47 Comments - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:37 am: Did Rauner not notice just how badly the Romney campaign went? - PublicServant - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:43 am: And after the election he’ll be able to share yet another experience with Romney…losing. - MrJM - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:44 am: “I’m just like the fella who lost Illinois by 17 points in November. But I’m also like the bellicose clowns who couldn’t even get past the GOP primary. I’m the best of both worlds!” Oof. – MrJM - siriusly - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:49 am: Business experience matters in business. And whether you think so or not, actual political experience matters in politics. You can run as an outsider if you want and you can blast “politicians” if you want, but there is a high degree of professionalism that goes on in campaigns and in governing. - hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:55 am: Just like Mitt Romney? Guess he doesn’t want votes in Freeport. And I am looking forward to Florida’s Jimmy John Liutaud being announced as his running mate. - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:58 am: Rauner is also on the front page of this mornings News Gazette, with a story by Tom Kacich. His rhetoric is heavy on adjectives but light on details. He says he will “play hardball” with special-interest groups. “The folks who make their money from government - AFSCME and SEIU and the teacher’s union and trial lawyers…… They’ve got our school-children by the throats and they’re squeezing them.” This will be a colorful campaign cycle. - Brendan - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:03 am: Rauner has been watching too many Robert Redford movies. - Empty Chair - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:04 am: From a strategy standpoint, I don’t get the early entrance into the Gov campaign for Rauner. The biggest gamble the Obama campaign made was spending $ to define Romney in April/May/June, after he locked up the nomination, but before the conventions. Normally, this money is spent on barrages of ads in Aug/Sept/Oct to try to sway votes last minute. The Obama campaign realized that it could piggyback off the brutal primary and define Romney in voters minds before he had a chance to. (See: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/in-political-campaigns-do-you-get-what-you-pay-for/?ref=opinion) Given that, why doesn’t Rauner sit off on the sidelines, throw a bomb into the mix every now and then, but not officially announce or tour the state until much, much later in the game? Entering into the arena early as an unknown - indeed, before ANYONE else is declared - ensures that 100% of the press is focused on you, which makes control of that message all the more difficult. Without control of the message, the campaign is going to lose its ability to define Rauner on its own terms, much like Romney did. I can only imagine the idea was to get his name ID up early, but a few high-profile speeches and/or op-eds might have accomplished that (albeit more slowly). I’m not sure if this sorta-campaign was well thought out. - Dan Johnson - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:17 am: I think Rauner represents the view of people (shared by some on the Tribune editorial board) that they just don’t want to pay for public pensions. They think the pensions are “over-promised” in the Trib’s phrase and that the benefits should just be cut, the income tax rate should fall and that’s that. That’s what lots of private companies did (taxpayers picked up some of those costs, but that’s another story). So we should too. That’s how they think. I recall at an event a few years ago on another topic, an educated, fairly-well off business guy asked the legislator holding why we don’t just dump the pensions….you know, when times get tough….that’s what you do. Those guys (largely swimming in corporate America) really believe that pension obligations are something to be discharged in bankruptcy and are having a hard time coming to terms with actually paying for these pensions. That’s why I think Rauner et al don’t have any real answers. When they talk about leadership or saying whatever they want, I think what they mean is just bankrupt the pensions — because that’s the ‘tough decision’ that corporate leaders make. They aren’t interested in any other solution. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:17 am: Rich, Appreciate the “dropping of knowledge” on your part. Knowing how a campaign acts/reacts even in an off the record sit-down helps in understanding “who they are” as a Staff, and what type of Crew you and others are dealing with as we, outside, try to get a handle on them. Specifically … ===Rauner is getting more coverage than others simply because he’s out there talking to folks about his campaign and raising lots of cash.=== There has to be the understanding that if you are going to be “out there”, you are going to get coverage when you “speak boldly” and raise monies “loudly”. It’s part and carcel. If Rauner was in a Cave, calling people for Dollars, and not out and about, most of what you, and others, are covering, would not exist. There is a “ying and yang” when you want coverage, and the coverage you are attracting by your exposure. Tessio knew “it was only business”, and “that’s that”. This part is very telling, and you capture my thoughts on Rauner … ===If Rauner plans to go even further, he needs to remember that this ain’t exactly a GOP state.=== Great point. If Rauner’s Crew were to ask me, (They aren’t and haven’t, so they are probably smarter than I give them credit for…) the biggest “campaign” problem in message and in delivery, is that Rauner thinks Illinois is Wisconsin and/or Indiana, and to further that, the manner in which Rauner is going about “courting” (*cough* blasting) the GA GOP reflects someone lacking the knowledge of a winning formula for Illinois. Attacking the GA GOP, specifically Tom Cross, shrinks HIS “base” and by comparing the ILGA GOP to WI and/or IN, and the governmental issues here to IN and/or WI’s their Legislative GOPs and the relationships of all those parties in those states, shows a complete lack of the political history of where the ILGOP has been, and is. I have my own issues with the SGOP and the HGOP, but mine are based on the Illinois situation, the ILGOP’s role in it, and the Caucuses lack of understanding how to win. Rauner isn’t even that far. You can’t blast your party or its leaders in one state based on another state’s sompletely different set of variables. It’s like looking at an “apple” and expecting that “apple” to eaten like a Coconut. Finally, the “Romney” model, here in Illinois will not work because where all the votes are, in Cook and the Collars, see only harshness, and Rauner, I guess, made it clear he (Rauner) does not mind “upsetting” anyone. Republicans are in a Minority, as an identified electoral group. Going farther “Right” is not going to bring Cook and the Collars in Rauner’s “Camp” at the clip needed to win, given the harsh tact, today, Rauner is going to use. Rauner is not giving Indies a reason to come back, today, becasue the rhetoric Rauner is using is the same as Romney, and as you said Rich, the blueprint is there for defeating that candidate here …in Illinois, and specifically Cook and the Collars. And let’s not forget a “Ground game” or a lack thereof …but that is not for today’s discussion. I have mocked, and will continue to mock Rauner, as I do Rutherford, or whomever decides their Dopiness they are selling is worth some snark. As Rauner runs, and tries to bulid a voting “base” of voters to win in the Primary, Rauner, and I hope he understands, will be questioned about Constitutionality of HIS Pension Play ala WI or IN, or Rauner’s corporate history, heck, Rauner’s own words will be out there, and be questioned. That is part of the deal when running for elective office. Voters do not have to accept Rauner because he is “my boss” or “on the Board of Directors”. Rauner will be questioned on all those positions and the idea that people will let it lay as Rauner wants is just not going to happen. Especially if the Rauner Crew is going about this with the “Romney Model” Glad to hear you can have a “drink” with his Crew, and know that are Pros about all this, we will see if the Campaign can follow suit when it counts. I wish them luck. - Jack - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:17 am: He has already given enough ammo to his Democrat opponent for a year’s worth of ads. - ChicagoR - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:22 am: Well, he certainly shares a certain tone-deafness with Romney. - just sayin' - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:23 am: Look, what all the 47%’ers need to understand is that every dollar paid out of the pension fund in benefits to someone who worked for decades, is a dollar the pension fund can’t pay out in fees to people like Bruce Rauner and his pals. You’ll never become a gazzilionare working and paying into the pension system, but you can become a gazzilionare handling the money others put in. BTW, has anyone asked Rauner about what kind of controls would be in place if he did become governor? In other words, what’s to stop all the state’s investment business from going to Rauner’s firms and/or the firms of his big donors from Florida and elsewhere, the other Rauner/Romney financial types? - Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:25 am: There’s a thesis going around that Romney and Romney donors were fleeced by a bunch of “Conservative” operatives who were looking for make good money and live large for the campaign. Suckers don’t win campaigns. But their consultants make good money. - Wensicia - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:26 am: He’s making the Romney mistake of leaning so far to the right to win the primary, he’ll never be able to swing back to the center to gain moderate voters on either side. - CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:26 am: CousinBrucey is the IL Mitt! Yikes! That is dumber than his suggestion IL allow Marriage Equality by referendum. Trashing Billboards Cross is no big deal. Everyone else does it all the time. Hard to buy the outsider stuff when he has his hand stuffed in public pension pockets for years…does not compute CousinBrucey Fire, Aim, Ready - Votecounter - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:26 am: D.Johnson Why go after the guys who have to pay? Anyone can see that there was never any way to pay these pensions and other obligations, everyone knew it for over 20 years! yet you guys want to be angry at “Business guys”? Maybe Business guys are the ones who understand you can’t just promise things with out being able to pay for them. No matter how the pension problem is solved the state workers will not be happy or the Tax Payer. There is one person who has been in charge for over the last 30 years and yet you attack the people who have to pay? What about Madigan? - wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:30 am: …Rauner said that because he’s not a career politician he’ll say, and do, whatever he wants. – That’s exactly how representative democracy works. Governors say and do whatever they want. It’s not like there are other branches of government, laws, Constitutions, competing interests or management responsibilities. My way or the highway, all the time. But he’s “not a career politician” — just a businessman with an interest in government business who underwrote the careers of politicians. - hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:30 am: @Empty chair - Rauner can’t hang back because no one knows who he is and he actually needs to define himself before his opponents do. He’s just not doing a good job of defining himself. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:31 am: “The legislator says Rauner told lawmakers that unlike Romney, he wouldn’t be afraid to upset anyone.” Joe Walsh also wasn’t afraid to upset anyone, and look where that got him. I would like a governor who doesn’t demonize his opponents, and who wants to work with unions. And please, none of this localized right-to-work stuff that Rauner wants to do. I say we need good-paying jobs, not downward pressure on wages and benefits. We rank pretty high as far as average income. I hope we don’t become like the states that have the most people earning minimum wage and the least number of people having health insurance. - Boone Logan Square - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:33 am: Yes, Mitt Romney’s is the campaign you should pour millions of dollars to emulate. What is he thinking? I’m curious to see what the makeup of the Republican primary electorate in 2014 will be. Is Rauner better off tacking right, or might he find going moderate a way to differentiate himself from a multi-candidate field and pull off the kind of win Brady squeaked by with in 2010? That’s a risk, but if Rauner goes too far right, he’s going to have problems in Lake and DuPage that will hamper his ability to beat a Democrat in the general. Also, he should not hire the ad agency that did McKenna’s spots in 2010. - wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:40 am: –Also, he should not hire the ad agency that did McKenna’s spots in 2010.– You mean the ones with McKenna wandering around by himself in the Loop, looking lost? Those were great! - langhorne - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:45 am: rauner will “say and do what he wants”. bruce, meet mike. mike, meet bruce. i know its early, but i have yet to hear anything from rauner that suggest a thoughtful workable policy alternative. its all tough guy bravado and buzz words. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:48 am: Maybe Rauner really is what our state needs. I’m not particularly fond of him thus far, nor do I think it is smart to essentially go into someone’s home (the state Republican caucus) and throw their leader under the bus. But perhaps the reasons I am concerned about him are the exact reasons that he would be the right person to address our state’s challenges. If “we don’t want nobody nobody sent”, then we’ll keep getting the same tired results. We face radical problems in our state, and I don’t see Pat Quinn, Lisa Madigan, Dillard, Rutherford, Schock, etc. upsetting the apple cart. I am slowly beginning to find this guy interesting. - soccermom - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:51 am: I am very busy today. Would someone please explain to Mr. Rauner why transition to a 401k would be incredibly expensive in the first decade or so? - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:53 am: Sounds like Rauner may not like what he’s hearing on his listening tour… - Norseman - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:58 am: “Another legislator says the meeting did not go well, and that Rauner is clearly not ‘ready for big time.’” Enough said. Now one of Rauner’s country club buddies need to have a talk with the man about pursuing another hobby. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:01 am: === Aaron Schock’s gubernatorial ambitions === Those “ambitions” are still around for this cycle? Goody! He’s been too quiet lately. Schock’s first foray a few weeks ago was comedy gold. - Norseman - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:04 am: === Would someone please explain to Mr. Rauner why transition to a 401k would be incredibly expensive in the first decade or so? === Soccermom, it would be of no use. His thinking is so narrow-minded that if businesses did it, then government should. The best use of our time is to send Rauner’s political career to oblivion. - shore - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:08 am: Brendan you won the day. Usually a wordslinger/oswego willy type all star comment. take a victory lap sir. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:23 am: OW said, “…the biggest “campaign” problem in message and in delivery, is that Rauner thinks Illinois is Wisconsin…” Rauner’s “campaign advisor” is the guy who ran the primary campaign against Scott Walker in WI. Came in last and slurred Walker. Name’s Chip Englander… - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:30 am: - Cincinnatus - Thanks. AS many know, out-of-state “consultants” use the “White Out” when leaving one race to work another, but the playbook is the same… maybe I was channeling Car-Nac? “Wisconsin, apples, and Rubber Chickens….” (rip the envelope, blow inside to pull out the card …) “What are three things an Illinois Campaign for Governor avoids….” - Dan Johnson - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:34 pm: Votecounter - I don’t think I’m going after the guys who have to pay (including all of us, since our tax system is rather regressive). I think there’s a feeling among the Rauner crowd (for lack of a better term) that these pensions are somehow…illegitimate. And that if only they were in power, they could just dispose of these pensions. I think we could have paid for these pensions. We just would have had to put in money every year and now have suffered from the finance-driven Great Recession on 2009-9. Compounded COLAs are an issue as well, but aside from that, I think it’s clear the biggest driver of our pension problem is a decision simply not to fund them for three or four decades. And the answer to that problem from the Rauner crowd is to call the benefits unsustainable and think they ought to just be cut. Do you think that’s a fair assessment of how the think? Dan - Boone's is Back - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 1:04 pm: ===We had a pleasant evening, but we didn’t get to talk much because there were so many people === LOL- poor guy prolly didn’t get a word in. Saputo’s must have been hoppin. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 1:13 pm: ===Saputo’s must have been hoppin.=== Wasn’t at Saputo’s, but the place I did go to was hopping. - Boone's is Back - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 1:57 pm: Butternut hut is my next guess. - Wumpus - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:17 pm: Just compare his experience and political achievements to Obama, circa 08. Also, please announce that you did save the Laff-olympics in 1985. - Frenchie Mendoza - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 3:20 pm: I think this article on American Airlines pretty accurately sums up Rauner’s (so-called) strategy: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201005/-The-big-labor-win-almost-nobody-noticed What’s remarkable about this article is that it seems to articulate Rauner’s strategy more cogently and succinctly than Rauner could probably do himself. What — is there some secret GOP meet-up where these rich guys sit around and codify this stuff? I mean, it’s tiresome — tiresome because they keep trying the same strategy, tiresome because they keep losing when they try the strategy. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 3:49 pm: Willy, that’s why Rauner needs the “in-state” Con$ulting team if he’s going to have a chance of turning this thing around. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 4:07 pm: - AA -, I guess you are the “Rainmaker”. Imagine how think the “binder” would have to be to get this train back on track… and we already know that Oppo research has to be redone. then there is the polling … Get that ledger out, I am running out of fingers and toes to count the Billable. lol Truth be told, Rauner wants outside, “outside”… may not work, but when you are paying your own freight like he is … - PublicServant - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 5:13 pm: Run Bruce run. Spend boatloads of money. Thanks for the redistribution. And he thinks the government wastes money. LOL - Votecounter - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 6:29 pm: @Danj. No, I have heard state workers say we “Undertaxed” for decades instead of funding. That is deceptive the General Assembly Couldn’t and wouldn’t have raised taxes to pay for their promises! We couldn’t afford it and the Speaker and other leaders knew it. That is the crime about the pensions. The unions gave huge money to the politicans who passed their agreements giving them more and more even though we couldn’t afford it. It was a scam everyone knew it was ask anyone involved in statewide politics since the 1980’s and if they are telling the truth they will agree. We couldn’t afford the labor deals they made and they all knew it! - Conservative Republican - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 6:40 pm: Oberweis, Gidwitz, McKenna. Need I say anything more? In order to break that mold, the “businessman, not a politician” candidate has to break through and capture the imagination like Ross Perot did (and even he lost). Rauner isn’t accomplishing that, ergo, add him to the list of Oberweis, Gidwitz, McKenna, etc. - Conservative Republican - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 6:44 pm: PS, saying “I will say what I want” completely lacks content and even sounds stale. Hasn’t the internet, etc, provided a megaphone for all and aren’t a ton of folks “saying what they want?” And if you are “saying what you want”, what is it you want? Why isn’t the message of “what you want” breaking through as opposed to the paraphrasing exclamation that you are “saying what [you]want”??? - walkinfool - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 6:45 pm: At least some of the Repubs in the House are defending the Nekritz/Cross approach. I haven’t given up on Rauner quite yet. We need to consider some new approaches. I still am hoping that he cannot really be as misguided as he sounds when talking to his potential GOP supporters. I once had similar hopes for Romney’s capabilities and attitudes, and he showed himself a potential disaster for any public service. - walkinfool - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 6:46 pm: At least some of the Repubs in the House are defending the Nekritz/Cross approach. I haven’t given up on Rauner quite yet. We need to consider some new approaches. I still am hoping that he cannot really be as misguided as he sounds when talking to his potential GOP supporters. I once had similar hopes for Romney’s capabilities and attitudes, and he showed himself a potential disaster for national public service. - PublicServant - Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 7:01 pm: Well Walkinfool, get ready to have those hopes dashed once again. Rauner’s written himself off already. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.