Political Hot Stove Chatter-Delaware General Assembly Edition
Lotsa stuff percolating on the stove. Let’s try to bring ’em to a boil…
1. Democratic Primary for Oberle Seat
Two D’s have filed in the race to succeed retiring Rep. Bill Oberle in this blue-collar Newark-area district. The D registration edge is so daunting that the winner of the primary almost certainly will win the General…unless Brian McGlinchey and his ‘Working Families Party’ decide to make mischief again. The two candidates are Kay Gallogly and Edward Osienski. I’m sure I’m not alone here at DL in wishing that at least one other candidate with whom we’re familiar would jump in. Osienski contributed to Bill Oberle’s campaign–in short, the type of ‘D’ that kept this seat ‘R’ for so long. Wouldn’t be surprised if he is DeLuca’s/construction trades’ stalking horse here.
2. Cathcart’s Got an Opponent
Democrat Richard Griffiths of Townsend. Don’t know much about him, except that a Google search shows that he is a Commissioner and Head Referee for the Middletown-Odessa-Townsend Youth Soccer League. Not a bad start for a candidacy. Also found out that someone named Richard Griffiths appeared in the original stage production of Equus. Reliable sources indicate it’s not the same guy.
3. Miro’s Got an Opponent
And, on paper, he looks like a good one. David Ellis of Yorktowne has the type of profile that might prove attractive to R’s in this R-leaning district. The R’s have a plus-300 registration margin, but Sokola-like candidates have won in districts far more daunting than this one. And Miro has grown awfully comfortable and may not want to go out and knock doors any more. Worth keeping an eye on…
4. Face-Off in the 36th
D Russ McCabe vs. R Harvey Kenton is one of the most intriguing political matchups on the landscape. Despite a Democratic registration edge of about 1,000, this has been a reliably Republican district. With the retirement of long-time Rep. V. George Carey, however, both parties have landed top recruits. Kenton won the endorsement from the 36th Republican Committee. Here’s a puff piece on his candidacy from the Cape Gazette. McCabe, the long-time director of the Delaware Public Archives, also enjoyed a puff piece in the Cape Gazette. Here’s more about Russ. I have no clue who’s gonna win this one. Anyone from downstate care to hazard a guess? I know and really like Russ McCabe which, I suppose, makes his odds of winning that much longer.
5. Blevins Has an Opponent
Well, she does if Fred Cullis can be considered an opponent. A former ‘candidate’ for the US House of Representatives race, Cullis has instead endorsed Michele Rollins for the post (wonder how his fellow teabaggers feel about that) and has announced his candidacy for Patti Blevins’ state senate seat. Oh well, at least Blevins HAS an opponent, which she deserves, and there is enormous comedic potential in Cullis’ candidacy. He’s got no chance of winning in this overwhelmingly D district, however.
6. The Westhoff Candidacy
I really wish this guy lived in New Castle County. He seems to have everything but geography going for him. Hard to see how he beats good ol’ boy David Wilson, but, if there’s ever going to be a more progressive D Party in Sussex, then we need candidates like Westhoff and Ron Robinson. I intend to send a few shekels his way, hope you’ll consider doing likewise.
7. Punkin’ Chunkin’ Guy to Challenge Ruth Briggs King
Don’t know if he’ll have the D field to himself, or if Ron Robinson will run again, but Frank Shade appears to be a formidable candidate.
Here’s one final observation–while most are projecting Rethuglican gains this year, the Democrats, at least at the legislative level here in Delaware, have been far more successful to date in attracting top-tier candidates. Hard to see how the Rethugs retake the House if the current trend continues.
Bring your feedback and, of course, juicy rumors to this post. Let’s really get this stove all warmed up.
As far as I know, there’s no Republican filed in the 24th district seat. Both D candidates in the district are working very hard to get support.
McCabe can win this seat. He’s been very active in the community, served in a row office back in the 80’s, and is well known. He’s out there knocking on doors (not an easy task in many of the districts down here in Sussex) and is going to run a very strong campaign. Don’t know much about Kenton.
Frank Shade is also going to be a strong candidate. He’s also well known for his years guiding Punkin’ Chunkin’ and he’s well liked. Both he and Russ are using social media to get the word out and recruit volunteers. Rob Robinson (it’s Rob not Ron El S) has said that he is not going to run again this year.
I haven’t had a chance to speak with Westhoff, but from talking to other people, he should give that old auctioneer Wilson a good run.
The big talk down here is that Bodenweiser is primarying Joe Booth in the 19th Senate race. St. Bodie Girl wanted the GOP nod to run for Thurmond Adams’ seat last summer, but the GOP District committee went with Booth. They probably realized how much of a whacked out wingnut St. Bodie Girl really is. My prediction in this race is that Booth wins the primary with 63% of the vote and that the Bodiestas sit out the general election.
UI’s right. No R has filed yet in the 24th.
MJ, my question is, if there is a split in the Rethug ranks in the 19th SD, (a) do the D’s have a chance; and (b) is there anyone worth supporting on the D side?
Kenton is a real Estate Broker specializing in land and farms. Russ has a better than even shot. Both have roots but Russ’ roots are stronger this will be a “for the man” not the “party” race. Russ with 57%
El Som – rumor has it that Polly (wants a cracker) Mervine is thinking of running again. We hope not. Depending on how nasty the primary gets (Bodie is running to the right of Booth, who’s already pretty conservative), if the Dems put up a decent candidate (not Mervine), they could win the seat back.
Kay Gallogly received the 24th District Committee’s endorsement and is the party’s candidate for that seat. She brings engineering and energy industry credentials that would be a boon to the Democratic House Caucus. Kay is a charter member of Progressive Democrats for Delaware and served with me on the Howard Dean primary campaign back in 2004. She’s got her values right. She is socially progressive and fiscally frugal. She’s very, very smart. She’s got a lot of community involvement going for her and will be a dedicated public servant. Plus, she’s just plain nice.
Dave Ellis (D running for the 22nd) was a ‘go to guy’ during the Obama campaign here in DE. When we needed $$ to help the UD students canvass in PA, Rob Carver pointed me to Dave, and Dave delivered.
His website dave4de.com is pretty good, and he seems to have a gameplan to really challenge Miro. I’m certain that Dave Ellis would love to 1) field questions from DelawareLiberals, and 2) receive volunteers and donations from DelawareLiberals.
El Som, you didn’t seem to mind McGlinchey when he was writing checks and helping you with lit drops for your campaign against Wayne Smith. Why are you making this cheap shot now?
And he didn’t seem to mind when I was doing lit drops, door knocks, post cards, etc., for Bill McGlinchey during his races either. It is not a cheap shot when someone seeking to be the Democratic Party chair creates a ‘Working Families Party’, seeks to extort D’s to accept that ballot line, and uses his checkbooks to prop up Rethugs like Lofink, Oberle, and Spence.
Either you’re a D or you’re not. If you’re not, then don’t go seeking the Party Chairmanship. That’s been my critique from the beginning.
And, FYI, he wasn’t pulling that Working Parties bleep when I ran. At the time, he was firmly in the D camp, and I HAD, in fact, worked very hard for his brother. Plus, I was running against perhaps Labor’s #1 enemy.
Had McGlinchey succeeded in 2008, the R’s might well still control the House of Representatives. Not cool for someone who wants to be State Chair.
It’s hard to get lectured about integrity by someone who worked for Tom Sharp and Richard Courdrey (sp?). Didn’t they sign your paychecks, El Som, even as they kept good govt bills bottled up in committees?
When you helped w/ Bill McGlinchey’s campaigns, were you a volunteer or a paid staff person? That makes a difference.
Anyone can go to OpenSecrets.org and see that the Laborer’s Union has contributed 98% to Democrats. But you cherry pick 3 and make that representative of the whole. What a guy.
Readership down at your site, Dana? Do you have a site?
When you work for a Caucus, you work for people you like and people you don’t like. I mean, really. I had the opportunity to work on issues that were important to me–nursing home reform, death with dignity, medical and family leave, land preservation, the cleanup of the Brandywine and Christina Rivers, and many others. In other words, I was in a job where I felt I was making a difference. Try and conjure up something unethical out of THAT.
I was always a volunteer for Bill, NEVER a paid staffer. I volunteered b/c he was a great candidate and I believed in what he was doing. I also believed, and I’ve subsequently been proven correct, that we were on the verge of a big breakthrough in Brandywine Hundred.
I actually like Brian. But I repeat the point that you continue to ignore: If you want to be a State Chair, you’ve got to be a real Democrat–not someone playing footsie with the ‘Working Families’ Party and providing assistance to Republicans. It’s that simple.
BTW, please show me where I’m lecturing you about ‘integrity’.
What needs explanation is how someone who backs Bill Oberle and Terry Spence could in any way be called “progressive.” Some people just can’t get over the fact that the labor movement represents only 1 in 9 workers and, when push comes to shove, will put the interest of that 11% No. 1. The only difference between that and GOPism is the identity of the person saying “I got mine, Jack.”
My own interface with Brian McGlinchey involves threats to my bosses. Yeah, he’s an f’ing swell guy.
“When you work for a Caucus, you work for people you like and people you don’t like.”
Bingo! This man is on the verge of a big insight. You mean, El Som, that when you work at a job, you sometimes have to work w/ people and do things you don’t PERSONALLY like? Now if you could only extend the consideration that you so generously offer to yourself to Brian McGlinchey, then you might realize that he, as an employee of the Laborer’s Union, has had to do things he PERSONALLY didn’t like to do. Get it, yet?
Keep digging, Dana. McGlinchey was his own boss on this stuff. He tried to put a (figurative) gun to the House Democratic Caucus’ head to force candidates to go on his Working Families Party line. He, and nobody else, pushed hard for Lofink, Spence, and Oberle. He was the guy with the checkbooks, and he had discretion on who got what. HE WASN’T FORCED TO DO ANYTHING.
Whatever happened to your sense of logic? It’s all but disappeared.
McGlinchey CHOSE to do these things. Then, he turns around and wants to be Chair of the Democratic Party. I honestly don’t know how much clearer I can make my position. Choose to distort or willfully misunderstand to your heart’s content.
Were I in a position where I was forced to do things I didn’t believe in, I’d leave. Which is precisely what I opted to do in early 2004 once it became clear that the Adamses and Cooks of this world were gonna control the Caucus.
Next time, try a more reliable source.
Let’s put this as plainly as possible: Lofink, Spence and Oberle were willing to give the union what it wanted despite the R behind their names, so McGlinchey was willing to work with them, despite what that meant to the rest of us. That has benefits and drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is that you have to live with being criticized for a lack of party loyalty.
What about that is hard to understand?
“McGlinchey was his own boss on this stuff….He was the guy with the checkbooks, and he had discretion on who got what. HE WASN’T FORCED TO DO ANYTHING.”
Right, El Som. McGlinchey had no one supervising him, no one that he had to report to, no one giving him direction. This even though he was NOT the head of the union, not even close to being the head of the union.
Look, when one person in a discussion permits himself to engage in fiction, then the discussion is over.
So, in the end, your whole beef w/ McGlinchey rests upon a fiction and the failure to give him a consideration as an employee that you happily extend to yourself. Fiction and hypocrisy. I believe your beef w/ McGlinchey is personal and you are trying to cover it up w/ political mumbo jumbo.
But whatever. The last word is yours. People like you usually need it.
Dana: You have launched an entirely ad hominem attack. Perhaps you don’t like having the Working Families Party’s activities described as “mischief,” but that hardly constitutes either mis-information or a personal attack.
I understand a desire to defend a friend or ally or colleague or whatever, but attacking El Som ain’t gonna get it done.
In fact, the fervor of your reply makes me wonder if McGlinchey isn’t contemplating more “mischief” from his “party”.
Dana, that would be wrong, and everyone including your ‘source’ knows it. He had not one, but three checkbooks, at his disposal. While his activities had to be approved, he initiated, and the so-called ‘higher-ups’ rubber-stamped, what he wanted to do. He had discretion where he’d deploy the members of his locals, how he’d spend the money, and he made the calls.
Believe me, there are a lot of other people who can verify what he did. The tactics he employed with the Caucus were ‘heavy-handed’, to say the least. And it’s true that, after I saw that firsthand, my respect for Brian was greatly diminished. He was basically threatening the Caucus that, if he wasn’t allowed to be a ‘kingmaker’, he’d place Rethugs on that ‘Working Families’ ballot line. Not what Ds want from their future State chair.
I have no personal beef with him, never did.
But, you’re so full of it today that you’ve earned that ‘Dana Garrett’ model from Porta-Potty.
Next time you come over here with this weak bleep, have at least two sources.
Oh look everyone, Dana Garret woke up from his slumber! How cute!
Al least Garrett uses is real name, most writers on this site hide behind their screen names. Somnambutass you got fired by the Dem’s. Get over it.
That’s the kind of incisive commentary we need over here. Please bring your intellect over here any time you like, Lisa. Assuming you can find it. In your case, it’s located somewhere near your somnambutass.
Is it only me, or are there others out there who see the hypocrisy of some posts. I was raised a loyal Democrat. I’ve never voted for a Republican for an important position, but the idea that all Democratic candidates are fungible, or that if a person supports a Republican for any race that person has failed some loyalty oath, or is not a true Democrat is nuts!!! All D’s are not created equal, just like the GOP has what their base terms a RINO doesn’t mean the Democratic equivalent doesn’t exist. Think of former GOP Senator from Nebraska (and close friend of Biden) Chuck Hagel, and current Democratic Senator from Nebraska Ben Nelson, how many people can honestly say that they didn’t agree with Hagel more on National security issues. Nelson supported Bush’s policies Hagel was a voice of reason. El Som are you really taking the position that any support of a GOP candidate disqualifies you? Your statement “Either you’re a D or you’re not. If you’re not” is no different than the GOP litmus test in Florida. I’m sorry, but if a GOP candidate supports more of your issues than the Democratic candidate, why would you support the D? If the primary voters pick a moron for a race, are you saying if the moron has a D behind his name, you must blindly support him, no matter how bad the candidate? That is crazy talk. Look you may hate Brian and love his brother, but don’t let personal feelings turn you into a Republican David. If you substituted the D’s for R I’d think your posts were coming from him! Also the idea that the GOP would have controlled the House if Brian was the state chair in 08 is crazy talk, it’s Michael Steele crazy! 2008 was a year like no other, it was a Presidential year, which is always a high turn out year, and with Biden as the VP candidate turn out was even higher. Point to one race in 2008 that a Democratic candidate won, that he wouldn’t have if Brian were party chair.
El Somnambulo you say: “I have no personal beef with him, never did.” And yet your posts seem very very personal. I have no first hand knowledge of all these events, but your rant seems a bit inconsistent. On the one hand you make McGlinchey out to be this all powerful thug who with a single call can doom a candidate or with a stroke of his pen elect the candidate, and yet he somehow wasn’t able to force his way into a relatively figure head position of party chair. Sorry despite your protestations to the contrary it sounds like this is very personal with you.
Also I think you give too much credit to party leaders, and too little credit to voters. Do you really think one person can control an election? Geezer says “the labor movement represents only 1 in 9 workers” While I bet labor votes in higher numbers, than non-labor workers, clearly labor alone can’t beat or elect a candidate, and I doubt any labor members vote in lock step with what they are told. I’m sure many pledge their support the candidate their union endorses, but votes their own choice on Election Day. Of course Labor can make the difference in a race, because so many people vote their party ID, if labor votes for the GOP candidate or Dem as a block it can swing a district, but over all I doubt anyone has the power you claim McGlinchey has wielded.
Dear Born a Dem–I liked your post. Circumstances of our birth, shouldn’t mandate a vote. Good for you for the scrutiny of the candidate.
Had Brian McGlinchey had his way, neither Mike Barbieri nor Earl Jaques would be in the House of Representatives. If that doesn’t disqualify him from being Party Chair, what does? And no one knew until Election Night that the D’s took the House, 20-20 hindsight notwithstanding.
Show me where I suggested that he was some ‘all-powerful thug’. The point is that he used his position to try to force D’s to appear on a ballot line other than the D line, and that he actively supported R’s that placed in jeopardy the D’s attempt to win the House of Representatives.
Which disqualifies him from being State chair, which, if you’ve bothered to read my posts, is all that I’ve been saying.
And, I was pissed off at his brother as well for not finding a candidate to run in the 11th District, where he is chair. And I wrote about it.
Read what ever faux-Freudian motives into this that you’d like. Believe me, I’m not worth wasting this amount of time in analyzing, unless I’m paying you for the office visit. In which case, you’d go crazy too.
Joanne Christian I’m not sure if you understood me. I believe I’m a loyal Democrat. I was born and raised a Democrat, and for every major office have voted Democratic, but if the Democratic nominee’s an idiot, or thinks like Clarence Thomas, he won’t get my vote just because he has a D next to his name. I’ll either vote for the GOP candidate, if I think that candidate’s better, or not vote in that race. My point is just because a person doesn’t blindly support a candidate because of his party doesn’t make them disloyal. If the Democratic candidates McGlinchey didn’t support were bad on union issues, one could ask were they good candidates.
And I agree–because if anything, it makes you a “bad” Democrat or Republican IMHO just to vote that ticket, and hold your nose. I think we agree–and especially locally. Yes? No?
You ask “Show me where I suggested that he was some ‘all-powerful thug’. ”
Ok first off you mention McGlinchey gratuitously in your original post stating: The D registration edge is so daunting that the winner of the primary almost certainly will win the General…unless Brian McGlinchey and his ‘Working Families Party’ decide to make mischief again.
After Dana Garret calls that a cheap shot, you add: “It is not a cheap shot when someone seeking to be the Democratic Party chair creates a ‘Working Families Party’, seeks to extort D’s to accept that ballot line, and uses his checkbooks to prop up Rethugs like Lofink, Oberle, and Spence.” You then added in another post: “McGlinchey was his own boss on this stuff. He tried to put a (figurative) gun to the House Democratic Caucus’ head” And then in another post you added “The tactics he employed with the Caucus were ‘heavy-handed’, to say the least. And it’s true that, after I saw that firsthand, my respect for Brian was greatly diminished. He was basically threatening the Caucus that, if he wasn’t allowed to be a ‘kingmaker’, he’d place Rethugs on that ‘Working Families’ ballot line.”
If you don’t see that you clearly implied McGlinchey is a thug, you do need that couch!
I’m tired of reading somnambutass , who pontificates day after day, honestly. Somnambutass, you should remember that you made your living by sucking off the political hacks in our General Assembly. What experience or accomplishments can you claim during you “professional career’? You never held an office, and never managed or produced anything, operating in the dark caverns of our legislative hall. You were made by and beholden to the same people who turned against you! No wonder you’re a bitter, nasty little man hiding behind your blogs. You can’t hold a candle to Dana.
Thank you, Lisa. This is arguably the most eloquent missive I’ve ever read on this blog. And a brilliant retrospective of my ‘career’. You must’ve been with me every step of the way for you to ‘know’ so much. Nancy Willing can’t hold a candle to you, and that’s saying something.
BTW, since you’re tired of reading me, might I suggest…not reading me?
An interesting set of posts, interrupted by toxic sludge from someone posing as a girl named Downs.
Oh, and Steve L., I never called McGlinchey an ‘all-powerful thug’, nor suggested he was. His failure in forcing D’s to be on his ‘Working Families’ ballot line demonstrate he is not all-powerful. As do the defeats of Lofink and Spence.
I simply described what he did. If you make the inference that I’m describing thug-like tactics, that’s YOUR view of it. He did these things. I merely disclosed it. Maybe you’ve got the wrong guy on the couch.
I invite Brian to come over here and tell his side of things. Surely, he’d do a better job than his surrogates.
Hey El Som, I never stated you specifically called McGlinchey an all powerful thug. I didn’t put it in quotes. I said you make McGlinchey out to be an all powerful thug, in other words the words you use to describe McGlinchey and his conduct is the conduct of a thug. Read your posts, they are inconsistent. Staying with your couch/mental health theme, your posts are Bi-polar. You trash McGlinchey and then say you like McGlinchey, he’s your friend. If that’s true I pity your friends. If you don’t think the conduct you attributed to McGlincey was not the description of an all powerful thug, then I suggest you go back to freshman English. You basically said McGlinchey alone was responsible for getting 3 Republicans elected, that is power! You also said he figuratively held a gun to the Democratic caucus’ head, you said he used heavy handed tactics at least, that he basically threatened the caucus, if a gun to the head (yes you at least said figuratively) heavy handed tactics, and threats isn’t thug conduct, then I’d hate to see what qualifies as a thug in your mind.
I don’t know what your problem is with McGlinchey, but clearly it’s personal, not only because of the language in your posts, but now you are practically begging to get on-line to argue with you. Your use of grade school reverse psychology in an attempt to goad McGlinchey to engage with you is pathetic! What makes you think the guy is even aware of your slamming him? My guess is he has better things to do than I do. Although I’m enjoying watching the marriage ref while I wait for the Daily Show to start. I didn’t know I was anyones surrogate? I hope next time you go on the couch you discuss your obsession with McGlinchey with your therapist, because it isn’t healthy to hold in so much hate!
I’ve read some whacked-out stuff over here, but this crap takes the cake. I wrote a column about the ‘political hot stove’ in the General Assembly. I include one reference to McGlinchey and what he did in 2008, and a swarm of surrogates, bloggers who no one cares about, one sociopath in disguise (‘Lisa Downs’) and amateur psychologists descend. Explain to me again just who is looking to engage re Brian McGlinchey.
I’ve explained everything as clearly as I can about 5 times now. If you don’t get it, you’ll never get it.
Move on to something else, please.
Yes, a very interesting set of posts, mainly showing that El Som is right on target about Brian McGlinchey. The original post’s “cheap shot” was about as mild as a tap on the arm, yet suddenly all these surrogates come out of the woodwork.
Hey, the bunch of you: Your buddy McGlinchey is a pox on the Delaware body politic, and anyone who isn’t plugged into the Morons’ Union — oops, I mean the laborers, same thing — damn well knows it. Take this horseshit up to one of the mushroom houses.
You union assholes really are unbelievable. Fuck off.
Joanne,
Sorry I did misunderstand what you first said. Yes I believe being a loyal Democrat does not require voting straight ticket regardless of how horrible the Democratic candidate is, this is especially true in local elections. Do I really care if my Mayor is a Democrat? In many states municipal offices are non-partisan, although people generally know what party the candidate belongs to, it just isn’t listed on the ballot. I’ve never voted for a Republican candidate for a state wide or federal office, but that doesn’t mean under the right circumstances I wouldn’t. If the Democratic nominee for House, Senate (or Governor) was a staunch pro life candidate, advocated banning embryonic stem cell research, and the GOP candidates views were in line with my views on those issues, and other important social issues would I vote for the Democratic candidate just because on the ballot a “D” was next to his name? Of course not! To me some issues are more important than party ID, these issues are in the Democratic platform, but not all Democratic candidates subscribe to them. I’ve never been a member of a union. I’d join one if I ever worked in a field where there was a union, but other than my paper route in Jr. High School and the horrible stint at Burger King, the jobs I’ve held aren’t blue collar jobs, and they’ve never been unionized. But I usually am on the same page as unions on the issues. Just as I believe my loyalty as a Democrat shouldn’t be questioned if I support the best candidate, based upon issues I care about, even if that candidate isn’t a Democrat, I don’t believe a union leader should be faulted for backing a GOP candidate for a local office if that candidate was more supportive of the union priorities. While I understand how a Democratic candidate can have polar opposite views as mine on abortion, stem cell research etc, because of their moral positions, I don’t see how your moral values would cause a Democratic candidate to hold GOP views on important labor issues. I guess the question I’d liked answered is why did the union back these GOP candidates over the Democratic candidate, if it was because they agreed to support the unions priorities, and the Democratic candidate did not, why didn’t the Democratic candidate support union issues, were they in bed with the Chamber of Commerce over the union? Because if that’s the case, labor made the right move!
Jaques and Barbieri in bed with the Chamber? Uh, no.
“I don’t believe a union leader should be faulted for backing a GOP candidate for a local office if that candidate was more supportive of the union priorities.”
Fine and dandy. But you can’t be both a bipartisan union leader and the head of the state Democratic Party. This is so obvious as to be beyond debate — unless, of course, you have the brainpower of a laborers’ union member.
Hey Geezer and El Somnambulo El Somnambulo now says “I’ve read some whacked-out stuff over here, but this crap takes the cake. … I include one reference to McGlinchey and what he did in 2008, And a swarm of surrogates, bloggers… and amateur psychologists descend. Explain to me again just who is looking to engage re Brian McGlinchey.
Lets have a reality check, and dissect what was really said on these posts. El Somnambulo took a cheap shot at McGlinchey. Geezer a cheap shot doesn’t need to be a devastating blow to be a cheap shot, the statement was a throw away line, that was added as a cheap shot. The first 7 responses (all the responses on 4/28 the day of your original post) completely ignored your mention of McGlinchey. There was no massive dissension. The first criticism of your initial post was the following day! After Dana Garret said it was a cheap shot and pointed out Mcglinchey not only wrote checks in your campaign but did lit drops as well, you really went off. You went so far as to say “either you’re a D or you’re not” and you started to get personal in your attacks. You claim McGlinchey tried to “extort D’s to accept” labor positions. Don’t all PACs give and withhold cash based upon a candidates voting record, and positions? Since when is that extortion, I mean seriously that’s Glenn Beck psycho talk!
Interestingly none of the people who had responded to the substance of your original post on 4/28 and 29 before Garret, came to your defense as you and Garret went back and forth, Geezer joined in, and AQC, but none of those who posted before Garrett, could be they agreed it was a cheap shot, but feared becoming the subject of your rant, who knows maybe one of them even posted as Lisa Downs.
In responding to Garret you compliment Bill McGlinchey, who as far as I know has no involvement in his brother’s activities. You say he was a great candidate who you believed in, only to attack Bill in later posts, admitting you were “pissed off at his brother [his brother would be Bill] as well…” After Garret responded again your rant went from McGlinchey “extort[ed]”to “he put a (figurative) gun to the House Democratic Caucus’ head”. You and Garret get in an argument over whether McGlinchey wrote the checks to the GOP candidates who supported labor, over their Democratic opponents who didn’t. I don’t know what the guy’s bosses told him, frankly I don’t think they should have needed to tell him to support the best candidate on our issues, that is his job isn’t it? You then go back to McGlinchey had not one but 3 checkbooks. So what, why should labor support a Democratic candidate who doesn’t support labors issues when the GOP candidate running against them does? And is it three times as bad in your mind because there were three separate checkbooks, or source of funds, in which to write the checks. Were you saying if there was only one “check book” McGlinchey’s disloyalty could be over looked, but with three checkbooks it’s 3 strikes you’re out? You then called McGlinchey’s tactics “heavy handed” a little more mild than the prior figurative gun to the head or extortion claims, although you followed it up with the claim he threatened the Caucus. Born a Dem asks you “are you really taking the position that any support of a GOP candidate disqualifies you? And criticizes your statement “Either you’re a D or you’re not.” The question posed was real simple, it really had nothing to do with Brian McGlinchey, or anyone else, it had to do with whether you really were claiming one must vote straight ticket, or lose their right to consider themselves loyal Democrats. You never answered ‘Born a Dem’s’ question. Before I read Born a Dem’s post I responded to what I saw as real inconsistency in your posts. Seriously, take a step back, ask a friend to read your posts, and ask them whether any neutral observer would accept your claims that you like Brian McGlinchey, or that you “have no personal beef with him”, it just isn’t credible. I never said you needed your head examined, or questioned your mental health at that point. I pointed out the obvious that became even more obvious as the night grew on. You claim it’s nothing personal, you have no beef with Brian McGlinchey while attacking his loyalty as a Democrat, and even worse you start out in the morning praising Bill McGlinchey, who really should have no dog in this fight. You said he was a great candidate who you believed in but by the evening you admitted you were “pissed off at” Bill McGlinchey. After I point out your inconsistencies in your posts, both your claim to have no beef with the McGlinchey’s etc., and the King maker crap, you responded by bringing Freud into this. I never mentioned any mental health issues; I said your posts were inconsistent, which they are. A person doesn’t need to have mental health issues to be inconsistent in their argument! You responded not by showing how your rants weren’t inconsistent, but instead told me to read, “what ever faux-Freudian motives into this that you’d like. Believe me, I’m not worth wasting this amount of time in analyzing, unless I’m paying you for the office visit. In which case, you’d go crazy too.” I responded by showing you point by point how you implied McGlinchey was an all-powerful thug, again that was my interpretation of your rants. And I added if you didn’t see how “you clearly implied McGlinchey’s a thug, you do need that couch.” I would never imply someone had mental health issues, even if I felt they clearly did, unless they initiated the subject. It was in direct response to your post, and not out of line in context! You responded again saying I never called McGlinchey an all-powerful thug, and you suggested maybe I have the wrong guy on the couch. And you ended your post trying to bait Brian to come debate you. I replied again pointing out I never claimed to be quoting you, but stated you implied McGlinchey was a thug (in some circles that would actually mean he’s doing his job well). If you seriously don’t believe my interpretation of your posts was correct you have absolutely no perspective, and you really must be blinded by hate for the guy. Then I turned off my computer to watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Now I’m at work, and read your and Geezers response, and its clear you and Geezer hate McGlinchey, that’s obvious, but wake up, notice how none of the people who usually post, or who posted on this thread before Garrett’s post have come to defend you. Look I don’t care if you hate Brian and Bill McGlinchey, or anyone else, but I do have a problem with a party loyalty test for party activist, it is this type of mindset that turns people off of politics. If the Democratic candidates McGlinchey didn’t support were supportive of the labor platform, and he supported the GOP candidates due to personal animus unrelated to labor issues,. I’d support your position, but as I understand it the GOP candidates supported labor issues, and the Democratic candidates did not. Under those circumstance I support McGlinchey or anyone else supporting the candidate who supports their issues.
Also this litmus/loyalty test you seem so eager to impose on McGlinchey is one of the reasons both parties, but mostly the GOP, get nuts elected in Congress. Think how many Republican’s in Minnesota vote for Bachman (or Democrats in GA until Cynthia McKinney lost her primary), because they were raised to believe they must support their parties’ nominee. Elected officials don’t subscribed to your litmus test. In 2006 several Democratic Senators donated money to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley’s grandson, who was running for the Iowa House. No doubt no 08 Democratic Presidential hopeful did, but according to Washington Post articles several Democratic senators donated to Grassley’s 22 years grandson much to the displeasure of state party officials. However they didn’t question the Senators party credentials. If Democrats in the US Senate can cut a 1,000 check from their PAC to help the grandson of their conservative GOP colleague, and not be called to the carpet, or be accused of not being a true Democrat I don’t understand the criticism of labor leaders supporting the candidate who supports them even if they have an “R” next to their name!
While I’d love to continue to engage, the pile of papers is getting higher, and I want to actually have a weekend away from work, so I’m out of here. I hope I was able to at least get you to think, and gain some perspective, even if your responses indicate I failed.
My my, it surely can be said when a DL contributor feels the need to drop my name it’s always the pathetic last resort of a wanker.
When I scanned this post the other day I thought —WTF??? If I had bothered to comment it would have been to point out that the usually fact-devoted ‘Bulo had just fumbled badly by forgetting that the “Working Family Party’ has already been defacto disenfranchised by the dirty work of “Bulo’s former DEM bosses.
SEE: Minor parties may disappear from ballot
Apr 7, 2010 | By J.L. MILLER “Changing ballot access laws in an election year is constitutionally suspect”
“With a stroke of the pen the governor has essentially taken a nine-party system and turned it into a four-party system,” said Wolfgang von Baumgart, chairman of the Independent Party of Delaware.” The Independent Party qualifies for the ballot with its 1,794 voters; the others currently qualified are the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties.”
“House Bill 245, which was signed into law Feb. 1, effectively doubled the number of registered voters a party must have to be on the ballot.
And it did so two months before voters are restricted from changing their party, when it was difficult, if not impossible, for the smaller parties to meet the new threshold of 612 voters.”
And who could forget this scandalous statement:
“State Election Commissioner Elaine Manlove said she has little choice but to enforce the law. “I don’t think it’s unfair,” Manlove said, noting that the bill passed the House last June. The parties could have begun bolstering their ranks then, Manlove said, and they also had two months after Gov. Jack Markell signed the bill. Manlove said the increased requirement is a matter of “real estate: There’s only so much room on the ballot.”
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20104070351
or David McCorquodale on Saturday ~ Columnist’s critique of voter registration plan was right http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100423047
There, I said it all without calling “Bulo a freaking idiot A-Hole.
Some people in our state don’t believe in democracy – how strange that they call themselves DEMOCRATS.
Geezer I’m not sure if your “fine and dandy” is agreeing with my post that a labor leader should not be faulted for backing the candidate for local office that is most supportive of labor’s priorities, or merely indicating a lack of significant disagreement on the matter.
In any event whether McGlinchey should have been picked as the head of the state Democratic Party was not mentioned anywhere in El Somnambulo’s original post. His full mention of McGlinchey was: unless Brian McGlinchey and his ‘Working Families Party’ decide to make mischief again.” If this post had been about McGlinchey’s attempt to become the party chair, and why McGlinchey didn’t deserve the post that would be another situation, and I would not have weighted in, but it was not until El Somnambulo was criticized for taking a position that amounted to a loyalty oath that I weighed in. Whether McGlinchey was the right man for the job is a different matter altogether.
More details about this travesty was covered here
Dover’s action on minority parties is sneaky politics
Apr 12, 2010 | By HARRY F. THENAL
“Gov. Markell quietly signed into law House Bill 245, whose primary stealth sponsor was Rep. Earl G. Jacques, a first-termer and a retired Air National Guardsman from Glasgow. His co-conspirators on the bill were Sen. George Bunting of Bethany Beach and Reps. James Johnson and Hazel Plant, both of Wilmington. All are part of the Legislature’s majority Democratic Party.
The history of this bill also says a lot about the subterfuge in Dover. It was introduced in June 2009, which was not an election year, but the bill did not come onto the floor until the second election-year session of the 145th General Assembly.
At the end of January, it was brought up for a vote. Each house added a minor amendment that the other house approved. The amended bill was rushed through and unanimously approved by both houses almost immediately. In just a few days, Markell signed it. Not a single legislator or member of the governor’s staff raised an objection. Is it possible they were not aware of the sneakiness of that clause because the bill contained many changes “to make the conduct of elections more effective and efficient,” as the synopsis said. Would it surprise you to learn that the synopsis did not mention the blow to minority parties?
A lot of these “minority” parties merely represent the aspirations of a handful of like-minded Delawareans.
In the bill’s 72 sections of updates to “obsolete language and procedures,” was Section 38: “Amend #3001, Title 15 of the Delaware Code by striking the figure ‘5/100’ and substituting the figure ’10/100 in lieu thereof.” Those brief mysterious figures refer to the percentage of voters who had been registered the previous Dec. 31 that would be needed for a political party to be listed on the ballot.
With those few words the Legislature told minor parties they would have to double the number of signatures to get on the ballot, to 612. Such stifling of dissent is a disservice to democracy.
National experts in elections say it was an almost unprecedented abuse of power.”
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20104120301
Steve L: Bullshit, on every level.
“I do have a problem with a party loyalty test for party activist, it is this type of mindset that turns people off of politics.”
No, it’s union activity in politics that turns people off of politics. Particularly when that union goes around threatening elected officials to roll over on eminent domain by claiming it could cost the Wilmington riverfront a multi-million-dollar project, which as best I can tell was a flat-out lie.
Here’s how it looks to people not in Brian McGlinchey’s employ:
Dana Garrett “defends” McGlinchey by making ugly, ad hominem charges against El Som, who understandably takes it personally. McGlinchey trots out his flunkies to argue that he’s nothing but a good, bipartisan guy. El Som points out that this is an odd trait to champion from a guy who tried to gain the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Since I assume you’re a union guy and not a follower of politics, Steve L, let me assure you that most party politicians are raked over the coals for simple donations to politicians of the opposite party. Michelle Rollins has already gotten crap for donating to (IIRC) Joe Biden, just as Alan Levin
I made clear the source of my animus: He made threats to my boss because I had unkind things to say about his union’s machinations in the General Assembly. At a later date he used Dana Garrett in an attempt to reach out to me when he didn’t like something else I said about his union, which makes it seem like McGlinchey is treating DG as his “fixer.” It also makes me think Brian McGlinchey is the thinnest-skinned laborers’ union member in the country.
Not a single one of you has made a credible argument in favor of McGlinchey’s effort to gain control of the Democratic Party despite his support for union-friendly Republicans. The obvious reason is because there is no pretty way to explain it. He made a play and lost, and now he’s trying to rewrite history.
Nancy: All well and good, but quite beside the point. If the Working Families Party is that small, it explains why McGlinchey wants to gain control of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t explain why anyone should let him.
Born a Dem: “Fine and dandy” means that a union leader is free to back Republicans, but he shouldn’t expect applause from Democrats for that. It serves as a perfect illustration that union goals and progessive goals are only sometimes aligned.
Furthermore, look at the ridiculous, over-the-top response from McGlinchey’s forces. For one little throw-away shot, he rolls out Dana Garrett to insult El Som, plus a few others to back him up once the tussle gets ugly. You know the line about protesting too much.
Geezer who said anyone should applaud McGlinchey, or a union leader for anything? Not me. Union goals and progressive goals aren’t always aligned, but my guess is historically they are aligned more often than not. My problem is not with constructive criticism, or even criticism that is unconstructive, but has a modicum of fairness. My problem was with the view clearly expressed by El Som that you can’t be a loyal Democrat if you ever support a Republican. Call it maturity, but calling anyone in the Republican party a “Rethug” is a sign of immaturity. Look I can’t think of a member of the GOP currently holding federal office that I have great respect for, or could imagine voting for, however there are Democrats who are currently holding federal office that I could never support either. Not all Republican’s are evil Clones of Cheney or W, and not all Democrats walk on water.
What were the union positions that these Democratic candidates refused to support? And despite their refusal to support union issues, which is rare for a Democratic candidate running for office, what made these candidates so great other than the D after their name on the ballot? I seriously can’t think of a single Democratic candidate or office holder that has anti-union positions that is progressive on other issues. I did a quick check on interest group ratings of some Blue Dog Democrats and those who I looked at had poor labor ratings as well as poor ratings from what vote smart classifies as “liberal” interest groups.
Please enlighten me, if McGlinchey’s opposition to these candidates, or rather his support of their GOP opponents what was so bad about the labor positions that McGlinchey wanted their commitment on that these GOP candidates refused to commit to, and what issues or positions made these candidates so great. So far the only reason given in support of the criticism to McGlinchey’s support of the GOP candidates is they ran against Democratic candidates, if neither you or El Som, or someone else can’t give any reason McGlinchey’s support of these candidates other than party ID was wrong, then I have to assume these candidates who were supportive of union issues weren’t really progressive candidates.
Your statement regarding the “ridiculous, over-the-top response from McGlinchey’s forces. For one little throw-away shot, he rolls out Dana Garrett to insult El Som, plus a few others to back him up once the tussle gets ugly. You know the line about protesting too much” defies reality. I agree El Som’s comment was a small part of his post. And the throw away cheap shot was ignored in the first 17 plus hours after his post went up. Dana Garret’s complete original comment was: “El Som, you didn’t seem to mind McGlinchey when he was writing checks and helping you with lit drops for your campaign against Wayne Smith. Why are you making this cheap shot now?” That was not an over the top response from Garrett. The responses between Garrett and El Som got more personal, with Garrett for two hours (+ 1 minutes, from 8:48 AM until 10:49 AM) when Garrett ended his final response by stating:” But whatever. The last word is yours. People like you usually need it. “ You and El Som responded several times after Garrett said he was done responding, and my first response was at 4:49 more than a whole day after the post with the throw away slam on McGlinchey went up. And my criticism was with the you’re either with us or against us attitude, that sounded like something George Bush would say (oh wait he did, didn’t he), and not with any specific criticism of the 08 race. My comment was supported by another post Joanne.
I’m not part of some McGlinchey force, but I’d still like answers to my questions.
As I noted before, Dana Garrett is apparently McGlinchey’s fixer — insult McGlinchey or the union and you get confronted by Garrett. The 17-hour gap you point to is evidence in my favor, not yours — it looks like it took a while for McGlinchey to find out he had been insulted and to sic Garrett on the case.
Try, one more time, to understand El Som’s point: McGlinchey tried to gain leadership of the state Democratic Party. It’s not a question of a guy who VOTED for Republicans, but of a guy who used the union (NOT simply himself) to get Republicans elected.
You’re not one of his stooges? Fine. The rest of the criticism still stands.
As for how “progressive” the laborers union is, they took the side of the city of Wilmington and the only developer willing to work in it against a small business owner in trying to evict him so the developer could build townhouses in his stead. Beyond that, you will have to look very, very hard to find a union in this state that does not stand shoulder-to-shoulder with corporate interests in its industry.
Stop trying to pretend the standard El Som set was some sort of wide-ranging indictment of anyone but Brian McGlinchey. You vote for Republicans but register Democrat? Good for you. Nobody cares — unless you put in your bid to lead the Democratic Party.
For the record, I have no love whatsoever for the Delaware Democratic Party — it’s a bunch of half-wits, bullies and borderline crooks, for the most part, and that’s just the ones I’ve dealt with personally. But your analysis seems to be based on nothing concrete, just a set of biases. If you want to have a theory-based discussion, you and the Nony Moose should lock yourselves in a closet together.
But I’m not going to stay silent when I see one of the biggest of those bullies unleash his forces here.
Nancy: All well and good, but quite beside the point. If the Working Families Party is that small, it explains why McGlinchey wants to gain control of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t explain why anyone should let him.
*
A muddle of points????
– that McGlinchey might actively work to knock out a DEM in Oberle’s district in 2010 BECAUSE this labor boss allegedly worked the R’s against the D’s using the threat of a third party affiliate and the loyal labor voters that would follow…and that insodoing he somehow WANTED the R’s to control the HOUSE and was therefore ineligible to lead the DEM party?
– that allegedly McGlinchey brought the WFP to DE and controlled them
– that the labor boss wanted the DEM Party chair because the WFP was too small..or something.
The first point –the toss-off comment that McGlinchey might interfere in Oberle’s district against a DEM primary victor– has no basis in reality. NONE. Labor’s R stooge is RETIRING.
Since Oberle is not on the ballot it is highly improbable that any other GOPer stepping up would have an identical pro-labor platform. [and isn’t it a hoot that Themal reveals that Rep. Earl G. Jacques was the one to do the dirty deed against WFP considering ‘Bulo’s statement “Had Brian McGlinchey had his way, neither Mike Barbieri nor Earl Jaques would be in the House of Representatives”].
‘Bulo made the back-handed comment to bring out some old news about Brian McGlinchey but it had no bearing on Oberle’s district IMHO. I would guess that what is really on ‘Bulo and his hardcore D’s radar is Terry Spence vs Mike Barbieri and the hair-raising expectation that labor will go full-guns at Barbieri for their Republican friend.
Does ‘Bulo approve of the ‘constitutionally suspect’ and subvertive action his D pals took to disenfranchise third parties in this election year? So afraid of the democractic process?
Also, it is an oft-repeated falsehood that McGlinchey brought the WFP to Delaware. They came here because of Delaware ACORN, a group who was tightly affilitated with Philly and NY ACORN where the WFP has long worked to keep the populist agenda in the mix and helped get money to candidates who will stand up for the less-franchised among us.
No one will deny that WFP is aligned with labor in Delaware and rallied under Brian McGlinchey but don’t be misled by the distortions of this cynic-who-loves-his-HIGH-DEMs-above-all-else.