Most Dismal Legislative Session Ever?
By ‘ever’, I mean since 1983, when I first started working for the General Assembly. I’ve either worked for, or followed what’s going on in Dover ever since.
My answer to my question is: Yes, I think so.
Go ahead. Pick a highlight. Eliminating the Estate Tax? Bringing back the death penalty? Finding ways to pile more charges on prisoners? Other than protecting a woman’s Roe v Wade rights in the event that Roe v Wade is overturned by a right-wing Supreme Court, this session has been one embarrassment after another. Nods to the law’n order crowd and to the aging multibillionaires. With D’s controlling both chambers.
The reasons why also provide us with a road map for change. So, um, here’s why:
1. Gov. Jellyfish John Carney. No governor has had more time to prepare for the position, and done so little preparation. Not even Ruth Ann Minner, who echoed George H. W. Bush’s approach of tackling ‘whatever crosses my desk’, rivals the utter passivity of Carney’s first few months in office. What few ‘initiatives’ he has supported come straight out of the propaganda masquerading as ‘reports’ that Jack Markell underwrote for the purpose of letting business run roughshod over the business of governing. Oh, and turning DEDO into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the businesses that will mete out money to–businesses just like them. Meanwhile, he waits for reports before doing anything about the prison crisis. And he and his staff ‘monitor’ legislation like restoration of the death penalty. Every other governor I remember, from 1983 on, brought with them a legislative agenda of their own to which the General Assembly responded. Carney, OTOH, has left a vacuum in its stead. He wanted to be Governor, he just doesn’t want to govern. BTW, how’s that ‘independent review’ of the prisons going? How’s that search for a Secretary of Labor going? WTF is he doing?
It’s even worse than that. While it’s in some ways admirable that he seeks people’s input on issues, it betrays a singular lack of even the most elementary thought on the issues of the day. The budget, the death penalty, legalization of pot, you name it, hasn’t he even thought about these issues during all his time in government? Does he really need people at coffee shops to fill in the blanks in his brain? Speaking of the budget, in lieu of any serious consideration of the specific cuts in the budget, our green-eyeshade guv goes with a mathematical formula buttressed by Chamber propaganda. A formula is no substitute for rigorous policy analysis, as if I should even have to point that out. He should be embarrassed. As it stands, he’s close to irrelevant. Even Bethany Hall-Long would be better. Forget about him being a Democratic governor. He’s simply not a governor except in name only.
2. Changes in the State Senate. Karen Peterson’s retirement and Patti Blevins’ loss have slowed progressive momentum almost to a halt in the Senate. Blevins and Peterson had an agreement, an agreement that kept Peterson from running for President Pro-Tempore when Tony DeLuca was defeated for reelection. In effect, Blevins would allow Peterson’s legislation to get a fair hearing on the floor rather than burying it in the Pro-Tem’s desk drawer, as it had under both Thurman Adams and DeLuca. Blevins also generally supported most progressive initiatives, meaning there was a genuine synergy for the passage of progressive legislation. With Blevins and Peterson no longer there, neither is the synergy. There’s Townsend, maybe Henry, and who else? Yes, you can still patch together a traditional D coalition on some bills, but it’s the exception, not the rule.
3. A Democratic House Which Acts Like Anything But. There simply is no excuse for the regressive legislation coming out of the House and the progressive legislation which doesn’t make its way out of the House. The D’s control the House by a 25-16 margin. In a political environment that made sense, the House would be passing legislation that most closely reflects the principles (?) of the Party. Instead, even a Senate with a circumscribed D edge still is more likely to reflect progressive ideals than the House. Why?
First and foremost is the ‘leadership’ of Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf and Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst. Let’s talk about their leadership style. They govern through fear. They reward their supporters and screw their enemies. To the point where they actively work against legislation sponsored by those who are not in their good graces, regardless of whether it’s legislation that reflects so-called party ideals. This pettiness extends to committee assignments. Those who kiss his cop butt are rewarded, those who don’t share his police worldview and governing philosophy get buried. Which is how you get restoration of the death penalty and elimination of the Estate Tax while you don’t get minimum wage increase in an assembly with a 25-16 D edge. The Speaker and his henchpersons have splintered the Caucus, meaning that Pete passes legislation by finding common ground with the Rethugs.
So, you have a splintered D caucus. The cop groupies, the Chamber DINO’s and the drones (yes, there’s plenty of overlap) vs. the few serious progressive legislators. In the absence of any kind of guidance from the Governor, Pete’s agenda becomes the default D agenda. Why? Because he’d rather cut deals with Rethuglicans than with D’s. Instead of holding R’s accountable for their intransigence and using that intransigence as a political club, Schwartzkopf hangs his caucus members out to dry instead.
4. There are very few Republicans left in Dover. Most are now Rethuglicans. How many R’s are willing to vote for anything that goes against the Tea Party orthodoxy? I can only count about four who will switch on occasion: Senators Cathy Cloutier and Ernie Lopez, and Representatives Joe Miro and Mike Ramone. Cloutier is the only one of the four who can reasonably be counted on to set Party aside in most instances. Meaning D’s have to either stick together or put up with Pistol Pete’s version of Democratic legislation. Which has virtually nothing in common with Democratic principles. The decades of ‘good government’ R’s from Brandywine Hundred and Newark and the pro-labor (and anti-busing) R’s in the New Castle area are over for good. Most legislative R’s are nothing but obstructionists now.
So, what is to be done? As I see it, we need better D’s in the House of Representatives. And some new progressive blood in the Senate. People who can and will think for themselves, can develop legislative priorities of their own in the wake of the vacuum that is the Governor’s office. People who place their constituents first, ahead of Chamber propaganda, ahead of the cops and the cop mentality, and certainly ahead of the desires of wheezing billionaires threatening to move to Florida.
I start naming the names of those who need to be challenged tomorrow.
I agree, it’s time to copy the Tea Party and primary the DINOS. Easier said than done as Delawareans rarely meet an entrenched politicians they don’t love.
Delcollo has little record to date, but he’s surprised me with what he has done. Sponsored SB 27 and voted “yes” on SB 24. I’m keeping an eye on him of course (he represents me in the Senate) but am cautiously optimistic that he’s either naturally disinclined to be a Republican Party parrot, or he knows what side his bread his buttered on.
That doesn’t mean he’ll vote for anything remotely resembling economically progressive policies, of course. But he may at least be gunning a spot on that “reasonable Republicans” list.
Also, what did you mean by “tomorrow”? I checked here at 6:30 AM to see this; the software only gives a date and not a time so I’m not sure if this was posted in the early morning or just after midnight.
Nice analysis on Delcollo. He was elected in a staunchly D district, so I think you’re right that there may be occasions when he feels compelled to vote that way. But he’s a strong pro-gun lobby guy, so he’ll pick his spots. Betcha he won’t be with us on restoration of the death penalty, which means that his election represents a lost vote for those who opposed the death penalty.
As to ‘tomorrow’, I mean Thursday. Although with the usual caveat that the best of intentions don’t always come to fruition on a timely basis.
“In the absence of any kind of guidance from the Governor, Pete’s agenda becomes the default D agenda.”
That really is the sickening heart of the matter. Governor Schwartzkopf gets all of the authority and none of the headaches. If there isn’t, there should be a plaque on Carney’s desk reading:
“The buck stops here, If Pete Schwartzkopf says it is okay.”
I fully expect Delcollo to be a strong “law and order” type, given the kinds of flyers I was getting from his campaign. Unfortunately RD 13 sends an ex-cop back to the House every two years, and that’s probably the most liberal enclave in SD 7.
Since we do have Blevins’ support for sensible truck routing patterns to thank for Delcollo’s election, it may be quite easy to knock him out in 2020.
BTW, didja know that the draft D Party Platform supports a $15 minimum wage and higher taxes on the wealthy?:
http://www.deldems.org/sites/deldems/files/DRAFT%20State%20Party%20Platform%20_0.pdf
The problem is that our ‘leaders’ in Dover don’t.
How much you wanna bet those planks are removed from the draft between now and next week?
ETA: The draft also supports a public option, if not single-payer. Don’t think LBR’s staffers are going to let her in on that one.
I don’t think they will be removed. The rank-and-file support them. The elected leaders don’t.
Time to change the elected leaders.
El Som, I receive those weekly email updates from the House Democrats. I seem to recall from reading those that they are working on some pretty solid progressive initiatives- access to voting, juvenile justice reform, equal pay, family leave, expanding the EITC, access to affordable college, and affordable childcare to name a few. Sure they have passed bills that I don’t agree with, but I expect that to happen in a representative democracy.
I recently attended a budget reset meeting and suggested that the Governor support an increase for the alcohol tax which hasn’t been increased in 30 years or more – in fact, it was actually decreased 20 years ago and hasn’t been touched since. The legislators at that meeting weren’t sure if they could get that tax passed in the House since the last bill to increase the alcohol tax in 2009 was defeated because one Democrat wouldn’t support it. I asked if that Democrat was still in office, as I assumed it was Atkins they were referring to. Imagine my shock when I learned after that meeting that Rep. Kowalko was the holdout back in 2009. I’m sure he had his reasons, but it was surprising and disappointing that this tax isn’t on the table because Kowalko won’t support it.
I do find it interesting that you excoriate some of these reps for how they vote or for what they support, but you don’t call out others for whatever reason. For example, Townsend’s work on that coastal zone act legislation is making a lot of progressives really upset. However, it doesnt appear to have changed your opinion of his status as the most progressive member in the Senate.
Hate to say it, but Democrats are their own worst enemy, threatening primaries and publicly shaming their people more than the Republicans that staunchly oppose all progressive policies. That can’t be good for democrats growing their bench, in my humble opinion.
Steve, you’re holding yourself to a different standard than you’re holding El Som. YOU expect legislators to pass bills that you don’t necessarily agree with, but when El Som holds certain legislators up as being “the most progressive” you see fit to excoriate him because those legislators, at some point in their careers, supported less-than-progressive legislation?
I’ve made clear that I have reservations about the Coastal Zone Act legislation, and it will be up to Bryan Townsend to make his case for it. I’ve also expressed frustration with John Kowalko many times over. Anyone who reads this blog knows it.
I, too, get those legislative updates from the House. They basically are about the ‘no-brainers’. Written by staffers to put the ‘Honorables’ in the best possible light. However, while it may be great that they support equal pay for equal work, for example, they don’t support a reasonable minimum wage increase of any kind. In fact, Pete, along with henchpersons Bryon Short, Andria Bennett, and Quin Johnson, bury it in committee year after year.
Instead of forcing R’s to vote against tax hikes for Delaware’s wealthiest and getting their votes on the record, they pass legislation eliminating the Estate Tax, which only impacts a select few billionaires.
If you’ve bothered to read my legislative reports over the last, oh, Jee-zus, 9 years now (??!!), you’d be well aware of just how lame this current group is.
As to the alcohol tax, I have a suggestion (and, yes, I have a dawg in this hunt). Why not allow supermarkets to sell beer and wine? Charge a ton for the licensing fees, require that all employees have the necessary ABCC training, and maybe even limit the amount that can be sold to any customer. PA has liberalized its laws, so it’s not merely a question of whether mom-and-pop stores would be hurt. It’s now a question of customers going across state lines into PA to avail themselves of the one-stop shopping convenience that Delaware does not offer them.
Anyway, I’m enjoying the dialogue. Keep it up, pipples.
Huh? I’m not excoriating anyone. The point I attempted to make was that all elected officials do things we disagree with from time to time. I don’t think that means you immediately threaten to primary them or you attack them for the same thing over and over again.
I also think there’s a tendency to vilify a handful of legislators all the time, while absolving or ignoring when others, namely ones we personally like, do similarly questionable things.
If the goal is to keep Democrats in office and get new ones elected I don’t think constantly going after our own is helpful for that cause. Just my opinion, I wasn’t attacking El Som whatsoever.
I’m going to take a wild stab and say that most of the people on El Som’s list of primary targets have been in the legislature for years, and have been tolerated because there were enough actual liberals there to counterbalance them. That’s not the case anymore, as El Som pointed out.
Also, Schwartzkopf has always been an autocratic dick. This blog supported his primary opponent last year, if you recall. Nothing new there, and there’s plenty of damn good reasons to vilify him. In fact, I could easily picture him as a Marvel comic book villain, without changing a single thing about him.
Finally, the goal is not to “keep Democrats in office.” It’s to get GOOD Democrats in office. Ones who will actually work for the good of Delawareans, rather than the good of the CoC. (I love writing that; love pronouncing it even more.)
BTW, how are the House Democrats going to pass legislation on “affordable college” and “affordable childcare” (whatever they mean by those) after they vote to cut $200M from the state budget?
Steve: The legislators that I intend to focus on are those who routinely support policies that most liberals or progressives find distasteful. In many cases, they oppose and vote against planks in the Party platform time and time again.
I also intend to primarily (I LIKE that word) shine the light on D’s in strong D districts for the most part. For example, I think Lumpy Carson is a horrible legislator. But I don’t see his district as being hospitable to a progressive challenger, so I don’t plan to include him in my profiles on those who should be challenged , as his seat could be flipped otherwise.
Again, if you’re new here, I encourage you to go back and read some of my legislative reports from previous years. I think you’ll see that I’ve been pretty consistent in looking at each piece of legislation in and of itself. Although, over time, the weight of facts pretty much separates the wheat from the chaff in Dover.
Is there anyone in particular who you think I’ve treated unfairly?
Aurochs: In answer to your ‘affordable college’ question, I’ll betcha they’re referring to the unholy scheme to allow the Board of Trustees at Del-Tech to raise your property taxes w/o referendum. Never mind that Del-Tech tuition is far below the average of similar institutions, and never mind that its ‘administrators’ receive extremely bloated compensation, far above compensation at similar institutions. That’s right. A tax hike masquerading in plain sight.
I just find these arbitrary litmus tests to be really annoying. For El Som, his test seems to include repealing the death penalty and increasing minimum wage. For my wife, it’s a woman’s right to choose and gun reform. I understand why people are like this, I just don’t think it’s helpful for getting good Democrats elected and reelected. I’d rather be able to work with the Democrat and try to find common ground, than electing the Republican who doesn’t agree with any of my positions and won’t even attempt to find common ground on the policies most important to me.
For me, if you don’t check every box but you check most, then I’d much rather have you in office than risk a Republican getting the seat after a nasty, unnecessary primary.
Steve, you’re not answering my question. It’s not pick-and-choose. The term ‘good Democrats’ needs defining on your part. IMHO, the ‘best’ Democrats support progressive policies across the board. Plus, they legislate rather than merely casting votes. Plus, no one, certainly not me, is suggesting that we replace D’s with less progressive D’s. We need socially liberal D’s. But that should not give any legislator a free pass to turn their backs on workers and those who are at risk of falling through the cracks.
You may just want to wait until I start writing the profiles. And, as I pointed out, I’m mostly looking at districts that generally are not at risk of being flipped.
Speaking of gutless D’s:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/30/committee-starts-slashing/355522001/
A good Democrat is someone who is supportive of the majority of the policies liberals and progressives support. For example, I can get past a lack of support on a minimum wage bill if they support expanding the EITC refundability. I can agree to disagree about DP repeal if they support criminal justice reform and juvenile justice reform efforts. If they were pro-life, I’d be able to get past that if they supported increasing access to birth control and comprehensive sex education in public schools. For me, we aren’t doing ourselves any favors by defining “good Democrats” by a handful of issues exclusively and don’t consider their positions on a variety of progressive policies collectively.
Uhh, a lot of that post doesn’t make much sense. It betrays a remarkable lack of policy insight.
First, there’s the false equivalency between EITC expansion and minimum wage increases. EITC is a hack to get around Republican (and often Democratic) intransigence on the minimum wage. I regard it as a case of government stepping in and directly doing what employers SHOULD be doing, rather than making employers do what they should be doing. It’s like if OSHA put an agent in every workplace to run safety training and enforce employee compliance. That’s not how it should work.
Criminal justice reform is certainly needed; abolishing the death penalty is one of those reforms. Ultimately no reform effort will ensure that people aren’t wrongly sent to the death chamber EXCEPT abolishing the death penalty. If you do not support abolishing the death penalty, you have zero credibility on criminal justice reform, because you either don’t understand even the most basic issues, or you’re willing to cede ground on the most important things.
All three of the pro-life Democrats I can think of support expanding BC access and ensuring effective sex education. These are the first lines of defense against unwanted pregnancy. Similarly, there isn’t a single pro-choice politician I can think of who opposes expanded BC access and effective sex ed. Even pro-choice people like to see abortion rates going down. But they want it there as a fallback.
You have, effectively, chosen to break apart policy packages where it makes no sense whatsoever to do so, and said that running on, or governing from, platforms that include such nonsensical policy planks makes one a good Democrat. Yes, the people you describe are preferable to people who oppose womens’ health initiatives wholesale or hold “law and order” positions or take in the whole CoC (platform). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to do better.
It appears that you’re afraid of Republicans capturing Democratic seats because Democrats went too far to the left. I remind you that that kind of thinking is what got us into this Third Way quagmire in the first place.
“If you do not support abolishing the death penalty, you have zero credibility on criminal justice reform, because you either don’t understand even the most basic issues, or you’re willing to cede ground on the most important things.”
False, actually. It’s possible to support a death penalty that is used far more sparingly. I will never support full repeal until someone explains what the punishment should be for a prisoner serving a life sentence who murders a fellow inmate. Or is it a BOGO free situation?
An interesting question, Alby. I do not think the proper answer is to kill that prisoner, and I’d like to see how frequently that actually happens so that I know I’m not dealing with a thought experiment. I’d also like to propose my own thought experiment: what would happen to a death row inmate who murders another inmate?
Can’t happen in Delaware. They’re all kept in solitary, which arguably is crueler than execution.
The real reason for the question isn’t to find an answer, but to point out that absolutism produces quandaries.
Aurochs, thanks for sharing your opinion -which despite what you might believe, those are your opinions and not matters of fact- but you’re welcome to go fuck yourself.
@Steve: Matters of opinion, eh? Right back atcha, sport.
Steve: Wow, rude.
Alby: While you are correct, absolutism does produce quandaries, that isn’t always a condemnation of absolutism. This is a case of there being quandaries either way, even in the narrow confines of your thought experiment, so let’s pick the one that comports with our values better.
The US (currently) has the most absolutist definition of free speech in the world. That also produces quandaries, but we run with it anyway.
Please note that the EITC expansion bill (Rep. Baumbach) creates a refundable Delaware EITC to some working families who never received it previously. Please also note that this state EITC expansion had a fiscal note of over two and a half million and to avoid the appropriations committee Rep. Baumbach is funding that lower bracket expansion by dramatically cutting state EITC refundable tax credits from families (with children) earning a mere $40,000 per year. These working families are barely above the federal poverty level and in some cases below it who have averaged a state tax credit of approximately 20% of their federal credit. The current legislation being offered (that I strenuously opposed on the floor and in caucus) would permanently reduce that 20% from those lower income families to 6%. Once again we are shifting burdens from the poor working families to benefit the poorer working families while failing to pay for these items with any corporate or wealthier taxpayer assistance.
Representative John Kowalko
Speaking of EITC, I’d expect a minimum wage increase to significantly reduce EITC expenditures. Does anybody have numbers on that?
Aurochs, actually the best policy is to do both – implement /expand the EITC state refund, while increasing the minimum wage at the same time. Seems that Baumbach realized another minimum wage increase was not likely this session, and instead decided to propose making the EITC refundable for the poorest families in the state. Not perfect, but it’s a start. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-earned-income-tax-credits-and-minimum-wages-work-best-together
Minimum wage legislation passed the Senate last session and then got buried in the House. The House has a 25-16 D edge. Just one more reason why we need more D’s from the D wing of the Party in that House caucus.
Steve
The money for it comes from the pockets of the poorest, lower middle class families that are barely if at all above the federal poverty level themselves. They will lose SUBSTANTIAL amounts of money and they cannot AFFORD it. That is nothing less than substantially IMPERFECT and a START toward having those families join the most destitute. Let me explain as clearly as I can. These FULL-TIME, HARD-WORKING FAMILIES do not have money in their pockets now and this legislation will take more from them while allowing the richest corporations and the wealthiest families to keep every damned red cent that they can get their hands on. It’s important that you understand the realities and ramifications of these bills before you anoint them as benefits to the salvation of the poor.
Representative John Kowalko
I saw that CBPP thinkpiece a few weeks ago, noted that it was remarkably thin on specifics, and moved on.
Re-reading it now, two things jumped out at me. First, the author doesn’t advocate a specific minimum wage but in at least two places mentions $12. Second, it talks about “spreading the burden” between public and private sectors. No word on why that’s desirable.
Given the tortured arguments elsewhere in the piece, it’s pretty clear to me that this is an attempt at triangulation. The EITC is often proposed by business-friendly groups as an alternative to minimum wage increases; CBPP is trying to square the circle with Fight for $15. They’re not very convincing.
JK – That could be part of one helluva stump speech. At least it seems that way to me. But what the fuck do I know. I understand the difference between democratic socialism and Communism. My head’s too clear.
@aurochs: Our free speech rights aren’t absolute. Courts have imposed limits. The example supports my position, not yours, but all that is beside the real point.
We will always have these arguments, basically between the “do what can we get done” vs. the “aim as high as possible” factions. I think both realize that compromises are necessary; the argument is about negotiating tactics. What happens is that those on the “aim high” side start to worry that the “aim realistically” side isn’t really in favor of the high aims, and the realistic side starts to worry that nothing will satisfy the more radical side.
It’s mostly about trust, a commodity in short supply these days.
Always aim high, upper torso or face is ideal.
Alby: I didn’t say they’re absolute. I said they’re the most absolute in the world. The superlative counts.
And you can’t say that there aren’t problems inherent in allowing neonazi marches, for instance. But we do allow them when most other democracies don’t. Et cetera.
There is no policy choice we can make that would be free of moral quandaries of some kind. The question is always which set of quandaries is better.
@aurochs: If they’re not entirely absolute, it’s an inaccurate analogy.
Besides, the more important absolutism here is your statement that prompted my first comment. The fact that we have had a discussion about whether the death penalty should exist ought to demonstrate that your statement about criminal justice reform — that a person who doesn’t agree with your proposed ban cannot have a credible voice on the issue — is hyperbolic. In its own way, it’s the opposite point of that held by the state, which forbids anyone who believes as you do from serving on a capital punishment jury.
It’s possible to be in favor of a death penalty that could only be invoked much more rarely than today’s. I am in favor of revoking ours entirely only because I think it has been shown that society’s use of it cannot be constrained otherwise; that is, even if we initially limited it to only a handful of cases, calls to expand it would never cease.
Consider the history of the death penalty in Delaware since its reinstitution. Public outrage about life sentences for a double murder in an armored car heist took the decision out of the jury’s hands and gave it to judges, only to see SCOTUS give it back to juries. Every change has made it easier, not harder, to achieve execution.
So while I believe one thing in theory, I believe something else in practice.
”
I am in favor of revoking ours entirely only because I think it has been shown that society’s use of it cannot be constrained otherwise; that is, even if we initially limited it to only a handful of cases, calls to expand it would never cease.
”
That’s really the powerful argument in favor of my absolutist position on the subject, isn’t it? That if you give even an inch on this issue, eventually you’ll have lost a mile?
I am not interested in theoretical, perfect-world situations. Nor am I interested in spending a lot of time on thought experiments. I’m interested in what is actually likely to happen. You just said what’s likely to happen, indeed what HAS happened, and the only way to prevent that is, as you said, to impose the absolutist position (complete abolition of the death penalty).
I won’t get into a deep exposition of what I think criminal justice reform should be. I will say that I think the mere existence of a death penalty is a gross perversion of justice. The death penalty is not about justice, it’s about retribution. And since no person, judge, jury, or witness, is going to be able to shake that retributive instinct, it should simply not be an option for them to avail themselves of it. A good portion of (my idea of, and I hope most peoples’ ideas of) criminal justice reform is designing systems that limit peoples’ ability to indulge themselves in revenge fantasies. Hence, death penalty abolition being a key part of any criminal justice reform effort.
Now, all that said, I do understand that there’s nothing that isn’t a negotiation in politics. You can’t get any further away from pro-death penalty than this, and since it’s what you want anyway, it should be the starting position in any negotiation. What Steve said is that he’s willing to accept someone whose PLATFORM includes criminal justice reform but not death penalty abolition; who has specifically voted against abolition of the death penalty or for its reinstatement absent any other simultaneous CJR efforts. I think we both agree on what the problem with being totally okay with someone like that holding a General Assembly seat is.
@aurochs: If we’re in real-world territory, such a position could be taken to avoid antagonizing the state police, who think they are more likely to be shot at if no death penalty exists.
That’s not to say they’re right, but if you’re really trying to turn Delaware progressive, you have to avoid confrontation with the state police until they’re standing alone — that is, confront every other institution first.
It’s not right, but it’s the way it is. The state police cannot be controlled by any outside agency as long as the law states that only personnel who have already achieved the rank of major can ascend to the position of chief, which our military-obsessed “public safety” people insist on calling a “colonel.”
And please don’t anyone trundle in their cart full of “answers to the head of public safety” manure. Until the state police union is put in its rightful place, the state of Delaware is in effect run exactly as the state police want it to be.
Who’s running the state now? Pete Schwartzkopf. Yet another former state cop.
Also, re the death penalty: My position was derived so that if tossed into a capital jury pool, I can honestly answer that I am not opposed to the death penalty. Unlikely but possible real-world situation.
Of course. I have no illusions of achieving much on the death penalty until the cops are made to remember the “serve” part of “protect and serve,” and the ex-cops are removed from the GA. That includes my own Representative.
(I unfortunately only moved to this district recently, and don’t know a whole lot about Mitchell other than he ran unopposed in, IIRC, both the primary and the general last year, has put his name on HB 109, and voted against estate tax repeal and for the death penalty. If El Som has something about him coming up, I eagerly await the story.)
I don’t think Mitchell has had a challenger, or had to actually campaign since I’ve been in his district in 9 years. He has good constituent services and shows up to civic meetings, but that’s about all. He’s not really a progressive champ by any stretch. Oddly enough, the 13th RD was the only one in the state to go with Sanders in the dem presidential primary so the area is.
I’m not saying there definitely will be, but there’s a chance that Mitchell will have a primary challenger next year.
Odd ducks, those Dems operating in the 36th District. First, they fail to run even a corpse against Harvey Kenton in 2016. Had they done so, two predictions: first, it would have beaten a living corpse, the current rep from the 36th district; second, that corpse would be on the JFC now raising taxes on the uber rich in Delaware. These Dems seem to suffer from, well, everything. Will they ever sort things out? What can we hope for from them in 2018? Anything at all?