Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and primary challenger state Rep. Jeanne Ives will appear before the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board at 11 a.m. Monday for an endorsement session that will be streamed online here.
It’s the first time since Ives announced her campaign that voters will have a chance to see the two candidates together. And it might be the last.
No televised debates between the two are scheduled, and Rauner has been careful not to talk about Ives much, once suggesting she is a “fringe” candidate.
* Meanwhile, the Ives campaign sent this out yesterday…
Yesterday, State Representative Jeanne Ives, a conservative reform Republican for Governor, made several campaign stops in Southern Illinois. Ives spoke to voters and press at Meet & Greets in Newton and Litchfield, Illinois. Later, she delivered the keynote address at the Jersey County Lincoln Day Dinner, during which she defined the choice Republican voters have in the 2018 election. Ives told the audience, “Bruce Rauner doesn’t understand you. He doesn’t respect you. And that is why it was so easy for him to betray you.”
I’m wondering which member of the Edit board will coddle Rauner while Ives takes broadsides.
What’s the odds that Mother Trib actually asks Rauner why he is unwilling to have a debate in the primary? Will he call Ives a fringe candidate to her face while they debate in front of the Editorial board of one of the largest newspapers in the country?
I think the writers and reporters doing the most commiserating work for the Washington Post owned by the richest man in America- Jeff Bezos and a self proclaimed liberal Democrat. The paper is doing much better, but the workers are getting crumbs.
“Bruce Rauner doesn’t understand you. He doesn’t respect you. And that is why it was so easy for him to betray you.”
While I’m still concerned that Ives’ extremism will make Rauner appear more moderate than his record, that concern is off-set by her devastating and non-ideological critique of his actions and character.
Regardless of Rauner’s politics, the man Ives oh-so-accurately describes is clearly unfit for the office.
The key, and the actual true genius (no snark) of Rauner in these events is that no real time fact checking for blatant, flat out, unquestioned “mischaracterizations” are so easily blown passed, why not say what Rauner says.
Past three years, you can count on one hand who has held Rauner at least accountable.
Remember this day when this same Trib Editorial Board endorses Rauner over Ives, and Ives taking chapter and verse to Rauner’s dishonesty, lack of accomplishments, and failing to have anything these past three years that can be seen, especially social agenda wise, that would be construed as a Republican incumbent running in the Republican Primary.
Sure. How about we start with all of Tillman and Dan Proft’s candidates? IOP and Liberty Principles PAC dumped a ton of cash on Rauner loyalists. If Rauner had ceded control of GOP legislative races to Dan Proft would there be an Ives’ candidacy? The running regardless of how well she does allows them all the facade of #MeToo outrage.
===How about we start with all of Tillman and Dan Proft’s candidates? IOP and Liberty Principles PAC dumped a ton of cash on Rauner loyalists. If Rauner had ceded control of GOP legislative races to Dan Proft would there be an Ives’ candidacy?===
Nope. Ives would be happily, I’m guessing, being Ives, but HB40, “as a white male”, and FoxNews and bad magazine covers allowed Proft to slither into a place to cripple and seize seats in the GA to spite the Rauner factions.
As I also have stated many times, Proft going after Rauner is far more about a business deal gone bad with Tillman running the governing, and the likes of Proft and Besler, supporters of Ken Dunkin, handling the politics.
Proft is taking an opportunity. The alleged politics, real as they are to some like conservatives and pro-life Republicans, is just the vessel for Proft.
Just finished watching most of it while also reading this site, so didn’t catch all the nuances.
She was very well-prepared, had plenty of examples at hand, speaks well in a one-on-one forum, was in control of her discourse and emotions (okay, she did look a bit angry - but I suspect that’s just her, pretty much all the time; she’s serious about her beliefs and that can come across as “angry”).
I don’t agree with her social policy stances overall, but I still ended up admiring her for her tenacity and the obvious seriousness with which she approached this appearance.
OTOH, much (most? all?) of any legislation she wanted to push through the GA would be DOA. She herself more or less acknowledged this, and said there was much the gov could do by bypassing the legislature. Not sure about the wisdom of saying “If elected gov, I’ll ignore the GA, though.”
OTOH 2: While she got BVR on a technicality re: Janus v. AFSCME, BVR was right that it was on his watch that this case made it to SCOTUS.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Trib finesses this one.
What’s interesting, though, is Rauner lack of preparedness. Truly, he has nothing to say. Nothing. He has talking points which nearly always have nothing to do with the actual question — but absolutely cannot move away from those points.
Ives interupted him a lot — which clearly threw him for a loop — but I was stunned at how much he had to concentrate in order to get back to the talking points. The same talking points that failed on FOX, btw.
I’m pulling a GOP ballot and voting for Ives in the primary.
FWIW, I’m going to continue to abuse my friendship with Miller and call for this, in our bicentennial year, that John Prine’s name be carved into the wall of the Illinois State Library so we can appreciate the mailman from Maywood for eternity.
I could go on and on (and I will, believe me) as to why Prine should be immortalized among the great Illinois writers,if you grew up in the cornfields like me, you’d dig it.
But here’s a taste. You can find the rest on the google (this one, with b-a Steve Goodman bonus; like The Boss says, ain’t no sin being glad you’re alive).