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.