Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The governor probably needs to get his stories straight
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Burke says no - Hynes says no *** Burke won’t say which daughter wants to run for AG as Dan Hynes mulls a bid
Posted in:
* Yesterday, Illinois Review published a story about how it couldn’t get a response from the governor’s office about whether he would sign HB 40. Korecki finally did…
When asked on Monday about Rauner’s past statements that he would veto HB40, [Gov. Rauner’s spokesman Hud Englehart] said: “I know that he hasn’t made up his mind,” on the issue.
* From April 14, 2017…
Governor Bruce Rauner will veto an abortion bill that could be within votes of passing the Illinois House when they return after spring break, his office told Illinois Review Friday morning.
“Governor Rauner does not support HB40 and will veto the bill if it reaches his desk,” spokesperson Allie Bovis wrote in an email.
* Back to today…
(I)n recent weeks, Rauner has met with women across the state to listen to them on the topic, including those on public aid. The bill expands the public funding of abortion to Medicaid recipients and to those receiving state health care and it aims to preserve the legality of abortion in Illinois if the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down Roe v. Wade.
Asked if the governor was still holding those meetings, Englehart noted the governor’s recent return from Asia, but added: “I know that he’s done that.”
It sure looks like he’s laying the groundwork for a flip-flop.
* And now that he has the revenues to operate the government and an education funding reform bill and a new PR emphasis on business recruitment, he can pivot left on “social issues” as soon as the petition filing season ends…
[Rep. David McSweeney] questioned the role politics played in Rauner’s earlier public statements. He pointed to emails published in the Sun-Times last month that alleged First Lady Diana Rauner feared losing suburban votes if Rauner said he’d veto HB40. But then-staffers argued the governor had to walk a tight-rope with his Republican caucus who hated the bill but whose support he needed during an intense budget battle. In the end, Rauner said he would veto it. But Republicans bolted anyway, with 15 voting against Rauner on a key budget vote.
So, the question is, do the Democrats send him the bill now to put him in a political trick box and maybe gin up a GOP primary opponent, or do they wait for him to say publicly that he’ll sign the bill to actually get something done? Personal PAC is arguing for the latter. Some partisan Dems are arguing for the former. Others say a third party option is a better idea against Rauner anyway, so go ahead and wait.
Your own thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** He dodged the question today…
Hey Rich, we just posted our interview with @GovRauner with time markers on each question. HB40 comes up at 8:17. https://t.co/3aXMF848cT
— The 21st (@21stShow) September 19, 2017
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The governor probably needs to get his stories straight
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Burke says no - Hynes says no *** Burke won’t say which daughter wants to run for AG as Dan Hynes mulls a bid
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Send him the bill when he is ready to sign it.
He isn’t gonna get primaried.
But if you let him sign it, all those angry pro-life voters can stay home, skip his race or vote for the Constitution Party candidate.
Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:46 am
Just hold onto it until September of 2018. Then send it to him after labor day.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:49 am
What’s going on with Sam McCann? Is he circulating for his Senate seat? If he’s gonna pull the trigger on a run for Gov he needs to name a running mate & start circulating ASAP.
Comment by Fax Machine Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:51 am
What have Republicans gotten out of Rauner? A tax hike, pro-choice bills, a “sanctuary city” law. Pat Quinn woulda signed all of that.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:53 am
He knows what happens if he vetoes it. That has been out there for months.
He doesn’t know what will happen if he signs it.
He’d be best advised to be on the side of what he knows.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:54 am
Fiscal conservative? Social conservative?
Nope. Just another politician saying whatever is necessary to get (re)elected.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:56 am
==He’d be best advised to be on the side of what he knows.==
Or to play for more time so he can gather more information about what happens if he signs. And hey, Cosgrove is willing to oblige, so.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 9:56 am
This man is a rudderless wind-bag.
His lack of any trustworthy personal convictions is really creepy.
Send him the bill. Make him put his mouth where his money is.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:08 am
If he signs it I’m sure IUOE or another union will put someone on the ballot as an independent to the right of him to attack him for HB40 & TRUST act. I don’t think they want a repeat of Chad Grimm were they backed him because he happened to make the ballot and the ILGOP found plenty of oppo.
They will try to find the cleanest pro-lifers they can find for Gov/LG, get them 25,000 signatures and then do super targeted mail to try to grab 4 or 5% from Rauner.
Comment by Fax Machine Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:13 am
So “businessman” turned politician with trust issues may betray his conservative base in order to get a political “win”?Where have I heard this one before?
Comment by Rogue Roni Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:18 am
Roe v. Wade will not be overturned during Rauner’s current term, so send him the bill and make him act. Whatever he does will cost him votes.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:19 am
Fax - and as much as the unions love Sam McCann your definition of a “clean” pro-lifer makes McCann an untenable option.
Comment by Curl of the Burl Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:27 am
Setting aside the issue - are we all comfortable that the deadlines for acting on bills are so easily ignored by parliamentary procedure? The bill should have gone to Gov. a long time ago but we can play games with the Constitution deadlines if we want to? I’m getting more sick with all these people on both sides.
Comment by Hoping for Rational Thought Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:28 am
Send him the bill, it puts the issue on the table now. If he vetoes it, it puts the issue back on the table again during veto session. If you can’t override the veto then pass the bill again in the upcoming session. You don’t need one single perfect attempt to pass the bill and get it into law, just keep working it over and over until you have success.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:34 am
The flip flop seems to be coming either way. Either signs it and angers conservatives or vetoes and angers the Democrats. Might as well sign it now and spend the next year going off no social agenda and fighting increased taxes.
Comment by ste_with_a_v_en Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:42 am
Show of hands on who believes Rauner has been meeting with groups of women across the state on this?
Probably like those meetings he said his peeps are having with Amazon in Seattle.
He just makes things up, all day, every day.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 10:55 am
“The governor probably needs to get his stories straight”
Rich, I think you can just keep cutting and pasting that headline.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 11:05 am
HB40 could be the reef upon which Rauner’s re-election chances founder. He really has backed himself into a corner here.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 11:31 am
===Show of hands on who believes Rauner has been meeting with groups of women across the state on this?===
I am simply assuming he means all of Diana’s friends who’ve bent his ear about this at cocktail parties.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 11:38 am
The Fantasy World of Bruce continues as he claims to be meeting with “groups” of women. Even toddlers are have to stand in the corner for silly fibs. What ever happened to follow up questions by reporters?
Comment by DeseDemDose Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 11:41 am
The man is what he said he was — a pro-business fiscal Conservative, and social issues moderate. He simply doesn’t have the governing sense to communicate clearly or to achieve his generic objectives, so he gets backed into ridiculous positions. His IPI style advisors only make it worse.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 11:52 am
Walker, I fail to see anything “pro-business” or “fiscally conservative” in running up the backlog of bills owed Illinois vendors from $4.5B to $16B in less than three years.
Quite the opposite.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 12:01 pm
RE Sam McCann … While he actually listens to his constituents and has some honestly held convictions (a rarity in a politician), he also has a bunch of baggage. He’s been doing some damage repair / public relations on the SUV and mileage issues. If you follow his Facebook page, he’s been showing his mileage and event attendence most days.
He’s probably OK for reelection in his district where voters know him … but I just don’t see Governor this year, or the money to get him there.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 12:27 pm
47 you probably could have stopped at Diana…..
On the query, it’s an important issue hold it and get buy in don’t lose the bill for political games
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 12:39 pm
Not to mention adding a procedure to Medicaid that will conservatively add $30M per year. That’s not so fiscally responsible, is it? Medicaid didn’t suddenly become flush while we weren’t looking, did it?
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 3:30 pm
So your opposition is because you’re a “fiscal conservative,” Guy? I don’t recall your opposition to adding $11B to to the backlog of bills.
How does Medicaid “become flush?” Are you under the impression that it’s a separate dedicated fund?
Your “fiscal conservative” concern is about a possible $30M addition to $19.3B of Medicaid spending, one-tenth of one percent, a rounding error of a rounding error?
But you’re all for that $75M for private schools?
Hilarious.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 3:57 pm
The political reality of the veto is that Diana Rauner’s phony brand would be exposed and couldn’t be used to save phony Bruce.
If Rauner vetoes HB40, a “damaging” social agenda ruins Diana and Bruce’s chances for re-election
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 4:30 pm
===If Rauner vetoes HB40, a “damaging” social agenda ruins Diana and Bruce’s chances for re-election===
And worse, gets them removed from the North Shore “A” list.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 4:49 pm
===And worse, gets them removed from the North Shore “A” list.===
That could be even more damaging.
How can Diana find other crisis managers at these parties if they aren’t on that “A” list.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 4:52 pm
Send him the bill. Good policy is good politics, and signing HB40 is good policy. I’m more than happy to give Rauner that win.
Comment by Odysseus Tuesday, Sep 19, 17 @ 8:40 pm