* Rep. Jeanne Ives will speak at the City Club today. Click here to watch the live video, which usually starts sometime after noon. If you miss it, you can click here for the club’s video archives.
* Tom Kacich at the News-Gazette…
“When you look at the ad, it’s a policy ad. It’s not a personal attack on Rauner,” she said. “I don’t go after his character or anything like that. It is a policy ad that in a new way takes what he has done and signed into law and puts it into a visual measure.” […]
“I guess the visual was necessary to raise awareness to Republican primary voters that have been asleep for a while. That’s what the ad was about. We needed to still alert Republican primary voters to the policies he put in place,” Ives said at what was billed as a “meet and greet” at Houlihan’s restaurant in Champaign. About 50 people attended.
“Honestly, if they played this in a ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch as a spoof on the worst Republican governor in America, people would laugh at it,” she said.
She said she would not take down the ad, and said that Harold and the others criticizing it “are bought and sold by Gov.Rauner. Rauner is funding Erika’s campaign. Rauner is funding the GOP establishment. That’s all that is. This is all going to die down. You know what? People needed to see the results of his policies.”
Asked how she could attract Democratic voters in a general election by attacking parts of their constituency, she said that “I have Democrats who messaged me and said they liked the ad.
* From John McGlasson, 16th Congressional District Republican State Central Committeeman…
As a member of the Illinois Republican State Central Committee, I wish to voice my concern about the Illinois Republican Chairman Tim Schneider taking sides in the primary for governor by objecting to the recent campaign advertisement issued by Representative Jeanne Ives.
It is up to the voters to decide whether this ad is good or bad. In my opinion it addresses important issues in the race. It hits them head on and without ambiguity. The voters deserve to know where the candidates stand in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot.
Chairman Schneider’s job is to serve all Republicans and support the eventual nominee.
* From the Ives campaign…
The bills cited in the video are HB 1785, SB 31, HB 40 and SB 2814. According to polling data, HB 1785 and SB 31 are opposed by a supermajority of Illinois GENERAL election voters. All are opposed by a supermajority of GOP primary voters as they were a supermajority of GOP legislators.
* HB 1785, Transgender Birth Certificates: 6 of 73 House and Senate Republicans voted for it (0 in the Senate). Ives voted ‘No.’ Rauner signed it.
* SB 31, Sanctuary State: 6 of 73 House and Senate Republicans voted for it. Ives voted ‘No.’ Rauner signed it.
* HB 40, Taxpayer-Funding of Abortion: 0 of 73 House and Senate Republicans voted for it. Ives voted ‘No.’ Rauner signed it.
* SB 2814: 27 of 73 House and Senate Republicans voted for it. Ives voted ‘No.’ Rauner signed it.
* But…
‘Thank you for signing legislation that lets me use the girls’ bathroom,’ an actor, dressed as a transgender woman, with a visible five o’clock shadow, said, referring to the House Bill 1785.
In fact, that bill does not refer to bathroom rights but allows transgender people to change the gender on their birth certificates, with a doctor’s approval.
*** UPDATE *** Forgot to post this…
The Republican candidate challenging Gov. Bruce Rauner vowed Sunday to return a financial contribution after a campaign staffer retweeted a supportive message from a Twitter account that also contains Nazi propaganda.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeanne Ives’ campaign removed the message Sunday from her Twitter feed. Later, it tweeted the following note: “We had a staffer re-tweet this message without realizing who this individual was. It has been removed. We repudiate him. Disavow any endorsement and are returning any contribution.”
The campaign had retweeted a note that read, in part, “I don8d $1k 2 @JeanneIves 2 defeat @BruceRauner in illinois gubernatorial race.” It also said, “luv this campaign ad” and included a link to Ives’ controversial new spot targeting the transgender community and illegal immigrants, among others.
That message came from an account containing anti-Semitic messages and a cover photo of a man holding out his hand in what appeared to be a Nazi salute. The owner of the account could not immediately be reached for comment.
- Demoralized - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 9:52 am:
==I have Democrats who messaged me and said they liked the ad==
If I were a Democrat I might like the ad too. It’s a nice albatross to hang around her neck.
- Amalia - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 9:59 am:
really disliked seeing/hearing that ad on my tv. what hate messaging.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 9:59 am:
–Chairman Schneider’s job is to serve all Republicans and support the eventual nominee.–
Wow, talk about not getting the memo.
Or is he just pretending he doesn’t know how Schneider got the gig, or who’s been paying the bills the last three years?
- Ste_with_a_ven - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:01 am:
I’m amazed that every is still getting SB 31 wrong.
- Chicago_Downstater - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:05 am:
Wait. Did anyone hear that? I think that was the point whooshing over Ives’ head.
I’d guess most people aren’t saying this ad is offensive because it personally attacks Rauner. It’s a political ad. Attack your opponent all you want.
It’s offensive because it maligns entire groups of Illinois residents…residents that Ives would represent if she became governor.
And it’s “Chairman Schneider’s job” to protect the electoral viability of the Republican Party in IL. If that means distancing the party from a fringe candidate, then that’s what he’s supposed to do.
- Perrid - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:11 am:
To Mr McGlasson, where would you draw the line and not “serve all Republicans and support the eventual nominee”? I do you the courtesy of assuming that such a line exists; we know roughly where Chairman Schneider draws his line, where do you draw yours? The ad is a frankly dishonest, hate filled smear on many communities of citizens, collateral damage in an effort to use people’s fear and prejudice against the guv. If you don’t draw the line there, again, I have to ask where you do draw it.
- JoanP - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:13 am:
“If that means distancing the party from a fringe candidate, then that’s what he’s supposed to do. ”
Exactly. Schneider made a similarly strong statement about the presumptive Republican candidate in the 3rd Congressional District, a Holocaust denier.
He, unlike Ives, apparently understands that dog whistles don’t win the general election.
- Louis G Atsaves - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:14 am:
As a Republican, the ad is homophobic, racist and blatantly misleading. It is not humorous, it is not satire, it is hateful. Ives, Proft and others who demand the party of Lincoln crawl into the sewer with them. I categorically refuse to do so. They can call me a RINO, a less than true Republican, bought and paid for, a Raunerbot. I know what I am and what I represent, a Republican. I know what they are not, Republicans.
- Dome Gnome - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:21 am:
I was aware of the ad going into the weekend, but it offended me to see it on Sunday morning during a commercial break of “Face the Nation” on CBS. This is not a clever political move.
- Rabid - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:26 am:
what formula does Tim use for dispersal off his funds for primary candidates
- Generation X - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:26 am:
Well she needed help with name recognition and this is one way to go about it. She will go from who is Jeanne Ives to controversial opponent of Rauner Jeanne Ives. Can’t see how this hurts her in Primary
- Not It - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:30 am:
Trump has proven that the truth is not important. Just say the same lie over and over again and your target audience would believe it.
Man, I would love for this wackado to win the primary and pummel the Republicans into permanent minority status for the next century.
- AlfondoGonz - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:32 am:
I’d feel bad for you, Louis, but only if I believed a word of what you’ve said.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:32 am:
== Well she needed help with name recognition==
So in April she can get a career being a commentator for Fox News?
- Responsa - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:37 am:
Even though it doesn’t matter at this point I just wish we knew whether Ives gave any contemplation or serious thought about the potential issues of running the ad before she did it, but had convinced herself the “benefits” somehow outweighed the “risks”- OR if she thought it was a great ad for her from the get-go. Either way she made a terribly bad decision. The ad is a disgrace.
- Anon221 - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:39 am:
From the News-Gazette article:
“Asked how she could attract Democratic voters in a general election by attacking parts of their constituency, she said that ‘I have Democrats who messaged me and said they liked the ad.’”
This is a Rauner-like response (little old lady story). She might want to spend some of that $2 mil on this when reading all that support from the Dems she’s hearing from-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU
I wonder how much deeper she’s going to dig herself down at the City Club today. This ad is going to haunt her and, IMO, spells the end to any future political career she may have been planning. The ad is not a parody of the “Governors” ad by Rauner. The ad is pure hate, not an SNL skit.
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:43 am:
Agree LouisAtsaves……she does not care about “everyone”…..she cares about a few who think like her…..even Rauner looks good compared to her…..
- Steve - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:47 am:
An ad that gets this much traction is… a successful ad…
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:51 am:
A new handle: Mean Jeanne.
Who are you voting for, Mean Jeanne or Gov. Junk?
- downstate commissioner - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:52 am:
Hard to admit, but even Rauner isn’t this dumb. Now what do we Republican primary voters do? “Anybody but Rauner” gets us this? Sure be glad when Dem primary is over, so we know who to vote for in November….
- walker - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:54 am:
“”I guess the visual was necessary to raise awareness”"
Ives didn’t design, create, or apparently think much about the ad before it ran. It is a Dan Proft production in style and content. Ives is a follower, not a leader, in this context. But she clearly doesn’t have the compassion or sensibility to see what’s offensive about it to many people.
- Whoa Nelly - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:55 am:
Hey, Committeeman John McGlasson, listen up. If Tim Schneider, as chair of the state party, is supposed to be neutral in statewide candidate races, why aren’t you, as a congressional district chair, supposed to be neutral in your congressional primary race? You are the campaign chair for James Marter, who is running against incumbent Republican Adam Kinzinger in the primary.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:59 am:
–An ad that gets this much traction is… a successful ad…–
LOL, of all days to trot out that ridiculous bromide.
The media is filled today with stories on Super Bowl spots that were terrible.
They’re getting lots of “traction.” Are they “successful?”
You realize, of course, that a spot’s “success” can actually be quantified?
- Chris Widger - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:04 am:
==He, unlike Ives, apparently understands that dog whistles don’t win the general election.==
If we lived in a climate where it was incontrovertible that dog whistling did win elections, would it then be OK to do? Are politicians worth holding to standards other than “Do what is most likely to win the election?”
- Amalia - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:11 am:
Ives is channeling Phyllis Schlaffley.
- PatchworkOrange - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:28 am:
While I am not a supporter of Ives in any way, her press release of the voting record on the bills was highly more effective then the ad. It would have made her point that they don’t agree with Rainer on the points without saying why or being offensive. Unbelievable choice on this one….
- Real - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:43 am:
The ad is not a parody of the “Governors” ad by Rauner. The ad is pure hate, not an SNL skit.
- what exactly is so hateful about the ad? Not wanting transgenders to use another sex bathroom is now hateful?
- dbk - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:51 am:
Awaiting her appearance with barely baited breath.
This next hour could be fun in a thoroughly cringe-worthy way.
- Demoralized - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 12:51 pm:
==what exactly is so hateful about the ad==
Seriously? If you have to ask that then you don’t get it.
- Christopher - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:09 pm:
- Real -
- Not wanting transgenders to use another sex bathroom is now hateful? -
No, mocking a segment of society just because they’re different is hateful.
- Ste_with_a_ven - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:15 pm:
“Everything in the ad is accurate. That is what a transgender woman looks like.”
Clueless.
- Galen - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:30 pm:
Indeed. Anyone remember Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m not a witch” ad?
- Galen - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:36 pm:
1. “Transgender” is an adjective, not a noun.
2. It absolutely is hateful. For one, bathrooms are gendered (for reasons that I hope should be obvious, bathrooms do not have a biological sex), and trans people simply want to use the bathroom that matches their own gender identity. That’s it. To say that they should be refused this very simple right is hateful in the extreme. For crying out loud, there are literally websites and apps to help trans people navigate where they can go to the bathroom safely in states without robust protections for trans people. There is evidence that trans people sometimes even suffer from kidney and urinary tract issues from avoiding using restrooms where it poses an actual danger to their well-being.
As opposed to the of course equally important counterargument that *checks notes* you don’t like using the bathroom alongside someone who’s different than you? Yeah, sorry, not buying that as a compassionate, loving position. Own your hate already or change your position.
- JM1997 - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 3:09 pm:
Ives speaks a lot about honor, but isn’t her ad inherently dishonest with actors portraying the transgender woman and the abortion rights woman speaking in first person: “for letting me use the girls’ bathroom” and “pay for my abortions”?
The other actors in the ad just speak to Rauner hypocrisies but not in first person.
But if an actor is speaking in first-person falsehoods about their policy stances, Ives should own up to running an inherently dishonest and dishonorable ad.