It has been announced that Senator Ernie Lopez, Republican for the 6th senatorial district in the state of Delaware, will be filing the paperwork to allow him to campaign for another term as the state senator for the 6th District.
In his freshman term as the state senator in the 6th district, Sen. Lopez has demonstrated his commitment to being available, and responsive, to the needs and views of all the constituents of his district . A commitment that served him well in his first election.
Sen. Lopez has shown during his first campaign, and his first term as senator, that he possesses the energy and drive to meet any challenge head on. Sen. Lopez has maintained an active career in his private life, while holding public meet and greets on a regular basis to stay in touch with the voters and citizens of his district. He has been highly visible at events in the community with his lovely family, wife Janis, and daughters, Anna and Claire.
Sen. Lopez has been, and remains, an active member of his church, and his commitment to protecting our youth is well-known and documented.
As a freshman senator, Sen. Lopez faced some difficult votes in Dover. The last legislative session was filled with divisive bills that held very little grey area. Most people were either on one side or the other, and there was little or no room for compromise on such bills as the bathroom bill, and the numerous gun bills.
While some legislators hold seats within districts that are fairly clear-cut on such issues, and can cast votes with little consideration of what the consensus would be within their district, Sen. Lopez faces a more challenging task when deliberating on how to best represent the views and principles of his district. The demographics of the 6th district are fairly diverse. This means that to fairly represent the entire district, Sen. Lopez had to call on not only his own life’s experiences, but had to engage with as many of his constituents as possible.
While no vote on such divisive issues, such as gun ownership, and homosexual marriage, and the death penalty, could ever equally represent all view points, Sen. Lopez met these challenges with integrity and consistency, holding true to not only his own values, but more importantly, holding true to statements and promises made during his first campaign.
I am sure that the voters of the 6th district can expect the same commitment to integrity and consistency from Sen. Lopez in this campaign and his second term, as they received from him in his freshman term.
If anyone would like to know more about Sen. Ernie Lopez here is a link to his site.
Do the D’s have a Conservative Democrat to run? If so…….
Ernie seems to have gained the wrath of both fringes, which is a strong indicator that he represents from somewhere around the center. If you look at the one’s who have spoken out about Ernie, it becomes more of an endorsement than an attack.
There are several who post on some of blogs that railed against Ernie’s votes and wanted him to resign or some such silliness. If they don’t like him, I’m kinda inclined to think he is a decent enough candidate to warrant my vote.
Will Lopez be running as a republican or a democrat this time?
Ernie will face a far left fringe D that will make Andy Staton look like Ronald Reagan. On the far right crazy side he will either face Mark Baker, who couldn’t even beat a liberal like Joan Deaver or Sandi Minard, the far right nut job who is going to lose her Cape School Board for breaking her oath of office several times in 4 years – first when she acted unilaterally and took action against a school bus driver for being black and gay and pulled him off of his bus, then when she went against board policy and forced them to vote on a Bible Literacy course when the board does not decide curriculum, and then when she sat in an executive committee on the phone relating board actions to either her lawyer or her disgusting boyfriend – asking them how she should vote.
Minard thinks that Cape teaches special needs children like she trained a service dog, and said that she “tolerates” the District teaching students about evolution and the Holocaust. Rumor is that she doesn’t even live in the District, (Edited for content and off topic. Frank Knotts)
But maybe her flying monkey Mark Baker will run instead. Neither of them matter, Ernie will beat them like he beat their hero, Glen “Naxi” Urquhart. The 6th District won’t elect a fringe candidate.
Dave you are correct. I have come to call it, “district politics”. Meaning, you run candidates that fit the district. Ernie fits the 6th. As you say, there is a small vocal minority on both sides that have a problem with him. And as you say they are the fringe, meaning that Sen. Lopez is aligned with the mainstream voters in the 6th.
As for a primary? Well one can never tell how a GOP primary will go.
As for Wondering the puppet, are you either? If not then why do you care?
What Ernie will run as, is an electable candidate who has a real desire to serve the people, and not someone simply looking for their next resume enhancement. Like someone constantly repeating that they were a Reagan appointee.
Senator Lopez fits that district perfectly. I supported him then and I will support him again. The constituents in the 6th will re-elect him. Any primary from or challenge will be well funded and vocal, but fail miserably.
Clowns to the left and jokers to the right. Neither matter but some will likely learn the hard way.
wp, I agree I supported Senator Lopez the last election and will do so willingly again. I’ve known him since our girls went to school together in Lewes.
@6th district watcher the board most certainly does have a say/vote on curriculum. Who do you think approves the budget for materials, books etc for the curriculum taught or the educators hired to teach the curriculum? Who do you think approves overseas trips relating to the curriculum taught?
The elected school board does!
Anyone who runs will find someone, somewhere , who is displeased with them. With that in mind, it is prudent to ignore those who whine and moan, and instead focus on what the silent majority is thinking.
Ernie has voted his own way. That to me speaks volumes over someone who votes the way he gets told…
Glad he is in.
i’m sorry….. as a tax payer, i would prefer that sandi mindard not have a vote about curriculum. that board ( several members) was/were foolish enough to state for the legal record that they supported the adoption of “the bible and its influence” based not on its academic merit or relevance, but on its moral message. they in essence laid the groundwork for their ass whipping in court. thankfully it did not pass. we already spent enough county tax base defending and losing the councils right to open their meetings with the lords prayer.
Salty I could care less one way or the other. This proposed curriculum has in fact withstood lawsuits in other states where it is taught. This wave of political correctness has to stop somewhere what next take the word GOD out of the pledge of allegiance. Schools already forbid the use of Merry Christmas the nonsense has gone beyond ludicrous.
Well here we go off topic again thanks to the introduction of the fringe. Mr. Christy you fall prey to the same problem so many on the fringe do, you think everyone believes as you do, and that they must adhere to your views. I also see you again are talking about other states, still packing I hope.
You say, ” This wave of political correctness has to stop somewhere what next take the word GOD out of the pledge of allegiance.” Well you are aware there was no pledge until 1892, and that it was created by a socialist. It originally was written as, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Then in 1924 it was changed to, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” And only then was it officially recognized by the federal government. Still no God in the pledge. It wasn’t until 1954 that God was added to the pledge, and then only after a hard push by the Knights of Columbus.
So you see Mr. Christy, the pledge has seen many forms over the years, and yet the nation has survived. God does not exist because of being mentioned in a pledge created by man, God exist, well because God exist. Is your faith so weak that if people do not recite the pledge, or say Merry Christmas, it will fade away?
It went off topic with 6th district watcher. To bad your very obvious contempt for me doesn’t allow you to even acknowledge that fact.
I don’t believe anyone must adhere to my views that is YOU Frank not me. I express my opinions and my views plain and simple.
Frank Knotts wrote:
“I also see you again are talking about other states, still packing I hope.”
Nowhere in this discussion did I talk about another state stay focused Frank.
Next time you want to lecture me at least make sure your information is correct.
The original Bellamy salute, first described in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who authored the original Pledge, began with a military salute, and after reciting the words “to the flag,” the arm was extended toward the flag.
At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute — right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm downward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.
The Youth’s Companion, 1892
In 1923, the words, “the Flag of the United States of America” were added. At this time it read:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
In World War II, the salute too much resembled the Nazi salute, so it was changed to keep the right hand over the heart throughout.
Louis Bowman of Illinois added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1948, and convinced the Sons of the American Revolution (of which he was a member) and the Daughters of the American Revolution to adopt the new language.
The Knights of Columbus are also frequently mis-credited with adding “under God” to the pledge. In 1951 and 1952, the Knights of Columbus adopted resolutions incorporating the new “under God” language into the recitation of the pledge at their various meetings.
In 1953, Representative Louis Rabaut, a Democrat from Michigan, introduced the first bill in the U.S. Congress that would officially add “under God” to the Pledge. Rabaut’s effort was not immediately successful. It was, however, passed by Congress the following year, 1954. The Presbyterian Reverend George M. Docherty, who counted then-President Eisenhower among his congregation, was seen as influential in pushing the change.
The decision of Congress to add “under God” to the Pledge was, at least in part, a reaction to the Cold War with Soviet Russia. One of the differentiating factors between Soviet Communism and American Democracy was that the Soviets officially advocated atheism. The phrase “under God” was seen, therefore, to reaffirm an important distinction between the two competing worldviews.
On June 14, 1954, President Eisenhower signed the bill officially adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. The President remarked that, “millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Of course you can’t admit that Dwight D Eisenhower pushed for the words UNDER GOD in the pledge because it wouldn’t fit your argument.
Eisenhower was a staunch Republican.
Actually Billy boy, I said it went off topic with the introduction of the fringe, you assume I am talking about you, I actually meant the introduction of Ms. Minard’s name. But of course the universe revolves around Billy boy.
Billy boy go back and read your own comments, you say you never mentioned other states in this discussion, however in your previous comment you said, “This proposed curriculum has in fact withstood lawsuits in other states where it is taught.” Damn I hate when that happens, but maybe you were distracted by looking up people’s IP addresses or wrapping your breakables in newspapers for the trip.
Your long recitation of the history of the pledge is just a long winded version of what I stated. Pledge created in 1892 by a Christian socialist Frances Bellamy, in an effort to sell flags to schools, 1923 pledge was changed and adopted officially by federal government, and 1954 under God was added. WOW! You really showed me Billy boy. Thank you for making my point that the pledge is not part of our founding, and was not made official until 1954, and that it has been changed several times without the nation falling.
As for Eisenhower being in favor of it, well he had just been baptized a Presbyterian and may have been acting in a religious fervor.
You are correct about who had the idea first, but it was the push of the KOC that put it over the top.
Either way, forcing people to pledge allegiance to a flag does not insure allegiance, any more than forcing people to mouth the words under God will produce faith in said God. Your fanatical insistence upon such behavior only lends to the view that you and others are fanatics.
People such as yourself seem to need the reinforcement of pomp and circumstance to lend credibility to your views. People who feel allegiance to the flag do so without pledging it for an audience, and people who hold their faith in God do not feel the need to flaunt it.
It is the weak that must bolster their own failings by attempting to show how strong they are, it is the truly strong that rest upon their inward knowledge of who they are.
Earnie is ok but the religious nut stuff always makes me nervous. The district needs someone who will scream for infrastructure in Dover. We have beige plastic house cancer and it’s rapidly spreading.
What exactly does “political correctness” mean? It seems to be a kind of code phrase for angry, bigoted and ignorant folk who want to spew their inance bs and religious dogma and not be called on it.
mouse are you on drugs? I can’t even get out of town because of all of the road work going on in Sussex. Our “infrastructure” is getting updated all over the county in a big way.
Lot’s of fixing things that are collapsing. Not much in the ways of upgrades
“I can’t even get out of town because of all of the road work ‘
And when you look at each of those detours, you see that mouse is correct when stating “”Not much in the ways of upgrades”
None of them improved the infrastructure. There were no increases in lanes, modification of intersections, signaling changes, or anything else that would improve traffic flow.
None of them improved the infrastructure. There were no increases in lanes, modification of intersections, signaling changes, or anything else that would improve traffic flow.
Rt. 9 and Dairy Farm Road has a new, safer intersection with turn lanes and new signals. Robinsonville Rd. has a new bridge with wider shoulders, and they straightened out the dangerous curve considerably.
Plantations Rd and Postal Lane has a larger, safer intersection with turn lanes, new signals, and it’s a “t” instead of a trapezoid now.
Rt. 1 has more sidewalks, and several new pedestrian crossing signals.
That’s just some of the upgrades in just one Senate district in Sussex.
I’m voting for a theist state