Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s cable TV buys
Next Post: Local 150 behind yet another anti-Rauner move
Posted in:
Aside from what I wrote in the subscriber section today, here are a few of my takeaways from last night…
* I agree with Tom Kacich on this point…
Finally, for a debate that was supposed to focus on downstate issues, there was no discussion of roads, agriculture, gun rights or higher education. Don’t expect those topics to be addressed in the next debates in the Chicago area.
While that didn’t make the debate a complete failure, Tom is right.
* Also, the League of Women Voters has a terrible debate format. Not enough follow-up between candidates, too tightly controlled.
Amanda Vinicky thanked you, by the way…
Thanks all (and esp. @capitolfax commenters) for the question recommendations and debate props. Now: suggestions for a better debate format?
— Amanda Vinicky (@AmandaVinicky) October 10, 2014
Vinicky did her best to skirt the rules, but the League should either come up with a better format or stop hosting debates. They suck.
* Now, on to something that I don’t think many folks noticed beyond a few commenters. One of the questioners pointed out that Gov. Quinn has closed prisons, while Bruce Rauner has said he’d reopen prisons. What would each do about rehabilitating inmates in order to reduce recidivism?
Rauner’s answer…
“We need to reform our corrections system in Illinois. It is broken and is badly mismanaged under Gov. Quinn, just as most departments of our government have been under Quinn.
“We have a tragic situation in Illinois. We have unsafe prisons. We have corrections officers with their life and their personal safety at risk. We have inmates with their personal safety at risk because we haven’t properly staffed and invested in our corrections system.”
Whoa. Stop tape.
When was the last time you heard a candidate at that level in either party bemoaning the lack of personal safety for prison inmates?
The time Rauner has spent with African-American clergy (who deal with this issue on a daily basis) may have informed him on this topic. Yeah, maybe he mentioned it as a way to score a political point or two, but that also comes at the cost of fury from the “get tougher” crowd. He deserves credit for listening and thinking and putting it into a reasonable context.
* OK, restart tape…
“We also incarcerate non-violent offenders very often here. And we do a very poor job relative to other states for providing alternative routes to deal with non-violent offenders - ways that they are more likely to receive help and avoid falling back into lives of crime and helping them find ways to get back in society and be productive citizens.
“We don’t think outside the box, we don’t do good innovative programs like other states do.”
Stop again.
Quinn’s administration has come up with some innovative offender programs, as the governor explained in his own response. But Rauner was absolutely right on the fact that our prisons have too many non-violent criminals (who then learn how to be violent).
Look, Rauner could have easily used that question to bang Quinn for his botched 2009 early release debacle. It would’ve dovetailed nicely with his attack ad. Instead, Rauner chose to focus on inmate safety and finding ways to avoid imprisoning non-violent offenders and instead helping them become productive citizens.
I found this to be quite remarkable. I mean, a candidate with a perfect setup for a full-throated negative assault chooses instead to go with a soft hit and empathy for society’s perceived dregs?
Nicely done, Bruce.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:03 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s cable TV buys
Next Post: Local 150 behind yet another anti-Rauner move
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
That couldn’t have been an off the cuff remark. That had to be a prepared answer to that question. That at least shows that Rauner has some discipline. Indeed, nicely done.+
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:10 pm
I could not watch the full debate last night and considered deleting the recording this morning.
Mr. Rauner’s answer is now going to make me watch the whole thing.
More like this, please.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:12 pm
I cannot recall anyone from either party making such a clear statement on what is an issue most seem to want to sweep under the rug. I had given up on Rauner entirely, but I am impressed here. Perhaps less attack and more straightforward addressing the issues is his way forward.
Comment by Skirmisher Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:15 pm
You’re welcome Ms. Vinicky! Big props are well deserved.
===Look, Rauner could have easily used that question to bang Quinn for his botched 2009 early release debacle. It would’ve dovetailed nicely with his attack ad. Instead, Rauner chose to focus on inmate safety and finding ways to avoid imprisoning non-violent offenders and instead helping them become productive citizens.===
You are right to give kudos, Rich.
Where I have felt Rauner has failed, but fail is too tough… but there seems there isn’t an overt sense of empathy or warmth from Rauner.
Rauner doesn’t need to cry, or tell sad stories, but this pivot, to softly, and almost sneaky, in the best possible way, really speaks to a man that is caring, and like Romney, there is that “wall” up like ” I’ll have a beer with you, but I can’t put my arm around you”
More like this please, Rauner, show me, not the staged smile, don’t be bubbly, but just show empathy, not anger, for those you are “fighting” for…
You always can soften an image of a candidate when the talk, or are seen, with their family. The Katie Brady Ads were great.
Rauner has chosen; no family, just wife. His choice, but children, even the Romney children, softened up the image.
Families do that. That is a missing ingredient, and like a sugar-free cake, Rauner wants his cake, “family-free”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:16 pm
I don’t know. I understand that Rauner answered this question in an unexpected way — I understand that.
But from the look on Rauner’s face when talk came around to Adult Redeploy and recidivism — I’m guessing he’s repeating talking points. Maybe he understands what he’s saying — and maybe, for that alone, he deserves kudos — but in the context of Rauner’s general — and specific — lack of specificity — I’m not convinced he, personally, understood what he was saying. He looked confused, and what came out of mouth was timely — but I do not for one minute believe that Rauner believes it’s important enough to go to the mat for.
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:17 pm
Wasn’t there a headline about lack of safety in Cook County Jail recently? Just a thought of why it may have come up.
And as for all the downstate issues ignored, its a bigger shame when you consider just how few must have been watching in chicago last night. CSN chicago was touting last nights ratings as their best hawks season opener in network history.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:18 pm
Could this be the first version of “Good Cop vs Bad Cop” Rauner type of politicking?? The “Good Cop” real-time Bruce and then the TV/Internet “Bad Cop attack Quinn” version of Bruce? Plays to both sides of the empathy as well as “go get ‘em tiger” styles of politics.
Comment by East Central Illinois Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:18 pm
===but I do not for one minute believe that Rauner believes it’s important enough to go to the mat for. ===
I think you’re wrong on that. But I’ll save my full thoughts for subscribers at another time. It has to do with the GA, by the way.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:20 pm
== That had to be a prepared answer to that question ==
With respect, Demoralized, imho a prepared answer likely would have found some way to work in a hard hit on Quinn. That question was a fastball right down the middle during Bloodtober, and Rauner could have torn into it.
This could easily have been Rauner speaking off the cuff on one of the few subjects where he feels comfortable doing so. The consistent, prepared response would not have been ==prison reform== and ==protecting both corrections officers and inmates==, but ==MGT Push==, ==Quinn is weak on crime==, and the likes of his ads on this.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:23 pm
Forgive me if I don’t buy it. This guy invested in a company that makes sure people get locked up when they can’t pay a fine for fishing without a license, now he cares about non-violent offenders.
I call BS.
Comment by Aqua Buddha Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:24 pm
Better format…
Well I didn’t watch last night but…
Rap Battle…
Comment by OneMan Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:29 pm
===Where I have felt Rauner has failed, but fail is too tough… but there seems there isn’t an overt sense of empathy or warmth from Rauner.===
OW, Rauner doesn’t HAVE any empathy.
He also lacks a conscience, as well.
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:30 pm
Kudos to the handful here who have it in them to give credit where credit is due. This is a huge issue in the AA community and it indicates he’s heard it enough to make it a priority. Good for them, good for him.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:32 pm
The larger point of Rauner’s talk on prisons was about the need for major changes and reforms.
To me this is code for privatization.
Prisons are bad places. But I doubt privatized prisons are better places.
However, I have no doubt the people who stand to make money from privatizing prisons will promise human rights and unicorns to get their preferred policies implemented.
But once they get the money, it’ll be about squeezing the system for more prisoners and higher profit margins.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:33 pm
I’m skeptical, Rich. Not sure why he didn’t go after Quinn for early release - although the “smart on crime, not tough on crime” message has soaked in to a significant extent in many states (even red states) in the past few years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if his pollsters were letting him know that the early release attacks weren’t working as well as projected.
But his talking points seemed very stale to me. Rauner is so used to bashing Illinois and saying our system is broken that he doesn’t know a successful program when it bites him in the posterior. The fact is that Illinois DOES have some of the most innovative (and numerous) programs providing alternatives to incarceration. More funding is needed - particularly for treatment, education, job training and the like INSIDE prisons, including for violent criminals who will eventually need to readjust to society, too - but for the most part, the programs are already in place, especially for the non-violent offender population. And Rauner’s fiscal plans certainly aren’t going to do much to free up funding for stuff like that.
I call BS, too.
Comment by Commander Norton Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:34 pm
Having been in meetings with the League on debates before I can assure you of one thing: they don’t understand politics and so don’t understand the ultimate purpose of debates: to inform people about the candidates views, demeanor and abilities. The League needs to stop hosting debates and media needs to stop looking to them for legitimacy. Period. I’ve been complaining about this for years. Open the format up and let em at each other. Amanda was great, but the format just royally sucked and voter knowledge suffered.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:38 pm
===To me this is code for privatization.===
Illinois statute forbids privatized prisons. Any idea how difficult changing that statute would be?
No way that happens.
Democrats are mostly opposed and a bunch of Republicans have prisons in their districts (and, therefore, tons of AFSCME families).
No way that happens. Move along.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:50 pm
other than it generally wasn’t responsive to the question asked (inmates, recidivism), but I guess that’s what debates are for
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:54 pm
Any chance we could get a no rules debate hosted by Rich and Amanda?
That would be worthy of WTTW picking it up.
Comment by Hank Z Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 1:57 pm
How will we know if Rauner was being sincere or insincere? Elect him! Pretty much like every other one of his policies.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:01 pm
A companion point to Chicago Cynic’s on the format, which is: Question. Candidate A dodges and filibusters. Candidate B Attacks Candidate A but also doesn’t answer the darn question. No panelist relentlessly pushes either of them to go past their talking points. Oops, we have lots to cover! Suzy Q, your next question is for Candidate B. Rinse, Repeat.
So we get a million questions on a million topics but no pressure on the candidates to answer any of them.
The odds that future debates will be any different?
Comment by Fight Fair Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:09 pm
i like the way he thinks
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:12 pm
That’s a very good catch Rich. I hope Bruce takes this issue seriously. It’s the next big problem to solve in Illinois and across the country.
The interesting thing about Bruce is that he seems to have personal concerns about improving parts of society, but at the same time fully buys into the ideology that those kinds of concerns should be entirely ignored in business choices. That is a late 20th Century ideology almost universal among business leaders. It wasn’t always that way, and doesn’t have to be.
Comment by walker Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:15 pm
Rauner came up with intelligent answers to a number of issues. The problem with the League of Women Voters format is that both candidates get a question, get 1-1/2 minutes to answer. If you go first, you pivot early and ding the other guy. I you go second, you pivot earlier and ding the other guy harder. Since there is no rebuttal, you end up with intelligent answers getting lost in the pivoting.
Two hours with moderators asking follow up questions directly to each candidate and allowing the candidates to directly speak to each other would be two nice starts.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:34 pm
=== Precinct Captain - Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:01 pm:
How will we know if Rauner was being sincere or insincere? Elect him! Pretty much like every other one of his policies.===
Finally!! And to think I almost gave up on you.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:40 pm
Doesn’t Rauner have investments in the industry?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 4:18 pm