Showing posts with label campaign ads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign ads. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Illinois F***ed? So admits Rauner!

This may well become the election cycle of the candidate who openly admitted what a mess Illinois government has become.

Of course, there also are those who will say the reason Illinois has become so f***ed up is because of Bruce Rauner himself.

SO YES, I find it sort of amusing to learn of the governor’s latest re-election campaign ad – the one called “Unholy Union” that portrays a clergyman presiding over the “wedding” of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and his “bride,” J.B. Pritzker.

With said clergyman ending the service by proclaiming “Illinois f***ed” (with the beep blipping out the use of the obscenity). Implying that a vote for J.B. instead of Bruce come Nov. 6 will be to support a political union that will unleash all kinds of bad things upon the people of the Land of Lincoln.

Kind of odd in the use of gay marriage imagery, since there are those ideologues amongst our state who want to believe Rauner himself has been too lax in fighting against certain moralistic issues such as gay marriage.

But I’m sure Rauner is gambling that many ideologues will view the idea of two men being married, hear the names of “Madigan” and “Pritzker” and will become so grossed out that they will automatically vote “no” to notion of J.B. as governor.

AS FOR THOSE people who will become offended with Rauner for mocking a gay marriage image? He probably figures those people weren’t going to vote for him no how. No real loss there!

Let’s be honest; things did become significantly worse in Illinois during the Age of Rauner – largely because he came in with a solidly anti-union agenda. He wanted to play hardball against organized labor to try to reduce the influence of unions within Illinois government.

That is why we had nothing accomplished for those first two years of Rauner’s time in office, and why most political people have put the concept of dumping Bruce Rauner from office as their priority in this year’s election cycle.
If Madigan were truly the hard-core obstructionist that Rauner has consistently tried to portray him as being, we’d likely have countless horror stories from the many other GOP-oriented governors the House speaker has had to work with. Which we don’t.

SO YES, ILLINOIS is “F***ed.” We heard it from Bruce himself.

Perhaps a step in the right direction to fixing that is to dump Rauner and put people in charge who are interested in operating government – instead of trying to score political points for themselves at the expense of the unions and behaving as though everyone who disagrees with their ideology IS the problem.

Of course, all this “Dump Madigan” rhetoric isn’t new. It was the basis of gubernatorial campaigns in 2010 and 2014. Rauner is merely upping the ante of the campaign tactics that he thinks were successful when he first ran for election. He thinks he won, so it must have worked. Ignoring that he has been a Republican serving as governor, having to deal with a whole batch of Democrats in other political posts.

In fact, one theme I oft have heard from Republican partisans this election cycle is that we need to have Rauner in office to hold in check the actions that other officials might try to do.

ONE COULD ARGUE just as strong that we needed all those Democrats in place to hold in check Rauner’s own ideological leanings – which actually were very clear and open when he first ran for office. He’s anti-union. Everything else (including all those social issues the ideologues get so worked up over) is of lesser importance.

All this anti-Madigan rhetoric is spread throughout the campaigning; from the television spots proclaiming Madigan and congressional candidate Sean Casten to be “two sides of the same coin” to Republican attorney general candidate Erika Harold proclaiming, “I’ll never take orders from Mike Madigan.”
Seriously, what’s she going to do if she wins, then finds her office as the defense attorney for the Illinois House speaker? As much as some want to think of the Illinois AG as a super-prosecutor, she’s actually more likely to find herself defending Illinois when things get screwed up.

Unless she’s also more interested in playing partisan politics, rather than governing for the people. A concept that, to be honest, is “F***ed” up.

  -30-

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Too many unfunny laughs on Illnois' gubernatorial trail to endure at once

Phony headlines, or phony political praise?


That's what we're seeing these days in the political duel taking place between Gov. Pat Quinn and the venture capitalist using the Republican label to try to send him into unemployment.


I'M STILL TRYING to figure out which story related to the gubernatorial campaign is more lame -- the pseudo-support Quinn got from first lady Michelle Obama, or the pseudo headlines appearing in campaign spots promoting Quinn challenger Bruce Rauner.


On the surface, the fact that the first lady is speaking out publicly in favor of Quinn ought to be a plus. There are many public officials these days bearing the "Democrat" label who, if I promise them "off-the-record" status, will eagerly make all kinds of snotty comments about Quinn and how worthless they believe he is.


It is that kind of attitude that Rauner is hoping to play into -- a Democratic Party apathy that will cause many of their backers to stay home on Nov. 4.


That could make the rural Illinois/business executive coalition large enough to actually win an election in a state where a Republican candidate with no political experience like Rauner ought to be dead meat.


MICHELLE OBAMA USED a campaign event this week to urge people to make sizable donations to the Democratic Party's candidates and to turn out for Quinn in Illinois.


"We need to do everything in our power to get him over the finish line," she said. Which in a sense is true for Obama, whose influence would wind up being diminished if his own home state picks the opposition political party for its new leader.


But how many people really listen to federal officials when it comes to these elections? It comes down to the old Tip O'Neill saying, "All politics are local."


Besides, I still remember back in 2010 when President Barack Obama himself made a point of campaigning in Illinois to benefit the local Dems running for Congress.


MOST OF THEM wound up being defeated. Tea Party-types beat up on them -- such as the case of someone like Debbie Halvorson; the one-time state senator who wound up getting one two-year term in Congress before becoming a political has-been.


She got swept in by the Obama-love movement of 2008, then brushed out again in 2010 by the Obama-is-a-Muslim/terrorist/Communist/whatever other slur they can think of types in our society.


She wasn't alone.


Quinn won that year, but that was more because Republican opponent William Brady came across as so blatantly rural and hostile to Chicago interests that Chicago voters turned out en masse.


RAUNER ISN'T GOING to make that same mistake just over three months from now.


President Obama had little to do with Quinn's victory in 2010. I doubt the first lady will have much influence in turning out votes for the governor in November.


People who think she will be just don't seem to get it.


Although they're not as ridiculous as the Rauner camp seems to be these days with their new campaign attack ad that features newspaper "headlines" that, the Chicago Tribune figured out, never actually appeared in any newspapers.


THEY WANT THE credibility that the printed word conveys with its sense of permanence (at least compared to the Internet where things perpetually disappear, only to reappear when least desired). But they want their own take on these alleged headline facts.


Quinn aides are attacking Rauner, who's trying to claim that they're disseminating accurate information. They want Quinn to "Shut Up" and take the blows they wish to dish out to him.


But what amuses me about this line of defense is that a similar controversy came up in 2004 when documentary filmmaker Michael Moore got hit with the same accusation for "Fahrenheit 9/11."


His movie came up with "headlines" that showed negative news coverage of then-President George W. Bush. Except that one of the headlines that supposedly appeared in the Bloomington Pantagraph newspaper was actually a headline that appeared on someone's "Letter to the Editor," rather than on an actual story of fact.


THE IDEOLOGUES WHO like to trash people still demonize Moore for "making up" facts to bolster his film.


But I'm sure these same people will eagerly defend Rauner -- whose defense sounds remarkably the same as what Moore offered up.


Which makes the whole thing such a line of bunk -- yet another phony controversy to go along with a not-so-legitimate endorsement from the White House.


Although I'm sure the people who want to believe it all also lapped up every single word spewed during Rauner's campaign appearance with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Any new traffic jam jokes?


  -30-