I see where Bruce Rauner says how he admires how the Governor of Indiana runs his state. That’s not good.
Actually, as someone who lived 16 years in both Chicago and in Indiana, I have to say that, despite some serious flaws in Indiana governance, it’s a LOT better than what I lived under in Chicago.
I don’t agree with everything my governors have done, but some very good things, like affordable health coverage for poor adults, keeping the state in the black during the Great Recession, and some other stuff has been quite beneficial.
I’d like to point out, though, that Rauner doesn’t say which actions of our governor he likes, and that just because he might admire our current guy doesn’t mean he’s capable of emulating him.
Wait, now . . . Illinois, Indiana . . . They’re really just alternative names for the same place, right? You know, like Holland and the Netherlands, or Iraq and Mesopotamia, or Iran and Persia, or Thailand and Siam, or China and Japan.
Quite different places. Indiana’s been doing a heck of a lot better for a long time. Of course, that’s a low bar to meet since we are talking about Illinois. We really should refrain from trusting Illinois politicians with running the federal government until things get better over there.
Or Texans, of course.
:rolleyes:
True enough. LBJ and Bush made that abundantly clear. Apparently Texans really like getting into wars.
We need a President from Florida. Haven’t tried that yet. Or perhaps… Indiana? I like Mike Pence a lot.
I’d prefer Mitch Daniels, but he refuses to run.
I don’t get it. Is there supposed to be some indication that Rauner is mixing up the two states, or something?
Definitely.
Rumor has it he won’t run because of issues he had with his wife in the past.
The only “issue” made public is that his wife said, “Hell no” to a run. Given that he’s a man and a man of power, it of course wouldn’t be surprising at all if he’s had dalliances and I imagine a lot of families would rather that not come out so they have to relive it all over again, so it could be that it keeps him from running. Some politicians have the temerity to marry non-ambitious wives who won’t overlook cheating just to gain power.
I’ve always found it hilarious that women married to men who are simply rich will just divorce their sorry asses and take half their wealth. But since a woman married to a politician can’t take half his office or be “sorta First Lady” should be become President, they “stand by their man”.
Actually, they were divorced at one point, then got remarried. Apparently, she abandoned the family and didn’t want to face the heat for it.