Brubaker's ruse
#1
Posted 12 May 2008 - 09:50 AM
| QUOTE |
| Brubaker's ruse By Gil Smart 5/12/08 9:50 AM So, I've held off commenting on this, state Sen. Mike Brubaker's withdrawal of his Keep The Ga |
Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.
#2
Posted 12 May 2008 - 10:17 AM
Find me a politician with those same thoughts, and he/she will have one voter for life.
Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
#3
Posted 12 May 2008 - 10:46 AM
Folmer always mentions that he was a founder of this group:
Constitutional Organization of Lebanon
This group from Lebanon County, with the acronym COOL, is described in other sources as a "community-wide educational project designed to promote awareness of America's founding principles" and also as "a political-action committee to promote civic involvement in governmental affairs."
hmmm, well, not exactly...As part of their 16-hour educational package, COOL uses a set of videos called "The Institute On The Constitution." The IOTC claims that it educates folks to the real intentions of the founding fathers.
Actually, it is a fringe interpretation of history and the constitution. The IOTC was produced as part of Michael Petrouak's failed 2004 Presidential campaign under the Constitution Party. It is a very Christian right-wing biased view of history. It is, in my opinion, BAD history. Its claim is that the founding fathers used the Bible as their primary doctrine in their creation of the Constitution and that their intention was that all of our laws and ruling ideals should stem from the Bible and that we should all adhere to their original intentions (and therefore, the Bible) forever.
It only takes a quick look on-line to figure out the bias of this view. It is very easy to Google all the "scholars" that appear in the IOTC.
Go ahead, take a minute and look 'em up. Not exactly mainstream academia.
Sorry, Senator Folmer, I don't believe this type of BAD history. Keep your religion out of my life...and thank you, Senator Brubaker for waking me up. I wouldn't have ever bothered looking at this had it not been for your bill. Most of all, thank you for dropping the bill.
#5
Posted 12 May 2008 - 10:51 AM
It’s more probable that Sen Brubaker being a rookie was handed the Amendment ball to carry for that reason alone.
It’s interesting to note that while Hill and Boomer are fighting for the hearts and minds of the blue collar democratic voter they never mention what they would do for the down trodden gay community. Why is that Gil?
We already know the answer; they will not get the hearts and minds (or votes) of that segment of the Democratic party if they support gay’s so called right to marry.
#6
Posted 12 May 2008 - 11:44 AM
It's more probable that Sen Brubaker being a rookie was handed the Amendment ball to carry for that reason alone.
It's interesting to note that while Hill and Boomer are fighting for the hearts and minds of the blue collar democratic voter they never mention what they would do for the down trodden gay community. Why is that Gil?
We already know the answer; they will not get the hearts and minds (or votes) of that segment of the Democratic party if they support gay's so called right to marry.
What a brilliant observation, LDB. It took you this long to figure that out?
Dr. Seuss
#7
Posted 12 May 2008 - 11:57 AM
#8
Posted 12 May 2008 - 12:21 PM
- Andrew Jackson, in his Farewell Address, 1837
#9
Posted 12 May 2008 - 01:33 PM
Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.
I think Brubaker believes in the issue and wanted to make an effort, even if it was bound to fail.
Brubaker has no need to appeal to voters with this legislation. He's virtually assured a second, third and fourth term in Harrisburg. The power of incumbency and the incumbent protection plan in Harrisburg will keep him in office as long he wants.
The only opponents he'll have will be Democrats, and they'll have no chance to defeat him in a general election, not in his district.
#10
Posted 12 May 2008 - 01:54 PM
I think Brubaker believes in the issue and wanted to make an effort, even if it was bound to fail.
Brubaker has no need to appeal to voters with this legislation. He's virtually assured a second, third and fourth term in Harrisburg. The power of incumbency and the incumbent protection plan in Harrisburg will keep him in office as long he wants.
The only opponents he'll have will be Democrats, and they'll have no chance to defeat him in a general election, not in his district.
Why is it that neither Brubaker nor Folmer puts any information or updates about the amendment on their own websites? I think you are right. They do "believe" in the issue, but even if they thought it was going to fail, if it was merely "belief in the issue" that inspired them, you would think that they would spend at least a little bit of time and effort and included an issue in which they believed in their updates and blogs, etc.
No, I think Gil is right, they knew it was never going to pass and had other motivations. It was a ruse.
#11
Posted 12 May 2008 - 02:02 PM
#12
Posted 12 May 2008 - 02:16 PM
Here in PA?
We are talking about PA, in case you didn't know.
#13
Posted 12 May 2008 - 02:28 PM
#14
Posted 12 May 2008 - 02:33 PM
No kidding what was your 1st clue?
Will you say the same thing later this year or next year when the Amendment is put forward again? Unlike Hill’s ˝ rearend gas tax thing, the Amendment is not a gimmick, it will be put foreword until it’s adopted, because the ultimate goal is its passing.
when did we start talking about race?
#15
Posted 12 May 2008 - 02:42 PM
No kidding what was your 1st clue?
Will you say the same thing later this year or next year when the Amendment is put forward again? Unlike Hill's ˝ rearend gas tax thing, the Amendment is not a gimmick, it will be put foreword until it's adopted, because the ultimate goal is its passing.
when did we start talking about race?







Sign In
Register
Help
MultiQuote




