29 Comments - Perrid - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:03 pm: And on the other hand we will learn whether or not he lied on the Personal PAC questionnaire. He’s pretty much painted himself into a corner by supporting both sides of the argument. He might argue that supporting a woman’s right to choose does not mean the State has to foot the bill, as in try and separate the two stances, but that is just weak, especially since the questionnaire asked, basically, about this specific legislation. - The_Equalizer - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:04 pm: No big Rauner check for your Christmas gift, Mr. proft! - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:08 pm: Wow, I finally agree with Dan Proft: this is an “integrity test.” Rauner must feel like the college kid who skipped class all semester but showed up for the final exam. He is woefully unprepared for this. - Name Withheld - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:08 pm: Apparently lying about your grandfather isn’t an integrity test now. - Macbeth - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:11 pm: Proft says this now, but he’ll the biggest Rauner supporter come the day before the election. (No matter what Rauner chooses to do in this case.) As for Rauner? Well, he’s a liar either way. But we’ve seen this with Rauner before — so at least he’s consistent. It’s not like Rauner will somehow reveal that, yeah, here’s my moral compass. Rauner’s moral compass is whatever the audience for any of his standing-ovation church speeches want to hear. *eye roll* - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:12 pm: It’s an integrity test. Not for Bruce, that’s the wrong Rauner.., It’s an integrity test for Diana Rauner. Diana, her brand, her political credentials and her honesty to a whole state. It’s Diana that faces the test. - Whatever - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:14 pm: Profit talking about “integrity” - funny. - Macbeth - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:14 pm: BTW — isn’t the first rule about branding that you talk about your own brand in the abstract? If Diana is so concerned about her “brand” — whatever that is at this point — she’s in the wrong business. - Macbeth - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:15 pm: Oops — I meant *don’t* talk about your own brand in the abstract. Weird slip, that one. - DuPage Bard - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:20 pm: Here it comes folks- Who did Diane and Bruce lie to? Did they lie to Personal PAC and the public when they ran ads in 2014 so they could get elected? or Did they lie to GOP conservatives in April, when they needed them to stay strong and defend them, as the lack of budget and closing of services were crushing down on them? - Norseman - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:26 pm: Irony = A person with no integrity talking about an integrity test for another. - DeseDemDose - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:32 pm: Will Dan Proft and the Republicans volunteer to pay the welfare and medical costs of the mother’s and children for life? Will they adopt the children and care for them for life and welcome them into their families? - DeseDemDose - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:35 pm: Will Dan Proft and the Republican party agree to adopt the unwanted children? Will they a free to pay the mother and child’s expenses for life out of there own pockets? - Molly Maguire - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:38 pm: Dupage Bard–they lied to both audiences, because they were going to do whatever was best for them. - wordslinger - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:59 pm: When you have taken two diametrically opposed positions on the same question, as Rauner has, the results of the “integrity test” are already in. They’re in for Proft, too. He knows full well that “no social agenda” was Rauner code for pro-choice, but he’s pretending here to believe it meant something else. - Iggy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:02 pm: I didn’t vote for Diana… but i see your point. We are now witnessing what happens when you run around southern Illinois promising voters that the Gov. does not care about social issues and this is a campaign rooted in fiscal responsibility. While at the same time quietly whispering to your friends in the suburbs that the Gov. doesn’t care about social issues and this is a campaign rooted in fiscal responsibility. In one part of the state that means I am personally pro life, but I am not going to question the status quo. and in the other part of the state it means I am personally pro choice but I wont do anything to strengthen the pro choice laws in this state… now that my friends is how you get elected, the first time… - Thomas Paine - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:07 pm: If Bruce Rauner honestly believes the budget is out of whack by $2 billion, he should bring his concerns to Greg Harris and the committee or Rasmussen should pick up the phone, call Mapes, and request a meeting between the Speaker and the Governor. - anon2 - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:24 pm: Either he keeps his word to Personal Pac that he gave before the election in 2014, or to the House and Senate Republican legislators to whom he promised a veto. - The one - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:48 pm: I get the argument if you’re against abortions that you don’t want public funds going there, but it seems to me that the idea that the state budget is in such bad shape cuts the other way. If these are people on Medicaid, then this is either a taxpayer funded abortion or a taxpayer funded delivery plus future expenses for care of the child. Wouldn’t it be more expensive for taxpayers not to pay for the abortion? - RIJ - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:52 pm: Rauner has painted himself into a corner and is going to leave social agenda tracks no matter which move he makes. He always tries to wait and delay until the paint is dry, but that has had limited success so far and will utterly fail here. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 2:07 pm: How did Larry Dominic do on his integrity test before Proft took a fat payoff from him? - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 2:11 pm: ===Wouldn’t it be more expensive for taxpayers not to pay for the abortion?=== Cheaper still to give away free condoms and other same, effective forms of birth control. I think that’s even less expensive than teaching abstinence in schools. Condoms don’t require pensions, lol. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 2:16 pm: I wonder if the governors wife gets tired of Bruce continually asking, “Who am I supposed to be again.” - LoisLearned2much - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 2:28 pm: Cap. Fax thanks for the good belly laugh re: Proft calling out integrity. In all seriousness…how can any good conservative believe a thing Proft says; especially since he was the driving force in pushing Rauner in the Primary. Not to mention Proft was unconcerned with Rauner’s integrity when he was sitting at his right hand and getting all that integrity driven Rauner cash. - walker - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:23 pm: Wordslinger’s spot on. - blue dog dem - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:29 pm: I really wish there was a Dem candidate for gov that I could vote for… - Thomas Paine - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 4:25 pm: Proft on integrity. My day will complete after I finish Diana Rickert’s blog post entitled “Yo! Let’s Talk About Race” and Michael Lucci’s “Compleat Guide to Veto Procedure.” - Wiggle rumor - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 6:49 pm: Brucie will veto and claim it is unfunded and therefore a budget buster….but if the legislature would fund it he will sign it….covers him for a while. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 6:55 pm: ===will veto and claim it is unfunded and therefore a budget buster….but if the legislature would fund it he will sign it….covers him for a while.=== No. Diana Rauner will face she’s a liar that this veto, even a fiscal driven veto, is a social agenda veto, something Diana said Bruce didn’t have. No. No wiggle room. Only bad things for Rauner, signature or vetoes Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.