So, I read the story in today's ProJo about the ongoing budget battle and came across this:
“This isn’t a Democratic budget by any means. This is a Republican budget. Let’s face it,” said Tom Slater, D-Providence, who did not sign the petition and said yesterday he wasn’t aware of it. “I would never have set up a budget like this.”And the first thing I wondered was, "What is this guy on..." Then I remembered.Then why did he vote for it in the House Finance Committee meeting last week?
“Because it’s a give-and-take process. If you want items, you have to give up items,” he said, declining to be more specific.
UPDATE: Commenter MRH writes "The medical marijuana crack seems a bit harsh..." and commenter Will adds, "I agree. Slater is just a plain old idiot, not a drug addict." I've responded, but here's more...I admit, the post does approach the line. (That's me, ever the provocateur!) And I did consider whether or not I should post it in the way I did. But then again, what's wrong with a little irreverence every now and then?
Okay, let me get this straight. A member of the House Finance Committee would never have set up a budget like this even though he sits as a member of the committee that set up a budget like this?
I think Mr. Slater needs to hire a life coach like Patches Kennedy, somebody who can remind him what he actually does each day.
Bugs Bunny said it best, "What a maroon!"
Posted by: John at June 13, 2007 10:25 AMThe medical marijuana crack seems a bit harsh...
Posted by: mrh at June 13, 2007 10:40 AMI agree. Slater is just a plain old idiot, not a drug addict.
Posted by: Will at June 13, 2007 10:47 AMConsider it a form of experimentation on my part...how far could our relatively staid blog venture before accused of being harsh. I figured it would be approaching the line.
Posted by: Marc Comtois at June 13, 2007 12:19 PMMaybe I'm just humorless, but for personal reasons I have trouble taking the denial of palliative care lightly.
Carry on.
Posted by: mrh at June 13, 2007 12:23 PMMRH, I got ya, but it was intended as a facile swipe anyway, so don't think too deep on it. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of things that you'd joke about in a similarly facile manner that may offend my sensibilities if I were to take it too seriously. Anyway, 'nuff said.
Posted by: Marc Comtois at June 13, 2007 1:52 PMIndeed. No harm, no foul.
Posted by: mrh at June 13, 2007 2:37 PMThis is one of the hazards of forfeiting your reading skills in favor of letting the Dem leadership guide your hand as you rubberstamp their work product. Whether spoken in a drug haze or not, this statement makes the representative look remarkably foolish indeed.
Posted by: SusanD at June 13, 2007 4:19 PM