54 Comments - Echo The Bunnyman - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:43 pm: Voted No. Then he will own it….He doesn’t like to Govern. - Liberal Elite - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:45 pm: Why would Rauner ever be at a “Leaders’ Meeting”? Surely a “Running for re-election on my record of not leading meeting” would be more appropriate. - Colin O'Scopey - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:45 pm: My father used to tell me: “Never negotiate with someone who isn’t empowered or capable of getting to ‘yes’. If they are unwilling or unable to reach that destination, it’s just a waste of everyone’s time.” - Dave Kingman - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:45 pm: All 5 enter room. Door locks. End of story until budget is decided upon. All 5 are required. - Just Me - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:45 pm: The man doesn’t know how to negotiate or compromise. He should let people who know how to cut POLITICAL deals do it and present him with the best and final deal. - Stumpy's bunker - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:46 pm: No. Rauner will try to dictate, not negotiate, and that’s the last thing we need now. - DoYourJob - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:47 pm: I voted Yes. Either have Rauner join the leadership meetings, or get a written statement from Rauner on exactly what he will sign. To Rauner: Moving the goal post after the leaders agreements needs to stop now. - Henry Francis - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:48 pm: The Guv’s actions indicate rather clearly he does not want a budget, and will do anything possible to avoid be blamed for lack of a budget. So what difference does any of this make? Just keep campaignin’ - that’s all he seems interested in. - Christopher - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:48 pm: No, it would just increase the already-high tension in the room. - Hyperbolic Chamber - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:49 pm: I had a boss once who said he preferred subordinates ‘being in the room’ because it made it easier for him to say, ‘no.’ Cut and paste for Rauner. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:50 pm: I voted yes, but only because there was no option for “yes, but only if he is willing to lay out that bottom line.” He has not been willing to do that and has enjoyed playing out of both sides of his mouth. Happy talk, meanwhile pulling Durkin’s string and the strings of the caucuses to prevent them from making a deal. So if he’s willing to be a grown up and, ya know, finally govern, then yes. - Tommydanger - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:50 pm: I was conflicted. I voted yes because he is the governor. I’m just not sure that he remembers that he is the governor. - El Conquistador - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:50 pm: No. He is no leader. He should be force fed what is doable. - Arsenal - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:51 pm: I don’t see how he can’t. He’s cut Republican legislators’ legs out from under them before. It’s not a deal until he agrees. - Nick Name - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:51 pm: Votes yes because in a general sense, *a* governor should be in those meetings. Whether you really want Gov. Gaslight in them is another matter. - Highland Il - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:52 pm: Yes, his “fingerprints” have to be on the deal. - Colin O'Scopey - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:52 pm: Maybe Leader Radogno can replace the retiring Theresa Mintle at the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce? - Springfieldwatcher - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:53 pm: I voted yes according to the Illinois Constitution presenting a budget belongs to the Governor. - Passive Agressive - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:54 pm: I voted No. Way past time for the rank and file to band together and pass a veto proof plan that includes reasonable compromises. - TD - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:56 pm: If you show up, you are forced to define the compromise. You cannot show up, and say “i don’t know”. If you do not want a deal, then you do not attend. If you do want a deal, then you wait until the last minute, show up, and provide a bottom line. The issue here is not about showing up, it is about moving targets. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:56 pm: Voted “No”. “Why?” I’d like to have Durkin and Madigan reach “concensus”, then, again, it will be up to Rauner if it’s blown up. - Wensicia - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:56 pm: I voted no because I don’t believe the governor can bring anything positive to the discussion. - Molly Maguire - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:57 pm: Your buddy is exactly right that Rauner has to let his negotiators know his bottom line, but clearly they haven’t, and don’t. He doesn’t have to be at the meeting, but there has to be mutual trust between him and his reps. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:58 pm: Yes. I believe he is intent on blowing it up in any case. I’d rather he be there as The on-site detonator. He must be certifiably on record as the one who said NO! - Slippin' Jimmy - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:59 pm: Vote yes. Who puts ” I lead by not being there” on their campaign literature? - Norseman - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 3:59 pm: No. The animosity and distrust that Rauner has engendered will hamper not help negotiations. Durkin consults with Rauner. He will not lay out his members by voting for a bill Rauner will veto. - Mike Royko - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:02 pm: I voted no. I would prefer to see the house and senate create the budget and the Governor either sign or veto. If vetoed the house and senate can attempt to override. I prefer this because it makes it easier for me to assess the behaviors of each individual whereas if they are deciding behind closed doors it is hard to know what happened. - Ole' Nelson - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:03 pm: Voted “no”. Would be better if the leaders were able to reach compromise and then turn it over for Governor Gaslight to blow up. That way it will be clear to those who are watching who the problem is. - SinkingShip - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:04 pm: Voted no. Only “leaders” should be permitted at a leaders meeting. Rauner is no leader. He does not outwardly show that he’s compromising. Now is the time for good-faith gestures at the bargaining table, and his presence adds nothing to a process that he’s been unwilling to guide to date. - Mike Royko - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:04 pm: btw, as bad as no budget will be there are budget scenarios that to me at least where no budget will be preferable to a bad budget. in other words to me no budget is not the worst possible outcome. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:06 pm: ==Rauner has to let his negotiators know his bottom line, but clearly they haven’t, and don’t.== Does it matter? Rauner has a history of changing his mind when a deal starts to move. Rauner needs to be in the room & he needs to sign any deal he agrees to. Radogno negotiated with what appeared to be the Gov’s blessing, but he pulled the rug out from under her. Why would Durkin negotiate anything? What’s the point? If Rauner does not make a deal and put his name on it in a very public way, it’s worthless. - Mouthy - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:06 pm: Voted yes. Why let him skate on his responsibilities… - @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:06 pm: We’re dαmned if he does; we’re dαmned if he don’t. – MrJM - Jocko - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:07 pm: Yes…so long as he brings his budget and not that “working together on a grand bagain” nonsense. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:13 pm: Of course, if his objective is to actually get a deal done. The governor is the Big Dog in Illinois government. With his array of veto powers, no one else is even close. How the heck do you pass something tough or controversial unless you know the governor will sign it? How do you know he will sign it unless he’s in on the sausage-making? - PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:18 pm: Voted yes. Because do your job. - A guy - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:19 pm: With 2 days left. Yes. It’s time. - Pleading the Fifth - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:19 pm: Yes - Only because adults should act like adults. If my business acted like the leaders of Illinois, we’d no longer be in business. - RNUG - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:22 pm: Voted no for multiple reasons. 1) Rauner will just try to dictate terms 2) Rauner doesn’t seem capable of compromise 3) Madigan and Durkin know how to make a political deal 4) on the surface, Madigan and Rauner hate each other. Keep them out of the same room. 5) Rauner doesn’t know when to stop asking and take a deal 6) Durkin can represent Rauner. If Rauner doesn’t trust Durkin to do so, they all might as well go home until January, 2019. - ILGOV2016 - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:26 pm: Voted NO for obvious reasons. Plus, I want the leaders to come to a consensus and the Governor to blow it up again, like he did with Senator Radogono - Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:28 pm: Voted “No.” A waste of time. Messrs. Madigan and Cullerton will ably represent their constituencies, whose interests require substantial tax increases. The minority leaders (one to be selected I see) appear to understand that tax increases are the last thing IL needs to preserve the private sector jobs that are here and attract necessary and good paying new ones. However, this group has some cross-over with Madigan/Cullerton insofar as the public sector worker concentration in some districts and needed capital projects down state. The need to gain and retain office provides the catalyst for compromise. Gov Rauner will take a hard line and stifle any possible compromise requiring additional substantial taxation without structural changes. In conclusion, a “can kick” compromise appears the only option and Gov Rauner won’t go for it. So crafting a veto proof budget in the legislature must omit Gov Rauner as a participant. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:35 pm: –The minority leaders (one to be selected I see) appear to understand that tax increases are the last thing IL needs to preserve the private sector jobs that are here and attract necessary and good paying new ones.– How do you think they’re proposing to fund the spending their proposing? Green Stamps? - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 4:42 pm: Tough call. Voted no. I don’t see him and Madigan agreeing to a compromise if he’s in the room. But I don’t see him agreeing to whatever Madigan & Durkin settle on either. I concluded that there’s a slightly better chance of the latter happening, since at least there will be a political calculation on Rauner’s part that might lead him to agree. - Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:23 pm: “How do you think they’re proposing to fund the spending their proposing? Green Stamps?” If the legislative leaders can achieve a veto proof “can kick” budget, it will include tax increases. Presumably, the agreeing Dems and Repubs will all visit the same tailor and wear the same jacket on this, so that neither side can point at the other as “tax and spend.” That will be an interesting piece of messaging, if they can pull it off, because I expect Gov Rauner to use his wealth to punish them. Sorry for my lack of clarity. - Flapdoodle - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:36 pm: The man is toxic (in lieu of more colorful phrasing). Keep him out, then plunk down a package of bills that force his hand. Let him show his cowardly colors and accept responsibility. - Rabid - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:37 pm: Yes, whoever called this should participate, not sit in the dark with a sharpie showing mike your veto pen - Montrose - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:49 pm: I vote no. I can’t believe that this question actually needs to be asked and the overwhelming answer is “no”. We are so messed up. - Huh? - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:51 pm: No. It would cut into his campaignin’ and blamin’ Madigan. - Winnin' - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:53 pm: Rauner is not acting like a leader. He is acting like a mean queen, waiting to lash out at anyone who displeases the queen. - Winnin' - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 5:55 pm: Voted Yes. Until he is in the meetings, he can hide behind, or under, the desk. Quit hiding from the others, Bruce. - walker - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 7:44 pm: Yes. Only way for the others to try to prevent Rauner from pulling the rug out from under what Radogno and Durkin agree to. - zatoichi - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 7:54 pm: The Gov is part of leadership regardless of what he thinks. Do the job or leave. Any appeal of being a ‘rebel’ is long gone. He is just showing he really is not needed. - Anon221 - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 8:13 pm: No. Rauner is not knock in’ the door down to join the meetings that have been held so far, so let him sit and wait in his darkened office. Hopefully Durkin is seeing the light, and realizes after the Uncommon Knowledge interview quotes that Rauner could really care less about Illinois. Rauner has visions of Supreme Court wins this year and in 2018. So leave him to his daydreams, pass bipartisan legislation both sides can live with, and agree to stand by your votes when the overrides are needed. Rauner Greenbacks are not worth it guys and gals. I really, really hope you understand that. - retired guy - Thursday, Jun 29, 17 @ 8:29 pm: Doesn’t matter. He doesn’t want a budget worse than Madigan doesn’t want any compromise Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.