…Adding… This Richard Irvin press release was sent out before the new TV ad was available, but the Irvin campaign did appear to know last night the general topic of the new spot…
JB Pritzker is running scared.
After releasing child killers from prison and signing the worst crime bill in America that puts criminals into our communities, he’s now hiding behind the Democratic Governors Association to meddle in the Illinois Republican Party Primary for Governor — airing a smear campaign against Richard Irvin and his strong record as a combat veteran, former prosecutor, and successful crime-fighting mayor of Illinois’ second largest city.
“For months, I’ve told voters that Pritzker was desperate and would do anything to win,” Irvin said. “Now, Pritzker is trying to hijack the Republican primary because he can’t run from the facts: crime is out of control, tax hikes continue, and corruption lives on in state government under Pritzker’s reign.”
Pritzker and his allies know he’s weak after he proudly and publicly turned his back on law enforcement and crime victims during his tenure as governor. He signed one of the most dangerous anti-police laws in our state’s history - a law that prioritizes criminals over communities throughout Illinois. His own Prisoner Review Board allowed the early release of cop killers, child murderers, and other dangerous criminals.
Richard Irvin’s record as a decorated combat veteran, a tough on crime prosecutor and a proven mayor has forced Democrats to intervene in the primary because Irvin is their worst nightmare.
* Politico has Irvin’s career timeline mixed up (he became a defense attorney in private practice after, not before, he was a prosecutor), but here’s some of the piece…
The goal is to rev up Republicans to vote for Darren Bailey, or maybe any of the other GOP candidates, over Irvin.
There’s nothing Republicans hate more than a candidate who’s not tough enough on crime, or conservative enough on social issues — at least that’s what the DGA and Gov. JB Pritzker’s campaign are hoping. […]
In the meantime, isn’t it interesting that Pritzker donated $250,000 to the DGA in December? His campaign told Playbook not to read too much into that. The governor donates to Democratic caucus and candidates regularly, after all. “How the DGA uses their money is up to them,” said a spokesperson.
This isn’t the first time the DGA has meddled in an Illinois Republican primary. Four years ago, it launched ads calling former state Rep. Jeanne Ives “too conservative” for the state, which was a boost to her campaign during the primary contest against Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.
The tactic didn’t work. Rauner edged out Ives in the primary.
Richard Irvin’s real record on crime? For 15 years, Irvin has been a defense lawyer, profiting by defending some of the most violent and heinous criminals. Domestic abusers and sexual assaults. Kidnapper who molested a child. Reckless homicide. Even accused child pornographers. Irvin has been getting rich by putting violent criminals back on our streets. Tell Richard Irvin to stop pretending to be tough on crime and start supporting policies to keep people safe.
* It’s more than this, I think, but here you go…
Democratic Governors Association (DGA) just placed their first broadcast buy for 2022. So far we've seen $360k placed for #ILGov. Ads are set to begin airing tomorrow.
Richard Irvin’s real record shows he is anything but ‘tough on crime’. For 15 years, Irvin made money by getting violent criminals off the hook and back on the street. Illinoisans deserve to know who the real Richard Irvin is. Irvin needs to stop pretending to be tough on crime and actually support the policies that will keep people safe.
79 Comments
- ThanosSnapJudgement - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:48 am:
I understand the strategy they were using, but in a democracy isn’t every person entitled to legal representation, even the worst offenders?
they would have kept this in their back pocket unless they didn’t see irvin as a legitimate threat. it’s not like irvin needs help raising his name recognition ala claire mccaskill’s ads “against” todd akin. just gives me pause. thus, a C…
B-A little bland, but hits the Willie Horton points.
You want to run a law and order campaign after being a defense attorney, prepare for more of the same.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:57 am:
Waiting now for the DGA commercials for all the other GOP candidates.
Bailey’s should be fun.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:57 am:
Oops forgot to rate the ad. Meh
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:58 am:
C
Not great, not terrible.
== isn’t every person entitled ==
This phrase is the only hope the Irvin campaign has to defuse this. It’s a meaningless strawman though. Nobody is questioning the constitutional right of a defendants right to legal representation.
Richard Irvin isn’t entitled to be a defense attorney, or to any specific clients. He chose to do that all by himself, and yes he chose those clients too.
If the right to representation is so important, as this claim implies, then the follow-up question needs to be asked and answered - “why does Irvin no longer want to perform these critically important constitutional duties”? Not to mention the next question on the outcome of ALL of his cases. I’m sure there is a case he chose, where the defendant was found guilty.
The romantic in me wanted a Bailey positive ad. There’s something tasty to raising up whom you’d like to face.
To that, the realist knows this;
If you ask me who of the 5 is the most challenging to Pritzker, only someone dishonest wouldn’t admit Irvin is the biggest challenge, and the monies available to Irvin make the other 4 look like they are running for “village trustee” not governor of the 6th largest state. So I think we can dispense with this “fear” aspect if you look at the field, with honest eyes and realist knowledge of things including money.
Rate?
It’s a C+
It sets a table. It’s not a game changer or a flipping of a script kind of ad against Irvin. It allows a discussion to Irvin’s legal background, it allows crime to have a prong to Irvin too… but… it’s not making hay in a sense of changing impressions or minds, just yet.
I “liked” it, it works, sure… but a C+ isn’t making me look at it like something other than an appetizer or table setting for a later discussion.
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:04 am:
I mean, if you’re going to run ads saying how tough on crime you are, I think people are entitled to know that you’re willing to look the other way when the criminals pay you…just sayin. B
Pritzker’s learned from the Fair Tax debacle. He’s going to get the oppo out there early and often to disrupt the false definition of who Richard Irvin is being perpetrated by Ken Griffin.
There are many thing you can hit Irvin on: not a real Republican, Rauner reboot, hypocrital positions on issues. But they chose crime as the issue. Timely use of child pornographers I guess.
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:14 am:
== I mean, if you’re going to run ads saying how tough on crime you are, I think people are entitled to know that you’re willing to look the other way when the criminals pay you…just sayin. B ==
One doesn’t equate with the other. And anybody that studied the US system of government in grade school civics can recognize the difference. This is really problematic and JB needs to disavow it immediately.
== And anybody that studied the US system of government in grade school civics can recognize the difference. ==
I went to law school. One of the first things my 1L professor told me was, “everyone is entitled to a legal defense. No one is entitled to you.”
Irvin made a choice to leave a prosecutor’s office to become a private sector criminal defense attorney. Choices have consequences, and in this case, that consequence is merely that he doesn’t get to pretend to be Tuff On Crime ™. As far as consequences go, that’s pretty light.
== So, attorneys should only work for the prosecution or people they believe are innocent?==
You guys sure are getting mad at the guys you made up this morning.
Irvin chose to be a criminal defense attorney, just like he chose to support the criminal Justice reform bill. That’s fine. I even agree with him on the second one. But now he’s turned around is lying to our faces about how he’s all Tuff On Crime ™. Pointing that out doesn’t implicate a Constitutional principle.
B- it hits hard but also transparent and a risk. What if Irvin comes back with real people that were proved innocent, falsely accused.
He’s then covered both ends tough, fair and stands up for those who can’t. That would be one heck of an ad.
I would rate it a B-. For whatever reason Irvin has chosen to run on a phony narrative that isn’t in keeping with who he his. There’s nothing wrong with being a criminal defense attorney as many others have noted it. Nor is there anything wrong with living in Section 8 housing, mitigating Covid, or supporting black lives matter. It’s candidate Richard Irvin who made the decision to rewrite his narrative. And there’s nothing wrong with the DGA highlighting it.
If Richard Irvin wants to tout his record putting “criminal thugs behind bars,” a record which spans a grand total of 5 years, then it is only fair to examine shine a light on his history of keeping “criminal thugs” out of prison.
To the argument everyone gets fair representation; indeed they do. That’s why we have public defenders. It’s few and far between a private defense attorney is in their line of work to protect the rights of their clients, which is apparent when the bill comes.
Forgot a rating: C. If the Dems want to scare off R voters from voting for the only plausibly competitive general election candidate in the R primary, they can go a whole heck of a lot harder.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:38 am:
== What if Irvin comes back with real people that were proved innocent ==
If he engages on this line of reasoning, he better hope he has a 100% acquittal rate. All it takes is one of his clients being found guilty - just one. His innocent clients aren’t running for office - he is with his full record.
Terrible ad C- at best. vilifying Irvin’s job as a defense attorney will likely backfire on the DGA. There position is if you believe in a fair judicial process you support criminals. Good to know - hope the trial attorneys lobby takes note.
Irvin made a decision to make his campaign about crime. He didn’t have to do that. He didn’t have to say the things he said, the way he said them. He made that choice and now he lives with it and in that context, and as a Democrat, I have no problem with the ad. In fact, I’d be pissed if the DGA or Pritzker didn’t go this route - too often Democrats fail to go for the win (as the GOP always does) bc we think we get points for sticking to some set of rules of engagement that the GOP doesn’t even acknowledge.
And for the GOP primary, this ad is an A. And a big problem for Irvin. And that’s all Irvin’s fault - he decided to run on a very disingenuous crime message as a Republican. He doesn’t get to now fall back on a Democrat’s view of criminal justice to cry foul. You chose your message and your electorate, bud. Spare me the sobs.
“comes back with real people that were proved innocent”
Gonna take a lot more than 20 mill to drown our sex abusers and child pornographers.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:48 am:
== vilifying Irvin’s job as a defense attorney ==
You can tell how good this ad is, by the pushback here on things that aren’t even in the ad.
Can someone point me to the timestamp where the profession of defense attorneys is being vilified. No matter how many times I watch the ad, I can’t find that happening.
I do however, see an ad that contrasts Irvin’s public statements during his campaign for office, with his actions in private practice.
perhaps I should move my rating up to a B, based on the way the ad is already being reacted to.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:49 am:
== Gonna take a lot more than 20 mill ==
You’d need the resources of an entire diocese to do that.
If this were a GOP ad against a Dem it would be called racist. Dark message, dark visual with one particularly downtrodden photo of Irvin. It would be called racist. Lots of hypocrisy in this business
- One Trick Pony - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:52 am:
I say it’s about a B-. Its bland and not all that catchy. But JB, just like when he ran last time, is going to match these guys dollar for dollar with adds and this is targeted to try and take away one of their cards they are playing about crime. It makes it more difficult for Irvin to say he’s tough on crime when he defended some really bad people who turned out to be criminals.
The negative societal effects of the Democrats embracing the “we need to support the police and be tough on crime” are impossible to overstate.
In terms of it’s ability to help JBP beat RI, I’ll give it an A-. I think it’s over the top and gross, but I think the folks over at FNC, might disagree.
In terms of what it says about the ability of JBP and the Dems of offering a sane, healthy alternative to GOP fearmongering… F.
If this were another Republican Candidate criticizing Irving, it might make more sense. I do not like mean-spirited attack ads, but I know why they exist.
But it is not a Republican ad. This is the Democratic Governors Association, attacking a Republican in order to influence the Republican Primary. I actually think it will influence some Republican voters, but probably not a lot more than expected. So in the context of effectiveness, I would grade this a C at best.
But as a Democratic ad, I would grade this as a D or lower, because it demeans democratic principles, and makes us look mean-spirited. I am sure this will eventually come back to work against the Pritzker Campaign in the Fall, making him look “just as bad as the Republicans,” and thereby discouraging Independent voters.
“If this were a GOP ad against a Dem it would be called racist.”
Prolly. Welcome to the tickle fight known as politics.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:59 am:
I don’t care for these other party flank attacks, but we experienced something with the last governor in Illinois that nobody, no Republican or Democrat, should allow to happen again. Irvin has taken millions from one of the architects of that. I don’t feel sorry for Irvin or others who ally themselves with that, thus this is a valid attack ad.
Bailey does not have the financial wherewithal to do that kind of damage, to buy off that many Republicans, so obviously there is less concern that another sabotage could happen.
B rating (points taken off because of distaste for meddling)
The right got betrayed by Rauner on abortion. Irvin was a liberal and BLM supporter recently, and was a defense attorney, defending those he is demonizing now to excite the GOP base. He is obviously remaking himself. Someone like that can’t really be trusted. It’s why many like Trump, he “tells it like it is” and is basically the same person as when he started his candidacy.
==If the Dems want to scare off R voters from voting for the only plausibly competitive general election candidate in the R primary, they can go a whole heck of a lot harder.==
I would suggest that that is not the only goal of this ad. Sure, it’s about meddling, but this is a message that would also be effective in the General Election. It’s defining Irvin early.
==vilifying Irvin’s job as a defense attorney will likely backfire on the DGA.==
I would argue that the ad doesn’t vilify any profession, it just points out that Irvin has been lying about his record.
That being said, let me tell you, as a lawyer, the next time “vilifying” *any* of us backfires, it’ll be the first. And criminal defense attorneys, in particular, have long had just an absolutely abysmal reputation among the GP.
I understand that you really like Irvin, but I just don’t see any evidence that criticizing criminal defense attorneys carries any real risk.
Absent any public polls recently, the fact this is a direct hit on Irvin should tell you roughly where things stand in the GOP primary…
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:07 am:
@Arsenal
It is an ethical and professional norm within the defense bar that criminal defense attorneys should not turn down clients because they are unpopular, and defense practice is a more noble pursuit than any elected office. It is abhorrent to suggest that former defense attorneys are somehow disqualified from public life. They are just as entitled to espouse a ‘tough-on-crime’ law enforcement philosophy as anybody else. Heck, most of them do.
- Paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:08 am:
“comes back with real people that were proved innocent”
I’ve been an attorney for 30 years - first as a prosecutor and then as a defense attorney. In all honesty, I don’t think I have ever represented someone who wasn’t guilty. Some of them were over-charged or maybe shouldn’t have been charged at all, but every last one of them was guilty.
I chose the job and I was paid to do it and they all deserved a defense and the vast, vast majority of them I was happy to help through a difficult time. I guess what I am saying is, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for Irvin’s clients to have been proven innocent.
==Absent any public polls recently, the fact this is a direct hit on Irvin should tell you roughly where things stand in the GOP primary… ==
Not necessarily. It just tells you that Irvin is the one Dems want to face the least- which I think we all already knew, if only because he’ll have the most money. I think that even if Bailey had huge lead, Pritzker’s team would keep their hands off of him, for example.
I would add - the problem for Irvin here is that the defense he would use if this ad were running in a general - “every one deserves a good legal defense” - doesn’t work with GOP primary voters. They don’t believe that - as we’ve seen in the public debate the last few weeks. So strategically what I like about this play from the DGA is it puts Irvin in tough spot to respond. Again - he picked the audience and the message so I have no moral qualms about the predicament he finds himself in.
== the defense he would use if this ad were running in a general - “every one deserves a good legal defense” - doesn’t work with GOP primary voters==
I would suggest that not nearly enough general election voters believe that, either.
Most people are simply never going to face criminal prosecution, so they don’t care too much about the rights of the accused.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:26 am:
== You really believe that? ==
In this context, it’s an undeniable fact.
Perhaps this will help;
If a slaughterhouse owner suddenly decided to make a run for a high up position within PETA, would discussing the previous profession *in the context* of the actions and words of what the person wants to do next criticizing slaughterhouse owners?
I’d say it is not, instead it is people trying to understand why two opposing points are trying to be held by the same person at the same time.
It’s reasonable for people who support PETA to want to know why this person wants to now be involved in and speak for the organization. But what it doesn’t do is suddenly cast slaughterhouse owners as if they are some illegal or unconstitutional RICO-classified organization.
- Springfieldish - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:29 am:
“but in a democracy isn’t every person entitled to legal representation, even the worst offenders?”
== I went to law school. One of the first things my 1L professor told me was, “everyone is entitled to a legal defense. No one is entitled to you.” ==
That’s true but if you want to practice law in Aurora there isn’t enough real estate closings to go around to keep everyone busy.
I have lived here for over half my life now, raised my kids here, I am going to say if you are going to practice law here odds are you are going to be doing some criminal law.
I would say, the buy kind of validates the whole “I am their worst fear” thing.
==That’s true but if you want to practice law in Aurora there isn’t enough real estate closings to go around to keep everyone busy.==
He was already employed as a prosecutor. He left to hang out his own shingle, focusing very heavily on criminal defense. The undisputed facts of his career do not support the idea that he was “forced” to practice criminal defense.
=I would say, the buy kind of validates the whole “I am their worst fear” thing.=
I think it validates that Irvin is the best the ILGOP has to offer but clearly has his own challenges. Instead of acknowledging who he is he’s decided to run a phony narrative derived by Ken Griffin’s team. We’ve seen this before. It’s usually followed by costumes and a beat up van.
== In all honesty, I don’t think I have ever represented someone who wasn’t guilty.==
Another thing I was told early in law school is Dershowitz’ First Rule of Criminal Justice: Everyone involved in criminal justice firmly believes that 99% of criminal defendants are guilty.
You are on point, from my perspective. This is why I think it could be used in the General to suggest Democrats are insincere. I do not like this ad at all.
@Sue 8:29 Amen. The sole democratic candidate cannot hide from the DGA ad buy, claiming ignorance. This makes him look petty, and mean-spirited.
If this is the best the DGA has, it’s being run too early. Voters in general don’t tune in until 6 weeks or less before an election. Primary voters may be more in tune, but don’t get moved much by attack ads. Would have been more effective if ran in late May on. Running now tells me the D’s are more worried about Irwin … which plays right in to Irwin’s ad about being afraid of him.
== Richard Irvin’s record as a decorated combat veteran,==
There you go again, Irvin campaign. A scud missile flew over hos head in Kuwait; he gets a medal awarded to everyone in that 1990-91 conflict, and all of a sudden he’s a “decorated combat veteran”.
I mean, if Irvin’s shop really wanted to pander to the Tea Partiers, he could compare himself to John Adams, who defended the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre.
- NorthsideNoMore - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:10 am:
This is just the beginning of these kinds of ads. DGA will be heavily funded by JB and will keep up the drip drip drip of ads against Irvin. He is the one person they don’t want in the fall, so wailing away at him now makes November a lot easier if he doesn’t get through the primary.
===He (Irvin) is the one person they don’t want in the fall, so wailing away at him now makes November a lot easier if he doesn’t get through the primary===
The reality is, it’s not that Irvin is all that strong or a strong candidate… it’s that $20 million now and tens of millions Irvin will have makes Irvin tougher.
The other 4 combined aren’t in any league with Irvin when talking resources, infrastructure, talent, or opportunities.
It’s not that it’s a “fear”, but Irvin is telling angry, rural, white voters to vote for him to “own the libs” which is a weird ask when making yourself a meme.
The other 4 don’t scare Pritzker.
The other 4 scare the GOP if any of the 4 become the nominee.
==The reality is, it’s not that Irvin is all that strong or a strong candidate…==
I mean, he might be. I haven’t been too impressed so far, but campaigns are long, he has time to mature. But yeah, he’s definitely the one Pritzker wants to face the least, so he’s defining him early. Every campaign does that if they have the means to.
=He is the one person they don’t want in the fall=
Whether or not Pritzker wants or doesn’t want Irvin in the fall is debatable. But given the financial backing that Irvin has, and the fact that his closest competition is begging for $15 to get his bus back on the road, starting early doesn’t hurt. And Irvin has put himself in a bit of a trick bag. What works in the primary likely doesn’t work in the general and vice versa. Pritzker and the DGA would be fools not to exploit that.
If being a defense attorney disqualifies you from high office, there ought to be a lot of no votes on Ketanji Jackson’s nomination. Indeed, Durbin will presumably hold the nomination in committee.
=If being a defense attorney disqualifies you from high office=
Who said that? The issue with Irvin is that he wants to portray himself as a tough on crime prosecutor while ignoring his experience as a criminal defense attorney. A candidates inconsistencies and contradictions are always fair game.
- don the legend - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 11:29 am:
==’22 total spending so far:
RGA: $34M
DGA: $363K==
Putting prosecutors to their proof to ensure that only guilty people are convicted is hardly being soft on crime. Being tough is not inconsistent with being smart and doing the job you have at each time in your life,
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 12:27 pm:
@pundent
=Who said that?=
The DGA said it. And apparently JB approves of this garbage.
=== The DGA said it. And apparently JB approves of this garbage.===
Take a breath, it wasn’t the trade of defense attorney, it is about the clients one as a defense attorney may take.
Example?
Take cases, but none that a client is accused of hurting a child?
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 1:35 pm:
@Oswego Willy
See ABA Defense Function Standard 4-2.1(c):
“Qualified defense counsel should be willing and ready to undertake the defense of a suspect or an accused regardless of public hostility or personal distaste for the offense or the client.”
==“Qualified defense counsel should be willing and ready to undertake the defense of a suspect or an accused regardless of public hostility or personal distaste for the offense or the client.”==
It’s a long way from that to actively recruiting domestic violence cases on your firm’s website, and letting potential clients know that if the alleged victim doesn’t show up in court, the case can’t proceed. That’s what’s going to get pounded in the ads in summer and fall should Griffin’s money make it through the primary, and Irvin pivots to start courting white suburban moms.
The strawman arguments from people like DougChicago are really getting old. Richard Irvin should consistently be called out for his blatant pandering and hypocrisy. He (or his handlers) are the ones who made the choice to act like he’s been a prosecutor for 20 years instead of only 5 & then choosing to be a criminal defense for 15. He is the only one who is seemingly embarrassed about his career choice. Maybe he should be called out for that.
That being said, I don’t know if this is the best approach for the DGA to take. I’d like a more pandering politician/hypocrite tact. Call out what he does without making it about being a criminal defense attorney. There’s plenty examples of saying 1 thing then & saying another thing now that could be used against him. But if the GOP candidates can’t fully educate the electorate about the other candidates maybe the GOP should be thanking the DGA for doing their job for them. /s
- ThanosSnapJudgement - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:48 am:
I understand the strategy they were using, but in a democracy isn’t every person entitled to legal representation, even the worst offenders?
- bored now - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:49 am:
they would have kept this in their back pocket unless they didn’t see irvin as a legitimate threat. it’s not like irvin needs help raising his name recognition ala claire mccaskill’s ads “against” todd akin. just gives me pause. thus, a C…
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:55 am:
B-A little bland, but hits the Willie Horton points.
You want to run a law and order campaign after being a defense attorney, prepare for more of the same.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:57 am:
Waiting now for the DGA commercials for all the other GOP candidates.
Bailey’s should be fun.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:57 am:
Oops forgot to rate the ad. Meh
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:58 am:
C
Not great, not terrible.
== isn’t every person entitled ==
This phrase is the only hope the Irvin campaign has to defuse this. It’s a meaningless strawman though. Nobody is questioning the constitutional right of a defendants right to legal representation.
Richard Irvin isn’t entitled to be a defense attorney, or to any specific clients. He chose to do that all by himself, and yes he chose those clients too.
If the right to representation is so important, as this claim implies, then the follow-up question needs to be asked and answered - “why does Irvin no longer want to perform these critically important constitutional duties”? Not to mention the next question on the outcome of ALL of his cases. I’m sure there is a case he chose, where the defendant was found guilty.
See how quickly this excuse unfolds?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 6:59 am:
The romantic in me wanted a Bailey positive ad. There’s something tasty to raising up whom you’d like to face.
To that, the realist knows this;
If you ask me who of the 5 is the most challenging to Pritzker, only someone dishonest wouldn’t admit Irvin is the biggest challenge, and the monies available to Irvin make the other 4 look like they are running for “village trustee” not governor of the 6th largest state. So I think we can dispense with this “fear” aspect if you look at the field, with honest eyes and realist knowledge of things including money.
Rate?
It’s a C+
It sets a table. It’s not a game changer or a flipping of a script kind of ad against Irvin. It allows a discussion to Irvin’s legal background, it allows crime to have a prong to Irvin too… but… it’s not making hay in a sense of changing impressions or minds, just yet.
I “liked” it, it works, sure… but a C+ isn’t making me look at it like something other than an appetizer or table setting for a later discussion.
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:04 am:
This advertisement is unamerican.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:07 am:
I mean, if you’re going to run ads saying how tough on crime you are, I think people are entitled to know that you’re willing to look the other way when the criminals pay you…just sayin. B
- Rabid - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:07 am:
A ken griffin nightmare, truth hurts
- Back to the Future - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:07 am:
F
As a Democrat I find this Pritzker approach to campaigning embarrassing.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:12 am:
Pritzker’s learned from the Fair Tax debacle. He’s going to get the oppo out there early and often to disrupt the false definition of who Richard Irvin is being perpetrated by Ken Griffin.
- Henry Francis - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:12 am:
There are many thing you can hit Irvin on: not a real Republican, Rauner reboot, hypocrital positions on issues. But they chose crime as the issue. Timely use of child pornographers I guess.
- lowdrag - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:13 am:
With the current state of affairs regarding crime i find the ad a little ironic
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:14 am:
===As a Democrat===
Aren’t you supporting Sullivan?
:)
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:14 am:
== I mean, if you’re going to run ads saying how tough on crime you are, I think people are entitled to know that you’re willing to look the other way when the criminals pay you…just sayin. B ==
One doesn’t equate with the other. And anybody that studied the US system of government in grade school civics can recognize the difference. This is really problematic and JB needs to disavow it immediately.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:19 am:
== And anybody that studied the US system of government in grade school civics can recognize the difference. ==
I went to law school. One of the first things my 1L professor told me was, “everyone is entitled to a legal defense. No one is entitled to you.”
Irvin made a choice to leave a prosecutor’s office to become a private sector criminal defense attorney. Choices have consequences, and in this case, that consequence is merely that he doesn’t get to pretend to be Tuff On Crime ™. As far as consequences go, that’s pretty light.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:22 am:
== So, attorneys should only work for the prosecution or people they believe are innocent?==
You guys sure are getting mad at the guys you made up this morning.
Irvin chose to be a criminal defense attorney, just like he chose to support the criminal Justice reform bill. That’s fine. I even agree with him on the second one. But now he’s turned around is lying to our faces about how he’s all Tuff On Crime ™. Pointing that out doesn’t implicate a Constitutional principle.
- Justntime - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:27 am:
B- it hits hard but also transparent and a risk. What if Irvin comes back with real people that were proved innocent, falsely accused.
He’s then covered both ends tough, fair and stands up for those who can’t. That would be one heck of an ad.
- Real - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:27 am:
Ken Dunkin 2.0 so easy to sell his soul but he will surely have to answer for it.
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:29 am:
I would rate it a B-. For whatever reason Irvin has chosen to run on a phony narrative that isn’t in keeping with who he his. There’s nothing wrong with being a criminal defense attorney as many others have noted it. Nor is there anything wrong with living in Section 8 housing, mitigating Covid, or supporting black lives matter. It’s candidate Richard Irvin who made the decision to rewrite his narrative. And there’s nothing wrong with the DGA highlighting it.
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:35 am:
If Richard Irvin wants to tout his record putting “criminal thugs behind bars,” a record which spans a grand total of 5 years, then it is only fair to examine shine a light on his history of keeping “criminal thugs” out of prison.
To the argument everyone gets fair representation; indeed they do. That’s why we have public defenders. It’s few and far between a private defense attorney is in their line of work to protect the rights of their clients, which is apparent when the bill comes.
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:36 am:
Forgot a rating: C. If the Dems want to scare off R voters from voting for the only plausibly competitive general election candidate in the R primary, they can go a whole heck of a lot harder.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:38 am:
== What if Irvin comes back with real people that were proved innocent ==
If he engages on this line of reasoning, he better hope he has a 100% acquittal rate. All it takes is one of his clients being found guilty - just one. His innocent clients aren’t running for office - he is with his full record.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:40 am:
Terrible ad C- at best. vilifying Irvin’s job as a defense attorney will likely backfire on the DGA. There position is if you believe in a fair judicial process you support criminals. Good to know - hope the trial attorneys lobby takes note.
- Anchors Away - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:41 am:
Irvin made a decision to make his campaign about crime. He didn’t have to do that. He didn’t have to say the things he said, the way he said them. He made that choice and now he lives with it and in that context, and as a Democrat, I have no problem with the ad. In fact, I’d be pissed if the DGA or Pritzker didn’t go this route - too often Democrats fail to go for the win (as the GOP always does) bc we think we get points for sticking to some set of rules of engagement that the GOP doesn’t even acknowledge.
And for the GOP primary, this ad is an A. And a big problem for Irvin. And that’s all Irvin’s fault - he decided to run on a very disingenuous crime message as a Republican. He doesn’t get to now fall back on a Democrat’s view of criminal justice to cry foul. You chose your message and your electorate, bud. Spare me the sobs.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:44 am:
“comes back with real people that were proved innocent”
Gonna take a lot more than 20 mill to drown our sex abusers and child pornographers.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:48 am:
== vilifying Irvin’s job as a defense attorney ==
You can tell how good this ad is, by the pushback here on things that aren’t even in the ad.
Can someone point me to the timestamp where the profession of defense attorneys is being vilified. No matter how many times I watch the ad, I can’t find that happening.
I do however, see an ad that contrasts Irvin’s public statements during his campaign for office, with his actions in private practice.
perhaps I should move my rating up to a B, based on the way the ad is already being reacted to.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:49 am:
== Gonna take a lot more than 20 mill ==
You’d need the resources of an entire diocese to do that.
…I’ll show myself out.
- Hmmm - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:50 am:
If this were a GOP ad against a Dem it would be called racist. Dark message, dark visual with one particularly downtrodden photo of Irvin. It would be called racist. Lots of hypocrisy in this business
- One Trick Pony - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:52 am:
I say it’s about a B-. Its bland and not all that catchy. But JB, just like when he ran last time, is going to match these guys dollar for dollar with adds and this is targeted to try and take away one of their cards they are playing about crime. It makes it more difficult for Irvin to say he’s tough on crime when he defended some really bad people who turned out to be criminals.
- SWSider - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:55 am:
The negative societal effects of the Democrats embracing the “we need to support the police and be tough on crime” are impossible to overstate.
In terms of it’s ability to help JBP beat RI, I’ll give it an A-. I think it’s over the top and gross, but I think the folks over at FNC, might disagree.
In terms of what it says about the ability of JBP and the Dems of offering a sane, healthy alternative to GOP fearmongering… F.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:55 am:
TheInvisibleMan-
Doff my cap, sir.
- H-W - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:58 am:
If this were another Republican Candidate criticizing Irving, it might make more sense. I do not like mean-spirited attack ads, but I know why they exist.
But it is not a Republican ad. This is the Democratic Governors Association, attacking a Republican in order to influence the Republican Primary. I actually think it will influence some Republican voters, but probably not a lot more than expected. So in the context of effectiveness, I would grade this a C at best.
But as a Democratic ad, I would grade this as a D or lower, because it demeans democratic principles, and makes us look mean-spirited. I am sure this will eventually come back to work against the Pritzker Campaign in the Fall, making him look “just as bad as the Republicans,” and thereby discouraging Independent voters.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:58 am:
“If this were a GOP ad against a Dem it would be called racist.”
Prolly. Welcome to the tickle fight known as politics.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 7:59 am:
I don’t care for these other party flank attacks, but we experienced something with the last governor in Illinois that nobody, no Republican or Democrat, should allow to happen again. Irvin has taken millions from one of the architects of that. I don’t feel sorry for Irvin or others who ally themselves with that, thus this is a valid attack ad.
Bailey does not have the financial wherewithal to do that kind of damage, to buy off that many Republicans, so obviously there is less concern that another sabotage could happen.
B rating (points taken off because of distaste for meddling)
The right got betrayed by Rauner on abortion. Irvin was a liberal and BLM supporter recently, and was a defense attorney, defending those he is demonizing now to excite the GOP base. He is obviously remaking himself. Someone like that can’t really be trusted. It’s why many like Trump, he “tells it like it is” and is basically the same person as when he started his candidacy.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:01 am:
==If the Dems want to scare off R voters from voting for the only plausibly competitive general election candidate in the R primary, they can go a whole heck of a lot harder.==
I would suggest that that is not the only goal of this ad. Sure, it’s about meddling, but this is a message that would also be effective in the General Election. It’s defining Irvin early.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:05 am:
==vilifying Irvin’s job as a defense attorney will likely backfire on the DGA.==
I would argue that the ad doesn’t vilify any profession, it just points out that Irvin has been lying about his record.
That being said, let me tell you, as a lawyer, the next time “vilifying” *any* of us backfires, it’ll be the first. And criminal defense attorneys, in particular, have long had just an absolutely abysmal reputation among the GP.
I understand that you really like Irvin, but I just don’t see any evidence that criticizing criminal defense attorneys carries any real risk.
- Hahaha - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:06 am:
Absent any public polls recently, the fact this is a direct hit on Irvin should tell you roughly where things stand in the GOP primary…
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:07 am:
@Arsenal
It is an ethical and professional norm within the defense bar that criminal defense attorneys should not turn down clients because they are unpopular, and defense practice is a more noble pursuit than any elected office. It is abhorrent to suggest that former defense attorneys are somehow disqualified from public life. They are just as entitled to espouse a ‘tough-on-crime’ law enforcement philosophy as anybody else. Heck, most of them do.
- Paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:08 am:
“comes back with real people that were proved innocent”
I’ve been an attorney for 30 years - first as a prosecutor and then as a defense attorney. In all honesty, I don’t think I have ever represented someone who wasn’t guilty. Some of them were over-charged or maybe shouldn’t have been charged at all, but every last one of them was guilty.
I chose the job and I was paid to do it and they all deserved a defense and the vast, vast majority of them I was happy to help through a difficult time. I guess what I am saying is, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for Irvin’s clients to have been proven innocent.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:08 am:
==Absent any public polls recently, the fact this is a direct hit on Irvin should tell you roughly where things stand in the GOP primary… ==
Not necessarily. It just tells you that Irvin is the one Dems want to face the least- which I think we all already knew, if only because he’ll have the most money. I think that even if Bailey had huge lead, Pritzker’s team would keep their hands off of him, for example.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:09 am:
==Nobody is questioning the constitutional right of a defendant’s to legal representation.==
You really believe that?
- Anchors Away - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:11 am:
I would add - the problem for Irvin here is that the defense he would use if this ad were running in a general - “every one deserves a good legal defense” - doesn’t work with GOP primary voters. They don’t believe that - as we’ve seen in the public debate the last few weeks. So strategically what I like about this play from the DGA is it puts Irvin in tough spot to respond. Again - he picked the audience and the message so I have no moral qualms about the predicament he finds himself in.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:13 am:
==You really believe that? ==
I do, if only because it’s true. It’s not like anyone has said “Overturn Gideon”.
It’s also really rich for so many “bring back cash bail” folks to all of a sudden want to talk about the rights of the accused.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:15 am:
== the defense he would use if this ad were running in a general - “every one deserves a good legal defense” - doesn’t work with GOP primary voters==
I would suggest that not nearly enough general election voters believe that, either.
Most people are simply never going to face criminal prosecution, so they don’t care too much about the rights of the accused.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:26 am:
== You really believe that? ==
In this context, it’s an undeniable fact.
Perhaps this will help;
If a slaughterhouse owner suddenly decided to make a run for a high up position within PETA, would discussing the previous profession *in the context* of the actions and words of what the person wants to do next criticizing slaughterhouse owners?
I’d say it is not, instead it is people trying to understand why two opposing points are trying to be held by the same person at the same time.
It’s reasonable for people who support PETA to want to know why this person wants to now be involved in and speak for the organization. But what it doesn’t do is suddenly cast slaughterhouse owners as if they are some illegal or unconstitutional RICO-classified organization.
- Springfieldish - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:29 am:
“but in a democracy isn’t every person entitled to legal representation, even the worst offenders?”
That’s so cute.
- Sue - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:29 am:
Kind of obscene but not surprising that the Governor gives the DGA the money for the ads and then claims it isn’t him messing with the R primaries.
- OneMan - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:30 am:
== I went to law school. One of the first things my 1L professor told me was, “everyone is entitled to a legal defense. No one is entitled to you.” ==
That’s true but if you want to practice law in Aurora there isn’t enough real estate closings to go around to keep everyone busy.
I have lived here for over half my life now, raised my kids here, I am going to say if you are going to practice law here odds are you are going to be doing some criminal law.
I would say, the buy kind of validates the whole “I am their worst fear” thing.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:37 am:
==That’s true but if you want to practice law in Aurora there isn’t enough real estate closings to go around to keep everyone busy.==
He was already employed as a prosecutor. He left to hang out his own shingle, focusing very heavily on criminal defense. The undisputed facts of his career do not support the idea that he was “forced” to practice criminal defense.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:45 am:
People, please don’t respond to anonymous trolls. They will eventually be deleted.
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:45 am:
=I would say, the buy kind of validates the whole “I am their worst fear” thing.=
I think it validates that Irvin is the best the ILGOP has to offer but clearly has his own challenges. Instead of acknowledging who he is he’s decided to run a phony narrative derived by Ken Griffin’s team. We’ve seen this before. It’s usually followed by costumes and a beat up van.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 8:48 am:
== In all honesty, I don’t think I have ever represented someone who wasn’t guilty.==
Another thing I was told early in law school is Dershowitz’ First Rule of Criminal Justice: Everyone involved in criminal justice firmly believes that 99% of criminal defendants are guilty.
Of course, look how Dersh ended up.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 9:01 am:
Meh. It’s fine. C. It feels like it is an early setup for something more. Kind of laying the foundation for a narrative.
“The tactic didn’t work. Rauner edged out Ives in the primary.”
A virtual unknown came within 3 points of beating an incumbent governor. Oh, it worked.
- H-W - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 9:02 am:
@Middle of the Road 8:07, and @Cheryl44 8:09
You are on point, from my perspective. This is why I think it could be used in the General to suggest Democrats are insincere. I do not like this ad at all.
@Sue 8:29 Amen. The sole democratic candidate cannot hide from the DGA ad buy, claiming ignorance. This makes him look petty, and mean-spirited.
- RNUG - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 9:20 am:
If this is the best the DGA has, it’s being run too early. Voters in general don’t tune in until 6 weeks or less before an election. Primary voters may be more in tune, but don’t get moved much by attack ads. Would have been more effective if ran in late May on. Running now tells me the D’s are more worried about Irwin … which plays right in to Irwin’s ad about being afraid of him.
As the ad itself, C … maybe C-
- low level - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 9:58 am:
== Richard Irvin’s record as a decorated combat veteran,==
There you go again, Irvin campaign. A scud missile flew over hos head in Kuwait; he gets a medal awarded to everyone in that 1990-91 conflict, and all of a sudden he’s a “decorated combat veteran”.
Whatever.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:03 am:
==It feels like it is an early setup for something more. Kind of laying the foundation for a narrative. ==
Yeah, I think that’s right, starting to try to define Irvin early, especially for the general election electorate.
- ChrisB - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:04 am:
I mean, if Irvin’s shop really wanted to pander to the Tea Partiers, he could compare himself to John Adams, who defended the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre.
- NorthsideNoMore - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:10 am:
This is just the beginning of these kinds of ads. DGA will be heavily funded by JB and will keep up the drip drip drip of ads against Irvin. He is the one person they don’t want in the fall, so wailing away at him now makes November a lot easier if he doesn’t get through the primary.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:21 am:
===He (Irvin) is the one person they don’t want in the fall, so wailing away at him now makes November a lot easier if he doesn’t get through the primary===
The reality is, it’s not that Irvin is all that strong or a strong candidate… it’s that $20 million now and tens of millions Irvin will have makes Irvin tougher.
The other 4 combined aren’t in any league with Irvin when talking resources, infrastructure, talent, or opportunities.
It’s not that it’s a “fear”, but Irvin is telling angry, rural, white voters to vote for him to “own the libs” which is a weird ask when making yourself a meme.
The other 4 don’t scare Pritzker.
The other 4 scare the GOP if any of the 4 become the nominee.
- Live Wire - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:25 am:
RNUG I don’t think it is too early. 3/28 voters can send in Vote By Mail applications. The ballots can be mailed out late next month.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:28 am:
==The reality is, it’s not that Irvin is all that strong or a strong candidate…==
I mean, he might be. I haven’t been too impressed so far, but campaigns are long, he has time to mature. But yeah, he’s definitely the one Pritzker wants to face the least, so he’s defining him early. Every campaign does that if they have the means to.
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:33 am:
=He is the one person they don’t want in the fall=
Whether or not Pritzker wants or doesn’t want Irvin in the fall is debatable. But given the financial backing that Irvin has, and the fact that his closest competition is begging for $15 to get his bus back on the road, starting early doesn’t hurt. And Irvin has put himself in a bit of a trick bag. What works in the primary likely doesn’t work in the general and vice versa. Pritzker and the DGA would be fools not to exploit that.
- DougChicago - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:55 am:
If being a defense attorney disqualifies you from high office, there ought to be a lot of no votes on Ketanji Jackson’s nomination. Indeed, Durbin will presumably hold the nomination in committee.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 10:56 am:
== What works in the primary likely doesn’t work in the general and vice versa.==
I think Tuff On Crime ™ works in both. But if you can’t sell it…
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 11:09 am:
=If being a defense attorney disqualifies you from high office=
Who said that? The issue with Irvin is that he wants to portray himself as a tough on crime prosecutor while ignoring his experience as a criminal defense attorney. A candidates inconsistencies and contradictions are always fair game.
- don the legend - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 11:29 am:
==’22 total spending so far:
RGA: $34M
DGA: $363K==
Should RGA be $34K not $34M?
- DougChicago - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 12:26 pm:
Putting prosecutors to their proof to ensure that only guilty people are convicted is hardly being soft on crime. Being tough is not inconsistent with being smart and doing the job you have at each time in your life,
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 12:27 pm:
@pundent
=Who said that?=
The DGA said it. And apparently JB approves of this garbage.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 12:43 pm:
=== The DGA said it. And apparently JB approves of this garbage.===
Take a breath, it wasn’t the trade of defense attorney, it is about the clients one as a defense attorney may take.
Example?
Take cases, but none that a client is accused of hurting a child?
- Middle of the Road - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 1:35 pm:
@Oswego Willy
See ABA Defense Function Standard 4-2.1(c):
“Qualified defense counsel should be willing and ready to undertake the defense of a suspect or an accused regardless of public hostility or personal distaste for the offense or the client.”
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 2:03 pm:
===should be willing===
Meh.
Lawyers turn down cases all the time.
- low level - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 2:05 pm:
As for being scared, heck yes. Campaigns should take nothing for granted and run scared like they are 10 points behind.
- Roadrager - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 2:30 pm:
==“Qualified defense counsel should be willing and ready to undertake the defense of a suspect or an accused regardless of public hostility or personal distaste for the offense or the client.”==
It’s a long way from that to actively recruiting domestic violence cases on your firm’s website, and letting potential clients know that if the alleged victim doesn’t show up in court, the case can’t proceed. That’s what’s going to get pounded in the ads in summer and fall should Griffin’s money make it through the primary, and Irvin pivots to start courting white suburban moms.
- MyTwoCents - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 2:56 pm:
The strawman arguments from people like DougChicago are really getting old. Richard Irvin should consistently be called out for his blatant pandering and hypocrisy. He (or his handlers) are the ones who made the choice to act like he’s been a prosecutor for 20 years instead of only 5 & then choosing to be a criminal defense for 15. He is the only one who is seemingly embarrassed about his career choice. Maybe he should be called out for that.
That being said, I don’t know if this is the best approach for the DGA to take. I’d like a more pandering politician/hypocrite tact. Call out what he does without making it about being a criminal defense attorney. There’s plenty examples of saying 1 thing then & saying another thing now that could be used against him. But if the GOP candidates can’t fully educate the electorate about the other candidates maybe the GOP should be thanking the DGA for doing their job for them. /s
- anon - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 5:10 pm:
fish meet barrel.
- walker - Thursday, Mar 31, 22 @ 5:34 pm:
Usually I let this stuff go, but Irvin is not a “decorated combat veteran” by any normal use of the terms.