Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner again strains all credulity

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

Madigan, Rauner’s primary political adversary, is up for reelection as house speaker next week. The governor claimed Wednesday that he’s staying out of the election altogether.

“I’m not getting involved in any of the General Assembly’s decisions on their leadership,” Rauner told NBC 5.

However, the Illinois Republican Party has gotten involved in the race, launching a “Boss Madigan” blog targeting Illinois Democrats with ties to the longtime speaker. Rauner dumped millions into the Illinois Republican Party’s coiffeurs in the lead-up to the 2016 general election, but claimed Wednesday that he doesn’t “run” the party.

“I support it,” he said. “We need a two-party system. We were a one-party state for a long time.”

I just find it impossible to believe that a guy like that would spend money like that and not involve himself in the least.

…Adding… I meant to post this snippet and forgot…

When asked about re-running for election next year, he said that’s a conversation for another day, but he’s persistent.

He just dumped $50 million of his own money into his campaign account and yet he doesn’t want to talk about it. Lovely.

* Meanwhile, I told subscribers about this yesterday…

As for the race for speaker, House Minority Leader Jim Durkin confirmed Wednesday that he planned to throw in his hat for the position, which he did two years ago. Typically, the top vote-getter in the chamber is elected speaker and the runner-up is minority leader. After the November election, the GOP caucus voted to re-elect Durkin as minority leader and by caucus rules, members will be bound by those votes next week. If a Democrat were to challenge Madigan, he or she would have needed Republicans to cross over.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat, said Republican talk of ousting Madigan is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues facing the state.

“There’s a lot of folks talking stuff up as if there’s a bunch of candidates,” she said. “They’re generating emails everywhere, it is creating noise and distraction.”

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:03 am

Comments

–Rauner dumped millions into the Illinois Republican Party’s coiffeurs–

Rauner gave money to hairdressers?

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:11 am
Yet again…

Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie if YOU believe it.

He’s involvin’, he’s just not winnin’(he’s willing to put a big $$$ “yet” on the end of that sentence.) We shall see.

Comment by LizPhairTax Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:13 am
@ Streator Curmudgeon - sure, he’s trying to get his hair as thick as Blago’s!

To the post: “We were a one-party state for a long time.” Really? Tell that to Mark Kirk, Charles Percy, Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, JBT, et al. Guess they weren’t “real” Republicans.

Comment by JoanP Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:14 am
Rauner- “We were a one-party state for a long time.”

And…. isn’t that HIS goal???

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:15 am
What is amazin’ is the media does not stop the guy and say “hey dude, you dropped all this dough on GOPies IPies, Proft, Single Mom, fake radio-news-movies… how can you say not involved.
OR
when he tell FOX his anti-worker changes would have stopped shootings and murder in Chicago and IL State Police beefed up patrols it seems like FOx should say “hey dude can we see some paperwork on beefin’ up?”
But no BigBrain rambles on. He must be P* that he spent all day on the silly interviews while the SENATE MINORITY LEADER was craftin’ at least two deals with the senate president.

Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:15 am
“Rauner dumped millions into the Illinois Republican Party’s coiffeurs”

Go home, NBC5, you’re drunk.

coif·fure
kwäˈfyo͝or/
noun
plural noun: coiffures

a person’s hairstyle, typically an elaborate one.

cof·fer
ˈkôfər,ˈkäfər/
noun
noun: coffer; plural noun: coffers

1.
a strongbox or small chest for holding valuables.
synonyms: strongbox, money box, cashbox, money chest, treasure chest, safe; More
casket, box
“every church had a coffer”
the funds or financial reserves of a group or institution.
“the federal government’s empty coffers”
synonyms: fund(s), reserves, resources, money, finances, wealth, cash, capital, purse; More treasury, exchequer;informalpork barrel “the government coffers”

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:16 am
No one cares until the Democrats decide to make an issue, all day, every day, that Rauner’s hypocrisy is rank.

Rauner owns the messaging and the message. No one cares that Mary Ann Ahern threw that bit into a short segment.

It doesn’t mean anything.

Rauner will flood the media 10X over with “Madigan Bad” and that’s just far more “interesting”.

Sadly.

When the Democrats get into the game, then this will matter, and I’m not blaming the media. It’s not their job to create messaging.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:18 am
So who in their right mind thinks it would be a good idea for the Governor to publicly state who he wants to be the Speaker?

This pearl clutching outrage is a little hard to take.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:21 am
- Annonin’ -

With respect.

What’s amazing is the Democrats passively sit by and actually wait for this…

===What is amazin’ is the media does not stop the guy and say “hey dude, you dropped all this dough on GOPies IPies, Proft, Single Mom, fake radio-news-movies… how can you say not involved.===

Sometimes being active allows the media to get active too, and they don’t need a decoder ring to do it.

With great respect.

OW

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:22 am
The “game” may well be on soon…

http://www.politico.com/states/illinois/story/2017/01/despite-all-the-noise-madigan-poised-to-be-shoo-in-as-speaker-heres-why-108483

If I were the Dems, I wait and let Rauner give the State of the State and the Budget Address before really rolling out the arsenal. If Rauner fails once again, intentionally, to perform the budget duties as outlined in the State Constitution, then its ON!

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:25 am
He’s the “leader of the party” and provides the overwhelming majority of its funding, but has nothing to do with it. Baloney.

Comment by c'mon, man Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:25 am
LP

Please point to this “pearl clutching outrage” you allude to.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:25 am
Rauner also had nothing to with those dark money spots whacking Schock, Dillard, Brady and Rutherford.

And the Illinois Chamber decided all on their own to fund a spot for Dunkin, among the lowest scorers on their GA rankings.

Many more examples. “Strains all creduility” is a long way around the barn. “Lie” works.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:26 am
When you have oodles of money, who needs to worry about credulity. Just spend the money telling people what you want them to believe.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:31 am
What’s galling is Bruce’s belief that he’s pulling one over on “the rubes” when he makes statements like this. At this stage, I’d take Randolph or Mortimer Duke over him.

Comment by Jocko Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:32 am
Can compromise be had with someone who routinely “strains all credulity” ??

Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:33 am
I believe him when he says he is not interested, or that he does not involved himself. It’s only money.

Comment by Saluki Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:33 am
Rauner does himself no good with his ridiculous denials of things he ought to readily admit … and own. Yes, he’s actively trying to rid Illinois of Madigan! That’s actually a winnin’ proposition. Own it Governor, no one believes your weird denials anyhow. (PS, do any of the superstars work in communications/messaging?)

As to Rep Cassidy, a likable idealogue of a distinctly different political ilk than Madigan, WHY is she supporting Madigan as her Leader?! That cannot be all that popular in the People’s Republic of Rogers Park.

Comment by Deft Wing Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:36 am
=To the post: “We were a one-party state for a long time.” Really? Tell that to Mark Kirk, Charles Percy, Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, JBT, et al. Guess they weren’t “real” Republicans.=

If by “a long time” he means the last decade, then he’s completely accurate. Mark Kirk had no say whatsoever in state budget policy. And Chuck Percy? Really?

Republicans haven’t had the governorship or a legislative chamber since 2002, and Edgar hasn’t been governor for almost 20 years now. Besides his own first two years, it’s been a long time since they’ve had the power to do anything about the mess that is the state budget. That’s just fact, as much as Democrats want this to all be the GOP’s fault.

Comment by LessAnon? Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:41 am
The Governors denial of involvement reminds me of the old “Love American Style” episode where a guy is caught in bed with another woman in a hotel room by his wife. The wife voices her outrage, all the while he is getting dressed, hustling the woman out, and straitening the bed while he’s denying anyone was with him, that the wife was mistaken/seeing things…… it defies reality.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:43 am
===Besides his own first two years, it’s been a long time since they’ve had the power to do anything about the mess that is the state budget. That’s just fact, as much as Democrats want this to all be the GOP’s fault.===

It’s not all the GOP’s fault. (Sigh)

The Raunerites ignore McKinney.

Read McKinney on how we got here.

Then get back to me where the Dems are off the hook.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:43 am
==I believe him when he says he is not interested, or that he does not involved himself. It’s only money.==

There’s actually some wisdom here. Homeboy has enough money that he may not feel overly concerned about it.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:56 am
Rich - while I agree that Rauner has his fingerprints on a lot of things is it feasible for him to court House Dems to vote against MJM? After seeing what happened to Ken Dunkin and after watching a brutal election season that really never stopped would any of them even want to meet with Governor Rauner - especially if the meeting is for purely political purposes? Sorry for the alliteration. I can understand Rauner lobbying the House Dems on something like property tax reform but pulling him into 207 Statehouse or taking them to Obed & Isaac’s and pressuring them to take a stand against MJM seems like it would backfire fairly quickly.

Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:19 am
=They’re generating emails everywhere, it is creating noise and distraction.=

I think similar comments were made about a presidential candidates propensity for “tweets”. But at some point the noise and distraction starts to take hold.

Ignore the noise and distraction at your own peril.

Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:32 am
I read Mc Kinney and the pension debt exploded since Democrats took total control of State Government in 2003 from 35 billion to over 127 billion today.

Sorry equal blame for the decline in pension liabilities since 2003 does not pass the test when one party had total control.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-drowning-in-debt-127-billion-and-counting/

https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_state_budget_and_finances

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:35 am
- Lucky Pierre -

You should read for comprehension.

Edgar Ramp, GHR, Pate, Lee…

Missed payments, and Quinn didn’t miss pension payments.

Also…

IPI doesn’t count as a “reliable unbiased cite”…

Now if citing IPI was a joke, good one!

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:38 am
How is bashing Madigan and the Dem’s going to create good will and compromise? What a joke!

Comment by ILGOV2018 Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:50 am
I think someone should have asked him a straight question about what he sees as sources of additional revenue. Let the stuttering begin.

Comment by oldman Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:16 pm
The guy is on message. if he can make 2018 about Madigan and not about him - maybe he has a chance if he can raise the money.

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:48 pm
LP, please don’t forget the 2002 ERI which was an overly generous package crafted under the Ryan administrations that benefited state employees. When 3X as many employees took advantage of it than expected, the increased cost fell on RRB administration. (The foolish and costly”pension holiday.”) This is conjecture but I would venture to say the majority of employees who signed on to it, certainly the higher paid ones, were Republicans.

Both parties own our current fiscal predicament.

Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 1:29 pm
Don’t like the numbers because they hurt your position obviously OW but that does not make them “fake news”. Feel free to post the real numbers anytime

Democrats loved spending the money from these budgets but could not find the will to pay for them only raising taxes temporarily in 2011.

Yes kicking the can down the road continues to this day

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 1:52 pm
Bit of clarification on the 2002 ERI. It was originally drafted to only cover a few top Ryan adminstration members, people like directors, deputy directors, bureau or division chiefs, etc. Might have been only a couple of thousand people. But they found out they couldn’t be that selective under the rules; it had to be pretty much everybody or nobody. Before it was all over, about 11,000 people, or 1 in 7, took the deal.

As to the breakdown, obviously the top policy making people were all R’s. But there were certain restrictions, such as being a minimum of age 50, and you had to have enough service to reach the Rule of 85 after adjustments. If you look at the rank and file who took the deal, depending on the age when you hired on with the state, you could have started under Kerner(D) or Olgivie(R) or Walker(D) or even one of the Jim’s(R).

I will note that both parties were eager to pass the 2002 ERI. The R’s wanted to give some loyal members who were a bit short of retirement a golden parachute of sorts while the D’s were thinking of all the job openings they would have to reward their party members that had been on the outside for 20 some years. Plenty of blame to be handed out on both sides.

And yes, it was probably overly generous, but the people who retired did actually buy the extra 5 years with contributions into the pension funds at the going rate … something the state did not match, which was a partial cause of the shortfall.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 2:25 pm
If I remember right and I am certain you do know the answer but SURS employees were never offered an ERI. And yes they are state employees

Am I right on this or not?

Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 3:37 pm
He can buy credibility with the public maybe not around the dome but certainly on the street. Peeps want to see something different or did I misread the last election ?

Comment by the Cardinal Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 4:33 pm
===Democrats loved spending the money from these budgets but could not find the will to pay for them only raising taxes temporarily in 2011.===

Rauner asked for the tax to expire, paused it even.

Rauner owns the expiration too.

You forgot to address McKinney again.

IPI is Fake News, McKinney is a credible journalist.

So, there’s that.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 6:31 pm
- Federalist -

I don’t know for sure. Prior to my retirement, I mostly paid attention to SERS since that was the system I was under.

I had friends under SURS. Yes, they are state employees. I have a vague memory of some pension sweetener to get them to retire early, but it was nothing like the 2002 ERI deal. Unfortunately, my best resource for SURS plans passed away last year, sonI can’t easily check on it.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 7:00 pm