expression. As a result of Illinois refusal to allow Catholics to continue its practice of facilitating only heterosexual adoptions, it was forced to withdraw as major adoption resource. The state (meaning the government as a whole) is increasingly infringing upon religious rights, which are constitutionally protected, through court rulings and new laws. I am much like Rutherford. I do not support discrimination against gays. I do not have a position on civil unions. I know gay people and am friends with some. I believe that God loves them the same as everyone else. However, I also believe that God ordained marriage as only between a man & a women. For that reason I cannot support gay marriage. “@AFSCME Steward — I respect your beliefs and your right to hold them. I also respect the beliefs of the many Christians who believe that gays and lesbians should have the freedom to marry. I think Congressman Jerry Nadler said it best recently, after the Supreme Court struck down the DOMA:” - Wensicia - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:56 am: “I’m just saying that if we allow gay rights, guns and abortion to be the definition of the difference between a good Republican and a bad Republican, we will be the party of the perpetual minority.” He’s right about this. If the Republican Party doesn’t want to fade into obscurity, it needs to move past supporting social restrictions that imply discrimination is not only acceptable, but required. Good interview, but will he stand by these statements moving forward? Evolving is not yet acceptable with his party, just ask the former IL GOP Chairman. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:57 am: ===God ordained marriage as only between a man & a women. For that reason I cannot support gay marriage.=== You are confusing a church-ordained marriage with a civil, government marriage. Big dif, man. - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:01 pm: Rich From my perspective, a civil union is a government marriage. “You are confusing a church-ordained marriage with a civil, government marriage. Big dif, man.” - FoxValleyPride1 - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:02 pm: Yeah, the fact that he sat down with The Windy City Times says a lot. He also acknowledged that SCOTUS’ decision awarding tax benefits (and other financial benefits) has changed the conversation substantially. Those who agree with him that being a Republican means the government should stay out of your wallet should remember that the court case that brought DOMA down was a tax case where the government had unjustifiably taken half a million bucks from a widow. They should support marriage for all, if only for that reason alone. As an aside… The “Democrat Party” vs. “Democratic Party” has surfaced across a couple of threads today. Bottom line is this, if you don’t want to be dismissed as a knee-jerk partisan, use Democratic. Just two little letters will add a great deal to your credibility. - ZC - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:08 pm: Rutherford is the state GOP’s number one threat to win the governor’s mansion. If they were smart they’d nominate him. They usually aren’t smart. - A guy... - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:10 pm: I think this issue crystallizes a salient point; there are a lot of people trying very hard to process this issue for themselves. Young voters seem to have a very easy time with “gay marriage” as an issue. Why wouldn’t they? They have no idea or experience when it comes to understanding what it takes to achieve a long lasting successful marriage and all of the work, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc. that goes into it. Only people who have that experience get it, and to a certain extent they don’t want that notion diminished. I think hard about gay marriage. Like almost everyone, I have many gay friends and relatives that I know to be outstanding people. I talk to them about it. Newsflash: even they aren’t sure or of one opinion on this issue. I think a lot of people want some time to think carefully and thoughtfully on this. As DR points out in the interview, dynamics change as legislation changes and courts alter the parameters of the discussion. I have little doubt this will come to pass. The acceptance that is a hell of a lot more important than the mere law might be worth spending a little more time working on. Forcing it in any coercive way has a negative effect on people trying to reconcile themselves and their faith and beliefs into an accepting position for people they already know, love and want the best for. It’s a tough issue for a lot of people. It didn’t used to be. That’s how far things have come. Compassion is a greater leverage builder than Coercion. - LincolnLounger - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:13 pm: @Shore: - shore - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:33 am: This is where I think Bill Brady has a huge leg up in the primary because he’s the only candidate who is 100% clear on social issues and where he stands and I think can clean house with that sector of the primary vote. Sorry, Shore, but I disagree. Brady is “squishy” to them on immigration and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and they absolutely cannot move past it. They also think he blew it the last time. - Wensicia - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:18 pm: Facilitating adoptions is not a religious right. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:25 pm: ===Forcing it in any coercive way=== Huh? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:27 pm: ===From my perspective, a civil union is a government marriage.=== Wrong. My parents were married by a judge at a county courthouse in 1961. Married. - Nick - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:31 pm: Question: “How do you define your sexual orientation?” Rutherford: “I’m not gay.” That response doesn’t answer the question. His answer leaves room for more speculation. - FoxValleyPride1 - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:41 pm: A Guy… While I’m certain that your gay friends are not of one mind as to whether marriage is appropriate for themselves… as individuals… and nothing in the proposed law would force them to get married. I’d be willing to wager though, that they all believe it should be available to them if they… not the government… deems it appropriate for them. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:43 pm: –They have no idea or experience when it comes to understanding what it takes to achieve a long lasting successful marriage and all of the work, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc. that goes into it. Only people who have that experience get it, and to a certain extent they don’t want that notion diminished.– A lot of misunderstanding going around, considering half of first marriages eventually end in divorce. I can’t see why there’s any good government reason to keep gay people from aspiring to that batting average. And as far as what people “feel” about it — in reality, ain’t nobody’s business but their own. - Sacajawea - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:48 pm: For the good of the state of Illinois, let’s put the social issues aside for a cycle. Our state is in bad financial shape, and getting worse. Most legislative races in this state are won on social issues (most GOP legislative candidates in close races in ‘10 and ‘12 were overwhelmed by groups like Personal PAC). Social issues are something you focus on when the economy is good. Everything else is a smokescreen for the poor economic policy that has dominated this state over the last 10 years. Illinoisans have elected moderate Republicans (Edgar, Thompson) and conservative Republicans (Ryan, Fitzgerald). All focused on the everyday, fiscal issues that matters. Everything else (abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, gun control) is a diversionary tactic to paint one party (GOP) as extremist by another (Democrat). So what if you are for or against gay marraige. As a legislator, what are you doing to make sure that the company I work for doesn’t leave Illinois, or that my kid will get a solid education in public schools, or taking more of my paycheck to blow on pension sweeteners or no-bid contracts to some friend of an elected official? Those are the issues of importance, the other stuff is just nonsense designed to get people fired up for one side or against another. - Mason born - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:49 pm: @Nick –That response doesn’t answer the question. His answer leaves room for more speculation.– Okay i missed it, i thought that answer was pretty simple. What am i missing? - A guy... - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:53 pm: ===Forcing it in any coercive way=== Huh? On both sides of this issue, Reps are being pitted against pastors, donors, leaders,etc. Ultimatums are constantly issued. There are enough of them in the GA that have voted against that would like to vote for, who could use a different approach to encourage them to do what their minds, hearts and bellies are urging them to do. That’s when you’ll get some acceptance along with a vote to pass the law. One of the better speeches ever given on the IL Senate Floor was Rutherford, when he voted for Civil Unions. There’s no way of knowing how many minds he may have changed in his chamber, the other chamber, or the state that day. What is indisputable is that the issue has come a long way since that day. Further than even Rutherford is willing to go. The LGBT lobby could learn from Rutherford and be as careful as he was in this interview. Threats (coercion) are bad bets most the time. The prize is way bigger than just a law. - Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:53 pm: ===That’s such a bogus talking point. You want radical? That would be it. How about all the non-religious folks who don’t want to be married in a church?=== Rich, based on the example you gave I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote. Think of it this way - civil union would be the contractual joining that is recognized by the government, marriage is the additional spiritual layer provided by religion. Everybody joined would have a civil union, and those so inclined (probably the majority of people) would also be married. What would be so bad with that? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:54 pm: ===All focused on the everyday, fiscal issues that matters=== Actually, Edgar was quite boastfully proud of his NARAL endorsement in the 1990 race. - Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:56 pm: =If they were smart they’d nominate him. They usually aren’t smart.= Yeah. That’ll motivate everyone. I’m sure they’re all lining up right now for your “approval.” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:56 pm: ===civil union would be the contractual joining that is recognized by the government, marriage is the additional spiritual layer provided by religion. === As I have said many times here, that is an ultra-radical redefinition of marriage as it is. As such, it’s a total red herring. Stop being a college sophomore and deal with reality. - Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:58 pm: I actually had the same response as Nick. It seems to leave open at least two options. Of course, I couldn’t care less who Rutherford dates. Rutherford is pretty moderate on the issue. The only time it would be relevant was if he took one position in his personal life and then a radically different position when voting. I just don’t see a huge inconsistency here so I don’t care. - Jabes - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:02 pm: ==They have no idea or experience when it comes to understanding what it takes to achieve a long lasting successful marriage and all of the work, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc. that goes into it. Only people who have that experience get it, and to a certain extent they don’t want that notion diminished.== Why do you believe that longstanding gay relationships are fundamentally different from longstanding straight relationships and require no work? Unless you think there’s some “gay gene” that makes it so that gay relationships are immune from the need for “work, sacrifice and forgiveness”? I mean, if they’ve got it all worked out so that there’s no conflict in a long-term relationship, sign me up! - Midwest Mom - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:08 pm: ===From my perspective, a civil union is a government marriage.=== Like Rich said, wrong! Civil unions in the state of IL do not bring with it a federally recognized union for legal purposes. Civil unions are NOT the same. My daughter and son-in-law were married last fall in a local park by a non-religious officiant. On her IL county marriage license, there’s a box to check as to whether that ceremony was “civil” or “religious”. Their certificate indicates a civil ceremony, not a civil “union”. And they are wholly married, recognized by the state of IL and the US federal government, without ever having mentioned “God” in that ceremony. - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:08 pm: Dan did a great job with this interview. If we were voting today, he has my vote. - McLean Farmboy - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:14 pm: Rutherford will have to answer these questions over and over again, because single-issue voters do, in fact, exist. I would imagine that everyone that reads Rich’s blog regularly (myself included) finds it distasteful, but it is not up to the political class to dictate to voters what criteria they are “allowed” to use to determine their vote. For me, I find it repugnant whenever I hear a voter say “I will not vote for that person because he/she [is/is not/supports/opposes/believes/does not believe] [blank].” even if I am on the same side of the issue that they are. It represents a willful ignorance; all that voter wants to know is one position or demographic. The ignorance and laziness of voters can be very depressing on occasion. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:23 pm: ==The problem is that the government has alreadyinterferred in religious expression. As a result of Illinois refusal to allow Catholics to continue its practice of facilitating only heterosexual adoptions, it was forced to withdraw as major adoption resource== That DID NOT infringe on their freedom. Were the forced to adopt kids out to gay couples? No. So where’s the infringement? The case was clear. You don’t have a right to a state contract and if you want one, regardless of who you are, you must abide by the state contracting rules. It’s pretty simple. It is absolute nonsense to couch the Catholic Charities thing as an infringement on religious freedom. Religious freedom isn’t the same thing as saying we can do whatever we want regardless of the rules for everybody else simply because we are a religious institution. So stop already with this bogus argument. - ANALYST - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:24 pm: @-a guy:”They have no idea or experience when it comes to understanding what it takes to achieve a long lasting successful marriage and all of the work, sacrifice, forgiveness, etc. that goes into it. Only people who have that experience get it, and to a certain extent they don’t want that notion diminished.” So what do young newlyweds know about any of this ‘experience’ and the challenges ahead? It’s mostly about Love, Respect, Sharing, Commitment, whatever your sexual orientation. - wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:25 pm: –My parents were married by a judge at a county courthouse in 1961. Married.– My wife and I were married in Florida in 1986 across the street from the county courthouse where we got our license by a bail bondsman who happened to be a notary public. Married (still?!). - Just Me - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:28 pm: I can’t wait for this issue to be resolved (and by resolved I mean passed and signed into law). - Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:30 pm: =For me, I find it repugnant whenever I hear a voter say “I will not vote for that person because he/she [is/is not/supports/opposes/believes/does not believe] [blank].” even if I am on the same side of the issue that they are…The ignorance and laziness of voters can be very depressing on occasion. = I think voters have “evolved” within the context of the opinions expressed by other voters (and consultants)–especially on blogs. It’s been a few years, so they’re learning how to adjust to those opinions; just as they have with regard to editorials. (And this is obviously just my opinion, so “it is what it is,” too.) And, it goes something like this: If supporters (especially long-time supporters) are nasty to others, telling them to “go away” and otherwise trying to interfere with what they have to say because they don’t like it and feel threatened somehow, it probably says alot about the candidate himself and his inner circle. Same for those who try silly manipulative tactics like “if you were…, you could be cool and part of our clique, too.” Not quite GOP mentality…that “insecurity” bit and assumption everyone wants to be the most popular kid in school. (That’s not to say that it’s Dem mentality either.) Just sayin. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:30 pm: ==What would be so bad with that? == I can think of many things. But you should also be realistic that those vehemently opposed to gay marriage would still be vehemently opposed to your suggestion because those people oppose ANY union of same sex partners. It doesn’t matter to them what you call it. They are going to be against it so what you suggest is not a solution. - Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:33 pm: Not a big whoop, but to clarify: I mean to say “just as they have regarding newspaper endorsements.” - Whooped Dee Doo - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:38 pm: wordslinger @1:25 - that has to be the most romantic post I’ve ever seen! - Voice of Reason - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:44 pm: The next Governor of Illinois is going to confront a Dem. majority in both chambers, thus must be someone who can build coalitions if we are to end this gridlock. Quinn couldn’t even get his party to support his “great” initiatives and the proof is in the pudding. Rauner is the Republican Pat Quinn, full of boasts and bravado, but exhibiting a mind-numbing ignorance of how government works. The next Governor needs to be the adult in the room, not someone who will “Shake Up Springfield”, rather someone who will “Wake Up Springfield”. Rutherford is well-liked and respected on both sides of the aisle, as is Kirk Dilllard, by the way. Success is often a function of timing in life and the times require conciliation, not belligerence. Rutherford fills that bill. Quinn & Rauner don’t. Oh and - in case you missed the Rauner funded attacks on Shock - wait til you see what they try to do to Rutherford. - MM - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:48 pm: Go Dan Go! - Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:50 pm: ===As I have said many times here, that is an ultra-radical redefinition of marriage as it is. As such, it’s a total red herring. Stop being a college sophomore and deal with reality.=== I apologize for having a different opinion. - Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:52 pm: MM, that might require a response, but I’m stumped as to what it should be. - Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:52 pm: I forgot to add the - downstate commissioner - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:08 pm: Have I been banned? A couple of my comments have not shown up here, or are they being automatically blocked for some reason? - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:22 pm: “government, stay out of my wallet and out of my purse.” Nice attitude. There’s nothing that says “self sufficiency” like wanting others to pay your way. - siriusly - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:27 pm: Don’t care if any politician is gay or is not gay, I judge them on their honesty and integrity as office holders. I used to not think much of the Treasurer, but his speech at the City Club earlier this year was really good and I found him to be very impressive. That said, his answer on this question is very squishy. - lincolnlover - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:56 pm: I like Dan R and always have. His arguments for/against same sex marriage and civil unions make a lot of sense. What kind of governor would he be? Based on this interview, I would say that he is an intelligent and caring individual. If he takes the same sensible, caring approach to be governor, then who cares about his private life?. - Sunshine - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:57 pm: Dan talks good sense and logic. I’m concerned about the “marriage” aspect as well simply because everyone shouts separation of church and state, yet the feds do not permit the tax benefits, among other benefits, to gays so long as they are not “married.” Why not treat all unions as civil unions, have them equally recognized by everyone, and let marriages continue to be a practice for the church? Hopefully we can move that way….then we can start taxing income producing church property to reduce our pension debt. I’m sure the church will see that as helping out mankind to the pleasure of Almighty God. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:57 pm: @downstate: A couple of mine have disappeared as well. - Boog - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:57 pm: -Nice attitude. There’s nothing that says “self sufficiency” like wanting others to pay your way.- What does that mean ? Everyone understands that taxes are necessary, but conservatives feel there should be limits. Liberals, on the other hand, never seem to think that taxes are high enough. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:58 pm: Strike that. They reappeared after I just posted. Quirk in my system I guess. I apologize. - Nick Kruse - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:59 pm: I almost always vote Democratic, but I will vote for Rutherford if he makes it to the general election. His responses to all of the questions in this interview were very impressive (as well as much of what he has done as treasurer). - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:59 pm: ==Liberals, on the other hand, never seem to think that taxes are high enough. == I have no idea how any of that is even relevant here, but that’s an extremely simplistic view of things and is simply not true. - Publius - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 4:07 pm: I think Rutherford is a good guy, and could be a strong contender in the general. And he is possessed of a certain courage. In these days, in this state, not many people are willing to admit that they are openly Republican. - Susiejones - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 4:13 pm: I am a supporter of Dan Rutherford and have been for years. this is an excellent interview and shows good common sense in his responses. Makes me like him even more. and please, no conspiracy theories with his response to the question of his sexuality…he said he is not gay. end of discussion. geez, we have a lot more important things to worry about than Dan Rutherford’s sexuality. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 4:54 pm: “Liberals, on the other hand, never seem to think that taxes are high enough.” Not entirely true. A progressive tax that liberals would support would actually lower taxes for many earners. I was just looking at the CTBA plan, and this would be the case. The income tax would go up only for those earning $150,000 or more per year. Don’t exaggerate, poopsie. I was just taking Rutherford’s statement at face value. - A. Nonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 5:14 pm: Everyone’s so focused on the guy’s dating life that this slipped through….. You know what I think we got to do to help the crime rate in the City of Chicago? I think we need get the employment rate down in African American wards below 80 percent. The “employment” rate below 80%? What the heck is he talking about? It doesn’t make sense if he meant the unemployment rate below 80% either because it’s nowhere near 80% right now. The employment rate should be well north of 80%, not below it. ….and more…. What do we need to do about school funding? I think we broaden the tax base, get more people to work. You got a bigger tax base, then you don’t have to go out and raise taxes. That’s a massive but persistent right wing fallacy. The Illinois employment rate is hovering around 90% (rounding it for ease of math). 2012 tax revenue on that roughly 90% employment was $794.6 billion. Acknowledging that a portion of that money is from corporate taxes, etc. even if Illinois hits 95% employment (closer to pre-Bush Recession norms) that only yields an increase of about $40-45 billion. That’s if we keep the current 5% tax rate in place and if we keep the “low” funding in place for education, etc. So lets take a look at the reality of what we need… Topinka estimates we’ll be $9 billion in the hole by 12/31/13. And the pension debt is near $83 billion. That’s $92 billion new dollars that Rutherford needs to find just to break even (not even to increase education spending as he claims). In other words, the combined debt is more than twice what “more jobs” alone will bring in. Illinois still has a revenue problem, hard as it is for the conservatives who rely on pixie dust and fuzzy math to admit. - woodchuck - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 6:42 pm: ==Illinois still has a revenue problem, hard as it is for the conservatives who rely on pixie dust and fuzzy math to admit.=== Yeah and Blagojevich and Quinn over the past 12 years have really addressed it. Let’s pass a 60+% income tax increase –and guess what, it’s already spent. You can’t address an $83 billion amortized pension payment schedule and think that anyone — pixie dust spreaders or those great fiscal geniuses already running the Executive Branch — could do that. You start with a vision and you start with the fundamental root cause of why there is unemployment and why there is crime — more people need jobs. It’s not exactly Keynsian. And to jump on someone who misspoke when the context of the message was perfectly clear. Let me know the next time you don’t have a typo or syntex error. Reasonable people will disagree politely on the approach, but no need to insult a particular party as being the only ones who use pixie dust or have fuzzy math. 12 years of history would suggest otherwise. - Todd - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 7:12 pm: he said what I have said about the crime in Chicago for a long time. Someone is getting the picture. - fake county chairman - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 8:32 pm: Have known dan for a long time.Ones sexuality should not be an issue.The ability to govern and the prerequisites should be the issues. - A. Nonymous - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 8:45 pm: @ Woodchuck - Perhaps it was a Freudian slip revealing something more. PS - Your taxes and mine went up by 2%. Quite frankly 5% is still pretty darn cheap to live in Illinois. No such thing as a free lunch. If you don’t like the flat tax in this state then advocate for a progressive tax where I (and probably you) will pay less. Or, if you don’t like providing a helping hand to our fellow citizens then tell us who you want to throw under the bus — find $92 billion worth of old people, kids, sick folks, etc. If that still isn’t enough for you feel free to move. Free country. I notice Illinois’ population is still increasing so clearly more Illinoisans than not would rather stay here but perhaps you feel so strongly about a 2% increase that you will pack up and move. Then again Coca Cola, every peanut butter brand, all the big cereal makers and many more household brands ALL significantly raised prices in the past few years. (Even before the 2012 drought.) Have you stopped eating in protest of their X% increases? My point was that simply adding new jobs won’t solve the debts incurred over the past 30+ years (GOP governors involved in that too). And my point still stands. Cut $92 billion, raise it, or find some combo of the two. Walk the walk instead of just filling the page with hot air like Rutherford. - woodchuck - Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 12:33 am: I live in Texas now after having lived in Illinois for 33 years — we have no state income tax, so my tax didn’t go up the alleged 2% (but if my Kankakee County public school math skills are correct - 3% to 5% is not a 2% increase - it’s a 60% total increase). Don’t mistake me for some campaign hack. I grew up poor in Kankakee County, worked in Springfield, have family in Illinois, but I do know Dan Rutherford. I know Bill Brady. I’ve met Quinn. I may not be in Illinois but my heart still is there. I’ve also lived in another state that taxes almost everything but oxygen and they still have problems out there and stll claim they need more tax revenue. Do yourself a favor and maybe try to not ruin the intellectual integrity of this blog. I don’t mind respectful differences of opinion. It’s healthy for the discourse. But referring to someone’s opinion as “hot air” is borderline disrespectful. Take a breath… - nothin's easy - Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 9:27 am: Woodchuck, 3% to 5% is a 67% increase showing once again that statistics can be misleading. It still is a 2% increase, too. Texas funds it’s state via the extraction taxes on oil, etc. It would be interesting to see how much Illinois could generate if it had similar extraction revenue streams. Illinois is mineral rich… - DM - Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:49 am: Rich: I think it is logical to have civil unions for everyone but marriage as a private matter. Tax breaks for children. Marriage not sanctioned by government. So if someone wants to have a ceremony and live as husband and wife (whether opposite sex or same sex) then so be it. The only difference is that government would not sanction it as marriage. Contract law, civil unions, domestic partners and perhaps new laws could deal with issues for both opposite and same sex partners for issues like inheritance, hospital decisions etc. This is a libertarian position and is logical. - DM - Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:56 am: I have met Dan Rutherford a few times and he is very 1) affable and 2) hard working. He goes everywhere and is very friendly. He does come off a bit cheesey and that might be interpreted by some but I think he is very well intentioned. I have no idea who I will vote for for governor because I am disgusted by IL government these days and have not seen anyone truly visionary or with ideas that I agree with or think are really good but we could do a lot worse than Dan Rutherford. I think it is good if the GOP respects diversity and minorities and outreaches to all people which every party should do and the GOP should have done a long time ago. Dan Rutherford reaching out to different groups and talking about urban and minority issues and respecting individuals regardless of their sexual orientation is a good thing. That does not mean I am voting for Dan Rutherford or agree with with same sex marriage–only that I can respect Dan Rutherford’s work ethic and tolerance and respect for diversity and outreach and recognize that is a good thing and that Dan Rutherford seems like a good guy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.