DL Endorsements for the General Assembly
We have a few primaries in races for the General Assembly that we, as liberals and progressives, would like to weigh in on. We have an open seat in the 9th Senatorial District, a challenger to Speaker Schwartzkopf in the 14th Representative District, and a rematch between current Representative Sean Matthews and former Representative Dennis Williams in the 10th Representative District.
9th Senatorial District
Nobody can replace retiring State Senator Karen Peterson, who is one of the very few legislators who made history and who made this state and its people all the better for having served. Two Democrats are vying for the nomination to succeed Peterson: Caitlin Olsen and Jack Walsh. Peterson has endorsed Olsen, and her judgment has rarely gone awry.
Olsen also demonstrates promise as someone who will focus on family issues. She has assisted women in filing protection orders and has worked for Prevent Child Abuse Delaware. She holds an MPA from the University of Delaware with a focus on non-profit and community leadership. She also worked as a Legislative Fellow with the House Democratic Caucus in 2011.
Her opponent, Jack Walsh, is a union electrician and active community volunteer. Like Olsen, he is a lifelong Delawarean and has lived within the senate district his entire life. He has pledged to carry on Peterson’s agenda. One notable difference between the two is that Olsen has promised to focus on the education crisis when elected while Walsh has publicly said that he is ‘studying the issue’. Both candidates appear to be worthy successors. However, on the strength of Olsen’s background, familiarity with the legislative process, Peterson’s endorsement, her potential, and what we believe is Olsen’s stronger grasp of the issues, Delaware Liberal endorses Caitlin Olsen for the 9th Senatorial District.
10th Representative District
Two years ago, Sean Matthews defeated incumbent Dennis Williams (the other one) for this seat. Matthews, who was a huge instant upgrade over Williams, became one of the leading education reform advocates in Dover and was also one of the most progressive legislators in the General Assembly.
Williams, OTOH, proudly proclaimed that he couldn’t be bothered to read all of the bills that came before him, which in and of itself is OK, few do, but publicly stated (at a Drinking Liberally get-together, no less) that he hadn’t even bothered to read the most important education bills facing the General Assembly. Which is perhaps why his votes on education were so misguided. And definitely why DL backed Matthews two years ago. Sean has not let us down.
For some reason, Williams has decided to run again. He offers nothing to the voters of his district. It’s all about him, not about his constituents.
Sean Matthews offers progressive leadership and is one of the most promising young figures in the Democratic Party. He has consistently voted with the progressive wing of the caucus. He deserves to win a resounding victory in this primary.
14th Representative District
Speaker Schwartzkopf rarely faces Republican opposition in his races for reelection, yet alone a primary challenge. But he’s got one this year and in our opinion, Democratic voters in the 14th RD should take this chance to thank Mr. Schwartzkopf for his service and send him into retirement. Why?
Because a Democratic leader should not be delaying or impeding the Democratic agenda, and that is what Speaker Schwartzkopf has done with respect to the repeal of the death penalty and raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Both bills were sent to committees were they allowed to die in 2015, though the threat of a petition allowed the death penalty repeal bill onto the floor for a vote in 2016. Thankfully, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled Delaware’s death penalty unconstitutional. But how many of us are willing to bet that Speaker Schwartzkopf will allow a Republican bill to reinstate the death penalty to come to the floor faster than he let the repeal bill? How many want to bet he will vote for it?
Likewise, efforts to reform Delaware’s non-progressive tax structure (where those who earn $60,000 and $6 million a year pay the same top tax rate) so as to give the state much needed new revenue have also been met with resistance by the Speaker. To put it simply, Speaker Schwartzkopf is not a progressive. We could live with that, given his district’s location in Sussex County, if he were not the Speaker. But as the Speaker, he is the leader of all Democrats in the General Assembly. And he is the wrong leader of the party for this time. The party is a liberal and progressive party now, not a moderate or a conservative one. It should be led by someone who shares those values and wants to see the Democratic agenda advanced in the General Assembly, rather than by someone who wants to hinder it. And that goes for Governor Markell too, who record is progressive on social issues so as to cover up the fact that he is a conservative on economic ones.
Schwartzkopf’s primary opponent, Don Peterson, is a progressive Democrat who is hoping to walk in Bryan Townsend’s shoes. You see, Bryan Townsend ran a strong grassroots primary campaign to knock off a Democratic leader in the Senate who was similarly blocking the Democratic Agenda. Peterson supports a higher minimum wage, progressive tax reform, criminal justice reform and the repeal of the death penalty. These policy positions are the reason we at Delaware Liberal support him. But there is another, almost as important, reason.
As Don himself stated in his own Delaware Voice column back in May in the News Journal, he is challenging the old school old-boys-club Delaware Way of party politics that Schwartzkopf and Delaware Democratic Party Chairman John Daniello favor.
In January, the Democratic committee for the 14th district took the unprecedented step of endorsing Schwartzkopf before anyone even had a chance to file as a primary candidate. And to make matters worse, they did so in direct violation of their own committee guidelines that were adopted unanimously in 2010: “Given that the Democratic candidates for office are typically highly committed and effective leaders, it shall be the general policy of the 14th District Democratic Committee not to endorse nor recommend for endorsement Democratic candidates running in primary elections.”
And even if there is a “compelling reason to endorse,” such an endorsement may only be made after the committee has reviewed “all Democratic candidates who are running in the primary.” Clearly, that cannot happen until after the candidacy filing date, which is July 12.
Why did the committee give an early endorsement to Rep. Schwartzkopf in direct violation of its own longstanding policy? As clearly stated at the meeting (I was there) to keep anyone else out of the race and allow the incumbent to preserve his resources.
In other words, to protect Pete Schwartzkopf from a primary. From accountability to his Progressive base. Given the Speaker’s record, he had good reason to suspect he might face a Progressive challenge this time around, and so, while he denies any involvement or forehand knowledge of the 14th RD’s early endorsement, we quite simply do not believe him.
Preventing the emergence of new leaders may be the “Delaware Way” but it’s hardly the essence of the democratic (or Democratic) process. [I] had just recently had a confrontation with [former Sussex County Administration and Schwartzkopf supporter Joe Conaway] at a candidate forum at the Sussex County Democratic headquarters. As soon as he saw me, he became visibly angry: “Who do you think you are? You have no business running against Pete Schwartzkopf! I used to run this county, and I’m going to do everything I can to see that you lose.”
Conaway epitomizes the old Delaware Way – the good ol’ boys with their backroom deals, party elites fighting desperately to hold onto power and maintain the status quo. People like that believe the party establishment gets to decide who runs for office.
Bryan Townsend upset the Old Delaware Way in 2012. Here’s hoping that Don Peterson can do it again.
Tags: Caitlin Olsen, Delaware General Assembly, Dennis E. Williams, Don Peterson, Featured, Jack Walsh, Karen Peterson, Peter Schwartzkopf, Sean Matthews
Sean Matthews has turned out to be not only a great progressive voice, but a hard-working public servant. He works with constituents, and other governments and departments to get issues resolved. I know personally that he does not “throw people under the bus” by saying “this is not a state issue,” or “that is not something my office can do.” He figures it out and is always willing to help. I believe he has a bright future and I look forward to seeing how far he can go and how he will shape Delaware for the better.
Yes, this sounds like a campaign message, but Sean deserves a lot of credit. He is truly a solid legislator, public servant, and all around good person.
Agree with everything but , I cannot bring myself to vote for a lobbyist
2 out of 3 is not bad
Who’s a lobbyist?
Catlin Olson for the U of D
ElSom,
Much as I’d like to see Peterson win in the 14th, he’s got as much chance of surviving the primary as the proverbial snowball on the sands of Rehoboth this afternoon.
More to the point: Your observation about Speaker Pete …
“And he is the wrong leader of the party for this time. The party is a liberal and progressive party now, not a moderate or a conservative one. It should be led by someone who shares those values and wants to see the Democratic agenda advanced in the General Assembly, rather than by someone who wants to hinder it.”
If your statement is true, if the Democratic Party is truly liberal and progressive, should there not be enough members of the House who embody that philosophy to topple Schwartzkopf after the election?
My guess is that the answer is “no.”
She is no longer a lobbyist. She now works in Special Events. Has no current lobbying responsibilities.
We considered that issue when making the endorsement, which in part may explain the tenor of the endorsement. However, when viewed in totality, she offers the potential to be a superior public servant, and she already has legislative experience. And, to repeat, Karen Peterson’s endorsement goes a long way, at least to us.
It’s rare that I actually agree with the entirety of a post on here, but I’m on board with the above.
Mediawatch, you raise a good question. The answer is that, if you try to kill the king, you’d better (figuratively) kill the king. As opposed to every single Speaker I can remember since I started working for the General Assembly, only Schwartzkopf governs through fear and intimidation.
He and Longhurst STILL might have lost power if only the pathetic Dennis Williams (the Brandywine Hundred guy) hadn’t flipped his vote at the last minute in exchange for a cushy committee assignment back in 2012. Those who ended up on the losing side still have the marks to prove it.
Agreed. UD has too much control down there. Too many pawns in the G.A.
It’s time the FOIA exemption for UD was lifted. Go Jack Walsh!!
Conveniently quit as a lobbyist after many years with U of De lol. Sorry though I love Karen who did wonders. I just cannot vote for a former lobbyist then. Come on, not beholding. Still working for them, they have enough lobbyist there with out a tax paid one
The key to an eventual Peterson win in the 14th is getting a vote share in the primary that is high enough to build momentum for his next run in two years.
“One notable difference between the two is that Olsen has promised to focus on the education crisis when elected while Walsh has publicly said that he is ‘studying the issue’.”
If a candidate isn’t up to speed on education (the issue that impacts everything from equity in education, an educated public/workforce, WEIC, companies locating here, property values, etc.) then they wouldn’t get my vote. There’s really no excuse not to be informed on this issue.
“There’s really no excuse not to be informed on this issue.”
Yet a majority of the people in the General Assembly would fit into your category of “not informed.” Quite a few more would qualify as informed but would disagree with you on the path forward.
Further, we are talking about a seat that came open quite recently, so it shouldn’t surprise us that someone running for the position hasn’t mastered it in a couple of months. We’ve been struggling with the problem since the 1970s.
They don’t have to agree with me. I’d just like to know where they stand on this issue – an issue that’s been covered extensively in the press. I’m also not asking for mastery. I tend to think that when someone says they’re “studying the issue” that they have a position (either my position, or not) and are trying to figure out the politics of taking a side. But that may just be me – mainly because so many politicians’ (and school administrators’) solution to an obvious problem is to form a (another!) committee to study the issue.
I was there when Williams admitted to not reading the new charter law and the old charter law before voting. In fact, when I asked him about the new law he said, “There were problems with the old law.” I then asked him what those problems were which led us to his not reading either law. I actually believe he didn’t read either law… but he voted on the “most important bills on education bills facing the General Assembly.” Sure, that happens. Just don’t get caught pretending you’re informed when you clearly aren’t.
Yes, the response was probably an attempt to straddle the fence. It’s a working-class suburban district, so support for the WEIC plan is probably minimal at best. I’ll be shocked if the union guy doesn’t win.
.
Anonymous,
Take a look at the redistricted 9th district, it’s not the working class district it used to be.
Not sure if I’d describe the 9th as working class…. unless “working class” is just another way of saying White.
Ok now I need to know. Since redistricted its no longer a working class district ? what does that mean? Kirkwood hwy is working class? Please let me know please!
It’s a way of saying “mostly white with homes that sell for between 200 and 300K.”
Education is a key issue almost entirely for people with children. Only 1 in 5 American households has school-age children. Five in 5 pay school-supporting property taxes.
Some of what gets written off as racism in education is actually about property values and the fear of them falling, because most homeowners have the bulk of their retirement savings wrapped up in their homes.
Pandora says this is “an issue that’s been covered extensively in the press,” as if that means people can therefore follow along. I would predict that nobody here who knows a lot about education in Delaware learned it from the Delaware media. Most learned the majority of what they know from grappling with the system. Unfortunately, there’s also a large difference between advocating for your own child and devising a system that produces high-quality results for everyone.
So this means the district is no longer white ?
I am being serious too. I just never heard it this way
I don’t have a racial breakdown for individual districts, I’m just going by home price and knowing that area. I don’t know if it’s just majority white or overwhelmingly white, but I doubt there’s a lot of support for Wilmington schools there.
Here’s the map:
https://ballotpedia.org/Delaware_State_Senate_District_9
This may help…
http://legis.delaware.gov/legislature.nsf/FSMain?OpenFrameset&Frame=right&src=/legislature.nsf/lookup/housedistricts
I’ll try and explain… “working class” is often used (by certain people) to refer to white people – as in “white working class”. It can (not always because there are actual economic definitions here) be used as a dog whistle. Many Republicans/conservatives use the word this way. They use it to imply that this group “works” while others do not – even though the “others” actually have jobs and work.
When I hear a person describe a neighborhood or a person as working class I think they’re referencing a white neighborhood/person that is not affluent. Yep, that’s me hearing a dog whistle, which may be wrong, but the term has evolved in certain circles.
When I think of the 9th SD and the term ‘working class’, at least as it was, I think of the Boxwood Plant that used to employ so many people in the area. And the people who ran small businesses in the Stanton-Newport area. Some working class communities had predominantly black populations, like Belvedere. It’s true, though, that there was de facto segregation in many communities. Not at the GM plant, though. Don’t know if that’s still the case.
I’m just tired of living with working class white retirees
El Som- regarding your point about the Speaker’s resistance to reform our tax structure, are you saying that he should have forced a vote on the bills to reform PIT, while knowing that there was zero chance of those bills getting the necessary votes to pass in the Senate? So going on record for yourself and forcing your caucus members to vote for or against raising taxes (which ultimately don’t get raised because the bill was DOA in the Senate)- that’s the hallmark of great leadership, right? Making a point is what leaders do, right? Even if this makes it harder to retain some of those caucus members who have to defend a vote with no real consequence or measurable impact against Republicans who will surely use this against them when they are up for reelection, correct? For those who think this is nonsense, ask Charlie Copeland about the mailers and the messaging he employed against Venables and see if he thinks that strategy proved to be successful in that race.
My question to you, El Som, is this- if you expect the Speaker to carry the mantel on what you’ve deemed is the party’s universally accepted progressive agenda, shouldn’t that same expectation apply to the President Pro Tem and the Governor? Sure in this instance the bills had to first pass the House, but that doesn’t mean that Senate Leadership couldn’t have publicly taken a position on them and perhaps even have asked the Speaker to put them on an agenda to be worked.
Do you think it’s possible the Speaker’s resistance was not simply based on his support or opposition to the legislation itself but instead, it could be his way of looking out for caucus members who may have expressed serious concerns about voting on a bill that would never become law?
Being an effective leader, especially in a caucus as large and diverse as the majority in the House, I’d imagine that this kind of situation is a regular occurrence and I’d imagine that each must be handled on a case by case basis. I’m sure no one would contend that leaders always make the best choices, but I think a big part of how we should assess our leaders is if they were able to help keep their members from making unneccessary, perhaps devastating mistakes. Sometimes it’s about looking out for the good of the entire group over making a point, even a point of this magnitude – one which speaks to reducing inequalities in our tax laws.
“As opposed to every single Speaker I can remember since I started working for the General Assembly, only Schwartzkopf governs through fear and intimidation.”
El Som, you’ve made these claims a number of times, but I can’t recall where you’ve ever shared how you came to this conclusion, given that you weren’t employed there during this current Speaker’s tenure in this position – right? Yes, you like to talk about part-time per diem employees getting “fired” when they were not asked to return for the next session. However,I can’t imagine you would make such a broad sweeping indictment of how an elected official governs their employees based on one example, especially one as ambiguous as this one. If you’re going to make these generalizations, it would be great to at least share with your readers how you’ve to this conclusion.
I gotta say that Pete never suffers from a shortage of sycophants. If he was concerned about his caucus members above all, he wouldn’t have twice buried minimum wage legislation in an inhospitable committee, and he wouldn’t have walked down the Hall and cut deals with the Senate R’s rather than address the priorities of his caucus.
There are many phrases to describe Schwartzkopf. ‘Selfless concern’ for his caucus members, most of whom are not remotely at risk of ANY political downside, is not among them.
He is what he is–an ex-cop who leads through fear. He has demonstrated far more concern for cops than caucus members since he’s been in the General Assembly.
Which is also why nobody with doubts about Pete should even consider supporting his pet candidate for LG–Park Slope Kathy.
As to just using ‘one example’ to make our case, that is laughably disingenuous. Feel free to surf our archives at your leisure to see how many times we’ve cited one or another of Pete’s misadventures. But, you already know this. As I’ve said, there is no shortage of sycophants for Pete.
Hmm, as to Speakers, now, let’s see…I served while the following were Speakers: Lonnie George, Chuck Hebner, Brad Barnes, and Terry Spence. Feel free to add Bob Gilligan, who never would have resorted to Schwartzkopf’s sleazy tactics. That takes us back to 1983. None of them, repeat, none of them, governed through fear like Schwartzkopf. They were people who respected the institution of the House. Now, Joe Petrilli, who was a snake of a House Majority Leader, was the closest approximation to Pete that there is. Except, of course, for Pete’s current chosen Majority Leader, Val Longhurst.
But don’t just ask me this question. Pretty much everybody who has worked there since Pete/Val were elevated could tell you the same thing. To paraphrase: “50 witnesses can’t be wrong.”
“I gotta say that Pete never suffers from a shortage of sycophants. If he was concerned about his caucus members above all, he wouldn’t have twice buried minimum wage legislation in an inhospitable committee, and he wouldn’t have walked down the Hall and cut deals with the Senate R’s rather than address the priorities of his caucus.”
If asking you to defend your statements with facts and real life examples leads to you deflecting by first calling me a sycophant, followed by you continuing to share how your feelings and opinions about the Speaker (sans facts)- well that says more about how you’ve allowed your personal bias to color the way you cover this particular leader in the General Assembly than it says about me.
Sure, you’re entitled to your own opinion and you can say whatever you want with or without factual evidence to support your point. But I have to say, I think you’ve allowed your personal dislike for a person to really impede your ability to be impartial.
Again, I support your right to do so, I just think you’re doing yourself a disservice by not disclosing that you obviously have some serious personal problem with him (I’d wager that it stems from the time you worked there) and this clearly influences your posts and comments regarding the Speaker. It is what it is- but you should know that it’s pretty obvious to those of us who can parse out that there are few facts to support your claims, we can see right through your rhetoric.
No one would argue that he hasn’t advocated for police while in office, but how does that differ from teachers in the GA advocating for fellow teachers, or doctors and nurses in the GA advocating for healthcare professionals? If you want to reduce the influence law enforcement has in the GA, let’s work to take out Smyk and Lawson. Those guys are the nutty ex-cops in the legislature – as one can easily see when they examine their voting records and their public comments on countless issues. I get that you readily believe ex-cops rule through fear and inimidation, it just would be great if you could share just one shred of evidence to support your claims.
I repeat what I said before. Just go to the search feature, and check out our posts under Schwartzkopf.
I have neither the time nor inclination to repeat all that we’ve written about him during his tenure. Anybody who has paid attention knows that we have written plenty about him. I know you’ve read that stuff, so stop pretending that you haven’t. We don’t have shreds of evidence, we have volumes. I don’t know who you’re trying to impress with this word game of yours.
In many ways, Schwartzkopf is far worse than the other ex-cops, because he has power to bury legislation that the cops don’t want. Like, say, the death penalty bill that he kept blocked for the better part of two legislative sessions. Oh, and to cut a deal that used funds dedicated to redressing those who got screwed during the housing crisis for a couple more cops in Sussex County. Yes, he really did that. Consider it a mere shred.
“Pretty much everybody who has worked there since Pete/Val were elevated could tell you the same thing. To paraphrase: “50 witnesses can’t be wrong.”
Really? Wow, and to think on a blog that trashes both of them in posts on the regular, and allows folks to comment anonymously, one would assume if this was all true, at least one of these “50 witnesses” would come forward to confirm that these are truly awful people and horrible bosses to work for. I cant recall any comments from these mistreated staffers, perhaps the Stockholm syndrome is strong with these guys? Huh- weird!
Wow, you’re good. A classic Pete tactic. Why don’t they all come out publicly so they can be fired?
Many have left, some stay even to this day. What you claim to think doesn’t matter. A lot of people are nodding their heads to this. Uh, I mean, if they read it.
Because they know it to be true.
I have to ask- if he really does rule through fear, what exactly are people afraid of? Getting fired? Ok, I’ll give you the two per diems, but has he fired others? If you rule through fear there has to some sort of punishment or threat of one to keep folks in line. How is he scaring these people into submission? And if you say this practice extends to the caucus members, it doesn’t really appear that this method works with any regularity. This last session we saw quite a few openly opposing the Speaker on a variety of issues over the course of the two year cycle. So even if I do concede that he uses fear to keep people in line (which I won’t because it’s silly), I think we should let him know that outside looking in it hasn’t been working all that well.
There are a few legislators who have had the courage to challenge him. And have the scars to prove it. Those who came out on the ‘wrong’ side of the leadership challenge back in 2012 saw their committee assignments downgraded.
It also shouldn’t be difficult to pull up the posts about Kowalko losing his Education Committee spot or Sunset chair, now should it?
Besides, what’s your point? That he doesn’t intimidate people and rule through fear? That’s commonly accepted and understood in the General Assembly. It’s not a secret. Pete doesn’t even keep it a secret. You’re trying to deny something that EVERYBODY IN DOVER KNOWS.
What you have successfully accomplished, and I thank you for it, is to support our narrative–a fact-driven narrative eight years in the making, dating back to his time as House Majority Leader, a position for which he was temperamentally suited. Thank you for your contribution.
BTW, you can have the last word tonight, if you want it. Gotta go to bed so I can get up early for–a TV taping. Details to follow…
Olsen’s employer required her to be registered as a lobbyist. But, she is no longer in that position. Walsh, on the other hand, was recruited by a lobbyist and his campaign finance report shows he is financed almost entirely by a single special interest. I’ve met Olsen and have no doubt she can hit the road running and can represent the interests of the constituency in the 9th Senate District. Her campaign finance report crosses a broad spectrum of contributors which is far more desirable.
El Som- remind me again what happened when there was a leadership challenge in the Senate after the 2002 election? That’s right- the losing side saw unfavorable changes in their committee assignments, some got crappy offices and some were short changed on how much staff support they received. If memory serves it took those senators almost a decade to recover from that loss. Don’t pretend that this isn’t how every single legislature in this country functions when it comes leadership challenges. You know better, and to make it seem as if it’s unusual or outrageous when this particular Speaker made a few adjustments to committee assignments, well you are just not being honest. He certainly didn’t extend this punishment to everyone who didn’t vote for him to be Speaker. Sure Rep. Kowalko’s assignments were amended but Im sure even he wasn’t surprised given the circumstances at that time. By the way, ruling through fear and punishment, didn’t seem to work whatsoever on Rep. Kowalko, huh?
I have to wonder if there weren’t consequences for certain conduct, would you be calling this Speaker weak and unable to lead? You’re fairly politically astute so I’m thinking you could have easily gone in that direction if events unfolded differently. Honestly- we all get it, you aren’t a fan of this Speaker, that’s fine but lets be a little more honest and fair, shall we?
Heather,
You certainly got my attention with “Sure Kowalko’s assignments were amended” and the laughably understated “speaker made a few adjustments to committee assignments” After you read the open letter that I sent to Pete and my entire caucus (so it’s not exactly privileged) than maybe you’ll appreciate some facts. Certainly Speakers who are classy and sophisticated and give much more respect then they expect like Bob Gilligan would never think to wield the power of their position in such a surly and dictatorial way. Read it, sleep on it and if you have any questions call my cell at 302 547 9351 if you choose to berate me.
John Kowalko
Dear Speaker Schwartzkopf,
On Saturday, January 3, you called me to inform me that you were removing me from the House Education Committee despite my written submission that it was my number one choice of assignment. I realize that remaining silent on this important development would only contribute to what is best described as an atmosphere of intimidation and coercion that threatens to envelop our caucus and the entire House of Representatives. Every elected representative has a moral obligation to encourage their peers to think and act in the best interests of the public and the State without restraint imposed unfairly by use of coercive and divisive tactics wielded by those in power. Therefore, it is my duty to challenge and publicly refute those who presume to hold an ultimate right to coerce or demand an allegiance to them or their agenda without regard to the public’s needs and interests. If I remain publicly silent in this matter, then the type of political persuasion that you seem to embrace will be legitimized. Your action against me is an attempt to stifle dissent and dissenting opinions. It is your expressed attitude that the public and media should not be informed of important policy matters and business as usual should prevail. Contentious issues should be left cloaked in secrecy while conducting back-room arrangements accessible only to the like-minded and powerful. I will not support this “Delaware Way.” Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sending you and copying leadership and the media this open letter, hopeful that you will accept the delineation of your role as my peer selected to represent my caucus as a leader of equals and respect the relationship you are entitled to have with each of us.
The Speaker of the Delaware House of Representatives is supposed to be a leader of the House. As a leader, the Speaker should exemplify the qualities desired in the House membership. Most importantly, the Speaker should command respect by showing respect. In your phone call, you informed me of your decision to remove me from the House Education Committee because you said I have “become an activist,” and “you can’t be a legislator and an activist.” Your phone call to me included other similar criticisms of my conduct, specifically my willingness to engage the community and the media, but you refused to provide a single piece of concrete evidence to substantiate your claims that my public statements denigrated my fellow caucus members or impeded the effectiveness of the committee process. Is an activist someone who listens to his community and represents his constituents? Is an activist someone who strives to works towards the best interests of the people of his State? Is an activist someone who is willing to stand on the street corner with the working people who are fighting for their rights? Is an activist someone who speaks out against injustice and unfairness? Is an activist someone who is willing to use his elected position to engage in public dialogue about issues that are important to the public, instead of dealing with those issues in secret behind closed doors? If so, then every legislator should be an activist, and anyone who isn’t, does not deserve to hold that position as a Representative of the people.
Let’s be honest. This is about you maintaining the “Delaware Way.” The reprisals you have taken, during your time as Speaker of the House, against those who dared to challenge your leadership or political aspirations are well documented. This “Delaware Way,” where deals and compromises are inked out in private without any public input and accessible only to a connected group of “good ol’ boys,” appears to have taken on a reinvigorated tone of monolithic control by a small group who intend to subjugate their peers into supporting specific agendas or else suffer the consequences. It is a system of rewards and punishment meted out with the intent to coerce and intimidate any individuals and mute any dialogue that might challenge those agendas. This compromises the sanctity of the Separation of Powers and obscures the transparency that the public is guaranteed by our laws and our moral obligations to them. The greatest threat posed by this type of dictatorial atmosphere is to the public’s right to know and the public’s right to fair representation by their elected representative.
Based on your stated reasons to me, I can only conclude that you believe your appointment as Speaker has given you the right to impose and demand restrictions on the individual members of our caucus as regards their engagement with the media and the public in general. During the phone conversation you initiated where you informed me of your decision to remove me from the House Education Committee, you stated a number of times that I discussed politics and issues on the blogs, on the radio, and in the media. You said, “You carry your message to the blogs, to the papers, and on the radio, and you can’t be a legislator and be an activist.” You repeatedly chided me for being an “activist” and insisted that an activist could not be a legislator, nor should a legislator be an activist. When I responded that a good legislator has to be an activist on behalf of the public’s interest, your response was “I’m not going to reward that type of behavior by appointing you to the Education Committee.”
Instead of “rewarding” me for speaking out on behalf of my constituents, you are going to punish me for daring to oppose you and the specific agenda you support. I have been an engaged member of the Education Committee for eight years, and I have attended close to 100% of the committee meetings without ever having been disruptive to the process or disrespectful to my colleagues. When you asserted that, because I am an “activist,” I could not be depended on to compromise on legislation and would be disruptive to the committee process, you made that claim in spite of the facts. You also ignored the actual function of the committee process, where the point is to provide the appropriate place for public dialogue regarding both dissent and approval of issues. The process does not and never has demanded a consensus or compromise on policies and proposed bills. The obvious truth is that once a majority vote of committee members is attained, then the legislation would be permitted to proceed to the floor. It could then be placed on the agenda for a floor discussion and vote unless you, as the Speaker, refuse to place it on the agenda or refuse to allow that agenda item to be worked. No single vote of an individual committee member can, by itself, keep a bill in committee or release it to the floor, although you, as Speaker, can impede that bill from being considered or voted on. It is patently obvious to any informed observer that my eight-year history of service, and the fact that the committee rules do not allow what you suggest, show that you have a personal agenda to determine whether to “reward” or “punish” individual members of the House.
When you removed me as Chair and member of the Joint Sunset Committee after the last election, I obviously understood that it was the fact that I and others challenged your bid for the position of Speaker of the House that led you to demote and remove me and my likeminded peers. While “to the victor goes the spoils” might be applicable as a motive, the extent of your meting out punishment to those who challenged your bid for Speaker left a destructive tear in the fabric of a system that deserves to have the most qualified and knowledgeable legislators assigned to represent the interests of all Delawareans. Unfortunately, my reluctance to confront your vindictive nature at that time only strengthened your resolve to impose the dictatorial atmosphere of fear and compliance among some of my colleagues. My failure at that time to confront an unjust system of retribution may have contributed to your willingness to exercise a punitive posturing and demand allegiance that you have not necessarily earned.
I have been Chair of the House Energy Committee for six years, but in the two years you have been Speaker not a single bill was assigned to the Energy Committee. Are you going to seriously attempt to make the claim that not one single bill relevant to energy in Delaware was filed in the past two years? I know that is not true, as I filed many of them myself. Your removal of my Chairmanship of the House Energy Committee this year, indeed with no conversation or reason even given, can only be explained by your feeling that your previous “punishment” was not enough. I can only surmise that my vocal objections to the Governor’s proposed Newark Power Plant, and its well-earned rejection, was so effective that it had to be further silenced.
I have long been recognized for my effective work on energy issues in Delaware. As I stated to you, I have also been long engaged in all matters affecting public education, both in Delaware and in the national dialogue regard current reform proposals. I have substantial credentials and experience in the fields of public education and energy, and I will not allow your attempts to enforce the “Delaware Way” to stifle my ability to provide that to the public dialogue. I am proud of my accomplishments on behalf of Delaware and my constituents. I do not need your permission to continue to fight for my constituents, as you portended to provide in our conversation. As a proud resident of Delaware, it is my duty as an elected official and my moral obligation as a human being to fight for my beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong to the upmost of my ability.
Previous Speakers earned respect by showing respect, and you should not confuse earning respect with instigating fear and accepting subservience. Your blatant attempt to isolate and punish dissenting voices is an unconscionable behavior that has no place in the Democratic Party. Your willingness and commitment to the secretive, good-ol’-boy “Delaware Way,” and your stated belief that, in your own words, “Part of my job is to carry the water for the Governor and it’s just that simple,” contradicts the democratic principles of our country. Left unchallenged, your tactics will continue to damage the willingness of other legislators to think and speak freely and to publicly express justifiable criticisms on important issues. Left hidden, your tactics will continue to damage the democratic principles of our country and hurt the public’s ability to know about important issues and make up their own mind about the best ways to tackle those issues in our State.
I haven’t pretended to be a fan of this Speaker. I’ve been honest about what he has done down there. And it’s not as if Schwartzkopf stands out as the only person who has been portrayed accurately, IMHO, in an unfavorable light on this blog, and/or by me.
You talked about the Senate. Then you know about Tony DeLuca, whose misdeeds were chronicled here ad infinitum. It took Bryan Townsend to knock him out of power and to help restore something approaching principled leadership in the Senate.
If Don Peterson beats Schwartzkopf, the same thing will happen.
Which, bringing us back to this thread, is one of the reasons we (all of us, BTW, not just me) endorsed him.
Thank you, Rep. Kowalko for the offer to chat. Not sure it would be productive to rehash with a stranger what happened several years ago, but I appreciate your willingness to do so.
Just some food for thought. The highest elected official in both chambers has appointing authority powers for committees and other important positions, basically it’s the same power given to governors to make various appointments in their cabinet and other high ranking executive branch officials. Seems fairly understood and readily accepted that as administrations end, there is a significant amount of turnover which allows the new governor the opportunity to make new appointments and surround themselves with the people they trust the most and who they feel will do the best job. For whatever reason, people don’t view the legislative leaders in the same regard, in the sense that it’s often expected that they fill their positions with the same folks initially appointed by their predecessors. Not sure why this happens, but it definitely does.
“Which, bringing us back to this thread, is one of the reasons we (all of us, BTW, not just me) endorsed him.”
Is it safe to assume that the “we” referenced above does not include a resident from Sussex County? Assuming that’s a no, that’s an interesting caveat for your Sussex County readership to ponder – that it’s folks living outside of their communities making this endorsement and its safe to assume that not a lot of consideration was given to how ousting their Speaker will negatively impact their district.
Liberalism or pork for the district? If you were a liberal or progressive, that wouldn’t be a hard choice.
In all the demonization of Hitler, we just don’t hear enough from the people of Bavaria.
For whatever reason, people don’t view the legislative leaders in the same regard, in the sense that it’s often expected that they fill their positions with the same folks initially appointed by their predecessors.
Of course, the difference is that legislators are elected and serve at the pleasure of their constituents, not the Governor (or the Speaker).
I think she’s talking about leadership positions like speaker.
The people elect the reps, who then elect the speaker. That’s the chokepoint in the system. About 6,000 people vote for a guy who then represents the entire party, which is 317,000 people.
That, as far as I’m concerned, is why the rest of us chime in from the direction we do. New Castle County holds 60% of the state’s voters. Does Heather really think her parochial concerns should outweigh ours?
Is this Heather the same person who launched the same pro-Schwartzkopf argument a while back, or is it a second person?
I took her comment to mean that the Governor’s ability to surround himself with “his people” was the same as the speaker surrounding himself with “his people”. Not the same, since the house members aren’t in the building because of being in the good graces of the speaker, but rather because of the voters that sent them there.
Heather,
Let me clarify one thing. I’m not making a statement of endorsement for or against. I am responding to your blithe dismissal of the serious harm that abuse of power can manifest. No speaker or caucus leader or chamber leader is superior to their duly elected peers/equals and to display a total disregard or condescending attitude toward those equals (who are representing their constituents and in many cases all Delawareans) is simply wrong, irresponsible and disrespectful. To go further and use a system of rewards and punishments in assigning important committee seats and chairs borders on a corrupt attitude that diminishes those leaders who engage in such. Bob Gilligan pushed open government laws to the floor despite objections from some of the money chairs. He supported the bills AND permitted them to the floor so that a vote of the entire GA could be recorded (up or down) as any responsible leader should do. Pete has assigned my bill for annual financial disclosure reports required of the Cash Management Board (working with over $2 Billion in assets) and my bill that would redeclare the University of Delaware and Del. State as public entities (which they are) because they receive taxpayer money (which they do) to the Administrative committee on which he sits and has refused to vote them out of committee for a floor vote (up or down). He assigned my bill to ban the carcinogenic and toxic Chlorinated Tris from children’s furniture (to protect their health) to a committee that deferred to the Chemical Policy Institute lobbyists and would not release it. He reassigned two of my PSC initiated bills (one that would have allowed the PSC to take action against the “transmission line” and perhaps defeat it) from my Energy Committee (that I chaired at the time) and placed it in a committee that didn’t understand the bill and was not going to release it. Finally you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the speaker refused to put any of the bills that I sponsored that were successfully released from committee (with republican votes) that created new higher tax brackets and a higher corporate tax cap on the floor to protect vulnerable caucus members. That is an absurd supposition and any elected official that would value their re-election opportunities over the needs of the economy and the taxpayers should look for another line of work. There are no acceptable excuses when considering the public interests against the party’s interests or the individual elected’s interests. WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS no more no less
Representative John Kowalko
Can we limit comments to a couple paragraphs? If you want to do a whole dissertation, ask to put up a guest post.
I assume that Delaware Liberal decided to endorse in these three races in the hopes that the constituents in those districts would consider this endorsement when casting their ballots. Clarifying who is actually involved in that endorsement process, and confirming the endorsement is in no way related to the Speaker’s ability to meet the needs of the residents of the 14th district (and the rest of Sussex County for that matter) gives the voters you are trying to reach information I think is important and worthy of their consideration as well.
I’ve often heard that races are not won or lost based on how a legislator votes on bills- legislators win or lose based on their ability to deliver for their district. For example, making sure your senior centers and fire stations are adequately funded, are your streets getting paved when they need to be, are your towns and schools getting whatever resources they need- if you are doing all of that and you are accessible to your constituents and respond to their calls and emails- you’ll get reelected every time.
This endorsement isn’t reflective of the Speaker’s ability to serve his district- and making that clear to the handful of voters in the 14th who might have bothered reading down this far was the reason for my previous comment (and I guess this one as well).
@Heather: Who cares what you think the voters of your district need? It’s not your blog, nor from what I can tell is liberalism of interest to you.
This blog is here to judge the performance of elected and appointed officials by the admittedly somewhat amorphous-around-the-edges causes of liberalism and progressivism.
Your comments actually further that goal, though not as you hoped. You highlight that, by liberal standards, there is no reason for anyone to vote for Pete Schwartzkopf, who is, by training and inclination, an authoritarian.
Liberals believe in discussion and rule by consensus. Authoritarians believe in gaining power and giving orders. You, it seems, are in the latter camp.
@LG: Gotcha. Either way, Pete must be worried if he’s sending a minion here to minimize the damage.
Park City, baby!
“Of course, the difference is that legislators are elected and serve at the pleasure of their constituents, not the Governor (or the Speaker).”
I actually meant that it’s the Speaker or Pro Tem’s perogative as to which legislators get appointed to the various House and Senate committees. When new legislative leaders make changes to their predecessors appointments, they get flack for it. The same isn’t true for new governors who replace almost every cabinet secretary, as well as other appointed staffers in the executive branch when taking office- I can’t recall this sparking any outrage in recent years, it’s simply expected because it’s a new administration.
It’s interesting that the governor and both legislative leaders have similar powers of appointment, and the expectations about those powers and how they can be used are very different. Sorry- thought that seemed pretty straightforward, I guess not.
Yes, it’s hard to tell the difference between the smell of horse manure and the smell of cow manure if you don’t live on a farm.
The obvious differences have been made clear to you above. These “powers of appointment” are written into the constitution for the governor. They are self-adopted rules of the General Assembly for the Speaker.
I don’t think his wife would put up this much defense of him. He’s acted like a tyrant in his caucus, and he should be removed as speaker. Since that won’t likely happen — the state police have the dirt on every member of the GA — our other option is to defeat him at the polls.
Don Peterson is just the first effort, and nobody expects it to succeed. But it will serve notice to Pistol Pete that we’re on to him. He’s no friend of liberal Democrats, and it’s up to liberal Democrats to make him pay — if not now, later.
AQC
I’m sorry I didn’t know that you were host/owner of this site. Let me suggest you try not reading comments if there is too much info for you to assimilate.
John K.
“@LG: Gotcha. Either way, Pete must be worried if he’s sending a minion here to minimize the damage.
Park City, baby!”
Wow, you got me- I must be a minion doing the bidding for the Speaker, I can’t possibly have my own opinions or thoughts on what’s posted here and decide on my own to engage in this discourse. I obviously need a man to tell me what to do and what to say, I’m completely incapable of commenting on a blog without permission or assistance.
I bet you’re an angry dude in real life, anonymous. The patriarchy is strong with this one.
Actually, the Governor has constitutional authority to appoint people to positions. The legislative leaders have an historical claim to that ability, but I don’t see that provided for in the constitution. So, no, they aren’t actually similar, although from your perspective, I can see why you’d want to say that.
But what actually happens when this sort of reward/punishment thing is meted out is that (as JK said above) entire districts are deprived of their influence in the legislature. You seem OK with that outcome, but are not happy when a website of people not in a district recommend a course of action to voters in the district. Ironically, one of the reasons that people often give for why the Speaker should be re-elected is so the district can maintain their influence in the GA.
Note: I type WAY slower than anonymous
“I obviously need a man to tell me what to do and what to say, I’m completely incapable of commenting on a blog without permission or assistance.”
I’d say the same thing no matter what name you used on a blog was. I strongly doubt your name is actually “Heather.”
You don’t have to be following orders to think you’re helping him. That makes you a minion, which is not a gendered position. The claim of victimization is strong with this one. Nice try at pretending to be a liberal by playing the female card, though.
I’m only angry at people like Pete Schwartzkopf. And his enablers, so I guess you, too.
“I’m only angry at people like Pete Schwartzkopf. And his enablers, so I guess you, too.”
My work here is done, I’ve made an anonymous internet troll angry for no reason whatsoever. Did I win the internet today or what?!
“Did I win the internet today or what?!”
Nope, but we’ll put in a good word for you to get on a committee or something. Got any bills that you want to see assigned to a friendly committee? Hell, you’ve done such a bang-up job, I think we should suspend the rules and vote on something now.
“I just think you’re doing yourself a disservice by not disclosing that you obviously have some serious personal problem with him”
Heather, you say that to El Som, whom we all know, and yet you don’t disclose who you are. That just seems odd to me, especially since you are offended by the word sycophant. Tell us your name and dispel all doubts! I know it’s not required, but…really.
Connie Merlet- full disclosure, John Kowalko’s wife
“My work here is done, I’ve made an anonymous internet troll angry for no reason whatsoever. Did I win the internet today or what?!”
I mean, “Heather” doesn’t exactly lift the veil of anonymity.
BTW, what’s the going rate on angering internet trolls these days?
“I mean, “Heather” doesn’t exactly lift the veil of anonymity.”
The fact that this comment came from a “Brian” (no last name) really made me laugh out loud. Thanks, B!
The trouble with those who proclaim victory and leave?
They never leave.
Take that comment a little personally Quacko? Or, just no sense of humor?
“Heather” has done a great job giving people a reason to share at length the well-known character flaws of the Speaker. LOL #failedminion
Oh “Quacko” that’s funny and original. Maybe you could buy an improv. business. Or have you tried that already?
John K.
“Can we limit comments to a couple paragraphs?”
@AQC. I have no real objection to lengthy pieces of commentary and John may actually have something interesting to say (and to read). Unfortunately, I’ll never know because he insists on posting in an unreadable form (as if he is not posting to for someone to actually read). When I encounter those, I just scroll on by.
I thought AQC was talking about Heather whose posts are very long and pedantic.
It is odd that Heather is so invested in the Speaker who he clearly barely knows.
El Som,
As someone who would vote for Don Peterson if I lived in that district, I have to wonder if its wise to encourage people to vote for Don by regularly naming the reasons why you dislike Pete Schwartzkopf. Shouldn’t Don and his supporters be making the case as to why he’s the right guy for the job, and maybe dial back the vote for Don because Pete is a terrible Speaker talk?
I’ve always found that people want to vote for someone, not necessarily against someone else. I also found it interesting that in this entire thread of comments, not one person who voted to endorse attempted to make the case for voters to support Don Peterson. Seems like Don’s message is really not coming through, FWIW
Frank: I get what you’re saying. Here’s what we wrote in the original endorsement:
“Schwartzkopf’s primary opponent, Don Peterson, is a progressive Democrat who is hoping to walk in Bryan Townsend’s shoes. You see, Bryan Townsend ran a strong grassroots primary campaign to knock off a Democratic leader in the Senate who was similarly blocking the Democratic Agenda. Peterson supports a higher minimum wage, progressive tax reform, criminal justice reform and the repeal of the death penalty. These policy positions are the reason we at Delaware Liberal support him. But there is another, almost as important, reason.
As Don himself stated in his own Delaware Voice column back in May in the News Journal, he is challenging the old school old-boys-club Delaware Way of party politics that Schwartzkopf and Delaware Democratic Party Chairman John Daniello favor.”
The tone of the comments took the anti-Schwartzkopf tone b/c of the comments of a Schwartzkopf sycophant. Once you put the article out there, you have limited control over where the comments will take it.
Good point. I think Pete knows what his constituents want. They don’t vote for him because he is Speaker. They vote for him because he represents their interests. Don needs to understand those interests and articulate how he will represent those interests.
@Heather:
I’ve made an anonymous internet troll angry for no reason whatsoever. Did I win the internet today or what?!
No, toots, you didn’t win anything.
You’re new here. “anonymous” is far from anonymous. All the regulars know his real name. He can be a dick, but he’s not a troll, and he’s forgotten more about NCC and DE politics than you will ever know.
Get a grip, sweetie. You’re out of your league.
I knew Caitlin Olsen in high school, and even then it was obvious that she was an incredibly intelligent and capable person who was destined for greater things. There are very few people who I think would be more qualified to serve in the State Senate. I only regret that I’m not in her district and won’t be able to vote for her.
Pete gets elected because no one opposes him and there’s a myth that everyone loves him in the 14th. We don’t. He does little for us, he does not support the values of the Dem party, and he does not respond to constituents. Don can win but if he doesn’t there is always 2018. Don is so far superior intellectually and morally. It’s no contest.
LeBay, I know sarcasm and snark doesn’t always translate well when done in writing, especially in this kind of forum, but that was intended as a joke. Probably less funny than I thought it to be initially, but a joke nonetheless. And I’m sure you think it’s cute to call me toots and sweetie, but all it does is confirm youre a sexist, humorless douche canoe. Seriously- just stop, ok? Thanks.
Don Peterson is by far the better candidate when compared to his opponent Pete Schwortzkof. Don cares about people as evidenced by all the work he has done in the community for social and economic justice. I do not even no where to begin in comparing him to Pete. Don has promised monthly meetings with his constituants, Peter does not have time. Don tells you where he stands on issues Pete will run away rather than answer a direct question. Don is ignored by the Democratic Party who will not even admit he exists. At the local level Democratic RD #14, which is Petes district, has, during the first six months of this year forced out, through their actions and disrespect, 6 – 8 Progressive Committee Persons and endorsed Pete as soon as he filed which is against their own policy. The endorsement took place months before the primary filing period had ended. The 14th RD has also given money to Pete’s campaign and run an add in the Gazettee supporting him. He had over $60 K in his war chest when the 30 day report came out. This kind of money far exceeds the money of anyone else running in the county or the 14th RD but I guess Pete’s ego had to be stoked so that the good old boys would be happy. What about the candidates who really need money? Why waste any of it on someone with a big war chest? I would bet that Don could support the national Democratic platform for social and economic justice issues without comment and agree to work to get them approved and implemented. There is no way Pete would do that.
Josh, I live in her district and just cannot vote for a registered lobbyist from U of De sorry
And to bula, you always forget how Karen Peterson won his seat for him!
Who cares about electing lobbyists? we elect lawyers all of the time and there’s nothing worse than a lawyer.
Do not tell Bula Bryan Townsend is a lawyer
Lori you do what you feel is best,but I just don’t understand all the hatred towards lobbyists. Did a lobbyist hurt someone you love? Lobbying is an important part of our democracy, guaranteed by the first amendment. Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and Labor Unions have all functioned as lobbying groups, advocating for a fairer and more progressive America. Obviously it’s fair to criticize the outsized influence that lobbyists can have, especially when it comes to money in politics, but to dismiss all lobbyists wholesale, especially those that have worked to improve our state, is simply foolhardy.
“Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and Labor Unions have all functioned as lobbying groups”
They don’t lobby. They advocate. Gotta know the code. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Advocacy good. Lobbying bad.
Actually, gotta know the difference. Lobbying is trying to change policy to benefit special (meaning “narrow”) interests. Advocates are trying to change policy to benefit everyone. Advocating for a clean environment has benefits to everyone, even if some entrepreneurs try to make a buck off it; if they advocate for one particular solution over all others, they are lobbyists.
You can easily argue that unions, like industry lobbying groups, are actually special interests; the coal miners’ union certainly isn’t thinking about the rest of us when they advocate for more coal use.
I hate to break out the ol’ “Merriam-webster defines” routine, but Merriam-Webster defines lobbying as:
“an organized group of people who work together to influence government decisions that relate to a particular industry, issue, etc.”
So yeah advocacy, lobbying, it’s basically the same thing. The key here is who has to register as a lobbyist? Considering all those groups have 501(c)(4) organizations, all the members of which must be registered as lobbyists, I’d say they’re all lobbyist.
Thomas O’Hagan – Your disgust with the 14th District Committee over the early endorsement of the Speaker leaves me confused. Weren’t you on that committee at that time and didn’t you vote in favor of that endorsement? Seems a little disingenuous on your part to fail to disclose this, don’t you think?
Heather, How do you know anything about the 14th since you are supposedly from Western Sussex? Hmm. You are blowing your cover Sir.
Emma, nice deflection! Thomas shouldnt have to defend why he omitted the fact that he was on that committee and supported the endorsement, right? If he had said that he voted to endorse at that time, but later had come to believe he was wrong, that would be one thing.
But to complain about how this RD committee has operated this cycle and how they’ve treated the primary candidates, while not revealing how he has ownership over the issue, that shouldn’t get a pass from anyone. Perhaps Thomas also supported efforts by the committee to give the Speaker a campaign contribution, which he now claims were unfair. We have no clue, but I have to think it’s a real possibility.
Finally – his comment was intended to blame the Speaker for all the 14th RD committee shenanigans, when it’s unlikely the Speaker is a 14th RD committee member (or if so a super active one) and therefore would have no control over how they operate. You know who did have input on how they conducted their committee business- Thomas did, wow! This stuff actually writes itself- people are mad at this elected official for the choices they made for themselves without his input or knowledge. Wtf, that’s just incredibly sad, desperate, but typical of how these purists behave. They have cast this Speaker as their requisite villain and they only see or believe things which confirm their bias against him.
Whatever Tom did on the committee is irrelevant to the fact that Pete is unfit for office in terms of his values and behavior and also someone any progressive would oppose. Irrelevant. Tom is not running for office.
Why are you so invested in Pete? If you want him to win, why are you keeping this Pete bashing thread alive?
Also you keep talking about people who don’t support Pete as being biased. Of course they are biased towards the candidate they support. Just like you are biased towards Pete. So what? People disagree on who the better candidate is. That is why we have elections. What you are trying to achieve I have no idea. You must be really scared Pete’s going to lose and how that will reflect badly on you.
@Heather: Are you sleeping with the guy or something? We have spelled out several times now our problems with Schwartzkopf. That’s not going to change because of your piteous bleating.
I just think josh, that the U of DE has enough votes for themselves in Dover. That’s all. They are not very transparent at all and their lobbyist did this for them. It’s our tax dollars, the other groups are advocates more than lobbyist. I just wanted to know the real process on how these candidates got the endorsement. 1 is a lobbyist, the other is a corporate lawyer. I just do not know of a real liberal blog site endorsing theses kinds of people. For god sakes townend voted for tax breaks for the rich casinos. Not liberal stance at all but here
If you’re going to characterize Townsend as “a corporate lawyer,” you should acknowledge that he’s running against a guy with no non-political job at all and a woman who’s running on her father’s name. Neither one has ever held a legislative position, and so cannot have violated your standards because they have no voting record at all. By ideal standards, ain’t a liberal in the bunch.
Before you squawk, realize that you have nothing to back up Lisa Blunt’s “liberalism” except her words. And you discount Townsend’s words, so if we apply your standard hers should be discounted as well.
no disagreement anonymous, but is that how you get a endorsement on this suppose liberal blog ? that ‘s all I might even go as far you stated, agree not a liberal in the bunch
I think they’ve been pretty clear about their endorsements — the site’s bloggers voted on them.
If you want a more liberal blog, why not start one?
Heather your post which follows surprises me given that you seem to have so many details: Thomas O’Hagan – Your disgust with the 14th District Committee over the early endorsement of the Speaker leaves me confused. Weren’t you on that committee at that time and didn’t you vote in favor of that endorsement? Seems a little disingenuous on your part to fail to disclose this, don’t you think?
I do not think it is disingenuous as all. The item was not on the agenda and a person who I had substantial trust & faith in at the time was the person who presented it. I voted for it and felt vary uncomfortable right after. I went home did some reading of old notes and files and realized the 14th violated its own policy. At a subsequent meeting I brought this issue up and my so called friend, who is also a lawyer, chose to reinterpret the policy and say all was well with the world and the rest of the committee went along. I am not afraid to admit a mistake and do my best to correct it. I have not seen to many of the good old boys around Sussex do that. Maybe that is another reason the Democrats need some new blood.
I find it interesting that many people here do not use their names. Not sure why they hide behind false identities unless they are in the legislature and fear Pete’s wrath.
I have seen several people wonder who you are. I would hazard a guess that you are either Mitch Crane or you get information from him.
I will also address your comments on funding. When I was on the 14th RD I was the fund raising chair and I raised more money over the two years than had ever been raised before or at least in quite a few years. The money was raised with the understanding it would not be used in the primary and would be used at the federal, state, and primarily the local level for candidates that needed money for the election. Two years ago there was a fight over weather or not Pete should get money and Mitch Crane, but I guess you would know that, fought to give Pete money so it “would not look bad that his own RD would not give him money”. Even though he was the one with the big war chest. So Pete took money away from those trying to keep their head above water so he would look good or Mitch would. Now this year the 14th has given him money and is paying for ads during the primary for Pete even with his war chest. To bad for the other candidates that the 14th RD votes for. If I had know that the rules would change in the middle of the stream I would never had raised that money.
The good old boys have taken over the 14th RD and pushed out every progressive on the committee through intimidation, and just a general sense of letting people know that they are not wanted. All those positions are being filled by Pete’s good old boy friends.
I might add that this all started over a year ago when the Progressives on the committee asked Pete to start coming to the meetings when he could so we could let him know how the committee felt on certain issues where we did not see eye to eye with him. He did come a couple times made long speeches and left because time was up. It was clear he did not want to know where we stood. We were just a necessary evil.
Thomas, I’m not Mitch, he posts here under his own name, nor am I in the legislature. The fact that you and a couple others have questioned who I must be makes me think that you realize that my comments are not without merit.
I appreciate that you feel progressive voices on your former RD committee were not being heard. But my takeaway from your post was that members disagreed about how to spend their resources, a majority voted to use them in a manner that you (and I guess others) had opposed. Seems like this would be a fairly common occurrence among smaller, local organizations, but where you lose me is that this is somehow the candidate’s fault.
Should candidates question the contributions they receive, returning the checks from individuals or organizations after checking if it’s in their best interest or not to donate? Did you expect the Speaker to reach out to the committee and check if all the members supported the donation? Wouldn’t a candidate just assume that that was the case upon receiving the check in the mail?
I can understand being upset about how the funds you worked hard to raise were then spent in ways that you did not approve. But the blame for that should be directed at the committee, not the candidate.
Heather or whatever,
No, no, no, no, a thousand times no. “The fact that you and a couple others have questioned who I must be makes me think that you realize that my comments are not without merit” is the most asinine, inane and ridiculous conclusion anyone in their right mind would even pretend to draw. Please pardon me, but that conclusion you’ve just drawn (apparently from within some deep, foreboding place in your own imagination) suggests that you have chosen to forego your meds.
John kowalko
Lori, I’m just going to assume that no one, ever, has been liberal enough for you. That’s the problem with a lot of modern progressives: the are more than happy to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Bryan may not have a perfect voting record, but he still is one of the most progressive senators in the State Senate. Likewise, Caitlin has done good work on peoples behalf, including getting bills through which helped with campus rape. If we sat around waiting for the liberal with the perfectly spotless voting record or history to come along, the republicans would stomp all over us.
Bryan Townsand not liberal? He got a perfect score on the ADA voting record list. Bryan is as good as it gets in an imperfect world and in a perfect one if there is such a thing. Lori, was Herbert Humphrey or George McGovern liberal?
Reading this entire thread in all its glory, I come away with a profound respect for John Kowalko’s capacity to make everything all about him and all the ways he’s been wronged. It’s quite impressive to constantly take on the role of the martyr, but I suppose it’s what comes most easily for him.
Tom: It’s troll time. Lots of people have their own agendas, including us.
The relentless ones are admittedly annoying, so just ignoring them is generally the way to go.
It’s difficult sometimes, though, I’ll admit. But they’re not really here to change our minds, and we’re not gonna change theirs.
Thanks. I will get the hang of it. Have not been here a week yet.
Nolo problemo. Some of us NEVER get the hang of it.
I am not going to waste my time correcting Tom O’Hagan’s bizarre recollection of the past, though he did vote to endorse Pete S this year-and Pete received no money from the 14thRD two years ago when he was unopposed, and I am not going to spend time defending Pete Schwartzkopf’s excellent record relative to LGBT matters.
What I will do, however, is take exception to any accusation that I am writing under any name but my own. I have always written on this blog, and on the right wing blogs when necessary, under my own name. I am not afraid of being attacked for what I say or think, and what I say is what I believe.
As usual you deflect the truth with a deficient memory and sarcastic comments. I suggest you take at look at the 9/1/14 report date filling for the 14th RD and note the $600 check payable to Friends of Pete Schwarzkopf and then come back here and apologize.
Steve,
Not a martyr but an unabashed defender of the integrity of representative democracy. If you choose to ignore the serious disdain for an institution tasked with representing the best interests of the public and the real threat it poses then that’s on you. Your obliviousness to the seriousness of what is written here and your willingness to exercise the “politics of distraction” is also on you.
Regards,
St. John the Persistent
As a voter who lives in the 14th, I’d thought I offer my opinion as to why Pete keeps getting elected. He is everywhere and everyone seems to have met him. He is a member of the Rehoboth lifeguard mafia, connected by family to a major developer, and has supported social issues near and dear to the Rehoboth area. Around here, it’s 2 maybe 3 degrees of Pete in terms of connections.
If he is heavy handed as Speaker, to most people in the 14th that’s not even on their radar. What is on their radar is who you know and who knows you. At the beach, its first names and social connections.
The election is not about what most people think. It’s about what primary voting Dems think. That is why Mitch is freakin’, posting at 3am.
As far as what Dave says, if you are from Sussex, you have lost my vote. I won’t vote for Pete or Park City.
“I am not going to spend time defending Pete Schwartzkopf’s excellent record relative to LGBT matters.”
Heh. That’s a good one.
How many out state troopers again?
You’re a hack, Mitch. Go back to DelCo. They love hacks there. Of course, you’ll have to switch back to Republican to do that.
Anonymous:
I am from Chester County, not Delaware County. I was never a Republican. You never relied on facts or forethought, no matter what name you used. I guess no need to change now in your retirement.
Emma:
I have not posted at 3am. I am not “Heather”.
“As far as what Dave says, if you are from Sussex, you have lost my vote. I won’t vote for Pete or Park City.”
I thought I read that Bethany Hall-Long was born and spent the first part of her life in Sussex County? Not sure if you’re in the BHL camp or not…
I’ve been reading this blog for several years but didn’t post any comments until this week. There are two reasons I don’t post my full name –
1) Personally, I’d rather my boss and potential future employers not associate me with some of the things discussed here (only in the comments, never in the original post).
2) Maintaining a certain level of anonymity let’s me say what I feel more freely. For reference, I’d never make a comment ribbing a state representative if my full name was attached to it, even though I’d feel that way and want to.
Some people frequenting this site choose to use their full names, most do not, including the regular contributors. I’m not sure if I remember other posts where multiple commenters were focused on outing the identity of another commenter, although I could have missed/skipped those parts in prior places.
For the most part, I didn’t like what that commenter had to say and I certainly didn’t agree with many of their points; however, I thought the attempts to name the person in real life didn’t jive with how I’ve seen this blog operate in years past.
maybe I’m a little sensitive because I’m new to commenting here myself and this just happened, but I’m sure we can debate the content of their comments without using their identity, or potential identity as a means to refute their points.
I think you were referring to a post of mine. I have always believed that if you have to hide behind something other than you own name then you do not have the courage of your convictions. You made a couple of good points but my father never made any money in his life because he was an outspoken Democratic Socialist of the Norman Thomas variety and he was a union organizer in the 30’s. He always used his own name and it cost him. But he kept his integrity which to him was worth more than money.
As far as outing a person. The information Heather used in her post had to come from the 14th RD. I will not go into all that happened that resulted in me having enough of the crap and leaving but the person I thought would say it I named. He says I am wrong. Then the info was written by someone else from the 14th RD or Heather gets info from someone on the committee. Enough said. My integrity was being attacked and I dealt with it in a way I felt was OK.
@Mitch: Yeah, I made a lot of mistakes. One was thinking that you’d be a good candidate. I didn’t start out thinking you were a hack. It took your performance for that to become clear.
I’m sure you’re a nice guy and all, but surely you see that nothing you say here will be taken at face value because you’re in the game. I have no idea how you really feel about Pete Schwartzkopf, and I never will, no matter what your write here, because if you didn’t write nice things about him you’d be on his enemy list.
My objection to your presence here is based on that. I don’t mind people with a clear position, but yours is permanently veiled by your position, making everything you say here calculated.
Therefore I can’t believe any of it is sincere, and so therefore it’s just a waste of everyone’s time for you to post your pro-status quo bullshit here.
Thanks Anonymous. I do find you entertaining and you did leave a void.
Gotta go take something now for my chronic Hack.