Meet Paul Rumler
Paul Rumler, the recently announced candidate for the 36th District Illinois Senate seat currently held by Sen. Mike Jacobs, is already ahead of the incumbant in the web site department.
As pointed out by alert commenter "Amigo91", Rumler's page can be found at http://www.paulrumler.com.
While it appears to be a work in progress, it contains some helpful information on the 26 year old candidate and his vision for the district.
Note: It's been brought to my attention that in the previous post re: Rumler's announcement, a link to comments made by Rep. Bart Gordon on Rumler's departure from his staff did not work. You can view the statement from the congressional record by clicking here and then clicking on the link in #3.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/06/2005
9 comments
9 Comments:
The 2006 Candidate's Guide from the Illinois Elections Commission shows that indeed, a candidate for state senate is required to be a resident for 2 years prior to election.
I'm not sure where you're getting the date that Rumler returned to the area though. I've looked through his website and the article on his announcement and nowhere does it specify a date that he returned to the area nor does it give dates for when he most recently worked in D.C.
I also got the impression that he worked in MA several years ago.
The fact may be that Rumler indeed meets the residency requirements.
I am looking into this and will report back if I get any further information.
This should be an interesting issue. I didn't notice the date on the floor comments of Rep. Gordon.
And are you saying that the two year requirement has to be keyed to the March 21st primary or is it prior to the general election?
The Board of Elections site says only that they must reside in the district "for two years preceding the election."
The relevant subsection of the Illinois constitution (Article IV, Section 2(c)) reads:
-----
(c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or appointment a resident of the district which he is to represent.
In the general election following a redistricting, a candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any district which contains a part of the district in which he resided at the time of the redistricting and reelected if a resident of the new district he represents for 18 months prior to reelection.
----
Again, only "preceding his election or appointment".
Is winning a primary considered being "elected"? I'd think not.
Also, we have no idea how contemporaniously Gordon's remarks were to Rumler's departure.
I've been able to confirm that Rumler indeed meets the constitutional residency requirements in order to run.
He established residency in Moline in September of 2003
More later.
WOW! Are you SURE you're not on the Jacobs chow wagon??
It's amazing that you're attempting to count this guy out a day after he announces.
With his background, I don't imagine he'd have filed and announced his candidacy without being on solid ground re: his eligibility.
I suppose it's to be expected, but it's a bit discouraging to hear that there are those that are more that willing to cause a distracting fuss about this issue before they even have the facts.
Maybe Rumler will have to hire failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet "Harry" Miers. After all, she was the one who represented Dick "Dick" Cheney when he was allowed to be on the ballot.
It's against the law for both members of a presidential ticket to reside in the same state. (Why? I have no idea.)
Even though Cheney had owned a house and lived in Texas for years, he said he was a resident of Wyoming even though he barely had much more than a PO box there and hadn't voted for years.
If it's good enough for Dick.....
The Rumler for Senate campaign confirms that Mr. Rumler has been a registered voter in Rock Island County since re-establishing his residency in 2003. He voted in the 2004 primary election and general election via absentee ballot.
It seems that he's indeed a qualified cndidate, though I doubt that will stop some from trying to make an issue of it.
Local Dem... ha! Good catch. The fact that the list was in alphabetical order kind of blows Hud50's comment all to hell.
But Hud, it's good to see you around again nonetheless.
Sen. Mike Jacobs has no web site. He does have a page on the Illinois General Assembly site, and it's linked in the sidebar, though it provides little info beyond what committees he serves on and what bills he's sponsored or signed on to.
And these suggestions that Rumler is somehow in Boland's pocket or a stalking horse for Jacobs are pretty flaky at this point.
If it's shown that Rumler worked for Boland as a teenager or something, I hardly think that's evidence that he's Boland's personal surrogate. Even if Boland supports his candidacy, it really doesn't mean much, other than the fact that Boland would rather have someone else as senator than Jacobs. And that can hardly be considered a crime.
As to Jacobs having somehow gotten Rumler to run against him, I only ask, WHY??!
What possible benefit would that give Jacobs?
Are we to think that Jacobs would search around and convince someone to go through the hassle of running only to make it appear as if young Mike has actually won an election for once?
That would be like taking out a loan and depositing the full amount back in the bank and having them transfer the payments each month automatically in order to generate a credit rating.
That to me seems crazy, but then again, I would put nothing past Jacobs.
Jacobs, or his alter-ego "HeadUsher" did indeed spout off a few times in comments here about watching for the announcement of his stalking horse candidate, suggesting that he was going to put someone up to run against him.
But this may have been Jacobs rather bizarre way of trying to muddy the waters in anticipation of Rumler's challenge.
And as bizarre as it is, it apparently succeeded in getting at least one person here to go for it hook, line, and sinker.
Anything's possible, but at this point, I think it's highly improbable that Rumler would allow himself to be used in such a way.
And at any rate, until there's some further information on either of these aspects, it's impossible to assert either of them as true.
Maybe, Trust me, I have become all too familiar with the lengths to which the Jacobs' will go to get their way politically.
Frankly, it came as a very disgusting shock to me, and still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But with any luck, that's water over the dam.
But even with that in mind, I still don't see how they would think that the trouble of recruiting someone to run against Mike would be worth whatever supposed benefit it would bring Sen. Mike.
Ever since HeadUsher started spouting off about how Jacobs was going to run a stalking horse candidate I've been baffled as to the simple question, WHY??!!
The only benefit I could see in it for Jacobs is that he might have someone who they could pay off to take a fall in debates, or otherwise make Mike look competent.
Of course, after a win, Mike could then say that he actually had some people vote for him, but getting someone to go through the ordeal of being a candidate just so Jacobs could say he beat someone seems a bit bizarre. (not that Jacobs hasn't shown a flair for that in the past.)
And perhaps the biggest reason why I can't believe your stalking horse theory is the simple fact that Jacobs announced it here, not once, but a few times.
If he really was engaged in such a bizarre little plot, then he wouldn't be boasting about it here. This of course, is based on the assumption that Jacobs wouldn't do something so weird, which unfortunately as we've seen, isn't a given.
I think instead, that Jacobs had gotten wind of Rumler's plans and thought the "stalking horse" bullsh*t was a really clever way to cast doubt over Rumler from the start.
If this is the case, which I believe it is, then by continuing to insist that Rumler is a sham candidate in Jacobs' pocket, you're doing EXACTLY what Jacobs had hoped people would do.
You're falling right square into the trap that Jacobs laid out.
I'd hope no one would do that.
Playing dirty is no way to win the hearts of the voters. Looks like the ole man is dipping into his bucket of tricks to keep his son a float.
Post a Comment
<< Home