« Reason, faith and the pope | Main | The revolutions of '94 and '06 »

October 02, 2006

Beals and abortion

The position James Beals is taking on abortion, according to
this story by D/A Springfield bureau chief Scott Reeder, is, well, bizarre.

Regardless of one's position on abortion, there is generally some identifiable philosophical reason at work; a belief in the sanctity of life, the view that a decision whether to bear children belongs to each individual woman, that the choice belongs to the woman up to some or another point, etc.

Mr. Beals, the story says, believes abortion should be widely and legally available to anyone under 18, whose parents consent; but that it should be illegal for everyone over 18, even in cases of rape.


Posted by jcb at October 2, 2006 01:54 PM


thats just ludicrous. Maybe thats why he got punched in the jaw!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 02:21 PM

I have been saying that Beals position on abortion has seemed odd to say the least. I wonder what other odd beliefs he has that we don't know about.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 02:55 PM

Beals' stance on abortion is the oddest thing I've ever heard in my life! You must be kidding me! A teen with parental consent is okay but not a grown woman (even if raped). If I met him and he told me this I would bust his jaw myself.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 04:00 PM

I am so glad that voters have a choice for their next elected State Senator in the 2006 General Election.

Not only does Mr. Beals have the guts to run against the powerhouse Jacobs family, but he also states his positions while using independent thought, not re-iterating what we typically hear.

Mr. Beals is clearly looking out for kids while keeping adults responsible for their actions. His stance eliminates over 90% of all abortions in America while protecting children.

Jacobs blatant pro-choice stance is against the moral fabric of our society to allow for the mass innocent death of unborn children.

Posted by: Pro-Lifer for Beals at October 2, 2006 05:15 PM

I am ashamed that I have defended James Beals for his stance on abortion. he has said several times that he was Pro-Life. I argued with others that wanted clarification as o his stance. Now I see why. Now that it is clear that Beals is Pro-Choice it has darkened my view. I feel that he has left me out to dry. He will not be getting my vote.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 05:51 PM

I guess we can all thank Gaia that the abortion question has been taken out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives in state and local government and placed in the hands of the unelected, unaccountable SCOTUS.

Posted by: paladin at October 2, 2006 07:39 PM

What is Beals thinking. Can you say foot in mouth???

I as a women am truley appaled that he would play the fence -50/50 Wow

Pro-lifer Beals obviously you are related to Beals. No person in their right mind can defend this sort of ridiculous comment.

Scary to think that this guy first gets his jaw broken and wired shut and now is inserting his own foot into his mouth. Does he have an oral fixation or what???

I've been riding the fence on this whole election....this has made my choice. I will NOT be voting for Beals!


Women who cares

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2006 07:45 PM

JCB, I am glad that the D/A and reporters are informing voters of my official position on important issues. I am also glad that they are asking my opponent the same questions so voters can become educated about their candidates and the voters can choose their next elected Senator.

Pro-Lifer, thank you for your support. I am opposed to abortion in most circumstances.

I am very concerned that parents are not allowed to have parental consent prior to their minor daughter having an abortion, let alone not even being notified.


James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at October 2, 2006 08:28 PM

Good for you Mr. Beals.

Thank you for looking out for my children and my rights as a parent. My husband and I greatly appreciate you running for office and you have our support.

Although we have nothing bad to say against Senator Jacobs, we intend to vote for you.

Posted by: Mom for Beals at October 3, 2006 06:00 PM

Who are these people that relentlessy smear James Beals? I have checked out his website and read the weblogs.

He has a decent upbringing, good education, great values, and a resume that most people would envy. His parents are even Democrats.

Are they Jacobs campaign staff supporters, some extreme liberal left anonymous individuals or a 3rd party like Personal PAC that targets candidates who oppose their special interests? Perhaps a mixture of the above?

Mr. Beals has sustained hundreds of smear attempts on the multiple internet blogs and nothing sticks to West Pointer and rightfully so. It is a shame to attempt to smear such a good person.

My vote is for James Beals.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2006 12:23 PM

Mom for Beals, you understand that by his stance, Mr. Beals is only looking out for your rights as a parent and not necessarily the rights of your child. Using Mr. Beals logic, your child loses her ability to make a choice when she turns 18, even if she is raped.
I'm worried about a candidate that comes up with that line of thinking, but I'm even more concerned if someone actually thinks that is logical thought and would vote for such a candidate because of it.

Posted by: Anonymous? at October 4, 2006 01:59 PM

My opinion, abortion should be safe . . . legal . . . and very rare!

I am not thinking that the founding fathers considered abortion on demand a "right" . . . and while my personal viewpoint is one of choice . . . I really don't like seeing either side take extreme views . . .

How about we talk about the "right" to health care in general? That's got to be an issue that touches a much greater percentage of people than just the question of abortion.

Posted by: voice of reason at October 5, 2006 06:37 AM


What 'right' of a grown woman does Beals want to take away? Please be specific...

Posted by: havinfun at October 5, 2006 07:29 AM

I apologize to 'Voice of Reason' if I have ever taken the 'extreme view' of trying to protect innocent human life.

What is wrong with people?

Liberals will jump through hoops to protect the voting rights of illegal immigrants (who have no such right), the human rights of people trying to kill us, even the rights of a lab-rat, but God-forbid they consider a pre-born human being worthy of having equal rights to a lab-rat and they are considered to have an 'extreme view.'

Posted by: havinfun at October 5, 2006 10:51 AM

As a mother, I believe I should have the right to be notified that one of my minor children had an abortion.

More strongly, I feel that as a mother, parental consent should be required before my kids are allowed to have an abortion. My husband feels the same way.

Senator Jacobs views do not allow for this.

My vote is for James Beals.

Are you questioning my logic?

Posted by: Mom for Beals at October 5, 2006 12:15 PM

havinfun, what part of this don't you get?

Mr. Beals, the story says, believes abortion should be widely and legally available to anyone under 18, whose parents consent; but that it should be illegal for everyone over 18, even in cases of rape.

according to Beals it's okay for young girls to get abortions but not grown women (even if raped).

wonder what woman did him wrong for him to turn 18 into the magic number for abortion rights

Posted by: duh at October 5, 2006 12:51 PM


I see where you use this name ('duh').

I have not addressed Beals' position. I have posted twice, once directly to 'Betty', the second time directly to 'Voice of Reason.'

Beals' position is goofy. This does not change the reality of my post. Please read the 10:51 comment and try to respond with a little more reason...

Posted by: havinfun at October 5, 2006 01:35 PM

It's taken me a while to digest this, but now it seems that Beals position is not that unusual. What is missing in the commentary here is the quote in Reeder's article that says Beals view is that for adults, the only exception is if the woman's health is in danger. Hasn't this always been the case since the beginning of Roe v. Wade? True, subsequent liberal courts have construed "woman's health" to ridiculous levels, but the basic fact remains that Roe v. Wade allowed for abortions in the first trimester and also if the woman's health was in jeopardy. That abortion has been expanded to include late term abortion and non-parental notification just shows how powerful the abortion lobby has become, but it didn't start out that way.

And total parental control over minors, including for abortions is long overdue. Legally, parents are responsible totally for their minor children. But when did abortion become some sort of Sacred Rite where parents have no say? Can you imagine a minor attempting to get a doctor to do any other type of surgery without parental consent? I think even tattoos and piercings must have parent's consent. Who made abortion the Holy of Holies?

My guess is that practically everyone here knows parents with teenaged daughters who have become pregnant. It is so heartbreaking to see parents, who know their daughter is not capable of raising a child, having to acquiese to the daughter's wish to have the child, rather than have an abortion or relinquish the child for adoption. In some cases, it works out OK, but in other cases the daughter decides that babies just ain't that cute or interesting, to say nothing of being labor-intensive to the max, and so abandon their child for a more "normal" life of dates, parties, etc. Who is left holding the bag? Granny and Gramps, of course.

I do believe that parents should have ABSOLUTE control over their minor children without interference from NARAL.

Posted by: paladin at October 5, 2006 01:50 PM

I don't think I read anywhere that Jacobs thinks minors should get abortions without parental consent.

What bothers me about Beals is that it's okay for some people to have abortions but it's not okay for others. You can't pick and choose. It's either an option for ALL or for NONE.

Anything else makes Beals look like a flake.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2006 02:04 PM

Mom for Beals, I'm not questioning your logic about parental notification, but you understand that if, heaven forbid, your daughter gets raped and impregnated at 19, your candidate feels abortion would not be an option there. In most cases, people gain rights at 18. In Beals' world, women lose the right to make that choice at 18.
It's contradicting logic. I can respect arguments for pro-choice and pro-life, but Beals stance doesn't pass a logical stance. However, you're doing what he's hoping. He's thrown three stances into one hoping to be more appealing -- pro-life, pro-choice, parental notification -- and hoping people will latch on to one of them and vote for him. It's the same strategy as running as a Republican, but not saying he's a Republican on his website, only he was raised by conservative Democrats.

Posted by: Anonymous? at October 5, 2006 02:45 PM

This getting kinda gay.

Posted by: Randy at October 5, 2006 04:17 PM

I believe in magic ages.

When I turned 16 I could legally drive

When I turned 18 I could legally vote

When I turned 21 I could legally drink

When I turned 18, I could be tried as an adult for adult crimes, even younger for some. I this one of the legal rights I gained ANON?

Mr. Beals has very logical views and clearly draws the distinction between adults and minors.

Mike Jacobs views are for abortion as a private matter which under current law includes a 12 year old having an abortion (regardless of circumstance) without parental notification or parental consent. Well Mike, can you confirm that you have changed your views and support parental notification/consent or will you become the next target of PERSONAL PAC? Please confirm.

Don't worry he won't respond or will have some bozo say "I just talked to him on a cell phone and he said...." By the way Jacobs, where is your campaign office? Should people walk into your legislative office paid for by taxpayers dollars and ask for campaign signs?

I like how James Beals presents his views and how he provides the voters a choice. He makes sense to me in protecting parental responsibility and rights to raise their minor children while protecting children.

Bout the only thing flaky is son being appointed by the heavy influence of his father. I believe this is called nepotism which us registered voters do not like.

I will be voting for James Beals as our next elected Senator.

Posted by: Magic Ages at October 5, 2006 10:51 PM

What about the father's rights in the matter of abortion? Shouldn't they have a say? Why is it only the woman's choice? Because it's her body? Big deal. It's my child too.

Posted by: Lost child at October 6, 2006 09:24 AM

Dads rights begin as soon as that child is born, to include child support until age 18 even though at any point the mom can fool around, become a drunk/druggie, or the more politically correct version, more independent.

Maybe Beals can fix the court system next.

Posted by: Child Support at October 6, 2006 12:13 PM

We are excited to learn Beals favors "abortion on demand" for gilrs under 18 years of age, but we do not understand why Beal's isn't offering to provide this servie to women over 18 years of age? If a women that is over 18 years of age and got a "permission slip" from her parents, would she be able to get an abortion?

If Beals clears up the confusion, we in the Pro-Choice Movement would be pleased. Please advise.

Posted by: NARALsupporter321 at October 6, 2006 12:38 PM

Lost child brings up a good point. Where do the candidates stand on father's rights?

I'm nobody's father, but the unfairness of our laws regarding fathers and their rights is an abomination. Even married fathers cannot prevent their wives from having an abortion. If the father wants the child and mother doesn't, tough! The child gets aborted. If the mother wants the child, but the father does not think he is able to support a child to age 18, the mother wins and the father is stuck.

Who died and made the uterus the Sacred Vessel that all must bow before and worship?

Change, and a new attitude is needed here.

Posted by: paladin at October 6, 2006 12:57 PM

Abortion is not a crime. It's legal. Even to adult women. Imagine that. Magic ages, maybe you should try to remember the facts.

The fact I would like James Beals to address is why he is suing several bars and businesses over the jaw incident.

It's a matter of record, not a private matter as he onces responded.

That's politics. Your life is an open book/ I'm surprised you haven't brought this matter forth Mr. Beydler.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 6, 2006 04:50 PM

Beals family is democrats but james beals is a republican that says that his getting Judy Barr Topinka elected is his main focus.
If it walks like a republican and talks like a republican it is a republican.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 6, 2006 06:59 PM

Is Beals a Repulican?

Anon 4:50, where did you get your information from? Aren't pending civil lawsuits not available to the public?

You know Jacobs gets desperate when the broken jaw slang get thrown into a web string.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 7, 2006 10:59 AM

James Beals is the candidate for the republicans and Mike Jacobs won the nomination of the democrats and he is their candidate. He is not desperate and is not in a very contested race acording to Scott Reeder's article

Posted by: Anonymous at October 7, 2006 04:51 PM

Anon 4:51. By having 2 candidates, the voters have a choice and they will ultimately decide who their next Senator will be.

I was at an event this evening and ran into Mike and Denny Jacobs. As always, we shook hands, caught up on a few recent events, and left on good terms.

We previously agreed and will continue to run clean campaigns.

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at October 7, 2006 10:02 PM

Do you believe everything Scott Reeder says?

Newspaper reporting is about perspective, and I'm not sure that Scott, working down in Springfield, can really tell us here in the 36th Senate District what is happening in our own turf.

I'm personally hearing a growing number of voters who are disillusioned with Make Jacobs, many of them long time Democrat voters.

Considering the narrow margin of victory by Jacobs in the spring primary election, there is certainly a lot of unrest and dis-ease among traditional democrats about his candidacy.

Boland beat Ahern by 30 points two years ago and people said he was at risk because his base was deserting him, and now were supposed to believe that isn't true when "Big Mike Jacobs" narrowly beats an unknown who hadn't lived in the district real recently.

Posted by: camp_pain at October 8, 2006 10:42 AM

Jacobs beat Rumler a very good candidate that has a very good background. This is the same election cycle that gave us some very big upsets such as Huff and Tinsman. Jacobs beat him by over ten points and is now in a very tough race from a very good Republican challenger. Beals is a much better candidate than either Haring or Zinga. Better educated and better in most ways. Jacobs winning the nomination, and if he prevails in this General election challenge will show the desire of the electorarte tword Mike Jacobs as the new style of leadership that we need in this area. I think that Rumler would make a great State Rep candidate after this cycle for Boland's seat after Boland hangs it up. Beals woud do well running against Hare rather than an old washed up newscaster that spouts racist values. This is the way that I see things shaping up.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 8, 2006 10:29 PM

I think that it is nice that these two men are running clean campaigns. It is nice to hear candidates putting this anon internet stuff aside. Good luck to both men.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 9, 2006 08:39 AM

Those BEALS billboards sure do look good.

I wonder what is next?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 9, 2006 12:10 PM


Posted by: matter of record at October 9, 2006 12:20 PM

I beleive all conversation about Bolands spot is moot for antoher couple of terms, but when it comes up, I think all conversation will include Ahern and or McNeil. I truely appreciate when things don't always go ones way, how these two have remained very active and earnest about good candidates in our party, even in this election cycle. Vicki Wright was a surprise primary victor, and now she is poised to win the general, with both these men helping her. Rumler, I beleive lives in Verschoores neck of the woods, so he could be a good fit there for the future, if he chooses. I just hope Ahern learned his lesson and raises some money though next time. You can be a good candidate, have a good message and present it well, but if you can't get that message out, well, we saw what happened to him. Anyway, it is good to have some young people still active and still involved. It gives people my age hope that our party will remain strong for another 40 years locally.

Posted by: retiring soon at October 9, 2006 12:38 PM

I don't think Beals should be suing the very people that he wants to represent.

Posted by: NARALsupporter321 at October 9, 2006 02:08 PM

I don't think liberals should be aborting the very people they want to represent.

Posted by: paladin at October 10, 2006 02:03 PM

I agree paladin. That is what is so upsetting about James Beals being Pro-Choice. Now there is no Pro-Life candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 09:22 AM

9:22, what is your definition of Pro-Life? Do you mean that all abortions should be outlawed, including abortion to save the life of the mother?

Posted by: paladin at October 11, 2006 03:14 PM

I agree paladin, I am glad that James Beals is the pro-life candidate and Mike Jacobs is clearly identified as the liberal left pro-choice candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 05:01 PM

James Beals is for abortion on demand for women that are under 18 years of age. If you think that that is Pro-Life then are you for using those unborn fetus for stem cell research or not. That would have been a great question for Scott Reeder to ask Beals.
If you are for killing one unborn baby you are Pro-Choice for life.

James Beals is a Pro-Choice candidate. Face the facts. Spin all you want it is plain to see. As strange as his stance is James Beals is a Pro-Choice candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2006 09:43 AM

Beals is for abortion for those under 18. What is pro life about that??

Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2006 09:46 AM

Mike Jacobs liberal? Try again.

Jacobs has been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Retail Merchants, Illinois Manufacturers, anti-tax groups and the NRA. That doesn't seem liberal to me? In an attempt to supplment your weak argument, please define what liberal and conservative means to you?

For instance, is it liberal or conservative to spend our childrens money (taxpayer funds) on a vain war for oil? Is that what you mean by liberal? Is it conservative to control the body of another person? Please explain yourself, as you keep making these odd staments that don't mean anything to people other than Rusty "Call me a junky" Linbaugh. Is haviung your maid by drugs for you conservative or liberal?

If anything, Sen. Mike Jacobs is middle of the road.

Posted by: NARALsupporter321 at October 12, 2006 10:10 AM

I have noticed that James Beals has chosen not to attend speaker forums/debates. I know web sites are effective but debates seem to be a good idea for challengers. The meeting took place at 6:30 pm and was sponsored by The RI County Medical Society. The debate had a Hare representative, Jacobs, and Boland for the democratic side. On the republican side was Zinga and Haring. Beals was once again a no show and had no representation. What is going on with all of these missed events.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2006 03:24 PM

Just before the Election began in earnest, Mr. Beals accepted a six-figure position with Kress Corporation. At Kress, Mr. Beals attends high-level trade meetings and travels the world. Given the gravity of his current situation one cannot possibly fault Mr. Beals for keeping his nose to the grind stone.

During the Summer months Mr. Beals attended every political and social event imaginable. In addtion, Mr. Beals marched in every parade no matter how large or small, and worked diligently to raise the necessary funds. Rather, than fear Sen. Jacobs, Mr. Beals is simply too busy to effectively mount a tier-one effort.

Over his life, Mr. Beals has proven time and time again to be a winner. Election night generally reveal clear winners and losers, but on November 8, 2006, there will be no loser in the race for 36th District state Senate seat!

I respect Mr. Beals. He is a credit to his family, community and employer. Perhaps when Mr. Beals is more secure in his new found position, he will run once again. For I belive he ha smuch to offer our County. Until that time I respect Mr. Beals' commitment to do his best. Running for public office is not an easy task.

Posted by: TheBigDog at October 12, 2006 10:26 PM

Interesting, BigDog--pretty good consolation speech. Has the writing been on the wall for a while? If your analysis is correct, then once again the choice was money over service. It's a clear trend that spans two decades.

Posted by: Duty, Honor, Country at October 13, 2006 03:48 PM

Mr. Beydler, this string is getting a little interesting and dramatic.

I plan to run again in 2008 either as a candidate or an incumbent since the seat is up for re-election in 2008.

My focus remains on 2006.

I will continue to show my support for Judy and I offer the voters a viable choice for their State Senator.

The voters will decide.

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at October 13, 2006 09:32 PM

I was hoping that the Big Dog had it right. Since he doesn't, I am interested in why you choose to miss all of the speaking events where you could face off with Jacobs in debate style. I find it hard to believe that you are unavailable for the four events that have taken place so far? Please advise.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 11:22 PM

ANON, 13 October, 11:22 PM.

I would like to know how you know the person under the anonymous blog name "TheBigDog" is a he?

Please advise.

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate, 36th District

Posted by: James Beals at October 14, 2006 08:13 PM

Mr. Beydler why won't you leave my response to Me Beals.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 17, 2006 04:59 PM

Anon 04:59 PM -- only response i've seen was some juvenile stuff about a fire hydrant. who needs it?

Posted by: jcb at October 17, 2006 06:02 PM

I left a response to Mr. Beals about in the day when I went to school that when gender was not specified that it was given the masculine He. I do know that now the politically correct term is he/she and that from now and in the future that I will use the politically correct term he/she when refering to the unknown gender of a person. I did go on to say that I think that he is going off the deap end asking this question. I feel that this process must be making him paranoid to even ask such a question. I would also like to ask you Mr. Beydler why you would post such an odd question on this site. It doesn't seem any less odd than the dog answer that I left after you wouldn't post my original responser that mirrored my comments here?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 17, 2006 09:59 PM

As usual Beals doesn't answer your question. But as part of his covert operation, to throw you off the trail, he asks YOU a question. Ah, grasshopper. You will learn. You will learn.

Posted by: girl scout at October 18, 2006 11:39 AM

Why is Mr. Beals able to continuously post on the blogs but is never available to debate. Serioulsy Beals...you should get out of that basement, stop starting fights at bars, quit quitting jobs, quit blogging, and join the real world- in case you missed it it is 2006

Posted by: moonguy at October 18, 2006 04:27 PM

I went to the forum on education at the Moline library tonight. What a show. Boland and Haring did not disappoint. Haring's major theme being that he will work with his fellow legislators and that he will lead the area. He also said that he would not be involved in the pay for play political game that is a theme for his opponent. Boland snapped back with his work for education. He stated that he was a teacher and that he knows the issues. Boland went on to say all that he has done to keep utility rates low.
The highlight of the evening was James Beals showing up an hour and a half late to the event looking out of place. He went on to say that he was a working man and didn't have time to run for politics. He then went on to say that he is really a democrat but for the fact that he lost a child that was aborted by one of his lady friends. This was a little bit more information than we in the audiance needed to know. He said that he didn't have a say in the matter and that now he is a republican and favors abortions for anyone under 18 but is against them under any circumstances for those over 18. He then went on to say that he understands Boland's plight with the scholarship issue as he was awarded his scholarship to West Point from Lane Evans. Jacobs was quick to point out that Beals turned his back on Lane Evans with an editorial speaking out against the then young congresman Evans after recieving this scholarship. Jacobs was solid on the he and Boland starting the early childhood education and had some good points about alternative financing of a riverfront campus if traditional financing is not passed in the capital budget. It was a fantastic night for we the people to see these candidates face of in public.

Posted by: Education first at October 18, 2006 09:52 PM

Well Mike, lets get it on!

Good Luck!

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate
36th District

Posted by: James Beals at October 19, 2006 10:43 AM

Mr. Beals,

Are you assuming that Education First is Senator Mike Jacobs? Why would you ASS U ME that?

I am asking seriously.

I hope you really didn't say you didn't have time to be running for politics.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2006 02:24 PM

Let's get it on?

Is that sexual in context?

Or did you mean "Let's tie one on" as let's go get drunk and have someone punch us!?"

Posted by: disturbed at October 19, 2006 02:30 PM

Whenever Beals is confronted with hard facts, he seems to want to fight. One would think after the fight at Hollars Bar, Beals would have learned his lesson! Violence is not the answer!

Posted by: TheBigDog at October 19, 2006 02:40 PM

James Beals is so busy with his work that he showed up late and unprepared for the forum last night. However he has time to start with this nonsence today. Maybe he should have chosen the day of the forum to prepare and be on time to it rather that be on the blog asking for a rumble.
I am not Mike or have Mike anywhere in my name so try again Mr. Beals. There were 50 of us at the forum and if you would like to state your position about unprotected sex with someone that is not your wife and parental responsability I would love to hear it. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Education first at October 19, 2006 05:20 PM

I saw this forum and it was great to see Beals and Jacobs act in a positive manner during the debate. Now to See Beals and these anons fighting is a bad sign. I am partial to clean campaigns. Beals needs to let this roll off of his back and not start with the negatives. If he is to have a chance he needs to stay above this mess.

Posted by: Joan H. at October 20, 2006 08:40 AM

What is wrong with this Beals guy...first the jaw now the personal comments about his personal buisness...

WOW>...Stop while you seem sane Beals

Posted by: Bigdog at October 20, 2006 08:51 PM

It is nice to see an election where both men are not attacking each other with silly ads that distort and attack the others views. I hope that they keep their campaigns positive. Boland and Haring are both a negative blight on the process. I understand the non of the above for such negative people.

Posted by: Pat at October 21, 2006 08:31 AM


Based upon the above recent blog posts, it appears that a little tyrant had a little tantrum.

I am glad that I voted FOR James M. Beals as our next elected Senator today.

Posted by: Registered Voter at October 25, 2006 01:54 PM

When you said litle tyrant, you were referring to Beals, right? I didn't see anything from Jacobs, just Beals running his mouth again. Not at an actual debate, of course, just on the blog behind the security of his keyboard.

Posted by: Anonymous? at October 26, 2006 09:35 AM

Nice try "Anonymous?" blogger.

Mr. Beydler, with such few days left before the election, this will be my last post.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate.

James M. Beals, State Senate Candidate
36th District

Posted by: James Beals at October 26, 2006 06:58 PM

I think that this is a wise decision Beals. Your comments have been bizare for sure. This abortion idea is an area that you will have to improve on for the next time you decide to run for office. Keep on pluggin. We need the youth to be involved in polotics. Next time you may want to shoot for mayor or precinct committeeman.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:18 PM

Why did Beals even run for office? What a waste of a Republican nominee.

James Beals has been quitting before the finishing the job for years. Nothing new here. That's why the only accomplishments on his resume are his college diploma and his Boy Scout record. Not much to run on.

Just take the billboards down now, James, so a real candidate can use them.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 30, 2006 08:42 AM

Get real 10:18pm, why should anyone follow your advice? Did either Lane Evans or Phil Hare run for mayor or committeeman? No, HELL no. Lane and Phil knew which political butts to smooch and so went straight to the top without running for election of any kind.

Evans and Hare reached the big-time without working up through the ranks. What ambitious Democrat would put themselves through elections when @ass-kissing is so much easier?

If Beals is smart, he will declare himself a Democrat and start @ss-kissing like crazy. It's the easiest and only way to win in RICO.

Posted by: paladin at October 30, 2006 01:35 PM

You attack against Beal is wide of the mark. Anyone who would have run against Sen. Jacobs him would have suffered the same fate as Beal. Fact it, Jacobs is a very strong general election candidate!


Posted by: Funinthesun at October 30, 2006 02:11 PM

Beals - 51.4%
Jacobs - 48.6%

I sure do like those billboards Mr. Beals, the locations are excellent.


Posted by: Good Days Coming at November 5, 2006 12:24 PM

Jacobs Comercials are great. I like that he has run such a great clean campaign. Both camps can be proud of the effort.

Jacobs 53%
Beals 46%

Posted by: Anonymous at November 5, 2006 07:26 PM

You really think a guy that has been "too busy" to show up for debates and campaign has a chance of winning? Please. Beals is a complete fraud. That was pointed out early in the campaign. I'm sure the letter planted in the D/A by a neighbor about a time when Jimmy was a kid swayed a lot of voters.

Posted by: FMC at November 5, 2006 09:12 PM