Mike Jacobs... White Knight or Black Sheep?
Let's start with a bang. The appointment of Mike Jacobs to his father's seat in the Illinois senate inspires a lot of passion on all sides. His supporters arguments could be summed up as "Mike's great. He hung out with his Dad a lot, so he knows the ropes. He has a lot of dough to spend. He's got connections through his Dad. So Mike is great."
His opponents, whom the Jacobs camp dismisses as those suffering a case of sour grapes, think along these lines: "Mike sucks. He's hung out with his Dad a lot, so he's nothing but an old style wheeler-dealer. He has a lot of dough to spend, but it won't help. He's got connections through his Dad, which is not good at all, considering the shady characters involved. There were other's who were far more qualified and deserving of this appointment, so Mike sucks.
More fleshed out versions of these views are that the people who know Mike, or who are die-hard Jacobs supporters, like him personally and think he'll be fine if given the chance. They're hard pressed to make an argument in support based on Mike's public accomplishments. There really aren't any.
A fuller version of the anti-Mike partisan's lament is: "Mike Jacobs is an empty suit who got handed a plum, which isn't right. He doesn't deserve it, and it's nepotism at it's worst. He's got no real talent for the job and represents a continuation of the tired old crony system. Mike is just a young face on an outdated power structure. Others have worked and accomplished much more, yet they were bypassed for this appointment.
So........ is Mike Jacobs a train wreck waiting to happen, someone who will get swatted down in a primary, or a younger, more progressive Denny v.2.0 who will serve the district with distinction?
Drag out your crystal balls and tell us how it's going to be.