When Did The Delaware Republican Party Go Ka-Plooey?
I was thinking about this last night, and I think it was 2000 when State Chamber of Commerce President John M. Burris, the endorsed candidate barely squeaked out a 50 vote victory over retired judge Bill Lee in the Republican primary to face Ruth Ann Minner.
In a way Delaware’s traditional Republicans lost by winning that race. I have always regarded Delaware Republicans as slightly smarter and less wingnutty than Republicans in general, but after that race the Delaware Republicans seemed to have learned the wrong lessons. From that point on, the pro-business Delaware Republicans got fully mobbed up with George Bush and Dick Cheney, and went gutter.
Whereas prior to that primary, the DE GOP was a somewhat highbrow organization made of mostly business people like John Burris and Pete DuPont who tolerated the social conservatives, after that primary, Dave Crossan and a couple sitting DE Senators (who were full blown Rove disciples) decided that constantly spoiling for high profile fights in lieu of party building was the way to go. In 2003 the front door to Vicmeand was opened to the “Christian”-GOP rabble like Atkins, Booth and Hocker who promptly moved the party off of it’s relentlessly pro-business message in favor of trying to make Jesus of Nazereth the official deity of the Indian River School District.
Mike Castle’s leadership (which could never be regarded as muscular) dissipated into the air like steam from a cup of warming tea and there you have it. Delaware’s GOP in 2009. No mission other than being “we are not Ruth Ann,” not party building strategies, and most telling, no candidates.
There was an election in 1999?
In reading the News Journal this morning (yes, I actually bought several copies of the dead tree version for historical purposes), there was a chronology of Biden’s run’s for election and reelection.
Biden always attracted legitimate Republican opposition. In 1990, for example, future Attorney General Jane Brady ran against him. But then in 1996, Ray Clatworthy ran. And then again in 2002.
The late 90’s are the era when the DE GOP started to collapse from rot. They had no rising stars statewide.
Yeah, Jason means 2000.
Thanks for the proof reading Dave. Lee resigned as a judge in 1999.
Jason,
Email me if you want to get the scoop. BTW, the slide started in 1988. Those who really know will instantlyunderstand.
Have a great day.
Delaware Dems benefited from the eight years of Clinton’s peace and prosperity, basking in reflected glow and using that time to build a machine.
In the 1990s Clinton economic policies produced rising income for middle-class Delawareans – hell for everybody. So the nutjob GOP theories on expanding the economy with trickle-down and deregulation couldn’t get any oxygen; the economy was already expanding and everybody was happy.
In a way, Delaware Dems did a classic Clinton/Dick Morris triangulation on the Delaware GOP. We gave them all the banking dereg they wanted, electric dereg, and it was clear that the bankruptcy repeal was just a matter of time before it passed.
We were already bending over for corporations as far as we could, so in that environment what message could distinguish the GOP from the Dems?
“Biden always attracted legitimate Republican opposition. In 1990, for example, future Attorney General Jane Brady ran against him. But then in 1996, Ray Clatworthy ran. And then again in 2002.”
See, this is the kind of stuff that exposes DD as an amateur in Delaware politics. Jane Brady got 36% of the vote in 1992. Clatworthy got 38% in 1996 and 41% in 2002.
Who was the legitimate opposition again?
No smart pro-business Republican would run against Biden because they were already getting everything they wanted from Biden.
Clatworthy may have only gotten 41%, but he was a good campaigner that couldn’t be ignored. He was everywhere. Biden had to address him and spend some money.
By contrast, O’Donnell has done zilch. “Was she at that parade?” “I heard she was, but I never saw her.”
I’m not arguing with you on that, LG. Just pointing out that DD makes good on Ronald Reagan’s famous maxim about liberals knowing so much that just isn’t so.
So is Clatworthy not a legitimate opponent? If Markell decided to challenge Castle, but only ended up getting 41% would that mean that he was not a legitimate opponent?
Perhaps you should tell me what makes an opponent legitimate. From my definition, Mike Miller is not (just as a benchmark).
I’m saying Clatworthy IS a legitimate opponent. DD is saying the opposite. Notice the phrase “but then in” when he refers to Clatworthy.
Atkins is yours now.
Anon #6 – I think you nailed it.
Anon #13 – We don’t want him. If I lived in his district, I’d vote 3rd party… or write-in “Superman”.
The Watermelon of Doom II
Criminy, Dave, I hope you’re not going to trot out Reagan maxims like that one. You’d be hard pressed to find a liberal anywhere who was more mistaken on “facts” than St. Ronny.
Mike Protack: I’d be interested to see a public accounting of what you’re referring to in 1988. If you don’t want your name on it, I’m sure one of the Protack Puppets would volunteer to post it from your driveway.
At any rate, Mike is right — the 2000 primary was an outward manifestation of internal rot that had been going on for some time, and evidenced by the frightening paucity of candidates above the canal willing to run under the GOP banner.
Jason, what you’re pointing to is partly generational. Republicans who had successful careers before the conservative “revolution” never swore fealty to points of conservative orthodoxy, and so were free to pursue solutions to real-world governmental problems wherever they might be found.
Those who came of age after the mid-80s are yoked to a bunch of “solutions” that never vary, no matter what the problem being faced. That’s why trying to reason with them is like arguing with a Marxist — no matter what you say, the handbook explains the solutions to every problem.
Hence the millions of conservative bloggers, all baying at the moon in exactly the same key.
Imagine if all liberals were like Liz Allen, impervious to argument or reason, swearing that impractical liberal “solutions” to problems are all that’s needed to right the world, all real-world evidence to the contrary.
In such an imaginary country, you’d probably be a Republican.
Al Machete! For the record I am not a liberal, I despise the word. I am a progressive who doesn’t believe in “party” control, or go along to get along politicans.
Our nation needs bold new leaders who will take on the problems that have divided this country since the Nixon regime. One thing about Reagun, he threw all the neo cons out of his administration and tried to end the Cold War. Now we have McInsane trying to start a whole new global threat using NATO to invade soverign nations, who happen to have OUR oil under their feet. Neo cons exist in both parties. I am politically homeless!
Even Eisenhower saw the need to shake out the “deadwood” from power – meaning the unchallenged, entrenched brokers that overtake a party. Of course, one could say he had a thing against anyone named Taft, but if you know your history, you know President Taft (father) and Senator Taft (son) were awful wingnuts that deserved a good purging.
FYI – Eisenhower was an active young democrat hell bent on defeating Taft in the Presidential election of 1912 (as an activist, not as a candidate, of course). At that time, the Republicans were in the midst of successes. What bothered Eisenhower, though, wasn’t the prior years of Teddy Roosevelt, but the inner-revolt in the GOP that was pushing the party firmly back into control of Wall St and Trust leaders. The party was quickly becoming fat upon its own successes and excesses. FWIW, this bothered TR, too, which led to the birth of the Progressive Party.
Back on Eisenhower, interestingly enough, it was the cringing thought of Taft’s son, Senator Robert Taft (R-OH), being the Primary-unopposed Republican for the ’52 ticket that got Eisenhower overly concerned and led him, in addition to overwhelming, unsolicited support, to becoming a late candidate. Although the Republicans were in a considerable presidential drought at the time, Eisenhower was leery of the seemingly unchecked success of the Democrats, which goes back to his theory of unhindered success breeding pigs. Of course, he also harbored the horrible thought of the unhinged far-right, comprised of those who had served far too long (such as Robert Taft). His desire was to interrupt the string of success of the Democrats, but at the same time, prevent the ultimate rising of the far right. Hence, he chose to run as a Republican, successfully forcing the Democratic Party back to the drawing board and in a historically heated convention, wrested control of the Republican Party from the far right.
Bottom line, it’s going to take someone willing to stand tall, while taking many shots from the extremes, to return us to prominence.
Lastly, Eisenhower’s presidency seems to average in the “ho-hum” category, depending on who you talk to, but his theory on politics is a great read.
ZZZZzzzz… Oh, you were typing?
I kid. Good stuff.
BTW – My wife wants a Cathcart sign to put in our yard next to my Walker sign.
Really? I know you admitted that she was happy with his responsiveness before.
(FWIW – I figured a mere mention of “Progressive Party” would attract you to this comment 🙂 )
It is all about the street paving for some people.
I take that as a “Yes, really,” then.
I will contact you later.