SD 14 Endorsement This Monday

Filed in National by on October 28, 2007

In the meantime make an affirmative case for your person if you want to.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RickJ says:
    October 28, 2007 at 9:51 am

    Why do I get the feeling you aren’t torturing yourself all day with this decision?

    Paid for by Ennis for Senate

  2. anon says:
    October 28, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Questions to ponder:

    1. If you are an open-government supporter hoping to break Adams/Dixiecrat control: Will a Christan win get you closer to that goal?

    2. If you answered “Yes” to #1, are you also prepared to support all the other positions that Republicans bring with their baggage?

    3. If you support Ennis, what are you going to do to make Democrats better with respect to open government, and the various Minner leadership failures?

  3. Dave says:
    October 28, 2007 at 11:55 am

    I think she made a pretty damn good case on her own.

  4. Hube says:
    October 28, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    SD 14 Endorsement This Monday

    Oh golly gee. I’m so full of anticipation my genitals have sucked back into my body cavity.

  5. jason330 says:
    October 28, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    You need to get out more Hube.

  6. Rebecca says:
    October 28, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Let’s see, wrestle, wrestle, wrestle.

    My choices are a Democrat with a sound record of constituent service who was chosen by the people in his district . . .

    OR

    A Republican chosen by the party heirachy –perhaps because she can be trusted to vote the party line on issues like stem-cell research, women’s reproductive freedoms, GLBT and other civil rights.

    Think I’m done wrestling, sorry Dana, it’s Ennis hands down.

  7. Dana Garrett says:
    October 28, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    “My choices are a Democrat with a sound record of constituent service….”

    This is the only thing people say about Ennis. They never point to anything else.

    It reminds me of those Repubs who still feel a need to defend R. Nixon. You can list all the terrible things he did and these people will say, “Yes, be he did go to China.” As if that redeems everything else about him.

    Same w/ Ennis.

  8. Anon says:
    October 28, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Dana. Here’s a shout out to you……….
    ” Hey, Lil’ Greenies”

  9. Dave says:
    October 28, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    Sounds like Rebecca’s more “Democrat” than “Progressive.”

  10. Dave says:
    October 28, 2007 at 9:03 pm

    “issues like stem-cell research, women’s reproductive freedoms, GLBT and other civil rights.”

    Funny how you chose those to try some argument against her, while ignoring that Ennis offered the amendment that killed the stem cell bill and voted against the gay rights bill.

  11. john kowalko says:
    October 28, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Deborah Hudson offered the amendment that killed SB 5 not Bruce Ennis.
    John Kowalko

  12. Mike Matthews says:
    October 28, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    You’re right, John…I was there that night when Hudson offered the Amendment that killed her own bill. I think that was the scenario, anyhow.

  13. anon. says:
    October 29, 2007 at 12:36 am

    Well, Dave was finally caught trying to spin another story. Way to set him straight Kowalko!!! Dave you idiot!!!!

  14. Dave says:
    October 29, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    If Debbie Hudson’s amendment killed the bill, why were there two amendments to the bill afterwards? And why would she kill her own bill?

    This was the final amendment to the bill, the amendment that killed the bill. It stated that the state had power over public and private funded research. That killed the bill.

    Kowalko’s wrong. Matthews is wrong. Deal with it.

    SPONSOR:

    Rep. Ennis

    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    144th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

    HOUSE AMENDMENT NO. 3

    TO

    SENATE BILL NO. 5

    AMEND Senate Bill No. 5, as amended by Senate Amendment No. 4, by striking lines 141 and 142 and by re-designating “(e)”, “(f)”, and “(g)” that appear on lines 143, 150, and 154, respectively, as (d)”, “(e)”, and “(f)”, respectively.

    SYNOPSIS

    This Amendment deletes § 3004D(d) which stated that any research guidelines adopted or advisory opinions issued by the Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee are applicable only to research that is publicly funded by the State of Delaware.

  15. Mike Matthews says:
    October 29, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    I’m researching this, but I was on the floor of the House that night. I specifically remember Hudson was in tears when she spoke of this Amendment she introduced. I think I blogged about it.

  16. john kowalko says:
    October 29, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Dave,
    With all due respect, the Amendment that killed SB 5 was the House Amendment 1 to SB 5. I know because I pointed out to my colleagues, who along with myself intended to vote for SB5, that the Hudson Amendment section (c) line 4 “or who uses a human reproductive egg for research purposes is guilty of a class E felony” does, in fact, criminalize stem cell research. There is no other way to interpret that and my discussion with Stephanie Hansen (the most formidable supporter of SB 5) in the chambers at the moment that amendment was offered and passed, confirmed my angry suspicions of sabotage. The Ennis amendment was totally acceptable to the supporters of SB 5. No supporter of a bill regulating and allowing Stem Cell research would be foolish or stupid enough to criminalize the very activity that the bill sought to address. Do your homework and call Ms. Hansen or any members of Stem Cell Go who fervently supported this bill. Better yet talk to any of the House Members who supported the bill but changed their vote because of HA 1 to SB 5.Your misplaced outrage directed at Bruce Ennis’ record is clouding your already murky vision.
    John Kowalko

  17. Joe says:
    October 30, 2007 at 1:14 am

    WDEL’s account of the evening says it was Hudson too….

    http://wdel.com/blog/?postid=470

    <<>>>>

  18. Dave says:
    October 30, 2007 at 7:16 am

    Why would Debbie Hudson kill her own bill, John?

  19. anon. says:
    October 30, 2007 at 7:28 am

    ” Why would she kill her own bill”? There are times when Reps. and Sens vote against their own bills… go figure, it happens.

  20. Dave says:
    October 30, 2007 at 7:48 am

    And why is Bruce Ennis telling people he killed the bill?

  21. Mike Matthews says:
    October 30, 2007 at 8:06 am

    Dave,

    Check this out:

    Go to 3:40 am. Click Here

  22. john kowalko says:
    October 30, 2007 at 9:06 am

    Dave,
    you have to direct those queries to Rep. Hudson. I have my suspicions of intentions and sincerity but these are only my own unsubstantiated assumptions and it wouldn’t be fair for me to project them as based in fact or face to face discussion. Similar to my suspicions of motives and intentions in the WindPower debate. Serious questions can be raised regarding the forces arrayed against such proposals. For instance take note in the business section of the NJ that Exxon Mobile’s $36.13 Billion record profits in 2005 have been eclipsed by its recent $39.5 Billion profits last year. Hardly motivation for Alternative Energy generation that will not consume fossil fuels and contribute to next years record.
    John Kowalko

«
»