March 22, 2006

Jacobs hits the right tone in post victory remarks

During the campaign, Mike Jacobs struck many as pompous, a bit arrogant, and prone to going over the top, blowing his own horn in an often off-putting way. Many had expressed their hopes that if Jacobs won the primary as expected, given the way he was installed in office and his numorous rookie misteps and gaffes, he might at least muster a little well justified humility.

Though he still shows that it's hard for him to stay out of self-hype mode for long even while celebrating his first election to office, Jacobs does display some long awaited humility and grace in this piece by the Dispatch/Argus' Kurt Allemeier.

For those who have waited so long to hear a glimmer of realization that he really is amazingly fortunate to find himself where he is, it comes as better late than never.
Rural counties carried the day for Mike Jacobs in the Democratic primary for state senate District 36, he told supporters Tuesday.

Mr. Jacobs, appointed to the seat last February when his father, Denny Jacobs, retired, won the nomination with 56 percent of the vote. He faces Republican James Beals, of Moline, in November's general election.

According to unofficial final results districtwide, Mr. Jacobs finished with 8,280 votes to challenger Paul Rumler's 6,511.

He admitted that internal polls had him trailing by 10 percent 10 days before the primary.

"You can read anything you want into the numbers," he said. "In a Democratic primary, 52-48 is a landslide. We began to work the streets; we beat them in the precincts. People were really attracted to my message."

He pointed to his work on a riverfront campus for Western Illinois University and drawing additional education funding to the district as what tipped the voters' pens in his favor.

He dismissed the close race with newcomer Mr. Rumler, who lacked the financial support of Mr. Jacobs.

"Paul had seven months to knock on doors while I was in Springfield," he said, "and I had some baggage coming in. Hopefully that baggage is behind me."

He praised voters in Henry, Mercer, Whiteside, and Carroll counties for supporting him and pointed to his record on agricultural issues for their support.

"I do have the highest Farm Bureau rating in the state and I supported ethanol production," he said.

He praised Mr. Rumler for his hard work and hard-fought campaign and reached out to him, wanting to meet with his foe and possibly work together.

Mr. Jacobs said he's had tough political shoes to fill, following the footsteps of his father as well as his grandfather, Orel "Jake" Jacobs, who served in the state House of Representatives. He also said he learned from both: from his grandfather to fight for the underdog, and from his father to stand up for what he believes in.

"Hopefully, now people will just think of me as Mike," he told supporters at a raucous gathering at the East Moline American Legion hall.

Several local elected officials were on hand for Mr. Jacobs' party, including Rep. Pat Verschoore, D-Milan, who was unchallenged in his primary, Rock Island County State's Attorney Jeff Terronez, and members of the staffs of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, D-Rock Island.

Most of all, Mr. Jacobs thanked his family, from his parents to his sisters and brothers, and his wife, Beth, and son Elliott. Elliott, who wasn't on hand to hear his father's victory speech, was worried when the early numbers that weren't favorable to his father came in.
Am I the only one amazed to find out that Jacobs was polling 10 points down 10 days out from the election? That explains a lot.

Congratulations to Sen. Jacobs, his family and supporters on his win. He's now officially an elected official and no one can take that away from him. And I'm sure that now that he's punched that ticket and shrugged that very large monkey off his back, he can go on to prove skeptics wrong and earn our support.

44 Comments:

At 3/22/2006 5:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He dismissed the close race with newcomer Mr. Rumler, who lacked the financial support of Mr. Jacobs."

I suggest he doesn't dismiss it. It shows that a lot of voters are not happy with him. He claims a landslide? Well I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone. Four to five point difference...pretty decent showing for a unknown against a well known political name. Astronomical difference in campaign cash. It's a shame that's what might have made the difference, not being the best candidate. Perhaps it's just as well, this will give Mike a real chance to prove what he's made of....good or bad, it's up to him. Just remember, we'll all be watching!

 
At 3/22/2006 6:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope can you calculate how much money was spent per vote in this race?

I guess we now know why the abortion phone call favor was called in. Oh well, politics as usual I guess.

 
At 3/22/2006 6:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised at all that Jacobs was down 10 percent in the internal poll. That could explain Bolands comments one day before the primary. There would be no reason to stir up the pot unless he thought Rumler had a good chance. Well it is now time for Mike to prove himself. Rumler made a good showing for an unkown. People will now recognize the name in the future.

 
At 3/22/2006 8:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it really surprising that Senator Jacobs won!! The only naysayers were from this local area. Another surprise, considering the lack of political support he received in the Q-C area. Paul Rumler would have had very few votes if it were not for the disgraceful coverage in the paper. Hopefully we will see some professionals write about the November elections, so that the people from our area can feel privilaged that we can retain the Senatorial seat right here in River City. Way to go Senator Jacobs there are many of us out here who will work hard for your election in November, so that you may do what we have elected you to do. Keep bringing the money home to the Q-C, we'll be here for you.

 
At 3/22/2006 8:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe that Rumler gained over 1000 votes for himself. The obvious anti-incumbent vote out there. (Grchan, Black Hawk) Jacobs himself saying several mistakes. Winning the job from the county chairs and Denny Jacobs built in anti vote. The negative Dispatch and several local bloggs. This was realy a great victory for Jacobs. I realy don't believe 1000 people chose Rumler. I am not sure it will help in a race against McNeil, Darrow, or Ahearn. Three young men that have paid there dues in their home districts.

 
At 3/22/2006 9:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, you are right on target, Mike Jacobs spoke of party unity, he praised Paul Rumler for running a good and positive race, and said he was going to reach out to set up a meeting soon with Paul.

That's what we all need to do now.
Good job to both candidates.

 
At 3/22/2006 9:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Jacobs said very positive things about Paul Rumler at his election night party last night.
It's time both sides work together for the fall.

 
At 3/22/2006 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not forget the political genious of Pat O'Brien working the campaign daily and getting that vote out among the big blocks of solid Dems for Mike. That was the difference in this race.

 
At 3/22/2006 10:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way to go Jacobs campaign! I hope during the November campaigning this area's media will be as positive and above board and show their true colors as they have asked Senator Jacobs to do. Just the facts,because anything else is a injustice to the public.

 
At 3/22/2006 10:28 AM, Blogger tiz said...

52-48 is a landslide.. Sure Mike. And GWB's victory in 2004 was a "mandate" too.

Congrats to Paul Rumler for running a clean and efficient campaign. I suspect (or at least I hope) this isn't the last we will hear of him.

 
At 3/22/2006 1:00 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Yes, Pat O'Brien rolled up a victory for Jacobs. This should make his political stock rise.

 
At 3/22/2006 1:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best wishes to Senator Jacobs on his victory. I understand that his wife's grandmother passed away the day before the election. The family also has my condolences. Give 'em hell in November!

 
At 3/22/2006 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tiz,

If 52-48 isn't a landslide, 57-43(the actual result of Jacobs' victory) certainly is.

 
At 3/22/2006 1:58 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above...

Don't be fudging the numbers.
According to the vote totals reported in the Dispatch,
final results were

55.98 to 44.02

Sounds more like 56 44. Not a huge diff, but keeps it accurate.

And once again, do we really need more tone-deafness from Jacobs? Is it REALLY necessary to try to paint his win as a "landslide"?

Just askin'

 
At 3/22/2006 2:07 PM, Anonymous opie said...

It's hard to dispute that all and all, it was an ugly win, but Jacobs will take it.

A collosal mismatch and Jacobs had to squeak by at the last moment? And with all those nasty, untrue phone banks and other nasty stuff.

It should have been 70/30 easily.. but Mike almost lost it single-handedly and had to go dirty.

I guess a win is a win... but this one sure wasn't real pretty. Talk about winning ugly.

 
At 3/22/2006 2:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that Jacobs had to scramble and scratch and struggle to pull off a win against an all but unarmed opponent isn't exactly something to crow about, do you think?

 
At 3/22/2006 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, lighten up Democrats. It's time to quit talking negatively about each other and start turning our attention to the Republicans.
The primary is over - the voters have spoken. Enough of the negativity, please!

 
At 3/22/2006 2:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Pat O'Brien's stock continues to rise and he should be the next up and coming candidate when something opens up. He has proved over and over he can get the votes and knows campaigns and also that he can hold office effectively. He is also better at working public relations than most even when attacked by the Disgrace of our paper in Moline.

Some of the candidates mentioned above as contenders are totally inexperienced compared to O'Brien.

 
At 3/22/2006 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs is still the winner. If you don't like it, move.

 
At 3/22/2006 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Dope, don't you think that this Rumler kid could have a good future in this area? He ran a pretty professional campaign on a limited budget. Didn't really make any enemies. I think that Jacobs is still probably ticked, but I'd guess he'll get over it when he realizes that Rumler never went negative, only stood up for himself (about the abortion calls).

 
At 3/22/2006 4:33 PM, Anonymous greg said...

Is that monkey off his back? Really? I hardly agree.
Paul Rumler will be back and he will be unbeatable.

 
At 3/22/2006 6:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs didn't "crow" about his election win. If you had listened to him election night, all of what he said, he congratulated Paul Rumler on running a good campaign and said he wanted to work together with him. He was emotional about his wife and son and family in general. There was nothing arrogant at all about him.

 
At 3/22/2006 9:38 PM, Blogger JCKDNLS69 said...

Dirty????what did I miss Opie? Go Senator Jacobs!

 
At 3/22/2006 9:39 PM, Blogger JCKDNLS69 said...

A win is a win! 57/43 Great Win Senator Jacobs

 
At 3/22/2006 9:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs took a stand on the tough issues. He actually tried to lead in a day when the people want someone in the corner not making any mistkes and not getting anything done. Case in point. Mike Boland has yet to give his position on the hog processing plant. He will be forced in the next two weeks to make a stand as bad as he doesn't want to.

 
At 3/23/2006 4:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course he could afford to congratulate Rumler, after it was all over. Before that, it was anything goes. I'm sure Denny and other "experienced" politicians told him to win anyway he can. People will forget over time what was done to win the election. But I don't think people will forget, I won't Mike's just happy Rumler DID run a clean positive campaign. He didn't stoop to negativity as was done to him. Mike provided lots of good material for negative tactics to be used. Look at all the mis-steps and blunders Mikes made in only one year. His next challenger, seeing how the primary went, will come out swinging. Give it time.....the show is just starting.

 
At 3/23/2006 7:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What negative campaign???? What are you talking about.
Did Jacobs send out one negative mailer?
Did Jacobs go on TV and talk about Rumler's paper thin resume?
Or the fact that he chose to give us all the benefit of his vast 26 year-old knowledge of being an intern in Washington DC?
Wow! I think Mike went easy on this guy.

 
At 3/23/2006 7:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon above... you obviously haven't been around here very long, or you'd be aware of the months long campaign of slime and distortion which began literally the day Rumler announced with trying to suggest he didn't meet residency requirements and which continued non-stop with every goofy lie, smear, and attack they could imagine.

Where the heck were you?

And when your guy got a fat job handed to him because his daddy pulled some strings, and when he drew a salary for working this "job" from home, before being appointed to the senate without a single public vote being cast, I don't know if I'd be so quick to bang on Rumler about his extensive real world experience.

Jacobs, with nearly a million bucks in campaign dough and the support of the entire Dem apparatus behind him, facing a guy with barely enough money to buy yard signs, was polling behind him and then could only win by about 8 points?

I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you. A bit of humility might be called for.

You're either blind or really just have no shame.

 
At 3/23/2006 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just want to say, that as someone who worked on the Jacobs campaign, there was nothing dirty going on. No slime or distortion. No voodoo chants or spells cast on the opponent.

Paul should have gotten off the fence and sent the survey back. You can't please all the people all the time. And you can't try to please pro life and pro choice at the same time. You have to choose.

Yes, Mike did work for the Secretary of Sate. He also started out on a garbage truck and working at IH before he went back to college to get his degree and masters in political science.

It doesn't matter if you win by one vote. When you are declared the winner, the other guy lost.

Rumler can run for office again in the future. He is a very young man and has his whole life in front of him.

 
At 3/23/2006 8:23 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

What does it say about the ethics of Jacobs supporters that they can constantly try to make the argument that out and out LYING about Rumler's pro-choice position was entirely justified because Rumler didn't return a questionaire??

Even if you beleive that he was trying to straddle the fence on this issue, does that make LYING about someone's position just A-OK??

I find that argument disgusting.

Be critical of Rumler for not returning the questionaire, fine.... but dont' try to excuse what was BLATANTLY a campaign to spread a flat out lie about Jacobs' opponent.

And what is even more indefensible is that the lies were STILL being spread by phone even 15 days after Rumler had clearly stated his pro-choice views!!!!

This is orchestrated LYING, folks.

Don't lower yourselves to trying to defend or excuse it.

 
At 3/23/2006 9:21 AM, Blogger JCKDNLS69 said...

How about him not riding the fence. (RUMLER THAT IS) What exactly was his stance. He never did say. All he stated was that he never filled out the survey. Why didn't he fill it out. You can't expect everyone to do your dirty work for you. YOu have to take a solid stance, something he didn't do. Well, guess what he should have filled out the survey. To keep crying about this issue is ludicrous. It's a dead subject!

 
At 3/23/2006 7:39 PM, Blogger Huntooner said...

Inside Dope,

I've never been known as a defender of Mike Jacobs etc, in fact it's usually quite the opposite.

But I have to say, Rumler got what he deserved when it came to Personal PAC. He was trained in politics (I know I helped educate the young man as an intern of mine) and he knew the consequences of failing to return that particular survey.

I believe Paul miscalculated personal PAC's response, but it should have been an expected consequence of his refusal to fill out Personal PAC's survey.

Why do you refuse to see that Inside Dope? This is how the political game works and there's no doubt in my mind Paul knew it going in and made his choice.

 
At 3/23/2006 8:04 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'm glad I get the chance to explain this for about the fourth time.

As I've said, go ahead and criticize or fault Rumler for not returning the questionaire. He very well may have done it conciously to avoid the issue or he may not have. I certainly don't know.

If you think he goofed, then fine. That's your opinion and it's just as valid as any other.

But where I draw the line is at knowingly LYING about a candidate's position.

You ask me why I refuse to see whatever... I ask you why you refuse to condemn KNOWINGLY LYING ABOUT A CANDIDATE'S POSITION???

OK, he didn't return the quesionaire... you say he should have then expected them to come after him.

OK.

First, I can't help but think that before an organization burns through nearly $30 THOUSAND DOLLARS on a phone campaign that they might invest in a simple phone call first?

OK, let's say you don't have a problem with that. Then let's move on.

The phone campaign was then launched, spreading lies about Rumler's position on a woman's right to choose.

This is spreading LIES... keep in mind. Rumler then issues a statement clearly condemning these calls and stating unequivacally that he is pro-choice.

OK, here's where I can't believe people can still defend this.

I got one of these phone calls FIFTEEN DAYS after Rumler clearly stated his views.

I imagine they'd been running for weeks after they KNEW that it was a lie.

Now explain to me how that is "fair" honest, or how Rumler should have expected it?

Should ANYONE expect a group to continue to LIE about them after this group is clearly aware that what they are telling people is a lie?

How in the world can that be defended?

What if it was you and an individual through some mix up started spreading a lie about you, say that you never pay taxes. You confront them and tell them that they are dead wrong and show them your returns to prove it.

Then this person continues to go around telling thousands of people that you're a tax cheat for weeks afterward.

You're saying this is just fine???

Amazing.

How can you defend that?

 
At 3/23/2006 9:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because if you are hiding your views then you can't be trusted if push comes to shove. Simple as that. You have to be able to trust people in this business. Personal pac felt that they could not trust Rumler. Period. Huntooner knows because personal pac ran the same campaign for Boland.

 
At 3/23/2006 9:21 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Jacobs returns the questionaire, states he's pro-choice.

Rumler doesn't return it, but issues a statement saying he's pro-choice.

Why is Jacobs now somehow more to be trusted "when push comes to shove" than Rumler?

They're both on the record as saying they're pro-choice.

I'm sorry, I still don't know why this justifies LYING about a politicians positions when you know full well that it's a lie.

Since people seem to think this is just fine, evidently lying is a perfectly acceptible and above board thing to do in campaigns.

I knew things were bad, but that's disgusting. It's depressing to hear people defend it as if it's to be expected or even justified.

 
At 3/24/2006 8:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rather than bash Jacobs over the Personal PAC issue - take it up with the PAC directly instead. They (Personal PAC) set their own rules about their message just like AFSCME and other PACS do. If Rumler or anyone else doesn't like that then go shoot your frustration at the PAC who is the messenger here and controls how this is handled, not the candidate.

The only thing the candidate can control is how and whether they do fill out the questionairre or how they react if they don't reply to the questions.

The two candidates each had equal opportunity to respond and decided accordingly in this race. It's been pointed out that at age 26, Rumler was more aware than many his age of this process from personal experience in past campaigns. End of story.

 
At 3/24/2006 8:46 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

For the record, though I certainly would have been more impressed if Jacobs had asked Personal PAC to cease their dishonest campaign, and feel he should be held responsible for not doing so, I don't really care where the blame goes...
You're correct that it ultimately lies (no pun intended) with Personal PAC themselves, as they're the one's directly responsible for continueing to spread false information weeks after knowing that it was false.

My point, once again, is that I find it pretty distasteful that people suggest that a failure to return a questionaire.... or ANYTHING for that matter, makes it therefore OK to knowingly LIE about a candidate, and to do so even far beyond the point where it's known to be a LIE.

Personal PAC is to blame, and if you want to fault Rumler or Jacobs or the man on the moon, that's up to you, but this orchestrated, and very expensive, I might add, campaign to knowningly and premeditatedly LIE about a candidate's position should be condemened by everyone, including Jacobs. After all, it might happen to him someday.

 
At 3/24/2006 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your lack of experience politically never fails to amaze me. Welcome to the real world. Personal Pac and others like them have their own personal agenda and that's all they care about. Since you are still carrying on about it state volumes about you.

 
At 3/24/2006 9:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you that sure that Jacobs didn't tell them that it was enough? They do what they want. Trust me on that.

 
At 3/24/2006 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumler only came out for choice after he was forced to make a decision. See how that would be troubling for someone like Personal Pac. If he were in trouble during a general election would he flip his position if it was to his own best interest. As he did when he had to get off the fence. See how they would be concerned with this.

 
At 3/24/2006 10:55 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anonymous 09:00 said...
Your lack of experience politically never fails to amaze me.

>I take it that if I was "experienced" like you, I'd accept blatant lying as just fine?<


Welcome to the real world.

>No thanks. Why don't you join the "real world" where conciously lying is considered scummy.<

Personal Pac and others like them have their own personal agenda and that's all they care about.

>OK, and this makes willfully lying OK? Is that what you're suggesting?<

Since you are still carrying on about it state volumes about you.

>Since you think lying is just peachy, even when you know you're lying and continue to do it for weeks afterwards, that says a LOT about you.

If I have to be politically experienced and totally lose track of right and wrong in order to gain office or power, then I sure the hell don't want to be like you.

Do you tell your kids that it's fine to lie about other people as long as it helps them win?

What does your attitude say about YOU?

And the worst part? You act like you're proud to be that immoral and I'm some weirdo to actually find it pretty slimy.

 
At 3/24/2006 11:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much ado about nothing.
Yawn.
Another one bites the dust.

 
At 3/25/2006 1:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

None of these pro-Personal Pac arguments hold any water. Rumler's STATED position is stronger than Jacobs answers to a questionnaire. The questionnaires are typically never released to the general public. Rumler's statement was on the record. Therefore he could never flip/flop his position on abortion (plus, he's a democrat, of course he's pro-choice).

I ask you to check Personal Pac's financial records. Do you see any other $30,000.00 phone smears? Any $30,000.00 phone smears against a candidate with 2K in the bank? Something larger was in play here, and sadly we'll never know what exactly happened. I have my suspicions, and Jacobs certainly didn't help matters by not coming out and condemning the calls when he had the chance. Instead he just hinted to the Dispatch, when he knew all along what was going on.

 
At 3/26/2006 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for the life of me can not figure out why, Senator Jacob's keeps getting crap for the lack of the political system that Rumler has. Senator Jacobs had nothing to do with Rumlers campaign. I believe he was working in Springfield during the campaign. I truely don't think he would take a bathroom break to call pro-choice or any other organization and say "Hey, are you guys dishing little Paul Rumler". They probably don't even care who he is any more. Fact is fact Rumler did not fill out his surveys.End of story, anything else is his or anyone elses whinning. Get over it he lost and no one cares.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home