Rollins Resigns from Wilmington Trust
May 27th, 2010 by David Anderson
Congressional Candidate MicheleRollins resigned from the Wilmington Trust Board of Directors. It is a good move. It makes her free to say what she wants and gives more time for campaigning. It also removes any conflicts between being a taxpayer advocate and having a responsibility for the bank.
She got her big pay day.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DelawarePolitics.net, Monet Smith. Monet Smith said: RT @delpolitics Congressional Candidate Michele Rollins resigned from the Wilmington Trust Bo… http://bit.ly/akP3bF [...]
Good.
If Rollins wins in November, we’re just replacing one RINO with another.
Mike Castle didn’t do a good job as a congressman. What did the Republican Party do; they’re trying to promote him.
To keep a rotten thing going, they are replacing him with another left of center RINO.
David,
A suggestion if I may.
You should put up an “open thread” every once in a while. There is a heck of a lot going on out there that wealthy parasites (like myself) are itching to comment on.
For example – Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It seems some wingnuts are freaking the heck out.
Very original, Trust Fund. Mascitti read that whole thing on air today.
David: You misspelled “Wilmington” in the title of this post.
That’s nice. But I still have not see David’s post on it – so I’ll go ahead and ask my question here.
Is it typical patriot thinking that whenever a non-gay and a gay are in a room together that the non-gay is going to end up sucking the gay guy or getting his bottom violated?
Because I kinda get that impression.
I see. So, since you gave up blogging, your trust fund-minded self now believes it has the right to tell others what to blog on their own blog?
Typical.
I doubt if the political impact of the WT post is gone and I am sure primary opponents and D’s will use to effectiveness.
Mike Protack
It was a suggestion not a mandate.
(tee hee…I said man date, get it?)
So Protack is not down with Rollins? I thought you were a solid party man now Mike. What gives?
Rollins is no “RINO.” You freaks who think you own the party now need to get your facts straight.
Um rationalize, if I can clue you in, the general rule is, if the “establishment” annoints them upon the brow, they therefore are RINO. You know that!
Does this mean she can now talk down TARP, just not when Mr. Castle is in the room , right?
Let’s be fair here. Her website posted policies are largely boilerplate. The fact is, we don’t know yet that she’s a “RINO” (Rockefeller Republican), we don’t know that she’s a Reagan Republican. Her video on education is long on emotional appeal, but short on specfics. We know she’s pro abortion. We know she does not favor any reform of the dying entitlement programs Social Security or Medicare, but would rather “stay the course.” Our party leaders bought into her sight unseen, hoping that in September we’ll do the same. And hoping her wealth would carry the day.
Now its up to Mrs. Rollins to define just what she is and what she believes in.
Before Glen Urquhart or the Democrats do it for her.
We know she’s pro abortion.
Rollins is not “pro abortion”. I’ve spoken to her at length about this issue. Your problem with her is that she won’t be an absolutist like you on the issue. Good for her. I believe there comes a point when the government should get the Hell out of what goes on between a man and a woman who have a life and death decision on the table. But feel free, Michael, to be a woman’s death panel, then go whine about Obama.
Our party leaders bought into her sight unseen, hoping that in September we’ll do the same. And hoping her wealth would carry the day.
Our party leaders have seen Rollins for over 35 years. They know exactly who she is and where she stands on every issue. And if you take the time to speak with virtually any Republican in the state that actually gets off their ass and pitches in during campaigns, you would know that most of them know Rollins too. Thank God that every Republican in the state isn’t a blathering fool like you.
And was it her wealth? Glen Urquhart lives in a multimillion dollar house in a multimillion dollar neighborhood. The fact that people like you and Urquhart try to divide the party down class lines is appalling. Let’s split hairs over which multimillionaire is more multimillionairish. Sorry, but the entire premise is foolish.
And so are you, for trying to pull it.
Ronald Reagan would puke up an intestine if he knew so called Republicans were trying to divide his party by class. That was against everything he believed in.
Way to go, now run off and accuse people of being “RINOS,” RINO.
alice. I’m glad to see that it’s not just me that you are rude to. And that it’s not just Mr. Castle that your are blind for. I especially like the part where you invoke the name of Pres. Reagan. Mr. Borgia, just in case you’re not aware, in alice’s world you are now supposed to stop and genuflect, and all arguement is now over. alice likes to tell people that they shouldn’t judge who is or isn’t a Republican. And then she tells you if you are one or not. And you can only be a Republican in alice’s world if you have carried Mike Castle’s water for thirty years.Which I’m sure we can assume that Mrs. Rollins most likely has.
Now alice, sweet alice,to your view on abortion and maybe Mrs. Rollins’ also since you have chosen to speak for her. alice you say,”I believe there comes a point when the government should get the Hell out of what goes on between a man and a woman who have a life and death decision on the table”,I assume that you are using that time honored pro abortion arguement of when the life of the mother is in danger. alice please give some stats on how often abortions are preformed for this reason as opposed to just for the convenience of the mother, and the father almost never has any input. As for the government getting out of the way, well who in your liberal view is the advocate for the child? Why is the mother’s life more important than the child’s? Have you ever considered God’s will? Have you ever thought about one life leaves this world and one enters? Who is to decide? A doctor? A husband who is distraught? What if they choose to kill the baby and the mother dies anyway?What has been gained?
And who gets to decide in the case of a minor who has crossed state line to have an abortion? Does she or the doctor ask her parents? Oh! That’s right in Mr. Castle’s and I assume most likely in Mrs. Rollins’ world the parents need not be involved.
I believe that every life is precious, the mother and the child, and I have enough faith in God to believe that God’s will is wiser than that of we mere mortals.
alice. I’m glad to see that it’s not just me that you are rude to. And that it’s not just Mr. Castle that your are blind for. I especially like the part where you invoke the name of Pres. Reagan. Mr. Borgia, just in case you’re not aware, in alice’s world you are now supposed to stop and genuflect, and all arguement is now over. alice likes to tell people that they shouldn’t judge who is or isn’t a Republican. And then she tells you if you are one or not. And you can only be a Republican in alice’s world if you have carried Mike Castle’s water for thirty years.Which I’m sure we can assume that Mrs. Rollins most likely has.
Now alice, sweet alice,to your view on abortion and maybe Mrs. Rollins’ also since you have chosen to speak for her. alice you say,”I believe there comes a point when the government should get the Hell out of what goes on between a man and a woman who have a life and death decision on the table”,I assume that you are using that time honored pro abortion arguement of when the life of the mother is in danger. alice please give some stats on how often abortions are preformed for this reason as opposed to just for the convenience of the mother, and the father almost never has any input. As for the government getting out of the way, well who in your liberal view is the advocate for the child? Why is the mother’s life more important than the child’s? Have you ever considered God’s will? Have you ever thought about one life leaves this world and one enters? Who is to decide? A doctor? A husband who is distraught? What if they choose to kill the baby and the mother dies anyway?What has been gained?
And who gets to decide in the case of a minor who has crossed state line to have an abortion? Does she or the doctor ask her parents? Oh! That’s right in Mr. Castle’s and I assume most likely in Mrs. Rollins’ world the parents need not be involved.
I believe that every life is precious, the mother and the child, and I have enough faith in God to believe that God’s will is wiser than that of we mere mortals.
Alice
That was quite a bit of blathering yourself, but you’re good at it, just not good at making any sense.
Rollins is pro-abortionist. In New Castle, she preached pro-abortionism and when she came to Sussex, she preached pro-life. Only Republican endorsed sweetheart Rollins could have it both ways.
What in the heck would make us believe that she will change her tune and be any different if she were elected. Once a RINO, always a RINO.
Yes Alice, she is a RINO, hoping to get by unnoticed.
Yeah, Frank, and in your world everyone is supposed to stop and genuflect TO YOU. You ride Castle because he won’t carry YOUR water. “Waaaaaa Castle doesn’t agree with me 100% of the time….”
I don’t speak for Rollin’s on abortion, she can do that herself, and she has. And she’s certainly not “pro abortion”.
And yes, I believe that there are times when a mother’s life is on the line, and that decision should be left up to her, the father, and their God. Not the government.
But you perfectly proved my point, you whined about Obama’s “death panels” while you can’t wait to be on one yourself.
I just want to let you guys know that I will not be here to shine a light on your ignorance and stupidity today. Sorry about that.
David has assured me that the wingnut ignorance and stupidity will continue to gush out of this bloody abortion of a site absent my “top-kill” wit and cunning argumentation.
So, Carry on Patriots!! And have a patriotic memorial day full of hating on gays and brown people.
You have a solemn and reflective memorial day yourself.
I have no problem with recognizing the right of self defense applied to abortion. Life of the mother is not an issue being hotly debated in the campaign. That is a decision prayerfully made which could never be legislated. You try to save life as your focus. If you can terminate the pregnancy and save both the child and mother, you do it. If you can’t save the child, you save the mother. It is a sad situation, but some children are not just strong enough to be born and continued pregnancy will just endanger everyone as in a tubal. Is there anyone arguing that?
Red herring.
Every day’s a vacation when you haven’t worked a day in your life, eh, Trust Fund?
Hey, don’t encourage him. Let him enjoy a few days off. I could use a couple.
Kidding Jason
She resigned her job. She’s salivating over the prospect of a Georgetown (D.C.) townhouse, the Kennedy Center and the cocktail party circuit. Not going to happen.
Rick
For the sake of Delaware and America, I also hope it won’t happen.
David, it seems that Frank was arguing that point in #16 & 17.
But it seems that you and alice agree that abortion is not a black and white issue. And I will refrain from accusing both of you of preaching “pro-abortionism” even though that’s what people on this blog accuse candidates of if they don’t toe their line 100%.
The rational way to handle the issue is to preach a culture of responsibility, where men and women who don’t want a baby use birth control or self control. But unfortunately, even the idea of birth control is controversial for some people.
It looks like Rollins resigned from Wilmington Trust the Monday after she won the endorsement from the convention, May 17th. I think that was the appropriate action at the appropriate time.
Poor Alice…
You don’t know I’m an absolutist on the issue of abortion. You don’t know the first thing about me in fact, so please take it easy with the ad hominem attacks. Michele Rollins is pro abortion. I have her on video saying so, in her own words…very many of them. I have only stated that clear fact. I neither praised, nor criticized her for that. That perception only comes from your imagination. Ronald Reagan by the way, who you so freely evoke, was an absolutist.
I have never discussed class lines in my post either. That came out of your imagination. You think I don’t know how rich Glen Urquhart is?
Our party leaders have known her for thirty five years? That would be a bit of a stretch since Tom Ross is not much older than that. In fact, he had not been born yet when Mrs. Rollins won the Miss USA pageant. Mrs. Rollins has been a behind the scenes factor in our party for many years, but few of the delegates know much, if anything about her personal political beliefs. And we still do not. Again, that is not a criticism, simply an inarguable fact. That’s why three fifths of them refused to support her on the first ballot.
And Alice, dear…if you read my post you will see that I called no one a RINO. The term appalls me in fact. The party has been split into two distinct wings for five decades now and there’s room for all of us. You on the other hand appear to know nothing of Reagan or what he believed in, most especially Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.
Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.
Frank, thanks for the information and advice. Worry not. I genuflect to no one in debate and I am a Republican not because I pass someone’s litmus test, but because of the events that shaped my life.
My only point in my previous post is that if Mrs. Rollins does not define herself and her platform soon, Urquhart and Carney will do it for her. That’s no criticism. Just a simple statement of fact.
alice , I have to tell you, I have never heard you speak, but when I read your post , I hear Hillary Clinton.
Give it up, Michael, you said this:
“Our party leaders bought into her sight unseen, hoping that in September we’ll do the same. And hoping her wealth would carry the day.”
Yes, they’ve know her for 35 years. The party leadership is more than just Tom Ross. And, whoops, it looks like you did bring up her “wealth,” like it was her only attribute, which is evoking class warfare. And you think you’re an 11th Commandment guy? Think again.
Then you said this:
“Ronald Reagan by the way, who you so freely evoke, was an absolutist.”
You’re wrong about Reagan. He wrote this in 1983:
http://old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp
The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is “to protect innocent life, both before and after birth.” This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.
So Reagan was not and “absolutist” on abortion as you stated. Looks like I know more about him than you do, smart guy. He “endorsed” the idea that there should be an exception for the life of the mother, because Reagan also didn’t want to be a woman’s death panel. Please stop misrepresenting him as an “absolutist.”
And Frank, who cares what you “hear” you have no credibility. Shouldn’t you be off somewhere lying about how many years Castle worked in the private sector?
Shouldn’t you be off somewhere lying about how many years Castle worked in the private sector?
Actually, he is. New post tonight. Another pop-up website has appeared with much of the same.
Alice
To the fetus, abortion is a black and white issue. If the mother decides to abort the fetus, the fetus dies. Yes it is black and white for that unborn child. If you call that being an absolutist then so be it. I guess every fetus would be an absolutist, along with many of us.
You don’t sound so much like Hilary Clinton, you sound more like Nancy Pelosi.
windjammer, I have to disagree, while Pelosi is annoying and liberal,she is not whiny, I stand by my first opinion, alice sounds like Hillary Clinton. And alice, I am still waiting for those statistics on how many abortions are preformed every year to save the mother’s life. If there are so many as to set policy based on this fact, then there should be some data out there. But maybe you are too busy out looking for buckets to carry Mr. Castle’s water in.
alice, thought I would help you out, I know how busy you must be polishing your collection of state’s quarters. If you will go to this page: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp you will see that more women die during or as a result of abortions , than do women from pregnancy complications. So why are we using the low number of “to save the life of the mother” arguement to justify the staggering number of babies being killed year in year out?
Alice so does James Dobson. No one is debating life of the mother as I said. There are people who object to that “exception” but when they explain their position it comes down to the same result. Common law gives you a right of self defense. No law can be passed to make you give up your life. Like the no exception person that I am, I do not support abortion for any reason. I do recognize that sometimes it is necessary to save a life. The intent then is to save life not take it.
That is a complete red herring. National Right to Life agrees with me and all of us. Don’t make up a position and then claim we share it. With all due respect that is what you did. Life of the mother is not Michelle Rollins position. She would be my new best friend if it were.
I am not opposing her of course. You obviously see no real negatives from me. I am just clarifying what I see from public statements. When she gets back to me on the interview she promised, we may get clarity.
David, you can keep saying that “no one is debating the life of the mother,” but that apparently is exactly what is being debated by Windjammer, Michael, and Frank.
Sorry, David, but you me and Reagan are now “pro abortion.”
And Frank, the statistics as to why women actually get abortions are old and mostly inaccurate, that’s a complaint I’ve had for years, I’ve always felt it was to hide the fact that the majority of abortions were due to a lack of personal responsibility.
But just because the life of the mother may not be the biggest reason women get abortions, it doesn’t mean that the women in that position should be left without recourse. That door should never be closed. Our government should never be the death panel for those women.
Alice, you poor woman, how did you get so angry? If you truly can’t understand how much every life meant to President Reagan, than you truly have no understanding of the man, no matter what semi-relevant, out of context quotes you dig up.
I did mention her wealth as though it is her only attribute, because at this point in the campaign, it was the sole reason for endosing her at convention. Do you truly believe if she could not self finance her own campaign that she would have been so heavily recruited? At this point it is certainly not for her conservative credentials. If money were not the central issue, Kevin Wade would be our nominee.
And yes, Alice, to me and more than half the delegates, Michele Rollins is brought to us sight unseen. Many of us had never seen her in person until the convention. Most still do not know what she stands for, other than her painstakingly (and painfully) annunciated position on abortion, and that she does not support any reform to Social Security or Medicare. That’s it. That’s all we know about her.
So to get back to my one and only point before Alice ran off on some of these lurid, anger driven tangents; Mrs. Rollins needs to quickly and capably define herself. If she does not do it and soon, John Carney and Glen Urquhart will use the millions at their disposal to do it for her. And those who support her will not like the picture they will paint.
Michele Rollins is a Republican and I’m glad she’s on our side. She is the chosen champion of the party leaders. That was their decision and they made it with the party’s and nation’s best interests in mind. She may or may not end up our party’s nominee for the House. That will be our decision and we’ll make it with our party’s and nation’s best interest in mind.
Alice, you poor woman, how did you get so angry? If you truly can’t understand how much every life meant to President Reagan, than you truly have no understanding of the man, no matter what semi-relevant, out of context quotes you dig up.
You obviously didn’t read it, it wasn’t a “quote” it was part of an op ed piece Reagan wrote. Those were exactly his words as written, Reagan believe that the life of the mother was an exception. Here it is again, since you don’t seem to grasp Reagan’s own words:
This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support.
You may think I’m “angry” but at least I don’t live in denial.
Alice
Not too many pro-life people that I know wouldn’t support the right of a woman to save her life, if having a baby would kill her. Absolutist is too general of a term to class pro-life people into.
The trouble is that too many abortion doctors will slide the rules and declare that the mother’s life is in danger when in fact, it is not. When young women find themselves in trouble and are not financially stable enough to care for and raise an infant, most of the time the first thing they think of is abortion.
Many people would love to adopt a newborn and give it a chance to succeed in life.
I believe that abortion is made far too easy for the average American woman, when other options are available to them. I also believe that every life is important and should be a consideration.
alice you need to be very careful right now because we are about to agree. When you say, “But just because the life of the mother may not be the biggest reason women get abortions, it doesn’t mean that the women in that position should be left without recourse. That door should never be closed.” I agree with that in general, but I don’t agree that the very low number of cases where the mother’s life is in danger, should be used as a bludgeon to justify the 45 million babies who have been murdered since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.
Exactly, if we went back to Pre-Roe, every state in the country had a life of the mother provision in their law. Some states like New York, California, Delaware, and Hawaii adopted much more liberal laws which allowed mental and physical health exceptions in the first 5 or 6 months during the 60′s or early 70′s. Those were manipulated to make for easy abortion. The only justification for an inoccent life to be lost is to save a life. It is still a tradgedy to be mourned. Just like I mourned the Afghan civilans killed in the cross fire. If the U. S. targeted them, that would have been criminal. The fact the Taliban leadership hides among sympathetic civilians means there is no choice if we are going to end the war and save the lives of other civilians who have no choice.
Abortion is an illegitimate war on the unborn and it must stop.
I grasp Reagan more clearly than you can possibly understand Allice. Reagan did say that, but he also said unequivically many times that any abortion under any circumstances still constitutes killing a baby. Nothing can minimize that. And his position on that was absolute.
No, you don’t live in denial. But you do live in a fantasy world if you truly believe Reagan is pro abortion.
I echo David’s sentiment as well. Forty five million dead babies is an unacceptable attrocity. That may (historical counts vary) be more people than were killed by the Nazis, the Soviet Communists, the Chinese Communists, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein all put together.
[...] Visit link: Rollins Resigns from Wilmington Trust – DelawarePolitics.net … [...]
Rollins is not “pro abortion”. I’ve spoken to her at length about this issue. Your problem with her is that she won’t be an absolutist like you on the issue. Good for her.….q-alice
Her (default) ‘position’ is pro-death.
I believe there comes a point when the government should get the Hell out of what goes on between a man and a woman who have a life and death decision on the table.…q alice
‘Life and death decision?’ A ‘life and death’ decision is determining what to do when a guy has a gun pulled on you, or an out-of-control truck is heading for your car, head-on; deciding to kill your own unborn child is simple murder- go ahead and rationalize all you want, that’s what it is. Absolutely.
Michael, the fact Reagan believed that abortion was an option if the mother’s life was on the line doesn’t make him “pro abortion.”