27 Comments - Red Rider - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:33 am: Be careful gov. You work for every one in il. - cdog - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:35 am: good. It’s the only thing that makes any sense. - DRauner - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:36 am: But what about my dinner parties? - Perrid - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:38 am: So he wants to keep the status quo, instead of either expanding abortion rights or curtailing them further. On the surface it seems like he’s trying to find middle ground, which is unusual. Also means both sides get to tear him apart, but since he promised to both veto and sign it (a few years apart), it might be the only half way decent way out for him. - walker - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:43 am: Rauner might AV it, but this would be the exact wrong reason politically. Rauner might squeek by vetoing it on the funding issue, but the Roe v Wade trigger issue is a loser for him. - ??? - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:50 am: Red Rider - so what solution would you propose that *everyone* in Illinois will support? - Macbeth - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:51 am: Rauner personifies the words “spineless coward”. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:53 am: Does someone need to explain to the govermor (after nearly three years in office) the arithmetic on votes to override or sustain AVs? Someone who understands it this time, like from outside BTIA(TM)? If an AV effectively kills the whole bill, he’s still betrayed one side he made a promise to. Rauner’s own two-facedness put him in this position. It’s amazing that he thought he could claim simultaneously to hold diametrically opposed positions on abortion, of all things. The highly organized and motivated advocates on both sides of that issue pay attention. No weasel-wording is going to help him here, whichever way he bounces. - Bigtwich - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:54 am: “>the plan under the prior staff regime.” Didn’t Franz Kafka already write this? - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:58 am: This will undercut and rip to shreds the personal integrity of Diana Rauner. The idea that Diana Rauner staked her own reputation and credibility to “no social agenda” and this possible AV is considered “a compromise”, by definition means that her stance and belief has been altered and that Diana Rauner told millions of Illinoisans is now a complete farce, and her word and her truthfulness are now not worth very much, if HB40 gets an AV. The Diana Rauner brand is now… … being a phony Democrat while personally donating Mullins to Republicans, to defeat Democratic legislators… … a person who’s word and credibility to women, suburban women means very little or next to nothing when defending Bruce and his real agenda on social issues… … more about being embraced and accepted by cocktail party goers than caring how policy and her own advocacy for Bruce isn’t going to be enough for people to believe what Bruce stands for. In reality, the AV of HB40 is Bruce’s rebuke of Diana’s word. I guess the RaunerS can line with that(?) - Texas Red - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:59 am: Clever move by the Gov - both sides feel betrayed - but neither can claim victory.The nuances of the AV are lost on 99% of the electorate. - cdog - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:04 am: Without going too far into human physiology, it seems a little weird to see headlines that Rauner’s meeting with LGBTQ folks was part of his efforts to “poll the audience.” With kindest thoughts, it seems that community would be for fewer abortions and a more robust adoption system. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:10 am: An AV is how Rauner can kill the bill and try to claim he “tried” but the GA (could even go Because Madigan, I suppose) did not uphold his “compromise”. He may be trying to be the “great conciliator” but he really doesn’t have an “outfit” for the “occasion”. - Nick Name - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:30 am: For Rauner haters of whatever affiliation, HB40 has got to be manna from heaven. - Macbeth - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:46 am: It’s interesting to note that Rauner’s much-vaunted “persistence” ceases to exist when it meets his “social agenda.” The words for this are moral cowardice. Which, in Rauner’s case, are a synonym for “political impotence”. - J. Nolan - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 12:09 pm: Willy, IMO you are very wrong on this one. You are making an inside baseball argument about a wife and cocktail parties. No one in the real world understands what you are talking about or referencing. It’s election season - think about an electoral argument. Most Illinoisans think taxpayer funded abortions are bad - Rauner vetoes that part. Good. Most Illinoisans don’t want to fully ban abortions. Rauner keeps that. Good. It’s pretty simple. Will both sides be mad? Yes, but neither will have a clean rhetorical and easy to understand hit on him and neither side’s rank and file will be able to muster up a tenth of the anger over the AV that they would have had he went one way or the other. 99% of the electorate doesn’t know or care about the “math” of overriding a veto, 99% don’t care about Diana’s personal credibility with the north shore abortion lobby, 99% don’t care about an ad they did 4 years ago. Why? because most thinking adults who spend little to no time following the back story on this - keeping the status quo is the VERY DEFINITION of “no social agenda”. Accomplishing an agenda means something has changed. Nothing is changing. That is what 99% of people will know. - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 12:14 pm: =The nuances of the AV are lost on 99% of the electorate.= Not lost on me. I just saw Rauner AV an education bill because it gave too much money to Chicago schools. He then promptly turned around and signed a bill that gave those schools even more money. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 12:25 pm: - J Nolan - First, this place Rich created, it’s not like the “real world”. People who come here and read and understand, or try to learn, odds are, they’re vested in what’s going on, what’s happened, and what could occur. Know the audience. Here’s the bottom line… Diana Rauner was a prop to either fool suburban women and Democrats with “no social agenda” Why that matters is her personal credibility was THE thing that Bruce used because she was more credible than he. That’s why it matters. That’s why in inside baseball, the outside relevancy will be seen when Bruce may try to use Diana again to explain away this phony excuse for the AV that runs counter to the “no social agenda” meme and that questionnaire. Here’s where you miss where I am; ===Yes, but neither will have a clean rhetorical and easy to understand hit on him and neither side’s rank and file will be able to muster up a tenth of the anger over the AV that they would have had he went one way or the other=== The questionnaire puts front and center the fear that both RaunerS fear most, that suburban women were duped, and Cosgrove will remind them, and he knows how to do it effectively. ===99% of the electorate doesn’t know or care about the “math” of overriding a veto, 99% don’t care about Diana’s personal credibility with the north shore abortion lobby, 99% don’t care about an ad they did 4 years ago.=== Today. That may be true. Today. This will mushroom. Thinking it won’t, then why all the hand wringing. Your argument makes no sense, since the finding of that least damaging choice is the goal. You’re refuting your own point, you don’t even realize it. ===Why? because most thinking adults who spend little to no time following the back story on this - keeping the status quo is the VERY DEFINITION of “no social agenda”. Accomplishing an agenda means something has changed. Nothing is changing. That is what 99% of people will know.=== Today. The original Diana Rauner phony ad says what that paragraph states is the worry. The query well after whatever Rauner chooses. With respect. - J. Nolan - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 1:49 pm: “The original phony ad says” It says he has no social agenda. Nothing is changing with an A/V. Nothing changing is having no agenda. You are ascribing an agenda based on the backstory that no one knows and will care about. Until I see a 30 second ad that explains the survey, the “math” of an A/V, and how nothing changing is Rauner waging a war on women AND makes that understandable, succinct, and memorable - I remain skeptical. The entire premise of JBs attacks have been on the trigger law part. He’s leaving that in there! What’s the next ad gonna Be? Fighting for taxpayer funded abortions is a loser. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 2:18 pm: ===It says he has no social agenda. Nothing is changing with an A/V. Nothing changing is having no agenda=== Funny thing, those vetoes, AV or ouherwise… “Oh, I vetoed the tax increase, my agenda is about not raising taxes” “Oh, that AV? that’s not me choosing an agenda or anything, just an ole AV, status quo… ” Nope. Sorry. No. The phony ads run in concert with that qurationnaire, and - J Nolan - if you think you won’t see ads that will go after Diana Rauner’s utter phoniness if she decided to vouch for Bruce, that’s more wishful thinking on your part. Cosgrove will play in this and will make PersonalPAC’s feelings known. They’ve. Done it. Before. Plus, slow down, Speed Racer, the election is in November 2018, not tomorrow. Lots of time. ===The entire premise of JBs attacks have been on the trigger law part. He’s leaving that in there! What’s the next ad gonna Be? Fighting for taxpayer funded abortions === It’s none of that. It’s also “simple” “When Bruce and Diana had the chance to stand up for women’s rights, Diana Rauner misled us as Bruce Rauner vetoed.” You have the Diana commercial, gray, slow motion, Bruce and Diana in the couch, “giggling” in gray, in slow motion. Very impactful, suburban women will understand how phony Bruce and Diana truly are. Can be done in :30 seconds, makes the RaunerS have to explain the AV… again… and again… and yet again. “Simple” Only a governor can veto, or AV. They own them. Same as it ever was. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 3:04 pm: J Nolan-OW has it right. That sweet sweet Pritzker cash is going to be used to pound Rauner day and night in every medium Rauner was and is pro choice “Strident” pro choice No social agenda The pro choice survey Now He lied, Diana lied Over And over again Suburban woman care about this. Urban women care about this They won’t make the make that mistake again Voting for Rauner Just like all of labor So now he’s going to make up those losses by Getting the pro life vote? With his past? Nope Rauner failed Over and over and over - J. Nolan - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 3:14 pm: Takes AWAY the sting..** - Arsenal - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 3:39 pm: ==Most Illinoisans think taxpayer funded abortions are bad== Do they? 96% of Illinois voters voted for a candidate who promised them in ‘14. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 3:41 pm: ==The entire premise of JBs attacks have been on the trigger law part. He’s leaving that in there! == This rests on the premise that an AV can be upheld. If it can’t, Rauner will catch the blame. - J. Nolan - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 3:42 pm: Honeybear, ===“Strident” pro choice No social agenda=== Being pro-choice means you don’t want to ban abortions. IL allows abortions. Nothing is changing… ===Suburban woman care about this. Urban women care about this They won’t make the make that mistake again=== Care about what, abortion access? Yeah so does Rauner. Which is why IL law isn’t changing… ===He lied, Diana lied=== You and Willy are not making the next logical step. Voter asks/wonders, “what did they lie about?” In order for JB to answer that question, he will have to either advocate for taxpayer funded abortions, or attack Rauner for denying tax payer funded abortions. THAT IS NOT A WINNING ARGUMENT - which is why the AV takes it off the table. So which is it? He isn’t pro-choice? He clearly is because IL law isnt changing Is he a liar? Maybe, but then you’ll have to explain what he lied about and ppl will understand you want taxpayer funded abortions. The AV takes this issue away from JB and ONLY hurts him slightly with the right, who will come home most likely anyways. - J. Nolan - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 3:43 pm: Arsenal, Yes, given that probably 0.5% knew about that one answer on a questionnaire. Don’t be obtuse. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 4:04 pm: - J Nolan - The :30 ad I described and the history of how Cosgrove and PersonalPAC can message where Bruce and Diana misled suburban women… … if it was all “nothing” or easily brushed away, than Rauner would’ve already AVed the Bill and cheered his own AV. The mere pause, and knowing the AV sidelines Diana Rauner, due to her now lack of credibility and honesty, you should think… “They must think this AV will hurt” Yep. It will. The biggest asset Rauner had was Diana, now she becomes just as big of a phony as Bruce. And they know it. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.