Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Quinn radio ad: “Threatening women and their families is despicable”

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube

* Gov. Pat Quinn’s radio ad on Bruce Rauner’s alleged threats against a female LeapSource executive might be even more damaging than Quinn’s TV ad. Listen to the whole thing…

Bloodtober, baby.

* Script…

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: What do we really know about billionaire Bruce Rauner’s temperament?

Let’s look at how he treated his female employees at one of his out-sourcing companies.

An NBC News investigation has revealed that Rauner repeatedly threatened a woman executive and then fired her for not laying off enough workers in order to maximize his profits.

The shocking details of Rauner’s threats to the woman executive were part of a sworn court deposition and reported by this NBC News report:

CAROL MARIN: “Rauner told another board member, quote ‘I will bury her. I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don’t know if she has a family or not, but if she does she’d better think twice about this.’”

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: While that doesn’t say everything about Bruce Rauner, it says a lot.

And Bruce Rauner, if you’re listening, listen closely: Threatening women and their families is despicable, and has no place in Illinois. Period.

GOV. PAT QUINN: Taxpayers for Quinn paid for this message because there’s so much at stake.

Keep in mind that the Chicago metro area has one of the longest commute times in the nation, so lots of people listen to their car radios every morning and every afternoon. Many, if not most, will hear this - over and over again.

Also, the announcer’s pitch was perfect throughout. Whatever side you’re on, if you’re at all honest you have to admit that the Quinnsters have run some incredibly solid spots this fall, far outshining Rauner’s efforts. If Quinn does lose, it won’t be because of his ads.

Oof.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:45 am

Comments

Here endeth the lesson.

Wow.

Can’t deny the Ad if your Rauner, the “bad” would get far worse, saying a sworn depo is a lie, and the person giving it, says that he stands by his deposition.

Utter. Genius. “A+” radio ad, and the end “telling Rauner”, no good there for Rauner.

===Also, the announcer’s pitch was perfect throughout. Whatever side you’re on, if you’re at all honest you have to admit that the Quinnsters have run some incredibly solid spots this fall, far outshining Rauner’s efforts. If Quinn does lose, it won’t be because of his ads.===

For all the money dumped in by Rauner, personally, and Ken Griffin, personally, they both proved to be the pigeons that others said they wouldn’t be.

“Bruce is different than other rich guys”

Rich guys would have not been out-flanked on media, which he has been since March.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:56 am
isn’t Diana Rauner supposed to be answering this spot? What’s the holdup?You can’t leave it unanswered.

It would be even better with female execs of former GTCR companies. But up to now, Rauner hasn’t shown he can produce anything positive out of GTCR..

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:04 am
I agree Rich. Great ad.

A man can’t threaten a woman and be governor. You simply can’t do both.

Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:08 am
Since - Wordslinger - “broke the seal”, I thought about the answer;

Stand with all the females Rauner’s GTCR recruited, point to their successes, explain that when finding the best of the best, these women are the standard Rauner wants to be judged…

…if you have the female execs, they were successful, the companies still exist, and GTCR allows more scrutiny.

Big ask.

Diana Rauner can’t intervene here. Being the doting Democratically voting wife, sure…

Diana Rauner can’t help with this situation.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:10 am
Amazing that this matters. But it does.

We’re all not proud of all the things we have said while engaged in competitive business with real emotion and real consequences.

Politic Quinn can’t relate because he’s been feasting off the public tit his whole life.

Sad really.

Comment by DuPage Moderate Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:11 am
Woman GTCR Exec: “Is Bruce Rauner a tough, no-nonsense guy? Absolutely. But sometimes in business you need to be tough. And without Bruce Rauner’s bottom-line approach, I wouldn’t be where I am today.”

Assuming there are any of course.

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:15 am
Would this even be a issue if he said this about a man in business? No. Are women equal or not? He didn’t say this to her, he said it to some one else.
All Quinn has is this little crap because he has failed. You would think the media would demand he answer for the poor state of affairs in our state; but no they keep covering every personal attack never demanding Quinn answer for his ineptitude.

Comment by votecounter Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:15 am
bruce loves women look at his running mate?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:15 am
A- Full of content that cannot be denied or evaded.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:17 am
- Skeptic -

Careful. Be very careful.

“Is Bruce Rauner a tough, no-nonsense guy? Absolutely. But sometimes in business you need to be tough. And without Bruce Rauner’s bottom-line approach, I wouldn’t be where I am today.”

“Question, so threatening women is just being tough, or is it too tough when you threaten to bankrupt and ruin their families, as a woman do think Mr. Rauner saying he would ‘bury her’ that’s just being tough?”

Can’t walk into the easy counter…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:19 am
Quinn ads good, Rauner ads bad. This is getting boring and predictable.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:19 am
Wait, he’s threatening a woman and not just an employee in the heat of passion? I thought we were all equal? So now the sex the matters?

The rules change so much I’m having a hard time keeping track.

Comment by DuPage Moderate Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:22 am
Quinn ads good, Rauner ads bad. We get it. YAWN. Also, in this day and age of Sirius/XM, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume everyone is hearing this over and over again.

Comment by RYNO Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:23 am
Even though it’s a cheap shot, you have to credit the Quinnster’s timing on this one.

To get out of the trick bag, Bruce needs to do something outrageous like say that 75% of his appointees will be women/women of color or have ‘Slip and Sue’ put out a presser saying, “That was the old Bruce. I can vouch for the new Bruce.”

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:26 am
would love to hear Rauner say he has binders full of successful GTCR-funded female execs that support him on this matter

Comment by PoolGuy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:28 am
They Need Radogno or Mc Caunnauhay on radio ASAP to offset it. Either one stating how Rauner cares about education and family.
Who cares what they say pick out a hot topic for woman and get it on the radio.
They both have big name ID in cook county and that’s were its running.

Comment by In the know Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:29 am
Ryno, you don’t have to “assume” who’s listening at all. They’ve been measuring this stuff pretty tightly for a while. But nice day for whistling past the graveyard.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:29 am
@Jocko 10:26 “have ‘Slip and Sue’ put out a presser saying, “That was the old Bruce. I can vouch for the new Bruce.””

This one please! It would be great fun to watch and we could all use a humor break during bloodtober.

Comment by former southerner Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:32 am
Rauner’s main advantage was money. The quality of Quinn’s ads has almost totally neutralized that advantage.

I’ve not seen evidence yet that Rauner will be able to neutralize Quinn’s advantage in GOTV.

Comment by Snucka Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:34 am
@FakeSlip&Sue - you commenters have it all wrong; when Bruce thought about dumping me off, I threatened to slip & fall & sue Bruce, bankrupt his family, so I got to stay #AntiTortReform #PI #MunisOverTheBarrel

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:35 am
This happened over the weekend. The disclaimer is still on NBC5 website.

“Starting today, the Quinn campaign began airing a television commercial using a portion of an NBC 5 investigative report.

“The story was reported by our political editor Carol Marin. NBC 5 strongly objects to use of our material in a campaign ad, and we asked the Quinn campaign to not use it.

“NBC 5 is required by law to air campaign commercials bought by bona-fide candidates for public office so you will see it on our air.

“We want to make clear that this commercial is not an endorsement of Governor Quinn by Carol Marin or NBC 5. We will continue to work hard to make sure we cover both candidates for governor fairly and objectively.”

http://www.robertfeder.com/2014/10/11/nbc-5-strongly-objects-to-quinn-commercial/

Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:38 am
OW: Good point. I guess I earned every penny the Rauner camp paid me.

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:39 am
- I’ve not seen evidence yet that Rauner will be able to neutralize Quinn’s advantage in GOTV. -

Now that’s not fair. When I was out knocking doors for PQ I found a crumpled Rauner door hanger in a bush. It was at the home of a hardcore Democrat, but at least they’re trying.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:42 am
A lot of Republicans are furious at Rauner for hiding so much during the primary.

But Republicans have only themselves to blame. Most allowed themselves to be blinded by Rauner’s money and they never bothered to do their homework.

Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:44 am
•••“The story was reported by our political editor Carol Marin. NBC 5 strongly objects to use of our material in a campaign ad, and we asked the Quinn campaign to not use it.•••

LOL what’s that about? Media executives are getting nervous that their guy is getting hammered? How many ads show media sources for content? I’ve seen a number.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:44 am
The Quinn camp has (correctly, IMO) determined that the protests of NBC 5 are not sufficient to cause them to stop running the ad.

I’m not sure what the problem is, anyway. Candidates use news stories in their ads all the time.

Comment by Snucka Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:45 am
Should have used a softer woman’s voice. Hard hitting ad, but the woman’s voice is deeper. If it were less deep, it might be more effective.

Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:01 am
==I’m not sure what the problem is, anyway. Candidates use news stories in their ads all the time.==

Smucka, I think the NBC5 disclaimer story is interesting and unusual because it can be read at least two ways:

If Marin believes her prominence in this ad could sully her reputation as a fair and impartial journalist, or if the station thinks they were used, (maybe depending on where the origins of the investigation came from) then the Quinn campaign may find they’ve made an enemy at an important Chicago media outlet at an inopportune time.

On the other hand, if the investigative report was cut in that way with the assumption and intention that it would be used as a campaign ad for Quinn, and now the station is playing coy, then it’s a different matter entirely.

Frankly, when I first saw Feder’s column my immediate reaction was that it (the backstory) would make a great story line for the TV show “The Good Wife”.

Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:04 am
===On the other hand, if the investigative report was cut in that way with the assumption and intention that it would be used as a campaign ad for Quinn===

Oh, for crying out loud.

I know it’s silly season, but that was just way over the line. I only left it up so I could ridicule it.

Take a breath, maybe take a long walk, calm down and move along.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:08 am
yeah, i tend to think of chicago’s electorate as pretty sophisticated, so i doubt there are very many people who think carol marin or nbc5 are endorsing anyone. most tv news outlets cringe when their news items are used in political ads — in part because political ads are very, very, very profitable…

Comment by bored now Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:10 am
Ben Nuckels deserves credit for the Quinn messaging. Yes, he is still around. And it’s a good thing. Some of the new Obama people brought on board from out of state understand campaign concepts, but not Illinois politics. Too trusting. Too naive. Of course, Ben was once that way too.

Comment by Ms Anon Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:10 am
It is an effective ad. NBC5’s objections are being simply brushed aside. That should be a lesson to Marin and NBC5. Yellow journalism simply doesn’t reflect well on the reporters, the media outlets and the multiple victims involved, including the female CEO and Rauner.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:15 am
Louis, you’re really going to play Rauner as a victim? Of what? Reporting on a lawsuit is not “yellow journalism.”

If that’s all you’ve got, you might want to sit this one out.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:20 am
Sorry word, “summary judgment” following testimony that Rauner never uttered those words to her, and the subsequent hatchet job by Marin, NBC5 and the Sun-Times are classic Yellow Journalism. This after a democratic group fed the story to them?

Not Journalism’s finest hour. They are not beyond reproach here.

After NBC5 objected to Marin’s voice being used in the TV ad, it is still running on TV? They wanted to play in the pig pen. And they reaped what they “sowed!”

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:34 am
“Bruce Rauner - a victim to trying to make a woman a victim”

It’s a lil rough, but so is Bruce it seems…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:35 am
===Sorry word, “summary judgment” following testimony that Rauner never uttered those words to her…===

Are you calling the person who gave the deposition a liar?

You want to go down the Jeri Ryan rabbit hole?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:37 am
As we discussed last week, the “Summary Judgement” part had 0.00% to do with the validity of that quote.

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:43 am
===“The story was reported by our political editor Carol Marin. NBC 5 strongly objects to use of our material in a campaign ad, and we asked the Quinn campaign to not use it.===

NBC and Marin have every right to protest and Quinn has every right to use it anyway.

Because that’s what they call “fair use.”

I think Rich is very familiar with that doctrine.

You can use a little snippet but not a lot. Right?

Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:43 am
===Rauner never uttered those words to her…===

Ah, so by telling the board member, all is wiped clean?

“Did you lie in your deposition that you state …”

Nice pivot, thou.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:44 am
This is not about a woman executive. That makes for a good debate and a lot of hot tempered posts but that is not the real problem. Candidate Rauner is a bully, a brute, a goon if you will. Instead of just firing the woman and replacing her, he was intend on revenge. Ask yourself Over what? Nothing really. He was being mean and vindictive which is a reflection on his personality. That won’t work with the legislators if he gets elected. If he wins, look for fireworks.

Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:44 am
Rauner isn’t even a competent thug.

He promised to bury and bankrupt that woman but in fact he ended up having to pay her half a million bucks to settle.

Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:50 am
Bruce doesn’t have a history of violence….He totes a sledgehammer for exercise. He was heading to the gym when he said he wanted to punch someone at the parade. He was trying to stop a thief when he said he’s going to break some arms.

Comment by foster brooks Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:01 pm
Since we know so little about the details of Bruce Rauner and his plans for running the state, given what we actually do know, does he sound like a compromising, collaborative kind of worker? Knowing the little that we do know, does he sound like a good choice?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:06 pm
I’ve heard this a couple of times. It’s an excellent attack ad.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:17 pm
I have a little bit of backroom NBC5 knowledge. Believe me…they were ANGRY about the Carol Marin stuff appearing in the ad, and I’m not referring to station ownership. Rank and file didn’t like it either on integrity grounds.

That said, I also know their legal counsel looked into it and said essentially they couldn’t do anything about it. The story I got said the campaign did actually pull something else NBC5 wanted out of the ad, but only after making it clear they didn’t have to…they just thought the ad was better without the second part.

I actually do think Carol has license to be upset, because it’s her voice and so could be seen as an endorsement. That’s why I think the station had to make a public stink about it (instead of letting it simmer behind the scenes). But the station as a whole knows it has no standing. It’s like a newspaper headline floating across the screen…just LOTS more effective.

Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:31 pm
I hear this add and it reminds me of what Quinn did to Ann Schnieder.

That’s how you bury someone. You promote them to the top, then throw them under the bus when the spot-light gets hot on you.

That’s not what I want in a Governor.

Comment by Pete Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:32 pm
It’s a very effective ad.
There is still plenty of time for Rauner to respond with something, anything. How many times has Rich reminded us there are 3 weeks left?
If you were vacillating between the candidates and are a woman, this particular spot might have hit the ball out of the park!

Comment by Belle Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:35 pm
All this jabber about threatening a woman! So it’s ok to threaten a male employee? To threaten to bury them and their family. Come on. A threat is a threat. Always inappropriate and wrong but to come from a candidate for the highest office in the state?

Comment by Geronimo Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 1:07 pm
===All this jabber about threatening a woman! So it’s ok to threaten a male employee?===

Bruce Rauner, according to the sworn deposition, said what he said about a woman.

Like it, don’t, but politics is about optics, and having your Principle make a point about a woman, is a political hit, period, end of discussion.

It is.

That’s politics.

The optics makes it more…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 1:12 pm
The missiles are coming more frequently now. I guess strategically I would have tried this earlier (if they had it). It’s potent, but I’m not sure how potent. I’m not even sure that it resonates more with over repetition. It’s a pretty narrow audience now. It’s red meat, but hard to know how many carnivores are among the undecided.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 1:20 pm
===I’m not even sure that it resonates more with over repetition.===

Yeah, ok.

Rauner threatened to bury a female executive, threatened her family too.

Just like all the negatives against the “10% negative Rauner” his negatives rose now, he dropping, the trend ain’t Rauner’s friend and the GOTV from the Primary…good luck with that.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 1:31 pm
Has Rauner considered expressing regret for suggesting that inflicting suffering on her family was an appropriate response?

Apologizing or expressing regret are allowed.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 1:34 pm
A Guy, I’m not familiar with the school of media buying concerned with “over repetition.” Please tell more.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 1:35 pm
How much was Carol Marin paid for her voice over?

Comment by northshore cynic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:01 pm
Slinger, you think you can handle it? This is titled “threatening a woman”. What it is, is threatening the executive position of an executive who happens to be a woman for poor performance, low profitability, pick whatever you want to make it sound worse.

Threatening a woman is something serious these days. This may not qualify for the real seriousness of this category, when in fact women are being threatened, harmed and abused in real society.

This ain’t that. Desensitizing people to the real meaning of “threatening women” could have a shorter shelf life. If this executive had been a man, it wouldn’t have even found it’s way into the rotation of shots. Because it’s tough at the top, above that glass ceiling. She made it. What does this say about that issue. In some period of time this is counterproductive. That’s my opinion. If you run an ad that’s counterproductive too often, you have over repetition. The longer you think about this one, the more questions you really have.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:05 pm
A guy, keep whistling, pal.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:28 pm
A Guy what are you talking about? I can’t tell.

Your facts are wrong (shocking). The threats came after she had been fired.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:30 pm
===Threatening a woman is something serious these days. This may not qualify for the real seriousness of this category, when in fact women are being threatened, harmed and abused in real society.===

Women can decide what a threatening.

“I will bury her.”

Hmmm.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:30 pm
If this executive had been a man, the ad would have been just as effective in telling voters about Bruce Rauner. Male voters would have been equally offended by the threats.

Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:33 pm
===Because it’s tough at the top, above that glass ceiling. She made it. What does this say about that issue…===

Where does “I will bury her” fit in there?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:34 pm
I personally thought the TV ad was much better than the radio counterpart. It was half the length and more concise and did not have the preachy little direct message to Rauner near the end. Some people would view that as over the top.

Shorter tv ad > Longer radio ad

Comment by Jake From Elwood Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:38 pm
===Wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:30 pm:

A Guy what are you talking about? I can’t tell.====

For a really smart guy you sure feign ignorance alot. Top exec loses job tries to sue because that’s what they do to try and get a better handshake on the way out. Happens a lot. This time the exec is a woman; that makes it news. Now it’s threatening and abusive? What was it before? This doesn’t help women. It sets them back.

Women are being threatened and abused in Society. This isn’t that.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:33 pm
===Women are being threatened…in Society. This isn’t that.===

“I will bury her”

Sounds pretty threatening to me…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:36 pm
Willie you’re making noise. There’s a conversation going on. Be polite and learn something. You think other Fortune 100 women don’t despise this? They go out of their way to remove their gender from the equation at that level.

Now if someone said that to you? Nevermind, you’ll never relate. Big stakes at the big table. They know it and they play the same hard ball.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:37 pm
===Now it’s threatening and abusive?===

“I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don’t know if she has a family or not, but if she does she’d better think twice about this.’”

Did Bruce Rauner hire her…family?

Attacking someone’s family - that sounds pretty threatening.

You keep trying - A Guy… -

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:39 pm
“I will bury HIM”. Nah, not the same ring. That’s why you haven’t seen it. Ugh.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:39 pm
=== You think other Fortune 100 women don’t despise this? They go out of their way to remove their gender from the equation at that level.===

Will Rauner produce one to say so?

Doubt it.

Try again…

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:40 pm
“Rauner told another board member, quote ‘I will bury her. I will bankrupt her with legal fees. I don’t know if she has a family or not, but if she does she’d better think twice about this.’”

Gotta own it, gotta eat it…

Call it a lie, then you get “Jeri Ryaned”

“I will bury her”

It’s her fault she’s so successful to be threatened like that, Bruce is the victim.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:42 pm
=== Big stakes at the big table. They know it and they play the same hard ball.===

So Bruce did threaten, Bruce targeted her family?

Ok, good to know, thanks.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:45 pm
I’ll record you as a “no” and go to the next porch.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:45 pm
I don’t think I would have approached it like this. To me the fact that the person is a woman is irrelevant. For me it’s just enough to point out that he said such a thing. That raises my eyebrows enough.

I understand the emotional aspect of the woman angle. I just wouldn’t have gone there if for no other reason than it kind of demeans real abuse of women.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:54 pm
===I actually do think Carol has license to be upset, because it’s her voice and so could be seen as an endorsement.===

I agree. Does this mean Carol will refuse to interview him ever again, even if he gets re-elected? I hope some day she can find it in her heart to forgive him.

But seriously, Carol is a hardball, hard-boiled, very experienced reporter. I think she realizes that other than this unfortunate aberration, PQ will always try to be very considerate of her, and maybe he’ll even try to make it up to her.

As for this perfectly legal, albeit arguable transgression, she’s tough. She understands that in life you can’t always get what you want.

I’m sure she’ll get over it, but if not, then not.

The first duty of a politician is to get elected, and all I’m sayin’ is that politics ain’t beanbag.

Just a little collateral damage. She’ll be fine.

Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:06 pm
A guy: That’s a handsome family you have there. It’d be a REAL shame if something happened to them, wouldn’t it?

See? It’s not about gender at all.

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:18 pm
===A guy… - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:33 pm

…Women are being threatened…in Society. This isn’t that.===

Like the NFL? Isn’t Rauner a part owner of the Steelers, and has a laser focus on running for governor when asked about women?

Hmm.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:20 pm
=== Skeptic - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:18 pm:

A guy: That’s a handsome family you have there. It’d be a REAL shame if something happened to them, wouldn’t it?

See? It’s not about gender at all.====

Wow, Skeptic. I guess I read something other than the new quote you just brought forward. That one is rather threatening and quite a bit more personal. I’m sorry I missed where that was published. Where? Oh, you just made it up. Putz.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:27 pm
====Demoralized - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:54 pm:

I don’t think I would have approached it like this. To me the fact that the person is a woman is irrelevant. For me it’s just enough to point out that he said such a thing. That raises my eyebrows enough.

I understand the emotional aspect of the woman angle. I just wouldn’t have gone there if for no other reason than it kind of demeans real abuse of women.====

Amen Demo. Especially businesswomen. More especially executive level business women.

Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:28 pm
=Would this even be a issue if he said this about a man in business?=

See, here’s the thing. If he’d said simply that he was going to destroy her - hey, all fair in business, right? Going after family, though? That’s completely different.

Chances are, if the exec had been a man, Rauner never would’ve played the “family” card to begin with, he would’ve just attacked the person. That still would’ve told us that Rauner is more of an irrational vindictive shrew, but it wouldn’t have painted him as sexist on top of it.

See?

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:35 pm
A guy: Yes I made that sentence up, and your family is in no danger from me. But if that had been real, involving your family would have taken it to a whole new level, no? And, didn’t Bruce involve this exec’s family in his threat? Doesn’t that take his threat to a whole new level?

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:36 pm
A Guy, do you ever wonder why you,ve never been asked to speak for others (although I know it’s a hobby of yours)?

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:43 pm
Ads regarding Bruce Rauner’s threats to “bury” a woman and her family are off-limits because they may or may not affect the career trajectories of women executives that A Guy may or may not know?

Ooooookay…

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM (@MisterJayEm) Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 4:44 pm
- Tom -, so threatening women and their family after you already fired them is A-Ok with you, got it.

Threatening a woman is always great in campaigns.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 5:36 pm
- Tom - was deleted. There is no place for that here.

Look, Rauner may or may not have said it. But the idea of supporting somebody’s right to threaten someone else’s family is pretty darned cray cray.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 5:40 pm
“I just wouldn’t have gone there if for no other reason than it kind of demeans real abuse of women.”

Just so there is no misunderstanding here we need to understand that emotional and financial abuse is real abuse.

Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:14 pm
Can’t believe that “a guy” is serious-hope he is done. A threat is a threat, whether male or female. In our current society, a threat to a woman by a male is unacceptable; a threat male to male is still wrong, but more accepted. I think the ad is very effective…

Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 11:41 am
What does it matter that this is a woman? A business adversary is a business adversary. If anything it says Rauner views women as equals and Quinn views women as a class that needs to be coddled and protected. I will admit this ad is effective though, mainly because alot of voters will hear the same War on Women B.S. and not really think twice about it.

Comment by Mark O Tuesday, Oct 21, 14 @ 11:27 am