Gianulis to name R.I. County candidate, but will Dems follow?
Rock Island County Democratic Chairman John Gianulis has alerted the press that he will announce who he's backing as 17th District candidate next Thursday. I believe his words were that he would announce his "choice", which will almost certainly be Phil Hare.
But will John G. and his allies be able to simply choose who they want, as they've become accustomed to doing in the past?
It appears that Gianulis seems pretty confident that his word will be gospel and all will follow his lead. But the calculations involving the votes by committeemen and remarks from other chairman from counties which are at least partially within the 17th District seem to indicate that, at least this time around, Gianulis might not have the control to be the kingmaker he's been in the past.
From the Kurt Allemeier in the D/A:
Mr. Gianulis called a press conference Friday to announce who he'd endorse to replace U.S. Rep. Lane Evans on the November ballot. Instead, he said he will make the announcement next week.Gianulis gives the impression that he's going to name the candidate Thursday, as though it's all up to him.
He believes his backing will bring others throughout the congressional district in line behind his candidate, especially other county party chairmen.
"I told them who I support will be a Rock Island County candidate and I am sure they will support that," he said.
But that may not be the case.
"I've talked to a lot of county chairmen, and the chairmen I've talked to don't care for the person John is going for," Vern Hagstrom, Adams County Democratic party chairman, said.
...
Mr. Hagstrom thinks Mr. Gianulis is leaning toward Phil Hare, who the congressman has also announced he is backing. Mr. Hagstrom wouldn't say who he supports, but said the candidate was from outside Rock Island County.
...
Mr. Hagstrom believes that without the votes of appointed precinct committeemen, he controls about 20,000 votes, compared to about 12,000 from Rock Island County.
Mike Smith, a state representative from Canton and chairman of the Fulton County Democratic party, like other county chairmen, is holding off declaring who he will back.
"I am waiting to see who all the candidates are," Mr. Smith said. "I respect John and all he's done for the Democratic Party, but he is not the deciding factor."
Mr. Hagstrom also knows other factors could play a role in determining the nominee.
"What's (U.S. Sen. Dick) Durbin going to do? What is Rahm Emanuel going to do?" Mr. Hagstrom asked. "What about proxies, and will it be a mail-in vote or will it be a convention?
Is it? What are the chances of a candidate from outside Rock Island County winning the process?
And should the party demand a binding legal opinion from the state Attorney General or Board of Elections and give the party a firm interpretation of the process so that it won't end up being tied up in endless litigation?
Is there any reason why Mary Boland should continue to play a role in the process when her husband is in the running for selection? Why hasn't she recused herself already? Or do you think she has a perfect right to stay in place?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 4/09/2006
24 comments
24 Comments:
John G isn't making this decision, Lane did. Get over it!
M. Boland is not a factor in this race. Only Lane had the power to appoint Congressman Hare. Everyone is going to fall in line and make this happen. Watch!
I don't know much of the detail behind how this process will work, but I feel that Mrs. Boland could fulfill her duties independently from her bias towards her husband.
Having said that, I also believe that most people will perceive a conflict of interest, and that she should step aside and remove all doubt.
I hope this is resolved quickly, and that we can rally behind whoever is selected, because the one thing I fear is seeing the phrase "Representative Zinga" in future media communications.
No, no, M. "Bop" Boland should stay. Without M. "Bop" Mike has no chance. His wife must stay on as it is Bolands only chance to win! Like there is any.
This is a done deal! Period! Get over it!
From your peculiar attitude, it would appear you're one of the "old guard" who wants to hold on to total control of Democratic fortunes and decisions. My guess is you're from the Jacobs camp.
But I find it odd that you've more than once yelled "Get over it!!" and also have this idea that this blog, John Beydler and the Dispatch somehow are attempting to "pick" the candidate.
Where the hell do you get that notion from?
Very weird, and very telling. It's not that we're trying to pick a candidate, it's the fact that we are pointing out that this decision isn't necessarily in the hands of the few. It shows that you're furious that the process is more open and subject to debate and it's making it harder for the little gang to operate like a Soviet style politburo and have the few make the choice for the many.
What? Does the meer fact that anyone is even talking about having individual committeemen exercise their right to a choice put you over the edge?
After all, it's not like Democratic voters have a say. That little problem has been avoided, like many times in the recent past.
At least you can be happy about that.
But apparently the thought of anyone other than yourself and a few others pulling the strings just sets you off.
When many precinct committeepeople, who are, after all, the party faithful who do the hard work and are responsible for your power to begin with and your ability to hold on to it, get a chance to let their voices be heard, you seem to have an absolute fit.
I'd suggest that it's YOU who should "get over it" and be accepting that these people who have worked long and hard for the party are capable of making a choice.
It obviously freaks you out and frustrates you terribly when anyone suggests that the process might not be controled by the few.
It's as if you're yelling at the party faithful to sit down and shut up, that you'll handle this.
I take your frustration as a very good sign that we're on the right track.
This process is controlled by Lane Evans. If you don't like it you shouldn't have voted for him knowing he was sick and not going to finish the term. It's not like one day Lane woke-up and decided to leave. Lane and Phil Hare planned this exit ofr many months. For you to try to come in and tell Lane what to do is crazy. Who do you think you are trying to boss around Lane Evans? This is Lane's seat. He hasn't retired. He still owns the seat. If this was to go out of his controil, Lane would wait to retire.
Phil Hare is the next congressman. You might not like it. You and Bydler and the D/A can scream, but we run this party --- not you idots!
Huntooner your boss should get out of the race. Mary Boland should heal Lane get Phill Hare elected as Lane wants. Phill Hare is the new power in the 17th district. Get used to it. Maybe Boland can give you his job one day.
Anonymous tosspot at 14:03 writes:
"Phil Hare is the next congressman. You might not like it. You and Bydler and the D/A can scream, but we run this party --- not you idots! "
Who's "we"? You and your imaginary friends?
Who is this "we" and how do we get rid of them?
I don't have any favorite in this race, but I sure the hell don't like your attitude at all, no matter who you think you are.
And anon 21:55,
Since you're the "get used to it" jerk, I'll suggest again that it's you who better get used to the idea that you can't control everything all the time.
It's little napoleons that end up getting sacked eventually. Better stop lashing out and trust those who are given the chance to vote for the candidate of their choosing to pick who they want, not who you shove down their throats.
I'm sure you expect Dems to unite and rally after the candidate is selected.
But with the horses' ass attitude you've displayed here more than once, they'll sure have second thoughts if they perceive that it's a few arrogant elites who've taken the choice away from the party workers.
People get discouraged when a tiny handful of people hoard all power to themeselves and they will surely strike back if they feel their views are being excluded.
Look what happened to Jacobs. He had to fight like mad to edge past a no-name challenger with about $0.10 in the bank.
My advise, not that you want it or will follow it: Don't get too cocky.
I tink your disrespect for Paul Rumler is upsetting to say the least. He was a great candidate for the Senate. If Lane Evans would have lost his first primary battle you would have called him a no-name challenger. Mr. Rumler was a great candidate that was in the wrong race at the wrong time. Wait and see what he does when he doesn't run against a powerhouse like Jacobs. He will make a great legislature in the style of Lane Evans.
Rumler for congress then! What's he waiting for?
TEDDY!
TEDDY!
TEDDY!
TEDDY!
TEDDY!
TEDDY!
"He'll make a great legislature"
All by himself?! LOL. Bit of a Freudein slip there?!
Ironic in this topic string anyway.
TID you are wrong. I agree with get used to it. You must be able to see that you are going to get proven wrong again. As far as this person controlling everything I do not know. However, they are right on target and for you not to see it shows that you are ignorant to the power of Lane Evans. Lane and his followers have run over every candidate they have ever faced and this will be no exception. Lane has told John G. Who to support and he will follow his lead and Hare is the next congressman. End of story. It is time for every good Democrat to support Lane Evans and do what he wants for a change. Hare for congress.
The referencs of Mark Schwiebert as Eddie Haskel is unfair. He is being treated unfairly. Mark will shine on the 15th.He is a lawyer like Evans.
That's why Paul Rumler should throw his hat in the ring. He is a young Lane Evans without the military experience.
Anon 11:53... the guy you comment about is a Jacobs goof, I'd bet you the farm.
They're just trying to twist things around and come up with the idiotic suggestion that I was somehow disrepecting Rumler in order to cause problems.
They specialize in idiotic logic and trying to cause trouble. And they're not great spellers either.
And ANON 12:17.... there's something kind of disturbing when people start talking like "it's time for all good Democrats..." to do what the handful at the top want. Reminds me of the excuse offered by Nazis after WWII that they were just being "good Germans".
Secondly, this stupid idea that if you don't go for Evans' pick you're somehow insulting Lane personally is just so much nonsense.
The inside dope said "this stupid idea that if you don't go for Evans' pick you're somehow insulting Lane personally is just so much nonsense"
Thank you. It is nonsense. And it's showing up on every blog.
Yep, the work of the one crew of frantic bloggers who think blogs are nothing but a place to play games and spread bullshit.
These folks are easy as hell to spot, and from my experience, I've found that they're rabid Jacobs supporters and could be Jacobs' themselves.
They love to lie, distort, and try to manipulate people with absolutely stupid arguments and illogic. They clearly have ZERO respect for people's basic ability to be smarter than to fall for their crap, as they continually resort to lying and inventing crap rather than simply being straight with people.
Censorship is next to godliness.
So you're saying that anything stupid posted on your blog are from the Jacobs supporters or the Jacobs family themselves? Are you saying they love to lie, distort, manipulate... etc.
Yep, if you're the one who wrote in stating all sorts of crap as fact about who's been promised what position and what went on behind the scenes without any evidence to back it up, then censorship sure comes in handy.
Otherwise you'd be able to start false rumors and spread misinformation at will.
M. Boland should recluse herself. I do think it's a conflict of interest in regard to her husband. She will not recluse herself either. I do believe that the Attorney General or Board of Elections should have stepped up on this by now.
You sure take a lot on yourself, judging what is misinformation and what isn't. Some of us actually know what we're talking about.
Barbie... we'll just have to take your word on that? You sure haven't provided any information to suggest that you do.
If you know what you're talking about, just saying so doesn't cut it. Tell us why.
Post a Comment
<< Home