Liberals begin campaign to smear State Senator Norman Stone!

[MDCivilServant]

This is probably just the beginning.

http://www.cleanslatecoalition.com/

"...we need to defend ourselves from people like the "Democratic" State Senator from District 6. Sen. Norm Stone voted to BAN interracial marriage in 1967 and is now opposing marriage equality in the State Senate."

[regularguy]

This is probably just the beginning.

http://www.cleanslatecoalition.com/

"...we need to defend ourselves from people like the "Democratic" State Senator from District 6. Sen. Norm Stone voted to BAN interracial marriage in 1967 and is now opposing marriage equality in the State Senate."

The linked article is kind of breathlessly hyperbolic... but if it's true, it isn't a "smear campaign".

[Woodbuchr]

It's actually kind of pathetic that this group had to dig back 45 years to find that interracial vote. So Senator Stone voted against gay marriage (I'm not so politically correct as to call it "marriage equality"). He is a conservative Democrat from what is still a basically conservative Democratic district. I am a constituent of Senator Stone's and I agree with his vote on gay marriage.

As for the interracial vote, 45 years ago that vote was probably not outside the norm (no pun intended) and probably mirrored his districts thoughts on the issue. I wasn't politically aware at the time (I was still in elementary school) and really don't remember that issue. For this group to dredge it up is, as I said, pathetic.

As an afterthought this group must be seriously one issued also. In 45 years they couldn't come up with anything else they didn't like. Senator Stone must be doing pretty well on everything else then if these are the only things they could find in the history of the longest serving state senator in the US.

[MontanaJack]

It's actually kind of pathetic that this group had to dig back 45 years to find that interracial vote. So Senator Stone voted against gay marriage (I'm not so politically correct as to call it "marriage equality"). He is a conservative Democrat from what is still a basically conservative Democratic district. I am a constituent of Senator Stone's and I agree with his vote on gay marriage.

As for the interracial vote, 45 years ago that vote was probably not outside the norm (no pun intended) and probably mirrored his districts thoughts on the issue. I wasn't politically aware at the time (I was still in elementary school) and really don't remember that issue. For this group to dredge it up is, as I said, pathetic.

As an afterthought this group must be seriously one issued also. In 45 years they couldn't come up with anything else they didn't like. Senator Stone must be doing pretty well on everything else then if these are the only things they could find in the history of the longest serving state senator in the US.

Well he supported Jim Crow evidently which is pretty terrible no matter how you spin it. By the way interracial marriage legalization passed 35-7 so his views were actually outside of the norm in 1967 Maryland. Like I said, terrible.

http://www.marylandjuice.com/2012/02...tone-back.html

[Baltimatt]

It sure would be fun if there were a board like this back in 1967 and we could go back and look at the discussion of interracial marriage. Maybe someone would say something like "Marriage is between people of the same race. Can't they call it something else?"

[Woodbuchr]

Well he supported Jim Crow evidently which is pretty terrible no matter how you spin it. By the way interracial marriage legalization passed 35-7 so his views were actually outside of the norm in 1967 Maryland. Like I said, terrible.

http://www.marylandjuice.com/2012/02...tone-back.html

I read the article at the bottom of the link you posted. It stated that the bill "barely" passed the Senate the year before and failed in the House the year before so as I see it it was still not outside the norm of the era which was just beginning to turn around at the time. According to the same article at least 5 of the 7 no votes were Democrats from the Baltimore area.

Today a vote like that would be considered unbelieveable and abhorant just like in 45 years a vote cast now against gay marriage may be. I just don't agree with taking 45 year old history and try to apply it to today's standards. Some things carry through time, such as murder has been wrong since the beginning, but others change with time.

This group is more than entitled to try to find a candidate to oppose Senator Stone in the next election (if he decides to run) but with the tactics they have already displayed I would give serious pause before even considering voting for their candidate.

[baltimoreron]

Senator Stone has needed to go for many years now. He got a real scare from a young opponent last time around. So much so that he was actually at the polling place on election day. I honestly don't remember that ever happening before.

I said hello, shook his hand and then proceeded to vote for the other guy.

[ivanbalt]

I don't care what his politics are, he should be gone. 40+ years in the same position is not acceptable.

[Woodbuchr]

Senator Stone has needed to go for many years now. He got a real scare from a young opponent last time around. So much so that he was actually at the polling place on election day. I honestly don't remember that ever happening before.

I said hello, shook his hand and then proceeded to vote for the other guy.

Oh come on now, just because he wasn't at your polling place when you were there doesn't mean he wasn't at any polling place. I didn't see Martin O'Malley, Bob Ehrlich, or Kevin Kamenentz at my polling place either. I have seen and not seen local candidates at polling places every election.

I think it was great that Jordan Hadfiled did so well. He is very active in the communty and did make it a real election. In my opinion, every election for every seat should be closely contested. It helps to keep the incumbents feet closer to the ground.

[Woodbuchr]

I don't care what his politics are, he should be gone. 40+ years in the same position is not acceptable.

Apparently the majority of his constituents disagree with you.

[baltimoreron]

Oh come on now, just because he wasn't at your polling place when you were there doesn't mean he wasn't at any polling place. I didn't see Martin O'Malley, Bob Ehrlich, or Kevin Kamenentz at my polling place either. I have seen and not seen local candidates at polling places every election.

I think it was great that Jordan Hadfiled did so well. He is very active in the communty and did make it a real election. In my opinion, every election for every seat should be closely contested. It helps to keep the incumbents feet closer to the ground.

Been voting for 20+ years in the same district. Never seen Stone before. He was scared...and he needs to go. Time for some new blood.

[Woodbuchr]

I have been voting in the same district for 38 years and sometimes I have seen the people running and sometimes not. As a matter of fact I don't remember seeing Jordan when I went to vote when he ran against Senator Stone, but then I didn't see Norman Stone either. It doesn't mean neither was there, it just means they weren't there when I was.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs about who should be in office and so you can vote accordingly. The thing is more people need to vote and they should be educated voters. Just pullng the lever for the one that is in there not, IMO, an educated vote even if it is for Norman Stone. I wish more people would know why they are voting for someone other than just recognizing the name.

If your reason is just that someone has been in there too long then that's your reason. Personally I don't care how long they have been in as long as they are voting the way I want most of the time and the way I want on issues of importance to me. If they stop voting the way I like, or a candidate I think is better comes along, I will vote against them.

[baltimoreron]

Educated voter. Preferred Jordan over Norman. Forty years is way too long to be in office, and part of the current problem in MD and in DC, IMO.

I have also volunteered and spent many hours handing out materials for both parties. Have never seen Norman before. I could list off those I have seen, but that would take too long.

Actually, I have become anti-Johnny O because of his antics on election day. He should stay home.

[Woodbuchr]

What antics were those? I didn't see him either and don't recollect hearing of any antics. Was it Jr. or Sr. you are speaking of?

[baltimoreron]

What antics were those? I didn't see him either and don't recollect hearing of any antics. Was it Jr. or Sr. you are speaking of?

Senior. I have been told that Jr. is the total opposite of his Dad.

[EmDot]

IMO, elected officials should be guided by their constituents but I think in the area of civil rights they should vote vote for what's right. The interracial marriage vote is a perfect example. His constituents might have been against it, but it wasn't the right way to vote.