|
Between a Rauner and a hard place
Tuesday, Feb 10, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller * The following House Republicans were endorsed by the Illinois AFL-CIO last November…
In addition, GOP Rep. Dwight Kay was endorsed by the Illinois Education Association (which isn’t affiliated with the state fed). Sen. Chapin Rose was endorsed by the Illinois Federation of Teachers, as were Republican Reps. Michael Tryon, Robert Pritchard, Michael Unes, Norine Hammond, Chad Hays, Dan Brady, Charles Meier and the aforementioned AFL-CIO endorsees. It’s not like any of those folks were given the endorsements against their will. Interesting times ahead, campers.
|
 |
|
|
- State employee - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:37 am:
I predict a bipartisan defeat in the GA of Rauner’s EO.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:44 am:
I’ve heard that dead horse heads have been sent to all these legislators offices. Each had an attached note saying, “Do you want an effing problem?”
- Amalia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:45 am:
anyone on that list ready to switch parties?
- Cassiopeia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:49 am:
I think the Democratic leaders will not challenge the latest EO on union dues because of the likelihood that it will not pass. The unions are likely to overplay this and loose big time.
Or, just the opposite.
No one knows for sure. These are interesting times and uncharted waters.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:49 am:
I don’t think there’s a great groundswell out there to spend a lot of time on measures designed to reduce peoples’ incomes.
How is that good for anyone’s business or growing the economy?
- Bill Baar - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:49 am:
Re: I predict a bipartisan defeat in the GA of Rauner’s EO.
Does the Statehouse get a vote? Cullerton just said they’d be reviewing for Constitutionality.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:49 am:
Interesting article this morning in The Guardian about right-to-work laws being a favorite weapon of the GOP, and mentions Rauner’s recent proposals:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/right-to-work-laws-are-every-republican-union-haters-weapon-of-choice
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:50 am:
Funny thing about winning the Big Chair and realizing your “friends” are the only ones you can intimidate and bully, and even if you bully them all, you need to convince your “enemies” to buy into your visions too.
This co-opting of the GOP Caucuses is arguably the most troubling residue of Rauner winning than anything else.
I understand the dance the GOP Caucuses need to do, but name after name that Rauner could have “a problem” with, and zero, absolutely zero, cover the Leaders can give, because of the edict that Rauner Rules and Owls “Who”, who do the Owls really represent?
Rauner or The District.
If you say the Republican Party, you’ve been co-opted too.
It’s only the GOP Caucuses, when Rauner says they are. That’s real. Why is that real? Rauner and his $20 million told them it’s real.
At what point do those names above ignore who they are, and their districts, or …when do they realize the price is to high for them to pay, even if Rauner bought the Caucuses…as a whole?
“Who” has a problem with this?
We’ll know pretty soon.
- chi - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:50 am:
Rauner wants Illinois to resemble Alabama, Mississippi, and other poor states that treat working people like crap. There’s a long history down south of treating workers like crap, and it does not benefit a state’s people or a state’s economy.
And please don’t bring up Florida or Texas unless you’re going to give Illinois billions of dollars of annual oil revenue or tourism revenue. We don’t have the oil, we don’t have the beaches. But we still manage not to have their poverty rates either.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:53 am:
===Does the Statehouse get a vote?===
Either subscribe or read the Constitution.
- Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:54 am:
@Amalia
=anyone on that list ready to switch parties?=
By being just like so many nickels and dimes in the union’s pockets, they already have, amalia.
Basically they were endorsed for acting for the benefit of the unions over the interests of the vast majority of their constituents.
There’s very little difference in the two parties in Illinois, amalia. They’re both for sale to the highest bidder. In Illinois, almost exclusively the higher bidder is the unions.
Rauner is the first Republican in a VERY long time to challenge the unions. Cross, Radogno, Rutherford and Durkin just smile, take their union money, and keep their mouths shut.
Rauner’s the first one to stand up for the people’s interests over that union cabal. At least there’s debate now about limits of union power, and kudos to Rauner for having the guts to get it started.
- Marty Funkhouser - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:54 am:
At the same time, are any of them in danger of being defeated by Democrats or the unions? With the exception of maybe McAuliffe, those are solid Republican districts. They could conceivably betray the unions and survive. The unions need them more than they need the unions. The map cuts both ways.
Poe, Brauer and Davidsmeyer are truly interesting cases though, because they’d have to betray a big chunk of their constituents as well. But their constituents voted for Rauner overwhelmingly, take selfies with the gov when he’s at the agencies or local basketball games and generally seem oblivious to the man’s agenda. It’s like they’re somehow clueless that this is not a Thompson-Edgar-Ryan-Irv Smith Republican who will shower Greater Springfield with patronage jobs.
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:55 am:
We’ll see soon enough who opts for the “escrow fund”. Sometimes you just have to let something play out a bit. I have no clue as to what will happen with this, so my own curiosity will wait a bit to see where this goes. Until then, everyone’s just guessing.
- PK 2 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:57 am:
Can someone please clear up my confusion about Exec Orders? The state constitution is clear: they can only be used to reorganize state agencies or reassign duties to state agencies.
But does the governor have statutory authority to issue Exec Orders beyond that constitutional framework and if so, can those EO’s be rescinded by the General Assembly the same way constitutionally contemplated EO can be? Rauner, Quinn and other governors have issued numerous EO’s that have nothing to do with “reorganizing” state agencies. (Like Quinn’s recent EO on immigration matters.) In those instances, are the EO’s nothing more than policy statements by the governor that, in practice, state agencies follow because the boss told them to?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:59 am:
===They’re both for sale to the highest bidder. In Illinois, almost exclusively the higher bidder…===
Bruce Rauner bid $20 Million.
So…what are you trying to spin as…better?
- Del Clinkton - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:59 am:
Bruce made $25,000.00 an hour last year.
Yet there are onion tossers at the local burger place posting here who are making 8.25 an hour who support him and a reduction in their wages.
Amazing indeed.
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:02 am:
Del C, keep calling them “onion tossers”. That’ll win them over to your thinking. Oy.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:02 am:
I thought it was, and is, smart of the unions to strategically endorse some Republicans. Otherwise, if they always only endorse Democratic candidates it further fuels the impression to the the public that the Unions and Democrats are irrevocably joined at the hip.
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:04 am:
Resp, Have you come to a different conclusion?
- Beans and Franks - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:04 am:
I believe that AFSCME endorsed JBT.
- Anon - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:05 am:
Look for these endorsees to be offered a high level (higher pay than the $68k base for legislators) job in the Administration to make way then for the Gov’s appointments. He’s definitely reinventing the term, “politics as usual”.
- low level - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:06 am:
Meaning that Bozo Bruce has 8 less votes he can really count on in the IL House. So, 47 HGOPs - 8 union backed candidates = 39 votes he can rely on. Not to mention the others with universities or prisons in their districts.
Brilliant strategy. Total fail.
- Kodachrome - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:06 am:
== “Do you want an effing problem?” ==
@ Norse
Please note, if this is read out loud in public, its “effin’” . . . .
@ Del C
they don’t support a reduction in wages - they support fiscal sanity in this state, recognizing no legislator will ever have it without force
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:08 am:
===Resp, Have you come to a different conclusion?===
I do remember Rauner saying 1/3 of the ILGOP GA was corrupt and corrupted, by unions.
So by that thinking, Rauner must think it’s beyond “D” and “R”.
Interesting times, indeed.
- Del Clinkton - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:08 am:
@a guy:
Meant to write Executive Vice President of Vegetable Usage and Deployment who just happen to make $24,991.75 an hour less than Bruce made last year and support making that difference even more expansive.
Is that better?
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:10 am:
Koda, what do private sector wages have to do with “fiscal sanity in this state.”
You seem a little mixed up.
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:10 am:
Del C, sure, the new definition will definitely convince them to agree with you. Oy x 2.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:10 am:
In some of the districts represented by those listed above, the largest employers are places like schools and state agencies. That is especially true downstate. If you represent Champaign or Bloomington-Normal, you can add in Universitires and community colleges. So these people are representing the interest of their constituents in most cases when they advocate for educators and state workers.
- Del Clinkton - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:11 am:
@Kodachrome:
If by Fiscal Sanity you mean a Progressive Income Tax…then we are on the same page.
If you mean Unions CAN’T spend money on politics, yet Bruce CAN spend $36,000,000.00 of hidden money to get elected…then I’m afraid we dont disagree.
- Del Clinkton - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:12 am:
* do disagree.
- State employee - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:14 am:
Either house may vote down an EO if it contravenes a statute, and Rauner’s EO may contravene the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.
- Fred - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:14 am:
– Amalia –
Good question about party switchers. To my mind, if there is one potential party switcher out there, but he’s not on that list (because he wasn’t on the ballot in ‘14,) and it is Sam McCann. As Rich and Bernie have written, he is persona non-grata in the Senate GOP caucus, he flirted with running as a third party candidate against Rauner, and he has a good relationship with public employee unions — which represent a ton of his constituents. Unless he gets religion in a hurry, he’s likely “target one” for Rauner’s $20 million Super PAC in next year’s GOP primary.
I think a lot of Dems were mapped out if his district to create the Manar district, so a complete shift to the the Democratic Party might be too dangerous for him. Maybe he becomes an independent and caucuses with Cullerton?
RIght now, it seems like Sam has three paths to follow: 1) Surrender completely to Rauner and hope he forgives and forgets his past sins. 2) Continue as a downstate, pro-union Repub and hope he can fend off a cash-rich primary opponent. 3) Change sides and hope Cullerton and labor’s all-out support in a big Dem year is enough to win a district that leans GOP.
- Kodachrome - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:15 am:
Word
I assume the “onion tossers” are residents of IL, who, you know, pay taxes?
My point is, perhaps they care more about the fiscal success of this state, at least a chance at it versus what has been going on the last decade or more - especially since most of the ones earning that wage at the burger joint are the young peeps
- Aldyth - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:17 am:
As I recall, Moffit hasn’t had to mount a campaign against anyone in decades to hold onto his seat. I don’t know enough about the others to know if that is the same for any of them.
Now that we see which way the wind is blowing from the governor’s temporary mansion, it should be very telling when we see what these folks do.
- anon - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:19 am:
== Basically they were endorsed for acting for the benefit of the unions over the interests of the vast majority of their constituents.==
Do endorsements from interest groups other than unions mean legislators are acting for the benefit of those interests instead of the public interest? Or is it only union endorsements that elicits such accusations? The NRA endorsement, for example.
- low level - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:21 am:
Koda - last time I checked, unionized government employees pay taxes also.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:22 am:
Koda, stil don’t know what you’re talking about.
What do Rauner’s anti-union actions have to do with the state budget and taxes?
- Amalia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:23 am:
@Arizona Bob, um, well, beyond your anti union sentiments, I am genuinely asking whether there is anyone on that list who decides to fold the tent with the Republican party. as in any intel about that.
- Kodachrome - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:27 am:
Right LL, but the onion tossers aren’t being paid via those same taxes.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:29 am:
My guess is that Rep. Brauer is in serious trouble and that Rep. Poe retires.
I doubt that Rauner will go too hard after Reps. Mitchell or Brown. I could be wrong.
Given what kind of business Rep. Davidsmeyer’s family owns, I also cannot imagine he will face the gauntlet.
My question on a guy like Rep. McAuliffe is whether Governor Rauner and his top staff want to oust a guy like that in the primary, open that seat up in the general and then watch as MJM welcomes another member into his caucus. That would be as big if not a bigger feather in the fedora than when MJM took out Skip Saviano.
- low level - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:31 am:
Amalia - don’t hold your breath. AZ Bob is too far out in the desert attending tea party rallies in the hot sun to have any info on possible defections. To them unions= anti American cabals. All other interests are OK though - especially far right wing ones with deep pockets.
- Jorge - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:31 am:
But those onion tossers also receive funds from the government in terms of tax deductions and breaks, SNAP and other sources thanks to their low wages Koda. You aren’t very good at this game.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:35 am:
- Team Sleep -
How about this;
The Dorgan-McAuliffe connection?
The Dorgan-McAuliffe-Rosemont marriage?
Boy this will be…interesting.
- Ahoy! - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:36 am:
How many of the Republicans listed above actually had a general election challenger or a race that was even close to competitive? Because the map favors dem’s so much the republican’s are all lumped in super majority districts. These people will face a challenge in a primary more than a general. Brauer might be the odd one since he has so many state employees, but still, a democrat isn’t winning that seat.
- Kodachrome - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:36 am:
= Del C
With you completely on #1. On #2, when MM gets rid of his campaign war chest, I will agree with you on getting rid of BRs. Repubs gotta start somewhere to catch up
= Word
My basic point is, to at least try to change the way things are done, and in particular paid for, in this state, there will be pain. Its his opinion, and was in his campaign, that the union is what drives up the costs of public labor via political, “bribes” - I mean campaign financing.
The question to my mind is whether he is going to be a reasonable person, and weed out the garbage on the state payroll, or is looking to hammer the whole of the public employees. I know I don’t know the answer yet, but I know everyone here seems to think they do
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:36 am:
That too. I was looking at it more along the lines of that being a “safe” R seat as long as the right person is in the seat. McAuliffe losing in the primary would open that floodgate wide open.
- walker - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:38 am:
The idea that those who ask for and get union endorsements are somehow ripe for party switching is off base.
Attacks on unions (e.g. pension reform bill) are recently more likely to be supported by Dems than by GOPers, which is one of many ways the national party labels don’t work well in Illinois. Also, these Reps are in fact representing key interest groups among their constituents. It always looks good to be “for teachers” for most of them.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:39 am:
To dove tail both - Team Sleep - and - Ahoy! -,
McAuliffe’s district in of itself is competitive, given the right/wrong set of variables.
All good - TS -, just throwing that angle out there with your take.
- low level - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:43 am:
Koda - their taxes are also going to pay Arundel’s ridiculous contract, the sister and other hacks.
Perhaps the tax paying unionized government workers should ask for a rebate on that portion of their taxes going to pay people trying to reduce their wages and get rid of their jobs???
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:47 am:
Ahoy - great point. Brauer came in via a bruising primary and could go out that way as well. With his district including the north end of Springfield, Sherman and Lincoln, finding a primary challenger may not be tough. However - keep an eye on Sherman Mayor Trevor Clatfelter. He may jump into that race. Trevor is not some also-ran, and the fact that he is a Democrat and set to win his third straight mayoral race in Sherman means that he is a much more likely Democratic contender than anyone else in that rural district.
- Chad - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:50 am:
AFSCME 31 endorsed Mike Unes R-91, as did the IFT
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:51 am:
“Aren’t these safe districts?” misses a bit of the point. Legislators are biologically risk adverse. It is very difficult to ask them to go from winning 65-35 to 55-45. Even 10 points is a solid win, but it requires them to work more, raise more, etc. And it’s close enough that one bad gaffe could end it.
None of which is to say that any of these legislators WON’T vote with Rauner, but it remains a hard ask for them.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:53 am:
==I am genuinely asking whether there is anyone on that list who decides to fold the tent with the Republican party. as in any intel about that.
==
No intel, but in my experience for any one to assume a formal party switch over a single policy issue is usually just wishful thinking. My earlier comment about unions endorsing some Republicans may not have been clear, but I was talking about electoral optics not “buying” votes.
- Harry Kane - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:02 am:
Don’t forget Dan Cronin on this list. He is very close to a number of Du Page County unions.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:11 am:
There are an awful lot of comments here that seem right at the line of saying the unions bought the votes of people on the list above. Is that really how you want this to come across to the public?
- Sue - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:17 am:
Rich- you are kind of missing the point. Endorsements of D s and R s serves the purpose of retaining a legislative lock by the public sector unions which goes to protect the unions interests. Rauner is probably starting a fight he won’t win but his EO is aimed at restraining the legislative power the unions have which is purchased thru the endorsement/contributions using Union dues
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:18 am:
=== which is purchased===
Purchased? The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding campaign support. Was Rauner “purchased” by the RGA?
- Amalia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:31 am:
@Oswego Willy and Team Sleep, that’s what I’m talking about!!! McAuliffe district is a big question.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:33 am:
Why is it that when unions participate in campaigns it is “purchasing” somebody? What do you think Rauner is doing with his $20M stash?
Again, the hypocrisy is amazing.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:39 am:
If you are going to go after union contributions to politicians then you better go after everybody’s contributions. There are TONS of contributions from people who have business with the state. What’s good for the goose . . .
- Madison - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:42 am:
Perhaps Rauner is going to take a page out of MJM’s playbook? If you retain me as head strategist, I will fund your campaigns, and at some point, I will ask you for a vote this session. Now he doesn’t have all votes, but neither did MJM when he started. With only 10% of the district voters affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and those voters far and away Democratic anyway, wheres the harm with taking Bruce’s money? The Democrats aren’t going to take a Republican primary ballot, and outside of Springfield Rauner still has a following to go with a rather deep checkbook.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:45 am:
==Why is it that when unions participate in campaigns it is “purchasing” somebody? What do you think Rauner is doing with his $20M stash? ==
I would add that union members AKA “voters” show up in large numbers to do ground work for their favored candidates. The last time I checked, that is how a democracy is supposed to work. The candidates (& officeholders) are supposed to answer to “the people.” Rauner would rather they answer to him and, perhaps, a few of his rich friends and their large buckets of money. Rauner’s goal seems to be oligarchy. Talk about purchasing votes…
- SGrand - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:49 am:
@Fred - McCann will take your option 1 and surrender to Rauner. He can look over his shoulder and see a popular Repub Mayor in Jacksonville that would likely beat him no matter which ticket he is on.
- Sue - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:56 am:
There is nothing wrong with either unions or individuals using their contributions to best attempt to obtain political influence. What is wrong is forcing an individual to pay a union in order to retain their employment. If a corporation forced its employees to support a candidate in order to retain employment it would be a crime. All rauner is doing is allowing individuals to opt out of paying fair share. If they want to volunteer the payments they can
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:36 pm:
“If a corporation forced its employees to support a candidate in order to retain employment it would be a crime.”
That’s true but irrelevant. Fair share dues are fair because they pay for services the worker uses regardless of whether or not he or she joins the union- negotiated raises, safety standards, grievance policies, etc. It is completely distinguishable from requiring anyone to support a particular candidacy.
- Slick Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
***Brauer might be the odd one since he has so many state employees, but still, a democrat isn’t winning that seat.***
True. Jesus Christ could not get elected as a Democrat in Menard county.
- Enough - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:50 pm:
Unless this effort by the Gov to make public employment its own “right to work” zone and thereby blatantly violate the terms of an existing collective bargaining agreement is meant to somehow secure “negotiating room” when the public employees’ CBAs expire this summer how does this really help Rauner’s administration going forward? If he keeps this up he will soften the GOP support he’d otherwise have in the legislature. They will be scared to death to stand beside him and risk an all-out assault from labor–although maybe they’re more scared of that $20 million. But is there a single GOP state legislator publicly supporting these efforts’ of Rauner’s this week? The silence is deafening it seems to me.
- Summerwind - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:14 pm:
Looking ahead, does anyone think Rauner’s actions make it tougher for GOP congress members in close districts, like Rep. Dold?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:17 pm:
Harry Kane - I think they know about Cronin and unions. A good friend who is tied to Rauners inner circle said that Cronin wanted to be involved with the Toll Ways. That won’t happen because of that reason. He said both Cross and Karen Mc Connaughy out of running for same reason . They are bringing in a person who has no love for the unions. A total hard core anti Union person. Because of all the contracts the the authority gives out its a perfect place to start with non union workers.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:29 pm:
= What is wrong is forcing an individual to pay a union in order to retain their employment.==
They took the job as a union job. If they didn’t want to be in the union then they should not have taken the job. It’s that simple.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:51 pm:
Demoralized - correct. And, when bidding for jobs, prospective employees (current and outside) are made aware of the position’s status. There are no secrets, and if I am not mistaken a union is required to post ample notification if it is attempting to additional positions under its umbrella.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:01 pm:
==does anyone think Rauner’s actions make it tougher for GOP congress members in close districts, like Rep. Dold?==
No. And while we’re at it let’s please remember we have only an “action” so far, not any thing resembling a “result”.
- Buzzie - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:19 pm:
What is interesting seems to be the belief by some people that the only people who actually support unions are Democrats and union members.
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:01 pm:
Buzzie, the social media networks are atwitter with plenty of Union supporting Dems placing all the blame on other Dems and Reps in unions who did not support Pat Quinn. There’s a lot of chatter out there.
- Neglected stepchild - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:08 pm:
They should do the right thing, which is to give the unions the finger.
- Angus - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:25 pm:
Does every shareholder or worker have a say in how a company spends money politically. H*ll no.
The law allows for people to not participate in union political activities.already. With all the challenges our state faces let’s work to solve issues that benefit business and labor, union or not. what a waste of effort.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:13 pm:
==What is interesting seems to be the belief by some people that the only people who actually support unions are Democrats and union members. ==
Indeed. Reuben G. Soderstrom was the President of the Illinois AFL/CIO (and it’s predecessor) from 1930-1970 and was a Republican State Rep from 1916-1936.
It is true that many Republicans shifted to become the party of business (as opposed to labor), but it is not the case for all Republicans. (Nor do all Dems support Labor.)
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:52 pm:
I think Rauner is great—wonderful to see all you Libbys squeal.
- Sparminer - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:55 pm:
State Employee’s want a raise—well here it is—NO union dues.
Time to eat the PIG–not feed it!
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 8:10 am:
===I think Rauner is great—wonderful to see all you Libbys squeal.===
Do you actually READ the posts?
It’s about Republicans, and Rauner, and discipline(?) towards…Republucans.
But hope it made ya happy typing “Libbys”.
Dope.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 8:13 am:
Anonymous 11:52 - Rauner’s paying you well enough to do at least as well as Sparminer. Come up with a name and put some thought into your comments. Thank you.