Delaware Political Weekly: July 7-13, 2012
Not really much more to discuss. Thanks to our eagle-eyed political junkies, pretty much all the developments can be found here and here. And you can find some analysis of the primary battles here.
I admit it. I’m addicted to this stuff.
There will almost certainly be some withdrawals today, as 4:30 p.m. this afternoon is the deadline for candidates to withdraw and get their filing fees back.
The next three weeks or so are likely to be among the quietest of this election year. The respective parties will seek candidates to fill open spots on the ballot. However, with rare exceptions, these candidacies don’t ordinarily amount to much as (a) it’s tough to gear up when your opponent has a big head start; and (b) if the candidates who eventually fill these slots were so gung-ho, they would have filed on their own.
While these will be quiet weeks, elections are often won and lost during this time. Which candidates are out there building support, and which ones are taking time off at the beach? Which campaigns can effectively gear up from nothing to become credible organizations? Which candidates have visibility and which ones don’t? My point is that this is a very important time for candidates, just not generally a window that lends itself to headlines.
That’s it for this week. What did I miss and whaddayathink?
And Brian Murphy drops out of the race for Wilmington City Council as a Republican.
Hopefully, clearing the lane for Ciro Adams.
Ruth Briggs King’s primary opponent, Elizabeth McGinn, I think, appears to have withdrawn from the race.
The irony of Mayor Baker: When there is blood in the streets of Wilmington, he refuses to show up to the scene or address the issue. When there is a groundbreaking at Riverfront, he proudly shows up–even though they are now being sued for illegally seizing land thorugh eminent domain from Norfolk Southern….explain that one to the citizens of Wilmington?
A little birdie tells me that Daniello wore out his dialing finger trying to get 2 IC candidates out of the race. How did that work out for ya Johhny boy???
http://any1butpaulclark4ncco.com/caught-paul-clark-lied-on-his-financial-disclosures/
you guys going to remain quiet on Clark’s crimes?
yes. any other questions?
when did you guys become shills for Paul Clark?
@lindalap — I don’t think that word means what you think it means (shill).
you guys wont mention paul clark’s crimes because you endorsed him eventhough you knew he was a crook. and why? because you have a personal bone to pick with tom gordon. admit it
Why would anyone need a personal bone to pick with Tom Gordon to think he doesn’t deserve to be welcomed back into elective politics? What kind of hypocrite thinks Clark’s crimes deserve mention but Gordon’s don’t — or even thinks Gordon would be an improvement?
There’s another blog concerned with Paul Clark’s crimes. Read that one.
And don’t think it escapes notice that, just like every anti-Clark story, the commenters always have names we’ve never seen before.
Are you people new here (@ the new names, not Geezer)? I ask, because if you were regular readers of this blog you’d know that most of us don’t have much respect for either Clark or Gordon. Ignoring people, ignoring people spamming our blog with their own stuff isn’t *shilling*. It is *ignoring*.
The other reason why I ask if you are new here is I’m wondering why you would actually hang out at someone else’s blog and whine that they aren’t talking about what you want. Seriously, guy, that is f’ing stupid. This is the internet, after all — if you don’t like the conversation here, there are plenty of others (one of them has been spammed here above). And hey! You can start your own blog where you can talk about what you want to your heart’s content.
huh, so there is a measure of agreement that Paul Clark’s political problems will be ignored on the self-proclaimed top Delaware political blog.
If anyone read it, I thought today’s NJ article and the quotes therein were devastating to Paul Clark. I am not sure who they helped but they certainly hurt Clark.
No, there’s a measure of agreement that your blog does what it does and that there’s no obligation on the part of other blogs to pay attention to it.
If your objective is to force people to pay attention to your issues, shouldn’t you be wooing the News Journal? Until you do, where’s the “political problem”?
Here’s a question, though: Why didn’t you acknowledge — as far as I can tell you still haven’t — that the Any1 But Paul Clark blog was yours? Or is someone else now referring to him as “Clarky” too?
Geez we agree. you are under no obligation to post anything you don’t want to or to answer any questions, nor is anybody else on here. But that said, Nancy has a point it seems that the race for top elected official in the County would be grist for the mill here. My query is that this is that given this a 2 horse race which of those 2 horses, considering all factors, is the more qualified?
That’s easy, Joe: Gordon is. As I said before, given the choice between an incompetent crook like Clark and a highly professional, um, accused crook like Gordon, I’m more inclined to vote for the guy who would like to fuck me over but doesn’t know how.
That said, I’m still not sure which one I’ll hold my nose for.
I post about Gordon because I know about Gordon, and his entire run counts on people forgetting what he did. Nancy is the one who birddogs Clark.
If voters want to overlook Gordon’s behavior in office and vote for him anyway, fine by me. Heck, people voted for Nixon in ’72 despite the Watergate break-in. I agree with you that he will most likely mop the floor with Clark.
Not that you asked for my advice, but it’s not as if the anti-Clark stuff will be deleted. Nancy should provide a few sentences summing up her articles and then provide the link. Otherwise it comes off as one blogger poaching readers from a bigger blog.
But what did he do???. It is disengenous to refer to public but unproven documents and assert “look he does not deny this stuff”. even if you call Gordon’s record marred it is still the best record in that office in 30 years. And he made a good bit of that record while having his life turned upside down by the full force of the Bush administation, in the person of that little prick Colm Connelly.
Please show me what resources the Bush administration lent to Connolly’s investigation.
The documents in question are sworn legal documents; whatever the adjudication of the case, they have been sworn to. A trial would not “prove” whether the actions took place, only if they were crimes. If you are charging that any of it is untrue, please bring forward your evidence so Connolly can be disbarred.
For a full account of “what did he do” I would have to dig through files stored in the basement. But I can compile a partial list if you really want to see it. Then I suppose he can try to discredit each and every one individually. The one I particularly look forward to an explanation for is the trip to the beach with the night-vision binoculars.
The Office of the United States Attorney is a Presidential political appointment. Much has been made of that lately by the Republicans. Thus they get to choose their targets and direct the resources which are by definition administration resources.Therefore ALL the resources were Bush administration resources. Sworn does not mean proven. and none of the stuff you have has ever been shown to be credible in a legal forum. You can make all the demands you want but the principles have no obligation to accomodate you because the cae is CLOSED. Don”t trip going down the steps:)
“Therefore ALL the resources were Bush administration resources.”
That’s not what you said. You said the “full force” of the Bush administration. Now you acknowledge that it was nothing beyond the Delaware US Attorney’s office. Which is it?
“Sworn does not mean proven.”
It means the testimony is sworn to be true under penalty of law. If you are claiming that any of the sworn testimony in the indictment is untrue, you have a responsibility to report it to the Delaware Bar, because Connolly would indeed have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do in that case.
“none of the stuff you have has ever been shown to be credible in a legal forum.”
It was not allowed to be presented in a legal forum. Again, keep standing on this narrow ledge Gordon has hewn out for himself. If you, or he, wants to deny these things, let him. I’ll say it over and over until you get it: I don’t care whether his actions were criminal. They were wrong. You know it, I know it and the Delaware people know it. You think they’re nothing big enough to deny him the office over. I disagree. All the rest is an effort to sponge away the writing in the indictment, which laid out the Harry High-School silliness that apparently represented daily life in Gordon’s administration.
“You can make all the demands you want but the principles have no obligation to accomodate you because the cae is CLOSED.”
They aren’t demands. Again, you retreat to legal niceties, which I’m not interested in. In the court of public opinion, those charges remain open until someone explains them. If they’re so meaningless, what difference does it make to you if I air them?
I got a hair over here you can split:)The US Attorneys offis IS the administration period. Legal niceties have another name, Rights. Sworn testimony that has not been used in court is untested. As much as I think Connolly is a punk he has no ‘splainin there he took it in good faith..
I don’t know what you know and I damn sure will not claim to know what the people of Delaware know or believe. I don’t know what was or wasn’t wrong what I do know is you have zero actual proof.
So you believe somebody did something wrong. So be it. But there is no proof anywhere to back you up.
As to your last sentence most folks don’t give a rats ass nor do I except to impede you in your Quiotic attemt to stop the inevitible. You got a light on those basement steps? I hear some people use night vision goggles to get out of dark parking lots.
Sorry, but it IS actual proof. It’s sworn testimony. If you want to impeach it, you must impeach Connolly. The fact that he was hired by the Bush administration is hardly sufficient.
The acts described were described in great detail. Gordon’s legal strategy, one he spent all that money pursuing, depended on getting the charges thrown out, not disproving them, because people decide on their own whether something is right or wrong. Indeed, once those acts were aired in the indictment, most people decided Gordon had done wrong. Disprove them if you can; if you can’t, you must live with the fact that they have not been disproved.
“I hear some people use night vision goggles to get out of dark parking lots.”
And others check them out of the police HQ, take them to the beach and try to spy on county employees with them.
I’m not sure whether that was supposed to be a threat. Was it? Gooning it up is another Gordon specialty.
“nor do I except to impede you in your Quiotic attemt to stop the inevitible.”
So you admit that you’re just whining to try to stop me from talking about your boy’s bad behavior? Thanks for clearing that up, as if there had been any doubt.
If you actually thought it was a quixotic attempt, you wouldn’t bother. You’re scared, and you’re right to be if you’re in any way invested in another Gordon administration. The scrutiny he’ll be under might make it impossible for him to do what he did the first time around.
I have some shopping to do, so I’ll save for later more of the excellent adventures of Tom and Sherry.
This is not a threat, just something you could look up: I don’t write about Tom Gordon unless people stump for him here on this web site. I don’t go looking for ways to impede his election. I just don’t like people shitting where I eat. I happen to like this restaurant, and I’d rather not have political operatives with an agenda peddle them here. Do it somewhere else and you’ll never hear from me. Same thing applies to KWS.
Far be it for me to threaten a guy who has shown he will drag me through the mud for pissing him off. Actually it was bait to see if you would go there on the goggles. Hooked:). I don’t have to live with jack shit here.You can do as you please with documents that were sworn a miiion times the fact is they were never proven thus obviating the need to be proven. The court of public opinion needs to make a decicion based on the public record of accomplishement or the pathetic record of a Bush adninistration US Attorny who is now selling his services the Willard Romney in attempt to cover up far worse.