Who’s Running – Republican Primary Edition

Filed in National by on July 14, 2010

Yesterday was the filing deadline for running for office in Delaware. There was a lot of activity in the final days. Let’s take a look at the Republican primaries.

U.S. Senate
Mike Castle vs. Christine O’Donnell

Prediction: Castle in a walk.

U.S. House of Representatives
Michele Rollins vs. Glen Urquhart vs. Rose Izzo vs. last minute addition Brent Wangen, who is also running as a Libertarian. I guess the Libertarians have a plan this year – 1) run in more than one party and 2) post on Delaware Liberal. Good luck with that plan! Urquhart’s website has a video with a lot of inspiring Democratic presidential speeches – FDR, JFK.

You can watch Rose Izzo shoot things.

Prediction: Rollins in a walk

General Assembly
State Senate District 19 – Joe Booth (incumbent) vs. Eric Bodenweiser
I don’t know this district very well. Booth won a special election after Thurman Adams’s death. I’ll let Bodenweiser describe himself:

My name is Eric Bodenweiser, and I’m a Conservative Republican running for State Senate in Delaware’s 19th Senate District. I’m a member of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, as well as the Delaware Tea Party. I’m a devoted husband, father, grandfather and Christian who feels that our state and nation is on a socialistic path, the consequences of which will impact our economic and moral well being for generations.

Even though this race is in the part of the state most sympathetic to the tea party, I have to give the prediction here as Joe Booth.

State Representative District 9 – John Marino vs. Anthony Mirto
This is Cathcart’s open seat. Cathcart endorsed Marino, so I assume Marino has the edge in this race.

State Representative District 29 – George Phillips vs. Lincoln Willis
This is Thornburg’s open seat. I know nothing about either candidate and neither of them have a campaign website listed.

State Representative District 31Ronald Poliquin vs. Ronald Smith
The incumbent in this district is Darryl Scott (D). Poliquin’s website has an endorsement by Colin Bonini and Poliquin claims to be “100% taxpayer approved.” (turn down your speakers before going to his website) He also seems concerned that Delaware is turning into New Jersey or something.

State Representative District 32 – Libertarian, Republican and Democratic candidate William McVay vs. Beth Buzzell Miller
Brad Bennett (D) is the incumbent in this race. McVay’s website doesn’t have much information on McVay’s platform but there is quite a bit about state sovereignty. Miller is the favorite for this primary.

State Representative District 33 – Harold Peterman vs. Steven Rust
The incumbent is Robert Walls (D)

New Castle County
County Council District 1 – Scot Sauer vs. Robert Suiter
The incumbent is Joe Reda (D). I don’t know much about either Republican but Sauer was a late entry.

County Council District 3 – Janet Kilpatrick vs. Mike Protack
Open seat being vacated by Bill Tansey. This one should be interesting. Perennial candidate Mike Protack should have some name recognition from his many runs for office. Kilpatrick is married to Vince Lofink and is well-regarded. I have no prediction on this race.

New Castle County Sheriff – William Hart vs. Joseph O’Leary
The incumbent is Mike Walsh (D). These are both late entries to the race. Perhaps they think they can benefit from a brutal primary fight between Walsh and Navarro. O’Leary has a website that has absolutely no information on it.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (49)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:

    According to Ceila, the primary-fusion Libertarian attempts just got overruled.

  2. RSmitty says:

    I like this post (in a funny, yet serious way). Now, in the totally sarcastic way that you know me, I present my interpretation of the post:

    Here is your Republican field! Here, you have Johnny Filelate and he…uh…I don’t know anything about him, but here, you have Joey Fileearly and he…uh…I don’t know anything about him, but they are in a primary against each other. In this race, you have…two…people…that…I…well, they filed. One of ’em has a shoot-em-up video and the other has something about Nazis, other than that, they…are…um…running against each other. Then, in that race over there are, um, two other people that…hmm…that filed, too. Well, they’re republicans and this is DelawareLIBERAL, what the *&#@ eff do you want?

    😛 I do this, because I care so much about my blogging family…the ones I visit only on holidays, but stay on the other side of the house when I do.

  3. anon says:

    Here’s the link to Ceila:

    http://delawaregrapevine.com/7-10triplefiling.asp

    Here’s the bizarre thing.

    “Henry was allowed to stay as a Republican because there was nothing in the law requiring candidates to file with the party where they were registered.”

    So if there’s nothing in the law requiring it, then why can’t McVey and Wangen do it?

    “The Democrats and the Republicans found an escape clause for themselves. It is a 1994 opinion from the Attorney General’s Office, telling the parties they can reject candidates who have no affiliation with them.”

    Ah. I see. So even though the law doesn’t ban it, the AG’s office interpreted the law to mean that it does. Makes sense to me.

    What a bunch of Keystone Kops we have up there.

  4. I’m making the over/under for Protack’s % of the vote at 27%.

    I’m taking the under.

  5. RSmitty says:

    I think Henry either did switch or signed an affidavit that she would switch. Either one, she did become a Republican in that race. So, if that might be the precedent, then how would one be both a Republican and a Democrat at the same time, which would be needed for this triple fusion?

  6. Anon, I’ve explained the difference before. You choose to ignore it. Henry was selected by the Republican Party to run in a Special Election. In a Special Election, the parties choose their respective candidates, THERE IS NO PRIMARY. In other words, Henry was affiliated with the R Party, because they CHOSE HER AS THEIR CANDIDATE.

    If you can’t see the difference between that and a registered Libertarian candidate filing in the Democratic and Republican primaries despite no party affiliation whatsoever, then you’re willfully blind, and nobody will be able to convince you otherwise.

    And, Smitty, she switched as soon as she could. The Special Election took place during one of those times when party switches were ‘frozen’ as I recall, meaning you couldn’t switch during that window.

  7. jason330 says:

    O’Leary looks to be an out and out nutbag:

    I’m a registered conservative Republican but through grassroots reachout I have already garnered the official endorsements of both the Constitutional & Libertarian Parties of Delaware, running against 2 entrenched cogs in the machine, either democrat or RINO, so ill need something creative.

    He has also written his own oath of office (endorsed by the John Birch Society) in the event he gets elected.

    I pine for the days that when people like Izzo and O’Leary were content to rambled nonsensically while bagging your groceries.

  8. RSmitty says:

    EL…
    I knew that she did switch, but I couldn’t remember at what point it happened. I remember it mostly because of the swirl of her switching back, something you noted the other day, as well. The other point I made has to do with regular election periods and people filing for one of the majors (D or R) while they are not a part of that party. I believe the rule there is that the prospective candidate must submit an affidavit swearing they will change their registration to that party. I don’t know what the deadline is under that rule, but this is something I have heard before and more than once.

  9. anon says:

    El Som,

    What part of “there was nothing in the law requiring candidates to file with the party where they were registered” do you not understand?

    A primary election is no different than a general election. Both are run by the state and both have to follow state law, NOT the whims of the two major parties that got the state to pick up the tab for them.

    If you don’t understand the hypocrisy and CYA tactics at play here by Daniello and Ross, you’re the one who’s wilfully blind, sir. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.

  10. Hey Smitty –

    Yep, good interpretation but this post wasn’t meant to be a deep interpretation of the races. There are very few of these candidates that I know much about on either side of the aisle. Most of our readers won’t be voting in Republican primaries so this just a peak at what to watch for.

    Hmmmm, Jason when I loaded O’Leary’s website it didn’t have anything on it. Either he got it loaded up or I had an error.

  11. anon,

    As I read Cohen’s post there has been no ruling from the state or the AG’s office that McVay and Wangen can’t run on multiple tickets. It’s just stating that there was a 1994 AG statement that supports the Democratic and Republican Party’s contention that this can’t be done. I assume we’re waiting for the AG or the Dept. of Elections to make a decision one way or the other.

    It does not look as though McVay can get away with it. The Democrats and the Republicans found an escape clause for themselves. It is a 1994 opinion from the Attorney General’s Office, telling the parties they can reject candidates who have no affiliation with them. So they are.

  12. You got your 15 minutes of fame, ‘anon’. I previously wrote about the say that state parties have in governing their own primaries. Nutbags allowed? Yes. As long as the Nutbags are registered with their party. Nutbags not affiliated with their party? No.

    That opinion was written in 1994, something you either chose to ignore or of which you were unaware.

    Now that I’ve been proven correct despite your relentless stream of condescensions, feel free to waste more of your money challenging it in court.

  13. anon,

    I have to agree with ‘Bulo that Henry’s situation is very different than the current situation. I assume McVay and Wangen would use Henry as a precendent when arguing with the DoE.

  14. anon says:

    UI,

    You missed the salient point: “With an allied appeal to the elections commissioner and the Attorney General’s Office, the Democrats and Republicans came away with a ruling that would shrink the filing to the Libertarian line alone. A letter was on its way Tuesday to let the serial candidate know.

    ES,

    I’m famous just by posting on DL? Excellent! 😉

    If I had standing to challenge it, I would. But I don’t live in that district.

  15. You’re right, I missed it anon. It does say that the ruling went against McVay and Wangen. Is the DoE going to issue any kind of statement?

  16. Geezer says:

    Unless I miss my guess and have misinterpreted his/her point, anon is highlighting the fact that the two major parties are granted positions under Delaware law that citizens ought to be outraged by. As s/he notes, the state picks up the tab for the activities of their private organizations. That’s a principle worth fighting even if you think minor parties are mere annoyances.

  17. anon says:

    Thanks, Geezer. You got it, and said it more eloquently than I.

  18. Joanne Christian says:

    “I pine for the days that when people like Izzo and O’Leary were content to rambled nonsensically while bagging your groceries.”

    COMMENT OF THE DAY jason!!! LOL

    A girlfriend of mine FIRED a contractor 4 months ago because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut about political things. He would go on and on about “this and that”, and then say “I know I’m not supposed to talk political…as if if she was in tacit approval of his ramblings….by Day 3 he found out….

  19. Rebecca says:

    Geezer,
    I’m going to disagree with you on this one, rare.

    In a small d democracy you want to push the candidate decision down as far as you can. In the Democratic party we’ve been working on this for the past seven or eight years and we’ve still got a distance to go. But, we have gotten away from the smoke-filled rooms. The endorsement process starts at the District level with party representatives from each ED voting for the candidate they like.

    To push this down to the individuals in the party, versus their representatives on the District Committees, you have to go to a Primary. The cost of holding Primaries would be prohibitive for the Democrats, and a pain in the butt for the Republicans. If you require the parties to pay for Primaries you set up a senario that pushes them back into the smoke-filled rooms. Eventually nobody gets to run in a party primary. Eventually the individual voter gets one choice in November because the “powers” in the parties will be sure nobody gets to primary.

    It’s always the unintended consequences that bite us.

  20. Yeah, Joanne. I don’t understand people who just can’t shut up about politics even when they’re annoying other people.

  21. anon says:

    Rebecca – Who cares if the cost would be prohibitive to the Democrats and a pain to the Republicans? They have other options. Caucuses, online voting, mail voting – none of which require state intervention.

    What gets me is that the parties turned the primaries over to the state while collecting thousands of bucks per candidate for their own coffers, without bearing any of that burden.

    It really comes down to this fundamental issue: If I’m a member of a minor party or an unaffiliated voter, why the hell should I have to bear the cost of a private organization’s candidate selection process?

  22. anon says:

    Oh, and it’s worth noting that McVey and Wangen are still listed on the primary ballot page on the DOE Web site. If Ceila is accurate, it sounds like one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing, which is about par for the DOE.

  23. Geezer says:

    Rebecca: I agree with you on a practical level. As I wrote to someone the other day, you stand a much better chance of gaining office by taking over one of the two major parties than by taking the minor-party route.

    But in principle, it’s not right. It’s a slice from the public-funding loaf but unfortunately doesn’t make much of a meal.

    As anon notes, the state’s filing fees are relatively high. Shouldn’t those go toward funding the primaries?

  24. MJ says:

    Has O’Leary even started to shave yet?

  25. Rebecca says:

    You are right Geezer.

    Still, we live in reality and the real consequences would make matters worse, not better.

    Oh, and, filing fees would not cover the cost of the primary. Not even close. While the filing fees appear high at first glance, you have to figure that there are close to 400 (plus or minus) ED’s that have to have voting machines set up in polling places (sometimes multiple ED’s at one) and those polling places have to be staffed. And the filing fee max is set by Delaware law. I’m just guessing, but I’d bet Primary candidate filing fees wouldn’t raise 10 percent of the costs.

  26. anon says:

    So what do the filing fees cover, if the party bears none of the expense of the primary?

  27. Rebecca says:

    anon,

    Sorry, you live in the USA, not Europe. Our founding fathers didn’t want a parlimentary system that could be gamed by the executive. Our form of government is organically stacked for a two-party system. There’s a good reason for that.

    Now, I don’t claim the Democrats always get it right — far from it. But, if I hope to make my voice heard, I at least want to come out of the starting gate at the same place as my opponent, not ten lengths back. And all the satisfaction I might gain from being morally superior and sitting on my ethical pinacle and being Green, or Working Families, or Socialist doesn’t compensate for the handicap of being a minority party.

    You are certainly free to reject the R’s and the D’s but stop with the whining and whinging when your candidates lose.

  28. Rebecca says:

    ouch! sitting on my ethical pinacle might hurt.

  29. anon says:

    “Our form of government is organically stacked for a two-party system. There’s a good reason for that.”

    Oh, my God. I really hope that you’re not a teacher passing on your misguided, misinformed concept of U.S. citizenship to Delaware’s children.

    Our form of government was created by people who hated “factions,” or political parties, and has nothing to do with the two-party system. Things simply evolved that way as a means for certain powerful individuals to keep tighter control of the reins of government. Throughout the 1800s, parties came and went. The Republicans originally formed as a minor party. It was only in the latter three-quarters of the 1900s that the Democrats and Republicans WROTE THEMSELVES INTO THE LAW and protected their positions by brute legislative force.

    If you automatically have ballot access within one party, like the Ds and Rs do, then it makes absolutely no sense to go with another party that might be closer to your views. Thus, the Democrats and Republicans, however much they espouse good government, have effectively crippled every minor party out there.

    This has to be the stupidest comment I’ve ever seen on DL. And that includes everything donviti ever wrote.

  30. liberalgeek says:

    This will be interesting. I think that the way the law is written, the Libertarians are allowed to file on multiple lines. The AG’s opinion is merely an opinion that has not been tested in court. We are far enough out that a challenge to that opinion is likely and I suspect will win.

    It will all be for naught, of course, since none of the Libertarians will win any of the Democratic or Republican primaries. Further, it is a hole in the law that will likely be patched up by the GA in January. Likely with bipartisan support, since no third parties will have earned a vote in the body.

  31. Rebecca says:

    tell me what you really think anon.

    I said “organically” because I was referring to the way power ebbs and flows. Our system lends itself to a two-party approach. Yes, the founders did hate parties and that’s why they rejected a parlimentary approach. But, they also understood checks and balances.

    Go back to sitting on your pinacle. And spin.

  32. Joisey says:

    Rose Izzo: Because Delaware needs an armed Snooki.

  33. Geezer says:

    I’m pretty sure Snooki is smarter and less paranoid.

  34. jason330 says:

    Joisey – I love that comment so freaking much I WANT TO MARRY IT.

  35. Joisey says:

    Call me on the duck phone if it gets comment of the year. I’ll be fist-pumping at the club.

  36. Delaware Patriot says:

    Let me wipe the barf off my computer first as I read about the games being played by the Delaware GOP.

    Make sure the checks filed get cashed for those who were propped up to run. The Cathcart district is the first of the many stupid things the GOP is doing. Marino has backing and experience, it is a shame. The GOP pimp machine has taken a sure win and made it a loss. Cathcart held on because of his machine and name recognition, now that is lost.

    Then the Janet Lofink Kilpatrick push. She is tied to her crooked husband like a noose. Where was Janet when step son Tony was ripping off the state? Where was Janet when Vince bilked the state for his Masters in Education? Where was Janet when Vince was getting special deals for DelTech who employs her sleazy husband?
    Oh, she was collecting a GOP pay check. Janet is not well regarded by anyone unless you count the crooks Vince was able to curry favor with over the years. She is toast and should withdraw.

    Next is William Hart , a tool and a fool of the GOP. O Leary has little chance but the hacks of the GOP can’t stand someone with principles and a firm conservative outlook.

    Wangen will have a ballot on the 14th because the hope is it will dilute the Urquhart vote so the Princess Michele can win. This has Priscilla written all over it. (Shades of Dave Graham).

    Bottom line the GOP is toast in Delaware as the deal Castle has with Biden to make sure the GOP does not fight him for 2010 as long as Mikey gets the seat for four years so Beau can run in 2014.

    Mike Ramone is next, he cries all the time but in the end Tim Shelton does not run against him? Too much drama.

    I disagree with Liberals on everything but you point out the stupidity of the GOP pretty well, keep it up.

    Any GOP party official is a lost cause in a lost party full of losses.

  37. Anvil says:

    “Comment by Delaware Patriot” AKA Mike Protack sock puppet

  38. liberalgeek says:

    That Delaware Patriot comment would look so much better with a pink background.

  39. YHGTBSM says:

    Guess which County Council candidate has a paid GOP Legislative job who goes around to groups as a candidate yet speaks for the GOP on matters which help her political race? A double dipper from the political teet?

    How do you all feel about paying her state salary so she can campaign on your dime for another office?

    If her opponent would reject Castle once and for all he would gain a supporter.

  40. YHGTBSM says:

    All Libs are sock puppets and the only think pink is the pinkos here at this site.

    Founders Values will meet on the 28th of July, come on out Libs and repent.

  41. liberalgeek says:

    hey douchebag, you missed a dose. And you needn’t have told us which group you are with, they defecate all over everything, so you had to be a member.

  42. Actually, in the Urquhart ad, I’m pretty sure it was Churchill, not FDR. That wasn’t FDR’s voice as far as I know, and there was a picture of Churchill.

  43. Liberter Supportarian says:

    No different from any of the other double-dippers on both sides of the aisle, Incomprehensible Acronym Person Who Sounds Like Mike Protack And Spells Like Dave Anderson (IAPWSLMPASLDA). (It’s “teat,” not “teet.”)

  44. Geezer says:

    The great part of the Pink Card Sock Puppet post was its endorsement of Martino in the race for Cathcart’s seat. This indicates that Martino must be worth a steaming pile of dogshit. Thanks for clearing that up for those of us who don’t know anything about either Republican in the race.

  45. Staffy says:

    “I pine for the days that when people like Izzo and O’Leary were content to rambled nonsensically while bagging your groceries.”

    On this Jason, we are in total agreement.

  46. Macaca says:

    The Republicans, The Tea Party and the News Papers are sweeping this under the rug.

    See for yourself.
    Here is the video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kh4xhem8tM

    URQUHART GLEN
    4 E LAKE DR, REHOBOTH DE 19971
    (302) 227-9282

    GLEN@GLEN4LIBERTY.COM

  47. Geezer says:

    If you’re looking for outrage, you’re weeks late. It’s been discussed here several times, and we all know the media read this site. It will be used against him, if not by Rollins (who is scared of the TPers) then by the Democrats.

  48. Macaca says:

    Oh, I just got this email this week.
    Why is this not on MSNBC?
    I hope people are not fooled by this man.