Memo to Michele Rollins: Bring It On!
Rethugs are virtually wetting themselves (except for the octogenarian Vicmead Hunt denizens, who really ARE wetting themselves) over the possible entrance of Michele Rollins into Delaware’s US House race.
Michele Rollins earned her entree into Greenville gigagazilionaire circles the old-fashioned way: She married into it. A dewy-eyed 1963 beauty queen (the dew formed in the shape of dollar signs) marrying a buzzard-like arrogant plutocrat in a match made in accountancy heaven. Together, they engaged in a lifelong journey (his was far shorter as he was far older) of squeezing every ill-gotten penny they could out of the landscape. Hence, the ‘Rollins Building’, aka, “The Giant Phallic Symbol”, on Route 202 that was deliberately built in violation of carefully-negotiated deed restrictions, and the ‘Rollins Mausoleum’ at the old Brandywine Raceway site that bears no resemblance to the verdant-green design that Old Man Rollins put out there for public discussion. Unless ‘verdant-green’ and ‘moonscape’ are synonymous.
Her entry into the race would certainly warrant shining a light onto the avaricious couple’s business history.
Like Rethug chair Tom Ross, I, too, am excited about the heiress’s entry into the race. Castle/Rollins is indeed the Republican Dream Team…the Republican Dream Team circa 1962. Everyone in Greenville is excited precisely because everyone in Greenville is precisely who (whom?) the Dynastic Duo would purport to represent. In other words, the Entitled are the only ones entitled to entitlements, just like the old days. This is the duPonts, Lamottes, Copelands, Stablers redux. Time to get the seersucker (emphasis on ’sucker’) out of storage.
However, contrary to the PT Barnum imprecation that ‘There is a (seer)sucker born every minute’, this is quite a finite, if oligarchic, segment of the electorate. And their rapacious greed is their one defining factor. Granted, Rollins can self-finance, the real reason the Rethugs are urging her to get in. But, and pay attention, Democrats, her greatest strength is also her greatest weakness. I’ll even write the paragraph that should appear in the Democratic Party press release:
“Michele Rollins and Mike Castle represent Delaware’s wealthiest citizens, and have devoted their careers to amassing and protecting that wealth, respectively. As such, they are ideally suited to head the Republican ticket. Chris Coons and John Carney will represent those who truly need representation. In other words, they run to help those who have played by the rules and who, through no fault of their own, find themselves and their families struggling to make ends meet. These are people who could never afford a stay at that fancy Rollins Jamaican spa, but people just looking to keep food on the table for their family.”
Got it? Turn the perceived advantage for Rollins into a disadvantage. Run as true populists against those representing the entrenched big money interests.
This becomes a race only if Democrats let it become a race. And, by pairing Castle with Ms. Moneybags, I think the Rethugs have made Castle even more vulnerable. It’s easy to run against them as a team only concerned about Delaware’s To the Manor Born. Yes, it would require Coons and Carney to run as real Democrats, another plus. And (my fondest wish), the term ‘The Dynastic Duo’ makes it into the Delaware political lexicon.
Comment by nemski on 10 March 2010 at 9:07 am:
The Dynastic Duo — love it!
Comment by nemski on 10 March 2010 at 9:28 am:
Hmm, I wonder if Rollins would be representing Delaware or Jamaica.
Comment by Republican David on 10 March 2010 at 9:29 am:
Who is talking about dynasty? Democrats?! You guys are really afraid of her. I don’t know that she makes it past the convention. If she does get the nod, she will be tough to beat unless the conservative field consolidates. She is a smart person with a lot of connections outside of Greenville. She will be an interesting to the race.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 10 March 2010 at 9:30 am:
Afraid of her – I’ve never even heard of her until yesterday.
Comment by El Somnambulo on 10 March 2010 at 9:47 am:
Afraid of her? Rethug David and Celia Cohen both agree that she will be formidable, which perhaps explains my lack of fear. I’m not sure when Celia last attended an event outside the 19807 zip code, but there’s a whole ‘nother state out there. Rollins WILL be formidable in 19807. Perhaps that what the duPont dormouse means.
Comment by Joanne Christian on 10 March 2010 at 9:48 am:
Well UI–you’d be proud–BRAINS and beauty this time!!!!!
Comment by Rebecca on 10 March 2010 at 10:12 am:
So I did the google for Michelle Rollins and found this interesting article from 2005 . . .
http://www.rosehall.com/news/businessledger_jul05.pdf
Comment by Jason330 on 10 March 2010 at 10:28 am:
Great post ElSom. You keyboard to DelDem strategy makers ears.
Comment by Desmond on 10 March 2010 at 10:33 am:
This is a very “progressive” post.
“Michele Rollins earned her entree into Greenville gigagazilionaire circles the old-fashioned way: She married into it. A dewy-eyed 1963 beauty queen (the dew formed in the shape of dollar signs) marrying a buzzard-like arrogant plutocrat in a match made in accountancy heaven. Together, they engaged in a lifelong journey (his was far shorter as he was far older) of squeezing every ill-gotten penny they could out of the landscape.”
Yea, the females on this blog should have no problem with this since this woman is a Republican…just like it was ok to call Sarah Palin a cu*t because you didn’t agree with her politics. I guess it is ok to make overtly sexist statements as long as you disagree with the woman’s politics.
To call Sarah Palin a cu*t is fine. To call Michelle Obama a cu*t is totally sexist and unacceptable. To say that that Rollins was incapable of getting ahead on her own and had to resort to gold-digging is fine. To say it about the many prominent liberal wives out there (you can take your pick) would be sexist.
Now I finally see how it works. Thanks, progressives.
Comment by cassandra m on 10 March 2010 at 10:39 am:
So she lives half the year in Jamaica, huh?
And I think that the dismantlement of some parts of the Rollins empire ought to make for some fun campaign questions.
Comment by cassandra m on 10 March 2010 at 10:41 am:
Well, Desmond, that entire diatribe might have meant something if you didn’t have to make up a whole lot of shit to do it.
But thanks for playing anyway.
Comment by Jason330 on 10 March 2010 at 10:50 am:
Btw, it is an article of faith among Republicans that Government’s job is to take care of the wealthy and well connectd. I can see why wealthy people like that, but I’ll never understand why the middle class Republicans who comment here buy into it.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 10 March 2010 at 10:53 am:
Cassandra, basically all of Desmond’s comment is untruthful. The only part that he got right was when he directly quoted the post. Also I love the concern trolling of what qualifies as “progressive.”
Comment by Geezer on 10 March 2010 at 11:03 am:
“I don’t know that she makes it past the convention.”
Oh, my aching sides. Delusional David still doesn’t realize who pays his party’s bills, does he?
“She is a smart person with a lot of connections outside of Greenville.”
Unfortunately, most of them are also outside of Delaware.
Comment by anon on 10 March 2010 at 11:18 am:
Is there a petition or something we can sign to make sure all these people are included in any debates with Rollins?
Fred Cullis – House – Republican
Doug Campbell – House – Constitution Party
Earl Lofland – House – Constitution Party
Glen Urguhart – House – Republican
Rose Izzo – House – Republican
Brent Wangen – House – Libertarian
Kevin Wade – House – Republican
Comment by missundastood on 10 March 2010 at 11:25 am:
Yeah, that rich Michele Rollins, isn’t she Jack Markell’s neighbor?
As for ES description of her, he left out the fact that she’s a lawyer, and she was a lawyer before she married John. She also expanded the Dover Downs and built the Hotel there, and she built a Ritz Carlton in Jamaica.
Meanwhile, John Carney’s “business” Delawind went to the state for a $350 million dollar subsidy, which was turned down because the accounting was fishy (see Resolute Determination for the emails).
Lifelong politician or saavy, proven business woman?
You said it, BRING IT ON!
Comment by Republican David on 10 March 2010 at 1:16 pm:
I think that you mean 350K. I agree that the Rollins are well known and respected in Kent County. They have helped with many charities and the arts as well as being responsible for one of the largest employers. Her late husband was well regarded statewide.
Comment by El Somnambulo on 10 March 2010 at 2:07 pm:
Rethug David wrote: “Her late husband was well regarded statewide.”
Not in the Republican bastion of Brandywine 100. Neither his word nor his signature proved to be truthful. Wonder how Bob ‘I was a Democrat, now I’m a Republican, but I’m still Delaware’s only political virgin’ Weiner and Cathy Cloutier feel about Rollins.
Both Weiner and Phil Cloutier learned firsthand of Rollins’ prevarications as they were involved in (what they thought) were good-faith negotiations on behalf of CCOBH. Turns out they were played for suckers.
Comment by anon on 10 March 2010 at 2:29 pm:
Off subject–did her husband build the most out of place high rise in Delaware on 202? Just curious…At least AZ freshened up the facade…Ah I missed the earlier mention–always was curious how that building came to be in that spot…
Comment by V on 10 March 2010 at 3:04 pm:
I think AZ painting that building brown was a hilarious waste of money. Now it’s even uglier.
Fun Fact: In Biden’s Wilmington office there was a framed News Journal piece from the 80s(?) detailing the battle between him and Mr. Rollins over his installation of a helipad on the roof of the building that caused a lot of disturbance to Fairfax residents. Guess who won?
Comment by Phuny on 10 March 2010 at 3:12 pm:
anon, it was supposed to be the first of many highrise office bldgs, a county location to compete with wilimgton’s downtown. The commercial market slumped and it stands alone, surrounded by lowrise office bldgs.
V, the victory was shortlived, while there is no helipad on the roof of the Rollins Bldg… there is one now at Nemours Childrens hospital next door.
Comment by V on 10 March 2010 at 3:31 pm:
well one, it’s not really “next door”. AI is pretty far from the residential neighborhoods surrounding Rollins. It isn’t surrounded by “low rise office buildings” other than AZ complex unless you count the Fairfax Shopping center. I should know, I live there. Since AI is on the old DuPont property it’s fairly secluded in terms of noise pollution, which was the complaint of the Fairfax residents.
Also, I don’t really care if there’s a helipad at the children’s hospital to save the lives of critically ill kids. Rollin’s helipad was for his personal use. Hence the outcry.
Comment by Phuny on 10 March 2010 at 3:49 pm:
about a thousand yards (3/4 mile) from the Rollins building to the hospital helipad, per mapquest.
as you pointed out it was a lot easier to oppose the rich guy than the sick kids.
Comment by V on 10 March 2010 at 4:13 pm:
sorry I wasn’t relying on mapquest. I was relying on the experience of living next to the building all my life. It’s not like a half hour drive but it’s far enough that I’ve never heard a helicopter from AI.
Comment by V on 10 March 2010 at 4:15 pm:
and the rich guy can drive to the building like everyone else. how long is a heli ride from greenville anyway? 2 mins?
Comment by Phuny on 10 March 2010 at 4:53 pm:
perception is a funny thing.
Comment by aqc on 10 March 2010 at 8:09 pm:
Desmond’s a c%@t
Comment by Geezer on 10 March 2010 at 8:10 pm:
“perception is a funny thing.”
Yes. For example, some people can’t figure out how much difference a half-mile makes in decibel levels of aircraft. Putz.
Comment by nemski on 10 March 2010 at 8:14 pm:
Periodically, air ambulances fly over my house back and forth to AI. And boy does it piss me off that children are being saved.
Comment by V on 10 March 2010 at 8:58 pm:
Phuny do you know the area at all? or are you just relying on mapquest. The fact that you called the hospital nemours (while that’s correct i’ve NEVER heard someone call it anything but AI) makes me think you live somewhere else, which is fine. but don’t tell me about where i live.
also like nemski and i have said, the reasoning factors into people’s levels of tolerance. If i know that i occasionally hear noise because a kid is going to be saved from a life death situation (coincidentally AI did save my little brother’s life one time, thank god we do live near but not next to it) then i’m going to not really mind. If i know that some rich fuck is using a helicopter as a status symbol because he’s too lazy to drive the 10 mins from greenville i’m not nearly as tolerant. I dont know why you think they comparable.
Comment by rhubard on 10 March 2010 at 9:58 pm:
“Desmond’s a c%@t”
A what? A coot? A coat? A cyst? A crat?
Comment by Phuny on 10 March 2010 at 10:55 pm:
as you continue to confirm, your perception of the distance to the hospital is far greater than the actual 1,000 yards. The decibel level of the helicopter flying overhead is not affected by whether it is carrying Police, a “rich fuck”, or a sick child, but clearly your perception of the sound is.
I wasn’t trying to demean your great victory over the “rich fuck” and his “status symbol”.
Comment by Geezer on 11 March 2010 at 7:50 am:
And you keep failing to understand how much difference your changing distances make in terms of how loud a helicopter is. I have first-hand experience, having once lived within a quarter-mile of the helipad at Hockessin fire hall, and now living three quarters of a mile from it. You, on the other hand, are just talking out your ass because you like rich guys.
The point, which I’m sure you don’t understand, is that there is little love of John Rollins in New Castle County, and that by extension those who remember who in the hell Michelle Rollins is won’t be predisposed to follow your example of liking her just because she’s rich.
Comment by Joanne Christian on 11 March 2010 at 8:18 am:
Well, I like her because she’s been working for a living, meanwhile Mr. Carney I guess has been resting up these past 2 years for the Dems to provide him with a living. Just because she’s been successful at what she does, really shouldn’t be held against her.
Does it really come down to ANY Democrat?
Comment by John Manifold on 11 March 2010 at 8:47 am:
She was a mid-level civil servant who became a rich guy’s third and final wife, young enough to be mother to four of his 10 children.
This is no Teresa Heinz situation. The money isn’t hers. It’s in trust. She has to apply to John’s business manager when she wants distributions of principal.
Comment by V on 11 March 2010 at 9:18 am:
this is so stupid that we are fighting over this. It really has nothing to do with Mrs. Rollins anyway. And I wasn’t even alive during the “great victory”, i just thought it was a funny little anecdote. But you had to turn it into this big issue. Because you’re a dick.
i guess it’s my fault for falling for your idiotic bait.
Comment by Phuny on 12 March 2010 at 3:52 pm:
I don’t know why you two got your panties in a bunch.
you should try re-reading my posts.
I simply added some factual information to a tangent about the Rollins building and the helicopter controversy.
John Rollins asked for a variance and was turned down. The hospital built a helipad. I don’t have a complaint about either outcome.
As for Michelle’s candidacy, I don’t think she will make it past the Convention. She is not my prefered candidate at this stage.
Comment by V on 12 March 2010 at 4:25 pm:
please don’t ever discuss my “panties” again. ugh.
Comment by Tigby on 13 March 2010 at 2:07 pm:
Sarah palin.. Cindy.. Now Michele Rollins. I wish
some hot models would run while they are..
It’s going to be funny to see these people, all
the canidates, even that fraud Bo-Bo, when I’m
drunk at point to point. I will definitely pay more
attention to the sundresses and horses, tho
the entertainment of ‘ high stakes races’ is great
no matter what form
Comment by Tigby on 13 March 2010 at 2:12 pm:
Frauds… The only great idea is that one about
bringing movie studios to Delaware.. There is an
abundance of actors
Comment by Maxie on 13 March 2010 at 4:41 pm:
Cat Fight in Delaware
Looks like the Delaware GOP has a big time Cat Fight. Michele Rollins vs. Rose Izzo. The top billing Primary Election Bout of the year. “First State battle for First Woman to Congress” or
Money Bags (Rollins) vs. NRA Rosie (Izzo)
Miss Spender (Rollins) vs. Miss Saver (Izzo)
Miss 1963 beauty queen (Rollins) vs. Miss Conservative 2010 (Izzo)
Or the best Tag Team event of All Time
Castle/Rollins vs. O’Donnell/Izzo
Old & Crusty vs. Two Hot Mommas
The Earmark Duo vs. The No Backroom Deal Twins
Cap & Trade vs. Cagney and Lacey
Rich & Richer vs. ShopRite & Save-A-lot
Lets hear it for the regular girls…
http://www.roseizzoforcongress.com/
Comment by Tired of Liberal Drivel on 13 March 2010 at 6:21 pm:
Never ceases to amaze me how willing liberals are to ignore facts, bend the truth and generalize about how horrible Republicans with money are. How much of her wealth does Ms Rollins donate to charity? VP Biden by comparison? Senator John Kerry earned his money HOW? Wasn’t Senator Carper married to the former Miss Delaware? Ever heard of a little document called the Preamble? “…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?” How is only HER marriage relevant, not theirs?
News flash…wealthy business owners EMPLOY people! They can buy food now. That’s bad how? Gov. Markell isn’t a millionaire?
Gigazillionaires? Both Senator Carper and VP Biden own residences in Greenville. I now live, as does the VP, in Greenville too.. and don’t even earn six figures. Hardly wealthy. I just work very hard at BOTH my jobs and save. What a concept.
Maybe you should check out the newly passed, unconstitutional budget our Democratically-controlled House in DE just illegally passed. Check out the record…the testimony under oath of the Majority legal counsel. There’ that silly “constitution” word again.
And I support Michele Rollins. Guess that makes me “entrenched big money interests.” Right.
Comment by cassandra_m on 13 March 2010 at 6:34 pm:
wealthy business owners EMPLOY people
People who used to work for Rollins Environmental will have something to say about this, I think. And let’s remember that one of the businesses owned by the woman needs the Delaware legislature to ensure that said business does not get more competition. Not exactly someone committed to real free markets, I’m thinking.
But thanks for giving us own our example of the repub double standard about wealth — Democrats are hypocrites for having it and for repubs it is evidence of some business acumen.
Drivel indeed.
Comment by Tired of Liberal Drivel on 13 March 2010 at 7:15 pm:
Nice try. Yes Drivel indeed. Guess you never heard of the US Government’s intrusion into ownership of GM. How is that “free market”?
I appreciate your attempt to drive a new conversation, but I am responding to the original blog, in its many deficiencies of fact and generalization, such as your own..I said I support Ms Rollins. I didn’t say I was a Republican. I am not a registered Republican. Drivel indeed.
To the original blogger, El Som., do you have in your possession a copy of the variances and ordinances and deed restrictions in force for the construction period of the Rollins Building? I doubt it. Then how can one state the building doesn’t conform to the law? If you do, state with specificity what violations occurred. Drivel indeed.
Since Cass. brought up hypocrisy…Liberals are hypocritical for making wealth an issue as if ONLY republicans are wealthy. Four of the top five wealthiest people in Congress today are Democrats. (Center for Responsive Politics, Nov 09)
Liberals are hypocritical for making an issue of ONLY republicans marrying wealth. Sen Kerry has married TWO wealthy women, not one.
Liberals are hypocritical for claiming they are for the people but Republicans are not, and they show this by violating the PEOPLE’S constitution. We have an unconstitutional budget in DE right now.
If you’re going to blog it, back it.
Comment by cassandra_m on 13 March 2010 at 8:44 pm:
Oh dear — even more drivel and Now With Talking Points!
And certainly none of this drivel either responds to anything I posted or to the original post, it seems clear you are here likely because the voices in your head told you here was a new place for your drivel.
But thanks for playing!
Comment by nemski on 13 March 2010 at 9:15 pm:
But not too tired to keep on coming back. Come on people, we’re slacking here! LOL
Comment by anon on 13 March 2010 at 9:38 pm:
I don’t have disdain for wealthy people.
I have disdain for wealthy people who don’t try to use their wealth to do some good.
No, running a resort in Jamaica doesn’t count.
No one needs that much damn money. Get a decent house, budget about $200,000 for living expenses, and you’re sitting pretty. Set up some trusts for your kids, make some good investments so they’re returning that $200K each year without fail, and go play with the rest of your money giving it to people who need it.
Comment by Real Deal on 13 March 2010 at 10:46 pm:
People like you who think they should dictate how to use money they never raised a finger to earn? Providing services for people who need it is doing some good. Providing thousands of jobs is doing some good. Opening up a hospital in an underserved area (Bebe) is doing some good. Just plain entertaining people and helping them escape from the grind of everyday life is doing some good. Funding the arts in Kent County is doing some good.
The Real Deal is Funding the Delaware Republican party to keep socialists like you at bay is doing a lot of good.
Comment by Real Deal on 13 March 2010 at 10:48 pm:
I agree with phuny, she won’t make it pass the convention if she doesn’t get a common sense conservative message. Wade is a much better candidate.