* I posted this story earlier today as an update, but this is from WJBC…
The Republican candidate for Illinois Attorney General pledges her independence despite Gov. Bruce Rauner’s endorsement.
Visiting the McLean County Fair Friday night, Erika Harold said she has many disagreements with the Republican governor, including his signing into a law a bill expanding taxpayer support for abortions to include women on Medicaid and state employee insurance.
Sen. Kwame Raoul’s campaign told me that if Harold’s going to distance herself from Rauner on HB40, “it’s only fair that she is forthright and held accountable on just how far away she is.” But as the Raoul campaign rightly notes, she refuses to answer reporters’ questions on the topic.
So, in other words, her views don’t matter except when she’s using those views to separate herself from Gov. Rauner.
* From Bill Cameron’s show…
Cameron: Senator Raoul tries to tag you as being so pro-life, you even include incest and rape of the mother, being pro-life.
Harold: The reality is that this office is about following the law and enforcing the law regardless of your political opinions and your personal views. And I have been clear about that from day one. I understand that it’s my job to enforce the law, and that’s what people want in this state. They understand that there’s a broad spectrum of issues about which we will disagree. We are a very diverse state, but what we need is people who will follow the law, and I’ve made clear I’m committed to doing that.
Cameron: What is your position on abortion?
Harold: Everyone knows that I’m pro-life. I’ve been very clear about that. But I have been equally clear about the fact that I believe in following the law. The reality is also that HB40 includes a trigger provision that in the instance that something changed with respect to Roe v Wade, Illinois would remain a state in which abortion was legal. So focusing on these issues is really a distraction from what the Attorney General will have the power to do. And people, when I’m traveling around the state, they want an Attorney General that will be vigorous in fighting against public corruption, that will address some of the issues with workers compensation reform, and will most importantly follow the law.
Cameron: So you’re anti-abortion even on rape and incest?
Harold: I am pro-life but I will follow the law, and that’s what this is about.
Cameron: You’re dodging me on those two categories…
Harold: I’m not dodging. I’m not dodging at all because my political views and my personal views on this are very clear, and I’ve discussed them during the course of this campaign. But what people want to know is, what are you going to do with respect to the power and the position that you’re actually seeking? And it’s follow the law.
Cameron: But you’re not telling me where you are on rape and incest…
Harold: I believe I am pro-life with the exception being life of the mother. And that is something I have been very clear about, but what’s important for this issue is that I will follow the law. And the other thing that’s important is that HB40 is in place, and it doesn’t matter what the personal views of the person who holds that office is because it’s already, that was part of the point of HB40. And so for people to continue to use this issue as a way to say ‘you have to vote for someone because somehow people’s particular rights are under attack’ is completely disingenuous and is a distraction from the issues that the Attorney General will actually face.
Lots of words.
* She did the same thing with Mark Maxwell…
Maxwell: “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?”
Harold: “My views are clear. I will uphold Illinois law, and that’s what’s important for voters to know about this.”
Fair hit or not?
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:41 pm:
The correct answer is that she will follow the law. After that is not a fair hit. Are we to question all Catholic candidates on their belief? If think if a candidate states she will follow law, that is what they swear to do when take office then we have to take them at their word.
- Moe Berg - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:44 pm:
Harold was finally clear: “I believe I am pro-life with the exception being life of the mother.”
So, no exception for rape/incest. In Illinois, especially, that is a disqualifying position. Frightening, really, and radically outside the mainstream. Her assurances that she’ll enforce the law will in no way mitigate such an extreme position in the eyes of most voters.
- Skirmisher - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:46 pm:
Not a fair hit. Cameron is out of line questioning her personal views on this very personal issue. It is enough that she is firmly on the side of upholding the law. The Left today has a peculiar obsession that we all must embrace their values (or lack of values) heart and soul. That obsession has a lot to do with the depth of the widening divide between the American people.
- Annonin' - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:47 pm:
Following the law isn’t really the issue. The question is when the whack job overturn Roe v. Wade and Peter Breen and/or Ives gets a case goin’ to repeal HB40 where will Ms. Harold be? Fightin’ the repeal or …..
- Anton Cermak - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
DeGroot must be asleep at the wheel. She forgot to blame Madigan.
- My New Handle - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
Like many responses from government officials and employees, the non-answer is repeated until the questioner stops asking, in which case the non-answer becomes the answer. Easy-peasy.
- My New Handle - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:50 pm:
Also candidates who are practicing to develop non-answers.
- Cubs in '16 - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:52 pm:
===the non-answer is repeated until the questioner stops asking===
How is “I believe I am pro-life with the exception being life of the mother.” a non-answer?
- hisgirlfriday - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:54 pm:
This is a totally fair hit.
The law is often gray rather than black or white and where the attorney general comes down on an issue dictates so much of how they will protect citizens, pursue wrongdoers and defend the state.
For example, Harold’s buddy Peter Breen sued to ensure state contractors could keep discrimination going against gay couples while collect tax dollars. Lisa Madigan fought against such discrimination.Would Erika?
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 3:54 pm:
==Are we to question all Catholic candidates on their belief? ==
Yes. Same as with Methodists, Atheists, Muslims, Pentecostals and everyone in between. What makes Catholics so special that we don’t get to ask them questions?
- Concerned Dem - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:00 pm:
So according to “I will follow the law” Ms. Harold we can be expecting her strong defensive of public employee pensions coming in 3… 2… 1…
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:01 pm:
One’s views on issues like Choice is directly relevant to the Attorney General’s job. So it’s nice to say your views don’t matter and that you’ll follow the law, but frequently the AG is in a position to interpret the law and drive changes in the law through the court system. So yea, she was clearly trying to avoid answering the question so it’s an extremely fair hit.
And to this:
“How is “I believe I am pro-life with the exception being life of the mother.” a non-answer?”
It wouldn’t have been had she answered it one of the first four times she was asked. She kept trying to avoid precisely that answer.
- wordslinger - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:02 pm:
Who knew that there is fundamental agreement across the board on how laws should be interpreted and enforced?
No disagreements or wiggle room anywhere. I guess we don’t need all those judges and lawyers anymore — or an attorney general, for that matter.
- Robert the Bruce - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:07 pm:
I’m pro-choice, and I’m not seeing an issue in the clarity of her response. Health of the mother is her only exception…so her position seems quite clear to me. She also said she wouldn’t let her personal views take over, and she even explained abortion would remain legal in Illinois were Roe v Wade to be overturned. That’s a more detailed answer than I remember Rauner or Pritzker giving to just about any question.
Of course she doesn’t want to be videotaped stating her opposition to the other exceptions, but by stating her one exception, her position on this issue is clear.
Still, it is a fair hit to explain she’s out of the mainstream with her abortion views.
- Mod Dem - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:11 pm:
===Robert the Bruce=== Well said, except respectfully disagree with conclusion…The fact that she is being “hit” for having a clear position regardless of popularity is unfortunate.
- Cubs in '16 - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:12 pm:
===It wouldn’t have been had she answered it one of the first four times she was asked.===
An answer is an answer. She said she’d already discussed her views during the course of the campaign. I give her credit for answering honestly knowing she’d be criticized for her views. And once a candidate is on the record about something, are they be obligated to continue answering every time a reporter asks? Dodging is when you sprint to your waiting vehicle after giving non-answers or no answers.
- DuPage Bard - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:22 pm:
She is pro-life with exception of mother’s life. Answered, It is what it is.
However with the money given to her from Bruce he’ll have to wear that attack even though he signed HB40.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:28 pm:
Actually, it would be her job to follow the law, and not to run to court and try to change it based on her own personal beliefs.
It would also be Raoul’s job to follow the law, and not to run to court and try to change it based on his own personal beliefs.
They are both campaigning to be the chief lawyer of the State of Illinois. Harold seems to understand this, much to the frustration of the media types and others. I am assuming Raoul understands this as well, although by his behavior in pushing the how far away stuff, maybe he doesn’t.
- wordslinger - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:31 pm:
–Actually, it would be her job to follow the law, and not to run to court and try to change it based on her own personal beliefs.–
That’s a hot one coming from you, Louis.
If all lawyers and judges interpreted every law the same way you’d be out of work, wouldn’t you?
- Wensicia - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:33 pm:
It’s a fair hit if Harold believes her personal views shouldn’t matter, except in front of certain voters.
- Clarification - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:33 pm:
The AG’s job is not just to enforce the law but serve as an advocate for people too. As @hisgirl points out, the AG can choose what cases to take up. The question isn’t just whether she’d follow the law, but if she’d fight to protect it when it was under attack, because it will be. That’s why her views matter and her evasion is concerning. Fair hit.
- Demoralized - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:37 pm:
==and not to run to court and try to change it based on her own personal beliefs.==
You’re a lawyer right? Then you should know better saying something like that.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:37 pm:
===Actually, it would be her job to follow the law, and not to run to court and try to change it based on her own personal beliefs.===
Louis, she’s already said she wants a law passed to give her subpoena powers so she can investigate crimes. Asking her what other laws she supports that would impact her job as AG is fair game and it looks to me like she’s trying to hide something. Why else be so deceptive?
- TominChicago - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:38 pm:
Louis, the job of a lawyer is to argue the intercise of the law. Their views on the law itself will inform just how aggressively or passively they will enforce the law and what positions they will take on challenges to the law or to even enforce the law. The AG is completely in control of all litigation that concerns the state of Illinois. This question matters.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:38 pm:
She believes rape survivors, including incest survivors, should be forced to carry their rapist’s pregnancy to full term. That speaks to her values and it fair game for all voters to consider, including those voters she hasn’t wanted to tell.
- Skeptic - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:44 pm:
“if she’d fight to protect it when it was under attack” Seems to me if her answer had been “I follow the law even if I disagree with it” then (IMHO) all the rest of the hits would have been clearly off base. But as others have said, the job is clearly not that cut-and-dried.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:45 pm:
===If all lawyers and judges interpreted every law the same way===
Puts me in the mind of that old saying about how one lawyer in a small town will starve to death until another lawyer moves in.
- Generic Drone - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:50 pm:
Ok voters. Candidates will say anything to get elected. Surely we have learned this by now.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 4:55 pm:
The elected offices are different. As legislator, her views on abortion matter. But as an Originalist, she believes that as Attorney General, she is the enforcer of law.
Democrats blur all three branches together and happily permit politics over law. They’d never understand Harold regarding this.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:04 pm:
===But as an Originalist, she believes that as Attorney General, she is the enforcer of law.===
Lol. How do you know what label best fits her?
If Harold’s standard was the law (life of the mother), I may not have been born. There is a huge difference between life and health in this exemption, and Harold’s position is well out of the mainstream.
Originalist. You crack me up.
- Arsenal - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:11 pm:
==Louis, she’s already said she wants a law passed to give her subpoena powers so she can investigate crimes. ==
More than that, the AG has a legislative liason, clearly the GA has decided that its job includes lobbying the GA.
- wordslinger - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:12 pm:
– But as an Originalist, she believes that as Attorney General, she is the enforcer of law.–
An Originalist what? I’m pretty sure the Illinois wasn’t ever discussed or anticipated at the Philly convention.
All the duties and powers of the Illinois AG are prescribed by state statute, nothing else.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:12 pm:
If being pro life is all about protecting innocent babies, then why the life of the mother exception? The innocent baby hasn’t “sinned” yet and should be favored.
- Arsenal - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:14 pm:
It’s absolutely fair. Everyone who runs for any public office has to be prepared to answer for any public issue. County board members get asked if they’re pro-choice or pro-life. Because voters don’t care about the minutiae of federalism and separation of powers. They trust their elected officials to handle that. They just want to know what those officials value. And the abortion question tells you a lot about that.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:14 pm:
It’s not outside anything.
A sizeable percentage of voters share similar views to hers.
You just don’t wamt your widdle world rocked.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:15 pm:
Is it unfair? Probably.
Is it important? Definitely.
It’s important to understand where the AG stands on issues where the politics and governing collide, and while the position of AG is well-defined by the constitution and statutes, nothing is plainly black and white, as many pointed out, which is why lawyers and judges and courts exist.
Unfair? Probably. But a necessity all the same.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:23 pm:
Such a non issue, Illinois attorney General will not be a major player in any abortion issues.. She is however the best candidate by far on the balllot this year for almost any office.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:25 pm:
==Louis, she’s already said she wants a law passed to give her subpoena powers so she can investigate crimes. ==
Proof that she will follow the law? Appears that way.
Lawyers can be forced to argue positions that may violate their personal beliefs. It’s part of the job at times.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:29 pm:
===Proof that she will follow the law?===
Lol, no. Proof that she thinks the law should be “improved.”
In other words, you know, an “originalist.”
- Mama - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:40 pm:
I’m impressed with Sen. Kwame Raoul’s response.
- Mama - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 5:53 pm:
The Attorney General should follow the law, and be independent of the governor’s wishes on the laws.
- DarkHorse - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 6:31 pm:
It’s a totally fair hit, because - in an environment where Roe may be substantially narrowed by the Supreme Court - voters should know if their state AG is basically pro-life or basically pro-choice. Harold is clear, but could be more succinct. When she uses 100 words to say what could be said in 25, it sounds like she’s being evasive.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 6:33 pm:
Lawyers can be forced to argue positions that may violate their personal beliefs. It’s part of the job at times.
But not the AG. No one can tell that official what position to take in any litigation.
- justacitizen - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 9:01 pm:
Good for her. She expressed her personal belief. Too bad for our society that things like partial birth abortion are acceptable.
- Cailleach - Monday, Aug 6, 18 @ 9:02 pm:
Was anyone else struck by how many times she said her views had already been made clear? Obviously her previous statements hadn’t made her views clear. The interviewer asked several times as she evaded and prevaricated.
- anon324 - Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 8:02 am:
Absolutely a fair hit given the number of GOP Attorneys General across the country who use their personal beliefs in their interpretation of what the law requires. And yes, I’m aware Dems do this too; but the most high profile instances are social issues where the GOP refuses to “accept defeat” because their personal beliefs don’t jive with the legal rulings.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 8:29 am:
==It’s important to understand where the AG stands on issues where the politics and governing collide, and while the position of AG is well-defined by the constitution and statutes, nothing is plainly black and white, as many pointed out, which is why lawyers and judges and courts exist.==
Nice.
Now, what Harold is doing is answering those issues, but it seems that few blogging here can think outside the Democratic box long enough to accept her answers.
As sadly, so do you.
For sixty years, we’ve been seeing legal office holders blithely mixing their politics and legal opinions to such an extent that we no longer even imagine someone like Ives or Harold upholding laws they don’t agree with 100%. That’s sad.
Everything is political in a word without legal foundations. We should be a country of laws, not men and their politics. It is time to draw a line.
Harold is pro-life in a state permitting abortions legally. She is running for an office that upholds the law. She said she”d uphold it.
So her political position is a moot point. She said that it is.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 8:39 am:
As a conservative, I’ve had to have some faith over the last 12 years with a liberal Democrat daughter of the House Speaker as AG.
I’ve been able to separate her duties from her ridiculous politics, and have. She’s been a pretty good AG.
Why on Earth can’t you guys do the same? What’s your problem?
If we cannot separate our politics from our duties in office, than perhaps we shouldn’t have the AG as an elected official.
- Ike - Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 9:42 am:
Vanillaman - because it applies person to person. You can’t say that every elected person will separate their beliefs from their duties respective of their office.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 9:50 am:
===Now, what Harold is doing is answering those issues, but it seems that few blogging here can think outside the Democratic box long enough to accept her answers.
As sadly, so do you.===
lol
Give me a break.
===Is it unfair? Probably.
Is it important? Definitely.===
It’s important to context to herself and her candidacy.
Is it fair? Probably not. It is fair to understand who she is and as the state’s lawyer, and within the parameters of both the constitution and statutory duties, knowing positions now allows a holding to the belief she, if she were to win, will uphold the law(s), even the ones she may disagree.
It’s important, and it’s probably unfair.
Get over yourself and your interpretations to my meanings… and read what I write, exactly as I write it.
- DarkHorse - Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:09 am:
I’m less focused on the fairness of the hit than her less than crisp answer to a question she knew would come up when she announced a year ago. Is her campaign ready for prime time?