Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad
…at least for me, since I habitually back the wrong horses in every election.
But Obama, my POTUS choice, won (at least in Illinois) and so did Mike Boland—-Paul Rumler, not so much, but still I’m not that upset about Rumler’s loss, since Jacobs is OK.
But the really sweet win was Boland over Politburo darling Jerry Lack. I do hope this is an indication that the Politburo is losing control over some of the proles.
But what was truly bizarre was the Dispatch story about the Boland v. Lack race titled Boland Re-Elected To Eighth Term”, because 12 paragraphs out of an 18 paragraph story are about the loser, Jerry Lack rather than the victor, Boland. Also the only photo with the story was of Lack. The Dispatch endorsed Lack over Boland, although I’m sure this has nothing to do with the structure and content of this story. *snork*
Lack whines about how difficult it is “for a challenger” and blames the “power of incumbency and name recognition” for his defeat. However, he says that the “power of incumbency” is something he saw work in Lane Evans’ favor during the 23 years Lack worked for him. Lack should just lay off the kvetching about “power of incumbency” and realize he had a nice paying job for 23 years courtesy of said “power”.
The quote of the day has to be from Boland in this same article when he is quoted as saying: “The candidates (the Politburo) run against me are Jacobs puppets.”
Hoot-O-Rama!
Did Boland offer a single fact to back up his wild accusation or did he pull it out of thin air? What if any real connection exist between Jacobs and Lack?
Comment by TMaryLamp | February 6, 2008
I do know that Mike Jacobs has stayed away from any problems with Boland. Mike Jacobs actually championed several of Boland’s bills and got them passed through the Senate. I know that Denny Jacobs and Mike Boland do not like each other since Denny jacobs defeated Boland for the State Senate seat. Mike Boland has always tried to keep the feud going with Mike Jacobs because he feels that it is in his own best interest, for some unknown reason, to trash Mike Jacobs for being against him even when there is no tie from Mike Jacobs to Lack. Mike Boland is slimy when it comes to these games. I think that Boland must have some dirt however to show Lack was a puppet of Jacobs or he would not make such reckless claims.
Comment by John | February 6, 2008
Hey TMary and John, maybe you could help us out and tell us “what single fact” Denny Jacobs had to back up his “wild accusation” and “reckless claim” that Paul Rumler is like Eddie Haskell?
Just asking, since you two seem well-connected to the Jacobs.
Comment by qcexaminer | February 7, 2008
Can someone help me understand the liberal mind?
In my thinking, we look at poverty and we all, conservatives and liberals alike, we all know that something has to be done. Liberals simply say - “Let’s GIVE the poor money, healthcare, food stamps, etc - and let’s GIVE them this out of (someone else’s pocket) - the rich.
The Conservative looks at this problem and sees the facts of the issue,
The fact that a large percentage of people living in poverty are products of single-mothers or absentee-fathers. Conservatives appreciate the fact that you cannot GIVE people enough to get them out of poverty (this is a historical fact - 40+ years of government programs and multi-trillions of dollars and poverty has actually INCREASED).
This is an issue of the family unit. While we have subsidized single mothers, while we have promoted easy divorce, we have also fueled poverty.
Am I missing something?
Comment by Andrew | February 7, 2008
For one Paul Rumler told some people that he was
Comment by Peter | February 7, 2008
I have an Eddy Haskel from Rumler. Rumler told the people out in Barstow that he was against the hog plant and then told the Union that will build it that he was for it.
Here is a clear cut example of an Eddy Haskel moment.
Comment by Peter | February 7, 2008
Peter, do you have any idea who “Eddie Haskell” is (was)?
Comment by qcexaminer | February 7, 2008
Yes, Eddy was Wally Cleavers friend who would say whatever he felt Ward and June Cleaver would want him to say even if it was not what Eddy realy felt to get into their good grace.
Is that about it or were you realy not sure.
What is your take on Eddy Haskel QC examiner.
Comment by Peter | February 7, 2008
Well yeah Peter, I’m old enough to have watched the original “Leave It To Beaver”.
But what I didn’t get was that if Jacobs was going to brand Rumler as “Eddie Haskell”, who was an obsequious brown-noser that would say what he thought others wanted to hear, then by that definition EVERY politician is an “Eddie Haskell”, including the Jacobs.
It seemed to me that Jacobs calling Rumler “Eddie Haskell” was just another example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Comment by qcexaminer | February 7, 2008
I respectfully disagree QC. Jacobs has been very vocal to fault sometime. Jacobs was for and only for the hog plant. Jacobs has been very up front in pushing for the Niabi Zoo. He also openly championed the RI school proposal.
QC you don’t argue Rumlers double talk. You do say that all polotitions change to their audience.
I have no knowledge of Mike Jacobs ever doing this switch to your audience.
Maybe you know something I do not. I can show you where Rumler has done this on other issues as well if you would like. You first though. Then me.
Your comments are unfair and are not appreciated.
I am not talking of putting ones best foot forward but telling one group one thing and another group the opposite is another story.
Comment by Peter | February 7, 2008
Sorry Peter, but I’m not gonna let this thread disintegrate into a “Mike Is Better Than Paul” contest.
I could dredge up links, but I don’t wanna work that hard in my own comment section.
It’s understood you are a Jacobs partisan, and that’s OK with me. I think I’ve been pretty clear about why I chose Rumler over Jacobs in this election, and also why I’m OK with Jacobs keeping his job.
I just don’t want to argue about this any more—you won’t change your mind and I won’t change mine—we’ll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Comment by qcexaminer | February 7, 2008
Denny’s characterization of Rumler is an insult to Eddie Haskell.
Comment by TMaryLamp | February 7, 2008
I do not want you to change your mind. I do want you to agree that Rumler is Eddy Haskelish in the fact that he lies to look good and you have no story like mine to show that Jacobs lies to look good.
I don’t want to argue because it taxes me so also, but your not wanting to talk about this issue because it tires you tires me. You brought it up asked a question. I answered it and now you are tired. Get some caffeine in yourself and give it the old college try. The other option is to get tested for Yuppie Flu.
Comment by John | February 8, 2008