Soulmates, Sexless Lovers or Food?

Filed in Uncategorized by on May 18, 2007

Check out Alan Loudel on the notion that Tom Carper would really work for ANYONE (Sean Barney, Jack Markell, John Carney, Ted Blunt, Matt Denn, His Wife, Ghandi, Jesus) running against Michael Castle.

And speaking of Mike Castle, I realize some Delaware Democrats desperately want Senator Carper to broker a deal where Carney or Markell (it is assumed Markell) would run against Castle for ’08. Fat chance. They may be of opposite parties, but Carper and Castle are rather like Bush and Tony Blair… soulmates.

Sure, he’d mouth the words and express solidarity for the “D’s”, but I cannot fathom Tom Carper actively, energetically, enthusiastically working for the defeat of Mike Castle.

But I can think of one scenerio in which Carper would “actively, energetically, enthusiastically” work for the defeat of Mike Castle.” He would do it if it benefited Tom Carper.

Carper is at heart a Carperist. If it looked like he could benefit from helping defeat Castle he would do it in a blink. Alan Loudel seems to forget that Carper’s run against Roth came out of the blue and was regarded by Roth as treachery at the time in view of Carper’s many years of making public statements praising the elder statesman.

But when it was right for Carper – WHAM! He delivered the death blow with the all sentimentality of a shark ripping the head off a seal.

UPDATE:
Mentioning Sean Barney reminded me that this song/video makes me happy. (Warning: the “F” word is used by John McClain)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5in09EwYV0]

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Disbelief says:

    The “playas” (Markell, Carney, Denn, Blunt) all know about Carper’s infatuation with Castle. Trust me; when Carper was making his pitch, his known self-interest was fully in the minds of the above four.

    However, sometimes guys like Carper have enough clout, or enough party support for their position, or both, that the candidate-wannabees have to sit there and swallow it. Its sucks, but when you run for office, penetration of your O-ring by both opponents and allies is guaranteed.

    That’s why they say politics sucks. It is a rough profession.

  2. donviti says:

    re read your first paragraph jason…do you mean carper and not castle?

  3. jason330 says:

    D’oh!

    Thanks!

  4. donviti says:

    tommy would be upset with you!

  5. Tyler Nixon says:

    Hey, you ripped off and modified my “Carpercrat” word! But I love it!

    The real question is not why Carper won’t get anyone to run against Castle, but why the Democratic party won’t get anyone to run against Carper.

    The GOP may have been (temporarily) hijacked by neocons but the DE Dems have been hijacked by the Carpercrats.

    It’a what you get when you let carperbaggers….’scuse me….carpetbaggers target your state for their useless political empire building.

    30 years of this guy has been 31 too many. I can only wonder how far back this politico-arterial blockage of a politician has set our state over such a long time. Just the fact that he gave us Governor Ruth Ann is enough to run him back to West Virginia with a freshly tailored tar-and-feather suit.

  6. anon says:

    why the Democratic party won’t get anyone to run against Carper.

    You mean like the primary Castle sleepwalked through last year? Castle actually benefited from the primary because it allowed him to blow off early debates with his Democratic opponent.

    The GOP may have been (temporarily) hijacked by neocons

    Huh? They seem like the same old Chamber-of-Commerce hacks to me.

    but the DE Dems have been hijacked by the Carpercrats.

    Fair enough.

  7. jason330 says:

    Once again I can’t disagree with Nixon.

    To steal a line from Winston Churchill, an empty taxi arrived at the US Capital, and when the door was opened, Tom Carper got out.

  8. jason330 says:

    BTW – Nixon is dead wrong on “fusion.” But that is for another post.

  9. donviti says:

    I’ll throw my hat into the ring against castle!

  10. The Professor says:

    That would be hilarious.

  11. Tyler Nixon says:

    Read the Delaware constitution, Jason, and find the words “political party” anywhere whatsoever. Read why we register voters and tell me where it says : to track their political affiliation and segregate them on this basis?

    Politically you may like this anti-civil rights bill, but constitutionally the whole political party segregationist legal regime is cruising for a big fall.

  12. jason330 says:

    I challenge the fusion system on its lack of efficacy – not its constitutionality.

    If the goal is to make the insider cliques in each party less powerful, fusion accomplishes the opposite. It is an inherently de-legitimizing position to claim membership in two parties and allows party insiders to write off and deride people who (like yourself) have legitimate criticism of the party leadership.

    Although it is slow going – the better path is to continue to challenge the party leadership within the system and win the arguments over time and on merit.

    I think of how much stronger the Democratic party’s challenge of Castle would have been if Karen Hartly-Nagel could have put her ego aside and taken a longer, more strategic view of unseating Bush’s rubber stamp. How much better positioned would she be now to run again if she had a more startegic perspective?

    I don’t blame her or you for your impatience, but I also don’t agree with it.

  13. Tyler Nixon says:

    Make all the political arguments you want, the fusion ban and political party segregation laws are unconstitutional in Delaware.

  14. jason330 says:

    I don’t see how?

    Most states abolished “fusion” candidacies over a century ago. Only six states other than Delaware still permit such practice. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has upheld state laws prohibiting fusion candidacies.

    This Bill would allow only members of a political party to seek that party’s nomination for an elected office in a primary or otherwise be nominated for office by that party. However, persons unaffiliated with any party still have the right to appear on the ballot as permitted by law.

  15. Tyler Nixon says:

    Read here :

    http://www.downwithabsolutes.com/index.php/2007/05/17/what-the-hell-is-this-shit/

    (You have to love Mike Matthews’, shall we say…..direct question style.)

    Delaware’s Supreme Court interprets our constitution as being limitations on powers not express grants of authority.

    Delaware’s constitution expressly limits the registration process to voting eligibility purposes only. This limit excludes any authority for political affiliation tracking and any segregation thereby.

    You can argue with me politically, but I am giving you a legal assessment based on fairly in-depth knowledge of Delaware jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation.

    If the bill passes I absolutely will take it to the high court. Delaware has no obligation to interpret its constitution on the basis of federal law permissive to such limits based on our national constitution. The Supreme Court’s affirmations are based on federalism not political rights. At state level it is all about political/civil rights.

    Where is the civil rights wing of the Democratic Party in Delaware? Come on, Jason. I am counting on you.

    If our legislature should attempt to amend our state constitution to accommodate these purely political self-protection measures at the expense of civil rights I will no longer live in this state.

  16. Tyler Nixon says:

    Delaware’s Supreme Court interprets our constitution as being limitations on powers not express grants of authority.

    Delaware’s constitution expressly limits the registration process to voting eligibility purposes only. This limit excludes any authority for political affiliation tracking and any segregation thereby.

    You can argue with me politically, but I am giving you a legal assessment based on fairly in-depth knowledge of Delaware jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation.

    If the bill passes I absolutely will take it to the high court. Delaware has no obligation to interpret its constitution on the basis of federal law permissive to such limits based on our national constitution. The Supreme Court’s affirmations are based on federalism not political rights. At state level it is all about political/civil rights.

    Where is the civil rights wing of the Democratic Party in Delaware? Come on, Jason. I am counting on you.

    If our legislature should attempt to amend our state constitution to accommodate these purely political self-protection measures at the expense of civil rights I will no longer live in this state.

    Read here :

    http://www.downwithabsolutes.com/index.php/2007/05/17/what-the-hell-is-this-shit/

    (You have to love Mike Matthews’, shall we say…..direct question style.)

  17. Tyler Nixon says:

    Delaware’s Supreme Court interprets our constitution’s provisions as limitations on power not express grants of authority.

    Delaware’s constitution expressly limits the registration process to voting eligibility purposes only. This limit excludes any authority for political affiliation tracking and substantive segregation thereby.

    You can argue with me politically, but I am giving you a legal assessment based on fairly in-depth knowledge of Delaware jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation.

    If the bill passes I absolutely will take it to the high court. Delaware has no obligation to interpret its constitution on the basis of federal law permissive to such limits based on our national constitution. The Supreme Court’s affirmations are based on federalism not political rights. At state level it is all about political/civil rights.

    Where is the civil rights wing of the Democratic Party in Delaware? Come on, Jason. I am counting on you.

    If our legislature should attempt to amend our state constitution to accommodate these purely political self-protection measures at the expense of civil rights I will no longer live in this state.

    Read here :

    http://www.downwithabsolutes.com/index.php/2007/05/17/what-the-hell-is-this-shit/

    (You have to love Mike Matthews’, shall we say…..direct question style.)

  18. But I can think of one scenerio in which Carper would “actively, energetically, enthusiastically” work for the defeat of Mike Castle.”
    *
    Carper handed Spivack what, 10K last election? He was not seriously challenged and yet would only share a few measely thou.

    Other members of Congress shoveled out millions to help in more vulnerable races.

  19. jason330 says:

    What tom Carper gave to Spivack was a slap in the face.

    If Carper decided to help someone knock of Castle that help would take a couple of forms.

    – Helping RAISE that person more money through the DCCC or even the DLC.

    – Helping get more local and national exposure for the campaign.

    – Not doing joint campaign appearances with Castle in the guise of some pork announcement.(yes, he did).

    – Not scheduling AROUND Castle’s big days (Again, YES, he did)

    – Not trading staff members back and forth with Castle. (Yes, he did.) AND

    – Publicly taking Castle to task for his shitty voting record.

  20. steamboat willy says:

    toilets aren’t mentioned in the state constitution, but they have them in Leg Hall.

  21. jason330 says:

    Steamy,

    I knew it would happen sooner or later. We agree on something.

  22. ardendem says:

    I’m not following this argument. Carper isn’t enough of a Democrat because he wasn’t born in the state? How’d ya figure?

    My family has been in Delaware since before the Revolution, and, frankly, the Democratic record here hasn’t been all that, until fairly recently. Historically, we were disorganized and segregationist. Our labor history is pitiful. And Delaware has usually had split houses and consensus/bipartisan political behavior.

    From my POV, it wasn’t until the Republicans started feeling their “Back to the Medieval’ that the system broke down and party affiliation became a more critical issue. I’d like to see the Democrats respond to that by having reasonable positions and electable candidates instead of cherishing our ability to back-bite ourselves into another 20 years of Republican sweeps.