Don Peterson to primary Pete Schwartzkopf
Breaking: Don Peterson has filed to run against Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf in the Democratic Primary. Here is his press release:
Don Peterson, a progressive social activist from Rehoboth Beach, filed paperwork today to challenge Speaker of the House Pete Schwartzkopf in the Democratic primary. At stake is the State House seat for the 14th Representative District, which includes Rehoboth, Dewey, and parts of unincorporated Lewes.
According to a statement issued, Peterson says, “I am running for State Representative in the 14th District because I believe it’s time for a change. It’s time for a new, more progressive voice in Dover, for someone who has the time and energy to focus on the people of this District – all of them. I want to work to close the income inequality gap, reform our broken criminal justice system, strengthen the social safety net for those of us most in need, and provide open, transparent and responsive government.”
Recognizing the issues facing residents of Sussex County, Peterson is concerned about the lack of quality permanent jobs in the district and services available to meet the needs of our aging population. “Although we live in a relatively affluent area, there are under-served communities nearby that lack safe, secure and affordable housing, and even drinkable water. Social programs are underfunded, and a surprising level of racism still exists. These are important issues that we must not ignore,” he said.
Peterson believes his strong background in government budget and finance, his experience as a leadership and organizational coach, his lifelong commitment to social justice, and the knowledge he’s gleaned from his years of political and community activism in eastern Sussex County prepare him to deal with the range of challenging issues facing Delaware.
Pete’s moves seeking an early endorsement of both his own 14th RD and the 20th RD now make sense, as he expected to be primaried. And the resignations of most of the [progressive members] of the 14th RD board now make sense, as they are likely to support Don. [Update: commenters below have indicated that most of the board did not resign, but most of the progressive members did].
Most of the 14th RD Board did not resign. Two members resigned about five months ago because it conflicted with other activities. Three members quit after the death penalty repeal vote, including Don Peterson. Another member resigned because she is undertaking a project for the League of Women Voters
There are 21 committee slots in the 14th. The committee voted to endorse Pete 17-0 with one abstention-Mr Peterson.
Mr Schwartzkopf did not seek the early endorsement of the 14th. The idea came from one committee person who asked the matter be put on the agenda. The 20th RD motion was a surprise to all and was made to express support for the House Speaker who they recognize has done much for that district.
A tall mountain to climb, but worth it.
What I heard is that almost all the progressive members of the 14th resigned.
Who gets to define what a progressive is Emma? Pro-Life, pro Repeal, pro living wage, pro LGBT equality. Those are my positions and many more. I am a progressive and a member of the 14th RD committee. Most all current members fit most anyone’s definition. Let’s stand on issues and leave labeling to the other party
I meant progressive as in on the left. Progressives don’t support candidates that are anti-progressive or who block the progressive movement.
If those are your views you might want to reconsider your political allegiances.
It’s not about labeling. It’s about drawing ideological distinctions, which clarifies political choices.
You are “pro-life” and also “progressive”? You are pro-repeal and also pro-Pete? You’re just a bundle of contradictions, aren’t you?
Pete was great when he championed LGBT rights, but because he wants to exempt people who kill corrections officers from a death penalty ban, which probably accounts for less than a percentage of people on death row, he is somehow not progressive?
Thats stupid.
Progressive is not a eupemism for pro-gay.
Geezer—I meant to type “Pro Choice”.
Emma-if being progressive is not defined by your stand on issues, but which candidates you support, what am I since I support Pete and also supported Claire in 2012? Am I semi-progressive? Or is one entitled to be called a progressive only until the next endorsement?
“Pro-Life, pro Repeal, pro living wage, pro LGBT equality. Those are my positions and many more. I am a progressive…”
I think the hallmark of progressivism is progressive taxation and limits on corporate power. I’m not hearing much of that from Pete or his colleagues. That disqualifies them even before you get to death penalty, LGBT, or abortion issues.
I’ll stipulate that progressivism in Delaware cannot be the same as progressivism on a national level. We are in fact a corporate and bank heavy state, and until progressives get us to full employment with community farms, coffee shops, and art collectives, we will be paying tribute to the corporations.
I am not saying being progressive is reducible to who you support as a candidate. Certainly not, since most elections are about the lesser of two evils. What I meant to say – and I guess it wasn’t clear – is that the members of the committee who support the left agenda resigned.
I also said that if you hold left wing political commitments, you would not support Pete – especially now that a lifelong progressive activist (who supports left causes) is running, a man who also has budget experience and knowledge of the district.
I support people who share my values. It says a lot about what your values truly are if you support someone like Pete.
I am so tired of the word Progressive. (And this is NOT an defense of Schwartzkopf. No way.) I find myself shying away from the term. It’s becoming toxic to me. It’s become a purity test, so count me out – which will result in others being one step closer to claiming the progressive crown. Because there’s only one true progressive left standing once we go down this road. Congratulations!
I agree with that Pandora. I am going to try to stop using the term myself. It has become meaningless. It’s like everyone feels they have to say they are progressive; they don’t know what it means but they know it’s good. Its lost it’s content. Not that everyone ever agreed on its meaning.
I think its helpful to understand issues in the context of a larger philosophical or ideological world view, but we also don’t want a purity test. We all make our choices in a context, not the abstract. In most cases, candidates are deeply flawed — or have become compromised due to the circumstances of how American politic works.
Exactly, Emma! What it has come to mean is: “This one issue is the most important ever, and if you don’t agree with my priorities then you’re not progressive. I’m so over that. Fine, I’m not progressive. Now what? Good luck with that strategy.
“…tired of the word Progressive ….becoming toxic …purity test…share my values..”
Good for you guys! Labels, regardless of which ones they are or to whom they are applied, are simply convenient ways to stereotype people; to put them in a box; to categorize them, because we are too busy/lazy to understand each others values. Each persons values are intensely personal. Perhaps that’s why we rarely find time to discuss them.
Society functions because of shared values, yet we pay little attention to any actual values. Instead we focus on the label or on the policies that are successors to values. Sometimes it is helpful to articulate one’s values because they are antecedent to the policies and it should be important to understand the genesis of our policies.
In short, values provide the “why” for the “what” and the “how.” If I were in charge I would require a prefatory to each bill to explain why it’s needed, what the objectives are and how this bill will meet those objectives, so that we can all understand the values at work and the value proposition for each piece of legislation.
Sadly, I have found on this blog you are only considered “progressive” until you disagree with anything a certain few believe in. I’ll stick with being a “Democrat”.
Clearly the blog that currently has a thread called “The Delaware Liberal General Assembly Progressive Rankings” is the wrong place to talk about progressive issues or progressive people. 😛
If progs knock off Pete in the primary, who do they dream of in the Speakership? Lynn? Kowalko?
To be anti-capital punishment, one must make no exceptions. Otherwise, no matter how limited the circumstances, one is in favor of capital punishment. The distinction is legally important
as regards juries in capital cases.
To all those who claim labels are unimportant: Prove it with your spice cabinet, but don’t invite me over for dinner.
Labels are popular because they are convenient, whether you approve of them or not. But fighting over the fine print is, in our society, a job best left to lobbyists.
SW-If the voters in the 14th RD D primary knock off Schwartzkopf, it will be notable that they knocked him off even though he was Speaker. Only one person from their district, Don Peterson, will have a vote to elect the new Speaker.
I would , of course, totally expect that he would support someone who will not dismiss nor ignore the progressives in the Caucus. You don’t have to be a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to be a ‘uniter, not a divider’. It’s just that Schwartzkopf has chosen to pursue a divide and conquer approach. Unlike any Speaker that I can recall during my years in Dover.