* I’m told the governor is meeting Thursday with a couple of Republican legislators who are opposed to HB40…
“I’m gonna keep doing what I’ve been doing and that is listening to advocates all across the state of Illinois and also meeting with legislators about it,” Rauner said following an unrelated appearance at a Chicago charter school on Monday. “And then we’ll be deciding where to go from there.”
Rauner said that he will make a decision in the “near future” but would not elaborate further about a timeline for action.
“These are complex issues, they’re very heartfelt, very strong, strong views on all sides and I want to make sure that I respect everyone in the process and listen to their points of view,” the Republican governor said.
He declined to say whether he might use his AV powers on the bill.
* Meanwhile…
“This is a disturbing pattern with Bruce Rauner: he says one thing and does another thing. This is a very disturbing pattern of Bruce Rauner being a politician,” said Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, noting that conservatives are already frustrated with Rauner for signing a law they decry as making Illinois a “sanctuary state” because it says that law enforcement cannot detain someone based solely on his or her immigration status, as well as a new education funding law that sends more money to Chicago Public Schools.
“A lot of conservatives are very upset,” McSweeney said. “People are very, very focused on the fact that Bruce Rauner needs to keep his word.”
* But “keep his word” to whom? In April, his office said he’d veto the bill. But back in 2014, gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner wrote this on his Personal PAC questionnaire…
“I fundamentally believe that abortion should be a woman’s private decision, hopefully in consultation with her loved ones and her faith community, and that decision should not be impeded by government,” Rauner wrote in reply to Personal PAC’s questionnaire.
“This principle should apply to all women, regardless of income level or location of residency. As governor, I will work to ensure equal access to contraception and abortion services. It is my hope that by increasing access to reproductive health services we can reduce the incidence of abortions in Illinois, while ensuring that women who do make this decision receive services in a timely manner,” he wrote.
Rauner added: “My highest priority in this area will be to ensure effective administration of the laws regarding access to contraception and provide that access regardless of income. I dislike the Illinois law that restricts abortion coverage under the state Medicaid plan and state employees’ health insurance because I believe it unfairly restricts access based on income. I would support a legislative effort to reverse that law.”
Additionally, Rauner checked “yes” boxes on questions about whether he would sign bills repealing the so-called trigger law as well as legislation about lifting Medicaid and state-employee insurance restrictions.
…Adding… Pritzker campaign…
“Bruce Rauner has gone from yes, to no, to undecided on HB40 in a shameless attempt to pander to voters,” said Pritzker campaign spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh. “Now his time is up and this spineless governor must decide which promise to break and which Illinoisans to betray.”
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:32 am:
Either Bruce will be the one to break a promise …
Or…
Diana will look like a complete phony and Bruce will break a promise.
HB40 puts front and center the the RaunerS phony and the using of the Diana Rauner “brand” to message a phony narrative, including her now phony Democrat credentials.
To the politics, this bill will make Bruce break a promise, but will also expose Diana Rauner as the prop she was … if Rauner chooses to veto or even AV this bill… given the written response to PersonalPAC.
Cant wait to see who gets to realize the RaunerS may have fooled them.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:35 am:
This kind of dilemma couldn’t happen to a nicer, more deserving fellow.
Pass the popcorn please.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:38 am:
I don’t see a “win” for Rauner at all in this, but I do see him possibly killing the bill by either straight out veto or through an AV. Would there be the votes in the veto session to override based on the original votes in the GA- https://tinyurl.com/y9n87w9n ? Rauner may come up with a “look I tried” maneuver, and then throw it back to the GA to take the heat.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:45 am:
There are actually three promises (not two). The promises were to sign, to veto and the “no social agenda” promise. Of the three, the third is by far the biggest and most important.
He also has three options (sign, amendatory veto and full veto).
The AV is “middle of the road” and is more closely aligned with the most important promise of “no social agenda.”
The AV merely changes language of a 1975 law that pro-choicers claim must be changed or else abortion will become illegal if Roe is overturned. That’s a false narrative since the IL Legislative Research Unit has already stated the 1975 law would do no such thing, so an AV just changes some words and has no legal effect.
A full signing of the law forces taxpayers to pay for abortion, a very unpopular view and totally inconsistent with the “no social agenda” concept.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:48 am:
- Chris -
===The AV is “middle of the road” and is more closely aligned with the most important promise of “no social agenda.”===
How does this reconcile with the written response to PersonalPAC?
Thanks.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:50 am:
Expecting a Republican Governor to expand abortion in Illinois by becoming only the 5th state to voluntarily commit taxpayer funds would certainly be a social agenda- an extreme liberal one.
- Molly Maguire - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:50 am:
No such thing as “no social agenda.” Not acting on an issue is still a “social agenda” because you are choosing to leave a current practice in place, a practice which was someone’s social agenda.
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:52 am:
Rauner is evolving on this issue quicker than, well, nuff said.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:58 am:
Oswego & Molly - I agree the promises don’t match up. Someone isn’t going to get everything they want. That’s politics. The question is, what’s the way forward? The middle of the road, compromise, balanced approach that most closely fits the biggest promise of all “no social agenda” is the AV. Just look at the options:
Sign the bill: breaks promise to pro-lifers and breaks “no social agenda” promise
AV: breaks promise to pro-choicers, but gives them something they want without breaking “no social agenda” promise too much
Veto: breaks promise to pro-choicers
The situation Rauner is in is not ideal, but the best way forward is the AV. I guess it’s a mark of how divisive our time is that people have a hard time agreeing on that because the facts are pretty clear.
- A guy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:00 am:
One is a Questionnaire from a group that designs them to be biased…though there’s no question he filled it out and that’s what he said. Answering all these hypothetical questions in advance of real legislation should be a lesson to everyone who gets these “gotcha” surveys. He gilded the lily going as far as he did with this one. Likely, someone else provided the text for this and he nonchalantly approved it..or someone did.
The other case is a room full of human beings elected by people all over the state in districts he considers his base. Actual human beings who are pointing to actual, not hypothetical legislation before him now.
It’s a stupid position to be in to be sure.
What we know now is what the response is and will be to a Veto. He forecasted he would do so, and the fallout from that is pretty well known and the tribes have started the war dance.
What he doesn’t know is what will happen if he signs this awful piece of legislation as is. Will close to 80 elected GOP members simply “run away” from him in the primary and the General because he went backwards on a commitment he made in person to them looking into their eyes?
They might. Many surely will. If there’s absolutely NO difference between him and whichever Dem gets elected, what reason do they have for supporting him? They’d be better off using it to swell their ranks and potentially winning enough seats to gain a majority in the House or a close minority.
If Fire Madigan is powerful for them in the field, “Fire both of them” is twice as powerful.
He’s created this mess for himself by shifting after his reassurance. My utterly unsolicited advice would be to Veto or AV. You already know what that reaction would be. There ain’t enough money on the planet to combat the other choice.
We’ll see.
- Gruntled University Employee - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:01 am:
Rauner has painted himself into a corner on this one. Now, had he hired a union painter…
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:05 am:
===I agree the promises don’t match up. Someone isn’t going to get everything they want.===
No. Good try, no
“No social agenda” means “no”. None.
Cant talk away Diana Rauner”s promise to women. Can’t.
This is most fun …
“breaks promise to pro-choicers, but…”
No. Keep up, please.
“No social agenda” means none.
The AV automatically gives an agenda.
Did you find that written response to PersonalPAC? Can you reconcile that for me? Thanks.
=== I guess it’s a mark of how divisive our time is that people have a hard time agreeing on that because the facts are pretty clear.===
LOL
I dunno if I’d blame “people” for the RaunerS pickle, a pickle that includes that AV and that pesky written response, and Diana Rauner and that word “no”.
Not a bad explaining away, until you blames it on “people”, but it I got a good laugh.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:07 am:
Taxpayer funded abortion is not a laughing matter OW
see you in church, where you can confess about your obsession with Diana Rauner
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:09 am:
My understanding is that if he AVs the bill — it’s dead. There’s no middle ground — especially when the word “veto” is in “amendatory veto”.
An AV is the same as a veto. Promise broken.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:09 am:
A veto will require 3/5ths to override- I don’t see the votes there based on the original voting records.
If AVed, and that AV falls under either Section 9 (d) or (e), then it will only require a majority to override, and that may be possible.
A carefully worded AV may save Rauner some votes, while still providing enough cover for Republican GA members. Any veto requiring the 3/5ths majority would probably kill the bill and (hopefully) a lot of votes for Rauner in the General. And, if Rauner loses a re-election bid, then the bill could be revived under the new governor.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con4.htm
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:13 am:
Thanks for the info Anon. Then, I think Rauner should either veto or do an AV that will require a 3/5ths override. Anything else is either signing or the equivalent to signing.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:15 am:
Oswego - You seem to be saying that forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion means “no social agenda.” I am certain the people of IL won’t see it that way. I guess that’s where we view this differently.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:19 am:
Oh - Chris _
For the 3rd time…
Explain how your assessment reconciles with the Rauner response to PersonalPAC.
Can you?
or… you just ignoring that to attack me?
you can get back to me, no rush.
- Lucky Pierre -
Same to you, explain the written response to PersonalPAC and your own ridiculousness that seems to try to explain away Rauner’s own words?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:20 am:
Rauner seems to think he can take his pro-life supporters for granted. He mistreated a similar coalition by supporting the “sanctuary” law.
Rauner might be correct. Conservatives would rather have a disrespectful closet social liberal than a Democrat. Governor Two-Face isn’t being primaried.
I’m amazed at how any conservative could support an unaccomplished disaster of a governor just because he isn’t a Democrat.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:26 am:
- Chris -, - Lucky Pierre -…
http://bit.ly/2wUnTxC
From that Post …
“Bruce Rauner said he supports all 3, which is what HB 40 does”
“Questions?”
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:26 am:
==Expecting a Republican Governor to expand abortion in Illinois by becoming only the 5th state to voluntarily commit taxpayer funds would certainly be a social agenda- an extreme liberal one.==
It’s what he ran on.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:29 am:
===It’s what he ran on.===
… its even in writing.
I know, a real social agenda phoniness may get exposed. “Bruce Rauner fails”… just like Quinn.
Right? Exactly right.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:31 am:
Macbeth & Oswego - From the viewpoint of promises that were made, I think it’s incomplete and misleading to only look at one promise and not to look at all three promises, including the “no social agenda” promise. He can’t keep them all, but he can keep the “no social agenda” promise. The “no social agenda” promise means he’s going to keep things “as is” for the most part. No major changes. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion is a major change. It should be noted that when he signed the Personal PAC thing, he was also going around saying “no social agenda.” If Personal PAC was unable to interpret what that means, maybe they need some people with more political sense because it certainly does not mean forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:35 am:
==He can’t keep them all, but he can keep the “no social agenda” promise. The “no social agenda” promise means he’s going to keep things “as is” for the most part.==
I don’t think that’s how the claim was either intended or interpreted.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:36 am:
BTW, no matter what position he comes down on, he’s not going to say “I broke my promise” - he will say “I listened to people, thought carefully on the topic and changed my mind. That’s what leaders have to do. They have to listen and be open-minded.” Or something like that.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:37 am:
Of course, it’s kinda weird to guess at how someone intended a vague statement, or how a couple million voters interpreted it. But he made a very specific promise, too, and where I come from, specificity controls over vagueness.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:38 am:
Arsenal - Do you think the average IL voter thinks “no social agenda” means “make radical changes to abortion law”? Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion is clearly viewed by voters as a radical change.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:39 am:
===From the viewpoint of promises that were made…===
Yeah, um, I’m gonna stop you right there.
Unless YOU are Bruce or Diana Rauner, I have in writing exactly what promises are made.
If all your writing really says …
“Yep, you’re right. Bruce and Diana Rauner are the phonies we thought they were…”
… your wasting your tine.
Cabt expain way the writing responses, that’s why you type ALL that, and yet, it boils down to …
“Diana really was a flat out phony in the ads”
===He can’t keep them all===
LOL
PersonalPAC thanks you for thinking that words and promises mean so little.
===Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion is a major change.===
… that Rauner said he agrees with… which is in that link I sent. did you even READ it?
===It should be noted that when he signed the Personal PAC thing,===
“thing” … very disrespectful … like blaiming it on “people”
===he (note: it was both Bruce and Diana Rauner)was also going around saying “no social agenda.” If Personal PAC was unable to interpret what that means,===
… when you have something in writing … oh boy, you aren’t good at this.
===maybe they need some people with more political sense because it certainly does not mean forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.===
… and yet, Rauner did say he agreed with the provision.
This isn’t even a good try.
As Bruce says, “its baloney”
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:40 am:
Arsenal - I agree with your statement on specificity over vagueness, but he made that promise to one entity (to my knowledge) while going everywhere in the state and telling everyone “no social agenda.” That’s a far bigger promise and reached many more people. While it’s less specific, I’m certain people understood it to mean leaving things “as is” regarding abortion and focusing instead on economics.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:41 am:
=== Do you think the average IL voter thinks “no social agenda” means “make radical changes to abortion law”?===
Suburban women will be educated I’m sure where Bruce and Diana Rauner let them down .. with the AV
===no matter what position he comes down on, he’s not going to say “I broke my promise” - he will say “I listened to people, thought carefully on the topic and changed my mind. That’s what leaders have to do. They have to listen and be open-minded.” Or something like that.===
…which is as phony as anything, given the questionnaire
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:44 am:
===… but he made that promise to one entity (to my knowledge)===
Yeah …
ALL of Illinois.
Did ya forget the Diana Rauner phony Democrat “no social agenda” ads…
Yikes… you may want to take a nap
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:46 am:
Candidates who state positions in writing deserve to lose.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:47 am:
==Do you think the average IL voter thinks “no social agenda” means “make radical changes to abortion law”? ==
I think they took it as “He’s pro-choice and pro-marriage equality”.
==Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion is clearly viewed by voters as a radical change.==
Is it?
==but he made that promise to one entity (to my knowledge) while going everywhere in the state and telling everyone “no social agenda.”==
Indeed he did, which is your first big clue that by “no social agenda” he didn’t mean “keep the status quo”.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:47 am:
The Governor will most certainly take the Speaker’s great advice to deal in moderation and not the extreme.
Expanding taxpayer funds to voluntarily cover abortion on demand is certainly not a moderate position.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:48 am:
I also really like this standard that it’s OK to lie so long as it’s “only” to one group.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:49 am:
I was just pointing out it’s disingenuous (or shows incompetence) for Personal PAC pretend to be so shocked that Rauner has no social agenda regardless of the document he signed. It’s also disingenuous or incompetent for Personal PAC and other pro-choice orgs to claim abortion will be illegal in IL if Roe is overturned. That’s a bogus claim, but they use it to spin the newscycle. Rauner is right about one thing, it’s a lot of political nonsense with this bill.
- SAP - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:49 am:
The Governor’s bad habit of making contradictory statements, depending on who is in the audience, is finally catching up with him.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:54 am:
1.) He will say he changed his mind, not that he lied. People can’t change their mind?
2.) No social agenda means leaving things as is, not changing them radically.
3.) Moderates including suburban women don’t want to be forced to pay for abortion. That’s not a moderate position at all.
4.) The middle of the road position is the AV that requires 3/5ths vote to overturn.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:56 am:
Anybody feeling sorry for Rauner needs to go back and take a look at the full page ad his campaign approved back in 2014. In it, they promise that Bruce Rauner has the same position on abortion rights as Pat Quinn.
Personal Pac didn’t fund this ad. Diana Rauner did. Nobody forced Bruce Rauner to answer a “gotcha” questionnaire before he made this promise.
He made this promise to pro-choice voters and now it’s time to deliver. Or not, and then face the consequences. But don’t pretend this ad didn’t happen. I know a lot of the people who signed this ad aren’t going to forget.
https://capitolfax.com/FINAL_Trib_Full_100.pdf
- Rabid - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:57 am:
an AV angers both sides, no veto means you believe in abortion, no signature means you belive in no abortion
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:57 am:
==1.) He will say he changed his mind, not that he lied.==
And why should we believe him?
==2.) No social agenda means leaving things as is, not changing them radically.==
Then why did he say both that he has no social agenda and that he’d support these very provisions?
==3.) Moderates including suburban women don’t want to be forced to pay for abortion. That’s not a moderate position at all.==
Then why did they vote for a guy who promised it?
==4.) The middle of the road position is the AV that requires 3/5ths vote to overturn.==
That’s not how the AV works.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:58 am:
Vanilla - Personal PAC tells people if they don’t complete the questionaire in full, they will tell everyone the candidate is against their views and will tell everyone to vote against them. It’s dishonest to put it mildly.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:00 pm:
==Expanding taxpayer funds to voluntarily cover abortion on demand is certainly not a moderate position.==
It’s the position that won the last election for Governor.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:02 pm:
=== He will say he changed his mind, not that he lied. People can’t change their mind?===
There goes the Diana Rauner brand.
Diana Rauner’s integrity will now be in question.
===No social agenda means leaving things as is, not changing them radically.===
Says who?
The phony Diana Rauner ads made clear, “no” is a single word meaning “no”
Parsing it as you are, makes both RaunerS look even phonier, if that’s possible. You’re not helping, honest.
=== Moderates including suburban women don’t want to be forced to pay for abortion. That’s not a moderate position at all.===
lol, yeah, if that was indeed the case, Rauner woukd have responded differently on the questionnaire.
The Rauner responses seem to be in contrast for all your excuses.
===The middle of the road position is the AV that requires 3/5ths vote to overturn.===
Which then highlights that Rauner will have let down many and made Diana Rauner’s own words useless… given that there isn’t 71 votes in the House, and that pesky questionnaire.
So, Rauner let down many, fibbing in commercials and that written questionnaire.
You coulda just said the RaunerS are phony and cant keep their word and saved the typing I guess.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:02 pm:
All ya’ll going on about how “extreme” HB40 is need to grapple with the fact that the guy who promised it in writing won his election.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:06 pm:
===I was just pointing out it’s disingenuous (or shows incompetence) for Personal PAC pretend to be so shocked that Rauner has no social agenda regardless of the document he signed. It’s also disingenuous or incompetent for Personal PAC and other pro-choice orgs to claim abortion will be illegal in IL if Roe is overturned. That’s a bogus claim, but they use it to spin the newscycle. Rauner is right about one thing, it’s a lot of political nonsense with this bill. ===
or …
“Bruce and Diana Rauner are a bunch of phonies. How dare their own questionnaire answers be used against them, when they turned the questionnaire in freely knowing the answers, and hoped the phony answers would garner the support they felt they needed to win.
I blame PersonalPAC for them being misled by people who cant keep their words”
Either or?
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:14 pm:
Anyway, I think we all know Rauner will say he changed his mind, but that he did change 1975 law, he signed a law forcing pregnancy resource centers to refer for abortion earlier, he is pro-choice and he has given a lot of money to abortion clinics, etc. Moderates will think he technically didn’t do what he said, but that’s nitpicking because people do change their minds, this was a bill designed to create a political wedge anyway and taxpayer funding of abortion is extreme, so it’s reasonable that he didn’t sign that into law.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
Rauner’s no victim of “gotcha questions” or anything else, unless you think he doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand simple English.
He brought this on himself by trying to play both sides for personal political gain. Actually, you can question his mental capacity for that, because any fool could tell you that it was only a matter of time before such deviousness would blow up in his face.
Rauner continues to play games by claiming he’s traveling the state talking to women across the spectrum as he struggles to make up his mind. Like a grown man hasn’t figured out his position on the subject by now.
Who believes any of that? He’s waiting for the polling results to determine which group to betray. He will choose the one that will hurt his own personal political future the least.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:19 pm:
===Anyway…==
No. Not “anyway”…
- Chris -
Lots of words that explain the following …
“Rauner? Bruce went against his written response, Bruce has a social agenda, and Diana Rauner is a phony and cant be trudted to speak truth to what Bruce Rauner stands for”
Every point you think you have, the questionnaire refutes.
In writing.
The Diana Rauner ad? That ad was to make suburban women trust Bruce Rauner. Now those same women can’t trust Diana Rauner.
- Trapped in the 'burbs - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:31 pm:
Rauner: “Don’t hold me responsible for anything I said or did unless it causes you to vote for me.”
- Iggy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:34 pm:
Woah Jordan, thats heavy hitting adjectives. hope it doesn’t backfire on you.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:36 pm:
If Rauner is going with polling, he will veto the bill - at least the portion that that forces taxpayers to pay for abortion. That conforms to his no social agenda promise and it’s the moderate position.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:42 pm:
===That conforms to his no social agenda promise and it’s the moderate position.===
LOL, No.
It confirms that Diana Raner is indeed a phony and her word cant be trusted, especially by suburban women, and it also confirms an agenda that a Veto is a policy choice Rauner will have made, when the whole campaign was Bruce had no social agenda.
You keep trying to just ignore honesty and saying being dishonest is also having no social agenda.
Yikes, that’s not a great measure of character you have for the RaunerS.
To think as you do, you must think incredibly low about honesty to voters and what someone’s word means.
Rauner said he supported all of HB40 with the questionnaire, and Diana Rauner told a while stare Bruce has no social agenda.
Your spin?
You cant trust the RaunerS, but that’s “cool”, you knew you couldn’t anyway, lol
- Pundent - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:42 pm:
I can understand how people could rationalize Rauner’s varying positions to align them with their own person views. Whether you agree or disagree with the notion of taxpayer funded abortions is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Rauner has taken two completely irreconcilable stances on this topic. In both instances he did so for pure political gain. I have no idea how he truly feels about either of his stated positions. What this entire situation reveals is the absence of any moral compass. That should concern everyone.
- zonz - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:43 pm:
===No social agenda means leaving things as is, not changing them radically.===
No it means letting the GA vote and accepting it by not pushing any POV
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
“Rauner said he supported all of HB40 with the questionnaire, and Diana Rauner told a whole state Bruce has no social agenda.”
apologies
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:51 pm:
I don’t think this integrity argument is relevant.
First, it cuts both ways because there were three promises.
Second, voters don’t expect integrity from politicians. In Illinois, that ship has sailed a long time ago.
He will say he changed his mind and even if people don’t believe him, they will say “So what? The guy he’s running against is probably the same.”
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:54 pm:
People view the gov as having a legislative say, not just signing whatever comes his/her way. No social agenda means using that legislative say to keep things as is, not changing things radically like forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 1:00 pm:
===People view the gov as having a legislative say, not just signing whatever comes his/her way===
That’s called having a social agenda.
you really should stop, this isn’t helping in the least.
This is fun …
===No social agenda means using that legislative say to keep things as is, not changing things radically like forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.===
No.
Again, the questionnaire that Rauner submitted when having this now phony no social agenda was the basis of having no social agenda, by outlining his own support for the HB40 provisions.
Otherwise this new social agenda is not what voters thought Rauner had, or Diana Rauner told us Bruce had as any agenda.
You can stop digging at any time.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 1:00 pm:
===First, it cuts both ways because there were three promises.===
Then that means, at best, it’s two lies and one broken promise. Lol.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 1:04 pm:
Chris are you interning for Hud? And, as a voter in Illinois, don’t include me in any of your generalizations-
“Second, voters don’t expect integrity from politicians. In Illinois, that ship has sailed a long time ago.”
No it did not. This is how democracy is taken hostage and beaten down. I expect integrity from those I vote for, and if they betray that promise, then I rescind my support.
“He will say he changed his mind and even if people don’t believe him, they will say ‘So what? The guy he’s running against is probably the same.’”
Are you that cynical or just that condescending?
Bottomline, whether YOU believe the only issue here is tax-payer funded abortions, Rauner’s words are going to be used against him, as will his actions. He has provided a great deal of contradictory stances since he has been elected, and believe me, those will not go unused by the Democrats. So, if you goal is to defend Rauner, get ready for a fight.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
===I don’t think this integrity argument is relevant===
For the love of Pete … you are arguing for having no integrity?
===…voters don’t expect integrity from politicians. In Illinois…===
“Bruce and Diana have the least integrity, vote for them”
===He will say he changed his mind and even if people don’t believe him, they will say “So what? The guy he’s running against is probably the same.”===
I doubt that. You must not know Terry Cosgrove, lol
===two lies and one broken promise===
I think that’s a college game, involving adult beverages, at a place that serves those beverages “on tap”
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
Chris, it’s remarkable that you think you can speak for the “people” on this subject, and that you seem to think they’re rather blasé about it, one way or the other.
Maybe, just maybe, you’re only speaking for yourself.
What’s your home planet? Because from my life experience here on Earth, I think it’s a very good bet that one group of highly organized and motivated individuals is going to feel betrayed by the governor’s coming action and they will bring the house against him.
- Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:03 pm:
Bruce Rauner has a wife and four daughters.
His wife clearly has strong opinions on the issue. I am guessing his daughters do as well.
I don’t think Rauner ever had an intention to veto HB 40. At that point, the bill was still in the House, and the Rauner’s were engaged in a game of chicken with Sara Feigenholtz. Hoping she would agree to drop the public funding requirement.
Our cowboy governor is learning the hard way that Sara Feigenholtz is a force of nature not to be trifled with. You are better off picking a fight with a hurricane. So yeah, Feigenholtz didn’t back down. Now what?
Well, Bruce: now you have to think about how you want to be remembered. Not in politics, but after those numbered days tick away. And especially, how you want your daughters to remember you to their daughters some day.
Do you want to be remembered as the man who did what he thought was right and stood up for women’s equality? Or as the coward who cut a deal with the right wing to try to save his own political hide?
- Ole' Nelson - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:13 pm:
I keep wondering how much nonsense Rauner supporters can tolerate and still defend the Governor. Chris leads me to believe that there may be no limit for some.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
We’re a corrupt state, so if the gov doesn’t go to jail, he’s doing pretty good. That’s how voters think. Voters tolerate inconsistencies and don’t expect perfection. Besides, he will say he talked to people and changed his mind. Voters were promised no social agenda and that means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:26 pm:
===if the gov doesn’t go to jail, he’s doing pretty good. That’s how voters think===
Yeah? Tell that to Pat Quinn.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
===Voters tolerate inconsistencies and don’t expect perfection===
“Pat Quinn failed”
Are you even from Illinois?
You are missing significant mile posts in making your points
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:36 pm:
Wordslinger - I think you have a point. I think the abortion/pro-choice lobby isn’t going to be neutralized next time around regardless of Rauners decision here since he already waivered. That will make things more difficult for him. No question. I just think the particular charge of not keeping a promise isn’t going to be a big deal in the context of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion. Having them as a political enemy is politically relevant, not that specific charge. But, I think it’s inevitable that those lobbying groups are going to come out for the Democrat at this point.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:36 pm:
This voter doesn’t tolerate lies, and lies are not “inconsistencies”.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
– That’s how voters think.–
Always bizarre when someone claims they can speak for all people. It’s a sad little attempt to give their own view credibility that they apparently think it lacks.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:42 pm:
===But, I think it’s inevitable that those lobbying groups are going to come out for the Democrat at this point.===
Diana Rauner is a Democrat. Diana Rauner told us so.
Diana Rauner also told us Bruce has no social agenda and that questionnaire will come back to haunt.
If your position NOW is “Well, they were only go with the Democrat anyway”…
Why are you even arguing to save Bruce and Diana Rauner and their fibs?
LOL
=== I just think the particular charge of not keeping a promise isn’t going to be a big deal in the context of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.===
You really have no scruples and no use for honesty, and you have no idea how this will energize Terry Cosgrove and ruin Diana Rauner reputation when it comes to honesty.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
Rich - On Pat Quinn, do we think that’s because he was caught in a lie or because he was viewed as ineffective? If he had been viewed as effective, would people care about a promise kept? Doubtful imo.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:01 pm:
Oswego - No social agenda means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion. A veto means Rauner is keeping his promise to voters, although not to Personal PAC (can’t please all the people all the time). I think you and I fundamentally disagree on this point that no social agenda means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion. So, that’s where we differ I guess.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:06 pm:
===No social agenda means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion===
Bruce and Diana Rauner disagree with you, in a questionnaire.
Don’t speak for me either
They are phonies, Bruce and Diana, and have a social agenda that should, according to you, alarm suburban women, since they cant tell the truth.
===A veto means Rauner is keeping his promise to voters===
Nope.
No means no, and this Veto is direct contrast, and reinforces the betrayal of Diana to suburban women.
===I think you and I fundamentally disagree on this point that no social agenda means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion. So, that’s where we differ I guess.===
No.
No, you think that not being truthful in a questionnaire and to voters is fine, and I know that means Rauner has a social agenda and Diana Rauner told suburban women one thing and Bruce will now decide to veto a bill he knows Diana told voters he wouldn’t veto.
“Simple”
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:10 pm:
Chris- “No social agenda means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.” Find me a Bruce Rauner quote that says that. Just because you want an apple and an orange to equal a beefsteak does not make it so. Your argument is a fail unless you can find Rauner’s actual words to that effect and not just your supposition that that is what he means.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:10 pm:
- Chris -
Your take is …
“Trust Bruce and Diana Rauner at your own risk. The words of Bruce and Diana Rauner aren’t worth too much and questionnaires are worth even less”
Diana Rauner thinks highly of her brand. This won’t help her brand, especially after being obsessed and wanting to hire IPI folks.
But, - Chris -, if you think you’re helping… lol
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:23 pm:
What was Pat Quinn’s answer on that question? Hard to believe he broke with the pro-choice crowd. In which case, HB40 is so extreme that 96% of voters in the state of Illinois voted for someone who was promising all of its provisions.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:26 pm:
==no social agenda and that means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.==
I bet it means “Rauner is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality”. As evidence, I’ll cite the fact that he promised no social agenda AND he promised all the main parts of HB40, and no one perceived it as the obvious and fundamental contradiction you’re pushing.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:26 pm:
We all agree he has made promises that were not consistent on this policy item. With that in mind, there is no reason to think that the Personal PAC questionairre defined what he meant by “no social agenda.” It’s very possible and I would argue extremely likely that he told Personal PAC something to neutralize them and told voters something to neutralize voters who focus on social issues. His focus was on the economy.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:27 pm:
Anon & Oswego -
1.) Of the promises made, “no social agenda” is by far the largest and most important because he said it to millions of IL people.
2.) I think it’s self-evident from the words “no social agenda” that he was telling voters he would leave social issues “as is.”
3.) You both seem to think that “no social agenda” means he would force taxpayers to pay for abortion. Can you find a place where he says “no social agenda means forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion” ?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:33 pm:
===Of the promises made, “no social agenda” is by far the largest and most important because he said it to millions of IL people.===
…says the commenter who just a few comments ago that Rauner made it to one group…
You are losing credibility by the letter, lol
So is it important, or nothing to “one” group?
You don’t even know.
Add this to your ignorance …
===I think it’s self-evident from the words “no social agenda” that he was telling voters he would leave social issues “as is.”===
No.
The Questionnaire says otherwise. That is what Rauner, in writing, meant by “no social agenda”.
You don’t like it, b ut that’s the parameters Bruce and Diana made “No Social Agenda”
Here is EXACTY why your ignorance is failing by the letter…
=== You both seem to think that “no social agenda” means he would force taxpayers to pay for abortion. Can you find a place where he says “no social agenda means forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion” ? ===
The questionnaire that he submitted to PersonalPac
Please stop, you are ruining Bruce and Diana Rauner’s reputation and honesty even more by your own comments.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
===With that in mind, there is no reason to think that the Personal PAC questionairre defined what he meant by “no social agenda.” ===
Since it was a policy and social agenda questionnaire, no, you’re still wrong, as you’ve been wrong all day.
=== It’s very possible and I would argue extremely likely that he told Personal PAC something to neutralize them and told voters something to neutralize voters who focus on social issues.===
No.
Diana Rauner made her case on “no social agenda” and that case was reinforced with a newspaper ad and Diana Rauner herself vouching for Bruce, economy or not.
You keep trying, but keep failing.
Just stop.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:51 pm:
If your views are contingent on the idea that no social agenda means forcing taxpayer to pay for abortion, then your whole perspective is wrong. If you think that’s what no social agenda means, I’d hate to know what you think a social agenda would be. Feel free to have the last word. Thanks for the convo.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:55 pm:
===If your views are contingent on the idea that no social agenda means forcing taxpayer to pay for abortion, then your whole perspective is wrong.===
For the 63rd time, its not mine, it’s Bruce Rauner’s as explained in that questionnaire
===If you think that’s what no social agenda means===
That’s what the RaunerS mean… the 64th time …
=== I’d hate to know what you think a social agenda would be===
When the RaunerS fill out another questionnaire and do ads saying they have no social agenda, we’ll both know.
- Mike Cirrincione - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:58 pm:
Which way do Bruce -n- Di want it?
The old way where the Wife had to bring a note from the Husband to purchase condoms from the pharmacist at the drug store.
Or Griswold V Connecticut (which was the Precedent for Roe V Wade) where the United States Supreme Court found a Constitutional Right to Privacy. A purely Conservative decision that gets the Government out of our personal lives and ensures Freedom and Liberty for all.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:23 pm:
Chris looping and spinning the phrases “no social agenda” and ” forcing taxpayers” is not a way to have a debate. You want me to defend your assumptions about Rauner. Ain’t gonna happen son.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:43 pm:
Chris this was fun to watch.
- blue dog dem - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:53 pm:
Anonn21. I thought Chris is a woman.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 5:37 pm:
bdd- Son or daughter… It still ain’t gonna happen.
- blue dog dem - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 8:55 pm:
I understand single issue voters. I am one of those. However, this isn’t my issue.