Fulk "Distorting the Facts?"
The DNR has a few articles on attendance records of Fulk and Lohr today. They are here and here. The second one points out how Matt Lohr's school board attendance record is in fact better than Fulk's ad implies. His ad only uses the 2004 year and says Lohr missed 37.5% of the meetings. Lohr has actually attended 80% of his meetings since joining the school board (he has been there since 2002).
For those of you who don't know, Matt has a speaking business that he travels around the country for. Many of these speaking engagements are scheduled far in advance, so most of his missed meetings were special meetings that were scheduled a week or less in advance.
Folks, I have said since the beginning that I am not enthused about Matt missing any meetings, but that is still no reason to vote for someone who doesn't believe what you believe. Matt believes in what all our other valley legislators believe in and what the valley voters believe in: that we didn't need the tax increase, we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, we need to make govenment smaller, not larger.
The 26th district should not vote for Lowell Fulk, just because he has a better school board attendance record. The campaigns has been saying for people to decide based on the facts.
Well the fact is that Matt will do a better job of representing the valley.
Lowell Fulk will have to listen to the democratic party since Mark Warner has funded his campaign with $25,000.
Matt will also listen to his party, the party of Steve Landes, Chris Saxman, Ben Cline, Morgan Griffith, etc. These are the people who always vote for the valley.
Now I ask you, who would you rather have defending the valley, Mark Warner or the Valley Republicans?
For those of you who don't know, Matt has a speaking business that he travels around the country for. Many of these speaking engagements are scheduled far in advance, so most of his missed meetings were special meetings that were scheduled a week or less in advance.
Folks, I have said since the beginning that I am not enthused about Matt missing any meetings, but that is still no reason to vote for someone who doesn't believe what you believe. Matt believes in what all our other valley legislators believe in and what the valley voters believe in: that we didn't need the tax increase, we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, we need to make govenment smaller, not larger.
The 26th district should not vote for Lowell Fulk, just because he has a better school board attendance record. The campaigns has been saying for people to decide based on the facts.
Well the fact is that Matt will do a better job of representing the valley.
Lowell Fulk will have to listen to the democratic party since Mark Warner has funded his campaign with $25,000.
Matt will also listen to his party, the party of Steve Landes, Chris Saxman, Ben Cline, Morgan Griffith, etc. These are the people who always vote for the valley.
Now I ask you, who would you rather have defending the valley, Mark Warner or the Valley Republicans?
posted by GOPHokie @ 10:41 AM
23 Comments:
At 10/05/2005 11:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
That's what concerns us ... that Matt will listen to his party. We want someone who thinks for himself AND shows up. You continue to underestimate Lowell's work ethic and independence, neither of which are Matt's strengths. Matt doesn't get it. He's proud of 85 percent attendance. Please.
At 10/05/2005 12:49 PM,
GOPHokie said…
you folks continue to underestimate the value of a $25,000 donation by a democratic governor.
You don't go against that kinda money, I dont care how much Fulk thinks for himself.
If he wins, I guess everyone will hafta find out the hard way what we have been saying.
At 10/05/2005 12:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
you forgot to point out that while Fulk truthfully declared that Lohr missed 40% of the meetings in 2004, Lohr, has lied about his astounding 85% attendance rating. The DNR pointed out that he in fact only attended 79% of the meetings. So while Fulk made a truthful statement that someone might believe represents Lohr's total attendance record, Lohr outright lied.
Which valley value does lying represent. Is the fact that a politician lies about one thing not enough to disqualify him because he claims to support other issues that you support. Is there anything that Lohr could do that would disqualify him from your vote? Is character so unimportant and partisanship so important that it trumps all other issues?
The three issues that you cite seem to have no relevance. Lohr has not proposed a repeal of the tax reform plan, nor has he proposed any reduction in government size.
This leaves the constitutional amendment, however, gay marriage is already illegal. The only way that Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned is if it is done by the Virginia Supreme Court, The Fourth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. The first two courts are controled by Republican appointees and would never overturn this law. If the Supremes do it the constitutional amendment won't matter. So who cares? Why is this an issue? Only because it is favored by the uninformed and the bigots. Now that's a Valley Value we can all be proud of.
At 10/05/2005 1:20 PM,
GOPHokie said…
I guess it sounds like we have a pretty bad list of candidates huh.
One is a liar and the other just won't support what we support.
Maybe we should start a write-in candidacy for someone.
Any takers?
At 10/05/2005 1:23 PM,
Anonymous said…
Yes, GOPhokie, if Lowell wins, the Valley will become a hellhole just like the whole state is now, thanks to Mark Warner. I'll take his leadership anyday over the most recent Republican governor's, and I know many Republicans who feel the same way.
And prolife Dem, everything you said is right on the money. The obsession with gay marriage is embarrassing to moderates like us. I really, really hate it when right wingers like Lohr start spouting off about "Valley values," as if those of us who don't agree with their bigotry are morally depraved.
One day we'll be as appalled about this nutty anti-gay stuff as we are about segregation. Hope I live to see it. Maybe, just maybe, the days of Republicans playing to their far right base with being to win elections are coming to an end.
At 10/05/2005 1:36 PM,
Anonymous said…
saywhat?
don't get me wrong, I am opposed to gay marriage, its just why make something double illegal? Isn't being illegal enough? Given the judicial area we live in, why do we need the amendment? The answer is we don't, it's a political ploy that plays to people's prejudice and its a distraction from the issues that actually matter.
At 10/05/2005 2:21 PM,
GOPHokie said…
saywhat, I appreciate your comments. You show exactly what we are talking about.
Fulk doesn't think (and neither do you) that social issues matter. Its just "Republican grandstanding".
Thats where you are wrong. We believe in this stuff. We believe gays should not be allowed to marry. We believe abortion is wrong and should be outlawed.
You are more than entitled to believe otherwise, that is your right. But we want people to be elected that understand how we feel and that will fight to protect our beliefs.
Matt Lohr is that person, and Lowell Fulk is not.
You certainly have good reasons to vote for Fulk, Lohr isn't for everyone.
But if you believe that social issues like gay marriage and abortion are important, you should vote for Matt Lohr b/c he understands those issues are important to Valley residents, and we want our voice heard.
At 10/05/2005 2:22 PM,
Anonymous said…
I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the use of percentages to make this point. It would probably sound not so bad if they said "Lohr missed X number of meetings." Additionally, Lohr has an outside job in addition to running the farm, Fulk does NOT. And as far as this election goes, nobody knew for certain that Glenn would retire, and anyone and everyone thought John Elledge would be the nominee when he did.
At 10/05/2005 2:24 PM,
GOPHokie said…
pro-life dem, there is still alot of debate on what will occur in relation to gay marriage.
A supreme court decision could come in many ways. It could say (as Roe v Wade did) that gay marriage is allowed everywhere and its a federal issue.
If that happens you are correct, nothing the GA does can change that.
Another possibility is that the SC say its a state issue and that states must ban it in their constitutions. In which case, we would already be done with the issue.
We are trying to prevent a problem down the road if at all possible.
At 10/05/2005 2:41 PM,
Anonymous said…
hokie,
the problem with the we need an amendment just in case argument is this. If the SC throws it back to the states we are covered, its outlawed. The SC can't and never has said that a state must do something in its Constitution.
While I agree that the issues or abortion and gay marriage are important. (At least they are to me). What I don't understand is how Lohr or Fulk can do anything about it. What law permitted under the current intrepretation of the Constitution has not been passed. Abortion is decided at a different level of government. Fulk knows this and is trying to focus the attention on removing the obstacles to choosing life. Creating the "culture of life" is more than passing anti-abortion laws, it is creating the framework where women can choose to have their babies. The way I see it, neither Lohr nor Fulk will change anything about the legality of abortion, but only one is talking about how to reduce the number of abortions within the framework imposed by the SC.
You're smart, I know you realize this, so why vote on 2 issues when the person you're voting for doesn't have the power to change those two issues. It would be different in a presidential or even senatorial race. Basic logic would suggest that weighing these two issues so heavily makes no sense in this particular election. Everything else is speculation of a very unlikely situation.
At 10/05/2005 3:57 PM,
Megan said…
MATT LOHR SAID A YEAR AGO THAT HE WAS PLANNING TO RUN. HE TOLD ELLEDGE AND HE ALLUDEDTO IT IN PRINT.
At 10/05/2005 4:38 PM,
GOPHokie said…
Where did Matt allude to running?
I never saw or heard it if he did.
PLD, I agree with your assessment especially on abortion, which is why I haven't really said much about it. The GA basically has no control over it. I dunno what Fulk has proposed to help curb abortions that hasn't already been done.
The gay marriage issue is basically to ensure it is always illegal. Slavery abolition was put in the constitution to ensure it never happened and thats what this amendment is for.
The gay marriage issue has come up due to the fact it will be voted on and people want to know how the two will vote.
The abortion question has come up with the possibility of a SC overturn of Roe v Wade (but the way Bush is appointing people that will never happen).
Another reason these issues have come up is the lack of any other campaign issues. Lohr has pointed out that Fulk supported the tax increase and he opposes it, but that is about the only other issue out there. Unfortunately, most people dont even know taxes were increased.
At 10/05/2005 6:56 PM,
Anonymous said…
Now you ask, who would you rather have defending the valley, Mark Warner or the Valley Republicans?
Well, jeez, Mark Warner.
Duh.
At 10/05/2005 9:58 PM,
GOPHokie said…
Well that may be your opinion anon, but see what the Valley voters as a whole think.
At 10/06/2005 7:42 AM,
Anonymous said…
GOPHokie,
It's not that social issues aren't important, it's that there is way, way more out there to think about, and that the far right -- as pro-life dem says -- distracts us from thinking about things other than gay marriage or abortion. There are roads and schools and health care and the environment.
You've said GA could have little control over gay marriage and abortion. So I think that voting on ONLY those issues doesn't serve anyone well, when there is so much else going on.
I believe those issues are often used by candidates to get voters to the polls, voters who have not informed themselves on all the issues. I'm not saying that's totally what's happening in this election, but the "Valley values" talk reaks of superiority and draws the Bushlike lines of "you're either with me or you're not."
I think Lowell probably thinks very much like you, GOPHokie, about these social issues, he just sees that government is so much more.
At 10/06/2005 9:06 AM,
GOPHokie said…
First off, quit saying "the far right". Over 60% of all Americans are opposed to gay marriage, so its not just the "far right" who is against it.
Fulk is not just opposed to our beliefs on social issues, its on fiscal policy. He supported the tax increase. Now you saywhat may agree with that, I dont know, but most Valley residents didn't (hence all the valley reps except Hanger voted against it).
Fulk also has never tried to say he is for smaller government. He talks about the same stuff all dems talk about: healthcare and education.
That always means more money and more government.
Social issues are used b/c most people know where they stand on them. Its used by ALL politicans when it benefits them.
At 10/06/2005 11:45 AM,
Anonymous said…
AMEN GOP HOKIE!
At 10/06/2005 12:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
OK, I'll amend "far right" to just "the right."
Being against gay marriage and having it be something you base an entire election on or think should take a second of the GA time, when it's already illegal, are two different things.
Besides health care and education, Fulk is big on transportation and the environment, too.
And where do you get that most Valley residents disagreed with the much-needed budget compromise of 2004, the one that helped garner Virginia "best managed state" status? Was there polling done? Have we had any GA elections since then?
If Fulk wins, does that mean that more voters favor a tax increase? Of course not. It might mean, though, that they understand we have to pay for roads, schools, etc. some way. Sure there's pork to cut. But enough to pay for what needs to be paid for?
At 10/06/2005 3:31 PM,
Politicl.Animal said…
GOPHokie, you said, "Fulk also has never tried to say he is for smaller government. He talks about the same stuff all dems talk about: healthcare and education. That always means more money and more government."
That's funny, because Republican candidates also talk about health care and education. Does that mean they are also for more money and more government?
In a way, yes. If we impose caps on medical malpractice suits, insurance companies will be less likely to settle out of court, and will fight more cases, tying up the court system and costing the taxpayers money. If we give money to private schools through vouchers (without cutting public education funding), we still need to make sure that money is being spent well. The schools need to be accountable. That means government oversight of private schools.
Of course, if you're saying the government shouldn't keep private schools accountable for how they spend public money, why do we have to keep public schools accountable? Hypocritical, if you ask me.
So unless Republicans are going to do nothing about health care and education, like they used to, you should get ready for there being more money and more government involvement in these areas.
At 10/06/2005 4:08 PM,
GOPHokie said…
I think Republicans are as bad as dems for spending money.
Smaller government mean not doing anymore than we already do, i.e. Kaine wanting to make a statewide 4 years old program.
That is expanding the gov't b/c we didn't used to do that.
Spending more money on the same thing is not expanding the gov't, its just expanding the size, not scope.
There is a difference.
Even so,you 2 both make good points about that issue.
At 10/06/2005 4:09 PM,
GOPHokie said…
I believe most Republicans are for minimizing the scope of gov't, the size part went out the window pretty soon after we gained power, unfortunately.
At 10/07/2005 10:06 AM,
GOPHokie said…
I agree, but don't comdemn people for something the rest of us aren't willing to overturn.
I believe in being accountable, that means everyone.
If we are going to criticize Hanger, Scott, Nutter and all the other tax raisers, then we should be putting forth legislation to overturn the tax increase.
At 12/03/2012 10:13 PM,
Anonymous said…
@earlboykins Nice hearing you DJ Sat. No idea if you remember but we met in Providence light years ago.
------------------------------------------------------
icamtech.com|[url=http://icamtech.com/led_light_bars]led lamps[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_Downlights]Led downlights[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_flood_light]led flood lights[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_panel]led grow panel[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_light_bulbs]led light bulbs[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home