Rauner again strains all credulity
Thursday, Jan 5, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* NBC 5…
Madigan, Rauner’s primary political adversary, is up for reelection as house speaker next week. The governor claimed Wednesday that he’s staying out of the election altogether.
“I’m not getting involved in any of the General Assembly’s decisions on their leadership,” Rauner told NBC 5.
However, the Illinois Republican Party has gotten involved in the race, launching a “Boss Madigan” blog targeting Illinois Democrats with ties to the longtime speaker. Rauner dumped millions into the Illinois Republican Party’s coiffeurs in the lead-up to the 2016 general election, but claimed Wednesday that he doesn’t “run” the party.
“I support it,” he said. “We need a two-party system. We were a one-party state for a long time.”
I just find it impossible to believe that a guy like that would spend money like that and not involve himself in the least.
…Adding… I meant to post this snippet and forgot…
When asked about re-running for election next year, he said that’s a conversation for another day, but he’s persistent.
He just dumped $50 million of his own money into his campaign account and yet he doesn’t want to talk about it. Lovely.
* Meanwhile, I told subscribers about this yesterday…
As for the race for speaker, House Minority Leader Jim Durkin confirmed Wednesday that he planned to throw in his hat for the position, which he did two years ago. Typically, the top vote-getter in the chamber is elected speaker and the runner-up is minority leader. After the November election, the GOP caucus voted to re-elect Durkin as minority leader and by caucus rules, members will be bound by those votes next week. If a Democrat were to challenge Madigan, he or she would have needed Republicans to cross over.
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat, said Republican talk of ousting Madigan is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues facing the state.
“There’s a lot of folks talking stuff up as if there’s a bunch of candidates,” she said. “They’re generating emails everywhere, it is creating noise and distraction.”
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:11 am:
–Rauner dumped millions into the Illinois Republican Party’s coiffeurs–
Rauner gave money to hairdressers?
- LizPhairTax - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:13 am:
Yet again…
Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie if YOU believe it.
He’s involvin’, he’s just not winnin’(he’s willing to put a big $$$ “yet” on the end of that sentence.) We shall see.
- JoanP - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:14 am:
@ Streator Curmudgeon - sure, he’s trying to get his hair as thick as Blago’s!
To the post: “We were a one-party state for a long time.” Really? Tell that to Mark Kirk, Charles Percy, Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, JBT, et al. Guess they weren’t “real” Republicans.
- Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:15 am:
Rauner- “We were a one-party state for a long time.”
And…. isn’t that HIS goal???
- Annonin' - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:15 am:
What is amazin’ is the media does not stop the guy and say “hey dude, you dropped all this dough on GOPies IPies, Proft, Single Mom, fake radio-news-movies… how can you say not involved.
OR
when he tell FOX his anti-worker changes would have stopped shootings and murder in Chicago and IL State Police beefed up patrols it seems like FOx should say “hey dude can we see some paperwork on beefin’ up?”
But no BigBrain rambles on. He must be P* that he spent all day on the silly interviews while the SENATE MINORITY LEADER was craftin’ at least two deals with the senate president.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:16 am:
“Rauner dumped millions into the Illinois Republican Party’s coiffeurs”
Go home, NBC5, you’re drunk.
coif·fure
kwäˈfyo͝or/
noun
plural noun: coiffures
a person’s hairstyle, typically an elaborate one.
cof·fer
ˈkôfər,ˈkäfər/
noun
noun: coffer; plural noun: coffers
1.
a strongbox or small chest for holding valuables.
synonyms: strongbox, money box, cashbox, money chest, treasure chest, safe; More
casket, box
“every church had a coffer”
the funds or financial reserves of a group or institution.
“the federal government’s empty coffers”
synonyms: fund(s), reserves, resources, money, finances, wealth, cash, capital, purse; More treasury, exchequer;informalpork barrel “the government coffers”
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:18 am:
No one cares until the Democrats decide to make an issue, all day, every day, that Rauner’s hypocrisy is rank.
Rauner owns the messaging and the message. No one cares that Mary Ann Ahern threw that bit into a short segment.
It doesn’t mean anything.
Rauner will flood the media 10X over with “Madigan Bad” and that’s just far more “interesting”.
Sadly.
When the Democrats get into the game, then this will matter, and I’m not blaming the media. It’s not their job to create messaging.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:21 am:
So who in their right mind thinks it would be a good idea for the Governor to publicly state who he wants to be the Speaker?
This pearl clutching outrage is a little hard to take.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:22 am:
- Annonin’ -
With respect.
What’s amazing is the Democrats passively sit by and actually wait for this…
===What is amazin’ is the media does not stop the guy and say “hey dude, you dropped all this dough on GOPies IPies, Proft, Single Mom, fake radio-news-movies… how can you say not involved.===
Sometimes being active allows the media to get active too, and they don’t need a decoder ring to do it.
With great respect.
OW
- Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:25 am:
The “game” may well be on soon…
http://www.politico.com/states/illinois/story/2017/01/despite-all-the-noise-madigan-poised-to-be-shoo-in-as-speaker-heres-why-108483
If I were the Dems, I wait and let Rauner give the State of the State and the Budget Address before really rolling out the arsenal. If Rauner fails once again, intentionally, to perform the budget duties as outlined in the State Constitution, then its ON!
- c'mon, man - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:25 am:
He’s the “leader of the party” and provides the overwhelming majority of its funding, but has nothing to do with it. Baloney.
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:25 am:
LP
Please point to this “pearl clutching outrage” you allude to.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:26 am:
Rauner also had nothing to with those dark money spots whacking Schock, Dillard, Brady and Rutherford.
And the Illinois Chamber decided all on their own to fund a spot for Dunkin, among the lowest scorers on their GA rankings.
Many more examples. “Strains all creduility” is a long way around the barn. “Lie” works.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:31 am:
When you have oodles of money, who needs to worry about credulity. Just spend the money telling people what you want them to believe.
- Jocko - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:32 am:
What’s galling is Bruce’s belief that he’s pulling one over on “the rubes” when he makes statements like this. At this stage, I’d take Randolph or Mortimer Duke over him.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:33 am:
Can compromise be had with someone who routinely “strains all credulity” ??
- Saluki - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:33 am:
I believe him when he says he is not interested, or that he does not involved himself. It’s only money.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:36 am:
Rauner does himself no good with his ridiculous denials of things he ought to readily admit … and own. Yes, he’s actively trying to rid Illinois of Madigan! That’s actually a winnin’ proposition. Own it Governor, no one believes your weird denials anyhow. (PS, do any of the superstars work in communications/messaging?)
As to Rep Cassidy, a likable idealogue of a distinctly different political ilk than Madigan, WHY is she supporting Madigan as her Leader?! That cannot be all that popular in the People’s Republic of Rogers Park.
- LessAnon? - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:41 am:
=To the post: “We were a one-party state for a long time.” Really? Tell that to Mark Kirk, Charles Percy, Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, JBT, et al. Guess they weren’t “real” Republicans.=
If by “a long time” he means the last decade, then he’s completely accurate. Mark Kirk had no say whatsoever in state budget policy. And Chuck Percy? Really?
Republicans haven’t had the governorship or a legislative chamber since 2002, and Edgar hasn’t been governor for almost 20 years now. Besides his own first two years, it’s been a long time since they’ve had the power to do anything about the mess that is the state budget. That’s just fact, as much as Democrats want this to all be the GOP’s fault.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:43 am:
The Governors denial of involvement reminds me of the old “Love American Style” episode where a guy is caught in bed with another woman in a hotel room by his wife. The wife voices her outrage, all the while he is getting dressed, hustling the woman out, and straitening the bed while he’s denying anyone was with him, that the wife was mistaken/seeing things…… it defies reality.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:43 am:
===Besides his own first two years, it’s been a long time since they’ve had the power to do anything about the mess that is the state budget. That’s just fact, as much as Democrats want this to all be the GOP’s fault.===
It’s not all the GOP’s fault. (Sigh)
The Raunerites ignore McKinney.
Read McKinney on how we got here.
Then get back to me where the Dems are off the hook.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:56 am:
==I believe him when he says he is not interested, or that he does not involved himself. It’s only money.==
There’s actually some wisdom here. Homeboy has enough money that he may not feel overly concerned about it.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:19 am:
Rich - while I agree that Rauner has his fingerprints on a lot of things is it feasible for him to court House Dems to vote against MJM? After seeing what happened to Ken Dunkin and after watching a brutal election season that really never stopped would any of them even want to meet with Governor Rauner - especially if the meeting is for purely political purposes? Sorry for the alliteration. I can understand Rauner lobbying the House Dems on something like property tax reform but pulling him into 207 Statehouse or taking them to Obed & Isaac’s and pressuring them to take a stand against MJM seems like it would backfire fairly quickly.
- Pundent - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:32 am:
=They’re generating emails everywhere, it is creating noise and distraction.=
I think similar comments were made about a presidential candidates propensity for “tweets”. But at some point the noise and distraction starts to take hold.
Ignore the noise and distraction at your own peril.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:35 am:
I read Mc Kinney and the pension debt exploded since Democrats took total control of State Government in 2003 from 35 billion to over 127 billion today.
Sorry equal blame for the decline in pension liabilities since 2003 does not pass the test when one party had total control.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-drowning-in-debt-127-billion-and-counting/
https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_state_budget_and_finances
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:38 am:
- Lucky Pierre -
You should read for comprehension.
Edgar Ramp, GHR, Pate, Lee…
Missed payments, and Quinn didn’t miss pension payments.
Also…
IPI doesn’t count as a “reliable unbiased cite”…
Now if citing IPI was a joke, good one!
- ILGOV2018 - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:50 am:
How is bashing Madigan and the Dem’s going to create good will and compromise? What a joke!
- oldman - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:16 pm:
I think someone should have asked him a straight question about what he sees as sources of additional revenue. Let the stuttering begin.
- siriusly - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
The guy is on message. if he can make 2018 about Madigan and not about him - maybe he has a chance if he can raise the money.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 1:29 pm:
LP, please don’t forget the 2002 ERI which was an overly generous package crafted under the Ryan administrations that benefited state employees. When 3X as many employees took advantage of it than expected, the increased cost fell on RRB administration. (The foolish and costly”pension holiday.”) This is conjecture but I would venture to say the majority of employees who signed on to it, certainly the higher paid ones, were Republicans.
Both parties own our current fiscal predicament.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 1:52 pm:
Don’t like the numbers because they hurt your position obviously OW but that does not make them “fake news”. Feel free to post the real numbers anytime
Democrats loved spending the money from these budgets but could not find the will to pay for them only raising taxes temporarily in 2011.
Yes kicking the can down the road continues to this day
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
Bit of clarification on the 2002 ERI. It was originally drafted to only cover a few top Ryan adminstration members, people like directors, deputy directors, bureau or division chiefs, etc. Might have been only a couple of thousand people. But they found out they couldn’t be that selective under the rules; it had to be pretty much everybody or nobody. Before it was all over, about 11,000 people, or 1 in 7, took the deal.
As to the breakdown, obviously the top policy making people were all R’s. But there were certain restrictions, such as being a minimum of age 50, and you had to have enough service to reach the Rule of 85 after adjustments. If you look at the rank and file who took the deal, depending on the age when you hired on with the state, you could have started under Kerner(D) or Olgivie(R) or Walker(D) or even one of the Jim’s(R).
I will note that both parties were eager to pass the 2002 ERI. The R’s wanted to give some loyal members who were a bit short of retirement a golden parachute of sorts while the D’s were thinking of all the job openings they would have to reward their party members that had been on the outside for 20 some years. Plenty of blame to be handed out on both sides.
And yes, it was probably overly generous, but the people who retired did actually buy the extra 5 years with contributions into the pension funds at the going rate … something the state did not match, which was a partial cause of the shortfall.
- Federalist - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
If I remember right and I am certain you do know the answer but SURS employees were never offered an ERI. And yes they are state employees
Am I right on this or not?
- the Cardinal - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 4:33 pm:
He can buy credibility with the public maybe not around the dome but certainly on the street. Peeps want to see something different or did I misread the last election ?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 6:31 pm:
===Democrats loved spending the money from these budgets but could not find the will to pay for them only raising taxes temporarily in 2011.===
Rauner asked for the tax to expire, paused it even.
Rauner owns the expiration too.
You forgot to address McKinney again.
IPI is Fake News, McKinney is a credible journalist.
So, there’s that.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 7:00 pm:
- Federalist -
I don’t know for sure. Prior to my retirement, I mostly paid attention to SERS since that was the system I was under.
I had friends under SURS. Yes, they are state employees. I have a vague memory of some pension sweetener to get them to retire early, but it was nothing like the 2002 ERI deal. Unfortunately, my best resource for SURS plans passed away last year, sonI can’t easily check on it.