Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Lohr Strikes Back

The DNR has an article today about Matt Lohr's new ad. It basically says that the ad accuses Fulk of being opposed to the gay marriage amendment, being in favor of a tax increase and in favor of automatically restoring felon voting rights.
Now it's the Fulk campaign saying his opponent is "distorting the facts".
Fulk claims he doesn't support automatic voting rights restoration, even though thats what the Democratic platform of Virginia says (which Fulk co-authored).
Fulk is opposed to the marriage amendment on the grounds that it is not needed (its already illegal for a gay couple to marry in Virginia).
Fulk also says he is only in favor of a tax increase on the sales tax to increase transportation funding, even though he supported the 2004 tax increase; which has only been partially used for transportation funding (all of which was in NOVA).
My favorite quote from the article is:
"Basically, what they’re saying in the ad is a total distortion," Fulk, 47, said.
Where is the distortion Mr. Fulk?

18 Comments:

  • At 10/06/2005 9:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Whether you are for or against gay marriage is really not the point. The fact is that the Constitution now recognizes that a marriage legalized in one state is legal in another. If one man and one woman marry in Maine and go to Nevada, they are still legally married. As it stands today, there is gay marriage in MA. However you feel about it, it is there and it is legal. As the Constitution now stands, other states must recognize a union legalized in MA. Therefore, if you are a doctor in an intensive care unit who determines that only immediate family may visit a patient or make a health care decision, the gay spouse is a spouse and falls under the "immediate family" rules. If you do NOT recognize gay marriage, then the spouse is not family. That is just one example.

    So, other states are going to have to make choices about whether to adhere to the Constituion as it now stands, or ammend it and thus make it a 'living breathing document' which true conservatives oppose.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 10:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Which constitution are you referring to anon? U.S. or VA?

     
  • At 10/06/2005 10:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    U.S. Only the U.S constitution can apply to interstate travel. An interesting issue is whether or not a VA ammendment will only bar the state or its officers from licensing performing gay marriages, or will it actually ban recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 11:07 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    You make a good point anon.
    That remains to be seen how that will be interpreted.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    By VA defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman it will force this issue to go before the high court.

    Lets hope W appointments are true conservatives!

    FULK WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE RIGHT HERE IN VA IF ELECTED but he is afraid to show his true liberal stripe.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 12:07 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Thats my whole thing.
    He doesnt have to like the idea of it.
    He just needs to say whether or not he will vote in favor of the amendment if (which it will) it comes before the House floor.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 12:45 PM, Anonymous Franklin said…

    Lowell has said whether or not he will vote in favor of the amendment, repeatedly.

    He has clearly stated that he will not vote in favor of it. He does not support it. As Lowell has said in the past, and as Lohr's new ad reminds us, Lowell believes the effort is a waste of time.

    Personally, I believe the effort for a state to assert its authority in relation to the federal government is never a waste of time, and that is exactly what this effort is about.

    Lowell's stated concern is that VA will open itself to litigation. Well, so be it. Let's bring this to a head, and let the checks and balances work their magic.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 3:23 PM, Blogger Politicl.Animal said…

    So basically what you're saying is if Lowell agreed with 50%, 70%, even 85% of what was in the Virginia Democratic Party platform, but disagreed with the rest, he shouldn't have signed his name to a document he worked to moderate and bring to the center?

    It really is all or nothing with you people, isn't it?

    Is that how you make decisions on everything else? One blemish on the car, you don't buy it, one problem with the apartment, you don't rent it, one annoying trait the girlfriend/boyfriend has, you dump them?

    Must perfection always be the enemy of the good?

    On another topic, if Matt Lohr doesn't want to repeal the tax reform/increase of 2004, does that mean he is in favor of it? Or he is just unwilling to do anything about it?

     
  • At 10/06/2005 4:04 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    franklin, thanks for insight. I dont think this amendment will bring about litigation that much b/c quite a few other states already have done this.
    poli animal, I have never signed my name to anything (especially of public record) that I didn't agree 100% with. I have voted for people I didn't agree w/ 100%, but I have never signed on the dotted line "I agree with all the above stuff" if I didn't believe in every signle word of it.
    If you do, you're an idiot.
    As to the stance on the tax increase, I think the GOP in general has a bad stance on this.
    We should either try to overturn it or quit using it against people, especially in our own party.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 4:32 PM, Blogger republitarian said…

    You've finally got it it in those lasts 2 sentences.

    NOW CALL MATT AND TELL HIM.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 5:52 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I have told everyoe in the party that I know that statement.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 6:15 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    My beef with it is mainly in the area of the tax raiser GOPs.
    We attack them for being RINOs and want to keep them our of office, but then we don't make an attempt to overturn the tax increase.
    We did accelerate the food tax cut, but still.
    I think we should leave the tax where it is since its not hurting the economy, and one day we can cut taxes to stimulate growth if we have a recession.
    Even so, we should not attack other members of our own party for voting for it if we aren't willing to overturn it.
    In the case w/ Fulk though, he has said he supports further raising taxes. Even if its for transportation, we should send the message we don't want anymore tax increases.
    I still agree w/ Lohr on this issue, especially since his new ad attacks Fulk for wanting to raise taxes AGAIN, not for wanting the last one.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 7:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    When did Fulk say we have to raise taxes? I know he won't sign the no-tax pledge, is that saying definitely raise taxes?

     
  • At 10/06/2005 10:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    republitarian-
    So you support higher taxes? Sounds unrepublican and down right treason against libertarian beliefs.

    Your so uninformed and lost I really feel for you. Why don't you let the adults handle this.

     
  • At 10/06/2005 11:21 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    anon 8:01, Fulk said yesterday at the debate that would entertain the idea of raising taxes if it was for transportation.
    He also answered that he would raise taxes on a survey (I apologize for not knowing right off hand which one it was).

     
  • At 10/06/2005 11:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    the Virginia FREE survey. The DNR quotes it.

    Lowell agrees with an increase in the sales tax for transportation; he agrees with an increase in the motor vehicle licensing fees; and he agrees with the implementation of tolls.

    Money, money, money. Lowell and his buddies just can't get enough. All the while, VDOT is leasing office space at a rate 10% higher than what the market would allow, and VDOT also rented space at one time in a Mall in NOVA to hand out pencils to drum up support for the mixing bowl. Not the best way to spend tax payer dollars.

    Personally, I'd rather not give Lowell and his Richmond, bureaucrat buddies more of my money for transportation until VDOT learns how to spend it laying pavement.

     
  • At 10/07/2005 12:46 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Thanks anon.
    I couldn't remember where I saw it.

     
  • At 7/15/2010 12:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    take a look at nice blog -

    [url=http://trailfire.com/lewismorrison] cheap phentermine no rx [/url]

    http://trailfire.com/lewismorrison
    [url=http://trailfire.com/lewismorrison] diet pill phentermine [/url]

     

Post a Comment

<< Home