 |
| IVES: Offends Kennedy, Rauner |
ON
TUESDAY, IVES’ perception suffered another blow when Rauner himself said he had
no intention of participating in a Republican debate against her that would
have been held in Springfield.
Considering
that the bulk of any Republican candidate’s voter support will come from the
part of the state outside the Chicago area, it could be seen as foolish for
Rauner to pass up the chance to appeal to his likely backers.
But Ives
managed to show on Monday that her rhetoric is likely to be over the top –
perhaps just as much as trying to get people to think Rauner is a liberal, even
though the bulk of the Chicago-area vote certainly will turn out against him.
Her
campaign may well turn out to be the one of the malcontents of our state
expressing their opposition to the concept that everybody does not agree with
their ideologue hang-ups about life and our society.
WHY
SHOULD RAUNER give Ives the public attention of a one-on-one debate between the
two?
 |
| KENNEDY: Walked out on Ives |
I
know many conservative-leaning people want to believe that right-wing outrage against
Rauner is so intense (he’s not anti-abortion enough to satisfy them) that
anybody could beat him come the March 20 GOP primary.
They
cite Steven Baer, an ideologue who took about one-third of the vote in the 1990
gubernatorial primary against Jim Edgar. I’d argue that Ives could get about
one-third of the vote, which would still make her a loser. And how many real
people (as in non-political geeks) have a clue who Baer was? Or will remember Ives 20 years from now?
For
the record, Ives’ offensive act was trying to say that we have so much gun
violence in our society because we have many fatherless families. Which Kennedy
took offense to because he, himself, lost his father as a young child.
 |
| RAUNER: Won't give her that much attention |
HIS
UNCLE, TOO. Remember that? Both of those stories were in all the papers and
usually warrant a couple of sentences in the history books.
Personally,
I’m inclined to think this would be an ideal world (or as close as we’d ever come
to one) if everybody had a set of two parents to help raise them as children.
But not everybody does, and we ought to be focusing on trying to help those
youth who don’t have such circumstances.
Rather
than holding them up to blame for societal flaws, which is all Ives and people
of her ilk really are interested in doing!
Make
people think that everything that is wrong with life is somebody else’s fault, and
maybe it makes them feel a little bit better about their lot in life. But it
doesn’t do a thing to make things better for the masses.
I
HAVE NO doubt that if Ives were to get a one-on-one forum with Rauner, she’d
really let loose with the nonsense talk. She’d probably also have the crackpots
all peeved about Rauner not being conservative enough for them ready to
proclaim her the winner.
 |
| PRITZKER: Will get own share of nonsense |
Which
wouldn’t really be true. In fact, such a forum probably would add nothing to
the public understanding of who either candidate is. Just as I’m sure the
various Democratic candidate forums (the first of which will be held next Tuesday
in Chicago) probably won’t go any further than candidate J.B. Pritzker being
the rich guy trying to buy himself an ego-bloating political post.
It’s
bound to be a lot of nonsense-talk. The rhetoric will flow with the sounds of
silliness. In that regard, we’re better off without a Rauner/Ives debate.
I’m
sure those who merely want to smack Bruce about will have plenty of opportunities
between now and the Nov. 6 general election – to the point where he’ll have
more than his share of rhetorical bruises.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment