Gov. Bruce Rauner has met with dozens of state legislators both individually and in small groups since his election. By all accounts, every meeting has been cordial and he has scored lots of points with legislators who aren’t accustomed to this sort of gubernatorial attention.
Until last week, that is, when he had the Senate Black Caucus over to the mansion for breakfast.
Things started out well enough, but they turned south in a hurry when Rauner said he couldn’t accept the Senate super-majority party’s stand-alone proposal to patch about $600 million of the current fiscal year’s $1.6 billion budget deficit with transfers from special state funds. He wanted, he said, an “all or nothing” solution.
Rauner repeatedly said he wouldn’t raise taxes to solve this year’s budget problems and therefore absolutely needed to make big cuts. Legislators should “trust me,” Rauner said. “We don’t know you,” was their reply.
And since his proposed budget for next fiscal year, which begins July 1st, demands huge cuts to major social programs, why should they trust him to not go after those same cherished programs in this year’s budget if they give him the carte blanche he is demanding to make whatever reductions he desires?
The governor in turn warned the legislators that up until now he’s been blaming former Gov. Pat Quinn for this mess, but if they didn’t give him what he wanted he’d start blaming the General Assembly. Threats don’t often work too well with that caucus, to say the least.
You may recall that Gov. Rauner’s public criticism of the Senate Democrats after they moved their budget fix bill out of committee last week was pretty harsh. “After weeks of detailed negotiations, including three hours yesterday morning,” Rauner’s spokesman said via a press release, “it is clear that Senate Democrats are more interested in playing politics than solving this problem.”
But Rauner was told by Caucus members that as far as they knew there had been no “real” negotiations. Instead, Rauner’s staff has been meeting with legislative staff. But that staff has no authority to approve any agreements. The legislative “budgeteers” (appropriations committee chairmen) have so far been eliminated from the process. And they, along with the chamber leaders, are the only ones who can negotiate any deals, particularly in the Senate.
Indeed, a spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan said last week that his boss did not view the staff talks as “negotiations.” Instead, he said, staff is listening to the ideas presented by the governor’s budget folks and is offering advice on what is doable and what has to be changed to be legal and what isn’t legal.
And speaking of the House, the governor also accidentally stepped on a land mine during the meeting. Rauner had met with a few members of the House Black Caucus the night before, and he chastised the Senate Democrats for not working with him like the House has been.
As anyone who has ever visited with African-American state Senators undoubtedly knows, there is no more “anti-House” group in their entire chamber than the Senate Black Caucus.
“We’re not the House,” the governor was informed.
Making matters somewhat worse, failed African-American Chicago mayoral candidate Willie Wilson showed up in Springfield the day before and asked Senate President John Cullerton to convene a Senate Black Caucus meeting with him that very day.
Wilson essentially offered himself up as a conduit to the Republican governor, whom he supported last year. One member did give him a list of items on her wish list and he apparently took it to the governor. Rauner told the Caucus that he’d read the list and could support almost everything in it for next fiscal year, but he would need them to back him 100 percent this fiscal year. His offer was firmly declined.
At one point, the governor’s demands grew so loud and insistent that one Black Caucus member noted aloud that Illinois voters “didn’t elect a king” last year.
Senate President Cullerton has so far avoided the fate of his Democratic predecessors, who almost constantly battled internal caucus intrigue and coup attempts. He has done this partly by listening respectfully to all sides and not proceeding without consensus. Unless those wounds are healed quickly and the governor begins to accommodate opposing views, he is going to have a really tough time with his budget fix.
- x ace - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:05 am:
Rauner may think he is ” The King ” , But , of course , The Legislature is ” The Ace ” .
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:08 am:
However the governor plans to cobble enough botes and get the President and Speaker to sign on, and Rauner needs to remember with his “limited” experience;
===The governor in turn warned the legislators that up until now he’s been blaming former Gov. Pat Quinn for this mess, but if they didn’t give him what he wanted he’d start blaming the General Assembly. Threats don’t often work too well with that caucus, to say the least.===
“Threats don’t often work too well with that caucus, to say the least.”
These legislators aren’t Ron Sandack.
My hope, with a lesson learned, is that the governor “games out” his strategy, even as Rich pointed out with Institutional Knowledge, but alienating members of the General Assembly is one thing, not respecting the GA’s role in that governing is dangerous, not matter how the governor pivots, because, he’s going to have to, math is math after all.
Great read, Rich.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:12 am:
Quite a disconnect. Rauner claims “weeks of detailed negotiations,” GA members say there have been no negotiations at all.
Given all those past promises of forthcoming “comprehensive, detailed plans,” it’s not too hard to figure out which position is closest to the truth.
It begs the question, though: If Rauner insists on an “all or nothing solution,” what is there to negotiate? Where to order out for lunch?
What’s a “nothing solution,” anyway? That doesn’t make sense. That’s not a solution at all.
The concept of shared powers in regards to legislation — the executive and two legislative chambers coming to agreement — doesn’t lend itself to “all or nothing.”
Shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s been the mechanism in this country since 1789..
- slow down - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:17 am:
The man has been telling people what to do for so long, he doesn’t know any other way. He’s going to learn a painful lesson or he will find himself and his administration completely removed from the actual budget that passes.
- Captain Obvious - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:21 am:
Leading by example is the best way to lead. In light of that, why continue to perpetuate racist groups like the Black Caucuses at the state and federal level? They do a disservice to their mission to eliminate racism!
- Stones - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:24 am:
If the Governor is seeking an “all or nothing” solution to the budget, how exactly does that involve negotiation? I think the Senate Black Caucus has a great point.
- MrJM - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:26 am:
“What’s a ‘nothing solution,’ anyway?”
I’m afraid we’re about to find out.
– MrJM
- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:29 am:
Wow, Captain Oblivious, way to stay on topic.
There are dozens of informal caucuses within Congress broken down on all kinds of ethnic, regional, and concerns. So what?
- relocated - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:29 am:
The black caucus is the key for cracking the Democratic majority, especially in the senate. But Rauner has nothing to offer them. His proposed cuts will hit them hard and his bully boy tactics won’t work there.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:33 am:
It’s pretty clear that solutions to the massive financial problems in Illinois, for which the Black Caucus is responsible as any, won’t be coming from the Dem super majority in general and the Black Caucus in particular.
Even if you want a tax increase, substantial cutting is both necessary and prudent.
I may have missed it, but have ANY proposed positive actions by the Dems in either the Senate or House been put forward for alternate consideration? I’ve heard of no proposed cuts with which they agree, or a specific tax increase plan either, for that matter.
If they want a tax increase, they have the power to make that happen. Pass the bill, give it to Rauner, let him veto it, then override his veto. They have the votes, but not the cajones.
It’s pretty clear that Madigan, Cullerton and the Black Caucus want no cuts and they’re too gutless to make the tax increase happen because of some reduction in political power in the next election.
Isn’t that mindset in them what got Illinois in this disastrous situation in the first place?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:35 am:
If the “Thompson Pivot” was played to allow ONLY for massive cuts and set up a groundswell chorus to raise revenues, that even Rauner can’t ignore…and its played correctly…
Why bully any legislator or legislative caucus now, given the “Thompsom Pivot” has been played, and you’re waiting out for the groundswell cries?
The only real reason to push these “my way or the highway” ultimatums is ego and a lack of understanding caucus politics.
It’s March, and the “Thompson Pivot” seems like years ago.
- walker - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:35 am:
Though the governor can set some general parameters by being the first to offer a budget proposal, the Legislature actually holds the purse strings in our system of government. The Governor can participate and help with a solution, or he can be left behind. He can veto, but the last word on that is the Legislature as well.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:39 am:
@Word
=What’s a “nothing solution,” anyway? That doesn’t make sense. That’s not a solution at all.=
A “nothing solution” is quite clearly RAUNER not proposing anything else, like a massive tax increase, if progress on this budget is not made with the Dems.
The Dems seem to be unwilling to take the heat for raising taxes and keeping the boondoggles going. They want RAUNER to propose raising taxes, not them passing a tax increase, overriding his veto, and having them OWN it.
Pretty obvious, Word. I can’t believe you didn’t figure that out….
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:43 am:
- walker -,
The governor proposes, the legislature disposes.
A legislature controlled by one party isn’t going to bail out a governor of another.
No way.
Rauner will have to sign what rolls out, put Republican votes on it, as many as Rauner makes the leaders ask of him with these bully tactics, and the legislature will not pass anything under a threat of a veto, especially if there is a revenue prong to the budget.
This idea that an opposite party will do the heavy lifting, ignoring Rauner, dying these budgetary problems of FY2015 & FY2016, is not realistic.
Rauner is going to own this, because that’s how Caucus politics works, when blame needs to be…shared.
- relocated - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:43 am:
Captain oblivious. You must have zero experience with the legislature.. The black caucus is just one group of legislators that share common interests. They are more organized than the downstate caucus, the city caucus,the sportsman caucus and others but they not monolithic. If you changed the name and removed any reference to race legislators from those districts would still organize around common issues of interest to their districts.
- Illinoisvoter - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:46 am:
Table party of one. Table party of one. Rauner.
Madogiwazoku. From the Japanese.
- cdog - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:47 am:
Prison guards, CCAP, court reporters. FY2015.
What is so difficult about doing the correct and obvious thing? I guess we can let prisoners run the prisons, the babies watch themselves, and the judges and prosecution attorneys take a few notes. (Oh wait, those are both funded by tax payers, so it would have to be the defense attorneys taking notes.)
Madigan and Cullerton- put forth a sensible and detailed plan that not only moves the money but writes the checks too. Through the ball into Rauner’s crate. (That way he can’t lose the ball somewhere.)
Rauner - Quit saying you must be trusted. Trust is earned and shame on you for being such a lightweight that you have any different expectation. The way you are going you will never get out of the crate, let alone put on a leash.
- cdog - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:49 am:
*throw :0
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:51 am:
===If they want a tax increase, they have the power to make that happen. Pass the bill, give it to Rauner, let him veto it, then override his veto. They have the votes, but not the cajones.===
Nope. It’s the smart politics of compromise to leave Rauner twisting in the wind.
===It’s pretty clear that Madigan, Cullerton and the Black Caucus want no cuts and they’re too gutless to make the tax increase happen because of some reduction in political power in the next election.===
Or they could run all of Rauner’s budget proposals, all of Rauner’s cuts, defeat them, embarrass the governor, and then blame Rauner for an unrealistic budget and funding of the running of the state. So there’s that…
You lack the Fundamental knowledge of Caucus politics.
- Demoralized - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:53 am:
Hey Bob, Rauner is Governor now. He’s got a bit of a role to play in this game. I know you aren’t a political neophyte so I know you realize that there isn’t anything going to happen now without Republicans getting skin in the game. They’ve gotten to sit on their duffs for a while now, but now they have to be big boys and girls and take tough votes. There is no longer “heat” for one party. The Governor will have to own whatever happens as much as anybody else. And, Bob, it’s not just the Democrats that don’t want cuts. But then again I wouldn’t expect an honest assessment from a hyper partisan such as yourself.
- Jorge - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:54 am:
I don’t think Bruce’s head could fit within a crown after reading the WSJ piece.
- Cheswick - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:59 am:
I wonder what Rauner said to his staff, who he sent in to negotiate, when he found out there had been no negotiations.
- Huh? - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:03 am:
When evaluating different alternatives, the do nothing alternative is always evaluated. And it is almost always the one that gets tossed as not serving the purpose and need of a project.
When is the time watch going to learn that government can’t be run like a business?
- JoanP - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:07 am:
“what has to be changed to be legal and what isn’t legal. ”
The thing is, Rauner apparently doesn’t CARE what’s legal and what isn’t.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:17 am:
AB, you’re not doing the reading before commenting. I’m not surprised by that.
- walker - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:20 am:
What the Senate caucus most fears is not that Rauner won’t negotiate directly with their Approp Committee heads, but that Rauner and Madigan will arrive at an agreement first.
- Arsenal - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:21 am:
“The Dems seem to be unwilling to take the heat for raising taxes”
Yup, except for the fact that the Dems did just that in 2010, and the Dem Speaker is the one publicly calling for tax hikes right now. But except for the facts, you’ve got a point!
- Langhorne - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:27 am:
What a train wreck. The train is rolling down the hill, rauner is the engineer, but the bridge is out.
We have such an amazing and dangerous divergence in how each party views the other. Rauners threats and bullying won’t work and are making things worse. What rauner wants–all or nothing–is anathema to the dems. The dems are waiting for rauner to introduce bills to implement his cuts, so they can force repubs to vote for them, even tho they will fail. (I see a lot of present votes coming.) Even if the GA passes a budget, or anything else, rauner may adamantly refuse to spend or comply.
I wonder when the attack ads will start, and who will be the first target. I recall his distorted ads after his term limits proposal was dumped.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:28 am:
There is no respect towards the General Assembly from these new folks in the new administration. Instead of being humble, the Rauner administration is filled with arrogant know-it-alls who won’t listen.
This situation won’t work.
- Frenchie Mendoza - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:47 am:
I assumed Rauner’s fiery partisan schtick was just for the primary and the general election. I expect most other folks did, too.
I don’t think anyone — anyone — would have expected that it wasn’t, in fact, schtick. It was reality.
All that “compassionate” and “bipartisan” stuff is just phoney baloney.
- flea - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:50 am:
Vman
That is lumping some very good people into a category that is not accurate.
- olddog - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:22 am:
I hope I’m wrong, but the only way any of this makes sense to me is if Rauner is deliberately antagonizing everybody and manufacturing issues he can use when his PAC intervenes in House and Senate elections in 2016. It took 2-3 election cycles, but a multimillionaire with a hard-right agenda very similar to Rauner’s was able to practically take over state government in North Carolina beginning with targeted legislative races. Some of this stuff could make sense if Rauner’s playing a long game.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078608/the-multimillionaire-helping-republicans-win-n-c
- Ginhouse Tommy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:27 am:
Langhorne makes a good point. This guy is used to getting his way. He is trying to bully people who won’t be bullied and trying to ramrod his plan on without giving an inch on things like taxes or any new revenue proposals. The people he is trying threaten, won’t be and I don’t think that he wants to try any other way but his. He has dug himself a very deep hole and it’s only getting deeper and he can forget about trying to get the voters of the state to put pressure on elected officials to give in. Jeez, what a mess.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:28 am:
All or nothing. No respect for the legislature. Fiery partisan Schtick. Not regotiating enough. Legislature has the final say.
Are you folks really THAT critical of President Obama?
- Demoralized - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:32 am:
==Are you folks really THAT critical of President Obama?==
Another victim heard from. I love this game. It’s going to replace the one named for Kevin Bacon. Everything leads back to Obama.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:32 am:
- Louis G. Atsaves -
Yup. I am.
No one is stopping you, if you’d like to defend Gov. Rauner.
Just keep in mind those bullying sessions at Saputo’s, Rauner’s actual words, that would be great.
I never said the Legislature has the final say. The Legislatire and Executive are co-equal. It would really “help” the governor of he learned to count, but I may be spit-balling.
- walker - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:37 am:
O’Willy: You are right that the Dems will choose to fully ensnare Rauner, and make him and his party own the hard parts in the budget. But it’s their choice to make.
Of course, the public eventually makes the governor wear the budget jacket, regardless of party.
Rauner can never have “his way or the highway” given the power dynamics, while the Dems theoretically could, but won’t.
- Norseman - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:39 am:
Take one step forward (bringing folks in for a meeting) and then take two steps backward (threatening them). That’s not progress.
- AnalystRet - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:48 am:
It’s like Reagan. He believes that things are happenin’ in his own mind, but those beliefs are not based in reality. He believed he spoke with the Legislative Leaders on Election Eve, but it did not actually happen. He believes that current year budget negotiations are nearly complete without any real basis in fact, so it must be true. He believes he has a “mandate” (facts notwithstanding), so he acs as if it’s true. If his beliefs can’t be realized, he can simply point the finger of blame without taking any responsibility for his mistaken beliefs.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:55 am:
Reagan was never an “all or nothing guy” and he never passed a thing without significant Democratic support.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
It’s still very early from a macro perspective. I wouldn’t expect the gov to be giving much ground yet, especially publicly. What is the one thing we know for certain about the budget he submitted? Answer, it won’t be adopted: I’ve never seen it happen.
If we accept the fact that his submitted budget won’t be adopted, it frees us from focusing on it and lets us instead concentrate on the far more important question; what will be adopted? It is from that perspective that I argue that it’s still very early in the process and we shouldn’t be reading too much into the shadows on the back of the cave wall that we are seeing.
- Fed up - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
Spot on Louis G. Atsaves.
And a vapid response from Demoralized. Pointing out an obvious inconsistency in a community’s political approach is a far cry from a helpless, woe-is-me attitude.
- Ghost - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
So what happens if you buy a company, and in the middle fontrying to liquidate and cash it out formyour profit you find you need bostd of directors approval, and cant get it….
- Demoralized - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 3:49 pm:
==Pointing out an obvious inconsistency in a community’s political approach==
Any way you say it, it comes across as whining. There’s a difference between offering an observation and tacking on to the observation a statement that shows victimhood (what I like to call the “yeah, but” statement). Don’t make an argument by giving me the “yeah, but” statement. It’s pathetic.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:16 pm:
Schnorf, you’ve been around the block. Proposing a budget is a constitutional duty for a governor. Shouldn’t it have some basis in reality?
Spending in this one is cooked to the tune of about 10 percent in non-sensical GRF “savings.”
Rauner proposes spending about three billion more than estimated revenue by pretending silly savings that will not happen because they cannot happen.
How does that move the ball forward?
- Mama - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:39 pm:
Will someone please give the governor a “Political Science 101″ book? He needs to study up on government roles and how to govern.
- Fed up - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:14 pm:
Demoralized, you’re not strengthening your case.
==Any way you say it, it comes across as whining.==
Nonsense. You resorted to an ad hominem to discredit an idea you don’t like. If you think there is no way to say something without it coming across as whining, you are finding fault with the idea/argument, not with the delivory.
==There’s a difference between offering an observation and tacking on to the observation a statement that shows victimhood (what I like to call the “yeah, but” statement).==
“Yeah, but” can be used to shift an argument, to point out inconsistency, to bemoan how hard one has it, etc. Pointing out that someone doesn’t walk the talk isn’t always whining. To label it all as whining is a knee-jerk reaction. (And a way to safely disengage ideas one doesn’t want to consider.)
==Don’t make an argument by giving me the “yeah, but” statement. It’s pathetic.==
It think you just did. Let me unpack your point:
Ignore the point/gloss over it [yeah]. [But] It’s hard having people point out political inconsistencies. It’s not fair for anyone to point out that what some people like in Obama they abhor in Rauner. To do so is whiny, self victimization. [End unpacking]
- steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:46 pm:
Word, yes, I have been around the block several times, and I will say I’ve never seen an approach exactly like this, but this is the sort of approach Gov Balgojevich should have tried 12 years ago. Here people are confronted with a reality too many have not yet dealt with. The state absolutely cannot support our current level of spending with our current revenues. I don’t think anyone on here will argue with that, but we’ve managed to slide by that problem for a long time now.
Governor Quinn could have forced the issue last year by vetoing the budget the GA presented to him. He chose not to. I don’t believe Gov Rauner intends to let it slide by again this year.
If you look at it the way I now do, the actual numbers in the introduced budget, where the cuts are targeted, whether the numbers really add up, aren’t that relevant. He shows more than $3 billion in real cuts, most of them pretty painful to at least someone, in some cases many someones. He could have shown $4 billion, or whatever he deemed necessary to accomplish his goal, I really don’t think the exact number and how he got there matters. All that really counts is that people have to finally accept the fact that at our current revenue levels there are going to have to be a lot of very unpleasant cuts to be accepted by the citizenry and voted for by the GA.
I don’t anticipate him walking away from these numbers any time soon. Why should he? If anything, as you and others point out, the numbers are optimistic about the level of spending we can afford. The only real governmental problem he faced approaching it this way was if the GA simply passed and sent to him the budget he proposed. And, as I’ve said, that has never happened in the time I’ve been around, so it was a real low-risk thing.
Do you really think he needed to cut more to accomplish his purpose? I don’t.
- scott aster - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 6:03 pm:
well Rauner could start with some layoffs and see what the various caucus think of that approach.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 7:04 pm:
Steve, I think Rauner should have proposed a spending plan within the constraints of expected revenues as a realistic starting point.
That would have required another $3 billion or so, about 10 percent, in proposed GRF cuts.
I don’t see the point in half measures. Geez, even if you could sell this Gremlin as is (which you can’t), you’re still light $3 billion.
How do you break that to your peeps who are defending you for making the “hard choices?” You’re only halfway there on the “hard choices” bit.
When that blows up in his face, as it will, where is he going to turn to for support?
On the bright side, I imagine Rauner might throw a decent 4th of July Party on the mansion grounds (if those “bureaucrats” will let him). I suspect there will still be a lot of people in Springfield then trying to unwind this thing.
As it stands now, you have the worst of situations.
- Cave in rocker - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:23 pm:
It’s a shame Hollywood could not have had the chance to be the lightning rod on this guy!!!
- 1-307-363-AUTO Marr Software 9 AM to 5 PM Mountain Time Monday-Friday - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:51 am:
If you are a big boating fan, you know how important good footwear can be.
Top rated auto body part repairing, installation and paint
service for competitive price. Taking a look at the 2013 Venza, the
improved line-up of standard features should enhance the customer value perception of the Venza as they look at several brand choices in the fairly crowded mid-size crossover market.
- Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 6:44 am:
@Arsenal
=Yup, except for the fact that the Dems did just that in 2010, and the Dem Speaker is the one publicly calling for tax hikes right now. But except for the facts, you’ve got a point!=
Pretty easy to ignore the fact that Madigan passed the tax increase just AFTER the election in the middle of the night, and made most of it TEMPORARY. He had two years for the voters to forget, and they obviously did, or didn’t consider it an issue because the tax was “temporary”. MJM hasn’t proposed a real, achievable tax increase. It’s an unconstitutional progressive tax that would require a constitutional amendment and would affect very few voters, and the tax wouldn’t come close to fixing the problems he created.
Those are the FACTS, Ars, as inconvenient as they may be to you. If you don’t see this, perhaps you need glasses…….
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 6:53 am:
==fixing the problems he created==
Sigh. He wasn’t the only kid playing on the playground. Y’all gotta quit with the “blame Madigan” gig. True or not it isn’t going to get you anywhere.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 6:57 am:
Fed up
If you don’t like the truth then so be it. The “yeah but” card is ALWAYS whining. It does nothing but shift the argument away to something else. I could give a flying leap about Obama as it relates to this subject. It’s completely irrelevant. When we talk about Obama then I’m all for bringing that up.
And there was nothing in my statement that was an ad hominem attack.