Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: CBS News poll: By 56-44 margin, Americans want statewide mask mandates, while 57 percent of parents want masks required in schools, compared to 36 percent who want them optional
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
I was a bit flabbergasted to see last week that Republican gubernatorial candidate Richard Irvin told a blatant falsehood on a southern Illinois radio station. But what came after that helps us see how the Republican primary will play out for the next four and a half months.
If you follow my blog, CapitolFax.com, you know Irvin flatly told WJPF Radio host Tom Miller, “I’ve always been opposed to mandates” when Miller asked what he thought about Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s plan to phase out the state’s mask mandate. Irvin added that Pritzker is “making his decisions based on politics.”
Turns out, though, Irvin strongly supported state mandates as mayor of Aurora. He warned his city’s business owners in September 2020 to make sure their customers were wearing masks and threatened to impose fines on scofflaws.
A few months earlier, he heaped praise on the governor’s COVID-19 response, which included stay-at-home orders and mask mandates. Even back then, at the height of the first wave, those mandates were openly being criticized by some Republicans. After noting the governor had telephoned him the night before to explain his latest virus mitigation plan, Irvin told area reporters he pledged the support of Aurora “to do our part to help in the statewide effort.”
I am a regular listener of Tom Miller’s radio interviews. He is smart, polite and non-confrontational, qualities that attract important guests from across the political spectrum. For my purposes, Miller (no relation) usually puts his interview subjects at ease, which can often lead to them saying what’s really on their minds. He’s invaluable.
I knew Irvin had appeared on Miller’s show, but I didn’t get a chance to listen to the online recording until I received a press release from the Democratic Governors Association titled: “Richard Irvin Does a Complete 180 on COVID Mandates.”
After listening to the interview and watching an accompanying Irvin press conference video and then reading an attached news story from Chicago’s ABC-7, I put a blog post together and moved on.
Later, though, it struck me how truly amateurish the other Republican gubernatorial candidates really are. Big-time campaigns in an important state like Illinois usually have people assigned to monitoring their opponents’ public comments for just the sort of prevarications that Irvin was caught in last week. Only Irvin wasn’t called out by the Republicans, but by the Democrats.
That the Democrats would be interested in stopping Irvin before he makes it to the general election is no surprise at all. He’s a (so far) successful African American mayor of the second-largest city in the state. And while he will win over some usually Democratic-supporting Black voters if he makes it out of the primary and into the general election, his presence on the ballot could well drive down the all-important Black turnout, which would damage not only Pritzker but the rest of the Democratic ticket throughout the state.
The same people who are running Irvin’s campaign did just that in 2014. Enough Black voters stayed away from the polls that, partly as a result, Republican Bruce Rauner defeated incumbent Democrat Pat Quinn.
Rauner also did better in the hugely important suburbs than Quinn expected, and Irvin’s backers are hoping their candidate’s anti-crime messaging, along with a pledge to balance things out between the government and progressive interests, will help him do well in the ‘burbs.
“Don’t underestimate how much of this is about making suburban white women comfortable about voting for a campaign full of dog whistles,” recently warned one top Black Democratic strategist, who isn’t usually a paranoid type.
So, I suppose the Republican candidates feel they don’t need to invest in opposition research and trackers as long as they know the Democrats will handle all the heavy lifting for them.
But in this particular case, almost all of those Republicans can honestly say, unlike Irvin, “I’ve always been opposed to mandates.” They really missed a major opportunity to pounce.
And because they haven’t built out that crucial campaign infrastructure, the Republican candidates are less able to anticipate and respond to Irvin’s campaign, which has shown an adeptness at digging stuff up about the rest of the field, particularly Darren Bailey and Jesse Sullivan.
Many of the hits you’ve been seeing on those two candidates are coming from the Irvin camp. Gary Rabine and Paul Schimpf have apparently not been enough of a factor in the primary to warrant much attention.
* Fox 32…
“Before Darren Bailey decided he was going to run for governor, he introduced a plan that included business closures and now he says he never would have done that,” [Richard Irvin running mate Rep. Avery Bourne] said. “And so he might have a really politically convenient persona now, but when you look at his record and what he’s done, it’s the opposite.”
In March 2020, Bailey posted on social media, “I am satisfied with what the Governor (Pritzker) is doing as we watch what he is suggesting and compare that with what President Trump is doing.” He added, “I wanted to ask everyone to please stay home from church tomorrow.”
“I was an advocate for that. I stood up and, as a matter of fact, I had a lot of pushback in my district. But two weeks came and went and then when businesses started closing down and the governor had absolutely no idea, no relief, no plan for these non-essential business owners, then it became a problem,” Bailey said.
“And I began to realize that the problem was escalating out of control. And that’s when I began to stand up and start pushing back.”
Two weeks? Um, no.
…Adding… Irvin campaign…
Fox Chicago exposed Senator Darren Bailey’s hypocrisy on COVID-19 lockdowns. Despite having deleted his plans to shut down Illinois, Bailey acknowledged he did “advocate” for lockdowns before announcing his run for governor. Now he has reversed course claiming he would never have shut down the state if he had been Governor.
Bailey’s plan was described in a Facebook post in March 2020 that favored masks and suggested that bars should stay closed, restaurants should be at 50% capacity, and according to Fox Chicago, he endorsed some of the ideas Governor Pritzker supported. Bailey acknowledged, “I agreed with that plan. We were unsure, we didn’t know. I was an advocate.”
State Representative and candidate for Lt. Governor, Avery Bourne, called out the hypocrisy in an interview with Fox Chicago: “Before Darren Bailey decided to run for Governor, he introduced a plan that called for businesses to be closed. Bailey has a convenient political persona now, but when you look at his record, what he’s done, it’s the opposite.”
*** UPDATE *** Here we go…
2/2 I will never apologize for doing everything I can to fight for working families and standing up for freedoms & doing what is right to uphold law and order in Illinois. They can spread their lies and misinformation, but I stand by my record of standing up fighting for you.
— Darren Bailey for Governor (@DarrenBaileyIL) February 14, 2022
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 8:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: CBS News poll: By 56-44 margin, Americans want statewide mask mandates, while 57 percent of parents want masks required in schools, compared to 36 percent who want them optional
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Irvin going full bore on the take it back campaign
Comment by Rabid Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 9:05 am
Bailey would appear to be moving to the “spoiler” in the primary. Does he stay in facing a growing flood of Ken’s dollars or does he get out and try to save face with his “base”.
Comment by Give Me A Break Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 9:20 am
I never thought that Bailey was in it to win it. He’s looking to establish himself as the champion of the aggrieved, angry, rural voter. It’s a message that will have limited appeal in the suburbs. He will be to Richard Irvin what Jeanne Ives was to Bruce Rauner. Maybe not enough support to beat Irvin, but an ability to generate enough animosity to keep downstate Republicans from supporting him. And I think that Bailey is just fine in filling that role.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 9:46 am
Thank goodness Avery Bourne is here to be the truth teller on these grifter candidates who lie. Sn/
Comment by Tomorrow is yesterday Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 9:54 am
Down in the red part of Illinois, the anti-mask anti-vax sentiment rules the day. Bailey will get the lion’s share of votes there, but unfortunately for him there aren’t that many voters in those counties.
I don’t think Bailey is looking to be a spoiler. Like almost every candidate, he thinks he will win.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:01 am
“Flip-flop”
That was then. This is now.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:18 am
Irvin is also the guy who allegedly called up the National Guard. So I can’t believe anything he says.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:28 am
I wouldn’t count Bailey out just yet. Free media can move like wildfire through the Republican base. Bailey’s been on a never-ending bus tour of the state, he’s likely to meet a substantial chunk of the electorate before June. There’s also going to be debates, which traditionally act as a leveler for underfunded candidates. If Irvin shows up to those debates, Bailey is going to set Facebook on fire demanding to know who he voted for in 2020. That sort of thing can stick to eyeballs much better than a poll-tested, high production value TV ad.
Money, on its own, has limited utility on campaigns. Every race statewide and smaller has a Brewster’s Millions point where you stop getting new votes in proportion to dollars spent. Irvin’s definitely going to be competitive on the basis of his spending, don’t get me wrong. But there’s a lot of lessons to be learned from the Mike Bloomberg presidential campaign. Money isn’t everything.
Comment by vern Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:41 am
Ives lost to Rauner by 3 pts. Bailey can win the primary in an electorate that has moved even harder to the right. Irvin has never received more than 7000 votes in an election, folks keep forgetting that.
Comment by Chicago Blue Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:50 am
“Pro-mandates? Me? Oops, sorry for that past display of common sense.”
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:54 am
==Bailey can win the primary in an electorate that has moved even harder to the right.==
There’s also no incumbent.
That being said, I still think Irvin is the frontrunner.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 11:46 am
Chicago Blue,
But I see no indication that the red parts of the state have gotten redder (I mean, after scarlet it becomes harder to judge the shades, but still) and Ives left no stone unturned in getting her voter base out. So I don’t know how many more there are to get for Bailey. And I don’t know how voter turnover (voters dying vs voters coming of voting age) is going to affect that, either.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 12:26 pm
Good article.
Thinking if you don’t subscribe to the Times you are missing out
on some good reporting on Illinois politics.
On the blog post, looking at the same facts and Richard Irwin’s comments, I am not in line with the flip flopping idea. Irwin says he was opposed to mandates as a lot of people were now and then, but enforced the law. As Mayor he took an oath to enforce the law and that is what he was supposed to do and that is what he apparently did. Weather or not you are opposed to government by “mandates” or not, the mandate approach was thought to be legal and not sure enforcing it is a flip flop.
I suspect the outcome of his actions as Mayor were a real positive at the time in dealing with Covid 19.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 12:44 pm
This is the kind of … touchstone… that is needed when discussing, not just flip flops or however “others” would like things to… “be”
For Bailey, the game is very simple and very basic;
Keep as many of the racist thinkers, insurrectionist and their apologists… and conspiracy theorists… happy… and not jump ship towards *anyone*, especially those south of I-80. That’s Bailey’s ball game.
I wrote this Thursday…
“For me it’s “simple”
This Irvin Crew is used to an empty vessel candidate that you can put in costume, change how they talk, say one thing somewhere, another thing someplace else.
You think I’m knocking them. I’m not. That was what won last time with an outsider.
Irvin just has too many things on the record, in the actual governing, of a city, the politics within all that governing, and the good instincts Irvin had used to win his second term (very easily) are now being thwarted because a narrative usually saved for an empty vessel type is making the Crew and Irvin have to answer for things folks can’t forget… it’s his record, a record he ran on, touted, and won with not long ago.
It’s disingenuous because you can’t rewrite what made Irvin your choice, for starters, and you can’t deny what was said or done, as you try to close up holes.
I’m fascinated how they are gonna roll this.”
Stand by my take today too.
It’s going to get tasty, expensive, and “confusing” for those looking for “consistency”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 12:59 pm
Just want to chime in to say that I worked with Miller for four years, and while he and I didn’t agree on basically anything political, you’re right that his interviews often pulled out info you wouldn’t get anywhere else. The guy is also a notorious workaholic, and he stands behind everything he says.
He would also hate that you said anything nice about him - but he deserves every word.
Comment by Concerned Observer Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 1:08 pm
Not to defend Bailey; but that plan being referenced was an attempt to get approval from the Governor’s office to lessen restrictions on a regional basis. Anyone who describes it as anything but is distorting the truth.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Feb 16, 22 @ 8:45 am