November 7, 2005

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.


At 11/07/2005 6:21 PM, Blogger illinoisone said...

I just caught Ruhmler on the 6:00 news.

At 11/07/2005 6:26 PM, Blogger youngridemocrat said...

I have 2 questions for Mr. Rumler and I would like to ask them now:

1. Is it true you moved back to the district just last month?

2. Where are you employed in the Quad Cities?

The first question is a key factor in deciding whether one is eligible to run as a candidate for the legislature.

We welcome new ideas to the district. That's not the issue, Ms. Dope. The issue is whether the Dems will want a flawed candidacy to move forward. You can bet that the GOP hopes he survives, then they'll throw him off the ballot.

This happens all the time.

At 11/07/2005 8:43 PM, Blogger diehard said...

If he is not legite is our fabulous county chairman John Gagnulis looking at his residency status?
Or maybe he is 2 timing the Jacobs.
Watch your back Denny!

At 11/07/2005 9:14 PM, Blogger Local Dem said...

"You can bet that the GOP hopes he survives, then they'll throw him off the ballot.

This happens all the time."

That sounds like Rove rhetoric youngridemocrat.

It happens all the time. Do you have numerous examples? Planting seeds of fear is a tactic that has been decidedly "right" lately.

I have found only one example that residency has been significantly questioned. Have yet to find any cases that have a candidate being disqualified.

Let's give him a fair chance here. It's what democracy is all about. Rumler is a fourth generation Quad City Citizen. I think it's fair to say that he calls the QC home. He maintained a residence, voted in elections, let's put this issue to bed and hear what he hays to say.

At 11/07/2005 10:03 PM, Blogger youngridemocrat said...

Wake up, Local Dem. I've been in campaigns for a couple decades throughout Illinois. I know of what I speak.

Having a candidate is a good thing.
Ideas and discussion are a good thing.

But the GOP I know are absolute sharks in the water. If you are running to be a lawmaker, you had better know the residency laws.

I, for one, think they're too stringent at the legislative level.
For instance, you can just dive back into a district the way Rumler did and run for local and county offices, but not for the legislature.

He would be smart to run for township superviser or county board first.

At 11/07/2005 11:42 PM, Blogger Local Dem said...

The Inside Dope obtained evidence that Rumler meets the requirements to run for State Senate. He didn't dive back into town, his residence was maintained. He also continued to vote in Illinois.

The inside dope provided facts. What you are providing is rhetoric. You are stating things as fact, yet providing no facts.

"You can bet that the GOP hopes he survives, then they'll throw him off the ballot.

This happens all the time."

- if you have facts to prove that this "happens all the time", then let's see them until then, you can't be taken seriously.

If you really believe the Rumler doesn't meet the requirements, then let's see some facts. If you can produce a law, or regulation, and prove that he doesn't meet the requirements, then lets see it.

Being that he graduated Summa Cum Laude, I am sure that he would not have left soemthing like a residency issue to chance.

At 11/08/2005 12:03 AM, Blogger youngridemocrat said...

I have seen House members ejected from the House floor for residency! There are residency cases every two years. I won't waste the blog space, just do some homework.

My simple question to Mr. Rumler and I'll leave this alone: When did he move back to the Quad Cities in 2005?

At 11/08/2005 12:10 AM, Blogger youngridemocrat said...

The reason I ask that is that a candidate is supposed to be a resident from the general election preceding the campaign he/she runs.
That means he would have had to be a resident from November 2004 until now. But his own web site talks about moving back to Washington or Massachusetts sometime in 2004 and 2005?

Again, this can all be cleared up once Mr. Rumler comes clean about when he moved back to the Quad Cities? Was it September 2005?

Just the facts.

At 11/08/2005 4:40 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

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!

At 11/08/2005 6:01 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Young RIdemocrat - I find very little difference between a young guy who has never run before for office and a guy like Mike Jacobs (who has never run for anything before as well) who is literally gifted the office of senator. Actually as a strawman, Rumler is pretty conveniently good for the Jacobs sham job to keep Mike in office --I'd say---

They have a lot in common Mike and Paul - neither one of them has EVER been on the ballot before.

Best of luck to them both as novices in politics! May the best man win.....

At 11/08/2005 10:08 AM, Blogger qcdem said...

I am reading these posts, and I guess I am missing the point. Shouldn't we all be glad that there is more than one candidate? You would think this would be good news for the QC. I thought that was the point of democracy.

If Rumler does have residency problems, (the facts say he doesn't) that will be cleared up. I am unsure as democrats why we are so afraid of having a new name in the party.

There is technically not an elected incumbent in office, so really shouldn't we look at this as if it were an open seat? I sense a lot of fear of the unknown. Shouldn't we all sit back and let the race unfold? I think we'll find out what we need to know about both candidates as time progresses. We need to let the democratic process work as it was intended to.

At 11/08/2005 1:05 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Well nice dream QCdem - but facts are facts - and money trumps anything that Rumler can do in the race.

Denny has given Mike such a huge dowrey in his war chest that he can't be beat - that is unless Mike continues on his path of public bad behaviour.

Just watch closely after Rumler looses and see what posh job he gets with the State of IL after the election.

At 11/08/2005 1:19 PM, Blogger kingofbeer said...

I'm not buying it, maybesomeday. I wouldn't put the Jacobs past the dirty tricks, but Rumler is way too polished to be part of that crowd. Look at the postings in support of him. And JP Jacobs (aka youngridemocrat) has his shorts in way too much of a bundle over this guy. I also can't see Rumler considering it to be a career advancement to move from U.S Congressional staff to state bureaucrat. No, he wants to be the man.

At 11/08/2005 3:13 PM, Blogger gbushsux said...

It does seem a little harsh that directly after this ruhmler guy announces he is going to run against a guy who has just committed political suicide after comparing himself to Rosa Parks (oops)everyone for the jacobs campaign is digging in and finding out if the opponent is eligible to run because he has been working in warshington.

Oh well, the inside dope cleared it up. this might be a fun one to watch here in the upcoming months.

At lunch today i also noticed ruhmler for senate.

Local politics are fun :)

At 11/08/2005 7:24 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

G I love your handle man!

I still believe the Jacobs' little plan may backfire - but it all depends on what Mike does for the next few weeks, months. They will put a muzzle on him for sure!!

At 11/08/2005 10:15 PM, Blogger Cousin Dupree said...

Having a muzzle clamped firmly over his mouth may be the best thing that could have happened to our Senator Jacobs... including his alter-ego "HeadUsher" here on the blog.

The guy shows himself to be petty, dim, mean, and inarticulate. He demonstrates no interest in, or knowledge about, any of the issues raised here, beyond what lobbyists tell him to think.

He thinks his only role is to praise himself to embarrassing lengths.

Judging by his comments and utterances, the guy is definitely not grown up enough for the bigs. Throw him back and let him evolve a little.

At 11/08/2005 10:44 PM, Blogger youngridemocrat said...

Still waiting for a response to a very simple question. When did Mr. Rumler move back to the Quad Cities in 2005? Was it last month?
Was it in September?

At 11/09/2005 5:13 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

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

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.

At 11/09/2005 7:00 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Hey no matter what guys - if he worked on capital hill as a staff aide, even living out there, he should pass the IL resident so give it up.

Youngdem - just look around and do some research on it and learn that I am correct... you won't kick Rumler off for residencey. If you want to help Mike Jacobs, then try to mess up his petitions if he has enough to even file.

Denny will start messing that up for him next - that is ---unless Rumler is really the strawman I think he is and then Denny will let it play out and get em on the ballot next to Mikey.

At 11/09/2005 9:57 AM, Blogger Local Dem said...

I'm not buying this strawman option. If he were, Denny would likely have picked someone working locally, and JP Jacobs wouldn't be obsessing about residency on this blog...

At 11/10/2005 12:03 AM, Blogger billyclinton said...

I get a kick out of you all defending this kid Rumler. I know you all feel sorry for him because he's so young, but let me tell you he's pulling the wool over your eyes.

For the last two years, this boy has not lived in this district. That, my friends, isn't "residence."

He didn't live here in 2005. He didn't live here in 2004.

But that doesn't seem to matter. You all want to break the rules for this young man.

Shame on you.

At 11/10/2005 12:19 AM, Blogger shamalamadingdong21 said...

The burden of proof is so small to claim residence that it is practically a waste of ink in the Illinois Constitution. Basically, you would have to prove that he was a resident someplace else, but even then you would have to prove that he "intended" to keep his permanent residence there and not here and that he did not "intend" to make his actual residence his permanent residence. Do you want a judge or a jury of your peers to figure that one out?

This case will be left up to the voters to decide if he is really a resident of this District. Even if he meets the legal requirements, I don't think that coming home for the holidays is really the same as actually living in the District.

Heck, we even let Alan Keyes become an eligible resident to run for the US Senate. Unfortunately, the Constitutional restriction was designed to keep candidates from hopping districts within Illinois and was not really designed to protect us from out of staters running for public office.

I predict you will see State Sen. Mike Jacobs publicly support Rummie's right to be on the ballot and focus his time on meeting his constituents and talking about how to make Illinois better.

For those of you who do nothing but complain and criticize, it would be a shock to you to learn that Mike is actually a pretty good listener, even if he sometimes talks too much. I think that could probably describe most of us.

At 11/10/2005 6:45 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Please don't ever compare me to Mike Jacobs -- and I hope Mike Jacobs never compares himself to someone of stature and respect and iconic status ever again.....

Mike Jacobs can never hold anything up to the accomplishments of Rosa Parks and I am still offended by his comparison of himself to Rosa. What a monumental mistake Mike made that day!!

At 11/10/2005 10:42 PM, Blogger CountyDemo said...

Sounds like maybesomeday has a crush on the Senator! Look out Mike!

At 11/10/2005 10:48 PM, Blogger shamalamadingdong21 said...

I, Like maybesomeday, will never write a positive comment about anything or anyone ever again. Like maybesomeday, I will refuse to offer any insight or analysis and simnply criticize without offering a solution. No sorry, I am wrong to compare myself to maybesomeday or anyone else. It is time that politicians STOP using analogies to explain things and say what they really mean, we would be so much better off as a nation.

Step one in the solution is to ban all English books that teach the art of making an analogy and then censor all literature that contains any analogies. I also really hate alliteration. However, comma splices and passive voice need to be legalized, they kept me from that A in college I never got and those analogies and irony were always so confusing to me.

I am a new man, the SHAMA speaks and now agrees with the critics that the Sen. made a mistake by using an analogy and I hope that he authors legislation to reform our schools so that others do not follow in his footsteps.

All of you whiners and complainers looking for anything to hang your pessimistic cynicism on to fan the flames of your discontent need to lighten up and see the hypocrisy of your own rants.

The public and false indignation and "scandal" created by the media and the haters out there as a response to a few words in a speech are nothing less than high tech censorship.

The people who should be embarrasssed are the anonymous censors, including maybesomeday, and the scandal hungry members of the media out there who have no idea what "Pulitzer" means.

At 11/11/2005 2:52 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

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.

At 11/11/2005 3:00 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

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.

At 11/11/2005 7:13 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Shama - the New Headusher!! Or headwhiner....take your pick.

At 11/11/2005 10:54 AM, Blogger CountyDemo said...

I pleased that Sen. Mike Jacobs stood up for our community. Too many politcans around here are willing to stand aside and look!

Like the Dispatch, I think NAYSAYERS like maybesomeday are part of the PROBLEM around here, not part the SOLUTION!

At 11/12/2005 9:58 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Countydemo - get out of the dreamworld you live in and come out from the clouds.

This behaviour by Sen Mike J is way over the top and I am embarrassed by it as should be the entire Jacobs clan.

Mike needs to go to manners school and also should deflate his head a bit so he can learn a little bit about the real world of politics....

And in case you didn't notice, Mike Jacobs was not standing up for me or for you - unless you are one of those millionaire gambling boater owners over in RI that stand to make a mint off the industry and it's changes at the state level....are you? If so, you paid Mike thousands to stand up for you.... Hope you got your money's worth countydemo......

The whole situation is just sad and an embarrassment for us all.

At 11/12/2005 10:39 AM, Blogger CountyDemo said...

As several members of my family work for suppliers to the Casino Rock Island, I assure you we are very much appreciative that Mike Jacobs had the courage to stand up for us. Anyone that thinks Mike Madigan doesn't want to steal our boat and move it to Chicago is well --- silly!

Don't let um get you down Mike, keep standing up for your community!

At 11/12/2005 10:47 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Countydemo - suppliers to the casino RI? Again, not workers but wealthy business owners... I thought so!!

Mike Jacobs stands for the rich and wealthy - much like George Bush does!!!!

Can Mike Jacobs get some decent pay for the workers on the casino boat? I doubt he'd even notice that as an issue.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home