67 Comments - Roadrager - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:17 pm: Hide behind “settled law in the state of Illinois” until you don’t have to or can’t anymore. Let Darren lead the revival of the faithful. - So_Ill - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:18 pm: He’s a coward, so it’s not exactly surprising. - Real - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:18 pm: Richard Irvin is a phony with no backbone on anything besides what Ken Griffin emails him. - SaulGoodman - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:19 pm: What a joke. - Mary - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:20 pm: In political world, everyone is freaking out. In normal independent voter world, everyone is going about their day and has no clue who Samuel Alito is. Presumably this is going to get polled, and then you’ll see a targeted response, if any. - Arsenal - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:20 pm: Yes, it’s a mistake. WE BLOG SHARKS MUST HAVE OUR CHUM. More seriously, I do think it’s mistake to let only your opponents speak on the biggest issue of the day. I understand that this is dicey for Irvin- while he is personally pro-life and his running mate is an outspoken pro-life activist, saying so will hurt him in the General Election. But you can’t let your opponents fill in the silence for you. - Almost the Weekend - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:22 pm: -In political world, everyone is freaking out. In normal independent voter world, everyone is going about their day and has no clue who Samuel Alito is. Presumably this is going to get polled, and then you’ll see a targeted response, if any.- I would normally agree with this, especially what is going on with Valencia. But this is completely different. Everyone is talking about this, not just politicos in Chicago and Springfield. - Pundent - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:23 pm: Sure Richard Irvin can dodge the issue. But it undercuts his narrative that he’s the candidate that JB Pritzker is afraid of while simultaneously being cowardly on an issue of this magnitude. And the one thing we’ve seen time and time again in politics is that if you’re afraid to define where you stand on any given issues, your opponents will have no qualms in defining it for you. I expect to hear a lot more about how Irvin is dangerous for women. - Torco Sign - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:23 pm: It reminds me of McCain wanting to suspend campaigning in 2008 to handle the economic crisis. That was weak. This is also a weak passing the buck moment when everyone else is grappling with the here and now. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:24 pm: Politically? Politically, this is likely the best possible position he can take to the very specific and pointed idea to all that has transpired. Why? Well, it’s a draft. We don’t know, even if reasonable folks can reasonably speculate, what the ruling on this case will say, be, end up being. Want to ask, have at it, but the leaked, non-ruling, anything said at this point won’t be helpful… politically. It does stink, I grant you, not commenting at all, but what good is made, because all I see for that campaign is all bad jumping into this without a real ruling. - Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:24 pm: Mayor Irvin, you are running for a GOP nomination. This is THE issue for many of those voters. While your silence might otherwise be considered prudent, the clock is ticking and your opponents are speaking loudly. Your silence will be noticed by GOP primary voters, and commented on by your opposition, and not in a good way. - Arsenal - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:25 pm: ==Presumably this is going to get polled, and then you’ll see a targeted response, if any. == We’ve got plenty of polling on how popular Roe v. Wade is (Very, especially in IL). Irvin’s problem isn’t that he’s got his finger in the wind, it’s that he’s pro-life and has pro-life base that will punish him for heresy, but he knows it hurts him in the suburbs. - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:25 pm: I’ll be interested in hearing what he has to say about the leak in the upcoming debate. - Cool Papa Bell - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:25 pm: @Real - “phony” a perfect word for the candidate and his campaign. - OneMan - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:26 pm: I am going to be the counterintuitive one on this. He isn’t, there is a decent chance the ruling will be out before the primary so why comment on a draft with the risk of the ruling being a bit different and then having to comment on the differences. Why get into a parsing battle sooner than needed? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:27 pm: I don’t think so. He’s got nothing to say that can help him today. Now he’s waiting for a ruling in June, closer to the election, to say something benign. This is not what Irvin wants to talk about, which should tip the Bailey and Sullivan folks to what they need to make this primary about. If they let Irvin off the hook on this, they are committing political malpractice. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:29 pm: Pathetic cowardice and deception from the tough law and order candidate. He’s a manufactured candidate. How is this going to work from any side of the ideological spectrum, how someone like this can be trusted? - Red Ranger - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:32 pm: Its smart politically. His opponents have all demonstrated that they are c-level candidates at best. It doesn’t benefit him at all to come out and say anything. If he cheers this decision it likely hurts him on the fall and if he comes out either in favor or lukewarm on the decision it hurts him in the primary. Better to sit back and let the half-truth ads create the narrative of the campaign. Obviously he wont be able to get away with this once the general election starts, but that’s a problem for July and beyond; one election at at time as they say. - JS Mill - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:34 pm: What Pundent said, especially from a leadership perspective. =In normal independent voter world, everyone is going about their day and has no clue who Samuel Alito is.= This is a problem, and it says more about you and “everyone” than you realize. - Earnest - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:35 pm: He’s making the right choice for his campaign. He’s threading a fine line to get through a Republican primary without seriously damaging his chances to win a general election. There’s no helpful answer he can give until after he’s won the primary, and even then it will have to be calibrated to just the right level of vagueness. - Springfieldish - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:37 pm: It’s gotta be difficult to have to wait for the oligarch’s team to get back to ya with your lines while trying to remember former positions on the issue. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:37 pm: ===Presumably this is going to get polled, and then you’ll see=== lol Look, say what you want in answer to this question. But do you seriously believe GOP primary voters don’t have a right to know what he thinks about the likely overturning of Roe v. Wade until after he can poll it? You do understand how bizarre that is, right? - Real - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:37 pm: His opponents may have less campaign funds but at least they believe in what they talk. Having more money does not make you an A level candidate. Irvin himself is below C level but when you have funds you can create any picture you want. - Huh? - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:45 pm: He could have made a simple statement “I am appalled by the apparent leak. All I know is what I have read in today’s newspaper. I haven’t had the opportunity to read the draft ruling. Once I have read more news reports and the draft ruling, I will have further comments.” Enough of deflection to make a no response response. Bad mistake. - fs - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:46 pm: It’s entirely possibly, maybe even likely, that the final opinion is significantly different than the leaked initial, 3 month old draft from one Justice. So it’s politically smart to hold off on commenting today. But, if/when there is a debate, he will need a more nuanced explanation of that than just “no comment” - Pundent - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:46 pm: =Presumably this is going to get polled= Is there any more polled issue in the history of U.S. politics? Opinions are baked in which is why the ruling will be so divisive and Irvin doesn’t want to talk about it. While the wording of the final opinion may differ, the die is likely cast on the outcome. It’s Irvin’s right to avoid the topic and could be seen as smart. He can probably still win a primary, has the money to do so, and that’s the immediate objective. But beyond that he’s got a real problem. - NotRich - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:48 pm: I guess Mike Z and money bags Kenny were hoping for a July release of the opinion.. I guess money can’t buy you everything - RNUG - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:48 pm: It’s the smartest thing he can say right now from a political perspective. His past position is probably sufficient for the primary voters. Were he to win the primary, then he can play nuance as needed. - Nuke The Whales - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:49 pm: If I were Richard Irvin running for Governor as a Republican, I also would wait for the final decision. Why have quotables that can be used against me? Let’s see if Avery Bourne also suddenly doesn’t have an opinion on the subject. - West Side the Best Side - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:49 pm: I will go along with OneMan’s counterintuitive posistion, knowing that in this day and age such a statement would never fly, but something along this line might turn down the heat: “I/We as a candidate/committee am/are disappointed/encouraged by the possible ruling, but want to wait for the final ruling before making a full comment.” Anti-social media would tear such a statement apart, so it will never happen. - Amalia - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:55 pm: well he’s just doing what McConnell is doing. this is more of ‘…but, but her emails….” they don’t win on the substance of this issue if the side I’m on gets it together. Fox Noise switched to Durbin cause they did not want to hear from Schumber but the switched off fast when Durbin said that freedom is on the agenda in November. that. - AC - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 1:57 pm: It’s probably smart for him to try to be all things to all people by not commenting. I just wonder how long it will be before he has a “Focus, Amanda. Focus.” moment when he is unable to avoid the question. - Captain Obvious - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:02 pm: There is less than zero to be gained by commenting at this point. Liberal pundits and their commenters’ heads are exploding and they are melting down and crying on tv. They demand red meat, best let them go hungry. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:04 pm: === Liberal pundits and their commenters’ heads are exploding and they are melting down and crying on tv. They demand red meat, best let them go hungry.=== Keep up, it’s about the primary right now for Irvin… Getting thru without boxing himself in on abortion is the goal of the exercise, not avoiding liberals and “media”, those things actually help in a GOP primary - yinn - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:05 pm: This is a moment when all candidates must choose a side. His refusal to do so decisively will hurt him. - anon2 - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:07 pm: It wouldn’t be prudent to come out as a weak or questionable on the life issue before the primary. After the primary, he knows previous GOP governors were pro-choice. - Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:09 pm: =He’s got nothing to say that can help him today. = I agree with this statement, but I’m not sure I agree that the smart move is continued silence when there’s a billionaire ready, able and willing to define you on the subject before you’ve uttered a word. - My 2 Cents - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:11 pm: It is a conservative response and serves the Griffin process well. Keep Irvine from making political blunders, feed voters a steady diet of tv commercials and hope the Republican headwinds get the candidate through the primary. - Give Me A Break - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:13 pm: A spineless coward hoping he can continue to fool the voters. - MisterJayEm - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:14 pm: The Republican primary voters of Illinois deserve to know where Richard Irvin stands on the most important political news of the day. Period. – MrJM - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:14 pm: Irvin can *always* have Bourne make a statement. It’s not like her stance on abortion isn’t known What that would look or read like… that’s for the Superstars to figure out. - SaulGoodman - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:14 pm: ** uncharacteristically silent** Umm…huh? Have the Rabine folks been paying attention at all to Irvin’s behavior?! - Arsenal - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:15 pm: ==He’s threading a fine line to get through a Republican primary without seriously damaging his chances to win a general election.== I think he’s creating a problem where one doesn’t exist. He’s explicitly pro life. Avery Bourne is his running mate. Voters are absolutely going to understand that he’s pro life. JB Pritzker isn’t going to hold off on the ads saying so just bc Irvin stays silent for the next three weeks. So why let your opponents be the only names in the stories? And c’mon, guy doesn’t do press, doesn’t do public appearances, doesn’t do debates, has no plan on what he hopes is his signature issue (crime). Now he won’t talk about the biggest story of the day? At some point you gotta ask what this guy is really doing with his time. - NIU Grad - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:18 pm: 2014 all over again… - Jocko - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:20 pm: Weak sauce. He should’ve pulled the “As a lawyer, I stand by settled law…but respect the sincerely held beliefs of my running mate, Avery Bourne.” - Long year - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:25 pm: ==And c’mon, guy doesn’t do press, doesn’t do public appearances, doesn’t do debates, has no plan on what he hopes is his signature issue (crime). Now he won’t talk about the biggest story of the day? At some point you gotta ask what this guy is really doing with his time.== This x100 If you can’t articulate strongly held beliefs in real time don’t run for office. Too many people’s lives are on the line and they deserve to know where you stand. Just pure cowardice. - uialum - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:29 pm: A bit hard not to comment when the last time Irvin talked about abortion he told a reporter “we’re done here” when asked about exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. - Immigrants Welcome - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:31 pm: This is an incredibly stupid move on Irvin’s part. Voters don’t reward cowardice and Republican primary voters demand outspoken fealty to ending Roe. Roe being “settled law” has allowed conservatives to breathe fire to their base for decades, knowing that they wouldn’t have to actually do anything. Dog that caught the car indeed. - walker - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:33 pm: Pro-life is a winner in the GOP Primary. Pro-choice is a winner in the General. What’s an ambitious guy to do? - Paddyrollingstone - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:34 pm: I think that is a big mistake for him and basically echo what others have already commented. I mean this is a HUGE issue for a lot of GOP voters. It would help to have some nuance in the general but you’ve got to win the primary first. - Dotnonymous - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:36 pm: “A spineless coward hoping he can continue to fool the voters.” A task apparently much easier than I had previously thought…or expected…sadly. - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:36 pm: Irvin was never going to get the committed pro-life vote in the GOP primary. Jeanne Ives had it all to herself in a GOP primary last time and that wasn’t enough to carry the day. This time that pro-life base vote is split a bunch of different ways. Irvin, keeping his mouth shut, can grab a ton of pocketbook Republican voters who are either pro-choice or agnostic on this issue. - TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:39 pm: One of the greatest learning tools ever given to me years ago, was to read the Mark Twain poem “The Way Prayer”. What people say does not betray who they really are, as much as what people do not say. I think this might be Irvin’s conscience showing itself, if only in the words unsaid. He is not attacking the leaker. As for is it a mistake… There is no choice he could make right now that isn’t a mistake. - Lurker - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:53 pm: He’s a Democrat running as a Republican. The truth is he cannot have an opinion on anything like this … unless his funder says you must. He cannot lose his Republican voters for the primaries or his democrats, especially females, for the general. - Pundent - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:55 pm: =After the primary, he knows previous GOP governors were pro-choice.= None of the previous GOP governors ran as pro life candidates as Irvin has. And the “settled” law argument was an effective shield - until it wasn’t. - Arsenal - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 2:56 pm: ==Enjoying you all freaking out over a memo leak. No decision has been made.== You need to put down a name so we know where to send the SAVVIEST CAPFAX COMMENTER award! Except for the fact that what you said is not at all how SCOTUS works… - zatoichi - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 3:07 pm: So he wants to be governor where you often have to make serious decisions and make statements pretty quickly with hot topics and without polling. If he is struggling now with campaign issues what happens if he wins and faces the press, GA, media, voters, and an endless stream of critics. - Southern - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 3:12 pm: Might as well keep his mouth shut. It’s not like he’s out there giving interviews about his stances on any other issues. Just stick with the commercials that are provided to you by the financiers. - Roadrager - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 3:18 pm: ==So he wants to be governor where you often have to make serious decisions and make statements pretty quickly with hot topics and without polling. If he is struggling now with campaign issues what happens if he wins and faces the press, GA, media, voters, and an endless stream of critics.== Once Ken Griffin puts more of his money in, he’ll answer the phone for Irvin faster. Hope Richard knows that Ken will expect the same from him. - StealYourFace - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 3:24 pm: This is certainly a catch 22 for the Irvin campaign. They either anger his running mate and their conservative allies, or potentially alienate a large base of women who he needs to get the primary nod. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 3:36 pm: ===No comment necessary from me – the people of Illinois can hear his silence, loud and clear.=== This could be effective in a targeted mail piece, especially with Sullivan, halo over his head, on his knees, praying to the Almighty, in thanks for saving the babies of America, sticking it to Irvin good and hard for his silence on the only issue that matters to a huge segment of ILGOP primary voters and activists. C’mon Sully. You’ve got the cash and the messiah complex already. Go for it. No sense saving any money for the general election. - PublicServant - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 4:00 pm: Has Ken Griffin stated his opinion on Roe? If not, then we know why the ventriloquist’s purchased puppet hasn’t moved his lips yet. - Chicagonk - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 4:39 pm: I mean politically I understand why he isn’t saying anything. His primary polling must be good, so why alienate general election voters. - AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 4:41 pm: Mayor Irving seems to think it would be a mistake to allow any Illinois voter to know who he is or where he stands. Far be it from me to presume him wrong. - Montrose - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 5:39 pm: It’s kind of a lose-lose situation for him. You can’t go all in on supporting Roe v Wade being overturned in the primary and then pivot to a more moderate position in the general. All the other Republican hopefuls have been clear from the beginning they are anti-abortion. They have never considered moderating their position as an option. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 6:06 pm: If the Irvin campaign won’t issue a statement, how about a statment? It’s a cheaper comms team version of “statement.” - Elliott Ness - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 9:34 pm: The milk box ad is as old as the hills, but most of those using this can spell statement , geeez Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.