‘Constitutional Republican’ Rohrer to enter Gov race?…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
115 Comments
Let's hope so.
I’m a cynic to be sure.
My own view is that Rohrer is clearly a more conservative voice in PA but will his candidacy help Corbett was splitting off votes from Gerlach in the east.
I dislike Gerlach and Corbett, but I realize that Corbett is the man to beat and the more people who run against him, the better chance Corbett has of winning.
May I ask, what is a GOP Maestro?
At this point, I'd choose Sam over the other two. They just don't impress me at all.
Well here's a a shocker! A republican, in an attempt to make himself more palatable to the skeptical masses, brands himself as a "constitutional republican"? I didn't see that one coming. Maybe he should get points for creativity.
If he runs, I’m voting for him.
The term "Consitutional Republican" is a fairly specific one, and one that you don't hear the normal "party-first" Republicans (in any level of office) throwing around. It is exciting to see these terms in print coming from the mouth of a candidate for a high office like this. You don't casually describe yourself this way, without believing it, so I think that this is something to be encouraged about.
"constitutionalist" who voted for and accepted an unconstitutional pay raise.
Geez Ray I thought you and Dolly Madison would be all over Rohrer for his pay- and pension- increase votes.
Straight Talk: Were the pay raise and pension increase "constitutional"…just asking…
Sorry, Straight Talk, but as others have pointed out, the rep has voted like an UNconstitutional republican a number of times. Why should we believe he is now a CONstitutional republican? Because he says so? Sorry. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Rohrer did vote for the payraise and that was undeniably wrongheaded. I think he knows that. But he actively, correctly, opposed gambling in this Commonwealth. Read his speech to the House, beginning in the bottom, right-hand column of page 1565, here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/HJ/2004/0/20...
It spans just less than a page, but it is dead on. He called gambling "an abuse of the poor." And so it is. I would add "an abuse of the intellectually challenged."
The actual vote is on page 1581 and 1582.
So he gets a pass?
The payraise was one unconstitutional vote–undeniably. STRIKE ONE. I posted information on his stance on gambling. He was against it and that is another litmus test that I use to evaluate candidates. He actively opposed it and for that, I am thankful.
I am not familiar with his complete record. Would you post some additional details? Thanks in advance.
No. Let's look at the entire record. Other than the payraise, where has he gone astray?
Corbett is a menace. Gerlach is a pretty boy who hides behind his wife's skirt. Rohrer looks like the only viable candidate, for now. Let's look at the record.
If memory serves, Sam wants to eliminate property taxation. I support that………
I could not be more excited. Finally, a conservative!!
If Rohrer gets into the race, then conservatives – including the whinny pinheads in the CP – will have no excuse to not get behind him.
Is he perfect? No. But he is not only light years ahead of Corbett and Gerlach on the issues but he is someone we can actually trust, and who does have a strong track record of doing the right thing. B!tch about his blown pay raise vote all you wish – Rohrer knocked Perzel off his pedestal by voting against him for Speaker; Rohrer has introduced legislation to resecure state sovereignty; Rohrer has opposed the federal ID system; Rohrer has opposed 'card check'.
Rohrer will shake up the gubernatorial race, especially if the 912 and reform groups get off of their collective arses and get behind him.
This is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!
Sam, if you are reading this, please run! I did not want to, once again, hold my nose and vote for someone like Corbett or Gerlach. I will do everything in the State College area to help get you elected. Sam would not only shake up the GOP, he'd shake up pennsylvania, and we need a good shakin.
If you believe in the tea-party or 9-12 movement, then you need to suppot Sam Rorher.
OMG THAT ROCKS!!!
Waiting to read more of Rohr's past transgressions before coming to a conclusion. Gut reaction is to encourage Sam to run. When I approached my Dem Rep to support the sovereignty bill Sam proposed, he said Sam is considered a nutcase. This could be a ringing endorsement as far as I am concerned. I'll take a Conservative nutcase over an establishment Republican careful to tow the line anytime. Off with their heads at the PAGOP.
Sam did drop that 2AM payraise vote and it still bothers him as well as I. However, look at the entire record: Stood against his Party when they were wrong and helped to take out Perzel, anti-property tax, true 10th Ammend supporter, solid pro-life, solid pro-gun, etc. If a candidate is with me 80% lets go. The others are not.. I think same is with me (persoanlly) 90% of the time.
After speaking with Sam last week I feel he has a real shot as he is correctly building his infrastructure. However, he must be shown a lot of outward support so that others outside the region can begin to know him. Additionally, with 40% of the votes in the SE of our fine state he must have tremendous help here to take out Jim and push Tom into just the western patr of the state.
I need to study his record more carefully, but for those who might be interested in evaluating his record before you go "ga ga" over his candidacy, perhaps you should check out http://www.pennsylvaniavotes.org , a project of The Commonwealth Foundation. This is a phenomenal tool.
Here' s a link to Sam's record: http://www.pennsylvaniavotes.org/SearchVotes.aspx...
Isn't his "astray" vote on the payraise enough? He "sees that light" perhaps because he sees an opportunity.
I would like some fresh blood. I'm tired of having no choice other than "bad" and "not so bad".
Why is that too much to ask for?
Thanks Dolley – that is good stuff. I glanced through it – extremely impressive if you believe in smaller govt. We may actually be on to something here.
Toomey earns strikes from certain people here merely because of who he endorses, and who endorses him, his great voting record be damned. Sam Rohrer votes for an unconstitutional pay raise and an unconstitutional pension increase, and is somehow held in higher esteem by these same people. incidentally, there is nothing unconstitutional about gambling. We already have legal gambling, it's called the lottery. It is not government's place to tell people they cannot gamble!
Like so many of us in Western Pennsylvania, I am waiting for Mr. Roddey to tell us for whom we should vote.
Few, if any, of us are capable of making such decisions in an intelligent fashion, and we should await instruction from our betters in the Republican Party. While Mr. Rohrer seems superior in every single way, he may not have the desired grasp of nuances so important to professional Republicans who really understand these things and whose direction we anxiously await, secure in the knowledge that they have rarely, if ever, been wrong about anything, which is why Governor Swann has been doing such a great job for the past three years.
You can never "actually trust" a pol that voted for the payraise. Never. His record, on balance, may warrant our support, but you can NEVER "actually trust" a pol that voted for the payraise. His moral compass failed that fateful night, proving that he is NOT infallible. We should never regard him, or any other pol, as infallible.
No, you may not.
The process used to pass gambling is known as the "stealth legislative technique" or "gut and run". The process violated Article III, Sections 1 – 4. Sam opposed it on moral and economic grounds, not constitutional grounds.
Let's review Toomey's record:
1. He endorsed Specter. No strike assessed. I merely lost a great deal of respect for Pat.
2. He endorsed Santorum. No strike assessed. I watched the video of the endorsement. Pat was clearly LYING as he praised Santorum. I lost virtually all respect for him at that point. The only saving grace I saw was that he clearly was not an accomplished liar at that point. His tone, tenor, body language demonstrated, quite clearly, that he was lying.
3. He endorsed Tom Saylor for retention. STRIKE ONE. He had no need to enter an endorsement in that race. The legal import of the dissent Saylor penned had been explained to him. He nonetheless bowed to party pressure and issued the endorsement. That showed me that he was/is owned, lock, stock and barrel by the establishment hacks.
4. He issued a fence sitting statement on life, not materially different from Specter's position. STRIKE TWO.
5. He endorsed Sotomayor for Supreme Court. STRIKE THREE.
6. He thought we should grant the Obama an audience with our children. STRIKE FOUR.
7. He proudly announced that he would join Schumer, et. al. to support sanctions against Iran. STRIKE FIVE.
Enough.
remember the pay raise!
plus isn't this the guy that wants to raise the sales tax on everything like food and clothes? not much of a conservative to me
I know, I cannot believe that I had to jump off band wagon so early.
From Federalist No. 21:
"….Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. …
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four ." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. …"
The pay raise, for which Rohrer voted, was also gut-and-amend, in conference committee, at 2 am, the stealthiest of all legislative maneuvers. Toomey did not "endorse" Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Stop twisting facts.
Dolley if you google his name this website comes up: http://therealsamrohrer.com/hb1275
Granted this looks like it was his past Democrat opponent's website, but if a Democrat is attacking you for proposing to raise state income taxes by 28%, and sales taxes on funerals and the like, that does not sound to me like a fiscal conservative. Granted, I know nothing about either Rohrer or his opponent, but they have quotes of Rohrer acknowledging that it would in fact do these things.
Dolly what is your view of Alan Keyes…would you support him for public office, using your three strikes rules, why or why not….
idaman – "raise the sales tax"? let's at least be honest in our discussions. You know full well that any broadening of the sales tax under the Rohrer plan is offset by the ELIMINATION of the school property tax. Does Corbett or Gerlach have a plan? Do they agree or disagree with Rohrer's plan? These guys will simply run a poll and try to not stirr the waters. Rohrer at least has substantive ideas. I like this guy.
You're manipulating the facts nicely.
This was not a tax increase but a tax swap – eliminate the property tax and spread the "pain" through the sales tax (which, by the way, was originally instituted to fund the schools).
Property taxes may not be an issue for you but when seniors in Lancaster County are told by the local school district that they should consider moving if they can't pay their property tax, then something is amiss.
That's precisely the point! Neither Corbett nor Gerlach have anything other than nice sounding platitudes while Rohrer has been in the trenches and has put ideas on the table.
We know where Rohrer stands on the issues; we may not always agree (Rohrer honestly believed that the amount of time he puts into his job was worthy of a pay increase – I disagree, as did the people in his district, but he was being straight up about it).
Nor do I recall Rohrer advocating arbitrary tax increases, support for blown budgets, or wanting to see the Pennsylvania become a serf of the federal government.
Go Rohrer!
While he is far from perfect, I'm willing to give Sam a look-see. Gerlach and Corbett have given me too many big reasons not to consider them.
You forget we are talking about the GOVERNMENT. When was the last time they gave up a tax while instituting a new one? Who says that the property tax will be eliminated if a sales tax or something akin is implemented?
Did a government official SAY so?
Here's another question: If the public would not have been outraged over the payraise, would Sam Rohrer be sorry now?
Rohrer is from Gerlach's area but Gerlach is obviously the most liberal of the three.
Still, will this hurt Gerlach a great deal?
I'm not getting too excited until I really read more about this guy. When comparing him with the Corbett and Gerlach, at least Gerlach has also been in the trenches on the state level and has many years of history in Harrisburg. We can judge him on his record there and not just rule him out. He has at least the qialifying experience to govern the state. Also, he did have a 17 point plan on how he would reform PA and could see from both the state and the federal level. As one PA voter, I'm going to do more digging before looking at Rohrer as the "messiah."
I know Gerlach voted for the state pension hike. How did Rohrer vote on this?
Gerlach also votes for the Obama schip tax increase. How has Roher been on tax votes? Has he ever votes to raise taxes?
I am looking for some honest answers, not one of the camps' spins on these votes. Thank you.
To compare Gerlach to Rohrer as if they have both been fighting the same battle is like saying Obama was a supporter of Bush. You couldn't have two guys who are more divergent on the issues, on ethics, on character, or on principles.
Don't even try to compare apples to oranges on this one, Buckwheat. Pennsylvania needs leadership, not go-along-to-get-along RINO behavior.
Actually, Gerlach is from one of the armpit regions outside of Philly – Chester County. Rohrer is from Berks County.
Then give SPECIFIC examples on how they are different, not just personal attacks, I'm sick and tired of that…….I want to make an informed decision on their votes and what is going to move PA forward. You obviously have a personal axe to grind with Gerlach so your opinion is out. From my perspective now, both are qualified as they both have hands on experience at the state level. Corbett has zero.
Too late. I've already asked. Do you choose not to answer?
Did I sound excited about his candidacy? Did you miss my prior comments about him and saying that he must be scrutinized for his voting history because campaign words mean nothing?
Of the 3, at this point, I'd choose him. That's not a commitment but more of a statement of displeasure with the other two.
Good question. Best answer, absolutely no pass. It will depend on the totality of the record.
I'd prefer to vote for Caddywompass or Dolley Madison, but Rohrer is worth looking into. I don't think the other two are even worth looking into let alone voting for.
Can you please just follow the rules and eliminate the name calling? You insult the people who are most likely to side with you. Do you believe that insulting them will win them over?
Google Dale Carnegie. It'll do you good.
You guys are very quick to "overlook" the pay raise and other transgressions by Sam Rohrer because he is one of your darlings while you CRUXIFY other candidates for not agreeing with you 100% time. Hypocritical!! Your cause is never going to be forwarded as long as you keep backing unelectable candidates. Pat Toomey has worked on softing his image in order to garner broad base support. Sam Rohrer is either dillusional in believing he can be elected or he is a political opportunist looking to raise his name ID. Maybe a little of both. However, I do think the more folks that enter the race the better, because it should be about ideas. It is hard to know if Corbett is conservative, liberal or anything. Unlike Sam Rohrer or Jim Gerlach he has never had to cast a vote on anything. That is why he has to parrott the statements of his opponents. He had no ideas, no charisma and no clue.
Regarding gambling, I wholeheartedly agree with those who rightly criticize it when it's sold as an all-purpose solution to continue the state's insatiable appetitie for spending. Where I get nervous is when politicians start decrying the "avarice" and "immorality" of it all. I'll spend my money how I choose to, and if I choose to gamble willingly, then it's none of the state's concern. Rohrer treads uncomfortably close to that in the speech Dolley cited.
"political opportunist"?! You just described almost every candidate for every office.
If you had read the thread from the beginning, you would see that we HAVE discussed the pay raise and we are looking to see what other "transgressions" Mr. Rohrer may have made. Please provide them if you have them.
His pay raise is causing us to hesitate to flat out support him. It makes us want to scrutinize him more closely. He isn't my rep so I am not that familiar with his record.
What about Toomey's statement praising Sotomayor makes it NOT an endorsement?
Sam voted for the state pension hike.
You did not ask me, but I will give you my opinion.
I love Alan Keyes. I've voted for him every time that he has been on my ballot and I've written it in when he wasn't. I'd vote for him again.
I don't know of a single person who is better at articulating the founding principles.
Are you trying to set a trap? Will you spring some 'gotcha' on Dolley? If you tell us about his 'reparations' plan, please be sure to get it right. That plan was brilliant. Unfortunately, it has no chance of ever passing but it is the only plan that I ever saw that could put an end to so much of the welfare state and take people from dependence to self sufficiency.
If Rohrer gets into the race, then conservatives – including the whinny pinheads in the CP – will have no excuse to not get behind him.
Is he perfect? No. But he is not only light years ahead of Corbett and Gerlach on the issues but he is someone we can actually trust, and who does have a strong track record of doing the right thing.
B!tch about his blown pay raise vote all you wish – Rohrer knocked Perzel off his pedestal by voting against him for Speaker; Rohrer has introduced legislation to re-secure state sovereignty; Rohrer has opposed the federal ID system; Rohrer has opposed 'card check'. Heck, he is the only one to put a tangible method of eliminating the property tax onto the table while everyone else dances around the issue.
Rohrer will shake up the gubernatorial race, especially if the 912 and reform groups rally behind him. The very fact that some of us are exciting about his candidacy is a good thing!
There you go again.
Please stop acting like a 12 year old.
This comin' from a guy who does nothing but attack anyone who isn't ideologically pure as himself…
Rohrer is a good man and would make a great Governor. He isn't like the other politicians, he really does have conviction. I've read and listened to him speak and he is the real deal. Good Luck Sam!
Who died and made you the Enforcer of GrassrootsPA?
Where do you want me to begin? Tax increases, pay raises, pension votes at the state level? How about the TARP vote in Congress?
Do I have a personal axe to grind against Gerlach? No. Do I have an ideological axe to grind? You betcha! Anyone who runs around claiming to be the best candidate for governor had best be able to explain why, and not resort to attacking his opponents ala the PLC the way Gerlach did.
The guy is a weasel. Deal with it.
Exactly correct. If Sam runs, I'll be doing everything possible to see he gets elected. Voters are sick and tired of really bad choices or even worse choices on the ballots. I've been using the "other" choice on the ballot for a long time now. Good LUCK Sam.
Thank you Caddy. I didn't see any cheer leading on this thread except by anonymous posters that I always assume to be worthless posts by family, friends, or employees of the candidate. We are questioning. We are looking.
'politigator' dismisses Rohrer and rips Corbett. Whom do you think he supports? LOL
At least we got to cruxify someone. I prefer to crucify them. When you put the 'x' in there, it just sounds like a private adults only activity.
I attack beliefs, not people. It's a rare post when you do not insult another poster for disagreeing with you.
Not only was it a tax swap, food and clothing were exempt. People need to get their facts correct. Anti-Roher people keep saying food and clothing were to be taxed to scare people against the plan. If you can't fight the truth, introduce a boogeyman. The dems do it all the time.
Seems to me a lot of folks are getting kind of anxious about a potential Rohrer run – and that is a good sign because Tweedledum and Tweedledee will have to step out of their shadows and start running real campaigns on issues and not on sound bites or good hair.
As for those of who dissing Rohrer, I suggest you do a little research, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the caliber of the guy. Perfect? Not by any stretch. But he is a straight shooter, and he does advocate traditional constitutional ideas.
This comin' from a guy who spends all of his time attacking the people trying to reform the GOP while sitting back in his easy chair doing nothing.
Go away, boy, ya bother me!
FROM: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090804_S...
"…After listening to much of Sonia Sotomayor's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and carefully examining her 17-year record as a federal appellate judge, I have come to two conclusions. First, her record is somewhat left of center, and I would likely disagree with many of her rulings if she were a Supreme Court Justice. Second, she is an extremely capable and qualified jurist.
If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process.…"
That is an endorsement. FACTS are pesky things.
I like Alan Keyes. He correctly identifies the current tax system as a "slave tax." He understands REAL LIBERTY better than virtually anyone. He correctly identified Obama as a radical communist. He doesn't mince words. I like that in a candidate.
Maybe we'll get to the crux of the issue if we cruxify them.
Boo hiss. There. I saved you the trouble.
I too am tired of having to choose the lesser of the evils, but I generally follow a three strikes rule.
I am slow to anger, I evaluate the record objectively, but once the pol has exhausted his/her three strikes, may G-d be with him/her.
Rohrer only has one strike, at the moment. I think we owe it to him to look at his record. Admittedly, the payraise vote is a huge strike. If memory serves, Curt Schroeder also voted for the payraise. Sam Smith was on the conference committee. We must never forget that.
No enforcer. I, as an adult, simply asked you — another adult — to not act like a 12 year old.
Chris has rules to make the forum worthwhile and enjoyable. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Your personal attacks take away from the quality of this forum and debase your own comments.
On second thought, just go ahead and be you. Sorry to have bothered you.
Just shaking my head in disbelief.
Finally, a little peace and quiet from the ranks of the pit puppies…
Thank you. That was my first thought but I ended up going in the other direction.
What's to disbelieve? Your chronic efforts to police other posters has become annoying and nettlesome.
Just stop bugging people and they won't perceive you as a moron.
Let me know when you need a new shovel. The one you are using to dig this hole of yours has to be wearing out.
Gee, thanks for caring…
Rohrer has barely won his last two elections in his little House District because he voted for the pay raise and the pension increase. he would get slaughtered as the GOP nominee.
No, you asked whether you may ask. You may not.
Do not compound your troubles.
We have clearly outlined our reasons for criticizing Toomey. We were insulted for it but no one could rebut what we said. The truth is still a defense.
Toomey has gone astray on principle. He's shown his hunger for elective office by giving in the the power brokers. If he is compromising now, what can we expect of him once he is in office?
Do you think that his endorsement of Sotomayor helped advance conservative values? How about Specter? He endorsed Specter as the 'lesser evil' and now Obama is endorsing Specter.
Why do these endorsement matter? Ever hear of 'birds of a feather'?
As of a week or two ago, he still had not posted any of his stands on his campaign website. I was told by his campaign that they would be up 'soon'. It's been about 4 months. Why would a candidate not want his positions known?
Dems and other liberals hide their agenda and their positions. Conservatives don't. Our positions and values are our hallmark and we are not ashamed or afraid to state them.
Does that answer your ????
LOL
Commas are your friend if you understand their use. I didn't ask permission to ask a questions. I asked you a question.
Your non answer answer tells a lot though. Thanks for playing.
When Pat Buchanan ran for President, he was making good progress, until Alan Keyes showed up in Iowa, claimed to be "holier than the Pope", or at least than Pat Buchanan, on the pro-life issues. That split the conservative vote, and ensured that Buchanan would lose the Iowa Caucuses, and the nomination. He seems to have been a very willing stalking horse for the leftish Republicans.
Not necessarily. It depends on A] the rest of his record, and B] how he handles this.
If his overall record is consistent and very good AND he doesn't run or try to hide from that one vote, he can do okay. He should come out and say that he made a mistake — IF that is true — but he must explain to. The two conditions must both be met. If either is bad or mishandled, then he is toast. The days of the short memory are (hopefully) over.
See the link posted by Dolley Madison on the first page of these comments. I haven't had the time to go there myself but I think that you'll get straight answers to your questions.
Here's the link:
http://www.pennsylvaniavotes.org/SearchVotes.aspx...
That's what all liberal republicans say about conservative republicans – from Toomey in 2004 to Reagan in 1980 – and it is wrong.
Who do you work for – Liberal Gerlach or Moderate Corbett?
I understand their use. You asked two questions; the first ending with a comma instead of proper punctuation. I answered your first question and that answer precluded your second question.
Socialist.
Keyes? I don't think so. If anyone was a weak link, it was Buchanan.
You're misrepresenting the facts, dude.
Rohrer had rough re-election bids because the GOP establishment leadership in Berks County refused to back him up. The DemocRATS saw an avenue and tried to take advantage of it.
And if you think he will get slaughtered, why do you care? Wouldn't that just make Girlieman and Corbett look better?
I always get nervous when someone tells me I "need to support" a candidate.
I prefer someone tell me why I should consider a candidate…
Ray…you have hit on a main reason why I have cut waaaaaaay back on my time spent here.
Morbius, for the sake of the quality of this site, please find some civility.
All House Districts are he same size, doofus. There are no "little' or "big" ones except by land mass. While I am at it, Sam Rohrer is one of the few principled and upright men in the General Assembly. Certainly, the pay raise vote was a major error on is part. Is it enough to disqualify him? Perhaps.
If he runs, he will the only constitutionalist and conservative seeking the office.
Thanks for the information, Billy Jack. I appreciate and respect your opinion.
I don't know much about Rohrer but when is the last time you saw the Constitution associated with a candidate ?
When was the last time you saw a candidate who asserted Pennsylvania's sovereignty against an encroaching federal bureaucracy? Oh, wait, that was Sam Rohrer!
Frankly, I am stunned by the number of naysayers and cynics on this string, acting as if they will not vote unless the perfect candidate who has done nothing wrong or made any mistakes emerges. Using that philosophy, we should all just build bunkers in the mountains and wait for the world to end!
Our Founding Fathers never expected perfect candidates to percolate to the surface; Madison himself said that if men were angels there would be no need for government.
But men are not angels, and we need government to maintain civil order. That means IMPERFECT people – you, me, Rohrer and others – must pick up the ball, select the best ones to do the job and then watch them like hawks.
The fact that Rohrer has taken the point on promoting so many good and important positions on the issues clearly sets him apart from Corbett and Gerlach. Period. Be thankful someone of his caliber decided to step up to the plate.
That sounds a lot like "Be thankful for the crumbs they sweep off the table and allow you to eat." I don't think so.
My Dad taught me many things, but chief among them was "Never let anyone else do your thinking for you." That stuck and it has served me well in the past.
Cults require blind obedience. A political party should, I say SHOULD allow members of the electorate ample opportunity to scrutinize and vet the candidate before deciding to support him/her. If the candidate is worthy, there will be no harm in exposing the full record and allowing people to form their own opinion.
Show me the perfect candidate and I will take back what I said.
But if it comes down to choosing between your reasoning and that of Madison, I think I'll go with little Jimmy…
Chester is an armpit? haha Is that why they got voted best county to live in again this year? As the only county in PA with a AAA bond rating, the wealthiest in PA, 14th wealthiest in the entire US, lowest crime in the SE, etc… I think you need to get your facts straight.
Maybe I mis-spoke – I meant "hairy armpit".
Reality is that while Chester County is the playground of the rich, it is also the most destitute when it comes to character and standards. There are no people of principle there – just typical country club Republicans who can not a wit for what is right or wrong but whatever makes them feel good. Hence the reason they keep electing weasels like Gerlach.
And I can say these mean, nasty comments – 'cause I'm from Chester County.
Maybe I mis-spoke – I meant "hairy armpit".
Reality is that while Chester County is the playground of the rich, it is also the most destitute when it comes to character and standards. There are no people of principle there – just typical country club Republicans who care not a wit for what is right or wrong but whatever makes them feel good. Hence the reason they keep electing weasels like Gerlach.
And I can say these mean, nasty comments – 'cause I'm from Chester County.
You can say things like this because you are angry and unable to be a constructionist. Look for the good to try to help exploit it. Th ereaosn why so many never take you serious on here is because of this. Fin – final comment so smell ya later
ROFLMAO
I like Pat. I agree with much of what he stands for. I don't know his exact position on 'life' but Alan makes no exceptions to justify killing an unborn child. So, even if Pat is 99.9% pro life, he is still not as good as Alan on that issue, not that I'd let that stand in the way of my vote.
I totally disagree with your conjecture on Alan. I've spend hours and hours listening to and watching this man's speeches and TV show. He is as solid as you can get.
Rich,
Sometimes I believe that to be his purpose in being here. Please don't let him chase you away. Your experience and insight are valuable and needed here.
Perhaps you have stumbled on why I am so opposed to government trying to run my life. I AM an angel.
LOL
Okay, I am not but i am more than capable of living my life without government interference and without harming anyone in the process.
Think about what you wrote. We are imperfect so we should choose from amongst them, those who will govern us. Why should government work or even be trusted when we have such and imperfect pool from which to choose.
George Washington said:
"“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
IOW, our Founders knew that at best government was a necessary evil and that is why they put limits on what elected officials had power or influence over. That is why I don't trust candidates who would substitute their judgment for that of our Founders and put themselves above the Constitution.
Rohrer may be the best to step forward. I won't commit until I see more of his record and how he handles his pay raise and pension votes.
Perhaps you have stumbled on why I am so opposed to government trying to run my life. I AM an angel.
LOL
Okay, I am not but i am more than capable of living my life without government interference and without harming anyone in the process.
Think about what you wrote. We are imperfect so we should choose from amongst them, those who will govern us. Why should we expect government to work or even be trusted when we have such and imperfect pool from which to choose?
George Washington said:
"“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
IOW, our Founders knew that at best government was a necessary evil and that is why they put limits on what elected officials had power or influence over. That is why I don't trust candidates who would substitute their judgment for that of our Founders and put themselves above the Constitution.
Rohrer may be the best to step forward. I won't commit until I see more of his record and how he handles his pay raise and pension votes.
Exactly correct. Sam Rohrer will talk about the Constitution. and he is identified with the very powerful idea of reforming the Property Tax. His comments on last year's budget and this year's budget.
Sam has made mistakes, as we all have, (my record is filled with them) but he, like me, has evolved and I think learned from his mistakes.
Compare the Hoffman race in NYC and Barry Funt in NJ. Ideas unite and energize. and Sam will be in the rational center, centered on the Constitution and on the needs of The Forgotten Taxpayer.
Another bad vote for both Rep. Schroder and Rep. Rohrer was 2001 Pension Increase vote. In my opinion, based on the very expert analysis of Richard Dreyfuss of the Commonwealth Foundation, there will have to be a tax increase in June of 2012. Here is the House vote 176 "Yeas" to 23 "Nays" Bill #26
This is not a pretty site. Thanks, Governor Tom Ridge…
Cry me a river, Gerlie-man.
When the CP gets off of their collective arses, then perhaps you and your ilk will have something to contribute…
When the CP gets off of their collective arses, then perhaps you and your ilk will have something useful to contribute…
You really are a bitter and nasty one, aren't you?
You dismiss the opinion of anyone who doesn't worship at the GOP altar. You use party affiliation as a weapon to attack. I left the GOP because of their lack of fidelity to solid and consistent conservative values. They have not returned to them as a party. There are individuals who are worthy of my votes and my support, but the party, as a whole, is not. Why stay with such a party? Registering with the CP was to tell the GOP that I want a more conservative party and that I was dissatisfied with them.
My new affiliation does not preclude me from anything other than voting in the GOP primary. Period. That does not mean anything else. When I talk to people, my principles are the same now as they were when I was still registered with the GOP. No one even asks about what party i belong to because it doesn't matter except on one day each year.
Why you are so bitter and nasty, I don't know. Why you work so hard to anger and irritate people, I don't know. Why you cannot just discuss issues without an attitude, I don't know.
But as I said yesterday, just go on being you. And let me know about the shovel, okay?