Harold tries to turn ad around on Raoul
Monday, Jul 2, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A couple of takeaways from Mark Maxwell’s recent interview of Republican attorney general candidate Erika Harold. First, here’s Harold talking about Sen. Kwame Raoul’s online ad which dings her for allegedly saying years ago she’d rather place a foster child with an abusive heterosexual couple than a loving gay couple…
Harold sought to neutralize the attack ad by highlighting a speech Raoul gave in February of 2013.
“I thought it was hypocritical because Senator Raoul, during the course of debating various issues on the floor of the Senate, talked about how his own views had evolved,” she said. “He specifically said that he himself used to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, but that he had evolved and he was glad to see that. I am glad to see that people evolve. I think it’s disappointing that he would use a different standard to judge me than he would want others to judge himself.
The Raoul campaign responded through a spokesperson, writing in an email, “It’s unconscionable that someone would ever choose to put a child in an abusive home.” […]
“I can confess that, as a boy, I didn’t even believe this was a question of sexual orientation,” [Raoul] said at the time. “I believed it was a question of choice and I was — I discriminated against people based on their sexual orientation.”
The difference here is that Raoul confessed to having these beliefs when he was a boy. Harold was an adult (a young adult, but an adult) when she allegedly made those comments.
* And from the Raoul campaign…
In an interview with WCIA’s Mark Maxwell yesterday, Republican candidate for attorney general Erika Harold reconfirmed her position that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest.
Partial transcript:
Mark Maxwell, WCIA: “Justice Anthony Kennedy is stepping down, the only conservative justice who has voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. We saw Governor Rauner sign HB40 last year which removed the trigger provision, protecting access to abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Is this another area of disagreement with the Governor, this area of abortion?”
Erika Harold: “My focus is enforcing the law, whatever it is, as I’m attorney general. And I think it’s important in a position like this that you’re not bringing your own personal views into it.”
MM: “A lot of Republicans in this state have been disheartened by Governor Rauner’s position on this issue of abortion. What are you giving them to vote for, if anything? Is there a pro-life pledge? What do voters need to know about you on the issue of abortion when you’re running for this position?”
EH: “… I’m not going to be running on a host of issues that have nothing to do with the job that I’m seeking … People know that I’m pro-life. That’s not something that’s a secret to anyone.”
MM: “In a previous run for Congress, you mention that even in cases of rape and incest - which most Republicans carve those out - you are still opposed to abortion. Have your views at all evolved or changed on that particular issue?”
EH: “My views are clear. I will uphold Illinois law, and that’s what’s important for voters to know about this.”
“With Roe v. Wade in serious jeopardy, now more than ever we need an attorney general who will be a strong advocate for women and victims of sexual assault, not just a bystander to the attacks,” said Raoul campaign spokeswoman Aviva Bowen. “Erika Harold’s views are shocking and extreme.”
While a candidate for Congress in 2014, Harold detailed her position to the State Journal-Register, saying, “I would not discriminate (against the fetus) based on the circumstance of conception.”
Last year, the General Assembly passed House Bill 40, a measure that allows the state to provide employees and Medicaid recipients insurance coverage for abortions, as well as protect access to abortion in Illinois should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
“HB40 was passed to avoid the very nightmarish scenario we are experiencing with the Trump agenda and the changing composition of the Supreme Court,” said State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, chief sponsor of the bill. “Illinois voters won’t be fooled by Erika Harold’s obtuse answers. Her anti-choice positions are clear and extreme. Prohibiting a woman from making a personal decision about her health after she’s been violently assaulted is heartless and cruel.”
- don the legend - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:04 pm:
JB and his team need to watch Kwame and how he responds.
Quickly, aggressively and not giving Harold any room.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
==even in cases of rape and incest.==
That’s about as extreme as you can get on the pro-life side of the spectrum. And it’s an abhorrent position to take.
- Just Sayin' - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:11 pm:
Wow, Erika is really evasive. #RepublicanHillary
- Nacho - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:17 pm:
I remember that Schoen piece from when it came out, and it is as out of town stupid as they come. Reading it, you’d think Pritzker and Lipinski are ideologically similar, and the implication that Pritzker hasn’t been emphasizing resistance is laughable.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:21 pm:
I give Harold a pass. My views have evolved and softened in the last 20 years.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:23 pm:
The open Supreme Court seat will make things a bit more difficult for Harold, as the vote to seat that new justice, abd Roe v. Wade as a catalyst… there might be blowback to Harold, if Raoul wants to make that case… and how angry abd motivated women and pro-choice voters are, abd how well they turnout to show their anger, in Illinois, and towards candidates like Harold.
- Nacho - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:24 pm:
The bigger issue with Harold is that she’s pretty cagey about what her current views actually are, beyond some vague notion of supporting adoption by same-sex couples which leaves a lot of wiggle room for, e.g., allowing adoption agencies to discriminate.
- Retired Educator - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:27 pm:
Painting her as an extremist will leave a mark. In a close election, that mark could grow. I agree with OW. She has put her self in a position to make certain segments of the voting public angry.
- Wondering Wendy - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:34 pm:
Retired educator……..and she will make many voters very happy……….
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:40 pm:
Who actually believes Justice Roberts would vote to uphold Obamacare but overturn 40 year precedent of Roe v Wade?
- Retired Educator - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:45 pm:
Wendy, I agree with you. I guess it will come down to which group comes out to vote.
- Tom - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:52 pm:
Illinois isn’t an extreme issues state. Suburban women will decide this race and I suspect not for Harold.
- Rabid - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:57 pm:
Pro life candidate standing on the HB40 plank of her party’s platform
- Not a defense - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:59 pm:
The difference is not just how old they were. It’s that as the Raoul campaign said, she chose child abuse.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:01 pm:
===overturn 40 year precedent===
C’mon. He voted to overturn a bunch of precedents just last week.
- Chance Mc Call - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:15 pm:
Given that Mark, always the liberal, was trying his best to do a hatchet job on her, I thought she did a pretty good job.
I know the abortion issue will be very important in people’s minds but I think, if she is elected, she will rise above her personal views and enforce whatever law is on the books. She does not appear to be an activist, nor does she seem to think that activism is a good quality in an AG.
Her opponent seems to believe, like Lisa before them, that the AG can and should push to make law, rather than simply enforcing it.
In my opinion, that is the critical difference between the two. One wants to enforce the law without prejudice, and the other wants to be guided by his prejudice to bend laws or push for new laws he likes.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:25 pm:
===always the liberal===
You might wanna ask the Pritzker campaign about that statement. lol
- TrumpsSmallHands - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:27 pm:
- Lucky Pierre
Robert’s doesn’t even need to overturn Roe. All they need to loosen the “undue burden” standard from Casey and states will be able to effectively ban abortion by eliminating all providers in their state.
I think Roberts understands the potential backlash to overturning Roe and will take the easier route thru Casey.
The logic will be that while a women still has a right to privacy / to an abortion the states are free to regulate / restrict providers of abortion as they see fit.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
==Who actually believes Justice Roberts would vote to uphold Obamacare but overturn 40 year precedent of Roe v Wade?==
He literally voted to overturn a 40 year precedent last week.
- ??? - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:56 pm:
Demoralized, it may be abhorrent to a lot of people, but if you’re truly pro-life and believe life begins at conception, it’s really the only stance you can take without being hypocritical. If you believe it’s a life, it’s a life regardless of how it was conceived.
I am pro-choice and would be horrified if there was no access to legal abortion for any reason, but I have more respect for the person who is consistent in their pro-life v view than the person who carves out exceptions for political expediency.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
I don’t think the issues decided this term are on on par with Roe vs. Wade that was last affirmed in 1992 and had Republican Justices Kennedy, Souter and O”Connor uphold the precedent.
There was a lot of sane commentary this week that cast Justice Roberts as the new swing vote. I think his opinion on Obamacare bear that out.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:54 pm:
==I don’t think the issues decided this term are on on par with Roe vs. Wade that was last affirmed in 1992 and had Republican Justices Kennedy, Souter and O”Connor uphold the precedent.==
“On par with” is meaningless, and Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy will be off the Court by the time the next abortion case is heard.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 3:19 pm:
==Justice Roberts as the new swing vote.==
Nicely illustrates the bizarre, zero-sum way conservatives view the courts. Guy votes with the liberal justices ONE time, now he’s supposedly the “swing vote”
For better or worse (depending on your views), access to abortion in many states will be over - period. Access in all states will be severely restricted, even in blue states. Don’t let republicans tell you any different on this issue. They’ve already shown they’re willing to sell out moderate and suburban constituents to get the far-right seal of approval, this abortion fight will be no different. You’ll hear a lot of things said to voters like “well it’s the law of the land” and “they won’t overturn precedent” in order to sound moderate, right up until the moment trump’s nominee is sworn in. Don’t for one moment believe it, because you’re going to be severely disappointed (or greatly overjoyed, depending).
- Real - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 4:49 pm:
I give Harold a pass. My views have evolved and softened in the last 20 years.
Yeah, when it’s time to campaign eveyones views all of a sudden evolve.
- Leslie K. - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 4:52 pm:
@TrumpsSmallHands - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:27 pm:===
Sadly, I think you are right on target. While everyone talks about Roe v. Wade, the court can simply make “incremental” changes to Casey that effectively undo Roe.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 5:42 pm:
I think the Luckybot 8000 got hit by lightning over the weekend. Roberts the swing vote? C’mon, man.
I watched the full Harold/Maxwell exchange yesterday, and while I don’t agree with some of her views, she gave as good as she got and represented herself well. Debates could be interesting.