Delaware Political Weekly, April 5-11, 2014
Vance Phillips to Run. ‘Disrepute’ Named His Running Mate.
Apparently there are self-appointed grown-ups amongst Sussex County Rethuglicans. Party leaders (an oxymoron, I know, but bear with me), endorsed a resolution stating that they would not “endorse or support” Phillips should he run for reelection to Sussex County Council. The News-Journal quotes Sussex Republican Chair John Rieley as telling Phillips in a letter:
“This situation has the strong potential to bring disrepute on the party if we do not take a proactive moral position and are seen as lending support to your candidacy.”
Sometimes the jokes write themselves. The Sheriff of Nuttingham. Bodie. Disrepute has, to put it mildly, not been a stranger to the Sussex County Republican Party. But, I digress.
Of course, this has offended others in the Party. And, at least one of them, one Stan King, has a point:
Some of the same people who pushed so hard for past primaries so every voter’s wishes get represented are afraid to let those voters decide by primary if Councilman Phillips is to continue representing them. The folks that worked so hard to displace the so-called elites have become the elites.
None of this stopped Phillips from filing yesterday. So far, there isn’t a credible R challenger on the ballot. One Harry Orvin Strickler of Frankford has filed, but does not appear to have been recruited by the Anti-Disreputers. Nor does he appear to be in possession of his senses.
The D’s have a primary between Brad Connor, Mayor of Dagsboro, and Robert Wheatley, who has served for 20 years on the Sussex County Zoning & Planning Commission. Neither has been known to bring disrepute to their Party.
2. Dog Bites Man. Bonini Will Not Run For Treasurer.
This, of course, was inevitable. A guy who has gotten paid for 20 years to do nothing was not about to risk that gig for another job where he’d basically do nothing. Since he would have to give up his Senate seat to run for Treasurer, Colin Bonini was never gonna run for Treasurer this year. Now, he’s made it official. Gotta love this:
“I think it is vitally important to have a fiscal conservative in the Senate and am hoping to continue to be that voice,” said Bonini in his email.
And this:
“Colin Bonini has long been a champion of ensuring that Delawareans have a tax policy that is fair to all of its citizens, and to reducing the size and cost of state government,” said Copeland’s statement.
Ri-i-i-i-ght. As long as ‘reducing the cost and size of state government’ doesn’t mean that he can no longer collect dollars for meetings that he didn’t attend. Here’s what I’m talking about: This and this. And lest we forget how much Bonini needs his Senate gig, who could forget this? Which led to this. Guess I could go on, but, if I haven’t definitively proved to you that Bonini is a phony about basically everything, I guess I never will.
3. Coons Has An Opponent.
And I’m gonna vote for him. Andrew Groff has received the endorsement of the Green Party of Delaware. I’d feel more comfortable with him as a senator than I do with Chris Coons. Of Delaware’s congressional delegation, Coons was the one who I thought had more progressive leanings. Maybe he just knew how to throw out progressive dog-whistles, maybe he deep down had some progressive instincts, I don’t know. But his vote against Debo Adegbile was that of someone unfit to hold office as a D. At a time when Rethuglicans all over the country seek to deny people their right to vote, Coons’ vote against probably the most effective legal voice challenging voter disenfranchisement defined himself as unfit to hold office. Coons bought into the Fox race-baiting ‘Mumia’ meme, which had nothing to do with Abu Jamal case and everything to do with keeping a voting rights expert away from the job of protecting voting rights, and sought final counsel from…cops. Not civil rights leaders, but…cops. Hell, even Carper shrugged his shoulders and voted for Adegbile, correctly pointing out that he was simply doing his job as an attorney while working on the Mumia appeal, but Coons said that the cops would be so upset that this guy wouldn’t be able to do his job because he wouldn’t be able to work with…cops. I’ve been around a long time, but this was the single worst rationale I can ever remember for a cowardly vote. We can’t count on Coons and, as progressive Democrats or even just Democrats, we should at least be able to count on him. Which is why he won’t have my vote this Novermber. BTW, Coons filed this week, for those of you still interested.
4. Wil McVay Runs…For Only One Office This Time.
He’s filed for the 31st RD seat held by Democrat Andria Bennett. He ain’t winning in that district: 7351 D; 3475 R; 3424 I. Yep, a D-majority district.
5. Filings.
Rep. Michael Barbieri (D-18th RD); Sheriff of Nuttingham Jeff Christopher (R-Sussex County).
What’d I miss?
Tags: Andrew Groff Delaware, Chris Coons Delaware, Colin Bonini, El Somnambulo, Featured, Steve Tanzer Delaware, Vance Phillips Delaware, Wil McVay Delaware
Andria Bennett holds the 32nd
From Andrew Groffs Senate Facebook page. Does any of this sound like something Coons would support?
A platform to live by:
1. A living wage for full time employees of $22/hr, with inflationary adjustments.
2. Single-payer healthcare to eliminate the insurance profit layer of nearly 30%.
3. Elimination of established-corporation welfare including petro/chemical/coal, agribusiness, banking/financial subsidies.
4. Student loans at Federal funds rate (currently < 1.5%) for all outstanding loans.
5. Equal-access/equal pay levels for women.
6. Repatriation of corporate profits, gross receipts corporate taxation.
7. Reduced military footprint, close redundant bases, cut spending.
8. Insure benefits for our veterans, clean up the VA and make sure vets are completely supported.
9. Make sure polluters clean up their mess, bankruptcy is no financial protection. Hold executives personally responsible for their decisions.
10. End NDAA, Patriot Act restrictions on constitutional rights.
11. Citizens United, McCutcheon overiride amendment; public financing of elections.
12. Real financial regulation with elimination of TooBigToFail and installation of Robinhood fee.
…more to come
Groff’s going to need that $22/hour minimum wage to pass before he’s elected if he expects to get any campaign conversations. He sure won’t get a penny from anyone in business.
Because business candidates have done so much for this state.
The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard interviews Coons, falls in love with his willingness to work with Rubio; there’s nothing the sensible MSM loves better than bipartisanship. Don’t say she takes a dive here. Call it the “Coons swoon.”
http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/203149-ab-stoddard-the-art-of-compromise
“As a socially liberal but fiscally conservative pro-business Democrat, Coons also believes his policy positions best represent Delaware.”
Wow, don’t recall hearing THAT on the campaign trail.
When republican’ts start working with democrats, that will be news. Democrats caving, sorry, “working” with republicans is just some sort of sad battered wife syndrome.
@SA: I don’t remember hearing that, either. Too bad he won’t have an opponent who can tie that line around his neck.
Unfortunately, this state appears to like its politicians in that mold. Carper, Carney and Castle before them all stuck to the same safe path.
If you never rock the boat, you’re just ballast.
I got no real beef with Coons.
I do have a problem with those that criticism him for working with the other side. To those that do – look into the mirror. You, my misguided friends, are at the root of all that is wrong with the national legislative process.
The thing is that politics ain’t religion. We can compromise in politics. We can’t, or at least shouldn’t, in religion. The failure to understand this dichotomy is what creates the zealot, the idiot, the buffoon, the Ted Cruz’s of the world.
If you want intellectual and policy purity, stay in the church, clutch your Bible/Torah/Koran and belt out the Amens. If you want policy implemented, be a politician. Compromise everything except your principals. But please, please don’t try to do both at the same time. It’s akin to kissing ground zero on your own ass.
bal·last
[bal-uhst] Show IPA
noun
1. Nautical . any heavy material carried temporarily or permanently in a vessel to provide desired draft and stability.
2. Aeronautics . something heavy, as bags of sand, placed in the car of a balloon for control of altitude and, less often, of attitude, or placed in an aircraft to control the position of the center of gravity.
3. anything that gives mental, moral, or political stability or steadiness: the ballast of a steady income.
4. gravel, broken stone, slag, etc., placed between and under the ties of a railroad to give stability, provide drainage, and distribute loads.
You gotta rock the boat sometimes, but let’s not diss stability. In rough seas ballast is a lifesaver and let’s face it, today’s political situation for the ship of state is anything but smooth sailing. I’m guessing that many folk find stability to be an attractive quality.
Politics may be the art of compromise, indeed, but why is it every time a D works with an R, the D ends up compromising and the R gets everything they want?
If both parties are, indeed, compromising, that is a “good” thing inasmuch as it gets something accomplished. What we have in Washington these days is “my idea of compromise is I get everything and you get nothing”(guess which party said that?).
I do not seek ideological purity, I seek reasoned debate and true compromise where both parties are actually, you know, compromising.
Where was the compromise on equal pay? minimum wage? The budget? Immigration? Where is the alternative to the ACA we have been promised since the ACA was passed?
Too much ballast and your ship sinks.
Not arguing with anyone that compromise is supposed to be a two way street.
The root of the problem, however, is that to many representatives from both parties are elected from districts that are too homogenous. This translates into representation that recklessly panders to their home base often at the expense of meaningful progress. The consequence is that those representatives cannot compromise on certain issues without, heaven forbid, risking their re-election prospects.
The system of drawing election district boundaries, a task that would shame even the grittiest of prostitutes, by intentional design creates this kind district. Representative from such districts must – and should – zealously push the agenda of their constituency. The core problem, however, is that they have no incentive, willingness or need act outside the political parameters of their diversity-less district. Wa la gridlock!
Think how much different Ted Cruz or Maxine Waters would be as representatives if their respective districts were socially, economically, politically, and racially balanced. First observation – neither would likely be elected in the first place. Second observation – neither could politically afford to be rigid ideologues incapable of compromising.
Fix that problem and watch real dialogue happen.
Here’s my problem with this bullshit narrative:
In what way was voting to bomb Syria “liberal socially but conservative fiscally”? How about the vote against the DOJ candidate for the civil rights post?
The narrative is a crock of shit, nothing but a cover for a patchwork of conservative votes with no rhyme or reason.
Yes, compromise is important. But you don’t get a compromise that nets you anything if you go into the negotiations offering the halfway point as your first offer.
To get anything in negotiations, you have to start by asking for the moon. You don’t send in a wuss like Coons, you send in Alan Grayson, asshole that he is.
“liberal socially but conservative fiscally”
What this means in practice is that he is supporting of the social causes of his Delaware friends, but that he is firmly in the camp of making sure that middle class people are funding all of the austerity. Coons has the same problem that the other fiscal conservatives do — he gets to rattle his saber re: Syria without ever having to talk about how to pay for it. But do you need Social Security to deliver on its promise to you? Then you are out of luck, because fiscal conservatism means that middle class people are giving that up so that sabers can be rattled.