Delaware Political Weekly: July 12-18, 2014
1. The State Dems Endorseth, the State Dems Endorseth Not.
Here’s the official statement. Brenda Mayrack gets the endorsement for State Auditor over Ken Matlusky in the September primary.
And the Party endorses neither candidate for the State Treasurer primary. Kremlinologists no doubt will enjoy parsing the following sentence:
Given the Committee’s perception of quality both Democratic Treasurer candidates possess, the committee failed to reach consensus on the endorsement of either candidate.
Might I suggest that this is one endorsement that neither candidate really wanted? How could Chip run as the anti-establishment candidate if the establishment endorsed him, and how could Barney run as someone not beholden to the Carpers and Carneys of this world if he got the endorsement?
My vote will ultimately come down to this: What can we least afford? A self-delusional narcissist who has had his hands effectively tied, or the next Carper or Carney? I, for one, especially don’t want to enable the next Carper or Carney since they don’t represent what I stand for. To put it mildly. And Chip’s penchant for political self-immolation likely places a ceiling on his political trajectory. Unless Barney takes steps to demonstrate that he is not the latest model fresh off the line at Carper Cyborgenics, I may actually vote for the Chipster. I know, I know….
2. Emily’s List Endorses Claire Snyder-Hall.
And why not? Check out her resume:
Claire Snyder-Hall lives in Rehoboth Beach. She attended Smith College as a scholarship student and graduated with a B.A. cum laude in Psychology in 1986. After college, she worked with emotionally disturbed and chemically dependent adolescents, before earning a PhD in political science from Rutgers University in 1997. Before moving to Eastern Sussex full-time, Claire spent twenty years as a classroom teacher, including twelve years as a tenure-line faculty member at George Mason University, where she taught political theory and directed a number of undergraduate and graduate programs. She currently serves as a research deputy for a private foundation, and serves as the local Democratic Party Chair for her district.
Hey, Ernie Lopez is probably about as good as you can hope for from an R in the State Senate, but Snyder-Hall could be a leading light in Dover. Might not be a bad time to send some $$’s her way.
3. Pete Schwartzkopf’s Primary Goes Away.
It seemed like an incongruous challenge from the start. Dairy farmer Nelson Warren filed against Speaker of the House Schwartzkopf in the final hour before the filing deadline. He didn’t appear to have a particular beef with Pete, so I was surprised by the filing. He has now withdrawn from the race. I can only hope that he gets his filing fee returned as he did not withdraw prior to the mandated deadline to do so w/o penalty. The issues that drove Warren to file would have at least made for an interesting discussion.
As usual, the outstanding Cape Gazette has the story:
Warren said shortly after filing, he and Schwartzkopf spoke about the issues he was most concerned about – the repealing of the death penalty and the legalization of marijuana – and it was that conversation that changed his mind. Warren said a Democratic primary in District 14 would distract resources from more hotly contested races in other districts, and would not be the best way to have his message get out.
“There was a constructive dialogue between us,” said Warren. “Rather than have a costly and terrible election process that eats up resources, I felt it would be better to withdraw my name.”
That’s all I’ve got. What’d I miss and whaddayathink?
Tags: Brenda Mayrack, Chip Flowers, El Somnambulo, Ken Matlusky, Nelson Warren, Pete Schwartzkopf, Sean Barney, Steve Tanzer Delaware
Mr. Warren and I had a good conversation. His filing fee is being returned.
You’ve posited an impossible barrier for doing anything but voting for the Chipster. How does Barney PROVE he won’t be a re-incarnation of Carper or Carney? As for the Chipster’s career having a ceiling because of his antics in the first term, re-election cleanses a lot of sins.
So how about this? Follow the Bill Clinton model — a screw-up first term is “rewarded” by being dumped and wandering in the wilderness for four years. Then he gets a second chance, with luck chastened by humiliation, with a willingness to be more focused on doing the job instead of [merely] promoting himself?
Barney’s an unknown. He’s just the instrument for removing the Chipster. It appears that he’ll be competent in the job. Not choosing to re-elect Chip by saying that Barney isn’t perfect isn’t intellectually honest.
We have to have standards for our electeds. If they don’t meet them, toss ’em and put in someone who will possibly, likely, do the job and be a better person.
How does Barney PROVE he won’t be a re-incarnation of Carper or Carney?
He can’t, really. And certainly not campaigning for this job, which doesn’t accommodate a progressive message. The instructive campaign, really, was Jack Markell’s first one. He *was* campaigning for a job that accommodated a progressive message, which was certainly there. Once in the job, the progressive messaging pretty much went away. Barney is being held accountable by El Som for *that*, since there are no other progressive levers.
As for the Chipster’s career having a ceiling because of his antics in the first term, re-election cleanses a lot of sins.
Tell that to Karen Weldin Stewart. She’s still widely regarded as incompetent and she won’t be elected to anything else.
We have to have standards for our electeds.
We agree on this — and I’m tired of the non-stop clown show from the Treasurer’s office.
New in Town: If you’re truly new in town, then you don’t know the context of the point I’m making. It’s also possible I didn’t make it as well as I could. Most of the top elected officials vote like Republicans on many issues. Tom Carper and John Carney have aligned themselves with organizations that are obsessed with balancing the budget, regardless of who it hurts. John Carney was plucked from political obscurity to be the Lt. Governor candidate running with Ruth Ann Minner. Turns out he was molded by Carper and, once elected to Congress, became Carper.
Now we get to Sean Barney. I’ve talked to the guy twice. Despite progressive friends insisting he’s really ‘one of us’, he was recruited to run for this office by many in the Carper and Carney factions of the Party. He not only worked for Carper, he worked with that same organization that pushes debt reduction uber alles, ‘The Third Way’.
You are right that he can’t PROVE that he won’t follow in the footsteps of Carper and Carney, but he could at least say something to give us a sense as to what he stands for.
He really hasn’t. I don’t want to be party to enabling another guy like Carper or Carney. Why? Because I WAS a party to enabling Carper and Carney, and I regret it. And the dog whistles I’m hearing from him fill me not with nostalgia, but concern.
I’ll continue to listen, but the last thing I want is yet another corporatocrat who will serve for a long time.
As to standards for electeds, here’s one of mine: Give me Democrats with a conscience who are true Democrats. If Sean Barney can’t at least make that case, it’s gonna be a tough vote for me in September.
Cassandra’s right, of course, about the clown show. That’s why this decision will not be easy, at least for me.
Sean Barney was not recruited by anyone. Sean Barney saw an opportunity to enter the political field and continue his public service. That he is endorsed by known public figures doesn’t need to be a negative for him in my book. I have asked for references from previous employers myself. For me, those endorsements are references that the man did a good job…and he will do a good job for us…his new employer. Your resume is all you have going forward. His says he has worked in the public sector, has knowledge of the public sector and wants to serve the public sector. I don’t particularly agree with Carper (on his policy) but enough people do that he never loses an election (even without my vote), but I am not going to hang my dislike for Carper around Sean’s neck.
He is a man of good character and a proven track record of honorable service. That’s something I don’t think anyone can say about Mr Flowers. Now, if Erika Benner were running for the office…That’s a whole different story.
And, while working with Carper he, Sean Barney, worked with the Third Way. The Third Way pretty much defines what Carper is all about. In fact, Carper and Coons are honorary co-chairs:
http://www.thirdway.org/about_us
http://www.thirdway.org/co_chairs
Be sure to check out their corporatist board of trustees:
http://www.thirdway.org/trustees
Does Barney support THAT vision of what government should be doing? I hope not. If Barney were to say that the Third Way does not represent his philosophy or approach to government, that would count for something. As does the fact that he hasn’t said anything approaching that.
We don’t need any more ‘pragmatic centrists’ holding office in Delaware. Until he says otherwise, I fear that Sean is yet another ‘pragmatic centrist’ who will not represent progressives once he gains political office.
And, you know what? As someone looking for a reason to support him, I would have hoped that Barney would have had a message for progressives other than ‘I’m not Chip Flowers’. So far he hasn’t. Still two months to go, though.
And, while working with Carper he, Sean Barney, worked with the Third Way.
And if the people you used to work for were working for The Third Way, you would have too if they wanted that. Not because you believed in, or were invested in or somehow supported The Third Way. You would have done it because it was made part of your job.
Not recruited by anybody. LOL That’s a good one.
His close relationship with the governor that Chip has been in thorn in the side for has NOTHING to do with it I am sure.
Barney is an empty suit and what little he has on his resume is troubling for anyone approaching progressive.
“He says he has worked in the public sector, has knowledge of the public sector and wants to serve the public sector. ” Because the sector that is public is where I wish to serve. That is approaching Palinesque ‘I know foreign policy ’cause I can see Russia from my house’
Well, Cass, of course you’re right.
But he has done nothing, repeat NOTHING, to dispel the notion that that’s not who he is. If the Third Way is not his cup of tea, progressives would love to hear that from him. I’d vote for him in an instant if he would clarify that for me.
And the ‘wasn’t recruited by anybody’ meme is indeed laughable.
And I’m not gonna vote for someone who shows signs of becoming the next Carper or Carney. Betcha I’m not the only one.
FWIW, I don’t think Barney was recruited. It sounds to me like he went against a full court press in the Admin trying to get him to not run.
But he has done nothing, repeat NOTHING, to dispel the notion that that’s not who he is.
That would be Bullshit, right there. I’ve talked to the guy at length and I don’t think that he is a Third Wayer. But then again, all of the people who are looking for a “progressive message” should be able to articulate what that might look like in a campaign for a job that doesn’t lend itself to that — without looking like the Chip Flowers’ overreach. (I remember how most of us pooh-poohed Flowers’ claim he could change the Delaware economy.) And I’ve talked to a few of them and they can’t — not even an overreach bill of progressive particulars.
If you want to work on this state’s politics, your options are pretty much limited to the current leadership. Not one of whom is progressive. It is pretty appalling that so-called progressives here can’t remember that Karen Peterson does not hire staff, so young people who want to be in the political game here won’t be associated with progressive politics. Because progressive politics holds no levers of power here.
Please. I’ve talked to the guy twice. I don’t know WHAT he stands for.
If all he was ever gonna be was a solid treasurer, I’d have no problem voting for him.
But I’ve been through this bait-and-switch stuff before, with Carper and Carney (BTW, did you know that Carper was inspired to run for public office by Gene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War? Sounds silly now, but that’s how he roped a lot of us into volunteering for him).
Barney is as much of a tabula rasa as Carney was. Carney, of course, touted his ‘blue collar’ roots when he first ran. He was gonna be the working man’s friend. Which is true, if you work for the Concord Coalition.
Unless you’ve been through this, it’s probably hard to understand the context of my skepticism.
It’s up to Barney, no one else, to fill in that blank slate. Not his surrogates. Because it’s to the point where only Barney can convince me. If there are enough progressives with similar doubts, filling in that slate could either make it easy to vote for Barney, or force us to hold our noses and vote for Flowers. Because I simply WILL NOT vote for someone who could replace either Carper or Carney as a quote unquote ‘pragmatic centrist’.
I’ve talked to the guy at length and I don’t think that he is a Third Wayer.
He is a card-carrying Third Wayer unless he has resigned and recanted. He may have been on the road to Damascus literally, but not figuratively. When last heard from Third Way was trying to cut Social Security. Does Barney repudiate Third Way principles?
The debate on whether or not Sean Barney is progressive enough is fine with me. All of us have voted for people based on their promises and been disappointed by the result. Since having learned from that mistake a long time ago, I believe the best predictor of what someone will do if elected is to see what they have done in their lives. Try to understand their character.
If some who comment on DL believe that having worked for The Third Way means one is not liberal enough, sounds fair to me, though I see some pretty progressive people on the Third Way list. What I am reading is that Sean Barney worked for The Third Way while being emlpoyed by Tom Carper. Here are the facts that answer the questions about Sean Barney, The Third Way, and his character:
1. 2000 Barney left the Tom Bradley for President campaign when it ended and worked on the Tom Carper for Senate campaign.
2. 2001-Sean Barney joined the staff of now-Senator Tom Carper as a Senior Legislative aide working on budget, tax, and social security issues.
3. April 2002- Sean Barney ENLISTS in the US Marine Corp as a reaction to 9/11-leaving the employ of Carper. He did not have to enlist. He could have gone in as an officer.
4. May 2006- Sean Barney is gravely wounded.
So, how does all that refute that Sean did work for the Third Way while working for Carper?
The Third Way was founded by former Bill Clinton staffers in 2005-three years after Barney left the Carper employment and while he was an active duty Marine.
Surrogates, surrogates, surrogates. Sean Barney needs to speak for himself.
And, as much as I respect his service, and I do, it should hardly serve as a pass into elective office.
Was it Tom Bradley or Bill Bradley? Thought it was Bill, but I could be wrong.
The f’ing Clinton Administration inVENTed the Third Way. Turned us into Corporate Lite. Carper did the same thing in and to Delaware.
It was Bill Bradley. And I wonder how it is that Sean isn’t associated with Bill Bradley, who he also worked for.
But don’t let that get in the way of a hardened narrative.
……and none of that resume lists any qualifications or positive reason to vote for Barney. Thanks for pointing out he is a political hack trying to become a career politician.
While his military service is exemplary, being a veteran does not elevate a person to super citizen status and should not guarantee a vote for him. See: McCain, John.
He certainly isn’t claiming that his veteran status makes him a super citizen.
No doubt that the current political climate endows its own value on veterans, I’m not clear on why he should ignore the (current) 40% of his adult working career on his resume.
But if you are delighted with the clown show, you should vote for the clown show. Seriously.
I am not a surrogate for Sean Barney or anyone else. Yes-it is Bill Bradley-former US Senator from New Jersey, not Tom Bradley, who was mayor of Los Angeles.
My post was not an attempt to speak of Sean’s qualifications, but to correct the attack on him relative to The Third Way-which was formed while he was in the service.
Cassandra is right in asking if Sean should not then be judged by his work for Bradley? If one is assigned the philosophy of the employer, I must be very conflicted. I worked for Matt Denn and then Karen Weldin Stewart! I learned what to do from one and what not to do from the other. My principles were not changed in either case. In both cases they were reaffirmed.
I am voting for the clown show because like all circus’ it will eventually leave town, career political hack that studied at the feet of RINOs? Not so much.
And if he does indeed have some progressive cred (or any qualifications for that matter), lets hear it, and not in some secret dog whistle nudge nudge wink wink I’m not with stupid but will embrace his endorsement sort of way.
Now *that’s* funny.
We have El Som looking for the right dog whistles and SA here thinks the dog whistles are not enough.
Is there a better reason why progressives don’t have much a voice here? Seriously. Besides, SA here was a fan of the biggest clown show of all — Alex Pires, so you can take his commentary for what it might be worth.
El, could Sean Barney convince you of anything? You’re pretty dug in on this.
Of course he could. I’ve been begging him to do so for at least a couple of months now.
Seriously, I DON’T want to vote for Chip Flowers.
Also, DON’T want to vote for the next Carney or Carper.
It’s really not that complicated.
Except that people who do directly talk to him are getting the information they need — and you’ve had two meetings with him and still can’t get your concerns dealt with? That sounds alot like Barney not being able to convince you of anything. Or you not asking the right questions.
El Som, you’re treating this statewide row office as though it’s at the top of the food chain for statewide policy making. It’s almost like you drank the Chipster kool-aid and liked it. I have spent a fair amount of time talking to Sean Barney and see none of the sinister characteristics you’re trying to pin on him. I see a humble, well-grounded guy who could put a new face on up and coming politicians in this state. I don’t see you attacking Brenda Mayrack for her close ties to the State Democratic Party and they’re the people who continue to pump air into the Carper and Carney camps that you’re so disgusted with. Hell, Sean did I’d even garner a State party endorsement.
HoHum: ‘…almost like you drank the Chipster kool-aid’? Really? Do I really need to link you to all the stuff I’ve written about him? Surely you’re capable of doing a search on your own, aren’t you? Challenge me on the merits of my arguments, but calling me a Chip kool-aid drinker is just…lazy.
Cass, don’t know what to say. If you’re getting the information you need about his progressive cred, please share it. As of yet, you haven’t. You’ve only talked about Chip’s clown car. And, yes, I’ve talked to Sean twice and haven’t heard it from him.
So, please enlighten me. My vote is there for the taking, despite your representations to the contrary.
But please remember that the name of this blog is Delaware Liberal. I consider myself a progressive and have made my enmity for the Carper/Carney approach quite clear. Either you or Sean explain to me why he’s a progressive, or please stop misrepresenting my position. I’m kinda getting tired of it.
I certainly have shared it. I sat at a table with you at Firestone and shared it and you just squinted at me and said you didn’t know. Plus I asked you the question I asked earlier in this thread and there was no answer to that:
But then again, all of the people who are looking for a “progressive message” should be able to articulate what that might look like in a campaign for a job that doesn’t lend itself to that — without looking like the Chip Flowers’ overreach.
And there was no answer to that here, either. No one is misrepresenting your position here, mainly because you are so remarkably opaque about what you are looking to hear. And then you are going to chastise people here who are trying to address some of your comments by saying that you don’t want to hear from surrogates, just from Barney. And now you want everyone else to explain why he’s a progressive, even though we’ve had this conversation. Seems to me like you don’t have a position to misrepresent — just a dance you are doing to not have to listen (or answer) to *anyone*.
The name of this blog is Delaware Liberal. And you use this blog to plump for Steve Newton. Not a Liberal.
But then again, it must be incredibly frustrating to be running the Progressive Inquisition without the right tools for the job.
“So, please enlighten me.”
Ditto.
Yeah, Pires was a real wasted vote. I should have voted for the guy that killed banking/credit card reform and the public option. Sitting on the sidelines and not giving Carper any heat. Good plan. (I recall pointing this out at the time to crickets)
Yet Jason considers running against Carney to give him whatfer on and its inspiring to this group. Go figure.
Sorry, Cass. You said nothing regarding Barney’s progressive bona fides at that event. And yes, I squinted at you b/c I WAS LOOKING INTO THE FUCKING SUN. Is squinting considered somehow unacceptable social behavior in your mind? So, please remind me again of the progressive bona fides that you claim to have provided but you don’t provide? I recall your argument, perhaps incorrectly, as being we can’t afford the Flowers clown car, not that here was why Barney was a progressive. Other people were at that table. If Cass won’t answer, what did she say that I missed?
Did I ‘plump’ for Steve Newton? I was happy to see him running, but, if we at DL endorse, I’ll almost certainly endorse MacKenzie. He’d be a huge upgrade over Miro. Besides, talk about trying to change the subject. What ever possessed you to pull that one out of your butt? What’s next? Benghazi?
Forget about ‘remarkably opaque’. You are completely full of shit if you think that I’m some sort of undercover Flowers supporter.
Sorry I didn’t fit whatever stereotype of what you might have had of me.
For the seemingly thousandth time: I’m prepared to vote for Sean Barney as long as I feel comfortable that he is not the next Carper or Carney. I will not ever again vote for someone who appears to be just that. That’s how we got Carper and Carney.
Believe it or don’t believe it. I frankly don’t give a shit anymore. But it’s what I believe.
There is a penalty in Delaware for candidates who openly identify themselves as progressive. This despite Delaware’s blueness and the recent resurgence of progressive/populist thinking.
Make no mistake, the politics-of-personal-destruction treatment of Flowers is a shot across the bow of any Delaware candidate even thinking of running remotely to the left in a way that questions the banks.
If Barney were hypothetically to reveal overt progressive positions relative to the banking industry, they would come after him full bore the way they did with Flowers, and find himself the target of Markell’s antics with the News Journal and the General Assembly. Based on what we know at the moment, a vote for Barney would be a vote to reward that behavior. It needs to be repudiated in the voting booth.
And yes, progressive positions on the 1% (i.e., banking) and the economy are the hallmark of progressivism, and to some extent are the definition of traditional Democratic politics. Corporate-crat austerity peddlers waving a bundle of socially liberal positions don’t get a pass.
Speaking of surrogates, the most telling surrogate is Carper himself, who has endorsed Barney, for a party primary no less. Who the hell else has Carper ever endorsed? Besides Joe Lieberman that is.
Oh, please. Flowers brought all that shit on himself. Had nothing to do with progressive positions, had everything to do with what he did and how he lied about it. The more he tried to explain it all away, the deeper the hole that he dug for himself. Too bad the Treasurer didn’t know how to save receipts.
He is what he is, a vainglorious delusional martyr trying to peddle himself as some Don Quixote.
The credit card thing was just a convenient place to attack. Markell’s staff was whipping up shit in the News Journal months before anbody heard about credit cards, remember? In fact that is what first led me to smell a rat. If Flowers had never left the state, the same thing would have happened over something else.
You said nothing regarding Barney’s progressive bona fides at that event.
Wrong. And this is what you are doing here. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALALA while still hanging on to your indictment of Barney solely based upon past employment. Irrationality on the level of Fox News, but not exactly unusual for you. Point:
You are completely full of shit if you think that I’m some sort of undercover Flowers supporter.
I certainly never said that. But I get why you need to think that I said that. Still, it is completely Fox News.
What ever possessed you to pull that one out of your butt? What’s next? Benghazi?
You know what, asshole? When you start lecturing me about the name of this place, you get your litmus tests thrown right the fuck back at you, so you can climb right down from your high horse.
Since you won’t answer a single question sent your way (and since you can’t decide whether you want to hear from me or from Barney) and since stamping your feet seems to be about all you got at this point, you can amuse us all by detailing how Flowers passed your Progressive Inquisition.
So your decision is: “I won’t put a more competent person into an office now because I’m afraid that I might not agree with him when he runs for a different office later?”
Hate to break it to you guys but Sean Barney does not stand a chance at beating chip flowers. Here is why, he is not campaigning. I am vice chair of the 15th/29th Democratic club,(independent from the Kent county party) we set up a booth at old Dover days, and the African -American festival ( which by the way, the Kent county party does not have a presence at, but that is a rant for another day) well we have literature out for all the candidates.(we never endorse during a primary either) Mr. Barney at both events walked past our booth, he didn’t stop, he didn’t speak to us or anybody else for that matter, how does he expect to win, if that is how he is going to campaign.
Cassandra: Unless I missed it, you STILL haven’t described Barney’s progressive bona fides to us. WHAT ARE THEY? You know, the ones you say you described to me at the DL event? Rub my face in it, but tell us.
So I thought I wasn’t supposed to speak as a surrogate. Right, Mr. I’m Flailing Here? Barney was the one who needed to talk, right? You need to make up your mind. Not just about who you think is authorized to speak but also about what you mean about this:
progressive bona fides
Because if you can detail these, then I’m wondering why you can’t frame simple questions around these.
I answered you once because you asked and that’s how conversations go. I’ve asked you a few questions here that you’ve just ignored. At this point, I’m thinking that a little turnabout is appropriate and you need to demonstrate to me that you know how to read. And don’t even think about sending your surrogates to speak for you.
ps.
Great question, Nuttingham.
In other words, you ain’t got nothing other than calling me an asshole. Won’t answer the question b/c, according to you, you answered the question once and you shouldn’t have to again. Even though I never heard you answer the question. And nobody on the blog has seen your answer.
You me an apology for calling me an asshole, BTW. I think, as a fellow contributor, you’ve crossed an acceptable line of discourse.
*gets more popcorn*
Christ, guys. I’m a juvenile asshole, and even I’m more grown-up than you both are being. Grow up and take your pissant disagreements indoors. Don’t let the sharks smell blood in the water.
For whatever the fuck it’s worth, I don’t care if Barney used to be a pig-screwing Republican hedge-fund manager. If he can beat the incompetent jackass in the primary, he’s got my vote in the general.
El Som’s principles are held by and his arguments are understood by approximately 0.78 percent of Delaware voters, meaning this little tempest in a blog post won’t amount to a bucket of warm spit in the end. The histrionics about Carper Cyborgenics are just a laugh and a half. Carper wins, and in the end, that’s what counts. I want to go with a winner.
That Chip has a chance in this race shows that the CEO of Carper Cyborgenics has lost a step or two. I’m honestly surprised by how clunky Barney’s campaign has been.
Of course it is only July and nobody but a bunch a blog-reading freaks pays any attention until after labor day.
And there won’t be any apologies — full stop. You haven’t been the model of civil discourse here and you get back what you dish out. When you are ready to deal with the questions I’ve been asking here, holla at me. Otherwise, I think we all see what being the Decider of Progressive Cred actually means.
Jason, Barney’s run was always going to be a heavy lift. He seems to be working hard, and anecdotally he seems to be doing well. Anecdotally is the operative word here, though.
I’ll do that about the time you deal with the simple question I’ve asked you that you’ve claimed to have answered, but haven’t: What are Sean Barney’s progressive creds? It’s not a trick question. I’ve asked it, oh, five times or so now during the course of this thread. Your response has been to say that you already did that, but wouldn’t deign to repeat. Followed by numerous attempts to change the subject, even bringing up Steve Newton’s name as an attempt to obfuscate.
And to completely mislead on my position. An example:
“Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALALA while still hanging on to your indictment of Barney solely based upon past employment. Irrationality on the level of Fox News, but not exactly unusual for you.”
I’m not indicting Barney, want to vote for him. But neither he nor you are providing reasons that a progressive should vote for him other than ‘He’s not Chip’.
The guy DID work for the Third Way, he DID work for Carper. He has said nothing to give me confidence that he is not the next Carper or Carney. In fact, they seem to be cheering from the sidelines, and even endorsing him. You have claimed that you have seen and heard evidence that contradicts my concerns, but won’t tell us what has convinced you. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there’s not much to go on other than what he’s done in the past.
I consider Flowers unfit to hold public office. The only question I’ve got is, which is worse: Reelecting Flowers or enabling the next Carper or Carney? As long as somebody, ANYbody, can demonstrate why my concerns re Barney are misplaced, I’ll vote for him.
If I haven’t made clear my concern that we can’t afford the kickoff of the career of yet another Carper or Carney, neither of whom represent my view of what our Party should be all about, I don’t know how I can make it clearer.
It’s not that complicated. Holla at me if you need further clarification.
El Som – what constitutes a “progressive bona fide” for this office?
I don’t know what El Som has in mind, but a good place to start in this race would be the candidate’s position on financial disclosure and term limits for members of the CMPB – would they work for it in the legislature? Hell, that’s not even progressive; that’s just good government. If bloggers or journalists don’t ask that question, it would certainly be a good place for Chip to draw distinctions. No doubt Barney would be on eggshells answering that.
It is always good to know a candidate’s positions on issues. However, when one has to convince others (legislature, governor) to support those positions, it is more important to know that a candidate has a reasonable chance of advancing that agenda.
That’s where you lose me Mitch… I thought it was more important to be on the right side of issues. If you then need to compromise, at least then you would be starting from the right place.
Mitch and Puck,
Well, you have gotten to the crux of the matter. The guy who is in favor of transparency has shown an inability to work with the powers who are essential to get the law changed. The other guy, by virtue of his connections, might be more equipped to effect change but has given no indication that he is for anything other than the status quo.
Thus far, Barney has been a major disappointment and, surprisingly, Flowers hasn’t put his foot in his mouth. I do want a treasurer who wants to do more than sign checks. (If signing checks is all you want to do, you’re never going to have any impact — for good or for worse.) Right now, I’m a KISS fan — Keep It Simpler, Stupid.
It is easy to take a position that may attract voters, when you know there is no reasonable chance of getting those positions into law. I see that all the time in Leg Hall.
Suggest that the Chipster is so bad that anyone, yes anyone, is a better alternative.
If Barney is going to run a campaign that includes head-on confrontation with the Chipster, then Barney needs to be more animated, direct, and focused on the Chipster’s well documented mistakes. Right now he is a dead lay.
It is easy to take a position that may attract voters, when you know there is no reasonable chance of getting those positions into law.
WTF? Politics is about attracting voters. If you keep on attracting voters, you increase the chances of getting your positions into law. I guess that’s what the primary is about.
Is that where you really want to go with this, Mitch? It sounds like getting along by going along. That doesn’t speak for the hopes I have for Democrats.
By using commutative property of politics, I have deduced that Barney’s plan is to take hard positions in order to repulse voters.
jason330 says:
July 21, 2014 at 3:42 pm
By using commutative property of politics, I have deduced that Barney’s plan is to take hard positions in order to repulse voters.
Unlike mant who do, I cannot respond to what I do not understand
Mitch:
Very good. Been scratching my balding head trying to figure put the point. Clarity appreciated.
Mitch, You are a good guy, we are tight. You pulled me out of a burning car once, or something.
Anyway, I’m simply not seeing much from Barney. And Puck is right. Your defense of Barney was whack. Also, I’m very down on Democrats in general right now.
Jason, must have been someother Primary loser. I don’t recall. It wasn’t me. If it was me, I was under duress.
I believe both Democratic candidates support ethical standards for all elected and appointed officials. Both have taken progressive positions in conversations with me and on PAC questionnaires I have seen. One has had 4 years to deliver and has not because he lacks workable relationships in Dover. The other has those relationships, but has not been in a position to show that he will fight for them.
I have not endorsed either. Chip has a great personality and is a very good speaker. He would have been a great politician if he picked his fights more carefuly and kept his disagreements private. He is also one of the most intelligent people I know. However, not all intelligent people are “smart”. His vulnerability and problems are of his own making. His situation makes him a target of a well-funded Republican.
Sean Barney is a man with great humility and every right not to be humble. I find him reflective and sincere. I believe him when he says he should not be alive and every day is a gift. I believe that if elected he will be his own man. Only time will tell how he develops as a leader. If given the chance, I doubt he will repeat my disappointment.
His situation makes him a target of a well-funded Republican.
More precisely, the treasurer situation makes the winner or the primary the target of a well-funded Republican. And recall who first went public with “his situation.”
Plan A to embarass Flowers in the News Journal didn’t work. Plan B to embarass him in the General Assembly didn’t work. Now Plan C is the primary. What’s Plan D – vote for the Republican?
Puck: Do you get paid by the word?
Chip Flowers embarrassed Chip Flowers.
Should the stench emanating from his office not have been reported?
Chip did get a significant portion of his agenda through the Assembly, Mitch.
HB 365 for the Cash Management Policy Board (CMPB) will become law. But HB 381 – adding an annual financial disclosure requirement by defining CMPB members as “public officers” – never got a floor vote, which is odd, considering that requirement was enacted recently for the Public Advocate (SB 104) and others (SB 105).
The Sunset recommendation (Brady’s bill) for CMPB annual disclosure was shamefully rejected by leadership that approved the exact same language for the Public Advocate and others. That kind of lock step fealty for Markell reflects poorly on the legislative leadership and Governor, not the Treasurer.
I know how determined you are to help Pete get re-elected for the 148th Mitch but maybe that isn’t the best thing for the rest of us. There were a lot of good bills held up in committee this session presumably under his/Jack’s authorization.
Do you get paid by the word?
I’ve been trying to cut back, haven’t you noticed?
I pushed for HB 381 and signed on with the JSC as a co-sponsor to it. During the debate on the cash management “clarification” of duties I offered an amendment which would put the Board under an annual financial disclosure requirement. The argument was made (on the House floor) that the amendment should be submitted as law by the JSC after their review if they chose too. The floor manager (Speaker) iterated for the record that he felt it should be brought for a vote if the JSC filed such legislation. He also stated (during the floor debate) that it would be brought for a vote if it came to pass but “he” might not vote for it. I called for a roll-call on the amendment and it was narrowly defeated by 19 Ayes and 19 Nays with the others not voting. When the JSC reviewed the Cash management Board I testified on behalf of annual disclosure and the committee majority voted to introduce legislation. I asked the prime sponsor (Rep. Brady) at least a half-dozen times (in the last four or five days of session) to request that the bill (HB 381)be placed on the agenda for floor consideration and a vote as promised. It was not, so you can witness the impact of nearly half of the House supporting a position (19 to 19 the amendment vote) and being totally disregarded in a matter of good and honest open government. No excuses are acceptable and I intend to bring that bill back next session and believe that the public will be looking for a vote to be allowed on it. Let me repeat here on the record. This was and is not a Chip Flowers bill but it was posited as such by certain people who felt it might be some kind of victory for him. These personal vendettas waged by vindictive and insecure personalities who feel threatened that their own positions of power are being threatened are unacceptable if they prevent good laws from being voted on or passed. This bill is a good and necessary piece of legislation and it’s inconceivable and inexcusable to make good policy into a battleground to wage a personal campaign and vendetta while utterly disregarding ones’ ultimate responsibility (as an elected leader) to good and honest policy making that is in the best interest of the citizens of Delaware.
In regards to my own personal perspective and agenda it was not to take a position that may attract voters, and I will never concede there is no reasonable chance of getting good policy and positions into law. I am proud to do that all the time in Leg Hall.
John Kowalko
I would never accuse John Kowalko of sponsoring any bill he did not support for principle. He made my point.
Sean Barney is making two not entirely complementary arguments that boil down to this: Because he’s more diplomatic, he can get things done better than Chip Flowers — but he doesn’t want to do what Chip wants anyway, so…
You see the problem?
Nancy wrote: “Chip did get a significant portion of his agenda through the Assembly, Mitch.”
And how much of that agenda was proposed before the Chip & Erika Breakfast Club Revue debuted in Denali?
His “agenda” and “reforms” were a sham to divert attention from his & his deputy’s credit card and travel shenanigans, nothing more.
The guy is a walking joke. State employees hate his guts because he’s made them the targets of anger from people who think everyone is living high on the hog off state credit cards. He will go down in the flames of his own self-immolation, and good riddance.
Attended “joint appearance” of BARNEY-FLOWERS at Shoredemocrats meeting in Bethany Beach last week . Entering building I was leaning to Barney but I must say I left leaning towards Flowers .REASON : Flowers is so much better as campaigner and in two years Jack Markell will be gone and Chip will still be treasurer .
There is a lot of truth in this: “Chip… would have been a great politician if he picked his fights more carefully and kept his disagreements private. …not all intelligent people are “smart”. His vulnerability and problems are of his own making. His situation makes him a target of a well-funded Republican.”
I don’t care about the last part. I probably will not be a Democrat by the time the primary gets here, forget about the general. I can’t believe Pete Scheisskopf and Tom Carper have driven me out of my party – but there you have it.
I also liked this: “These personal vendettas waged by vindictive and insecure personalities who feel threatened that their own positions of power are being threatened are unacceptable if they prevent good laws from being voted on or passed.”
Has anyone in Leg Hall ever been motivated by anything other than personal vendettas rooted in their own insecurities? I’m asking, because I haven’t seen it.
Geez Jason. Thank you for approving. I am glad I pulled you out of that burning car-but then I was only motivated by my own personal vendettas…”-against your enemies. Quite frankly, most people are “insecure”. I long ago came to realize that our inner instincts, fears and insecurities are illogical and immature for a good reason-we carry with us those fears and insecurities of our childhood. If we learn from them we can cover up or compensate, but they are still there. When I try to understand someone when I see them at their worst, I look at them as if they were a child and try to figure out what childood experience made them react that way. It was quite helpful to me in sentencing and in running for office. It was also helpful to me when I worked for some interesting personalities who were elected officials.
I would hope, Jason, that you do not leave the Democratic Party. Political parties do not often change to re-attract lost members. They retrench with what is left. You need to stay in the Democratic Party to influence it and support those who you can identify with. You never know what candidate could use your suppport in a 2016 Primary.