Is Rumler an eligible guy?
No, not that kind of eligible, eligible to be a candidate in the 36th District.
Within hours of news of Rumler's announcement appearing here, and prior to his formal announcement, commenters were already raising the issue of whether he fulfilled the constitutional requirement that a candidate be a legal resident of the district for at least two years prior to the general election.
This was based on his resume reporting that he'd worked in D.C. until recently.
When I reported that Rumler had moved back to Moline in 2004 and met the residency requirement, a couple commenters were skeptical and enquired about his voting record.
A commenter suggested that the candidate had to be a resident at least two years before the primary date, but that didn't seem correct. It's been determined that election day is the operative date, which, in even numbered years, is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In 2006, that will be November 14th.
So Nov. 14th, 2004 seems to be the magic date as far as residency is concerned.
I've since confirmed again with the Rumler for Senate campaign that:
-- Rumler re-established his residency between his time in Massachusetts and Washington D.C. moving back to Moline in September of 2004.
-- At that time he was registered to vote in Rock Island County and voted in both the 2004 primary election (March 16) as well as the general election (Nov. 9th) via absentee ballot.
-- Rumler has maintained his residency in the district for over two years, satisfying the constitutional residency requirement and is therefore an eligible candidate.
I'm sure this won't be enough for those looking for a problem here. Any more arguments that could reasonably be used to suggest that Rumler shouldn't be allowed to run?
As an aside, while out today, I saw not one, but two "Rumler for Senate" yard signs in different areas. They're sure not wasting any time.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/07/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
The hyperventilating over this issue is really unpleasant to witness.
I don't think Rumler needs to "come clean" about anything.
His campaign maintains that he's met the requirments for residency and until there's some evidence to the contrary, there's nothing more to say about the issue.
The information provided from the campaign does not spell out specific dates for Rumler's movements at all times, nor, in my opinion, is it absolutely required.
They've stated that he moved back to Moline in Sept. of 2004, as has been stated repeatedly here.
If he then returned to work in Washington D.C. after that point, that does NOT mean that he's somehow sacrificed his residency here. I'm sure that there are thousands of legislative aides and other workers in D.C. that retain their residences back home and vote back home as well. If instead he was gone helping tsunami victims in Indonesia during that time, would that mean he gave up his residency here? Of course not. Neither does the fact he worked in D.C.
I frankly see no reason to be so positively determined to ignore the stated facts in an attempt to believe that SOMEhow, SOMEway, there must be SOMEthing amiss.
It just ain't necessarily true.
Evidently what you're relentlessly driving at is that Rumler didn't sit on his butt within the confines of the 36th district at all times for two solid years.
Well, no, he didn't. He worked in Washington D.C. for House Whip Steny Hower.
Are you suggesting that this fact precludes him being a valid candidate? Yes or no?
I think that's likely wishful thinking on your part and, as far as Rumler being eligible to run, will be a non-issue.
It's beyond obvious that those who don't wish any competition in the Democratic primary are absolutely giddy at thinking they've found a hook on which to knock young Mr. Rumler out of the race. They're going for the jugular right out of the chute, which isn't exactly pretty.
Rumler likely fulfills the residency requirement, but this is all simply an attempt to portray his having worked in D.C. during the past two years as some sort of negative.
Gentleman, start your attack engines!
Young, you're starting to kind of creep me out. Are you stalking young Mr. Rumler? ha!
Why the obsession on exactly when Rumler physically moved back to town? That's irelevant to whether he legally fulfills the residency requirement to run, which by all accounts he does.
Since you're obviously just dying to know the exact date, I suggest you simply sent him an email at RumlerforSenate@gmail.com.
Tell him you're a complete stranger who's suddenly developed an unhealthy personal interest in the exact dates of his movements and ask him yourself.
Though if I were him, I'm not sure I'd answer.
Seriously, if he's maintained residency here for over two years, the game is over. Give it a rest.
Shama, Your point about excessive negativity is valid. But your continued effort to excuse the inexcusable is unfortunate.
You must be an attorney?
Sen. Jacobs stepped on his d*** with his Rosa Parks comments and no amount of tortured argument will change that fact.
Shama, Your point about excessive negativity is valid. But your continued effort to excuse the inexcusable is unfortunate.
You must be an attorney?
Sen. Jacobs stepped on his d*** with his Rosa Parks comments and no amount of tortured argument will change that fact.
As a matter of fact, it could be said that if Sen. Jacobs had realized that fact sooner, he could have avoided the story being played beyond the initial report.
He had a chance to clarify the analogy in real time when a reporter asked him if the comparison was valid. He immediately said it was a valid comparison without qualification, thus proving that he was completely ignorant of how arrogant and insensitive it would appear.
Secondly, he could have realized that he'd really made a bad mistep and been contrite and humble. People are pretty forgiving.
But instead he stormed into the reporter's office to arrogantly complain and criticize the reporter for simply reporting the facts. Not only that, but he then went to the top management of the Dispatch and gave them hell as well.
Not only was this not wise, but it was doubly so since the transcript showed clearly that he did indeed "compare himself to Rosa Parks" as the article had stated.
No, Shama, it's not us nattering nabobs of negativity that are to blame for this incident, it's young Sen. Jacobs, both before, during, and after.
Post a Comment
<< Home