Rumler-Jacobs redux, and Lack comes after Boland. It's silly season again.
It's with a certain sense of nausea that I bring up the topic of the upcoming primary re-match between Sen. Mike Jacobs, the guy who apparently seems proud that the only way he knows to do business is by intimidation, smears, and bragging about what a rough and tumble guy he is.
Rumler has an abundance of dignity and tact, at least compared to Jacobs, and didn't crawl into the gutter last time, despite immediate and rather slimy efforts to challenges to even his right to run in the district which materialized within seconds of his announcement, to an absolutely dumb attempt to manufacture a false claim that he didn't use union printers for his campaign signs and make that into some horrid horrid fatal flaw, to every other sort of twisted and childish attack imaginable, including a few hundred thousand spent by a pro-choice group on Jacobs behalf to make thousands of robo-calls falsely portraying Rumler's stance on the issue.
That's one way to run a campaign, and Jacobs likely does it that way because it's worked in the past. (like the 1800's maybe) and the down and ugly method is no doubt sucessful if you're willing to stoop way down and get pretty ugly, which apparently is a attribute Jacobs and his cronie possess.
That and accepting a ton of money from just about anyone that will give it and amassing, with Dad's help, a mountain of campaign cash that literally dwarfed Rumler's assets.
So we get to see Rumler-Jacobs redux.
Will Rumler be a bit more visible this time?
Will he at least actively strive to, and will the press allow him to, at least show people who he is and what he believes this time, rather than being practically invisible and a big question mark to the public at large as he was last time?
Will Jacobs go back to the ugly and corny tricks and distortions that appear to be the only tools in his toolbox?
Or will we see a Jacobs that is slowly moving into the late 20th century, who can compete with ideas and a record, and a vision for the future articulately spelled out? Maybe exibit a little thoughfulness, which he no doubt possesses but seems determined to keep under wraps?
Will they debate this time in some sort of meaningful way?
Will the petty attacks and manufactured "outrages" drag this contest down again?
Will the discussion again be essentially ruined by obvious PR tripe written and made up by Jacobs, supporters, and his employees?
Or will there be a sane sensible and reasonable debate and discussion?
Hope springs eternal.
And then there's the news that Jerry Lack will be taking on Mike Boland.
This too is welcome news, even if you don't have a problem with Boland, just as Rumler returning is good news even if you like Jacobs.
I don't know a lot about Jerry Lack, other than he was a close aide to Lane Evans for a long time.
What do you think about his chances? Is Boland teetering and vulnerable?
Some stiff competition is good for democracy, and as long as the ideas are fairly presented and money and blatant lies and distortions don't completely skew the playing field, usually the best person wins.
So.... I'll hold my nose and let the silliness begin.
The article in the Dispatch regarding the incident at Rumler's announcement in the Dispatch has drawn a LOT of comments, (and not a one of them from me) and rather surprisingly, it's by far anti-Jacobs and pro-Rumler.
The story is that J.P. Jacobs, Mike's right arm, so to speak, showed up at Rumler's announcement at a union hall with a camcorder and was asked to leave.
I think most people realize that this is a big nothing.
First of all, as was demonstrated last year with the George Allen thing, videoing opponents appearances is almost standard practice, though it's fairly unusual at the state senate level. But nonetheless, it's not really a huge offense.
Also, the fact that Jacobs was asked to leave is a yawn as well. The event was private, and they had a right to decide who they wanted there.
Rumler's campaign, to my knowlege, hasn't tried to make any sort of stink about J.P. showing up with a camcorder, with Rumler only explaining that he couldn't have asked J.P. to leave his announcement in '05 because it was in a public place, pointing out that, "The fact is the Jacobses are known for their fear and intimidation", which is a little like observing that the Earnhardt's are known for driving stock cars or the Ripkins are known for playing baseball. Kind of pointing out the obvious.
But of course, Jacobs has tried to make it a big deal, even having the gall to demand that Rumler appologize to his family, which of course is intended to.....well, intimidate Rumler.
Let the games begin. But be assured that not every cock and bull comment will get published. Try to keep it between the lines, and please, avoid trying the usual crap of pretending to be someone else that was "for" candidate x, but now you're not, and other similarly transparent attempts to pump up your guy with bullshit.
Rely on facts, or honest opinion based on facts, and you'll be fine.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 8/20/2007
112 comments
112 Comments:
So, as far Jacobs/Rumler goes... I think Jacobs wins in a much larger margin than in 2006. The reason is that many felt a bad taste in their mouths when Jacobs was appointed. Now, he has won election on his own merits and has done well for the people of the 36ht district. I may be bias since I do intend to campaign for Jacobs if I need too.
Second, Jerry Lack will be an interesting candidate. I interned in Lane's office and Jerry seemed rather quiet, of course it may have just been since I was an intern. Mike Boland is also an interesting character. I'd have to guess that it will be a close primary, and if someone like Dennis Ahern gets in Boland could lose a three way race. I live in this district, but I don't find it as exciting as Jacobs/Rumler.
All this aside I am now down in Springfield going to school, and I already miss you Dope! I do hope to work for Phil Hare next fall's election cycle... that is if he has an opponent, any news on that front would be helpful. I am keeping my fingers crossed for another Zinga run, or more appropriately another Zinga slaughter.
Best of luck with your education. Beware the temptations of Springfield.... they've been known to lead a young lad astray.
Don't let all the politicians and the army that supports them convince you that what you know is wrong is somehow right or justified.
It's a hazard of the territory.
Thanks as always for the comment and keep in touch.
Jerry Lack is a strong candidate. He did an excellent job as the economic development coordinator for Lane. I think that this race rests mostly on one person, Michael J. Madigan.
Boland has to have his support to win. If Madigan sits this one out, bye-bye Boland.
I agree with Craig on the Jacobs/Rumler deal. Whoever is the Pat O Brien for Senator Mike this time around, will have his or her job cut out for them keeping the Senator from talking too much and to keep him and his brother JP from egging on an opponent and his supporters whom he should beat.
As far as Lack-Boland, I see Boland winning easily. If Dennis Ahern wants to screw Lack, he jumps in that race, and the incumbent wins by an even larger margin.
I disagree with Craig's prediction. I don't see how Rumler loses any votes from last time. I mean, people that were upset with nepotism last time, are still upset this time. And surely Jacobs hasn't amassed any sort of definable record for being excellent at his job (though he will no doubt tout his "accomplishments").
The key this time will be how much money Rumler can raise. Now that he's a known comodity he should be able to amass more funding. I'm sure there were more than a handful of people that kicked themselves as the results came in, and more than one person that realized a few thousand dollars would have been enough to rid our district of Mike Jacobs.
The past is gone, so we look to the present. Rumler didn't burn any bridges, so he'll have the same grass roots support. But a little money, will go a long way.
First of all, my sincere gratitude to these first commenters for the rational and calm tone of their comments. That kind of thing is very welcome.
And to the commenter who observed that the Boland race hinges to a great degree on Madigan's support once more, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Full support from the speaker is what got Boland across the finish line last time, and if it's half-hearted or not there at all this time around, Boland may very well find himself in an uphill battle.
Are you serious? Rumler saying that the Jacobs's rule by fear and intimidation while standing in the Teamsters hall is clean politics is a joke. First words matter, was Rumler talking of Sen. Mike Jacobs young son or beautiful wife? If he wants to attack he should do it more clearly as to whom he is attacking. Second he could substantiate such a negative claim. I have not seen Jacobs rule through fear and intimidation. You have it backwards. The Governor was the one trying to rule with fear and intimidation. If brother Jacobs armed with a video camera in the teamsters hall is what is intimidating to Rumler then how could he stand up to the Governor like Jacobs did?
I watched this campaign last time and Sen. Mike Jacobs never mentioned his opponents name or alluded to him in the last election. I would like you to produce one comment from Jacobs on Rumler.
Maybe you are wrong.
I think the big factor will be who the voters blame for the recent budget failures. If they blame Blago, Jacobs and Boland are seen as admirable for sticking up for the people, if they don't, they're seen as the cause of massive failure in the state legislature. This is where Blago has the legislature by the proverbial balls. Since he's not the one running for reelection, he puts the pressure on the house to fold so it doesn't bite them on the ass come election day. Should be interesting to see what happens.
Joe,
You have all the hallmarks of the gang of Jacobs supporters who make a mockery of any serious discourse about the Senator. You scrape the bottom of the barrel and strain credibility with your amazing attempt to somehow distort and twist the situation to make the opponent look bad.
Spin isn't evil, and it's expected, but with you it's always so far over the top it's nearly laughable.
I don't need to point out that Rumler wasn't speaking about Jacob's young son or wife. How stupid are you? (not to mention how odious it is to try to hide Jacobs behind his wife and kid, which seems to happen whenever it suits you.)
Secondly, this blog was bombarded with every scurrilous rip on Rumler and any oppponent of Jacobs or anyone who dare say anything negative about him, including yours truly.
You're being too clever by half by suggesting that Jacobs never mentioned Rumler by name. That may or may not be the case in his public pronouncements, but the campaign online and by surrogates was as nasty and petty and vicious as it gets.
If you want some examples, just browse through the archives here. The sewage isn't hard to find.
Support Jacobs if you wish, there's nothing wrong with that. But try not to grasp at straws and hyperventilate and twist every possible situation and expect people to swallow it whole.
I have heard about your dislike for Jacobs and it is showing clear. I never said that Rumler said it was Jacobs wife and child, what I did say was that words matter. Who is it that you say that Rumler was talking about Dope? Denny Jacobs? Jacobs Mother? Jacobs Brother? It does matter what one says and the language one uses.
I wasn't being clever when I stated that Jacobs never talked about his opponent by name or inference. It is truth. You and Mr. Rumler I suppose, since you are talking for him, are talking about anonymous blog posters. If this is what Rumler is saying then I suggest that he get control of himself. I hope that he was talking about real life intimidation and fear. If it is just this anonymous blogspeak that you say it is that Mr.Rumler is afraid of, then Mr. Rumler does indead owe Jacobs and his family an appology. If it is Jacobs brother with a video camera then he should have stated that more clearly. If it is this blog or a guy with a video at an open announcement,time and adress included with the pre-announcemen, then he should be dismissed out of hand by the voters. As he is to timid to lead.
Jerry Lack will run a professional campaign. He will not resort to name calling and this will be the difference for Lack over Boland.
Thankfully, the Teamsters were on hand to protect "Poor Paul Rumler" from balding, middle-aged taxpayer wielding a cam cord.
After reading Rumler's lone quote in the newspaper, "The Jacobses are know for their fear and intimidation", I better understand why the Teamsters didn't want the public to hear what Rumler had to say.
Just think --- without Hoffa's Teamsters taxpayer might actually know what other silly things Rumler had to say.
Poor Paul Rumler, he was born on the bench, thinking Rock Island County Democrat owe him another chance at bat!
Anon 9:26
You say Lack won't go into the gutter. Let's hope so.
But you say that will be the difference that puts him over Boland.
Help me out. Since when has Boland engaged in name calling about his election opponents?
I don't recall him ever doing so.
What did I miss?
Anon 11:21
Do you have any idea how unintentially hillarious your comment is?
Trying to steal words out of Ann Richard's mouth, for starters, and then the kicker..
actually having the nerve to try to bash Rumler for daring to run.
What kind of person doesn't think anyone should have the right to run for office?
You say Rumler was born on the bench, but Jacobs was born on third base and sincerely thinks he hit a triple. Just ask him.
Anon 5:01
Man, you're just trying WAY too hard.
If you can't make sense, and can't make a cogent argument, then why bother? Do you really believe that "baffling them with bullshit" is the greatest thing around?
You say you didn't think Rumler was referring to Jacobs' wife or kid, then you go on to demand that he should have been more specific, because you weren't sure if he was talking about Jacobs' wife or kid.
(weird)
Then you go on to saying that "words mean things", in an attempt to inflate Rumler's plain statement into something bad.
Then as soon as that's out of your mouth, you turn on a mental dime and begin to argue that if it's thuggish intimidation attempts, slimy lies, disgusting personal attacks, and just general obsessive harrassment on line, then it doesn't matter.
Which is it? Do words matter, or don't they?
You can't have it both ways.
It's a rare person who is the same in person as they are when performing for the public. No one expects that what politicians spout for public consumption is what they actually say behind closed doors, or in some cases, even what they freaking believe themselves, for that matter.
But when there's such a concerted and obvious zeal to dive into the ditch and play juvenille games and just be generally crude, rude, and stupid in attempts to lash out at anyone who isn't 100% falling in line, yeah, it might end up convincing a lot of people that the campaign, and the candidate by extention, is pretty crude and a bully.
After all, bully tactics are a part of politics, but when that's the ONLY way you know how to respond, then there's a problem.
When you routinely go for the slime every single time someone expresses any doubt or questions your action, then what does that say about you?
You don't try to respond with facts or ideas, you don't try to pursuede the other person that they've got it wrong and provide more information that might change their mind.
No, you lie, you distort, you make shit up, and you attack the person in the most disgustingly personal ways.
If you do that, you're not too bright, not too imaginative, not very smooth, and above all, lacking in the ability to think of anything beyond raw, brute political muscle.
The Mafia operates that way. They're successful a lot of times.
But does that make their tactics right?
I hear people spouting about how cool they think it is that Jacobs "stood up to" Blago. Well, what did it accomplish? Anything? Or did it actually harm the situation?
Being full of bluster and a tough guy just for being a tough guy's sake is ridiculous.
If you don't have any other way to get things done than challenging people to duke it out, then there's something really wrong.
I guess that macho bluster impresses some people, including you, and it has it's place I suppose. But if that's all you have to point to... that's not good.
It's like the Black Knight in that Monty Python movie. He's definitely macho, mouthing off and talking smack while he gradually is reduced to a torso yelling at his attackers that it's only a flesh wound and taunting them to come back for more.
Tough is ok, but only if it actually gets results. And I think people expect a bit more than macho bluster from their elected representitives.
Jacobs standing up to the Governor killed a 4 billion dollar tax increase that would be paid for on the back of the average people of Illinois.
On the other hand Rumler didn't have the backbone to stand up to his employer whom he helped lobby the State Government, the issue his employer was against was raising the minnimum wage for the poorest people of the State. Thank goodness Senator Jacobs rejected their republican lobby position and voted with courage to increase the minnimum wage.
Jacobs has the experience, the backbone, and the education.
Standing up does matter!
At least Paul Rumler has conviction. He has worked hard for the last year to get in better position by working for the chamber of commerce. He is doing great work there and I feel he should get the position so that he can run for congress the next election. Way to go Paul!
Anon, what experience exactly? A year or so wearing a paper hat as a new congressman?
What education? Where did he go to school and how did that education contribute to making him any better or worse as an elected official?
How does working for a republican organization working against minnimum wage make you ready to take the Senate seat or Congressional seat? This is a crazy place to run from.
Since Jacobs is really touting his education this time around, perhaps we should have a "minnimum" of 3 public debates? Dope, don't you think the people of the district deserve to know who the better candidate is?
Anon 8:45
I called for debates the last go-round, as did many others.
It seems apparent that Jacobs will likely try to avoid engaging in any real debate like the plague.
Why is that?
Does someone else want to take a stab at answering that question?
I thought Jacobs was in SPringfield last time there was a scheduled debate (at Augie I think).
I understand why Jacobs would not give his opponent a break.
Why would the Chicago Bears let the evil Packers get the ball at their own 10 yard line rather than kicking it through the end zone and making the Packers start at their own 10 yard line?
That would be crazy.
1. Any incumbent avoids debates, unless they are losing the race. Why put someone on the same stage with you? The incumbent has the upper hand and puting the challenger on the same stage equates to equality.
However, the people lose.
2. The second post in this thread had an anonymous statement that, "Lack did an excellent job as Economic Development Director for Lane."
HUH?
Where was this 'economic development' anywhere in the 17th?
Galesburg? NO.
Moline? NO.
Rock Island? NO.
East Moline? NO.
Carthage? NO.
Quincy? NO.
Macomb? NO.
Sterling - RF? NO.
Monmouth? NO.
I certainly hope that Mr. Lack does not run on his economic development record!
yeah...cuz Jacobs really made the Gov boot 23 Schools in the ENTIRE STATE OF ILLINOIS! GET THE FACTS!
Dope you gotta be in heaven..Now that Jacobs is on the Blog you actually have people who respond
Hmm. Why should Jacobs debate? Maybe because the election isn't about him (although he certainly thinks it is), it's about the people of the district. They deserve to have their questions answered, and they deserve to know where the candidates stand on the issues.
At least Rumler has a website that outlines some of his positions. Jacobs doesn't even have a website.
Mr. Lack and Lane Evans brought the Mark of the Quad Cities. HUH?
Bear fan said... , you would get the ball at the 20 not the 10 you maroon!!!
Anon 7:12
I'm not sure your correct about Jacobs not having a website. I know that he did put one up several months ago, so I did a search to see if it's still there. (it's not too easy to find)
He still has it up, though it's stale and hasn't been changed for months.
The address is:
http://www.jacobsforsenate.com
Anon 5:47
You should be more specific. I've always gotten intelligent comments. Posts on Jacobs may get a few more in quantity, but certainly not quality.
What do you expect when you have such a divisive figure?
I'd also point out that comments aren't any indication of readership, as obviously you and many others still check in regularly. It's just that you don't know enough or care enough about anything other than Jacobs to contribute.
Anonymous 7:15, please have a clue what you are speaking about...many people had a hand in bringing the MARK of the QC to Moline, however, Lane Evans and Mr. Lack had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this.
The MARK of the QC was vbuilt with State funds and with not 1-cent of Federal dollars. The same is true for the Rock River bridge...
The fact is that one would have to look hard for a specific and meaningful project of Economic Development in Mr. Evans 24-year career.
Again, Mr. Lack needs to not bring up economic development as he runs.
I don't think it is fair that Boland and Verschoore have had all of their projects taken away and Jacobs got all of his projects. I don't understand this. I wish it were the other way around.
I'm very skeptical that Jacobs got "all his projects" funded. I've heard that he's failed to deliver promised funds for schools and other projects, and what about WIU?
Did he get any money for that? Is that a done deal?
From what I understand, the senate got a light hand from the Governor when he slashed "pork", and the funding cuts were made almost entirely from projects backed by house members.
An Illinois Senate District is composed of 2 House of Representative Districts.
What is bad for the Representative is bad for the Senator of those same constituents.
Jacobs was quoted that his projects were funded.
I guess schools, fire stations, police stations, animal shelters, road improvements, and water sanitation improvements (to name a few) were not on his list.
Why not? They are very important to the people of the 36th District.
So what is Jacobs priority, besides self promotion over accomplishing nothing!!!
I saw where the reader�s choice 2007 of the QC times for politician of the year was Mike Jacobs who beat out Shawn Hamerlinck and Phil Hare. The readers also chose Whiteys ice cream for best ice cream and Jim's Rib Haven for best barbecue. Seeing this I went to Senator Jacobs website that I found the address for on your site. I was impressed to see that Senator Jacobs graduated from the University of Illinois Springfield where he was Phi Beta Kappa. He then got his graduate degree from the University of West Florida where he was a member of Pi Sigma Alpha. The site is a bit dated but had good info and great pictures. My favorite was Jacobs and then President Bill Clinton.
Thanks for the site info Dope. Your site is very informative and fair and balanced. Congrats to all of the 2007 readers choice award winners.
"Andy"...
Hope you're getting a chuckle out of your post. It's the biggest load of unadulterated hogwash that's come along in a long time.
YEESH!
I REALLY didn't want to even post it, but thought, what the heck. People can see what sort of phoney dreck the Jacobs supporters dream up for themselves.
If you're a Jacobs or someone working for him, or just a big supporter, just come out and say it straight, don't phoney it up and pretend to be someone and something you're not. It's always someone that comes off as naive and stupid as they come that happened to notice some meaningless thing in the press about Jacobs and is now awed by him and instantly his biggest fan.
Yeech.
I saw Jacobs name and some derogatory comments on a wipe board in the bathroom of an East Moline tavern.
It was also next to some pornographic drawings.
Andy, what was Jacobs high school GPA and his claim to fame?
My guess is that is was not very high and he was voted "most likely to be appointed"
Jacobs graduated from Northsoutheastern Florida Upstairs University or something like that.
No one would attend there just because it was easy to get into and happened to be in Florida.
I think their athletic teams are the Fighting Banana Slugs
No doubt a very serious school, which is why it is NEVER mentioned in any of the attempts to portray Jacobs as a really educated guy.
Why they keep bringing up his education is a beyond me. Guess like always they figure they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes and just say he "graduated from college" without providing the details and that will be enough to impress the rubes.
I go to University of Illinois Springfield not going lie... it's pretty sweet down here...
Where is the hogwash Dope. Jacobs was the readers choice award winner. True fact from the readers themself. I can see why you don't like my post. Anon post 8/25/2007 11:55 PM, is much more in keeping with your line of thought. You let this garbage right in but think twice about true hard facts. For your knowledge the University of Illinois at Springfield is not a great school. Second, The Phi Beta Kappa Society is the oldest and most prestigious undergraduate honors organization in the United States. Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society, is the only honor society for college and university students of government in the United States. Mr. Jacobs recieved this award for his Post Graduate degree.
I could name call but I am above this kind of smear technique.
It's hogwash because you tout a reader poll as if it means much.
You don't think Jacobs could get a few people to take 3 minutes to vote for him online?
Is that what we're supposed to be impressed by?
I would bet the vote totals were very small, and it wouldn't take much to win such a contest, especially when most repondents probably didn't even have an opinion on local pols and probably skipped the catagory or just voted for the person they'd heard about.
To put it more plainly, the fact Jacobs won some free paper's reader poll means next to nothing, much like an online poll here would mean.
And I find it humorous that when Jacobs was getting banged up in online polls, the noise suggesting that the polls meant nothing was deafening.
But here you are trotting out a poll which is just as poor at gauging real public opinion.
The margin of victory in that Reader's Choice catagory could have been getting 5 people to vote online.
That's all I'm suggesting.
The hogwash is trying to pretend it reflects actually support.
And if that poll is all you have to point to, it's not that encouraging.
And again, his attendance at the U of I in Springfield (or any school, for that matter) is laudatory. No one is knocking that school.
But as anon wondered, why is it never mentioned that he attended that school down in Florida? (plus the University of Iowa... how many colleges does it take to graduate and why the bouncing around?)
It seems that the only part of the Senator's education that anyone wants to mention is his stint in Springfield.
The whole thing is confusing.
Not that it matters, but I believe the undergrad school Mr. Jacobs graduated from was at the time Sangamon State. U of I at Springfield is relatively recent phenomenon. I'm also quite sure admission and academic standards at U of IL Urbana-Champaign and Sangamon State at the time of his attendance were worlds apart.
Senator Jacobs got an advanced degree from the University of West Florida. It is not that hard to understand. The Masters degree that Senator Jacobs earned is after graduating with a 4 year degree from the University of Illinois at Springfield. If you would have gone to the Jacobs web site that you supplied at http://www.jacobsforsenate.com, you would see in black and blue that Jacobs went to these schools. It does not appear that he is covering up the fact that he has an advanced degree with honors. As for the readers poll I would point out that I do believe that Jims Ribs is the best Ribs and that Belgian village has the best reuben and Senator Jacobs is the best Politician of 2007. As for your poll's, as we have seen in the past, they are not very accurate. Your readers have very strong oppinions and your readership is nowhere as big as the QC Times so it is bound to be wrong.
Dang Dope, what do you have against Mike Jacobs? I am a Republican, but believe that he does a nice job for the community.
Cn you site some specifics on what you believe is so wrong about him?
"Best Wine Selection"
- Biaggi's Ristorante Italiano
"Best Bakery"
- Panera Bread
"Best Ruben"
- Belgium Village Inn
"Best Golf Course"
- TPC at Deere Run
"Best Place to Walk a Dog"
- Ben Butterworth Parkway
"Best Chocolate"
- Largomarcino's Confectionery
"Best Summer Festival"
- Bix Fest
"Best Politician"
- Illinois Senator Mike Jacobs
PS. Better luck next time Dope, as
Bill Wundram was named "Best Writer".
I for one would love to see a transcript from one of Jacobs many schools. You tend to bounce around a lot when you're having trouble making grades at one institution.
Jacobs has been accused of many things...never has he been accused of being intelligent.
Andy, I know about the organizations. Regarding the wipe board, just stating the facts.
You never answered my questions so I will repeat it. Andy, what was Jacobs high school GPA and his claim to fame?
You never mentioned his brief educational period at the University of Iowa. Why don't you tell us a little about that and why Jacobs quit and changed schools.
Andy you're an ass.
First of all, you can't blow smoke about how online polls are inaccurate and then turn around and try to say that a newspaper's reader poll is any more valid.
Secondly, I thought you said it was the River City Reader poll, not the QC Times. There's quite a difference. Get it straight.
You can "feel" or "think" that Jim's Ribs are the best, Belgian Village has the best reuben's, etc. (and on that we agree), but the fact is that people who give their opinions on those subjects have actually eaten the product.
Most people who voted for politician likely didn't know what the hell they were basing their vote on, other than impulsive name recognition.
My observation about how few votes it would take to win that catagory still stands as well.
You can think Jacobs walks on water if you want.
But don't get your undies in a knot if someone doesn't.
Anon 2:35
Thank you for making my case.
The fact that the poll thinks a hack like Wundrum is the "best writer" proves just how poor a judge the public can be.
And by the way, I don't fancy myself a writer, let alone a good one, so your attempt at a dig failed.
Anon 1:22
You've obviously not followed this blog for too long or perhaps you'd understand the history between the Jacobs camp and myself. I couldn't begin to encompass it all.
I have nothing against Mike or any of the Jacobs on a personal basis, as I think they're all decent people.
Apparently it's some sort of sin to not agree with or laud a local poltician, is that it?
I think Jacobs has made many mistakes in his comments as well as he particular tactics in Springfield. But primarily I find the attempt at blowhard puffery and overblown hype that seems to eminate from his direction at every turn to be particularly disgusting.
Then there's the arrogance that makes his supporters think they have an absolute right to never be criticized and to attack and engage in very low tactics and threats against anyone who they feel isn't sufficiently following the PR program they promote regarding the Senator.
I've been threatened hundreds of times, had people dig through the most personal of information trying to come up with any dirt they could find, been the subject of several blackmail attempts, been threatened and told exactly what I was to write about Jacobs or face the consequences, etc.
It's not pretty.
You can sit and scratch your head in wonder and amazement that someone doesn't have a rosy opinion of Jacobs and his operation, but if you were in my shoes, you'd more than understand.
I don't think my opinions or views about him are in any way unfair or inaccurate, though of course opinion is only opinion.
I guess it would make you feel more at ease if I at least published some rosy hype about him as well? Would that make it all better?
I reserve the right to have the views I have and can assure you that they're based on more than enough experience and evidence.
Beyond that, you shouldn't worry about it.
After all, despite your wonderment, I think there are others who don't hold a glowing opinion of Jacobs as senator, believe it or not.
I'll throw it back in your court. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for being "new", but since you're flaberghasted that anyone would say anything negative about him, explain it to me just what it is that he's done to impress you.
11 votes in that poll. 4 for Jacobs, 3 for Hare, 3 for Hammerlink, and 1 for Meyer (a joke, I presume).
Let's not make this thing out to be more than it is. It's not like it was a scientific poll, and, obviously there wasn't much interest.
Anon 1:22, I really doubt that you are a republican.
I am beginning to think that Mike Jacobs is one though with the thousands of dollars he has received from republican organizations. Maybe Rumler can use those facts in his campaign since he was accussed of working for a Republican organization, even though he is not involved in legislative decisions.
I did a little research on Mike Jacobs attending Sangamon State.
Is Jacobs really that embarrased that he can not use the actual name of the school he graduated from?
"While grading policy is not the only indicator of an educational institution's progressive nature, it is one example of the kind of internal structural flaw that led to the undoing of the original SSU model. While innovative, the grading system was unlike the more radical designs at either its sister public university, The Evergreen State College in Washington (TESC), or the private Hampshire College in Massachusetts, both of which were founded around the same time as SSU. Though Hampshire caters to a more affluent student body, TESC has seen its ungraded model thrive with a state-university student body that is much closer in class background to ours. SSU's founders, however, instead struck a fatal liberal compromise with the forces of the market: its students were given the "choice" of receiving grades along with their written evaluations. Like many liberal reform efforts, no matter how sincere, what appeared to offer a free choice really only involved the illusion of choice. The students were inadvertently set up.
What students quickly discovered was that employers and graduate schools preferred grades to unorthodox written evaluations. And so, as the years went by, the vast majority of students "chose" that option. Of course, this was a "free" choice only in the same sense that "free trade" uses the concept of freedom to mask capitulation to capitalist priorities. What appeared to be SSU's flexible policy offered students no real choice. In contrast, TESC and Hampshire students can defend themselves against the market-driven demands of personnel departments and graduate school admissions officers by informing them that there are no grades at their institutions and handing them instead a sheaf of narrative faculty evaluations."
Are you kidding me. They did not have to take tests and receive graded scores.
Only a written narrative on their performance. Sheesh.
I think Jacobs so called honors statements are fishy as best.
Well Andy, what was Jacobs GPA while attending Sangamon State or did he not have one?
I wonder who his instructors were and since were so close to Springfield, what influence his daddy and grand-daddy had on his narrative college performance.
Thanks Anon for confirming my suspicions. ELEVEN votes cast, and the Jacobs trolls are out celebrating. Amazing.
Finally! Someone realizes that Wundrum isn't a writer. All the guy is is a toady for the upper crust, fawning over their doings like he has a school-girl crush on them.
Anyone can write about the stuff he writes about.
Some anon guy say's how many votes were cast and you use it as truth. The point isn't that he won this poll it is the fact that you try and discredit Jacobs at every turn. I have read all of the posts and you are turning everything negative. The Jacobs supporters seem to be positive so far this election cycle. The Rumler people are the ones name calling and saying things are on the bathroom walls. Your negativity will turn people right to Jacobs. I suggest that you try a new tactic and try and be less nagative and keep these pot shots from Rumler off of your site. It is hurting your cause.
Average people think Wundrum is a genius. Are you calling the average person dumb? I think you could spend more time with average people and get out of your ivory tower.
Anon 7:24
Please let me know what my "cause" is, maybe then I'll be able to figure out if I'm hurting it.
Not only do I not have much good to say about Jacobs, I also have little good to say about the Iraq situation and other things I don't see as positive. Hope that lack of "balance" doesn't upset you as well.
Yeah, "average" people, despite their many virtues, are dumb.
They have a lot of help however, from the rancid swill they're fed on TV, in ads, and just in general.
The stupidity of the general public is going up, and those in charge probably couldn't be happier.
People are more and more and more unable to think for themselves, subject to forming opinions based on what some moron is paid to tell them, which is 99% emotionally appealing crap not based on any fact or reality.
You try to say the "average" person likes Wundrum. Does that mean he's a good writer? I think not.
Even though you're just pulling that supposed fact out of your ass with nothing remotely to back it up, the fact remains that the "average" could also be said to like watching cars go in circles endlessly, shopping at WalMart, Mountain Dew with extra caffiene, the WWF, and still thinks that Iraq and Sadaam were connected to the attacks of 9-11.
Gee. Remind me not to rely on the supposedly "great wisdom" of the masses.
This is Anon 1:22 - yes, I am a Republican and the fact is that many republicans vote for Jacobs (Denny first, now Mike), because they appreciate the fact that the Jacobs' understand free markets and the benefit of development and growth.
As far as the Republican/ Democrat debate - it has -0- place in local politics (where Schwiebert has done a good job being non-partisan, although he is a flaming liberal (and the Dem's don't even know it!!!), a little in State politics and only messes up national politics.
Republican businessmen know that Jacobs does a good job for the business community - and thus the entire QC area.
I am from the southeast part of the district and I have to say that after reading the bathroom quotes the Dope and Rumlerites have been using against Jacobs, I will not be able to vote for Rumler. Dope, this Andy person states Jacobs won an award. Easy enough to check out. It is true. Then Andy goes on to say that Jacobs attended collage and graduated with honors for his 4 year degree and his Masters degree. Now the fact that he graduated and has these honors is on his website and I do believe them to be true or he would not print it. My problem is that you attack the validity of the award and worse yet you attack the Illinois State School no matter what it is and its reputation. Are you serious?
You allow Rumler and his followers bash Jacobs at every turn. The juvenile bathroom talk is telling of a lack of education of the poster and the person that allowed the attack on this site. That would be you. I think that your site would be better if you would require people to give their real email address so that there is not all of this anonymity that can be so divisive. I think that your anonymity is also a problem as it allows you to attack people personally and not have to face the music.
Even Bill Wundrum uses his real name Dope.
Pull yourself out of the gutter man or woman.
I have a problem with the negativity that Rumler has displayed so far. Last time he ran a clean campaign. It seems as though he will get in the dirt from the start. He was calling names at his press conference and now he is getting real muddy through the internet. This is a bad start for someone trying to improve the image of the area.
Beth, I don't expect you to ever actually think things through here, much less be able to tell what was and wasn't said or by whom. You've got all of that wrong and more.
But (sigh) I'll try to gently straighten you out.
First of all, I didn't say anything about a bathroom quote. Secondly, what the hell makes you think that any negative comment about Jacobs originates with the Rumler campaign?
If you're going to tar the candidate with what is said against his opponent, then let's go back and review some of the rancid tripe that was slung around about Rumler by Jacobs people last time around, shall we?
I wouldn't go there if I were you.
Oh let's see. So many errors to deal with.
Oh, you are apparently a Sweet Polly Purebread who believes that I should be the only anonymous blogger who needs to use their name.
How many blogs do you read, exactly? Ever notice that a vast proportion of them are anonymous to one degree or another?
Do you think there should perhaps be a law that forces everyone that uses the internet to publish proof of their identity online before they say anything? (well, you probably would support that. As long as you didn't have to reveal YOUR identity)
If you stop and think about it, the entire internet is, and likely always will be utterly and completely anonymous, at least on the surface.
The fact remains that there is simply no possible way to force people to reveal who they are.
Anyone could say they're anyone else and how would you know?
They could give fake e-mail addresses, how would you know?
Even if you got a valid one, what difference would that make?
What are you going to do, run background checks to verify someone is who they say they are?
The whole idea is ridiculous, yet people still squall about it, as if that would somehow make any difference.
I think the people who are freaked out and demanding that everyone somehow reveal themselves are the ones who rely on personal attacks and smears to hang onto their power.
The idea that someone can actually express contrary opinions without them being able to intimidate and bash the person behind the scenes really pisses them off. (not that they don't do so anyway, it just makes it much harder for them.)
You accuse me of attacking the validity of "an award"??? What the hell award are you referring to? Is it a "very important award" like the leg lamp in the "Christmas Story"?
Are you referring to the stupid reader's poll that got Andy hot?
If that's the case, then you're absolutely correct, I did attack it, and I'd continue to do so.
I think it's plain that it's a joke, with only a handful of people even voting for "favorite politician, and even less voting for Jacobs. Veeeeery impressive.
So you think it was wrong of me to point out the obvious, eh? My appolgies if I offended your delicate sensibilities.
Then you utterly invent that I somehow said ANYTHING bad about an "Illinois state school".
Go check again. If you can find someone who knocked an Illinois school, then go after them, not me.
And I think Wundrum is a sappy hack. Sorry.
Lastly, you say my anonymity allows me to "attack people personally".
First of all, I don't do that by name, and secondly, if the person I'm addressing is anonymous too, what the hell harm is done to them personally?
I wish the folks wringing their hands over anominity would just get over it and realize that everyone on the internet is anonymous, whether they provide their name or not.
Where's Rumler slinging mud online? Let me know... I wanna see.
Beth, how are you.
I found irony in your statement that "The juvenile bathroom talk is telling of a lack of education of the poster and the person that allowed the attack on this site. That would be you. I think that your site would be better if you would require people to give their real email address so that there is not all of this anonymity that can be so divisive. I think that your anonymity is also a problem as it allows you to attack people personally and not have to face the music."
Is your radio playing so you can face the music. The Jacobs anonymous bandwagon heavily relied on internet smear and outside interest groups to his benefit last time.
Like Big Mike was quoted in the paper "politics is a contact sport" and believe me people are playing for keeps this time.
Guess he can dish it and can not take it.
Click on paulrumler.com and watch him attack Senator Jacobs on his news clip.
Hmmmm. I did go and watch that clip from WQAD's coverage of Rumler's announcement.
Where's the attack?
Rumler said the area has been ill-served by Jacobs, that what's been accomplished has been in spite of Jacobs, not because of Jacobs, and noted that Boland and Vershoore have had to carry more than their share of the load.
Sounds like normal everyday campaign rhetoric to me.
Is it not an "attack" for a person running against someone to point out what they feel is their opponent's problems or weaknesses?
That's rather silly, don't you think?
Hmmmm. I did go and watch that clip from WQAD's coverage of Rumler's announcement.
Where's the attack?
Rumler said the area has been ill-served by Jacobs, that what's been accomplished has been in spite of Jacobs, not because of Jacobs, and noted that Boland and Vershoore have had to carry more than their share of the load.
Sounds like normal everyday campaign rhetoric to me.
Is it not an "attack" for a person running against someone to point out what they feel is their opponent's problems or weaknesses?
That's rather silly, don't you think?
There is a fine line between what is fair critcism and what crosses over into unfair, dishonest, or unduely personal attacks. I don't think Rumler's statement went over that line, or even close.
It's a politician's job to do two things in a campaign. First, to discuss and publicize what he believes, what his positions are, and make the case for why he or she would be better for the people they are running to represent.
The second related job is to, in the case of a challenger, explain why their opponent has failed, point up their record and show why it isn't good, and to otherwise provide a valid contrast between themselves and their opponent.
The requirement is to pursude people that you're the better person for the job.
IF a candidate relies too much on either pumping themselves up, or worse yet, if they over-rely on tearing their opponent down, then that can be troublesome.
But if there's some semblance of balance between the two, that's perfectly normal and expected.
To try to suggest someone is a "negative campaigner" or is leveling "attacks" simply because they believe that the incumbant hasn't done the job well is kind of goofy.
Most of us have seen dirty campaigning and know what it is.
This ain't.
The only water that Mike Boland has ever carried is that of Mike Madiagn for the debt that he owes him. Over half a Million dollars last election. How much will Madigan pay Boland this time. Madigan has already given Boland $25,000. Lack may be able to neutralize Madigan if Lane Evans makes the call to Madigan.
Lack will give Boland a good show if Boland has to run on his own money. This is the election to watch as it could be close.
Wow, Dope... you're sure right... the games have begun. Rumler is right because. Jacobs is great because. Thanks to Blago, I wouldn't vote for a single Democrat above the county officials. And I sure as heck wouldn't invite John Gianulus to speak at my fundraiser as Mike is doing.
B H, good to hear from you again.
I'm not sure what it is about any race involving Jacobs, but it brings out that sort of stuff.
You can call it bare-knuckles, you can call it dirty politics, however you want to characterize it, but at least here online, it's characterized by 100% attempts to attack, attack, attack.
And when there is attempts to point to the postitives, it's often not too helpful, such as the recent touting of him winning a reader's poll where only a handful of people voted.
The one thing it has in common is that it nearly always takes a tiny non-issue and attempts to inflate it far beyond it's actually importance, whether it be a supposed negative about the opponent, or a positive about the senator.
Pointed statements by Rumler about Jacobs have been pointed to and accustations made about that being negative politics.
But from experience, Rumler supporters don't make comments about Jacobs until after they've gone after Rumler first, which they inevitably do at every turn.
Politics ain't pretty, and I suppose such stuff is to be expected, but it sure leaves a lot to be desired, and one wishes there was a little more substance for voters to digest, not simply squables over nothing and superficial concerns.
I've resigned myself that it won't likely change anytime soon, and as such, I simply have to dump all comments that are completely out there or frivolous.
Poor Paul Rumler everyone is being so mean to him! I hope Paul is okay after his scary encounter with the middle aged taxpayer with the video camera. It's a good thing Hoffa's Teamsters where on hand to protect Paul. Paul must have been scared! I hope he's not intimidated!
Jacobs hasn't attacked Rumler onve on this blog. It has been all Rumler with the negativity.
I always thought (from what I have heard) that it was Mr. Rumler's people are the computer savvy people! Are you sure Jacobs people are smart enough to use a computer?
Yes, they can be very busy computer users, but unfortunately, they seem to be utterly lacking in what Bush Sr. famously called "the vision thing."
They've proved to be very industrious users of at least comments, but they haven't seemed to grasp the idea of using them for anything but smears of their opponents and attacks, often quite vicious, on their critics, and the occasional attempt at pro-Jacobs propaganda which unfortunately is often way overblown, short on specifics, and sort of silly.
I've always held out hope that they'd someday "get it", but that hope has been pretty much exhausted.
They simply don't seem to be capable of operating any other way.
But never say never.
Jacobs' people are friendly, outgoing, social people. I'm sure they're smart enough to use a computer.
Were is the negativity from Jacobs supporters? Either I am not enough of a Jacobs’s hater or you are delusional. The only really negative comment that I see is Rumler's quote about Jacobs ruling through fear and intimidation. This is negative because he has nothing to back it up other than you saying that Jacobs is intimidating on this blog. He may have been last election as you say is true, but I am new and have not seen it here. Please show me the negative and intimidating Jacobs talk from this election cycle. I am missing it apparently.
I am a Jacobs supporter and attended his fund raise last night in Moline. It was a really fantastic event. Great food, tons of people, live music. I know John Beydler was there, were you?
Please provide a single specific regarding Paul Rumler other than he's not Mike jacobs. Fact is, Rumler is nothing more than Rick Baker of the Chamber's do-boy!
Anon 2:31
You're limiting all discussion to this election cycle, an campaign that essentially started only a few days ago, is convenient for your argument.
But of course, the remarks weren't limited to only the past week, as I would have thought you'd have concluded on your own.
Chris,
I don't know, was I? Speaking of Beydler, he got sick of all the insane venom from partisan goofs and ended his blog.
I can't blame him. It's been a long time, but I still hope he'll have a change of heart and start it up again. He's a great writer and reporter.
Anon 5:49,
I understand your feelings. As I've said during the last primary and again this time around, Rumler really needs to get out and let people know who he is and what he's about.
This isn't always easy, as free media is tough to generate when you're a challenger, and getting the message out takes a lot of money.
But I do hope he works harder to let people know who he is and what his philosophy of governing is.
He's too much of a blank slate at this point.
Not to mention the essential truth of campaigning that if you don't get out there and define yourself, your opponent sure the hell will.
As we've seen, the Jacobs don't waste a second trying to sow seeds of negativity, so every moment Rumler stands around without mounting a vigorous effort to get himself in front of the public is ceding ground to his opponent.
Rumlers big problem is that he thinks he got 43% of the vote. He probably got 5-6% of the vote. The other 38% was people voting against Denny, voting against the appointment, and voting against Jacobs himself. This time Jacobs starts off with several positives. First he ran very positive campaign in the primary and the general election. I know you say his supporters on the blogs were not but as far as the mainstream he was quite positive. Second is the fact that he has worked very hard for this area. Third he is well respected in Springfield and is a very hard worker. He possess the ability to bring in his own money and not have to be a slave to the leadership in Springfield. Rumler on the other hand has been lobbying for the chamber that is against many of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party. This was a fatal mistake. Their position on healthcare, minnimum wage, and worker saftey is troubling. The other issue is that Rumler has no real views. He is very cautious on making decisions. He seems unable make hard decisions. Politics is a messy business where sometimes you have to make hard choices and from the website that Rumler had last time and this it is telling that the guy has little in the way of positions. I believe that Rumler should think hard about making a run when he has such an uphill battle. He could wait out Hare and fulfill his dream of being a Congressman. It is hard to come back from two consecutive defeats. Do you believe that he could come back from another defeat?
He'd have to be defeated first.
But this suspicion and condemnation of Rumler for being associated with the Chamber of Commerce is interesting.
While it's not far-fetched to wonder how a candidate can represent so-called "democratic values" when he's represented the interests of business, I still find it rather thin.
First of all, Jacobs has been known to be cozy with business of all stripes, particularly if they give him some cash.
So how does Rumler doing some work for the chamber somehow make him more beholden to business than Jacobs?
I'm sure that Jacobs doesn't have a problem with the Chamber or anything they do. I'm sure he is more than willing to try to make them happy.
This is why this particular attempt to rap Rumler rings hollow.
In theory, yeah, it's enough to raise an eyebrow if a Dem candidate is working for the Chamber. But when his opponent has demonstrated that he's much closer to business than the average Dem, the whole thing kind of falls apart.
Aren't some unions and their leadership pretty sick of Jacobs? Doesn't he nearly automatically support any business who comes to him for state handouts? (leaving aside whether that's a good thing or not)
How is Rumler any more devoted to business than Jacobs, and secondly, why is that always a bad thing?
Your idea that Rumler should get out and be negative will backfire. Rumlers best chance is to stand quiet and not let people get to know him. This would only hurt his chances. Rumler wants this race to be about Jacobs and not about Rumler. Rumlers press conference was a disaster for him. He should stay out of camera view.
If Paul Rumler lacks the testicular virility to stand up to Rick Baker and QC Chamber of Commerce when they are wrong, imagine what Blago, Madigan and Jones) would do to someone so easily intimidated (Rumler)?
The last thing we need is another "go-along-to-get-along" politician. We need more experienced politicians that are not afriad to stand up for our area.
Finally, I pulled up the "AFL-CIO Labor Ratings" and discovered that Sen. Jacobs actually earned the highest pro-labor rating of the QC area legislators (Boland and Verschoore). I wonder if "labor leadership" is "SICK" of Boland and Verschoore too, or just the guy with the areas highest state labor rating (Sen. Jacobs)?
Jerry lack will get the support of Lane Evans and this will propell him through the finish line like it did for Phil Hare. Evans is still the strongest leader that the area has seen and Phil and now Lack will get the spoils. This along with the fact that Boland gave a scholarship to his lady friends daughter in Fulton will be Bolands end. Lack will help the area as he will not have to vote for Madigans Chicago agenda.
Anon 7:34
awwwww. You were Sooooo close that time Skippy. You almost expressed a legitimate opinion but couldn't quite get it out without resorting to lying about what I said. (as usual).
I, of course, never said nor suggested that Rumler "get out and be negative".
Try harder next time.
Is the Chamber of Commerce "wrong"?
And if so, about what, and how did Rumler fail to "stand up" to them?
Just curious.
And I'll take your word on that labor rating. It's just that I'm certain that he's not had the greatest relationship with a few local labor leaders. Maybe he's seen the light.
I'd think it must be hard to be good to labor while you're bending over backwards for big money guys and interest groups (donors) at the same time.
Yes, Paul Rumler has some explainin' to do?
I am confused by Mike Jacobs actions.
He was quoted in the paper that "his" projects were funded.
Now he is on a campaign to have Governor B removed from office.
Western Illinois was not funded, therefore can we conclude that WIU expansion was not one of Jacobs projects? Same with funding for Silvis?
Looks to me like a typical Jacobs free media grab to keep his mug infront of the general public during a heated Primary.
Why does our Senator continue to get headlines when he does not get results.
Yes, Mike Jacobs has some explainin' to do.
Do you want me to "explain" how Jacobs' voted to increase minimum wage, or do you want me to "explain" how the interst group Rumler lobbies for (Chamber of Commerce) was against increasing the minimum wage?
Well, let's see. A Democrat voting to increase the minimum wage. Wow... talk about a portrait in courage.
I don't think you need to bother "explaining" that one.
I'm not sure you need to explain that the Chamber of Commerce is against a minimum wage hike.
But maybe what you could explain is how come you expect people to believe that Rumler isn't his own person and has been somehow turned into a Chamber of Commerce robot who can't possibly hold any positions at odds with what the Chamber supports?
Why you expect folks to swallow that load is what needs explained.
Anon 9:26.
Do you want me to explain why Mike Jacobs accepted several large campaign contributions from the Chamber of Commerce?
The only way to call Jacobs self serving bluff is to lock him in a room with all interested parties.
His mouth would not know what side to talk out of.
Maybe his camera man brother would bail him out as he often has to drive him home.
Rumler after being beaten by Jacobs by 12% points decided it would be in his best interest to go and Lobby for a republican organization against such issues as workers saftey. He could have joined the union brotherhood like Jacobs, Hare and Lack did. I think that if Rumler is so ignorant to think that the place to run from is the republican chamber then I think you are as big of a problem as Rumler. I hope that you think minnimum wage increase was justified. You seem to be mocking such an important thing for the poorest people in Illinois.
Please tell me you were for the minnimum wage increas.
Boy the Rumler's have come out again with their negative commetns. They smear and call names all the time. This negativity has got to stop before Rumler digs himself a big hole that he can't get out of.
Well Chuckles... I wouldn't want you laying awake nights worrying about what the Inside Dope's position is on the minimum wage increase.
I find it a tad odd that anyone cares what I think on that particular issue, and I'm certain that it matters not a bit... but....
It seems to be important to you, and I'd think it would probably be obivious where I'd stand on that if you'd read this blog at all.
But since you appear clueless on that count, I can say that I definitely support increasing the minimum wage.
I've even had a restaurant I frequent (a global chain) jack up their prices and the manager blame the wage hike.
I actually felt good paying the little bit extra thinking that it would at least give the young people who work, most of whom work hard and do a very good job, a little extra to live on.
I also think that blaming the price hike on the minimum wage increase was phony as well and just them taking advantage of the situation to implement a price hike and score points against any future wage hikes at the same time.
This place is owned by a HUGE corporate behemouth and is literally operating around the globe. The idea that they need to increase their prices anything more than a few cents to afford the increase in minimum wage in one state is dubious at best.
It's got to stop!
What about the children???!!!!!
Won't someone please think of the children???!!!!!
Someone make it stop!!!!!!
It won't stop. As long as we have these five or six numbskulls thinking that comments here translate into votes, you'll have 100+ comments for a stupid, low-budget, low-class, small-fish-small-pond topic like Rumler and Jacobs. We would have seen this same trash-talking spew with Western Big Six Basketball had blogs been invented during the mid-80's. Sheesh, what a bunch of fools.
Okay, obviously the Evans/Hare/Labor Machine is out to get Boland this time. But tell me, is there any reason to think that Madigan WON'T protect Boland? It seems to me that Madigan always protects his incumbent House members, no matter what.
And that means 2 more years (and more) for Mike. Those of you on the ground, what do you think?
I felt a bit sorry for Paul Rumler today at the labor day picnic. He seems like a nice enough guy, however, the fact that he chose to work for the chamber which is like the other side of the isle from the labor movement is wierd. Jacobs pointed this fact out at the labor day event and you could see people avoiding Rumler like he had the plague. I am starting to wonder if the guy is a Jacobs plant.
I could not agree more. Why would Madigan let go of a bought and payed for guy like Boland. Mike is into Him for millions of dollars and pulling Mike out of the cellar last election cycle whan the Moonies came to town to save him. The unknown is how much the paper will make of Boland giving his lady friend another scholarship.
Where does Paul Rumler stand on the pork plant. I have asked this before and gotten no reasonable explanation. He's either for it or against it. Do you know Dope?
This Boland Lack race is going to be a good one. Lack and his wife are runners and they are very agressive. They will get out and press the flesh. I do not think Lack is working and will be able to do it full time. This is an advantage. Boland 53-47. As for Jacobs I see him having an easier time this go around. Working for the chamber is a tough place for Rumler to run from as a democrat and last time Rumler was unemployed and was able to get out and work full time. Jacobs 59-41. I am suprised that Melon is not running for Congress. I felt like he ran a good campaign last time and Hare has not been tested in a primary yet as he was appointed to his position.
I feel sorry for Mike Jacobs.
He took advantage of a celebratory labor day situation to publicly bash his opponent.
Jacobs did not mention that he has received thousands of dollars from the Chamber of Commerce.
What a snake.
Anon 4:28.
No.
I've never spoken with Rumler nor do I have any contact with his campaign. I don't know where he stands on this issue.
As I've stated, I do wish he would stop being so opaque and begin to stake out his positions on issues.
It seems to me that Jacobs takes money from the chamber as does Rumler. The difference is Jacobs voted for the minnimum wage increase and for workers safty while Rumler lobbied against these things in his cushy chamber "JOB". He works for them. There is a big difference. There is a difference in choosing to work for someone that has different views than you, if you are a vegan you don't go out and activly persue work at the pig plant as their eat pork spokesman. See the diference. If Jacobs goes out and is against a chamber initiative he is not fired. If Rumler is out against them then he would get fired.
Bad choice for a guy with political ambition.
Rumler and his organization gave campaign contributions to Jacobs? I though Rumler was running against labor favored candidate (Jacobs)? These Rumlerlites are plants!
Ah Mike Jacobs, your poor spelling gives away your identity again. Please, learn how to spell "minnimum".
Rumler was quoted on the news saying that he disagreed with the Chamber's position on minimum wage.
Frankly I can't understand why Jacobs is trying to paint Rumler as a republican. It's going to come back to bite him. Jacobs has too many similarities to George W. Bush to be trying to play that game...
What kind of person expects me to believe them when they say that they are realy against something that they have worked for.
In the rural 36th district we say watch what they do and not what they say. I see what Rumler believes I knows who he lobbies for.
In order to limit to craptacular stupiditude to 10 feet in depth, I've cut off comments on this thread.
The dumbness would just continue and intensify and frankly, it's boring as hell and makes me feel stupid just reading it.
Thanks to the few readers who are not associtated with the politicians or the actual politician themselves who contributed honest comments and opinions.
Sadly, the rest of the bullshit kind of drowns those legit comments out.
Down the road I might create a link in the sidebar titled "The Sewer" or something similarly appropriate where these few goof-balls can discuss this race and crank out volumes of crap to their hearts content without others having to get tainted by it. Sort of like erecting a barrier around a toxic waste site.
<< Home