Annapolis, MD (January 21, 2011) - Maryland’s Senate Republicans today affirmed that they are out of touch and out of new ideas by choosing Nancy Jacobs to lead their dwindling State Senate caucus. This move is especially surprising considering that Jacobs was recently ousted as Minority Whip in the aftermath of a disastrous November for Senate Republicans.
After Senator Allan Kittleman failed the Senate GOP litmus test to remain minority leader, Senator David Brinkley - who ran against Jacobs - has similarly flunked. Rather than come together to help move Maryland forward, the elections of Jacobs and E.J. Pipkin personify the Republican establishment’s unwillingness to build consensus in Annapolis.
Nancy Jacobs is wedded to positions that are far-right, divisive and out of the mainstream. Jacobs voted no on allowing judges to confiscate firearms from domestic abuse suspects in 2009 (HB 302). In 2007, she voted against the indoor smoking ban (SB 91) and the living wage (HB 430). In 2009 while the country was in the midst of an economic crisis, Jacobs was one of only nine state senators to vote against extending state unemployment benefits (HB 310).
In these tough times, Marylanders need their elected leaders to come together to make progress on their behalf. However, Maryland Republicans still haven’t learned the lessons of November 2010. The recent selections of Alex Mooney and Nancy Jacobs may sell in Sarah Palin’s Alaska, but Marylanders will see it as the hard-right turn that they rejected on Election Day.
Editors Note: I'll just keep my mouth shut and let comments do their thing. However, that's not easy.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
9 comments:
I have no problems with what she voted for, except I think that she should have voted to allow judges to confiscate the guns. NOW, I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone, but if you are accused/convicted of domestic abuse you shouldn't own a gun. Yes, even if you are found "not guilty." Not guilty is not the same as "innocent." It means "we don't have quite enough to nail your butt to the wall." Usually in cases of domestic violence, where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm saying this, and I'm a Libertarian.
Sorry lady, but I have to disagree with the "not guilty." Sometimes people accused really are not guilty of the crime. Of course, you are completely right that sometimes if does mean not enough evidence, but I can't agree with the blanket statement.
True, and maybe I shouldn't make blanket statements, but in my experience, there are more guilty than innocent.
Sorry LadyLib we may not agree with the jury, but "We" don't get to say whose guilty, the jury does. Making the effect of an accusation the same as a conviction (regarding gun ownership) would mean no one could own a gun if someone in authority decided the didn't want them to and could then just accuse them.
On another topic: what is a living wage, who decides it, and who has to pay it. In these tough times Marylanders need their elected leaders to come together and make it more difficult for small businesses to hire people. Is that what you meant?
Jim
If you're going to cry then do your homework. Brinkley (and Kittleman for that matter) all voted voted against HB302 in 2009, against SB91 in 2007, and HB430 in 2007. Brinkley did vote for HB310, but Kittleman did not.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/votes/senate/0796.htm
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/votes/senate/1004.htm
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/votes/senate/1099.htm
In other words you have said Nancy Jacobs is far right like Sarah Palin's Alaska while citing examples of her votes that matched Allan Kittleman's votes. And after 3 out of 4 of the same votes matched Brinkley.
Her far right, extremist, views will keep Maryland turned off to the republicans.
Joe, this reads ALOT like the Democratic Party's press release on yesterday's events. Is that what this is?
James said...
Sorry LadyLib we may not agree with the jury, but "We" don't get to say whose guilty, the jury does. Making the effect of an accusation the same as a conviction (regarding gun ownership) would mean no one could own a gun if someone in authority decided the didn't want them to and could then just accuse them.
On another topic: what is a living wage, who decides it, and who has to pay it. In these tough times Marylanders need their elected leaders to come together and make it more difficult for small businesses to hire people. Is that what you meant?
Jim
10:08 PM
James, on a similar note, what is your opinion on people that have been under court-ordered psychiatric hospitalization? They haven't been arrested or accused of any crime, yet in some states, they are banned from ever owning a gun. If they wanted their gun rights back, they have to go to court. Is this fair? Why or Why not?
So what's the verdict? Are Kittleman and Brinkley far right because of the examples you posted? If you're going to level accusations then do it with some accuracy and less gusto.
Post a Comment