* My own opinion is that if the alleged victim didn’t want this issue to go public then Heitman was right to respect those wishes. The HRO apparently disagrees…
Following reports that State Rep. Jessica Dixon Heitman acknowledged seeing “red flags” while working for disgraced former State Rep. Harry Benton, the House Republican Organization is releasing two new ads highlighting her silence.
“Families deserve the full truth about Jessica Dixon Heitman,” said Mark Cavers, Political Director for the House Republican Organization. “She admits she saw ‘red flags’ and concerning behavior in Harry Benton’s office, yet she stayed silent. Now, after Benton has resigned in disgrace, she’s trying to rewrite history. That is political damage control, not integrity or leadership. If she wouldn’t speak up when it mattered most, why should voters trust her now?”
The ads will begin running on Facebook today through the end of the week.
Both very effective B+/A-. The crickets Ad is unique and provocative - hits home on the negligence of a supermajority party that has the cash and power to do just about anything - except take action against a creep within their own ranks.
- Southwest side guy - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 2:59 pm:
Why would anyone trust her now?
Simple
Because she’s a Democrat.
===Both very effective B+/A-. The crickets Ad is unique and provocative - hits home on the negligence of a supermajority party that has the cash and power to do just about anything - except take action against a creep within their own ranks. ===
Sorry, but a true assessment must take in the broader context: this ad is coming from folks who not only ignore the creepmander in chief but rush to his defense by attacking his many, many accusers. Bottom line, ads like this appeal to those who are already on board with the GOP, but it will fall flat with those in the middle who see the hypocrisy very clearly. To be an effective ad, it needs to bring in those folks. So, it’s an “F” because it will mostly likely fail to bring in the voters the GOP needs.
Might be effective if you assume that most voters know the substance of the allegations… Which I doubt. It will get some attention from the Springfield set but Plainfield voters won’t get it.
- VK - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 12:59 pm:
Now the super-de-duper minority gave me a slight hint. But I gotta tell ya, I’m starting the think the HRO might not be very good at this.
- low level - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 1:24 pm:
== I’m starting the think the HRO might not be very good at this.==
Its been years since they have been. Ads get an F.
- Wonderland - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 1:29 pm:
HRO criticizing Dixon for not going public wjth someone else’s story when HRO also knew the story might be the most HRO thing ever.
- James - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
Nothing wrong with the ad. It just won’t have any impact, other than a few ruffled feathers.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 1:32 pm:
Does HRO stand for Hypocritical Republican Organization? It Should. The ad reeks of hypocrisy and is an F
- Chicago Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 1:56 pm:
This is awful. Blaming a woman for the impact of an abusive man’s conduct when she was trying to protect/support a survivor? No. Just no. F.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 2:33 pm:
F.
Hypocrites.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 2:43 pm:
Both very effective B+/A-. The crickets Ad is unique and provocative - hits home on the negligence of a supermajority party that has the cash and power to do just about anything - except take action against a creep within their own ranks.
- Southwest side guy - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 2:59 pm:
Why would anyone trust her now?
Simple
Because she’s a Democrat.
- Annon'in - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 3:16 pm:
Pretty weak. But then this what IL GOPies serve up
- Lurker - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 3:17 pm:
When I played the crickets one, my dog started barking/howling. So, we rate that one a fire truck siren.
We were both bored by the other, so we give that one an F.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 3:58 pm:
Crickets chirping, how clever, someone call the Academy.
F to both.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 3:58 pm:
===Both very effective B+/A-. The crickets Ad is unique and provocative - hits home on the negligence of a supermajority party that has the cash and power to do just about anything - except take action against a creep within their own ranks. ===
Sorry, but a true assessment must take in the broader context: this ad is coming from folks who not only ignore the creepmander in chief but rush to his defense by attacking his many, many accusers. Bottom line, ads like this appeal to those who are already on board with the GOP, but it will fall flat with those in the middle who see the hypocrisy very clearly. To be an effective ad, it needs to bring in those folks. So, it’s an “F” because it will mostly likely fail to bring in the voters the GOP needs.
- GC - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 4:57 pm:
Might be effective if you assume that most voters know the substance of the allegations… Which I doubt. It will get some attention from the Springfield set but Plainfield voters won’t get it.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 5:32 pm:
So the HRO is now critiquing women for not calling out male predators? I did not see that coming.
- Frida’s Boss - Tuesday, Jul 28, 26 @ 6:10 pm:
FB ads ain’t it. If you can’t get on at a minimum streaming you don’t have it