Constipation.
I know Jason already partially discussed wRong Williams’s column on Wednesday, but Jason missed the real lead in that column. No, it is not about Carney running for “federal office” in 2010, and no it is not about wRong Williams’ “unseemly sucking of Tom Gordon’s ***k.”
No, the real story is that we bloggers are getting under his skin:
The roving bands of Tom Gordon bashers have once again resurfaced, as uninformed and bigoted as ever.
The occasion that spurred the ignoramuses was the announcement by Insurance Commissioner-elect Karen Weldin Stewart that Gordon is on three of her transition team committees, including one that will review and make recommendations about the department’s fraud unit.
…
The intellectually constipated bloggers were beside themselves because Gordon was “getting a high paying job in the fraud unit of the Insurance Department,” even though the transition team — as is the case with virtually every transition team — is an honorary, bipartisan, unpaid position.
…But try telling that American judicial logic to nitwits.
Hehehehe. We are a roving band of Tom-Gordon bashing ignorant intellectually constipated nitwits. I’ll admit that I was contipated on Thursday and Friday, no doubt a side affect of traveling and not eating right. But I digress. When they go out of their way to insult you four times in four paragraphs, you know you are doing something right.
Hey wRong, I am glad you survived the round of layoffs at the News Journal for purely selfish reasons. It gives me something to write about. But I wonder if it makes much business sense. I mean, when your paper is dying, doesn’t it make sense to remove the diseased tumor rather than Sports department?
Mr. Williams, I will admit that Tom Gordon was not convicted of the racketeering and public malfeasance charges. But there is a difference between being acquitted and being innocent. Mr. Gordon may not have criminally guilty, but he is ethically challenged. He carries with him a cloud of suspicion and a unhealthy pride in the old Delaware Way of doing business. The reason we are upset, or “intellectually constipated,” is because his presence on KWS’ transition team means she is not at all interested in changing the old Delaware Way, or is in someway indebted to him. It means she considers Gordon to be a close advisor. And it might mean that she wants Gordon to serve in her Insurance Department. Care to place a bet on that wRong, that Tom Gordon will serve in the Insurance Department in an official, paid and partisan capacity?
Tags: Delaware
Mr. DelDem,
We haven’t actually had you chime in on the KWS drama, have we? I remember you enthusiastically claiming support for KWS simply because she’s a Dem. Wondering how you’re feeling about that now?
http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,1752,152180-242206,00.html
Oh Mike Matthews–how you continue to make me proud. When can I claim you as one of my own?
Oh and as far as the constipation DD and DL contributors–maybe it’s time to let it rip now! Nothing like a good evacuation.
I think someone has a crush on us.
“I remember you enthusiastically claiming support for KWS simply because she’s a Dem. Wondering how you’re feeling about that now?”
I remember that too. What gives DelDem?
Maybe he was visited by the 3 ghosts in “A Christmas Carol”.
John Brady is a Republican and that fact automatically disqualifies him from being an advocate for the people. If he wanted to advocate against the big Insurance Companies, fight for their regulation and enforce regulations already on the books, he would be a Democrat, not a Republican.
His remaining a Republican, especially in this current environment, made me doubt his sincerity and his intentions. Thus, I defaulted to KWS. Lesser of two evils.
And Dana, Joanne and Mike, is it your opinion that the fact I supported KWS disqualifies me from criticizing her? That is intellectually constipated.
Del Dem doubles down on the dumb.
And spoken like a great attorney.
DelDumb, indeed. What a vapid explanation, totally devoid of substance.
Re: #9,
No, not at all. Criticize away. I’ll just have you know John Brady is none of the derogatives you offered in your pathetic explanation in #8. If you actually spoke to people who know him in Sussex County, you’d realize that, party label aside, he’s actually a great guy who pledged NUMEROUS times on the campaign trail that he would have the Ins. Comm. office run the same way Denn did. You didn’t hear that from KWS.
Your continued anti-Republican rationalizations are bordering on pathological.
Mike, is there something in the water over at DTR?
Matthews….
Call up John Brady and ask him why he is not a Democrat, or rather, why he is a Republican? I really would like to know the answer to that question. You can insult me all you want, but the reality is the current generation of Reagan-Gingrich-Bush style Republicans will have to die off before I trust any Republican again. You call that pathological, I call it reasonable. Indeed, you agreed with that rationale, for punishing the Republican Party for the sins of Bush was one of your reasons for supporting Obama.
Are you vapid, devoid of substance and pathological, Matthews? Or were you just lying to me?
“You call that pathological, I call it reasonable. ”
Reasonable?! REASONABLE?! You just voted for an insurance commissioner who can’t do second-grade math on the fly!
Honestly, I was never quite sure what Brady was running on… other than he’s a Big Guy.
DelDem,
I do know why John Brady is a Republican. Do you? I’m not at liberty to share, so perhaps you should find the cojones and ask him yourself. I’m sure he’d tell you. However, you may be sidestepped various times as Brady discusses what he WOULD have done with the Insurance Commissioner’s office. Y’see, Brady is a guy who knows his stuff, unlike KWS. Dana Garrett and I spent some time with him on the final night of the session on June 30 and he was literally EXCITED discussing some of the things he’d like to see with the office. For instance, contrary to your claim that because he’s a Republican, he’s not “an advocate for the people,” he stated how he wanted to make the office even more consumer friendly and open up a branch of the Ins. Commish’s office in Sussex County, as there isn’t currently a branch there and Sussex folks have to drive (often) more than 45 minutes to Dover for service.
But you wouldn’t know that. Because you only vote for Dems. Even for offices that, theoretically, shouldn’t be divided by party classification.
Nemski,
WTF are you talking about? I’ve supported many PROGRESSIVE Republicans in the past. Ferris Wharton. John Brady. Both Republicans whose experience vastly outnumbered their opponents.
There’s nothing in the water at DTR. If only because I mainly drink bottled. You’re raging blindness makes both you and DelDem look like fools.
“And Dana, Joanne and Mike, is it your opinion that the fact I supported KWS disqualifies me from criticizing her? That is intellectually constipated.”
No one is qualified to call another intellectually constipated who makes this sweeping generalization:
“John Brady is a Republican and that fact automatically disqualifies him from being an advocate for the people. ”
You are a Demanazi.
Pregressive Republicans? OMFG, you are becoming delusional.
Nemski,
Step out of your teeny-tiny worldview for just a moment. I can name several progressive Republicans. But I’ll just name one: Lincoln Chaffee. Your ridiculous generalizations only make you appear dumber than I’m sure you really are.
Lincoln Chaffee may be a genuine moderate, but there is little that makes him progressive.
And Ferris Wharton is the one who doesn’t stop for accidents, right?
Cassandra,
And that has to do with his politics how…?
“Your ridiculous generalizations only make you appear dumber than I’m sure you really are.”
Dude, ridiculous generalizations are the fuel that drives Delaware Liberal. It’s their stock in trade.
Now that’s a generalization, too, that I don’t buy!
Hmmm. I don’t think that I said that a Hit and Run had anything to do with his politics. I just wanted to know if I was recalling the right guy.
I think it was more a statement disguised as a question, IMO.
Come on Mike, Lincoln Chaffee was not a Progressive Republican, he was simply a Moderate Republican and destroyed by the Radical Right.
The only “progressive” movement in the Republican Party is the movement to dismantle the New Deal. Moderate Republicans are becoming an extinct breed.
Brady never successfully made the case that he had repudiated Republican economic and regulatory dogma, and if so why was he a Republican.
So now you want to question my motives.
If you are here giving Delaware Dem shit for painting with too broad a brush, you will want to be sure that you are not guilty of the same.
Re: MM, Dana G., and Progressive Republicans:
If you are a progressive, Republicans stand for everything you hate.
The antidote for bad Democrats isn’t Republicans – it’s better Democrats.
Yes, ma’am!
I guess I’ve reached a point in my life where I’m willing to judge the person based on his or her platform of ideas as opposed to superficial party membership. That’s obviously something that won’t rub off on certain contributors here who, quite frankly, are comfortable with a woman like KWS running the Insurance Commissioner’s office, with a big assist from State Senator Harris McDowell.
Don’t worry. Four years ago I was part of that ABR (Anybody But Republicans) crowd. However, I reached a point of enlightenment in my life where I realized it’s better to actually meet some of these people. Particularly on the local level, party is of no difference with many candidates.
In fact, most Democrats in the state Senate are far worse than the Republicans because they continue to abuse their power from their ivory towers of incumbency. I’m sorry anon, nemski, DelDem and — to some extent — Cassandra can’t see that.
to some extent — Cassandra can’t see that.
Which, I will point out for those following along — Mike Matthews certainly doesn’t know. He has decided this based upon whatever — but he certainly has not engaged me in any discussion of this either on this thread or anyplace else for that matter. Apparently just asking a question and challenging the “progressive” credentials of a Republican is enough to cast me in to the same pool.
Sounds familiar to anyone?
Come to Mama!!!! My prodigal son…..
I take that back, Cassandra. I was “broad-brushing” it again. Who did you vote for for Insurance Commissioner? I understand asking someone who they voted for is tacky, but I’d like to think we’re all fairly open with our politics here, so it shouldn’t be too offensive a question.
Aren’t you all missing the issue here? Instead of fighting with each other over semantics, how about getting together to publicize beyond these blogs how KWS has deceived the public and exactly how incompent she is? And what that incompetence and her dishonesty and greed will do to the reputation of Democrats generally and the IC’s office particularly, despite the controls Matt Denn has put in place? How about trying to keep KWS from taking office and replacing her with someone capable who could be appointed by Markell once he’s in office, or elected in a special election? None of that is impossible. It doesn’t have to be John Brady.
How do politicians get removed from office in Delaware? I think KWS actually has to be shown to be incompetent in office before she can be removed. We can still hold out hope that she won’t be a disaster, though I’m not filled with optimism.
I thought, at one time, there was a question of KWS’s eligibility to be bonded, and that it was a requirement of the office.
As always, I could be wrong.
heh
I think felony conviction and something else is required to remove an elected official. The ‘something else’ might be one of the old offenses such as traiterous conduct with a Congressional guilty action.
“We can still hold out hope that she won’t be a disaster, though I’m not filled with optimism.”
If there’s anything Harris McDowell is known for beyond the general smell of bullshit that hangs in the air around him, it’s using his office to try to enrich himself. It’s no surprise his protege has no visible means of support.
The biggest pot of gold the Insurance Commissioner can get near is the capital Blue Cross/Blue Shield must keep in the bank. Donna Lee Williams was inserted into that office for precisely that reason, and came close a couple of times to tapping into it (I forget how many millions it is, but it was around $100 M, IIRC; the CEO’s share alone would have been about $15 M).
Matt Denn kept the sharks at bay, but I doubt KWS has either the talent or the desire to do the same. Which is why some of us shudder at the number of sharks she has surrounded herself with.
There are really only two possibilities: She’s so dumb she really thinks these are the best-qualified people, or she’s so clueless she doesn’t understand how morally compromised Gordon, Hansen, Kempski etc. are. Or both.
From the link Gabriel supplied in the last KWS thread:
“I’m used to having a brain trust…”
It would be nicer if she just had a brain.
I know it’s difficult to remove an elected official once he/she has been sworn into office. I’m not sure if it’s just as difficult to remove one who hasn’t been sworn in yet. I understand that the governor and/or legislature can intervene before the swearing-in if they’re so inclined.
KWS loves only two things in this world: first herself, and second money and the things it can buy. She knows very well what opportunities for self-enrichment exist in the IC’s office, and that’s precisely why she’s chased it for so many years. Being the moron she is, she unwisely admitted this in front of people some years ago. That’s exactly why she needs to be stopped.
Here are the most recent of the many posts that followed KWS ridiculous interview with Allan Loudell. They followed my post with the link I entered on this blog, and they’ll shed some further light on the issue.
Nancy Willing // Dec 7, 2008 at 7:15 am
Is this a situation where she feels there can only be one insurance commissioner at a time?
*
you people~!
heh, John knows better…
The Blue Cross’ loss of private information just happened. KUDOs for Denn to jump on the news with some of his own. But, KWS is still in TX.
She won’t be sworn in until January so no, she isn’t going be acting on this news nor should Denn sit through the month abandonning the office.
Thanks for the links though. So now all of her preparation is ‘just an insult to Denn”?
212 Gabriel // Dec 7, 2008 at 7:56 am
Give us a break, Nancy. Preparation? You know very well KWS doesn’t have the brains to put together a simple sentence without a prepared script or to read or write above the level of a first grader. If you dispute that or don’t believe it, have her sit down in front of witnesses and give her a blank sheet of paper and a crayon.
You are and always have been a shill for KWS so you can further your own interests. Same as McDowell who hand picked her for her stupidity and is already starting to use her push his own agenda. That’s clear from the info in the link.
213 Disbelief // Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 am
“All her preparation” Nancy?
By preparation do you mean ‘real’ college?
By preparation do you mean law school?
By preparation do you mean insurance regulation experience?
Kind of lost me on the KWS ‘preparation’ point…
214 Joanne Christian // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:04 am
Couple of points:
This did happen on Matt Denn’s watch.
The NJ had no problem tracking me at 3 different locations, for a small quote, insight on the LEAD report, which most people could care less about, the very next day after all the staff and reporters were let go.
Interpretation-If they wanted KWS, she would have been included, AND, she should be grateful, she dodged this bullet.
215 Jason // Dec 7, 2008 at 10:31 am
Bullet-dodging may be the reason why KWS went to Texas, if she isn’t just hiding out here in DE after Ron Williams at the NJ probably gave her a heads-up. He’s supported her all along. On the other hand, she may be in Texas to schmooze with her insurance lawyer campaign contributors (look it up in her disclosure statement) to get her personal debts taken care of before they become a public issue? And where did she get all the money for these constant out of state trips when she hasn’t worked to speak of in the past eight years? Too many questions and not enough answers. What a disaster this is for Delaware.
Well Geezer, now you bring up two points–brain and trust.
By the way, the only Progressive Republican alive today on this planet is Tyler Nixon.
“Progressive Republicans … Ferris Wharton.”
Two phrases that do not belong in the same sentence. Ferris is deeply conservative.
His curiously passive post-campaign career indicates that he likely didn’t have the energy to be much of an AG.
DD, next time we see each other, I’ll tell you why John Brady is a Republican. I’ll also tell you who is a douchebag. It is another Democrat (and he only guest posts here…)
A mystery.
I hate mysteries.
“Care to place a bet on that wRong, that Tom Gordon will serve in the Insurance Department in an official, paid and partisan capacity?”
Most of the jobs there are merit. So she’d have to fire someone for cause, or else make their life miserable until they quit, to make room for Gordon.
Gabriel – I’m confused. What would KWS have said about the Blue Cross issue?
… and what’s keeping her from issuing a statement of her own on the matter?
anon. Dont know where you are getting your info but Gordon is not seeking a job in the dept., this is all a bunch of gossip and rumor mongering.
Anon, I didn’t do a good job copying parts of the other blog on Del Lib. It was about the public hearing Denn is going to hold on December 30th regarding Blue Cross releasing the private information of 3500 of their policyholders. The question was why KSW wasn’t scheduled to be there, and what her take on it would be. Hence Nancy Willing’s statement re. you can only have one IC at a time. She added KWS is now or would then be in Texas. Joanne Christian said KWS dodged a bullet. That was followed by Jason’s comment that wRonG Williams probably gave her a heads-up, and bullet-dodging is one of the reasons why she’s in Texas.
The bottom line here is this: KWS now has zero assets, lots of debt, and no income. If she’s sworn in as IC and suddenly her lifestyle exceeds her income, you know someone had better check the accounts of the IC office, or alternatively the sources of her bank deposits. See also the second paragraph of my comment under post # 44. Nuff said.
“Dont know where you are getting your info but Gordon is not seeking a job in the dept., this is all a bunch of gossip and rumor mongering.”
What are you, his official mouthpiece?
“Mr. Williams, I will admit that Tom Gordon was not convicted of the racketeering and public malfeasance charges. But there is a difference between being acquitted and being innocent. Mr. Gordon may not have criminally guilty, but he is ethically challenged. He carries with him a cloud of suspicion and a unhealthy pride in the old Delaware Way of doing business. ”
What is amazing is that this website calls itself Delaware Liberal. And yet where Tom Gordon is concerned views as narrow minded, and hate filled as those on the far right are often espoused. The author of constipation apparently has no problem with rejection the presumption of innocence. It is true that the presumption is a legal concept, and the general public can presume everyone charged is guilty, and as long as they aren’t on a criminal jury it is there right. However, true liberal thought embraces the idea that the government has the duty to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn’t embraced only when the Defendant is someone you agree with. To ignore, or reject fundamental precepts of Liberalism, because you don’t like the person involved, or because it suits your own person self interests devalues the precept, and exposes the hypocrisy of the self-professed liberal.
The rejection of the fundamental precept of innocence would be extraordinary under usual circumstances, but these are not usual circumstances. Most whites believe that OJ was guilty of a double homicide. I share that belief, but at least in that instance the government presented evidence. (And in a civil trial where the burden of proof was lower and the quality of the Goldman attorneys was superior to the Prosecuting attorneys, OJ was found to have committed the murders)
In the prosecution of Gordon there are serious questions regarding the motivation of the prosecution. I doubt Constipation has spent any time reading the Court filings, (both the courts orders and documents filed by both sides); I’m sure he has no clue regarding what was the basis of the charges. However, I’d be shocked if constipated wasn’t aware of the scandal involving political prosecutions nationwide of non-statewide, and non-federally elected Democratic politicians. This fact alone would cast a cloud over Connolly’s charges against Gordon, and any one who was really liberal, and gave 2 cents about our justice system would care about whether a case was brought for political motives, even if you hated the Defendant. The belief in Justice isn’t a concept that can be discarded, if one is truly liberal.
Gordon was charged with multiple felonies. However people know that one charge of mail fraud involved the single instance of a county employee mailing an invitation to a political fund raising event from NCCo offices. The US Attorney didn’t claim the state, or stationary was purchased with government money, but merely an employee addressed an invitation while at work and placed it with out going mail. If the county employee had taken the envelope and put it in a post box on her lunch break there would be no basis for the federal charge. This isn’t a joke. One of the actual felony charges surrounded a single act of a NCC employee mailing an invitation from NCCo offices. When it came time to put forth his proof, the never media shy Colm Connolly dropped every single charge he brought against Gordon, every one! This happened after the US Attorneys scandal broke. If Colm Connolly had had evidence to convict Gordon of one count he would have gone to trial. However, unlike Mary Beth Buchanan, he did not want his vendetta/political prosecution exposed. Had Connolly gone forward with his case against Gordon, and the public learned the actual facts, not the salacious claims in his press release, but the facts behind the charges, all the good will and fame the Compano conviction brought him would have been destroyed.
One would think that despite anyone’s view of Tom Gordon, they would at least attempt to judge the prosecution fairly. Whether Tom Gordon’s a good guy, or a jerk isn’t important to me, what I’m outraged by is US Attorney’s who are abuse their office by engaging in political prosecutions. If Tom Gordon’s case where happening in a vacuum I could understand the tendency to figure that he must have done something wrong, or got away with something. We want to believe that our Justice Dept wouldn’t bring merit less charges against people. But this is the Bush/Rove justice department, and to ignore the injustice, or to lack the desire to investigate and expose a political prosecution, because you don’t like the victim is wrong.
Cyril Wecht was charged with 84 felony counts. Like with Gordon, most of the actual conduct behind supporting each charge against Wecht was conduct that no reasonable prosecutor would consider a crime, or charge someone with. However under the Bush Justice Dept’s abuse of the “Honor Services” law charges were brought a federal law. Honor Services” violations was meant to allow federal prosecutor to charge local elected officials or government employees with a crime when their conduct violates the trust of the people. Prior to Bush, this law was used to try Governors (etc) in federal court for bribery, extortion, pay for play scandals etc. With out the Honor Services” act state officials could commit these crimes against the citizens, and their friends (the prosecutors) would never bring charges. However there is a difference between charging a defendant who is participating in Play for pay, which hurts the citizens because the best contractor doesn’t build the school (etc), but the one who paid the politician the most, and charging someone with wire fraud, because he sent a fax on personal business (at the cost of 27 cents) from county offices. Wecht was charged with 84 felonies; prior to the first trial the US Attorney dropped 43 felony counts. Remarkably they actually wanted to be able to reserve the right to bring those charges against Wecht later, but the Court ruled if they dropped the charges they couldn’t recharge him later. 23 of the 41 cases the Pittsburgh US Attorney took trial involved send a fax out from work. It would be bad enough if one felony involved 23 faxes sent while at work over 3 years, but for each fax to represent a separate felony was beyond abuse of the justice system. Jury selection began in January 08, after months of trial the court declared a hung jury in April 2008. Despite the politically motivated case against Wecht being exposed, the failure to obtain a single conviction on one of the 41 counts the US Attorney (Mary Beth Buchanan, the same Bush appointee who has said she won’t resign after Obama is sworn in) is going to retry Wecht. The Us Attorney has now dismissed an additional 27 charges, and intends to retry Wecht on 14 felony charges. The prosecution has moved for change of venue, because the federal government can’t get a “fair trial”, it is unheard of for the government to move for change of venue, And why can’t the fed’s get a “fair trial”, because the fed’s case against Wecht has been exposed in the first trial for what it is a political witch hunt.
The Gordon case was also a political witch hunt, and for people who call themselves “liberal” to think for more than a nano second that it is ok for our government to ever bring serious criminal charges against someone, to destroy someone’s life, when the case lacks merit, and the fed’s would never bring the case against a member of the current administrations party, and no one has ever been charged and convicted for the same activity (i.e. mailing an envelope from work!) before, is ok, merely because the object of the malicious political prosecution is someone you despise is pathetic.
Please.
Ronnie, or wRonG, or whatever name you go by, Mr. Williams, my first comment in response to your ramblings is a quote from the Bard: “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” Way too much, as a matter of fact. Second, Tom Gordon’s benefactor, the totally incompetent, uneducated and dishonest moron Karen Weldin Stewart, probably only hired him so he could show her how to best abuse a public office and mostly get away with it like he did. Why else would she have sought his wise counsel when she finally got elected after grossly deceiving the public and chasing the IC’s office for ten years because she’s unemployable in the private sector?
Oh the same day that holier than thou “liberals” call me a partisan hack with tenuous principles, I am now criticized for daring to assume anything but the innocence and good ethical background of Tom Gordon by a “liberal.”
For once, Burris is right….
Please.
Beyond the charges, the fact that Gordon mismanaged his office and his relationship with Sherry Freeberry is — really — enough to make a decision that this is not Leadership We Can Believe In. Once you lose the public trust, it really should be incredibly hard to get it back — and Gordon has way more work to do than claiming to be a victim of a corrupt prosecutor. And in this instance, it is the public who has been made the victim of a very lazy and cranky judge.
So, yeah — Please.