Tweet Saves Victims Compensation Bill
I gave him some shit at the time, but Mathews deserves credit for the tweet that saved Kowalko’s VCCB reform bill.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
I gave him some shit at the time, but Mathews deserves credit for the tweet that saved Kowalko’s VCCB reform bill.
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Yeah, I think that that tweet dragged some BS internecine fighting into the light and forced someones hand.
To clear things up a bit…it was a Sunset Committee bill. JK was simply the person named as the lead sponsor.
Thank you.
PI-It was a bit more complicated than that. It was originally introduced as a Senate Bill by Dave Sokola. Uncle Thurm stuffed it in his desk drawer. Or, to be specific, the Senate Executive Committee.
Kowalko agreed to introduce and run it as a House bill. He DID play a key role in this and he pissed some people off even with this bill.
Not to mention going AWOL on the alcohol tax hikes. That REALLY pissed some people off, including El Somnambulo.
I get the sense that the Governor’s people were throwing the kitchen sink at Kowalko (this stuff, school construction, union lackey, etc, etc)
I don’t get that strategy, but everyone says that my doe eyed guilelessness is one of my most endearing qualities.
that and you look like Alec Baldwin
Oh, and it also helped the sun come up this morning and caused a small earthquake.
A1,
It would kill you to give Mike props?
When he tells us who his “anonymous sources” were that lied to us through him, I’ll give him lots of props.
I have little regard for politicians, journalists, and bloggers who carry the water for anonymous rumor mongers and liars. If you’re gonna be an anonymous source than you’d better be telling the truth. Otherwise, you deserve to get burned.
The fact is that the Governor’s office denied on-the-record the substance of Mike’s tweet and the VCCB bill was on the agenda.
I am surprised that you think slandering Markell with anonymous unsubstantiated rumors, likely coming from his political enemies, is okay.
I think MM’s tweet definitely got someone’s attention, so he deserves the credit for it. I have no doubt there was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes and I think that short sentence exposed some of it.
This bill was a result of many people working together in a bi-partisan manner for consensus on a complicated issue, Sokola, Bushweiler, Bennett,
Lee, Atkins. Thornburgh, Katz, Bonnini, Connor and especially, exec. sec. Debbie Puzzo. Key was the raft of individuals representing victims and victims themselves too numerous to list and Attorney General Gebelein and quite a few from his office and DOJ and State police Supt. MacCleish, new Supt Papilli among others. I was not chosen as lead sponsor. I chose to sponsor and introduce the bill from the House in response to the fact that it was being delayed in Senate Committee. This was a deliberate tactic I learned from my good friend Sen. Sokola with SB 121 reactivating HB 5. This was a long arduous journey that resulted in a total benefit for innocent crime victims despite political pressures that should have never been brought to bear in using it as a bargaining chip or for political agendas. I am happy to say that this legislation was the crowning achievement for me this session. I am as satisfied and proud as I was with the Wind-Project last year and more content that this legislation significantly helps a particularly vulnerable population of Delawareans..
John Kowalko
You’re my hero, JK!
A1 – aren’t you an “anonymous source”? Mike’s tweet was as close to verified as you are going to get. Just because the Governor and his staff deny it, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Why is it that you are willing to take the word of the Governor’s staff, but dismiss out of hand the multiple sources Mike, UI and I heard.
John – thanks for your work on this one.
Man-crush.
LG,
No, I am not “an anonymous source” for any sort of inside information nor am I in any position to provide that.
Mike’s Tweet said that the VCCB reform bill was off the agenda. It wasn’t. He said that “I’m told the governor’s office is doing this in retaliation.” By whom and why? Don’t you think the motive of whoever told Mike this is important? Couldn’t he/you at least identify the positions and/or party of the people telling you these things, i.e. “senior staff of a high ranking Democratic Senator.”
I have no clue as to what “as close to verified as you are going to get” means since it was apparently incorrect.
You ask:
“Why is it that you are willing to take the word of the Governor’s staff, but dismiss out of hand the multiple sources Mike, UI and I heard.”
Because the Governor’s staff went on-the-record whereas you-all provided no insight into the sources or motivations of your sources in spreading this story(?) rumor(?) fabrication(?). Furthermore, the bill was on the agenda.
Look, I enjoyed reading the blogs and Mike’s tweets last night. It was both informative and entertaining. All I am suggesting is that bloggers hold themselves to at least the same level of transparency and standards that they demand of politicians and traditional journalists.
If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but don’t expect not to have some skeptical criticism written about it.
I don’t even know why I try, but here goes:
“Mike’s Tweet said that the VCCB reform bill was off the agenda.”
At the time of my reporting is WAS off the agenda.
“He said that “I’m told the governor’s office is doing this in retaliation.” By whom and why?”
By my three INDEPENDENT sources. No, you’re still not getting their names. I’m not betraying that trust.
“Couldn’t he/you at least identify the positions and/or party of the people telling you these things, i.e. “senior staff of a high ranking Democratic Senator.””
Yes, I could have, but I’d like to think that I’ve got a history of providing valuable, anonymously-sourced information for some big local stories over the past five years.
“Furthermore, the bill was on the agenda.”
Added back onto the agenda AFTER the outcry was made by several legislators and AFTER my Tweet.
I’m totally fine with skeptical criticism, A1. I just feel yours is a little tainted because you’ve still got some absurd hard-on for me because of our back-and-forth cattiness over the past eight months.
You know I love ya, though!
MM–thanks for the tweets from Dover. I really appreciate them (and those from UI and LG).
Hey Mike,
From DD’s post last night:
“Two ways to read this little boomlet: 1) Rumors were true, and publication of them forced Governor’s office and the Senate leadership to backtrack, or 2) Rumors were not true to begin with.”
So we don’t know if it was “1” or “2”, correct? Some insight into the positions and/or identities of your sources might help, but you aren’t willing to provide that. Since the GO has gone on the record denying it, it would seem that there is no reason to believe the rumor was true to begin with. It comes down to your sources, whom we know absolutely nothing about, versus the GO.
Your live-blogging and tweeting is fun, Mike. Just consider that you might be being pwned by people whose interests are not in helping you or your credibility. And don’t be surprised when people question your sources if you’re not going to provide any insight at all into which dog they have in the fight.
And you know that I missed you, bro!
I hope that Mike Matthews knows the difference between rumors and speculation in Legislative Hall. If I had a nickel for every time someone in Legislative Hall made a speculative assertion passed off as known fact, I’d be a rich person. As for what was “on the agenda” or “off the agenda” the Senate was working off of Must Lists 1 – 7 last night. There was no official agenda, adding bills to the Must Lists every hour. So what was “on the agenda” or “off the agenda” really is here nor there.
A1,
Everyone has an agenda. That is a given.
anonymous,
Placed in the context – the tip was believable.