a vote for rothfus is a vote against cycling
Is Rothfus on record as a concrete supporter of biker-important issues? (Trail development, street signage, anything?) It’s not enough to just say stuff, or to be talked into taking your kids on a ride up the GAP (possibly by your campaign director). It counts more if you actually did something.
I’m more inclined to believe someone like Stu, who we know to be knowledgeable on transit issues.
I somehow doubt that money allocated to Rhode Island trails came specifically from Western PA. If it did, I’d like to know exactly how that happened. In any case, are you asserting that Critz has never, throughout his career, brought any money to Western PA? Even if this sounds like a bit of an over simplification, do you have any evidence to support your claim that Critz diverts money from this region? Remember, Critz was a long-term associate of Murtha’s, who had been responsible for bringing many benefits to his district. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I would assume that their concerns are similar.
Most of the people who frequent this board are reasonably bright, and would likely respond more favorably to a cogent argument than what, in all appearances, comes across as slander based on a minor detail pulled out of some larger context. Is this the best you can say about Rothfus?
I would instead say that Doyle is glad that you live in his district.
How silly. How does one prepare for a lightning strike, since we are on such subjects? lol
@gg How does one prepare for a lightning strike … ?
Fly a kite in a thunderstorm.
From the horse’s mouth, or possibly his handlers:
A recent mailer from the Republican Party of Pennsylvania (Paid for by the Republican Federal Committeeof Pennsylvania) sez….”The Keith Rothfus jobs plan includes reduced government spending, reduced regulations, lower taxes and limited government.” Of particular note are “limited government” and “reduced government spending”.
From the Tea Party Patriots website, one of their three core principles is “Constitutionally Limited Government”…”CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. America’s founders believed that government power should be limited, enumerated, and constrained by our Constitution. Tea Party Patriots agree. The American people make this country great, not our government.”
Are bike lanes/trails in the Constitution?
With reduced government spending, do you expect Transportation Enhancement spending to be restored? Do you expect federal transportation spending to continue?
So these half literate sack nobbing morons conveniently ignore entire section 8, article 1, of the big C?: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…” etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
offtn? “Lenny” is that you? Welcome back to the conversation!
It’s a bit late (for me),but here’s a few quick comments:
1) Bike lanes are not in the Constitution. It’s not what the Constitution is about. Did you somehow manage skip out on civics in grade school? Or were you one of those victims of “home schooling”? Really now…
2) The government is YOU (or more precisely, *US*). It’s not the Crown, and it’s not the “Union”. This is a democracy. We end up being governed by what the majority of the citizenry decides is a reasonable set of representatives. Your champion, I would hazard, is not one of reasonable ones. The rest of us want someone who is representative.
You could always move to the South, if you’re actually serious about your stuff.
[Yes, that’s snide. Deal with it.]
@ Lenny –
I’m curious as to your support for Rothfus. Could you point us to some public statement of Rothfus that would show that bikers should support him?
The more specific proposals that would benefit bikes the better.
I can’t speak for others here, but statements to the effect that he wouldn’t let tax money from PA go to other places would not be the slightest bit convincing to me.
You’ve posted a lot of good stuff over the years here. The posting history (that anyone can look at) really shows you as committed bicyclist. So I’m curious about this.
Rothfus strikes me as just another Republican paying lip service to the constitution and seriously sucking up to billionaires that would like to eliminate taxes on large fortunes of all sorts. If there is something special about him with regard to bicycles, I’d like to hear the details.
Yeah, I think the ad is pretty clear it’s not the “Rhode Island” part of it that he objects to. He’s just flat out against “wasteful spending”. You know, the stuff besides wars and highways and corporate welfare and the like.
I’ll take spending PA money to put a trail somewhere else as opposed to not putting a trail anywhere
Rothfus is from the same party that brought a huge photograph of a penny-farthing on the congress floor and said “Why are we spending money on this?” What’s this guy done so far to distinguish himself from them?
For whatever it’s worth, I use the river trails on a regular basis to commute to work and I’ve used the Montour trail in the past to do the same
re: debt, T bills are still pretty well regarded relative to the market junk that’s out there. I have some nice Facebook stock I can sell you (just kidding, I’m not an idiot).
BTW I’m pretty sure that the vote Rothfus is complaining about that built bike trails in Rhode Island was Critz’s vote for the surface transportation bill (Extension of Surface Transportation Funding and Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline). Which included funding for all sorts of things that were far more expensive than bike trails. Interesting he picked that as the thing to make a commercial about.
@jonawebb BTY I’m sure you are wrong.
(H.R. 5880) This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a specific earmark that provided $1M for a bike path in RI. The house rejected the amendment by a vote of 163-260
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.