NCCo Executive Debate — WDEL

Filed in Delaware by on August 15, 2012

There is a debate tonite between the Democratic contenders for NCCo Executive. This is hosted by WDEL and the New Castle County Chamber of Commerce at the NCCo Chamber Building located at 12 Penns Way, New Castle, DE 19720. Don’t know if this is open to the public, but WDEL is broadcasting this live from 6 until 7:30.

WDEL is 1150AM or you can listen online at WDEL.com. If you are listening, feel free to use this post to live blog what you are hearing.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (63)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Rockland says:

    Go Tom Gordon!

  2. Rockland is completely insane. Why on earth would an avowed R want a convicted corrupt D to once again lead the county?

  3. mediawatch says:

    There’s a good reason the Rs would like to see Gordon as exec, and this actually makes a little bit of sense:

    Given that the Rs have zero chance of winning this election, what could be better for them than to say how ethically bankrupt the Ds are for nominating a convicted corrupt D for the office?

    If you are a D with a brain, you can prevent this, but the answer is not Paul Clark.

  4. heragain says:

    I was in a small room with Tom Gordon the other day, but he didn’t introduce himself. Does he assume we’ve all made up our minds? 3 new politically active D’s, and not a peep.

  5. justice24 says:

    Gordon lit Clark up!!!

  6. Linda says:

    Was at the debate last night . . . was very feisty at times between the candidates. Very pro-Gordon crowd. Shahan won some points very sincere. Husband seemed lost. Moderator pretty much let the gloves come off . . . very interesting! Gordon clearly stood his ground.

  7. Geezer says:

    Yes, he stood his ground by yet again failing to own up to any of his past wrongdoing, and being dishonest about what the dropping of charges against him represents.

    When a person claims he did nothing wrong, it means he’s willing to do it again.

    One question for Mr. Gordon that everyone should ask: When you told the source of the government’s tape recording that you couldn’t fire Sherry Freebery because “she has too much shit on me,” to what were you refering? What was the nature of the “shit” she “had on” you?

  8. cassandra_m says:

    There’s some audio clips of the debate last night PLUS what looks like video of the entire event up at WDEL for those who couldn’t listen in.

  9. Linda says:

    @ Geezer You know you keep bringing that up over and over again and this is how I feel about it . . . Tom may have screwed Sherry on whatever you seem to insinuate over and over again he did not hurt my quality of life nor my bottom line as a taxpayer !!!! But you know what Paul Clark is screwing me as a TAXPAYER and MY QUALITY OF LIFE that IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN . . . HE HAS GOT TO GO!!! So whatever SHIT she has on him is irrelevant to me now because he paid dearly for that indictment financially and his family paid a heavy price too. So whatever SHIT Sherry has on him died the day that indictment was pled out … END OF STORY!

  10. Geezer says:

    “So whatever SHIT Sherry has on him died the day that indictment was pled out … END OF STORY!”

    No it didn’t. Your lack of interest in the truth is not the last word on the subject, nor should it be. But thanks for explaining that you’re just a selfish asshole out for revenge.

    By the way, I have no way of knowing what he was talking about, nor am I insinuating anything. Your lack of interest in this shows that you’re not the undecided voter you pretend to be.

  11. Linda says:

    I thought I was pretty clear on who I was voting for . . . just not flagrant about it . . . no need to be! This is a forum for opinions not absolutes . . . you put your thoughts out there and everyone makes up their own minds. Unlike you I respect others opinions without name calling. My statement is made clear that it is how “I” felt about it. I am not out for revenge I am out to protect my quality of life and an issue that I have fought for many, many years. If you think that is selfish so be it. I respect your knowledge of all things “political” but my decision is not made without much research . . . believe me!!!

  12. Geezer says:

    In what way is your quality of life threatened?

    And why do you think that Tom Gordon’s questionable expenditures as county executive — $800,000 on Carousel’s “Wild West” fake storefronts, $265,000 for a secret settlement of a sexual harassment suit — did not come out of your taxes?

  13. Linda says:

    Look I know I cannot go tit-for-tat with you on your knowledge of all the wrong doings of EVERY politician in the State of Delaware and I acquiesce to your superior authority on that. So I will answer you this way. I will have to pay $400 more dollars on my taxes in October – – money that I DO NOT HAVE. I do not escrow so that is cash money out-of-pocket for me. My sewer has tripled. Crime is up, cops are unhappy, I am scared to walk around Wilmington where I work. Historical buildings are being torn down. Parcels of properties are being rezoned w/o any regard for neighborhoods. I could go on and on . . . these things are what are important to me as a voter. I do not know what exact percentage of my taxpayer money went to pay for those two expenditures 8-10 years ago but I know what is happening to me right now when I cannot make ends meet and my safety is in jeopardy. Newark Town Center is up for a vote “AGAIN”. Will it pass “this time”??? Should I ask Pam Scott? I am not trying to be flippant but that is my honest answer.

  14. Geezer says:

    Fair enough. Just be aware that some cures are worse than the disease.

  15. j marie says:

    Gordon and Clark have BOTH violated their oaths of office. I think “none of the above” would be a better choice. Fortunately, there are two other candidates running in the primary. Support one of them. If either Clark or Gordon go to the general election- vote for the republican.

  16. Paul Clark hosted Rick Jensen touring around through the county building all day yesterday ’twas rumored by one of the employees at the debate. I did think Amy Cherry deliberately threw Clark a bunch of softballs. She certainly ignored my my written question!!

  17. SussexWatcher says:

    And just in time for dinner, here comes Nancy, full of innuendo and unprovable half-smears.

    Isn’t it the job of heads of government to maintain good working relations with the press?

    And Nancy, maybe Amy recognized your handwriting and knew you were a complete nutter. Or maybe your question was just nuts.

  18. I am repeating what was told to me after the debate by Jonathan Husband if you must know. He is not going to be known for lying nor innuendo. And he works there and must have observed Jensen’s love fest with Clark. Clark has the big pile of developer money in his coffers. I am sure it is going to be going to WDEL in the 10s of thousands. Why not put your head up the ass of a head of government for that kind of money.

    And FYI, Amy had my full name as all of the chits asked for name and question. Did you listen to the debate? Why would you? From Sussex, huh. Yet you believe my couching the questions as softball were made up? Do some home work before you embarrass yourself some more.

    Thanks for asking.

  19. Is this snide pout from Sussex because I ratted out Mitch Crane yesterday?

    You know, accepting seven top dollar takes from the same person is a no no unless the shell companies are owned by this guy in an allowable percentage. It should be investigated by the Dept. of Elections for possible illegal activity. Period.

    Coons took a bunch of Rickman money from shell companies back in 1999 that got the GOP after him. It turned out that the ownership was spread out among William’s children to thin it out enough to pass muster but it always smells bad that one person is getting that much influence. It was illegal enough in Tiagani’s case that he’s in jail right now.

    And in the vein, how the hell did Jon Starkey miss this huge story about Mitch in his campaign report round up this morning? Whoops.

  20. JPconnorjr says:

    Starkey is a total tool. The guy has glaringly questionable contributions and a radio ad about pipes that has not even a pipe dream of being verified and starkly stupid Starkey is writing a hit piece on gas bills. He is another who is dumber than Daniello.

  21. SussexWatcher says:

    Nancy, if you had read the rest of yesterday’s thread, I did some research on the Crane contributions issue that would help you and your pal out. And I said nothing about the softball nature of the questions that were asked; I simply suggested that the reporter knew you and overlooked you because you’re you.

    I dislike you immensely not because of your politics, but because you try to smear some perfectly good and reasonable people with third-hand rumors, juvenile namecalling and pure made-up horseshit while enveloping yourself in an aura of self-righteous truth, justice, transparency and citizen activism.

  22. AQC says:

    Do I remember correctly that Nancy was the one spreading the lie about the male county chair wearing a dress to a meeting?

  23. The contributions were legal, and there is no real or implied quid pro quo. I checked.

    Oh, and Joe? The people in those commercials are real. They went to Mitch b/c Karen sucks at what she does. Karen would know who at least one of them is if she ever bothered to get back to constituents. BTW, I have yet to hear one real constituent cut an ad for Stewart citing her success in helping them. Because she doesn’t give a bleep about them.

    Cheers:)

  24. JPconnorjr says:

    Prove it [removed – Ed.] You checked?? How do you know there is nothing there? Piipe dreeam Name? Incident? You can’t or won’t.put up on either

  25. cassandra_m says:

    Stand down on the name calling.

    Interesting that the guy challenging the veracity of those commercials won’t put any work into checking them out besides having a fit about them here.

  26. Homey don’t play dat, Joe. I checked, and I’m completely confident of my facts. I checked b/c I had the same concern after reading the report as Nancy did, and I did something about it. You can earn Karen’s chump change by being the chump that you are, but I don’t have to prove nothin’. You throw shit on the wall and then demand that someone disprove that.

    Don’t work that way, Joe.

    BTW, still waiting for Constituent No. 1 to say something nice about your gas-guzzlin’ gal’s constituent services. Not even one in four years. What a record.

    Cheers:)

  27. AQC says:

    JP, with all sincerity I’m asking why you think Stewart should remain in the job?

  28. JPconnorjr says:

    Where’s the beef? All I see is chicken shit. You know there is so much make believe here maybe you could ride up to West Chester and see a dark political documentry at the Warner theatre and stop past the Burger King for a quick snack. Enjoy!

  29. JPconnorjr says:

    Actually miss accuracy I have. Run them all you want they are fabricated and the more they run the better;)

  30. SussexWatcher says:

    Does that make any sense to anyone, or should we maybe be worried?

  31. cassandra_m says:

    They get more insensible the more they hang out with KWS. A form of shell-shock, I believe.

  32. SussexWatcher says:

    “For over 40 years I’ve been standing up for your rights and will continue to do so in all aspects of insurance regulation as YOUR Insurance Commissioner.” – http://www.karenweldinstewart.org

    So … Since she was 23?

    Please tell us, Joe and Nancy! Was Karen a young consumer rights prodigy?

  33. JPconnorjr says:

    I don’t make charges against folks because I can’ read a simple report. It’s a big complicated word AGGREGATE you might want to look it up. The word of the day for you ES is FABRICATED embrace it;)

  34. Wrong, Joe. You and Nancy throw shit up and then demand that people disprove it. Without a shred of proof, you claim the ads are fabricated. People have read your screeds here now forever. I’m 100% satisfied that the constituents in the ads are real, and you screaming that they are fabricated is just another screed on your part. Do you get paid by the screed?

    And why, oh why hasn’t one bleeping constituent in the entire State of Delaware come out to say that KWS helped them when they were not getting satisfaction from their insurance company? Not one in four years, Joe, not one. You don’t even attempt to argue otherwise.

    Which is why Mitch Crane’s ads sting so much. The insurance industry has handsomely-paid lobbyists representing them. Who will be the constituents’ advocate? Not KWS, not one constituent thanking her in four bleeping years. Tell me again why your gal pal should be reelected? Neither you nor, near as I can tell, ANYBODY, has made that case since Crane entered the race.

    You’d think that, by now, at least one of her defenders would come up with a reason, but no. The only people who want her back are your tinny band of leeches who get a few bucks from her and the industry people who delight in manipulating a lightweight while screwing the constituents she is supposed to represent. Quite the resume.

    Cheers:)

    BTW, Joe, what charges? That you were paid by Karen? Yeah, I got the number wrong. You got paid less. But that doesn’t make you any less of a paid whore. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “We have established what you are, we’re now just dickering over the price.” I shoulda known that you came cheap.

  35. Geezer says:

    When a paid flack can’t think of a single positive thing to say about his employer, that sort of says it all.

  36. Davy says:

    Sometimes I wonder – is Wilmington’s city government or New Castle’s county government in greater disarray? The Joker would better govern Gotham City than Clark, Gordon, Baker, Montgomery, and the rest would govern New Castle, Wilmington, or a metropolitan government.

    Bob Weiner is a nice guy. He should have run.

    I’m voting for Kodos.

  37. From what I gather, the ad in question is attacking the IC office staff and so there was a search of all related complaints (200) which turned up nothing. The veracity of the ad is definitely in question.

    Too bad Joe Connor is such a bad messenger and KWS is such a bad politician that she and he can’t get her positives and achievements out for review. It is a huge failing and a mystery to me.

    I have heard a lot of positives and negatives about the IC performance. Not on DL, though. Only the bad. And the ridiculous George sockpuppet here is tolerated to just bring personal sludge into the convo for laughs I guess.

    I can back up what I say. I haven’t done the research to examine Leonard Litwin’s shell companies to see if he owns less than 50 percent of them which is what IIRC is the allowable percentage for the contribution. Is Steve saying he researched all this or just asked Mitch Crane about it?

  38. HA Sussex. Hiding behind a fake name gives you all so much credibility, huh. Whatever. People have a lot to say behind their cloaks because they have something to lose. Well, the kind of things I hear about are cloaked for the same reasons.

    You can believe I throw shit up for fun but it is because I am getting it from good people who can’t come out and tell it for themselves. I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t believe it in my gut or much of it have seen with my own eyes.

  39. @AQC – no, I wasn’t that person.

    ‘Do I remember correctly that Nancy was the one spreading the lie about the male county chair wearing a dress to a meeting?’

  40. cassandra_m says:

    The veracity of the ad is definitely in question.

    The veracity of the ad is not in question. This is more of you (or your friends) making stuff up. If the veracity of the ad was seriously in question it wouldn’t have been JP or you working on the deflection.

    So step away and back up what you say for a change. That would be sorta unique.

  41. Litwin is actually one of the most active givers in national politics, and there is nothing hidden. What you and Joe have suggested is that there must be some quid pro quo when, in fact, Litwin has no connection whatsoever to Delaware insurance matters. Did it ever occur to you that Crane might just be damned good at extending his donor base beyond the insurers who bankroll KWS’ campaign? No, but that’s what happened. If you’ve got something insidious to report, report it. Otherwise, it’s just more shit on the wall. AKA innuendo masquerading as fact.

    And, you’re just flat out wrong about the commercials. And it’s up to you to prove it. BTW, where did YOU get your info about the IC office staff? Was it Karen or was it Joe? Or one of Karen’s operatives? And why can’t one single bleeping constituent come forward to thank Karen for helping them? Not one? The only thing that you bring that Joe doesn’t bring is “truthiness”. Which is not to be confused with the truth.

    Finally, you said, and I quote:

    “Too bad Joe Connor is such a bad messenger and KWS is such a bad politician that she and he can’t get her positives and achievements out for review. It is a huge failing and a mystery to me.”

    Time’s yours. Tell us about her ‘positives and achievements’. You haven’t mentioned a single one. Nor has anyone else.

  42. Geezer says:

    Nancy: So what’s stopping you from listing all her accomplishments?

  43. Frankly, geezy, I’ve not been paying any attention to the IC office comings and goings outside of the KHN-EJ ridiculousness but I did call KWS Stewart today to tell her that Joe isn’t doing her any favors in ignoring your request to have her accomplishments listed.
    I expect her campaign will gladly comply and if they can’t or won’t that will speak for itself. No

    For ElSom – I get it that the donor of 10 K will not get any insurance favors but there is no way in hell he isn’t expecting SOMETHING. Maybe Mitch will spill the name of this mysterious person who is fundraising for him in NY a la a blind trust…..and we can start to draw some lines.

    You know, none of my questions for Mitch are meant to do anything but call for answers to things laid at my feet by him. Obvious things that the voting public deserves to understand.

  44. Jpconnorjr says:

    So ES wanna revise your contrib comments or will just wait to hac
    Have ketchup with your shoe? On another report note apparently your candidate can’t add any better than you;) weekend plans ES? Maybe you should get your candidate to take you up to a fantasy show at the Warner in West Chester.

  45. Idealist says:

    Nancy,

    You’d seem more sincere if you asked the same questions about KWS. Do you care at all about all
    of the donations the current commissioner has taken from the insurance industry or the fact that the head of her captive bureau also happened to be a major donor in 2008?

  46. Jpconnorjr-

    Please tell me 2 things:

    1. Why should I, or anyone else who isn’t on the KWS payroll, vote for her?

    2. What is your obsession with the Warner theater? Do you realize it was demolished years ago? A hotel now stands where the Warner once was.

  47. ” Crime is up, cops are unhappy, I am scared to walk around Wilmington where I work. Historical buildings are being torn down.”

    Care to back that up?

    Crime is up where? In NCC?

    What cops are unhappy? The NCC cops I’ve had the pleasure of talking to this year have made no mention of being unhappy.

    Why are you afraid to walk around Wilmington? Unless you work in Southbridge or in certain sections of the East Side, you really don’t have much to worry about.

    What “historical” buildings are being torn down in NCC? Did good ole Tom do anything special to preserve historic buildings?

  48. heragain says:

    I don’t have any reason to vote for any of them.

    This is some of the worst campaigning I’ve ever seen, this year.

  49. JPconnorjr says:

    Yea it sure was and what a shame that historic site was lost and now can only be visited in spiritbahd remembered in it’s press clippings;)

  50. Uh, why, Joe? Why would I give two shits about Nancy’s misrepresentations? She can claim whatever she wants to claim, I know what I found out and know that it’s true.

    BTW, after claiming that sadly nobody is telling the story of all of KWS’ accomplishments, Nancy wrote:

    “…but I did call KWS Stewart today to tell her that Joe isn’t doing her any favors in ignoring your request to have her accomplishments listed.
    I expect her campaign will gladly comply and if they can’t or won’t that will speak for itself.”

    In other words, you can’t cite one bleeping accomplishment. It’s August of an election year, and neither can anyone else.

    And Nancy once again throws out a sinister ‘he must want SOMETHING’ line, but doesn’t cite anything.

    I agree with Cass. From now on, Nancy, share this shit with whatever conspiracy theorists might still read your blog.

  51. JPconnorjr says:

    Stay tuned my comment has nada to do with ms Willing.

  52. LNCC says:

    Nancy, Why do you always put the ” Y ” on the ends of names? Like “Geezey” , “Clarky” , etc. ?? It seems so ,well, only way to describe, as “Childish” , “Immature” kind of writing style. It just doesn’t “Ring or Resonate” as one reads your sentence attempts.

  53. Dave says:

    It’s a common technique that is used to make a name cute (cutsey?) or adorable. When used in serious conservation it is a method employed to dismiss an author, idea, or thought without directly insulting the author because no serious thought or idea can originate from someone who is deemed to be cute. It’s usually intentional but can a be subconscious defense mechanism when the writer is challenged.

  54. LNCC says:

    Thank you for that “Analysis”. I am observing the “Challenged” part.
    – Maybe a Couch-“Y” or “eY” session is required for the Author to further delve into their Core issues, before further writing attempts are made. 🙂

  55. Samantha Maloney-Gracie says:

    Seriously? Talk about off topic. Gordon is a criminal and a liar. Ask him to have the FBI case unsealed so that the general public can read about what really went on while he was CE. I believe he and SF were the ones that requested the court info be sealed. If the public could actually hear and see the evidence, we wouldn’t have to keep listening to the idiots that keep saying how great he is. If it wasn’t so troubling that people like him actually think they should be in government, or that people can be conned into thinking that Gordon is a good choice, it might actually be laughable.

  56. Linda says:

    That’s a fair request but can you please ask Mr. Clark to release Pam Scott’s tax returns for the whole time he was in office too that way if we are making a clear and concise comparison crook to crook we can do this fair and square. I easily pulled up the indictment online . . . try it you can find it.

  57. cassandra_m says:

    Why? I’m not a fan of Clark or his wife, but since she isn’t the public official there isn’t an apples to apples comparison here. Besides, you know where her money came from.

    Smarter partisanship please!

  58. Linda says:

    That is the point . . . don’t you see . . . I refuse to fight a land use battle in my own backyard without using all the facts. Pam Scott IS THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL . . . Paul Clark is the puppet!

  59. KathyJ says:

    SMG @ 4:54pm – When you refer to unsealing the “FBI case” do you mean file related to charges or something else?

  60. Rockland says:

    I’m not sure who is more of a scumbag – Paul or his wife.

  61. I’m not sure who is more of a scumbag – Paul or his wife.

    @-Rockland–

    Couldn’t one say the exact same thing about Tom & Sherry? At least Paul (who I do not support) is actually married to Pam.

  62. Samantha Maloney-Gracie says:

    @KatyJ & Linda – I didn’t say the indictment, I mean documents & tapes that have to do with the Federal case that T&S had sealed. Though, not an attorney, I believe the attorneys that represented them should have copies of them due to discovery.

    “Pam Scott IS THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL . . . Paul Clark is the puppet.” LOL @Linda – that is exactly what could be said about Tom & Sherry! I’m going to be laughing about that all day. Thanks for the comic relief!

  63. Linda says:

    IMO the correct felon was convicted – Freeberry. Even then that does not negate the fact that Gordon (misdemeanor) was a good CE and his accomplishments worthwhile. Freeberry amassed her riches but it wasn’t at MY expense she got it from Mosley . . . if Paul Clark can prove to me that he or his wife did not enrich themselves in any way — with and for the developers — through her ties then I will stand corrected in my opinion. Until then my land use battle in my backyard will take precedence and I have no interest in the salaciousness of those tapes.