Why I'm Not Voting for Bruce Rauner


Bruce Rauner wants to be the governor of Illinois.  He says he personifies hope.  He can make our economic vista rosy again.  He will not raise taxes. He will, in fact, lower them.  He is the education candidate.  He will work with those on both sides of the aisle.  He will create jobs and lower unemployment.  He will bring back the flush times to the Prairie State.

He is, after all, an eminently successful businessman.  And he will apply his business model as our governor. Alleluia. Amen.

It sounds good.  His opponent is vulnerable, to say the least.  Despite marginal improvement, the state's finances are not on solid footing.  It's time for a change.

Or is it?

What about Rauner?   Let's look beyond the campaign rhetoric and hype.   Let's look beyond  endorsements from his wife and  a cabal of Republican-owned newspapers. Let's look at his credibility. And the desirability of some of his social and economic positions.

Rauner says he will stimulate so much economic growth that instead of tax hikes there will be tax cuts.  Phil Kadner,  the SouthtownStar columnist who's covered many state and local elections, calls this claim a pie in the sky.

Rauner says education will be a priority.  But he's a proponent of charter schools.  Except when using his pull and power to get his daughter into a  better public one.

Rauner says he will have a good relationship with the Democratic power-brokers in Springfield.  Like Mike Madigan, whom he has denounced and demonized  as "corrupt' in his campaign ads.

Rauner says he will create jobs.  Of course, as a venture capitalist and a  leverage buyout doyen, he has created jobs;  and destroyed them too by downsizing acquired companies.  And he's pretty  proficient at shipping jobs overseas. He even has advised other entrepreneurs on how to best do it.  YET  he can't seem to tell us how many jobs his companies have created here in the Land of Lincoln.

Rauner, also says, he admires fellow Midwest Republican governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Snyder in Michigan.  Who are against public labor unions, raising the minimum wage, gun control.  And whose promises of economic growth have not met expectations.  And would Rauner emulate the  policies of voter suppression proposed and implemented by these and other Republican governors?

Rauner wants us to believe in Reaganomics. Trickle down economics.  Ask the citizens of Kansas how it's working there under Sam Brownback.  It's working so well that even Republicans are going rogue and voting against Brownback's reelection.

Rauner says he is not an insider. But Emanuel appointed him president of a not-for-profit  Chicago Tourism Bureau which the Sun-Times recently described as a haven of patronage and cronyism.

Rauner says Pat Quinn is just as corrupt as disgraced and convicted ex-Governor Ron Blagojevich or the aforementioned Mike Madigan.  But Laura Washington writing in the Sun-Times---who worked with Quinn under Mayor Washington---says unequivocally that Quinn is not corrupt.  Quinn is under investigation, so  Rauner's political ad contends.  Rauner knows  how that feels.  He has been under investigation and sued for many of his unsavory business practices.

So Tuesday is just around the corner.  I will walk a few blocks to my polling place near 109th and Cicero and present myself to vote.  I will not be asked for a driver's license or some sort of other ID.  I will not use the computer screen to cast my ballot. I'll do it the old-fashioned way.


And vote for Quinn.





Filed under: politics


Leave a comment
  • I'm not going to repeat why I voted for Quinn's opponent. However, if his falsely named campaign committee "Taxpayers for Quinn" can only run on its "Rauner killed your grandma" commercials, Quinn has nothing to offer.

    And if you think expanding the economy is not the way out of it, I have some land to sell you in Detroit, Gary, and the west side of Chicago. Just wait until the Dem's pension reform bill is ruled unconstitutional.

    I sure hop you like Quinn's proposal of decreasing your income tax from 5 to 4.9%. Stinking fraud.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, thanks for your viewpoint. I respect where you're coming from and to be perfectly honest, I was not 100% sure for whom I would vote until a few days ago. Although it is true I was strongly leaning toward Quinn.

    Yes, we have to expand the economy. But Rauner has simply not convinced me that he's the man to do it.

    And if Rauner should win, I fervently hope he proves me wrong.

  • BTW, you can't vote the old fashioned way. Machines with levers and punch cards were abolished after the 2000 election. You are going to have to use something associated with a computer, even if you want to use the old method of coloring in the boxes in the scan paper ballot, which the computerized counting machine might eat.

    You should have been like me and voted already. What are you waiting for? Your mind has been made up for months.

    BTW, are you going to be voting in all the judicial retention elections too, and for candidates who don't have opposition? That's going to take up most of your Tuesday.

  • In reply to jack:

    Good point, Jack. Yep, it's all computerized. I meant by 'old-fashioned' using a pencil and paper as they did before the machines took over.

    Yes, I'm a traditionalist, a.k.a. masochist. I'm voting Tuesday.

    Even if 'For Dog-Catcher' is on the ballot.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I'm sure, for instance, Toni Preckwinkle appreciates your vote, since she has already won that election. There wasn't even a write in box.

    Also, be sure to check all the bar association sites for judges "not recommended." That is summarized on voteforjudges.org. The Lesbian and Gay
    Bar Association of Chicago recommendations probably have the most sway.

    At least the Green Party was allowed to run candidates for MWRD. Not statewide, though. Might take votes from the machine candidate.

  • Quinn isn't corrupt; he's incompetent and weak. He won't stand up to Michael (Long Live the King) Madigan, one of the main reasons that the state is in such a mess. No one can promise that Rauner will solve the problems, not even Rauner, but with Quinn, we'll just keep doing the same thing over and over again, and as the quote says, insanely hoping for a different outcome.

  • I'm willing to bet that most of the people who vote for Quinn on Tuesday voted for hope and change in 2008.

  • In reply to Gary Lucido:

    You would be surprised to know that many people you so described are voting for Rauner. Quinn is worse that inept, he and his party puppet masters are damaging the state and leaving billions for our kids to deal with. Time for some "consolidations" to happen in our state government and return this state to growth mode.

  • fb_avatar

    If Bruce Rauner is,as the Quinn campaign claims, personally responsible for the conditions at the nursing homes he invested in, doesn't that make Quinn also personally responsible for every death and abused child that was under the supervision of the Illinois DCFS? How can Quinn claim that he isn't directly responsible for the actions of every state worker, while claiming Rauner is directly responsible for the actions of every worker at every company that GCTR invested in?

  • Yes, Quinn would be ultimately responsible as chief executive of the state and, I am sure, would therefore take legal action against the state worker or workers directly responsible for the abuse or negligence. Not handing out lucrative bonuses as Rauner allegedly did, and has not denied.

  • fb_avatar

    What makes you say that? They swift and decisive action he took to fire EVERY worker who got an IDOT job as a "staff assistant" and was then moved to a position protected from political interference? Or was it because he fired every person in the Governor's office that was involved in getting these people hired in the first place? Oh, that's right, he didn't do either action, because he was too busy passing out taxpayers money in a way to get re-elected.

  • Aqinas, your voting for your pension. The only issue not brought up on the thread.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Aquinas shouldn't be worried about that. Pensions are protected under Article XIII Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution. ----unless you are suggesting that Rauner plans to violate the constitution!

  • In reply to jnorto:

    The answer is bigger than your question, and you know it. Are you suggesting that a constitution has no procedure to improve. There's no need to waste time with citing examples that you are well aware.

    Progressive's love 'change' as long as it's someone else's 'change'. BTW, I cringe every time I have to use the word 'Progressives' to describe the terrorists who hide behind the moniker in today's age.

    You colluded to vote for the politician's that promised you the greatest largesse and when they robbed you blind you want them to go and rob the public in turn to make good. Absolutely filthy.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Do you feel better now, having got that off your chest? Back to the question: why should Aquinas worry about his pension? Remember too that Article I section 10 of the United States Constitution prohibits states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Again, the answer is bigger than your question. You are trying to limit the scope of possibilities with your question, like a true/false test. If you are so worried about having your question answered in a specific fashion then it reason backwards: Why are the unions so worried about what Rauner can do to their pensions if Article I section 10 of the United States Constitution prohibits states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts?

    I'm not surprised you would evade the moral question. Just keep it binary right, like we're not dealing with will.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    You keep saying that the answer is bigger than my question, but you are keeping that answer secret. As to unions being worried about what Rauner would do, they (and quite a few of the rest of us) are worried about a number of things he might try do, including severe cuts to future pension benefits for teachers and other public employees. I don't think they should have much concern about vested benefits.

    Finally, what is this "moral question" I am "evading?"

  • In reply to 4zen:

    'Despite Mr Madigan's choke-hold on state politics, the unions are worried about Mr Rauner. Mr Quinn, who was hardly an enemy of the unions, won pension reform that they did not want. He attacked legislators such as Mr Madigan for refusing to agree to the reforms, and even halted their salaries at one point. Mr Rauner would go further, and might even shine a light on the shameful way in which unions and lawmakers in Springfield colluded to make the unaffordable pension promises that the state is struggling with now. Dick Simpson, a professor of politics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says the governor is also the key to all union contracts, pension legislation and budgets. '
    -The Economist Mar. 2014

  • There's your worry and your moral question which I've already answered earlier in the thread. Are you going to continue to pretend you have no ability to infer.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Nothing new here. Rauner can try to block future pension agreements and play politics with previous ones, but he can't impair those vested. Call it a "moral question" if you wish, but it's clear under our state and federal constitutions. That is why I challenged you first statement, "Aqinas, your [sic] voting for your pension."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Well at least you got me on the grammar error...You challenged me on the worry, I showed you the worry. You pretended I didn't show you a moral problem, when I had already discussed collusion. It's the stuff of childish bickering and you should be embarrassed, but I've seen your 'rodeo show' before and decided to go down 'the rabbit hole' with you.

    BTW, I don't want to see anything bad happen to Aquinas's pension, I simply was pointing out that I believed his perception and morals were really being colored by this worry as opposed to the gauntlet of altruistic Progressive values.

    If you believe that nothing can change if it were proved that benefits were fraudulently colluded or that there is no procedure to change a constitution to the will of the people, then that's your prerogative, I'm not a constitutional lawyer...Message to self, jnorto's not worried, got it.

Leave a comment