Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Simon Institute: Duckworth, Kirk both polling above 50
Next Post: Cash-strapped CSU cancels spring break, speeds up semester
Posted in:
* Dietrich…
In an interview in October 2010, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made what would become one of the most repeated (and embellished) quotes of the Barack Obama presidency.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell, now the Senate majority leader, told the National Journal.
As the Washington Post explained in fall 2012, McConnell’s words and the date they were spoken often have been inaccurately represented in the years since, generally by Democrats eager to present evidence of unyielding partisan opposition to Obama’s every move.
But as the Illinois state budget battle kicked into high gear last summer and fall, I’ve heard references to McConnell’s famous quote in a different context. This time it was invoked in defense of a Republican — Gov. Bruce Rauner — who has had limited success with a Democrat-led Legislature.
The logic was along these lines: How can Democrats excoriate a Republican Congress for not bending to the wishes of President Obama while at the same time applauding a Democratic Illinois General Assembly for not cooperating on Rauner’s reform agenda?
The question ignores one fundamental nuance in the Illinois debate, where the gridlock comes from Democrats opposing Rauner’s use of reforms as leverage for negotiating a budget. House Speaker Michael Madigan has stated, ad nauseum, his pledge to work “professionally and cooperatively” with Rauner on the budget, but only if Rauner leaves his reform agenda for another day. To a lot of Illinois Republicans, that position misses the entire point of Rauner’s argument. It’s the Illinois equivalent of McConnell’s “single most important thing” quote.
* The Question: Is Rauner getting the Obama treatment? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Simon Institute: Duckworth, Kirk both polling above 50
Next Post: Cash-strapped CSU cancels spring break, speeds up semester
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’d argue Rauner is giving the Obama treatment
Comment by Sadly Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:41 pm
Meh.
Rauner’s will continue to get his base fired up. At this point, those who like him — will continue to like him. Those who don’t — won’t.
Edgar will stump for Rauner.
The results will be close. Rauner will misunderstand his mandate. Rauner will win a second term.
Same as it ever was.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:42 pm
1.4% said nothing about what his plans were once he was elected. Obama was up front about what he wanted to do.
I also believe that there was a dose of racism in McConnell’s stance.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:43 pm
Imagine if Obama today, with the House and Senate in Republican hands, attempted to overhaul the health system. And then forced a government shutdown until the Republicans submitted to his demands.
Comment by common sense Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:45 pm
No because McConnell was not calling for scenario that would cripple the Democratic party. Rauner insists on the destruction of Labor which would cripple the ILDEMS. McConnell just called for replacing the President. I don’t think these are comparable at all. I wish people would stop adding legitimacy to the deal with the Devil at the crossroads at midnight. The devil said that if the ILGOP stands the pain that impasse will cause he can deliver them into the majority party.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:45 pm
No. Our General Assembly has worked with Republican governors in the past successfully. Plus, President Obama never held social services or education funds hostage to get what he wanted. Nor did he blame everything on someone else.
Comment by Latina Lawyer Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:45 pm
The victim hood is strong among Republicans. No, Rauner is not getting the Obama treatment. Not even close. Google God, who could possibly make a serious argument otherwise?
Get back to me when Cullerton blocks any votes on Rauner’s appointees. Call me when any Democrats shout at Rauner during a SOTS speech. Wake me up when any elected Democrats question Rauner’s legitimacy to be governor.
I resent the question. It is absurd in its face.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:45 pm
What Sadly said.
Comment by burbanite Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:45 pm
common sense +1.4%
Comment by LizPhairTax Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:46 pm
Getting elected as chief executive of the country or a state gives you a mandate to push your agenda or ideas. If the legislative bodies with which the executive must work disagree, then that mandate becomes a platform or (worse) a pipe dream. But remember: Pat Quinn said that he had a “mandate” to raise taxes after the 2010 election. And that was with - what - a 1% margin of victory?! Rauner bested Quinn by a much larger percentage, but yet he does not have a “mandate”.
Reference to the Quinn mandate:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-06/news/ct-met-quinn-tax-increase-20101106_1_tax-hike-income-tax-pat-quinn
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:46 pm
BTW — I’ve always believed that much of the antipathy toward Obama was essentially racist at the core — and not necessarily ideological.
Antipathy toward Rauner — as least as I understand it — has as its core ideological differences with a bizarre twist of mistrust.
And finally — Obama’s a smart guy. Rauner’s not. Intellectual ability — or lack thereof — has something to do with all of this, too.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:46 pm
Nope. Not even close. Rauner chose this war and he chose his weapons, er, wedges. Don’t forget that.
Comment by Pawn Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:46 pm
I voted no for two reasons.
1. Rauner ran on “Bruce doesn’t have a social agenda” while he clearly did/does. It was evident in the primary but not enough voters paid attention when he drastically changed in tone for the general election.
2 If recall correctly, McConnell made that comment immediately before giving Obama a chance to establish himself. Rauner on the other hand, came out swinging with his anti-union rhetoric and has not budged from that position.
Comment by Because I said so... Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:46 pm
*Good God*
Most of you don’t need to Google Him, but for those that do, you’re welcome.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:47 pm
No. I don’t really get the connection being made.
The governor has said he has pre-conditions before negotiating on a budget. If you take him at his word, in furtherance of that strategy, he’s abandoned core responsibilities such as social services and higher ed.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:48 pm
Rauner is demanding Turnaround Agenda items be passed.
Obama just dropped a massive budget on the Congressional Republicans.
Both proposals are DOA, and both proposals will cause gridlock.
Nope - no difference.
I would use the “snark” slash, but why?!
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:50 pm
Voted yes simply because I see so many similarities. Especially with the US & Illinois House. Both houses are filled with so many gerrymandered districts where the general election is rigged for a certain party. In the US they are mostly rigged for Republican’s after the 2010 elections and of course they are rigged for Democrats here in Illinois.
Meanwhile, the President was voted by everyone in the US and the Governor was voted by everyone in Illinois. Meanwhile both the US & IL House sit back refuse to negotiate because of ideology. Yes, in fact I believe National Republicans and Illinois Democrats have a lot in common.
Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:54 pm
–Rauner is demanding Turnaround Agenda items be passed.
Obama just dropped a massive budget on the Congressional Republicans.
Both proposals are DOA, and both proposals will cause gridlock.
Nope - no difference.–
What core functions of government do you believe Obama will abandon as “leverage” in pursuit of his budget?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:54 pm
No. Apples and chair legs.
Rauner takes hostages to gain leverage for ideological items that don’t necessarily have support otherwise. Those actions are akin to those of the US Republican Congress when it came to the debt ceiling and a whole host of other issues.
Looking at it from the other direction, Obama bent over backwards practically begging Republicans to work with him, even going so far to abandon his base in the process. Do you think the liberal base gives a flying flip about deficits that decreased throughout his presidency? I definitely wouldn’t suggest the Illinois Dems have bent over backwards to work with Rauner, but I don’t see any correlation between the obstruction faced by Obama on the national stage and the opposition Rauner faces in teh Illinois legislature
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:56 pm
GOP intransigence on Obama was not principled, it was simply an effort to de-legitimize Obama. Obama tried to be bipartisan. The stimulus package was overloaded with tax cuts as opposed to spending despite the fact that spending is a better method of stimulus since it’s economic impact is more direct and immediate. The ACA was a plan that was hatched in the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a republican governor. Remember too the Gang of Six where Senate Dems continued to seek common ground on the ACA with Republicans. Those talks delayed the ACA almost a year.
Rauner however has not made a step toward bipartisanship. He has an agenda that is intended to kill off democratic institutions.
Comment by tominchicago Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:58 pm
Voted no. Cullerton has been very willing to work with him.
Speaker Madigan has been giving Governor Rauner the same “welcome” he has given to many past governors. Call it the Madigan treatment. And Rauner should’ve been ready for it.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:59 pm
Sadly, voted “No”
“Why?”
1) “@RonSandack: I’m frustrated 2, but taking steps towards reforming IL more important than short term budget stalemate.”
Purposeful stalemate.
2) Decatur and Union- Bashing
3) $2 million during session to bash Madigan
4) The Ken Dunkin life raft.
5) IllinoisGO and Turnaround Agenda PACs
6) Republicans voting “Red” on K-12 Approp, Rauner signing it.
7) Rahm Triangualtion and Cullerton
8) Rauner’s purposeful victimhood
9) Poison Pills - “Red” GOP votes when poison pills are removed.
10) The Chicago Tribune’s own sideshow and purposeful assistance.
Sadly, I voted “No”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 2:59 pm
It would be comparable if Obama were threatening to drive the nation into bankruptcy if the Republican controlled Congress refused to pass Single-payer health care, open the borders to any and all immigrants with no security measures, and expand same-sex marriage to include mandatory marriages. In that case, it cold be argued as similar.
Comment by Harvest76 Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:00 pm
No.
For two years, Obama had immense popularity and a veto proof Congress. He lost all of that by 2010. Eight years later, Democrats have lost 1000 seats from statehouses to Congress. Obama had two massive mid-term losses, unheard of for over a century.
Obama made the Congress he has.
Rauner has yet to do the same, but we certainly know that after spending $25 million, he got zippo new GOP seats, and zero coattails. Any win for him this year is an improvement, which isn’t saying much.
So they are simply not alike at all.
NO.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:00 pm
Comparing Rauner to Obama is like comparing a grape to a grapefruit…. in so many, many ways.
Comment by Rufus Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:01 pm
The analogy fails on two levels: first echoes what Huh? and Because I Said So posted — Governor Rauner willfully hid his true plans while running so as to win the “not Pat Quinn” vote; and second, President Obama has not engaged in hostage-taking to get his agenda passed.
Comment by thunderspirit Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:02 pm
Voted NO. Not even close to an apt comparison. This sounds like the re-elect PR machine is already gearing up and we’re not even done with 2016.
Obama continued to make compromises on health care and other core policy proposals until they could pass (with ZERO R votes, infuriating both liberals and conservatives alike). Rauner won’t even try to compromise, let alone run his own darn bills.
Also, a lot of people aren’t fond of the President because he’s a black guy. Rauner doesn’t have that problem. They don’t like him because his snakeoil salesman act is wearing rather thin.
Comment by Curious Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:03 pm
Word - the battle over our federal budget is, in part, a battle over “core functions of government”. He is doing the same thing to Congress that Rauner is doing to the GA, which is challenging them to go along with him on his budget plan or else he will label them as obstructionists just as Rauner is doing on his TA items. The federal budget is still well in deficit spending.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:03 pm
No. It’s the difference between opposing specific proposals put forward by the governor, proposals with long-range negative effects on many Illinois residents, and reflexively opposing anything and everything the President does, even before he has done it (see Gitmo, SCOTUS, health care, etc., etc.)
Comment by South of Sherman Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:03 pm
VanillaMan
I assume you meant that for 2 years Obama had a filibuster proof Congress, but that is not true. First, Al Franken, who was the 60th vote, was not seated until July 2009. Then you had both Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd missing a number of legislative days because of illness. All told, Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for 72 whole days.
Comment by tominchicago Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:05 pm
Apples and oranges. Rauner set a radical agenda and Dems responded.
In an alternate universe, Rauner got a ton on budget issues and other concessions and Dems got their revenue and funding for key priorities. Rauner was immediately hailed nationally as a conservative governor that produced results and was being talked of as a VP candidate. Rauner chose a very very very different path. So now do I think a top D priority is to make him a one-term governor? You bet I do.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:07 pm
What are the equivalents of Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities that Obama allowed to be irreparably harmed in the furtherance of his legislative agenda?
I’ll take my answer off the air.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:10 pm
==He is doing the same thing to Congress that Rauner is doing to the GA, which is challenging them to go along with him on his budget plan or else he will label them as obstructionists just as Rauner is doing on his TA items.==
You need to read some archived posts, ’cause you have missed a big ol’ thing that Rauner’s been doing.
Obama hasn’t refused to pass a budget until people’s wages are cut. Entirely different things.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:14 pm
Voted No, I really get the sense that Rauner could’ve accomplished quite a few of his goals during the “honeymoon” period.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:14 pm
Come on people; Commonsense had it right. I challenge the crew to find ANY precedent in the history of this republic either at the state or federal level where the executive refused to sign a budget and let the state collapse in order to strong arm pet proposals. (I’ll be waiting.)
Obama care was PASSED by a DEMOCRATIC majority!
The appropriate analogy would be the House Republican threat not to fund the government and then to default on the debt. In both the cases Republicans use control of one branch as if they had control of two which with rare exception if at all runs counter to over 200 years of parliamentary tradition in this country. Veto a budget, fine. But attach any budget whatsoever to proposals for which he failed to get public support last Spring, I think that is unprecedented.
Comment by History Prof Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:16 pm
OW +1
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:16 pm
Madigan said he’d work with Rauner, and I believe he has.
Comment by Austin Blvd Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:18 pm
In addition to McConnell’s statement there was this from PBS:
“On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.
Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.”
The President passed Obamacare with a filibusterer proof 60 vote total, all Democrats and no Republicans. He had to compromise on getting the last vote putting single payer on the sidelines. He worked with what he had.
Rauner on the other hand can’t get what he wants by working with the legislature so he is using the poor and needy to bully his way into mortally wounding public sector unions. He wants to be a ruler and not a leader and control the House and Senate like they had his party’s majority. I can sum it up this way. The United States doesn’t pay ransom to terrorists because that would only encourage more hostage taking. That rule of thumb isn’t being lost here…
Comment by Mouthy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:19 pm
Not at all even though I understand how someone could try and make that argument.
Senate Republicans were giving President Obama the “treatment” no matter what he proposed - there would be no grace period. Gov. Rauner is receiving a different kind of treatment for the positions he has chosen being so far out of line that even many of the members of his own caucus are finding it a tough pill to swallow.
Comment by The Muse Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:22 pm
I voted “no.” I don’t think either Madigan or Cullerton approach things based on which party they want in the Governor’s office. I think they would actually have given a honeymoon period to Rauner had he wanted that.
Comment by Earnest Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:24 pm
I answered no. The longer there’s no budget, the more many voters will claim Mike Madigan wants the status quo in Illinois. After all, Madigan is now an antique he’s been there so long.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:25 pm
===This question will yield the same poll results.
Q: Do you identify yourself with the Democratic Party?
This poll confirms the majority of voters/readers/commenters on this fine blog are Democrats.===
Instead of reading “why” people are voting as they are - Big Muddy - plays the “Victim” card for the results.
Ugh.
It had to be tiring to be a victim all the time, it just has to be…
- Big Muddy -’s comment I’ll add to my comment as “#11″
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:25 pm
The US R’s tried over and over just to get rid of Obamacare, but offered no alternatives, not even “phony” or “sham” bills. At least the IL Dems have that. Plus, there’s the matter of the income tax sunset. Rauner asked that it lapse, the IL Dems said, “OK” and HE WASN’T EVEN GOVERNOR YET. Now contrast that to what the US R’s are saying about replacing Antonin Scalia. Oh, and I voted “No.”
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:30 pm
Voted a resounding “no”..
Comment by Mouthy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:31 pm
Of course not. Uh uh. no. no. Just cuz.. /s (lots of it)
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:36 pm
- A guy -
Ok, I got the snark, now make the case.
Make the case as to why I should be a “Yes”
That would be helpful in understanding why you think your snark is funny.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:38 pm
No.
Saying GOP in today’s context means what?
The GOP party is not what it used to be.
Citizens United and the Tea Party have fundamentally changed the GOP into a group without consensus.
About the only thing the GOP can agree upon is saying no to the Democrats.
Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:39 pm
No. McConnell et al understand basic civics and the extent of and difference between the three powers. They have an unfortunately smart understanding of the process and know exactly how to gum up the process while staying within the bounds of law and procedure.
Rauner and his lawyers and advisors either do not understand co-equal branches and separation of powers, or in their virtual reality world it doesn’t exist or apply.
Comment by northsider (the original) Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:46 pm
===Word - the battle over our federal budget is, in part, a battle over “core functions of government”. He is doing the same thing to Congress that Rauner is doing to the GA, which is challenging them to go along with him on his budget plan or else he will label them as obstructionists just as Rauner is doing on his TA items. The federal budget is still well in deficit spending.===
Setting aside the lack of a constitutional balanced budget requirement at the federal level, Obama’s not going to ultimately veto the budget Congress does give him because it doesn’t give him everything he wants. Indeed, about the only way it gets vetoed is if they toss in yet another Obamacare repeal.
That is, put bluntly, a critical difference.
————————————–
To the question, I voted no. Rauner basically declared existential war on the Democrats in the state during the campaign. I’m not exactly sure when Obama ever announced that he was going to try to destroy the Republican party.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:48 pm
@Team Sleep
I’ll believe that Rauner gives a care about what the people of Illinois want, when he raises Illinois’ minimum wage to $10 effective 1/1/2015 (since a half million more people voted for that than voted for him).
Comment by BeenThereB4 Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:53 pm
Voted “No” Rauner’s way of governing is “my way or nothing”. Obama certainly never gave me that impression, seemed to be willing to work with congress.
Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 3:57 pm
GCS - so if Speaker Ryan digs his heels in the dirt and sends Obama a literal balanced budget, then what? Remember some of the rhetoric bandied about during the shutdown threats and the actual shutdown?
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:00 pm
Not the same. The McConnel line was about keeping the President from passing anything. The opposition to Rauner is about a particular agenda. Big difference.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:00 pm
Who are the Obama hostages?
No, not even close.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:00 pm
===GCS - so if Speaker Ryan digs his heels in the dirt and sends Obama a literal balanced budget, then what? Remember some of the rhetoric bandied about during the shutdown threats and the actual shutdown? ===
If both houses pass a balanced budget, somebody’s taxes are going up and defense is going to end up taking it in the metaphorical shorts, so…we’ll see what happens then.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:03 pm
Voted “yes.” The mealy-mouthed answers coming out of the “no” voters are pretty astounding as to their leaps of logic.
Republicans in Congress drew a line with Obama. Democrats in Springfield drew a line with Rauner. Both claimed principled stands.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:05 pm
- Louis G Atsaves -…
===Voted “yes.” The mealy-mouthed answers coming out of the “no” voters are pretty astounding as to their leaps of logic.===
No response, but Rauner is a victim to the commenters here. Ok, got it…
===Republicans in Congress drew a line with Obama. Democrats in Springfield drew a line with Rauner. Both claimed principled stands.===
Hmm…
“@RonSandack: I’m frustrated 2, but taking steps towards reforming IL more important than short term budget stalemate.”
“Who” drew that line in the savd again?
“Who” did that?
“Who?”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:11 pm
Obama actually campaigned on the issues and policies he tried to implement as governor. Unlike Rauner who is holding this state hostage to an agenda he did not campaign on.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:14 pm
In a hard fought and ultimately successful (for a few days) battle over a supplemental approp, both sides seemed to fight fair. And then Team R went ahead and cut funds (on Good Friday, and Autism Awareness Day, no less) to some of the most vunerable citizens. In direct violation of the aforementioned agreement. No, this is Rauner Derangement Syndrome. This is LACK OF TRUST brought on by a man who consistently has shown that his word is worth exactly nothing. That is the reason he can’t get anything through the GA, plain and simple. Knowledge is power, but trust is everything if compromise and governing is going to happen.
Comment by Not quite a majority Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:14 pm
Louie- How is McConnell’s refusal to even consider an Obama SCOTUS nominee anything like what has occurred in the GA.
The announcement of Scalia’s death wasn’t even an hour old before McConnell made his announcement. Obama hadn’t said a word about Scalia or his replacement when McConnell is proposing something that is unconstitutional.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:15 pm
–Word - the battle over our federal budget is, in part, a battle over “core functions of government”. He is doing the same thing to Congress that Rauner is doing to the GA, which is challenging them to go along with him on his budget plan or else he will label them as obstructionists just as Rauner is doing on his TA items.–
TS, I’m not following you at all.
Do you expect some showdown over a federal budget proposal? When’s the last time there was one of those?
There hasn’t been a comprehensive federal budget passed and signed since 1997. It’s been continuing resolutions, omnibus spending bills, minibus spending bills, special spending bills, etc., for nearly 20 years.
Rauner is doing more than “labeling” people as obstructionist. He has purposely zeroed out funding for social services and higher ed.
What is the equivalent action you are expecting on the federal level over this “budget battle” you’re imagining?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:21 pm
@Huh?: Madigan’s refusal to even negotiate isn’t similar in your mind? Madigan dragged his heals and did it for an entire year. McConnell is being criticized for announcing that he will drag his heels for a year.
What is the difference, the announcement? A handful of talking points? What?
Which heel dragging is offensive to you again? Which is “principled?” The leaps of logic in this thread are breathtaking!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:24 pm
–Republicans in Congress drew a line with Obama. Democrats in Springfield drew a line with Rauner. Both claimed principled stands.==
–“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell, now the Senate majority leader, told the National Journal.–
I don’t think Sen. McConnell ever claimed that was a principled stand.
What definition of “principled” are you using these days, Louis?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:25 pm
We voted NO
Rauner has gotten a lot of work from the Ds and if he he was as smart as he boasts he would have done a victory lap. He knows none of this is a reform so let’s drop that term.
The genius of Mitch McConnell has just hung out GOPies nationwide, probably guaranteed CommandoMakeItUp(Kirk)is done and presented 1000s of reasons to get D voters out in November.
Meanwhile the $uper$tars fumble and bungle along with one desperate move after another.
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:26 pm
Word - okay, then try this:
There have been multiple “showdowns” over the last few years. Remember the debate over how not raising the debt ceiling might be in violation of the 14th Amendment? Or how the federal government was shut down for a couple of weeks in 2013? Those things happened. And every time they happened, President Obama and his Administration tried to paint the Republicans as obstructionists and barriers toward “progress”. And so in my view - and this is my view - there have been showdowns/staredowns over the “core functions”. And whether he wants to admit it or not, Governor Rauner is doing the same thing and forcing the same kind of argument to be had at the state level.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:27 pm
US: Dem Pres; Repub GA. Obama got a budget done & the US continues to function about as usual.
IL: Repub Gov; Dem GA. No budget; 2 years; starvation of IL operations & infrastructure by raunner/radagno plan; function by court order only. No function as usual.
THERE’s your comparison.
raunner, after over a year in ‘office’, still is clueless that he ain’t Walker with a sympathetic GA in his pocket.
A short anecdote. In one former life, did some highway design. Young then & worked for a much older guy, Pauls, from Latvia. I’d say: ‘Pauls, if we did this, the design would be much better.’ But cost & time was always major factors. So, Pauls would say: ‘Yes, but don’t jump higher than your axx.’ Reminding me that you have to do what’s possible within the constraints.
And raunner with all his SuperStarts, still ain’t figured this simple homily out. It may well be beyond them. All of them.
It’s great Rich, that you try to educate and tutor these folks & sort of broker a way out, but not at all convinced that this group is smart enough to understand.
After Nov, would be great to see a Dem GA of about 80 in the house & 35 in the Senate after where raunner & his in-the-pocket Repub GA is taking IL. /no s
Comment by sal-says Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:30 pm
–Of course not. Uh uh. no. no. Just cuz.. /s (lots of it) –
Curious that you feel the need to demonstrate that you can’t formulate any reasons for your opinion.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:31 pm
Voted no. The argument ‘for’ is facile, at best.
Comment by anonlurker Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:36 pm
–There have been multiple “showdowns” over the last few years. Remember the debate over how not raising the debt ceiling might be in violation of the 14th Amendment? Or how the federal government was shut down for a couple of weeks in 2013? Those things happened. And every time they happened, President Obama and his Administration tried to paint the Republicans as obstructionists and barriers toward “progress”. And so in my view - and this is my view - there have been showdowns/staredowns over the “core functions”. And whether he wants to admit it or not, Governor Rauner is doing the same thing and forcing the same kind of argument to be had at the state level.–
The 2013 shutdown was the Ted Cruz deal demanding Obamacare be repealed, I believe. Not seeing a connection.
Again, what are the equivalents on the federal level of simply chopping social services and higher ed out of the equation?
Real things are happening here on the state level. Real, long-term damage.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:41 pm
- Louis G Atsaves -
===Madigan dragged his heals and did it for an entire year.===
Explain…
“@RonSandack: I’m frustrated 2, but taking steps towards reforming IL more important than short term budget stalemate.”
Isn’t thst Rauner purposely dragging his heels, as announced in the Sandack tweet?
Hmm…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:44 pm
I voted no. To 47th Wards point on Cullerton’s moderation, I am surprised the Illinois Senate has not started voting down all nominees requiring confirmation.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:48 pm
TS, in both places the Republicans are the ones with hostages, either repeal of ACA, or cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, or some other pet cause of the base. If Obama shut down the government, and it is only the courts that have kept the State open for business, unless he got single payer and an increase to 75% of the estate tax, plus tax rates of 92% on income over 10 million dollars and a 25 dollar an hour minimum wage, then tried to blame Congress for the shutdown, then and only then would he and Rauner be comparable. And the IL dems would be comparable to the US House republicans, if they said, we aren’t signing a budget until you sign the arbitration bill, well then you could draw the comparison.
Comment by Me too Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 4:55 pm
Voted No.
However we could discuss how Rauner is giving the Obama treatment to the people of Illinois by holding the budget hostage to his turnaround agenda and driving the state of Illinois deeper into debt with each passing day.
Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 5:03 pm
No when Rauner said he’d drive the career politicians nuts I didn’t know it would be his own party
Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 5:03 pm
No, Obama brought to the table many republican initiatives only to have the republicans switch on him. The Dems in this case are truly holding to their core beliefs and Rauner is obsessed with destroying them.
Comment by Paul Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 5:06 pm
NO way in H.ll ! - Oswego Willy @ 2:59 pm said it best!
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 5:29 pm
Alas, I’m with Sadly in first comment.
Comment by alas Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 5:44 pm
No, because I don’t think the initial intention was to say no to the Governor at every turn.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 5:56 pm
NO
BO started with a majority and wasted it. BR never had anything close.
Comment by cannon649 Tuesday, Feb 23, 16 @ 10:56 pm
Obviously the answer is No. If anything Rauner is giving the Democrats the same treatment the GOP gave Obama. Obama never took hostages or refused to sign a budget until his list of demands were met. It was the GOP in Washington that even threatened to allow the country to default on it’s debt unless Obama made concessions. Imagine if Obama, dealing with a GOP majority congress, threatened to shut down the Government unless the GOP acceded to his demands, and that Obama demands centered on demanding large concessions from a large GOP constituency. Can you imagine the outrage? That’s what Rauner is doing now, under the guise of much needed reform. If Rauner would have dropped the anti Union provisions in his agenda and instead concentrated on workman’s comp and other pro business items we would have had a better business climate in place already than what we currently have as well as a budget. After taking office Obama never publicly attacked any of the GOP leaders like Rauner has Madigan. Call me crazy but I don’t think that has helped our situation at all, in fact just the opposite.
Comment by The Dude Abides Wednesday, Feb 24, 16 @ 9:29 am