In an earlier blog post, Dan Roberts was quoted to explain the situation in the state senate. Specifically, he was quoted to explain the reason why Phil Poole had been filibustering earlier in the session. At the time, we assumed Dan was giving an objective summary of the situation. We were simply trying to keep everyone informed about the climate in Montgomery. However, some recent events have caused me to look into the claims further, and it’s now apparent that Dan’s summary was tinged with partisan speculation.
Just one example of incorrect information in the post was when Dan suggested that Senator Poole accepted accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution in exchange for a caucus vote. What he failed to include, however, was that Poole had returned the $10,000 check in question, uncashed, so there was no personal or political gain.
Free the Hops has typically maintained a policy of neutrality in any political matter not directly related to our legislative efforts, and I apologize that we let this slip through the cracks and be posted on our public blog. I’m even more sorry that this post was innocently quoted as fact by FTH supporters in some recent letters to the editor.
We strive for the information posted to this blog to be objective regarding anything except our legislative agenda. Although we are usually successful, this was an exception. We will be more vigilant in future in checking our information.
23 Comments
Good move Stuart. It is the right and proper thing to do. Cheers!
It’s nice to see someone being adult like this when it comes to politics, makes me proud to root for this organization. Bravo sir!
ditto
Excellent post. Honesty is always good. Especially when the misinformation gets the Internet Hate Machine ® riled up.
Good that you’re interested in getting the facts straight. But make no mistake, Poole’s getting his payoff in the form of a big pork project. The reason he’s filibustering is because it was promised but he hasn’t gotten it yet.
B’ham News reports this morning under “Legislative Summary” that ” Senate “voted to allow stronger wine to be sold in the state. Goes to House”. What’s up?
If I’m not mistaken the roll was called, and it passed the senate right before the budget came up in the senate.
Well, is this big news? I’m assuming Rev. Erwin was absent. What happens in the House? I thought it had already passed the House.
It wasn’t our bill that was voted on. There was a similar bill dealing with wine and that is the one that was passed by the Senate. We’re still waiting our turn for our bill to come up and be passed.
Thanks for the clarification. It looks as though we posted about the same time and you answered my question.
He wasn’t absent, he just lost his place on the podium after he started to add-in an amendment which allowed for this one to get voted on. This is not the gourmet beer bill, only the wine bill from Senator French.
The Mobile Press reports the same and adds the bill now goes to the House, which is exactly the procedure so clearly explained earlier on this blog. So what are the details? Why did it say “wine”? Does this not include beer? It’s sounding like GREAT news for this state!
because this is the table wine bill, not the Gourmet Beer Bill.
Dan is a tool.
Are they in session today (& tomorrow)? I was thinking they were but I have no twitter updates
)
All this waiting and not knowing is killing me!
seconded….
ZOMG!! I went to the site & listened to the fools orate for a few hours. Geez, what an embarrassment they are to thinking men & women in our state. UGH!!
No update today at all?
The state house was flooded this morning so the Senate and House adjourned until 1:30 when they were able to get set up in the old capital chambers.
Maybe senator Erwin should take this as God’s wrath over not letting us have good beer in the state (though he’ll probably view it as vengeance over passing the wine bill yesterday).
Next week huh. I know that this has been an incredibly frustrating process, and that nothing is as easy as it seems (especially in the AL senate), but when in Singleton going to bring us up? Can’t he do it (basically) at any time? I don’t profess to know everything (or anything) about Alabama politics, but it seems that Singleton could be pushing our bill a little harder. Maybe not, but it does seem a little like that, especially since French’s wine bill passed earlier today.
Singleton can bring us up at any time, but it’s pointless and even counterproductive if Erwin is just going to filibuster it. If he calls it up he may not be able to call to the order of the chair again. All it would take is Erwin saying “No” and he wouldn’t get that privilege again. So we could go from bad to impossible if we bring it up at a wrong time.
As for French’s bill, I still don’t know how that worked. French is in the same caucus as Erwin, so maybe that helped. I dunno.
I got pwned.