Sen. Nancy Jacobs becomes Senate minority leader
* Updated with statements after the jump.
Sen. Nancy Jacobs has been elected the Senate's new minority leader -- a surprising turn of events given that just weeks ago she was voted out of her position as minority whip.
Jacobs, who represents Cecil and Harford counties, assumes the leadership position immediately. She replaces Sen. Allan H. Kittleman of Howard County, who resigned this week -- also a surprise move -- because his push for civil unions was causing friction within the caucus.
The Senate's 12 Republicans held a meeting this afternoon to choose their new leader, also selecting the Eastern Shore's Sen. E.J. Pipkin as minority whip. Pipkin replaces Sen. David Brinkley, a Frederick County Republican who had been vying for the minority leader position.
From a freshly released GOP statement:
"I am honored and humbled by the support of my colleagues in electing me Minority Leader," said Jacobs. "While there are many difficult issues we need to address during this legislative session, I look forward working with my fellow senators to ensure Maryland's success."
"We have significant budgetary challenges facing us in the 2011 legislative session," Pipkin said, "fortunately I feel that our caucus has a united sense of mission and passion in facing these challenges. I'm ready to get to work."
From Maryland Republican Party Chairman (and former state senator) Alex X. Mooney:
“I want to congratulate newly elected Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs and Senate Minority Whip E.J. Pipkin on their new leadership positions. Senators Jacobs and Pipkin are excellent public servants and I look forward to working with them closely in their new roles. Together, with the new leadership, I am confident we can work diligently toward providing an alternative voice to the calls for tax increases coming from the Democrats in the General Assembly.”
Excerpts from Maryland Democratic Party release:
"Maryland Republicans Take Another Hard Right Turn: Maryland’s Senate Republicans today affirmed that they are out of touch and out of new ideas by choosing Nancy Jacobs to lead their dwindling State Senate caucus. ... Rather than come together to help move Maryland forward, the elections of Jacobs and E.J. Pipkin personify the Republican establishment’s unwillingness to build consensus in Annapolis. Nancy Jacobs is wedded to positions that are far-right, divisive and out of the mainstream."
Comments
She voted against a bill allowing Judges to Confiscate Firearms from Domestic Abuse Suspects. The gun nuts should love her. I guess the Republicans would rather see abused spouses shot than loving partners married. They call it “family values.”
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | January 21, 2011 4:02 PM
Is former Sunspot poster "Geevill" still her Chief-of-Staff?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2011 4:03 PM
I'm right there with you Dana. Are they serious?? Ms. Jacobs is one of the most hateful and willfully ignorant politicians I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. What a sad state of affairs...
Posted by: MadelBlue | January 21, 2011 4:17 PM
I guess they believe in "second amendment solutions" to bad marriages. That whole divorce thingy is just too unchristian.
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | January 21, 2011 5:11 PM
I am very happy to see Ms. Jacobs become Minority Leader. Se has an excellent grasp of what Marylanders need to change in our current laws.
Posted by: Tyler | January 21, 2011 6:04 PM
Congratulations to the GOP senators on an excellent choice for Leader! Senator Jacobs does a fabulous job representing her (overwhelmingly democratic) constituents here in Harford and Cecil Counties, and that's why we keep sending her back to Annapolis. She is a staunch defender of the rights of all Marylanders, especially the most vulnerable amongst us. The rabid rhetoric of the leftists above prove that she is doing a lot of things exactly right. Way to go, Nancy!!!
Posted by: Sandy in Bel Air | January 21, 2011 7:33 PM
The Maryland Democratic Party's Rapid Response Program lackeys are out in force today.
Jacobs is a wise choice. I like her because she fought the establishment to protect kids from sex offenders. And isn't it about time we had some female leadership in Annapolis?
Posted by: Wise | January 21, 2011 10:36 PM
Dana the problem is that you appear to support the sort of sentiment that someone is not able to defend themselves. Citing a flawed bill that Jacobs and Brinkley both voted against is fool-hardy. Especially when you're quick to forget Democrat statements such as:
Senate Pro Tem said in 2009:
"Given this scenario, there was a situation in Prince George's County unfortunately of a woman who was abused obviously. And she was at work. And her husband came in and unfortunately and lamentably threw some sort of gasoline mixture on her and set her on fire in her work environment. Suppose she had opted to have a gun in that situation. This is a place of business. And had she attempted to defend herself during this occurence, I just think that it may have been some unintended consequences in people who would be adversely affected"
Posted by: Brad | January 21, 2011 10:56 PM
Brad. You missed, or misunderstood, my point. The law would have allowed a judge to take a gun away from an abuser. Your scenario suggests a gun in the hands of the victim. I would agree that the woman in your scenario should be able to avail herself of her second amendment rights, though divorce is a cleaner and more ladylike solution.
What Jacobs voted against was a law that would allow a judge to take a gun away from a person who had been issued a final protective order to an abuser to stop harassing or harming the victim, issued after a judge and has determined that there is clear and convincing evidence to believe that the claim of abuse is real. The protective order lasts for a year and can be renewed in six month intervals.
This law provides a temporary remedy, not a permanent removal of the gun toting wife beating clown’s constitutional right to hunt silly rabbits with his trusty blunderbuss with the extended magazine.
I think the Pro Tem example is a good illustration of the fallacy known as "misleading vividness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness
Thanks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | January 24, 2011 1:23 AM