State News

Ellmers sworn in as new member of Congress

Posted January 5, 2011

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— North Carolina's newest member of Congress is officially starting her job.

Republican Second District Congresswoman Renee Ellmers was sworn in to office Wednesday afternoon. Supporters were expected to hold a reception in her honor at a Washington hotel.

Ellmers ousted seven-term Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge on the promise of lowering government spending.

Rep. Renee Ellmers New House Rep. Ellmers takes her place in 112th Congress

She joins dozens of other GOP freshmen swept into office in November. The party will have a majority in the U.S. House, while Democrats will retain control of the Senate.

Even before she took office, however, Ellmers was at the center of a controversy.

She was among a dozen GOP lawmakers at a $2,500-a-ticket fundraiser Tuesday night at the swank W Hotel in Washington that was attended primarily by lobbyists and special-interest groups.

Ellmers criticized Etheridge during the campaign for taking money from interest groups. She dismissed statements from Democratic officials this week that she was hypocritical for attending Tuesday's dinner, saying she was only playing by the rules of Washington politics.

A nurse who won the support of the tea party and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Ellmers said she just wants to improve the country while on Capitol Hill.

"I want to get my work done. I want to do everything I can to change things, get things back on track," she said.

Ellmers will sit on the Agriculture, Small Business and Foreign Affairs committees in the 112th Congress. She said the assignments put her in a unique position to address issues important to the residents of district, which includes Fort Bragg.

235 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • 6079 SMITH W Jan 6, 2011

    ...The late Adolph Hitler said, "The weak are easily led" ;)

  • brentf777 Jan 6, 2011

    @ Plenty Corps "This country is what it is today because of Lincoln and because of a strong federal government." I won't dispute you there. You're absolutely correct. The difference is just that you consider Lincoln and the way the country is today, generally good, while I have an opposing opinion. And I assume by "pretty much all historians" you actually mean Court Historians? Because that's all they are. History is written by the victors. I don't consider my view extremist at all, but even if it is, as the late Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

  • Plenty Coups Jan 6, 2011

    brent- "(Lincoln)He not only launched an illegal genocidal war against the South."

    Thats a pretty extremist view that pretty much all historians would strongly disagree with. Lincoln kept this country together. If what you wanted were to happen, we would have been torn apart by infighting and eventually taken over by a stronger, more unified country. (one that didn't allow slavery mind you). Like I said before, the articles of confederation didn't work. This country is what it is today because of Lincoln and because of a strong federal government.

  • 6079 SMITH W Jan 6, 2011

    Roger that....I'll come out of the closet here and admit I watched her interview with the hopes she might have some sense.....everything she said sounded like it was ghost-written by "The Riddler" and the Justice League over at "Fox and Friends". ;)

  • Bendal1 Jan 6, 2011

    Don't blast Ellmers too hard for attending that expensive fundraising event; she has to thank all those people who got her elected, after all (with their out of state money).

    Plus, she fits right in with all the other 'know nothings' that were elected last November. Don't worry about them overturning the national health bill; none of them took a civics class so they can be excused if they don't realize that the House of Representatives is only one part of the legislature.

    As for anything else she may stand for, who knows? She never said, now did she? All she campaigned on was "repealing 'Obamacare'" and stopping a mosque from being built in NYC. Not much of a heavyweight thinker there!

  • brentf777 Jan 6, 2011

    @blackdog What you call "progress" I call regression. I do not "incorrectly" interpret the Constitution. I take my lead from Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Sure, not everyone agreed with their perspective on things and that's their right. But, that's where I stand. And I never said the "South will rise again."
    @ Plenty Coups The nation did not have a "new birth of freedom" but a new birth of tyranny. Lincoln destroyed the Constitutional Republic of the Founders and created the American Empire. He not only launched an illegal genocidal war against the South, but he jailed political dissidents in the north, suspended right of habeas corpus, shut down the presses of opponents, etc. He was an enemy, not upholder of the Constitution. My loyalty is still to the old Republic. As Jefferson Davis once said "a question settled by violence [will] inevitably arise again, though at a different time and in a different form."

  • 6079 SMITH W Jan 6, 2011

    Kinda makes you wonder where all these constitutional scholars were back when the Neo-Cons trashed it in order to make more money for themselves and those of their "ILK" ...while driving our nation off into the ravine. Probably getting their marching orders from the "Excellence in Talking Points Network" ;)

  • blackdog Jan 6, 2011

    "The United States was never intended to be a "nation." The Founders created a Republic. Each state was according to the original government was a seperate "nation" unto itself except for the few powers given to federal government."
    brentf777

    The "Exclusive" determination, was dropped in favor of individual interpretation, as the nation progresses.

    Your successionist federalist ideals are due to your incorrect interpretation of the constitution. "To form a more perfect union", is the intent. Not some, "South will rise again" malarky. Ignoring articles you don't agree with doesn't make your interpretation right.

  • blackdog Jan 6, 2011

    ...Agriculture and Foreign Affairs ....?....?!?!???... I suppose she is a qualified space shuttle pilot as well...

  • Plenty Coups Jan 6, 2011

    brentf777- I realize that you want to go back to the days of secession and the Articles of Confederation, but that was decided a long time ago. It almost tore the nation apart but thankfully we "had a new birth of freedom" to quote Lincoln. The Articles of Confederation, with all power given to the states, didn't work in the early days and wouldn't work now. That's the reason we wrote a Constitution in 1787. Your arguments ignore Article III of the Constitution which gives the judiciary (Supreme Court) the sole right to interpret the Constitution. You also ignore Article VI which gives constitutional and federal supremacy over the states. "The Supreme law of the land" to quote section 2. Even your allusion to the Fugitive slave law as a basis for justifying nullification is wrong as atttempts to undermine that federal law were ruled unconstitutional in "Prigg vs. Pennsylvania".

More...