February 25, 2006

Jacobs wants no part of debating Rumler

Kurt Allemeier reports that it can be rough going when you're a candidate and are eager to debate your opponent, particularly if the opponent is Mike Jacobs.

Jacobs is upfront as usual in saying that he sees no advantage to his debating challenger Paul Rumler.
A lack of resources and political will likely will prevent a debate between Democratic state senate candidates Mike Jacobs and Paul Rumler.

Mr. Jacobs, who has been on the job just over a year after being appointed senator for the 36th District last February, doesn't see any advantage to debating little-known Mr. Rumler. He also cites a busy legislative schedule that would make his participation difficult.

Mr. Rumler says he doesn't have the financial or manpower resources to try to organize a debate. He would like to see a third-party step in to organize a debate.

Mr. Rumler has contacted the League of Women Voters about a debate. The closest local chapter is in Kewanee, which falls outside the district. He says the group will try to see who might possibly want to host a debate in the district.

"I think at this point, I would be helping him," Mr. Jacobs said. "He hasn't been in the area that long.

"I feel there is no responsibility for me to increase his visibility when I am widely known and my views are known," he said.

Mr. Jacobs sits in the state senate seat formerly held by his father, Denny Jacobs. The younger Jacobs was appointed to the seat after his father's retirement last year. Mr. Rumler served as an aide to a Massachusetts state representative and also to a pair of congressmen before returning to the Quad-Cities to run for the state senate position.

Mr. Rumler is focused on using his resources, which he concedes are limited, knocking on doors and meeting with community groups.

"I am still interested in doing that," Mr. Rumler said of a debate. "I am trying to use my resources in the most responsible way."

He still hopes someone will step forward soon with the offer of a debate.

"I think it would be to the benefit of everyone out there, to all the voters we can reach," Mr. Rumler said of a debate. "Unfortunately, it comes down to money as far as getting out your message.

"A public debate, getting everyone into one room, would get everyone's questions answered."

The closest opportunity voters might get of seeing the candidates debate is a series of brief candidate commentaries on WQAD-TV as part of the local ABC station's America Votes 2006.

Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Rumler both are participating in the program, which allows the candidates to discuss an issue in a taped, non-debate setting.
Some might suggest that the purpose of a debate is to air your views on issues of importance to the area and provide voters with an insight into what you hope to accomplish and allow them to contrast them with those of your opponents.

Rumler is all for a debate, and would even sponsor one himself if he had the resources, so he's not an issue.

There's two ways of viewing this that I can see.

One is the cynical, calculating view that, much like the accused in court of law, it's never a good idea to get on the stand if you can avoid it. What little good you might do your case could be easily wiped out by the massive damage you might do if you slip up.

As the saying goes, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

But what about the quaint notion that politicians almost owe the electorate to debate? Shouldn't they believe that debates are an important part of the democratic process and be more than willing to put themselves and their ideas forward in public, debating the issues in a fair forum? The primary beneficiarys from this are clearly the voters. To refuse to debate from purely selfish reasons wouldn't seem too admirable.

Apparently, unless Jacobs can see some obvious advantage he could gain from a debate, such as, oh, being able to demonstrate that he's all he's told us he is and then some, is clearly the better choice and demonstrating his intellect and grasp of the issues that are crucial to our area and it's future, Sen. Mike would rather take a pass.

He might be expected to want to put his plans and views up against his opponent's, confident that he's the best man for the position. Unfortunately, it appears Jacobs' simply not interested.

By admitting that he had nothing to gain from a debate, in one respect it's as if he's conceding that there's no way he could prevail, as though he doesn't stand a chance to come out ahead, and thus do his candidacy some good.

He did agree to tape the canned reading of talking points for airing on WQAD, however. So it would seem that unless the game is essentially rigged and he can be assured he'd win, or at the very least, not lose, he just won't play.

What happened to that fighting Hawkeye competitive spirit, the confidence in one's abilities and oneself? What about never shirked good honest competition?


At 2/26/2006 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike states that," my views are well known". Not really, Mike. A couple of days ago, the Argus had an article about upcoming legislation in the Illinois House that would deal with the gun issue. They talked to Boland and Verschoore and got their views on the issue. But nothing from Jacobs. Why not? Well, in light of this morning's headlines regarding how the legislation would affect people and jobs in this area, what IS Mike's positions on this?

At 2/26/2006 12:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think at this point, I would be helping Rumler. He hasn't been in the area that long."

"I feel there is no responsibility for me to increase Rumler's visibility when I am widely known and my views are know."

- Senator Mike Jacobs


In your opinion, is Jacobs saying he isn't debating Rumler because he hasn't lived in the area for the past six and half years, or is Jacobs saying he isn't interested in helping Paul gain needed publicity? Which do you think it is old fella?

At 2/26/2006 4:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would Ali grant an unkown like the InsideDope a shot at the title?

No way! The Dope would have to earn his shot.

The same is true of Paul Rumler.

Senator Mike Jacobs should not waste a second of his valuable time on an unkown bumbler like Paul Rumler.

At 2/26/2006 4:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "big, bad" candidate doesn't want to tangle with the youngster because it won't help him politically. What about helping the community make an informed decision? What about getting the issues out in the open? Denny, if you're reading this, please tell Mike that the office of Senator is about helping the community, not covering your own *ss.

If Mike is sooooo great, as he posts on here often, he should have no problem coming out on top of a debate. Isn't that what the residents deserve?

At 2/26/2006 6:08 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 12:29 writes,


In your opinion, is Jacobs saying he isn't debating Rumler because he hasn't lived in the area for the past six and half years, or is Jacobs saying he isn't interested in helping Paul gain needed publicity? Which do you think it is old fella? "

First of all, I'm not sure why you're so concerned with my personal opinion. Your question should be rightly asked of all readers.

But since you gave me an excuse to give it, here's my view.

I think he's insecure about how he'll do in a debate, and your second premise, he doesn't want to give Rumler any more visibility.

The thing about Rumler not having lived here is only an attack line which is about all Jacobs has left.

Of course, if Mike had the cojones to debate, it could be an opportunity for him to voice his obvious concern over the fact that Rumler has spent time working for senior congressmen in D.C.

In that respect, the reasoning that Jacobs doesn't want to give Rumler any added visibility is wrong-headed for two reasons.

1. Jacobs refusing to debate is giving Rumler positive publicity and Jacobs negative already.

2. Jacobs' reasoning once again assumes that Jacobs would tank in a debate and Rumler would shine. How do we know that?
Because Jacobs' excuse of not wanting to give Rumler publicity assumes that a debate would give Rumler POSITIVE publicity.

Of course, if Mike had any faith at all in his ability and his ideas, he'd be just as confident that a debate would give Rumler publicity, but that it would on the whole be damaging to Rumler, not helpful, as Jacobs would have the oportunity to bring up negatives as well as come across as the more apealing candidate.

While Jacobs' excuses may sound valid on the surface, the bottom line is that he wants no part of a head-to-head with Rumler, which, as a commenter above has noted, is curious in light of the "tough" big, bad 'size 12' image he's so strenuously tried to pedal here.

That's my opinion. Now I hope some other readers might answer Mr. Anonymous's question as well.

At 2/26/2006 9:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand that the League of Women Voters have turned Mr. Rumler down because he doesn't have the 17% that the League has set as their limit to be a viable canidate. They made this decission after the Admiral Stockdale debate disaster.

At 2/26/2006 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assure you that Jacobs has more than enough "attack lines" left for Rumler. Wait two weeks and and watch.

At 2/26/2006 10:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My understanding is that Mr. Jacobs graduated from the University of Illinois. I know he played football with Jay Hilgenburg at Iowa however. I am not sure of this though.

At 2/26/2006 11:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know the calendar of the Illinois General Assembly makes it almost impossible to much of anything back in the district before March 21. Maybe it would be helpful for Misses Dope to list all the days the House and Senate are in session in Springfield between now and March 21. From what I've heard, they're in session just about every day.
Maybe there should be a Rumler-Jacobs debate in Springfield?

At 2/27/2006 2:31 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 21:43 and 22:29,
I'm happy you "understand" at least a few things. But you forgot to ask me to "advise" you.

As to the League of Women Voters deal. I have no idea if that's true, though it well may be.

But under that restriction, how could there EVER be any debates between an incumbent and a challenger? How is someone running for office supposed to get ANY percentage of the vote before the vote is even held???!!!

Does the LWV feel that only people who've been elected to office previously should be allowed to debate??!!

If that's the case, I'd point out that NEITHER Jacobs nor Rumler have ever has so much as a single vote cast for them by the public. So they'd both be ineligible.

The Admiral Stockdale moment ("Who am I? Why am I here?") was one of the best and more informative moments in any recent presidential debate, in my opinion. More please.

But as I've said before, I can scarcely imagine that some standard for presidential debates would be applied to a debate between two state senate candidates, neither of whom have been in an election before.

As a troll is so fond of saying, "please advise".

As to Sen. Jacobs academic record, it's not surprising that it's rather muddled. He's long said that he played football at Iowa, however it's not clear whether he graduated from there.

And to Anon above....

The legislative calendar is Jacobs' problem, if you can call it that.

It's a bit off-putting to hear his supporters complaining that a senator has to actually - gasp - do what a senator is - in this case, appointed - to do.

It's pretty unfortunate that the latest two talking points for Jacobs are the absolutely irelevant and rather silly point that Rumler doesn't have a full-time job while running for senate, and now trying to pre-emptively lower expectations for Jacobs by noting that he has to be in Springfield part-time.

What is it they're trying to say? What's the purpose for this?

Are we to feel sorry for BIG Mike Jacobs that he has to actually be in Springfield? I'm sure the work of being a senator is rough on BIG Mike, but somehow it's hard to shed a tear because he's expected to be at work in Springfield 3 days a week.

Somehow I doubt that his campaign come grinding to a complete halt whenever he leaves town.

The whole argument amounts to a cop-out in my humble opinion. Don't think this one's gonna help.

And are we supposed to think it's suspicious and somehow a bad thing that the guy running against him is actually able to do it full time? Why? Another curious complaint.

And I see no need to post any legislative calendar here. Perhaps if Jacobs had a campaign website, he could post it there and complain about it being unfair that he has to go to work three days a week at the job he was appointed to.

Rumler might be able to campaign on the days Mikey is in Springfield, but somehow I don't see Jacobs lowering himself to going door-to-door much, so whether he's out of town or not really wouldn't make much difference.

If I went that route, reporting every day Jacobs was out of town, then if Rumler got a cold and couldn't campaign for a few days I'd have to post about that too I suppose. Thanks, but no thanks.

At 2/27/2006 7:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They call them legitimate polls. Not blog polls that even you are suggesting mean nothing to you or anyone else. Pols have been described here on the proper way that they should be conducted.

At 2/27/2006 7:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the reason Mr. Jacobs said he wouldn't debate is no time. I feel he suggested it wasn't in his best interest.

At 2/27/2006 7:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Rumler's comment in the paper that he moved back here to run for the Senate is telling. I don't want someone moving into my home town to run for office. Sounds like Allen Keys.

At 2/27/2006 9:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's time for the Jacobs' to go. Mike is a disgrace, I'm sure his father wishes he would have selected JP instead.

What a selfish excuse for not debating. What about the betterment of the community Mike? I think you've forgotten what being a Senator is all about. It's not about you and your agenda, it's about the people of the 36th.

At 2/27/2006 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor Paul.

Pauly want Mommy?

Big Mike Jacobs wont let you play.


Time for Paul to run away.

PLAY AGAIN some other day.

At 2/27/2006 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs has a masters degree in political science. No one seems to mention that. Anyone would have had a hard time stepping into Denny's shoes. Mike is giving it his all in Springfield from what I've seen and heard.

At 2/27/2006 10:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember two years ago?

The local Dems held a debate night before the primary! I never understood why, because it simply allowed challengers like Dennis Ahern a forum. Lets be quite honest, if the local party was actually backing their incumbents, that debate would never have occurred!

Now this election they are not holding debates. HMMMMMM!!!!

So . . . Do you think it matters WHO is challenged when John G decides his agenda??? And . . . What do the Jacobs have on John that he allows them to totally set his agenda like this?

At 2/27/2006 1:48 PM, Anonymous Tom Jefferson said...

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Anon 10:20. A sparkling example of the Jacobs supporter wit and deep wisdom, their love of debate and delving into issues. The reasoned tone they use to elevate the campaign....and the reason so many people, given the choice, would rather vote for a log floating down the river than Mike Jacobs.

Seriously, what a load of pathetic jerks.

At 2/27/2006 4:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is that a log floating down the river would be a better choice than the patsy the Jacobs got to run against Mikey.

At 2/27/2006 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 10:20

You are an embarassment to this entire area. We should consider putting an age restriction on this blog.

I have followed this race from the beginning and I continue to see this childish and immature behavior out of the Jacobs camp. The article on Saturday just capped it off. I hope the people of the 36th district step to the plate and make the right decision on March 21st. Mike Jacobs and his goons are just an example of why the IL side of the QCA is becoming a dying place.

At 2/27/2006 6:50 PM, Anonymous j. holmes said...

anon 07:38

Do a little bit more research there buddy before you comment. Rumler is a graduate of Moline High School. He like many other high school graduates do, went away to get his college education. He also found employment outside of this area like many other college graduates do. In case you haven't noticed the job market in this area for college grads isn't that great. I for one commend him for moving back to his roots to try and make a difference. I'm sure he would have had a very good career if he would have stayed out in DC. He is now taking all that experience he gained from working in the big show and trying to put it to good use back home. That is something that should be embraced and not twisted around for some lame smear tactic.

At 2/27/2006 6:58 PM, Anonymous f. hayabusa said...

Anon 10:20

"Time for Paul to run away.

PLAY AGAIN some other day."

Did you try to rhyme on purpose? When you were done posting did you go down by the bay and make things out of clay? What do you say? I just may?

It is good to know that Jacobs supporters are extremely mature. You are an absolute example that respect should not be given to somebody just because of their age. It is something that is earned.

At 2/27/2006 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's time for predictions.

Blagojevich 59
Eisendrath 41

Topinka 35
Oberweiss 29
Gidwitz 25
Brady 11

Grchan 52.5
Huff 47.5

Jacobs 60.1
Rumler 39.9

Zinga 40
Mowen 35
Gilligan's Island 25

What say you?

At 2/27/2006 10:02 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


Thanks a lot for those. I think I'll do a post to let people get in their predictions at this point.

Then maybe do it again a little closer to the primary.

Then we can revisit after the primary and see who did the best.

At 2/28/2006 7:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Got a doorhanger from Rumler this weekend. It looks like he was pounding the pavement in East Moline. A lot of guts too, I don't live far from Jacobs.

Rumler gets my vote. He had it before, due to the way that Mike got the job, but the fact that he's hitting the streets while Mike is blogging in rhyme sealed the deal.

I think that this race is really going to surprise people. Word around the campfire is that Jacobs is behind, and is considering some pretty desperate tactics (not that his prior tactics weren't desperate).

At 2/28/2006 8:27 AM, Anonymous in the know said...

I was not sure who I was going to vote for. Now with Jacobs refusal to debate my vote has been swayed towards Rumler. There is no way I would support a senator who is not confident in his ability to debate. Mr. Jacobs is trying to take away from the publics ability to make an informed decision. Name brand recognition alone will not win this race for you Mike.

At 2/28/2006 10:10 AM, Anonymous daze said...

I don't get the contributors to this blog. One indicates that a patsy was hired by the Jacobs to run against Mike. If Mr. Rumler is a hired hand I supposed he could throw a debate! Some swear that any blog that has a misspelled word or a couple of words that rhyme must be Mike Jacobs. Jacobs is taking away a person's ability to make an informed decision because he didn't set up a debate, yet the League of Women voter's won't set one up because Mr. Rumler does not have the numbers to make him a strong candidate. Who are the Jacobs "goons" anyway? Never heard of them. From what I've seen and heard, it's been a pretty low key race. I have received one mailing from Sen. Jacobs and nothing from Rumler. No one has knocked on my door. If there were no yard signs, I wouldn't even know there were any political races in Rock Island county at this time. Let the TV advertisements bagin!

At 2/28/2006 10:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Check anon 10:20, those are the Jacobs goons you referred to. Read some more posts and you will catch on to them very quickly. They are the people who are taking cheap shots at Rumler every chance they get. Just immature behavior and not very good politics if you asked me.

I thought the article stated that the League of Women's voters would not host a debate because they were located outside of the district? Is there information out there that refutes the article?

At 2/28/2006 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

26/2/06 21:43 read that one - that's what daze is talking about -I thought a goon was a criminal or thug not a childish blogger. It think it's obvious who supports who in these postings without ever mentioning a candidate by name. Some people seem to make fun of candidates at every stroke of their keyboard and some people maliciously detest them. I highly doubt that any of you recognize yourself as being one of these bloggers. The candidates are running a cleaner campaign than the people who comment here.

At 2/28/2006 12:05 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


I agree with your assesment of the commenter who suggests that Rumler is some sort of Jacobs "plant".

Not that I wouldn't put such a devious scam past Jacobs, but the suggestion is ridiculous and easily refuted by reality.

You must be willfully ignorant however, to pretend you're not aware of the mental midgets referred to. I know you're not new here. They've left literally hundreds and hundreds of clearly identifiable comments.

Perhaps you're confused because I've beeen forced to simply delete most of their remarks in order to preserve some sort of decency and keep the debate above a grade-school level. (for the most part.)
Maybe the aura of relative calm and rational thought has thrown you for a loop?

First off, what's wrong with this sentence?
You write:
"...yet the League of Women voter's won't set one up because Mr. Rumler does not have the numbers to make him a strong candidate."

First of all, it's pure B.S., but worst of all, it ignores the facts that, even if this tale were true,

A. It's impossible for a challenger to have a percentage of the vote BEFORE the election. The rule wasn't designed to eliminate all challengers who hadn't run for election in the past. To expect us to think so is ridiculous and an insult.

B. It's not Rumler who doesn't qualify, Jacobs "does not have the numbers to make him a strong candidate" either!!

As you surely know, Jacobs has never been in an election and has never had a single public vote cast for him in his entire life.

Just how stupid must these people think we are to try to smear Rumler as not being qualified to debate under the League of Women Voter's requirement that a participant must have attracted 17% of the vote, when Jacobs hasn't either!

If this phoney requirement, (which is obviously meant to apply to presidential debates, NOT local elections), were that a debater must have had at least one vote cast for them in any election, at any time, neither Jacobs nor Rumler would make the cut.

Yet you and the others continue to make it sound as if Jacobs would debate, but Rumler doesn't qualify. That's a blatant distortion and willfully omits facts which prove Jacobs to be just as untested as Rumler.

At any rate, I see you're doing your bit to shovel sh*t for the Jacobs, either willingly or unwittingly. I just have a hard time believing you've managed to ignore all the facts to the contrary.

At 2/28/2006 12:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's get back to predictions. Enough yakking. Let's see hard numbers and quit whining everybody - Geeeeeeeeeesssh.

At 2/28/2006 12:12 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

OK Napoleon. We keep forgetting you run the place and can't stand argument and conflict.

At 2/28/2006 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was posted on this blog:

Anonymous said...
I understand that the League of Women Voters have turned Mr. Rumler down because he doesn't have the 17% that the League has set as their limit to be a viable canidate. They made this decission after the Admiral Stockdale debate disaster.

26/2/06 21:43

At 2/28/2006 1:04 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above...

...and .... what's your point?

It wasn't written by me, but was left here in a comment.

Again, what's your point?

At 2/28/2006 1:18 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

To the commenter confused as to why their comments didn't get published, I highly recommend you read the updated FAQ.

There you'll note that if anyone wants to know why a comment didn't get posted they are welcome to contact me by e-mail and I'll be happy to explain.

You'll also note that comments are for comments on the topic of posts ONLY.

Anything to do with the blog itself or questions to me directly should be sent by e-mail or else it will be ignored

At 2/28/2006 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

after the disasterous Admiral Stockton debate,
The League of Women Voters adopted the "17% rule."

The "17% rule" rerpresents a minimum polling number to be consider ed a legitimate candidate.

The poll must be conducted by a legitimate polliing firm, not a web log poll.

Rumler has yet to breach this crtitical polling (17%) number in any legitimate poll.

Hope this helps clear up your confusion Doper.

At 2/28/2006 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you out of reality or know for shure dope. I wrote the plant post. I am not part of the jacobs camp, I do think that to bring a young person in from out of town that nobody knows and have him do little is exactly what a smart person would do. Keep a strong challenger like Porter McNeil or Mike Darrow from making a move. Win the election and become credible overnight. To think that this isn't possible is silly and to think it is Jacobs writting this is even more silly.

At 2/28/2006 6:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Polls show a strong anti-incumbent mood. Watch out Blagojevich, Evans, Jacobs and Boland! The images you see in your rear view mirrow may seem farther away than they really are!

At 2/28/2006 6:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 14:08
You're right. Let's clean up the tone in this blog. The host should refrain from making editorial comments. Just let the bloggers post and quit inciting riots and divisions and nastiness.

It's time to clean it up.

At 3/01/2006 2:00 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above. You go first. We'll wait.

At 3/01/2006 7:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone else sick of this 17% bull***t? It's not true, there have been no published polls. The league of Women's voters office falls outside the district, that's why they won't sponsor a debate.

Mike, you're not confusing anyone. We all know that you are not debating because Daddy and Patty don't want you to be seen for what you are...an apple that rotted before it fell from the tree.

A note of warning Mike, when rotted apples finally hit the ground, they tend to fall appart. Please try to hold it together.

At 3/01/2006 8:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What poll shows this. I only know of two polls done in this district this cycle.

At 3/01/2006 11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you let people call people names and act as if they know whom anon's are. Just sayin

At 3/01/2006 11:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been no published polls, however there has been two polls. To say that the 17% rule is not true is just being uninformed. Seems like a pattern of this. I don't think that Jacobs has tried to shy away from the fact that he isn't going to debate because it only gives a little known canidate exposure. The 17% rule is true but not the reason Jacobs gives for not debating.

At 3/02/2006 3:20 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 13:43 writes:

after the disasterous Admiral Stockton debate,
The League of Women Voters adopted the "17% rule."

The "17% rule" rerpresents a minimum polling number to be consider ed a legitimate candidate.

The poll must be conducted by a legitimate polliing firm, not a web log poll.

Rumler has yet to breach this crtitical polling (17%) number in any legitimate poll.

Hope this helps clear up your confusion Doper."

Actually, it does.

All the mentions of the LWV requirements to this point failed to mention that it referred to POLL numbers rather than percentage of the vote.

In that case, I'd say that the League of Women Voters is only one of dozens of organizations and media outlets which could sponsor debates.

Jacobs hiding behind the skirts of these ladies is pretty lame.

Bottom line... Jacobs is afraid to debate, no matter what the excuse of the day might be.

At 3/02/2006 9:13 AM, Anonymous Ned Schneebly said...

Will there be or won't there be a Debate? That is the million dollar question lately. I feel like John "Bluto" Blutarsky screaming for a toga party that probably will never happen. I think it comes down to a matter of integrity. Sure an election could be won by smear tactics, sign stealing, slanderous phone calls, and an overwhelming advantage in campaign funding. But is that truly a win? That may fool the general public but you can't fool Karma. So how about a debate.....deal or no deal?

At 3/02/2006 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe there will be a debate this time. The League of womans voters is the organization Rumler contacted to run a debate. Maybe you missed that fact.

At 3/02/2006 2:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, and their nearest office is outside the district, so what is your point?

Jacobs has 1/4 of a mil in the bank, why doesn't he organize something?

At 12/08/2007 10:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is good to see that these two have already had their debate with Jacobs beating Rumler squarely. I wish more people would have been there to witness the debate.

At 12/09/2007 11:09 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I believe you're mistaken.

This post was about their first contest, and no "debate" was ever held to my knowledge. (let alone one where Jacobs "won")


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home