Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New info about NRI program surfaces on eve of hearings
Next Post: FOP goes with Quinn
Posted in:
* Steve Schnorf has been fretting for some time in comments and in private conversations about how he’ll vote in November, and he’s now written one heck of an analysis of Bruce Rauner’s strengths and weaknesses from a moderate Republican “insider” perspective. The best part is he has addressed his piece to y’all in the hopes of striking up a conversation, so enjoy and participate…
Some of you have seen me post two or three times about wanting to vote for Bruce Rauner, but not being sure why I should, other than that I never vote for Democrats for Governor and President. So I decided to try to do what we were all taught to do at a young age; make a list of pros and cons. I’ve been working on it and here’s what I have so far.
I’m significantly handicapped by the fact that I don’t know him, have never met him or talked on the phone with him, never been in a meeting with him. This will be the first time in a very long time for me that I have to make a decision on voting for Governor about a person I don’t know. Knowing a person fairly well lets you make some reasonable assumptions about such things as overall character, one of the things that has helped me vote for candidates I didn’t always agree with on significant issues.
If you bother to take a look at what I’ve come up with, feel free to point out any errors of fact on my part, add things I’ve neglected to include, and argue my opinions as to what are positives and what are negatives.
* Rauner is open to applying the sales tax to services. Very Positive. The key to keeping tax rates low is a broad tax base. And, we’ve all seen the numbers on the big change in sales in our economy, from almost all “things” to now increasingly, “services” rather than “things.” Also, adding services to the base will relatively reduce the regressivity of our sales tax.
* Rauner’s extensive business experience almost assuredly makes him proficient at negotiating and, when necessary, compromising to reach agreements. Very Positive. That ability should serve him well with the leaders of the General Assembly, interest groups, etc.
* Rauner is endorsed by Jim Edgar. Very Positive. I know there’s a lot of Edgar envy and angst on this site, but if you think about it, he doesn’t waste or tarnish his name with excessive endorsements. If he thinks this person will be a good Governor, that’s important.
* Rauner is not what I call a “culture warrior,” someone who puts pursuing ideological social agendas above governing. Very Positive. To me, at least
.
* Rauner’s comments on funding priorities - K-12, higher ed, more correction officers, early childhood programs, DNR - show good insight into state funding deficiencies. Positive.———————— * Rauner will “shake up Springfield.” Zero. I have no idea what this means. I doubt that he does.
* Rauner’s claim to have detailed position papers on a wide variety of issues that he doesn’t really have. Negative. Got himself trapped into this early, can’t get out of it, and doesn’t seem to care. The “big lie” approach to campaigning is very off-putting to a lot of people and to the media.
* Rauner believes that the state personal income tax rate should be reduced to 3% over four years. Very Negative. The State will not be able to fund basic services even at the inadequate level we currently fund them. If he knows that he is being disingenuous. If he doesn’t understand it that’s truly astonishing.
* Rauner’s growing credibility gap on increasing funding for various programs and his position on reducing state revenues by cutting taxes. Negative. The growing disconnect between these two positions seems to not concern him at all.
* Rauner’s discomfort publicly with whom and what he is. Negative. He’s wealthy and privileged. Don’t try to deny it, explain to us why it shouldn’t matter.
* Rauner’s stated intent to do battle with public employee unions, their leaders, and to promote right-to-work laws. Negative. This is the one thing about him that I understand the least, both practically and strategically. Practically, he will break his promise because he won’t prevail. Strategically, he had the unions at least neutral in this election because of their huge difficulties with Quinn. He would have won the primary by a larger margin had he just kept quiet because the unions wouldn’t have jumped in with money and GOTV for Dillard. Conclusion: if there’s no making sense of it politically or strategically, he must actually believe it. And that’s a real problem, because pursuing it will polarize and will suck up energy and time that needs to be devoted to governing.
He wouldn’t tell me how he plans to vote.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:57 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New info about NRI program surfaces on eve of hearings
Next Post: FOP goes with Quinn
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
While I have a great deal of respect for Schnorf, I have to strongly disagree on his first point.
A sales tax serves to reduce demand. It inherently raises price.
Given that economic issues still seem to focus on overall low demand, an expansion of the sales tax would be the worst possible thing we could do. It would slam the brakes on this recovery.
The sales, more than any other issue, is what moved me from Rauner to Quinn.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:04 pm
Very good analysis overall. I might be inclined to disagree a bit on his 2nd point about perceived negotiating skills. Undoubtedly, he knows how to negotiate in business but I don’t think that necessarily translates to the political world.
Comment by Stones Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:04 pm
This is great. Just the right length for this site as well, with a welcoming tone for commenters to add on what they feel may be their own take on the pros and cons of Rauner.
Maybe we can get an equally respected and moderate Democrat to also do the same on Governor Quinn’s pros and cons? It might help some people.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:05 pm
Gooner, obviously Governor Quinn (and a lot of other people) disagree with me on that one, but I continue to believe it is good and necessary tax policy
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:07 pm
Rich,
He did tell you how he is going to vote.
~ I never vote for Democrats for Governor and President. ~
Unless Steve is going Libertarian on us that is…
Comment by Big Muddy Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:09 pm
You are the best, Steve.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:10 pm
Capt Fax ….”don’t know how he will vote”
When Steve’s grades are all Negative to Very Negative why not take a wild guess and say Not Mitt. And he suggests he will polarize. Good analysis. I would not that Mitt’s BizWiz stuff is all fluff and fakery because every company one Googles comes up with big problems
We know Steve has a blind spot on BlinkyJim, but we prefer Big Jim rolling his eyes a few weeks ago for on the question of Mitt’s ability to govern. Perhaps Edgar could ask Mitt to opine on horse racing and then revote — heck everyone should get a Mulligan this year.
BTW what is the deadline on the tax return?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:12 pm
His point about Rauner’s discomfort with himself is a good one. In Ken Burns recent documentary on the Roosevelts (highly recommended), he shows how both Teddy and FDR were the very definition of upper class aristocrats, but they never tried to hide it. And working people accepted them for who they were (didn’t hurt they had policies that actually helped working people, but I digress). People can smell a faker, and Rauner’s a faker.
Comment by chi Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:12 pm
===Unless Steve is going Libertarian on us that is===
Or undervoting.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:12 pm
Very thoughtful, as always. I agree on the negatives, and believe these tactics must be supported by a belief that the electorate is just too selfish to voluntarily give anything up. So, it would appear he might only be willing to adjust his campign to your negative points 1, 5 and 6. Regarding point 5, I keep replaying in my head the Romney convention night when he finally laid-out some of the good things he had done with his wealthy privilege. It was jarring in contrast to the vacume of specific, positive available information about the man, and too late to work. Rauner is missing the boat here. He should be out front with the good he must have achieved for individuals and groups. Puzzling that he has held that back.
Comment by chad Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:15 pm
===Rauner’s extensive business experience almost assuredly makes him proficient at negotiating and, when necessary, compromising to reach agreements.===
Not really an error, but I’m defintiely sure that’s not a fact. At least, we don’t have enough evidence that he possesses this trait. And he’s going to need it when it comes time to deal with the General Assembly.
Otherwise, a very thoughtful look at the decision to be made. Thanks for sharing it with us Steve.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:16 pm
I support Rauner, but I oppose the tax on services. It is a slippery slope, camels nose under the tent thing. Once enacted, it will quickly spread to more and more services. It feds the “beast”.
Comment by Apocalypse Now Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:16 pm
On the fiscal front, Rauner’s opposition to a graduated income tax is another huge negative.
Similarly, Rauner’s claim he would “solve” the state’s pension debt by freezing the plans and forcing everyone into 401k’s from here out ignores the constitution as well as math. It would actually worsen the funding problem by draining contributions from the plans - if the Supremes allowed it for existing hires, which is extremely difficult to imagine.
This is leaving aside the deep flaws of character and integrity exposed by the wreckage left in the wake of far too many of his business dealings, and his Sgt Schultz-like refusal to even acknowledge much less own them.
Comment by Reality Check Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:17 pm
Steve you make good points, both pro and con. The only quibble I have is what good is his understanding the need to prioritize more money for schools, the DNR, etc. if he is planning on cutting state revenue by such a substantial amount with the sun setting of the 5% personal income tax rate to 3.75% before he takes office? Zero chance the house and senate gives him a lame duck increase back to 5% if he wins the race. Then all of those “promised” increases will be impossible, even if he skips pension payments (bond rating services will drop us to junk bonds if he both skips payments and lets the taxrate drop). As poorly as Quinn has done, at least he has tried to get us back on the good side of Standard and Poor’s et al. As in many instances with Rauner things just don’t add up. That is why he won’t be getting my (lifelong Republican) vote. The only question is can something else come out to convince me to vote for Quinn. For now, I can’t imagine what that would be.
Comment by Roadiepig Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:18 pm
Regarding the Jim Edgar endorsement… unsnarkily-
Has Edgar ever not endorsed the GOP candidate for Governor? He endorsed Brady, Topinka, and Jim Ryan. So I don’t think it matters that he supports Rauner.
Comment by chi Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:19 pm
AN, it needs to spread, to a lot more services. We are now a service economy with a taxation plan geared to the mid 20th Century. Rauner seems to realize that.
RC, you’re right. I should have included that as a negative.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:20 pm
RC, and you’re right. The pension plan issue is a Rauner negative. I will add it also.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:24 pm
Additional Pros
Rauner’s approach to recruiting talent. The state could always use more talent in the middle and upper management tiers, and he may help draw some talented people into service who generally shun the idea.
Edgar. Steve Schnorf nails it, but it also reminds me of what Mr. Edgar reportedly said the first time Mr. Rauner asked for his endorsement. == I don’t know you ==. He apparently got to know Mr. Rauner well enough and views him well enough to then endorse Rauner.
Wild Card
Rauner’s business experience. Is his business success the result of his ability to build successful companies or his ability to leverage so-called vampire capitalism? Why are we not hearing a stream of success stories in response to the Barry Saacks case and others? How will the majority of voters wind up interpreting his business success?
Additional Con
Attention to Detail and follow through =which can also be said of Mr. Quinn=. Mr. Rauner repeatedly claims to not have any connection with or knowledge of negative situations, much like our Governor, our President and many other pols. We also have yet to see or hear the results of multiple announcements by Mr. Rauner, though they may have been campaign stunts more than anything. i.e., what results, if any, did the == fraud hotline == his campaign set up generate?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:27 pm
Dead set against the sales tax on services. Open that door, and we only create yet another avenue of slowly increasing tax percentages. If you want a less regressive tax, go to a progressive income tax.
This race seems to be a contest between the public’s deep unhappiness with the state of the state and the increasing view that Bruce Rauner is selling them a line, one way or another. I still think Rauner is up by up to between two and four, which is a disgrace in itself to his staff, because the Republican should be up by 8-10, even in blue Illinois. Dillard would be. One gets the feeling, though, that Rauner has shot his bolt and it is just a matter of whether Quinn can catch him.
Comment by Percival Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:29 pm
== Rauner’s comments on funding priorities - K-12, higher ed, more correction officers, early childhood programs, DNR - show good insight into state funding deficiencies. Positive. =
I understand the point made above. However, are those programs presented in order of priority to Rauner, or just a list of things that Bruce claims need more money on the campaign trail in a random order? I sincerely don’t mean to split hairs, but if Rauner has put K - 12 education as the number 1 funding priority I missed it.
Another positive that could be added is simply balanced government. Illinois is in desperate need of some healthy tension in the state house. There is tension, but it is mostly just sanctimonious complaining by republicans that has little or no teeth behind it. A Rauner governorship could empower the minority party such that issues would have to be hammered out more inclusively.
Comment by John A Logan Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:30 pm
Nice to see someone doing a more broader analysis instead of focusing on one or two issues and then proclaiming that candidate a non-starter. At least there are a few adults in the room here.
How will Rauner “Shake up Springfield?” By his very election. It will force a whole new dynamic in decision making in Springfield, one that will include a governor as a greater partner in such matters. It is up to us to determine whether that new dynamic will make Illinois work better or not. The old dynamics, and including the newer “why bother electing Rauner because Madigan will never work with him forcing a government shutdown” do not offer any hope for changes.
The union issue cuts both ways. I would not want to be a labor union president or officer following a Rauner election. They too poked that bear way too often. Focusing the blame solely on Rauner is a bit misplaced. Expect a lot of teeth and claw marks on unions and Rauner in that category should he win.
No one issue will solve Illinois’ problems with a snap of a finger or a quick decision. It will involve a comprehensive strategy, something lacking in Quinn the past six years and something Rauner is only nibbling around the edges at this moment.
Thank you Mr. Schnorf.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:32 pm
===Additional Pros
Rauner’s approach to recruiting talent. The state could always use more talent in the middle and upper management tiers, and he may help draw some talented people into service who generally shun the idea.===
1. Is there anything to base this on?
2. If so, do we want people in important government positions who “generally shun the idea”?
Comment by chi Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:32 pm
Schnorf -
A good list. I wouldn’t give any weight to the Edgar endorsement.
On the service taxes, I am actually worried. The fact that he thinks you can target just a few services and raise $600 million tells me he doesn’t understand tax policy. To think you can raise most of that money by taxing law firms (80 percent of which represent businesses) and t.v./media/communications companies like Leo Burnett tells me he doesn’t have a clue about Springfield.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:34 pm
===Rauner is open to applying the sales tax to services. Very Positive. The key to keeping tax rates low is a broad tax base===
What is much more important to me is what, in the end, I pay in sales tax. A lower rate on more things (services) can mean that I pay the same sales taxes in the end or possibly even more in sales taxes than I do today. The rate is part of the calculation but I keep my eye on the final number.
Another negative for both Rauner and Quinn is how little they both appear to want to talk about the pension issue and its solution.
Comment by Hit or Miss Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:34 pm
Definitely thoughtful.
The one that gave me pause was negotiating skills. They style and manner - and notably, the success - of a negotiator is often dictated by whether they’re negotiating from strength and I presume that BR has always negotiated from a position of strength. That won’t be the case if he’d governor, and I don’t think we can infer that he’s a successful negotiator from a position of weakness.
Side note - vehemently disagree with FKA’s pro line on recruiting. Seems like a lot of his recruits either go to jail or get huge judgements against them or they have scandal follow them wherever they go (Randy Michaels).
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:36 pm
It’s interesting how every article attempting to frame Rauner in anything resembling a favorable light goes through similar rhetorical contortions in order to finally, sorta … kinda frame things in a positive way.
But always — here and with the recent spate of endorsements — there’s the nagging subtext of, “Okay, yeah, we’re going with Rauner … but if we had another choice, we’d probably prefer that one. We’re not really sold on Rauner because … we’re not sure what he stands for — or if he really believes all the ideological stuff he ran on during the primary. He doesn’t, does he? I mean, that’s just primary stuff. Right? Right?”
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:36 pm
In this analysis the negatives are much greater than the positives. The positives are cosmetic “business experience” “Edgar” or irrelevant “not a culture warrior.” The best positive is the education focus. A lot of progress could be made on education with Rauner and a Democratic GA. The negatives are character “big lie” and reality based “tax rate” “budget” “unions”.
Comment by Distant Viewer Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:36 pm
FKA, I absolutely agree on the denial of knowledge of what was going on in his companies. Once or twice, sure. Every time there’s a problem, not so believable. I should have included it.
On recruiting talent that one is a possible positive. The problems I foresee are 1)he would have to recruit people willing to put in at least 2 or 3 years in order to have any real impact, not folks willing to give a 6 month or year drive-by commitment to their public service obligation, and 2) they would have to be willing to locate in Springfield, where state government actually operates, not in Chi where they would prefer to be
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:36 pm
In my opinion Quinn has amply proven he can’t get the job done, and Rauner keeps proving he can’t be trusted to get it done either.I need a good write-in candidate. OW, Steve, VM, Word….any suggestions?
Comment by Sunshine Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:38 pm
I always put a lot of value in what Schorf has to say, so thanks, Steve, for these insights.
Yet one other thing that’s missing - unless I missed it - is any judgment on Rauner’s call for freezing property tax rates, and its possible effects. I have a pretty good idea of how Steve might feel about that, but don’t want to put words in his mouth.
Comment by Linus Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:41 pm
I don’t like the service taxing. It seems like taxing just for the sake of taxing. It’s one person serving another. Why should the Government get a piece of that action?
Feels like the same situation where we need to tax the satellite cable providers so they have a level playing field with the land-line providers. What is that? A new technology comes to pass that doesn’t require laying cable on public land and having ugly cable lines strung beside the roadways. I assume that is why land-line provides are taxed. So now we need to tax the satellite providers just because they are not taxed.
Sales taxes and use taxes are the way to go.
Or the gross receipts tax!…snark
Comment by Jack Handy Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:43 pm
Linus, excellent point, and I missed it. Freezing property taxes while reducing the income tax rate would be a double whammy on the locals, especially schools
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:43 pm
==Rauner’s approach to recruiting talent.==
It might be a “pro” to a Rauner government for federal prosecutors looking to rack up victories.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:43 pm
Louis G Atsaves
“I would not want to be a labor union president or officer following a Rauner election”
Please explain this comment. Rauner would have no control over union issues or leaders.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:45 pm
Sunshine, I said several days ago Governor Quinn has been in office for 6 years, we all already pretty much know why we should or shouldn’t vote for him. Bruce Rauner is the unknown here, and that’s what I’m trying to analyze
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:45 pm
= Rauner’s claim to have detailed position papers on a wide variety of issues that he doesn’t really have. =
This is the part of his campaign that really scares me. It sounds much like Scott Walker who borrows them from ALEC, Heritage Foundation and National Right to Work Committee. He isn’t sharing them because he won’t get elected if he does.
Comment by Makandadawg Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:46 pm
I would add as a negative his recent admission (with the benefit of hindsight) that he would have vetoed Medicaid Expansion.
Leaving aside the humanitarian aspect affecting 000’s of thousands of Illinois residents, forgoing new federal dollars and leaving hospitals with charity work doesn’t make economic sense to me.
Comment by MikeMacD Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:49 pm
BTW expanding the sales tax to services is probably good, should help cities…maybe earmark % for pensions
Don’t think Mitt really builds businesses…seems more like brings in scavengers to squeeze and then bolts at the last minute…ala HomeBanc
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:49 pm
Steve: Thank you for the analysis. So far most of the reasons I’ve seen given to vote for Rauner are “Because Quinn . . .” Look people, a dig at Quinn is not support for Rauner.
That aside, I agree with the disagreement about negotiation skills. I have this (admittedly uninformed) sense that he’s a “My-way-or-the-highway” kinda guy.
What about his support (or not? What day is it?) for cutting minimum wage?
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:52 pm
Point 1 is similar to Rod’s gross receipts tax that was supported by many left of center organizations. The point that deserves a lot of discussion is what is an adequate funding level for services in the state. Neither candidate (especially Rauner) has clearly stated what funding should be or where the revenue will come from other than continuing to use a credit card
Comment by Angry Republican Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:53 pm
MMD, I agree with you but maybe the real problem is too much willingness to over-tailor his message to his audience. In times of instant communication you can’t get away with that the way you could 30 or 40 years ago
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:53 pm
== Is there anything to base this on? ==
A number of media profiles going back more than 5 years and linked to here cover his approach to recruiting talent. He and GTCR identify exceptional people they want to work with and then basically pursue them until they find a way to work together. Then they essentially find the right business project or deal to place that talented person in charge of. Sometimes the process takes months, sometimes a decade. But the end result is always identifying and recruiting very talented individuals.
== do we want people in important government positions who “generally shun the idea”? ==
That’s a good question. I think there are many good and talented people out there our state would benefit from having in our service, but they generally avoid running for office or government employment due to a broad variety of reasons that have been discussed here in the past. Rauner’s private sector approach to recruiting indicates he should be able to overcome those concerns and get people fully invested in serving Illinois, though that is more speculation than fact. Your question still remains a compelling one regardless, @chi.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:53 pm
AR, I agree with your larger point, what is adequate funding level for services. I know of no reputable research that says Illinois overspends on services, in fact just the opposite. Do you?
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:55 pm
Thanks for the very thoughtful list, Steve. It covers a lot of ground. All of your thoughts seem perceptive and well-considered.
Comment by Belle Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:57 pm
I agree with Schnorf as to expanding the sales tax to services. However, Rauner’s proposal was apparently drafted by someone with a rather superficial knowledge of current law and, as a result, overstated the potential additional revenue. It seemed to be “poll-tested” - why else propose tax services performed by attorneys but not accountants - professional services are professional services.
Rauner’s comments on the pension issue worry me. In light of the Supreme Court ruling on health care benefits, I worry that his continued comments about attempting to put existing employees into 401(k) plans is more than just “political puffery” and evidences a lack of understanding of the impact of the judicial process. History demonstrates that you can’t always count on the General Assembly to be a check on a Governor’s proposals for clearly unconstitutional legislation - see Blago’s proposal to outlaw “violent” video games (I don’t have a personal interest in the issue, but even the current Tier 2 plan will likely lessen the number of talented employees who decide to make government service a career - especially in the Chicago area where there are many more private sector employment opportunities than there are downstate.
I hope Schnorf is correct that Rauner’s experience will manifest itself in effective negotiating skills. I hope his skill set is such that he surrounds himself with people who are unafraid to tell him what he needs to hear and not what he wants to hear. If he and his top staff come into government with the same mind-set of Blago in his people - that everyone who was employee prior to the time he became governor was likely to be disloyal and should be shunned and eliminated that will not be conducive to effective governance.
His discussion of funding priorities to me seems like a negative. It smacks of pandering to whatever group he is speaking in front of at the particular moment.
I am like Schnorf in terms of my voting history - with the exception of my vote in the presidential election of 1972 I have never voted for a Democrat for either governor or president. I don’t want to vote for Quinn, but when I weigh the pluses and minuses of each candidate I am having a difficult time coming up with a reason to vote for Rauner. I will not vote for Grimm or undervote - I view that as an abdication of a civic duty.
Comment by Just the Facts Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:58 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but Rauner is opposed to extending the sales tax to internet sales which is why, in part, IRMA didn’t endorse him.
I believe it is a broadening which Quinn supports and generates much needed revenue
Comment by truthteller Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:00 pm
Schnorf, you’ve got enough back and forth without my chiming in on that stuff. A couple questions though. Why don’t you know him? How is it that in your circles you’ve never had a chance to chat with him? That is surprising to me. It could just be that you didn’t care to. Surely there must have been an opportunity or two along the way. I’m just curious.
Also, let’s assume you did have a chance to chat or get to know him. How would that affect the way you would evaluate things? As a precinct captain, I’ve come to realize, even in that lowly position on the political totem pole, I have had the chance to meet every candidate of both sides running in every statewide election for as long as I’ve been active. I’m just at stuff they’re at. Or on a train platform in between trains. Or in a hot precinct that both parties have identified. Or at funders or rallies or other events. I get to see them. I get to talk to whomever I really want to talk to. At least for a little time.
Most people don’t ever have the opportunity to meet with, talk to or “know” the person they’re voting for in a statewide election. Many are going to have to make a choice just as you are; as people who don’t know the person. How does that/should that affect the choice in your opinion?
Comment by A guy... Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:01 pm
I can’t tell you all how much I appreciate these comments. Too often recently this site has been filled with packaged talking points from hired gunslingers. So far we are seeing none of that and tons of thoughtful comment.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:03 pm
Mr. Schnorf your policy positions make you look like a downright Democrat. I saw somewhere (the Trib?) that conservatives by far outnumber moderate voters in the Illinois GOP.
It’s time to change sides Mr. Schnorf. Come to the party that supports a progressive income tax, union rights, adequate revenue, gay rights, MMJ, a minimum wage increase, etc.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:10 pm
== Freezing property taxes while reducing the income tax rate would be a double whammy on the locals, especially schools ==
Property taxes and Income taxes are the only taxes we can deduct on federal form 1040.
For someone in the 30% marginal tax bracket, that means $30 out of every $100 collected goes to Washington DC rather than staying in Illinois.
Illinois already is at the bottom of the list when we compare money sent to DC versus money coming back from DC.
Why make that imbalance worse?
Comment by Bill White Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:13 pm
Very thoughtful initial comments by Mr. Schnorf and equally thoughtful critiques of his reasoning. Many of my thoughts have already been expressed in one way or another.
So, I guess it boils down to ( as one commenter expresses recently ), do we vote for a Governor that we ( or at least many ) know and do not like or a Billionaire novice that we literally know nothing about?
Election Day is 4 weeks from tomorrow - guess we still have time to decide.
Comment by illini Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:15 pm
Steve your analysis is good, but as you note yourself needed some additions. My quibbles are few, mainly the “most assuredly” modifier relating to your business experience comment. I also question his ability to recruit the best staff to come into State government when budgets are shrinking and Rauner is touting a need to hold down salaries.
I’d invite you to join the growing band wagon supporting Oswego Willy’s stealth write-in campaign for Governor.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:17 pm
Guy, last late Summer in Chicago, I was at lunch with a small (8 or 10) group of some of the most politically involved people of the past 20 or 30 years you could ever meet, Rs, Ds, and Is. I asked “what about this Rauner guy”, and not a single person at the table had ever met him. It’s now a year later, and I’m willing to bet that only one of the people at that table has met him yet, and I’m sure that was because he was approached for money. I’m not sure that I can tell you why. I’m not at el stops or such. We don’t have a lot of heavily contested precincts here in Sangamon (didn’t Brady beat Quinn by about 28,000, an unheard of margin here?). The Sangamon county R foundation doesn’t invite me to their events so I didn’t see him at the Sangamo, He insulted Bill Cellini after that event, and that didn’t endear him a lot around here. Believe me, I haven’t avoided him, probably would enjoy meeting him. To me that’s what was significant about the Edgar endorsement. Edgar didn’t know him, got to know him, and endorsed him.
As to how should people decide their vote about candidates they don’t know, you know the answer as well as I do; educate yourself, as we are all trying to do. Think for yourself. Pay little attention to campaign ads, other than to alert you to things you might want to look into yourself.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:18 pm
=== Why don’t you know him? How is it that in your circles you’ve never had a chance to chat with him? That is surprising to me. It could just be that you didn’t care to.===
“I don’t know you.” - Jim Edgar.
So it’s Edgar’s fault too. C’mon man.
===Also, let’s assume you did have a chance to chat or get to know him. How would that affect the way you would evaluate things? As a precinct captain, I’ve come to realize, even in that lowly position on the political totem pole, I have had the chance to meet every candidate of both sides running in every statewide election for as long as I’ve been active. I’m just at stuff they’re at. Or on a train platform in between trains. Or in a hot precinct that both parties have identified. Or at funders or rallies or other events. I get to see them. I get to talk to whomever I really want to talk to. At least for a little time.===
- steve schnorf -’s credentials as a Republican, and as a knowledgeable and thoughtful “insider” whose weight on issues and politics do not warrant any of this very snide way to say he is not engaged, not caring, and worst of all, lazy to how you describe “engaged” people may act or respond.
===Most people don’t ever have the opportunity to meet with, talk to or “know” the person they’re voting for in a statewide election. Many are going to have to make a choice just as you are; as people who don’t know the person. How does that/should that affect the choice in your opinion?===
- steve schnorf - has a reputation where governors, legislators, lobbyists, Staff, senior campaign Crew, up to and including Campaign Manager. Rich Miller, our host, thinks his opinion, and his opinion of others, be they in government or politics…matters.
To that, knowing who he speaks of, who “they are”, his interpretation matters. Notice it’s not he who is saying it, it others. Others say. To put his name to an opinion, he wants to “know”, and considering his “Rolodex” can have any number of leaders who will take his call, it matters to him, to “know” because, well, like Jim Edgar, someone might take his opinion, and the weight of it, and use it for good of ill.
Is it a reflex that people are questioned before the facts presented?
Bad form.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:18 pm
==It could just be that you didn’t care to.==
Classy @A guy. Real classy.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:19 pm
GoM, I don’t want my party to wither into oblivion, a bunch of white-haired old white men and women (fewer and fewer women, even the older ones) complaining about our irrelevance and the service we are getting from the Hispanic waiter who clearly doesn’t know his place, wondering who in the world voted to make that black guy President, sure no one I know voted for him, and wondering what happened to the good old days when we controlled the Governor’s Mansion for 26 straight years.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:25 pm
Stones, Bidenopolous, skeptic, and others have all pointed out this one:
?Rauner’s extensive business experience almost assuredly makes him proficient at negotiating and, when necessary, compromising to reach agreements.”
GTCR negotiates with its partners, not its adversaries. It’s all carrot — we’ll make a lot of money! — and no stick. That’s not the kind of negotiations that are possible in Illinois with a weak recovery and huge liabilities. I don’t know that negotiating how much of the bigger pie to share is the same as negotiating over who gets the last sliver of the pie.
I would also add that the idea that Rauner could recruit talent is limited. In the world of private equity, there are few rules and limits on the financial incentives one can dangle to the desired recruit. State government, with its limited salaries and highly complex employment rules, doesn’t really work with Rauner’s (presumed) recruitment style — identify the best person and throw a bunch of money at them. Heck, you can’t even recruit someone by saying that you will give them a bunch of freedom to do what they want in government.
Other than that, I think Schnorf’s list is pretty good. I would add that Rauner is hard working, which is something you can’t say about every Governor (Blago-cough-cough). I think his personal business contacts could be a positive if we judge success by how many businesses relocate. And I think Rauner is, paradoxically, not really driven by material things; even though his hoarding of wealth belies that.
There, I’ve actually said nice things about Rauner. That’s all you’re getting until November 5
Comment by VM Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:26 pm
I should have included the fact that I like his record of charitable giving, that’s a positive
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:29 pm
I should have included the fact that I like his record of charitable giving, that’s a positive
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:29 pm
Steve, what about driving up in his van then giving a south side credit union a loan for 1 million? The perception of “buying” the black vote. Positive, Neutral or Negative from your view?
Comment by One to the Dome Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:31 pm
VM, they aren’t partners until the deal is done, and in Illinois government we need to do a better job of getting the deal done
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:32 pm
Dome, great question. Good charitable act, or huge cynical political theater? I don’t know, and maybe it doesn’t matter. Good can come out of bad acts, so maybe the only thing that matters in this case is the result
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:35 pm
There is no better support for Rauner’s claim that he is an outsider than Steve’s statement that he has never met Rauner.
Steve is an insider’s insider. This election is about who is the more competant outsider.
Comment by Paul Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:46 pm
I’m not so sure about his negotiating skills. I’ve been involved in numerous union negotiations over the years and have found that the best contracts come when both sides identify shared interests and work out from there. Rauner proclaiming that he will “shut down government” sends the wrong type of message if you want to have productive negotiations. Just my 2 cents worth (and probably worth half of that!).
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:54 pm
SS, thanks for the candid and even-handed analysis. While neither candidate is appealing, and the list of negatives for Rauner continues to grow as his overcommitments pile up (while, as you stated, Quinn, warts and all, is a known commodity), I’m curous if you agree with the following.
1) The hot-button issues impacting this race are overwhelmingly economic (taxes, pensions, infrastructure investment, etc.). Both candidates have offered up platforms that recommend significant changes to the way public money is collected and spent, although there’s less daylight between the competing proposal than meets the eye, I suspect.
2) Either candidate will need to work with a legislature that has majority (or perhaps supermajority) Democrats.
IMO, the burning question is this - who can accomplish more, given the likely composition of our House and Senate?
Comment by The Doc Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:56 pm
Mighty M. Mouse–Do you think your comment @2:45 P.M. was in the spirit of this thread as it was posted by Rich and laid out by Steve?
Comment by Responsa Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:59 pm
@steve schnorf, thanks for the analysis.
One question regarding your pro-Rauner points #1, 4, and 5. While these might differentiate Rauner from other republicans, might Quinn beliefs be the same as Rauner on all three (notwithstanding Quinn’s latest position against raising the sales tax)?
Comment by Robert the Bruce Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:02 pm
Serious question—has Jim Edgar ever not endorsed the Repub nominee? I honestly do not know.
Comment by Peoria guy Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:06 pm
When asked if he agreed with Keyes on the issues, Edgar stated that although he may not entirely agree with the candidate on all issues, he would vote for the Republican candidate. Asked specifically if he would be voting for Keyes, Edgar responded that he would vote for the Republican “unless there was a problem.”
Peoria guy @3:06pm I think that speaks volumes.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:14 pm
Schnorf, thanks for taking the time to share your insights.
“They aren’t partners until the deal is done.” Very true. There is a lot more to being successful in private equity than throwing bushels of money at people and companies. The best firms (and by the metric of repeated, successful funds GTCR would
be on that list) do a great deal of heavy lifting in both the
fundraising and especially portfolio company development.
I’m mystified as to why Rauner hasn’t spoken up about successful companies in his portfolio-there are plenty of them, as the performance indicates.
Knowing how to negotiate, as you say, will in my humble opinion, not be one of his biggest challenges should he be elected.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:23 pm
=== Demoralized - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:19 pm:
==It could just be that you didn’t care to.==
Classy @A guy. Real classy.====
Demo, grab some decaf. You could see by Schnorf’s thoughtful response that he took the question in a manner in which is was presented. He’s been and inside guy (not an insider, but an inside guy) for a lot of his adult life. He could meet whomever he wants to in Illinois elective politics. I was curious that he never met the guy. I didn’t know he wasn’t invited to Sangamon events or didn’t attend them. Now I do. Read his response: It’s thoughtful and makes plenty of sense. It also really says he didn’t have many opportunities and didn’t go out of his way to create any more opportunity than what would have been available. It simply struck me odd that he never met him at all. It was a bit surprising. It isn’t anymore. I thank him for his response. He answered the questions I asked.
The whole “stay classy” thing is a bit foolish.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:24 pm
Vanilla Man — could you take a crack at this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixmNZQH0NjU
The first line should be: “We all like Schnorf! We all like Schnorf!”
Comment by Soccermom Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:26 pm
===Mighty M. Mouse–Do you think your comment @2:45 P.M. was in the spirit of this thread as it was posted by Rich and laid out by Steve?===
An excellent question, and thank you for that!
I really, actually thought Steve was looking for pros and cons about Rauner that he left out.
That’s exactly what I thought and nothing else.
I’ll add this. I know Rich forbids ad hominem attacks.
An ad hominem argument is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
However, ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, for example, when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words, or when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact, or where it is essential to understanding certain moral or practical issues.
As a practical matter I think the way it works on this blog is simple: if a post strikes Rich as containing an inappropriate, fallacious personal attack he deletes it, maybe bans the person who posted it; if he thinks a post is legitimate and relevant to the issue he leaves it alone. But whatever comes from a candidate or campaign always gets reported, regardless of what Rich thinks of the appropriateness of the content.
Personally, if I think a person who is dangerous to the social fabric of our society is running I want to be able to warn people about it and why. I try to use the precise, scientific language I can.
I think the marketplace of thoughtful ideas is the poorer if I can’t.
And the reality is, Rich is the best there is on this subject for my money. We don’t always agree and I don’t always think he’s right.
I just think he’s better than anyone else.
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:27 pm
Steve, very thoughtful. I agree with most of it. I would be interested in Jim Thompson’s view of this election.
I think I it is very telling that in an old interview Rauner identified himself as a salesman.
One his strongest positives is, I believe, generally overlooked. He is rebuilding the Republican
Party. As a believer in the two party system, I believe this is a very good thing. He is bringing in young people. As a good retail campaigner he is infuseing an air of excitement to what had become a rather dreay collection of people.
Win or lose, he is enlarging the tent and that effect will last awhile.
Comment by Phil Bradley Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:29 pm
Steve, your last negative is interesting to me. The support here in Chicago for Rahm from my neighbors and wife is due in large part because he took on the unions. The perception is he will continue to do so. + for Rahm - for Rauner? Maybe it will work that way.
Thanks for the thoughtfulness
Comment by jeffinginChicago Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:47 pm
===The support here in Chicago for Rahm from my neighbors===
Lemme guess… 42nd Ward?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:48 pm
@Steve Schnorf and @Arthur Andersen: I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing when it comes to negotiations.
In the business world of Rauner, the negotiations are based on getting a deal that enriches everyone. The target companies aren’t necessarily in the negotiations — if they are taken over by buying up stock on the open market, for example, there really is no negotiation.
My point is that the types of negotiations in private equity are “I will give you x% for an investment of Y%”; “No, I want X+1%.”
In tight budgetary times the negotiations are different. There is not the presumption of an expanding pie — GTCR buys a company and the deal is all based on the assumption that the company becomes more; Illinois sees a drop in revenue, everyone is fighting for less.
Maybe I’m not explaining my issue correctly, but the response that Rauner can make business deals just doesn’t seem to address the point I am trying to make.
Comment by VM Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:55 pm
I think the reference to unions is a bit broad for 42.
CTU sure does not seem popular in 42, but I seem to recall an endorsement from FOP (or was it the Sgts? Thought it was FOP) for Reilly having a positive impact at the last minute in 2007.
Of course, that may just mean that people in 42 like the police and dislike teachers. I can’t rule that out.
But we digress.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:55 pm
Paul at 2:46 thinks having met Mr. Schnorf is a disqualifying event for a future governor.
Comment by chi Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 4:00 pm
Now Schnorf has had an opportunity to go through his “Quibbles and Bits” here, it would be worth posting an updated list tomorrow. This has been a decent exercise.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 4:22 pm
I apologize if this has been asked already but a question for Steve: Who do you think (Quinn or Rauner) has a better chance of working with Madigan and/or Cullerton? To me, that is the essence of the governor election this time around.
Comment by East Central Illinois Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 4:30 pm
Great analysis, great discussion. I struggle to contribute because I get hung up on the “public discomfort with who he is” and “credibility gap in terms of cutting taxes and increasing funding” points.
He may be working to present himself as a clean slate everyman, but he is clearly a very intelligent, sharp, shrewd, determined man. A man like that knows how he’ll approach governing. I get stuck, right there, and can’t consider voting for him without that information.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 4:41 pm
===Great analysis, great discussion.===
Agreed. I just talked to Steve on the phone and he was quite impressed with the way this went. He is currently indisposed and can’t answer any more questions this afternoon/evening, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 4:52 pm
I have looked at the positives and negatives of both candidates. I agree with Steve on many of his points regarding Rauner. As a state employee, I have serious concerns about the anti union rhetoric. But, I do believe that Rauner would be limted in diminshing benefits per the pending Supreme Court ruling.
It would also be interesting to see the same type of analysis of Governor Quinn. What I do know as a state employee is that my agency and most others are in shambles. Employee morale is terrible and the general feeling is that the biggest-problem is poor leadership. That goes directly to the current governor. If the public knew how bad things were in state government that would demand a change to anyone but Quinn.
I don’t know if Rauner would be a decent governor or not. He very well could be a poor one. But I can gurantee you he can’t be any worse than Quinn. That’s why I am voting for a change and Bruce Rauner!
Comment by Southern illinoisan Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 5:01 pm
–The support here in Chicago for Rahm from my neighbors and wife is due in large part because he took on the unions. The perception is he will continue to do so. + for Rahm–
The Tribbies August poll had Emanuel’s approval rating falling from 50% to 35% in a year.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 5:15 pm
“* Rauner’s discomfort publicly with whom and what he is. Negative. He’s wealthy and privileged. Don’t try to deny it, explain to us why it shouldn’t matter.”
Steve - I disagree (to an extent) about your assessment of Rauner denying that he is privileged. Rauner countered one person by saying “No actually I’m part of the .01%”
He also “donated” that money to the African American communities for loans.
In addition, he is pretty open about the millions of dollars he has given to fight for causes he thinks are worthy, such as charter schools.
Romney, in 2012 made the mistake of not saying why it doesn’t matter that he is privileged. I agree with you that Rauner has not done this effectively yet either.
Rauner, I think, needs to explain why it is an asset that he is priviliged, and how that wealth has made it possible for him to make a difference in peoples lives in the past, present and future.
Comment by Modest Proposal Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 5:30 pm
Yep, Rich, I dunno one Ward in Chicago that Rahm is right side in except 42, and that might be pushing it.
To the post:
Schnorf, like others I am not convinced of Rauners negotiating skills.
He is a skilled salesman, that is for sure.
What he hasn’t really figured out yet is that in the private sector, you can tailor your sales pitch to the client - tell them what they want to hear - to close the deal.
The last election you could get away with that in Illinois was 1998.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 5:40 pm
Does this mean John Fritchey will be doing a Quinn pro’s and con’s list?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 5:41 pm
There was the primary election Bruce Rauner, who was absolutely against a minimum wage increase, wanted to smash unions and was (I think) against Medicaid expansion.
The Rauner of today is singing a different tune. Think again how it would be if this was a Reddish state or red-leaning state in the ILGA. Rauner would be all about ripping unions, stripping collective bargaining, pushing right to work, standing against Obamacare, against raising the minimum wage and a lot of the other stuff.
Plus, Rauner likes to call others corrupt. That’s a word he seems to use a lot, corrupt. Corrupt unions, corrupt politicians, corrupt Quinn, etc.
When it comes to his businesses and their ethical and legal problems, he doesn’t know anything and excuses the behavior as an inevitable part of large organizations.
Then there’s the extreme ingratitude toward public employees and their unions. They had a great relationship with him, in regards to the TRS pensions. Rauner really seems to hate some of the people with whom he had a mutually beneficial relationship. Sorry, but it’s no fun to be on the other end of those attacks, and if you throw political punches like he did, those punches will be returned.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 6:17 pm
One other thing I would add is Rauner’s choice of running mate. I used to say it was an early indication of a presidential candidate’s thinking. Now it’s true for a governor. Quinn’s first choice wasn’t very good. Rauner’s seems to be much the same since he has to hide her.
Comment by formerGOPer Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 7:35 pm
Mr. Schnorf,
Thanks for your thoughts and responses. Always learning.
OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 7:57 pm
Thanks to all for this great discussion. As always, I learn more from the discussions than the media.
Southern Illinois, I also work for a state agency. We must work in different agencies because the morale is fine although we are frustrated by the current negative stereotyping of public workers. For the most part we work for government because we believe in it and respect the process. Most are dedicated to their jobs and would earn more in the private sector.
My concern with Rauner is that he seems so clueless about the functioning of government in general. He says he will surround himself with the best people, but I question his ability to determine who the best people are. I agree with VM strongly. Government is not his field of expertise.
Rauner’s inexperience, lack of knowledge and lack of former participation in the government he may lead, troubles me. He has never served on a commission that I know of and his one action in government leadership, term limits, was a failure.
Comment by DuPage Grandma Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 8:01 pm
I’m guessing southern illinoian is not a state employee
Comment by foster brooks Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 8:03 pm
Steve, the only credible analysis I have seen about funding levels was a research paper that came out of U of I in Urbana that detailed the scope of the problem. Their conclusion was the states fiscal woes cannot be solved by spending cuts alone, or tax increases alone, or pension reform (whatever reform means), and there will need to be a combination of all three.
I believe the problem is solvable, and the state has a large enough economy that it can be solved, but there will be a lot of pain involved for everyone in the short term.
Rauner’s only chance at winning is a bold plan that lays out the facts of the states fiscal situation and promises to deliver Republican votes for revenue increases in exchange for some serious deregulation - make the state much more friendly for startups and small businesses
Comment by Angry Republican Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 8:05 pm
Bruce Rauner is a well educated man who will do great as governor. I believe he will lower the takes eventually and shake up spingfield!
Comment by Joey Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 8:51 pm
Someone asked for a similar list for Quinn, and as a lifelong Dem I have nothing at all to put in the pros column, other than he is not Rauner. However, the previously mentioned cons for Rauner outweigh the lack of pros for Quinn. Too bad the Republican I voted for in the primary lost by a narrow margin. I would have been voting for him again in November. How many Dems and Independents are there in the state who would have preferred another moderate choice?
Comment by Jibba Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 9:30 pm
===Does this mean John Fritchey will be doing a Quinn pro’s and con’s list?===
Sorry to disagree, but I’d nominate you. You’re a blog regular, a knowledgeable Democrat, and no one could fairly accuse you of sugarcoating Pat Quinn.
As for Rauner, our election cycle is way too long for someone like him. Filing in December and then voting in February worked for him in the primary, But the way his campaign was in free-fall at the end, he’s real lucky it wasn’t “voting in March.”
Steve didn’t mention Rauner’s almost invariable lack of specificity, though he did list “Rauner’s claim to have detailed position papers on a wide variety of issues that he doesn’t really have.”
I remember back in the first week of April Mike Schrimpf telling the Sun-Times regarding Rauner’s education reform proposal that the details will come “when the time is right for the campaign.”
So Steve thinks it isn’t late, that it doesn’t exist?
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 9:32 pm
Steve You should know by now if you follow this blog that the people who respond to this column could give lessons to our elected officials. They are pretty sharp. Quality people with great ideas. I know that it looks like I’m brown nosing but these people know their stuff.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 9:47 pm
Steve, I’m commenting after reading your article but before reading the comments. The one item I would disagree with is his funding priorities. I’ve seen, I think, 2 recorded speechs and one live one by Rauner; his pitch seems to be tailored / targeted to the group he is speaking to and the spending priorites seem to change depending upon the group being addressed. Given that, I think I would score Rauner’s spending priorities, at best, a weak positive to neutral.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 10:16 pm
After reading the comments, I think I would also disagree on Rauner’s negotiating skills. From what I’ve read, it appears Rauner was always in a position of power as opposed to being a co-equal. (Yes, Rich, I know an IL Gov can weild a lot of power with amendatory vetoes but I don’t think that is the kind of after the fact power Rauner is used to using.) I don’t think Rauner would do so well as a co-equal.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 10:43 pm
And one more makes it an even 100. I will try to update tomorrow with additions reflecting much of what I heard here. Great comments! I couldn’t be happier with all you thoughtful folks. Thanks.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 11:27 pm