Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Brunstetter, wife deny Amendment 1 comments

Amy Auth, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Operations for Senate Pro Tem Phil Berger's office, sent us this response to alleged comments Sen. Pete Brunstetter’s wife, Jodie.

"Sen. Brunstetter’s wife denies making these comments (see the Winston Salem Journal) and there is absolutely no proof to the contrary."

Auth said the reports were "based on the hear-say remarks of a political activist as reported by left-leaning websites." She also included this statement from Sen. Brunstetter:

“Today my wife became the target of a malicious, false attack by someone with a clear political agenda. Jodie and I support the marriage amendment because we think the voters – not judges, bureaucrats, or politicians – should define marriage. We refuse to dignify these false allegations with any further response since it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with those who engage in character assassination.”

Posted by Fannie Flono

7 comments:

Wiley Coyote said...

...this was a quick turnaround "O-pinion"...

jodym said...

Let's go to the video.

DugN34 said...

The way she was inconsistent seemed to be telling. I would have prompted her to talk about the misinformation being put out there by the opponents of the amendment, confirming that the amendment doesn't to that and then subtle tried to challenge her on the language in the amendment being vague, etc.

John said...

Perhaps the most telling fact is that the "activist" who started this was "unavailable for comment" when it was questioned!

Abby Normal said...

Even stupid people are entitled to an opinion and if she said it, and he believes it, they're both stupid. If not, well, it's just politics as usual..... smear the other side.

Navisphera said...

This speaks to the general lack of intelligence or morality of the pro-amendment crowd. They can try to wrap it in bible verse (like they did to support slavery and miscegenation laws), but the truth is evident: It is nothing more than vindictive legislation designed to harm a group of people. Smart folks will see right through the "protecting marriage" canard.

army brat said...

Can't be true. If they were truly not interested in judges making laws they would not be supplying such an ambiguous piece of legislation that all law NC schools say is headed for the courts.