PDD Announces Primary Endorsements
The Progressive Democrats for Delaware have announced their slate of endorsed candidates for the September 14th primary. There are some surprises:
Richard Korn – Auditor
Rep. Helene Keeley – State Rep. – 3rd District
James Maravelias – State Rep. – 27th District
For the State Treasurer race they have deemed both candidates (Velda Jones-Potter and Chip Flowers) are worthy of endorsement.
They also believe that Kay Wilde Gallogly and Ed Osienski are progressives, but have no preference.
Any of these primary winners automatically become endorsed for the general election. The general election endorsements are as follows:
Chris Coons – U. S. Senate
Chris Counihan – State Senate – 5th District
Senator Karen Peterson – State Senate – 9th District
Senator Bruce Ennis – State Senate – 14th District
Rep. Gerald Brady – State Senate – 4th District
Debra Heffernan – State Rep. – 6th District
Rep. Bryon Short – State Rep. – 7th District
Rep. James (JJ) Johnson – State Rep. – 16th District
Rep. Terry Schooley – State Rep. – 23rd District
Rep. John Kowalko – State Rep. – 25th District
Jim Westhoff – State Rep. – 35th District
Renee Taschner – NCC Council – 3rd District
Lisa Diller – NCC Councilperson – 5th District
Mike Kozikowski – Recorder of Deeds
Personally, I am surprised that they are taking Maravelias over incumbent Democrat, Earl Jaques. I guess that Earl’s conservative social stances (and the consequent votes against the union-backed casinos) have lost him some support from the left.
Tags: Endorsements, local Dems, Local Races, PDD, Progressives
Ummm, if you know me you know that I just love any Democrat who has the stamina and discipline to run for office. These are all fine candidates. However, I would also like to make it public that I had no vote on the Endorsement Committee. They made their determinations without my input.
to clarify, neither Democratic candidate for Treasurer or 24th RD was endorsed by PDD’s Endorsement Committee. Rather, the PDD Endorsement Committee decided to endorse the candidate whom the Democratic voters choose on September 14th. It is accurate to note that PDDs Endorsement Committee considers that all four of these Democratic candidates are ‘worthy of endorsement,’ however none of them are currently endorsed.
Consider it a lesson partially learned (by some) from DE’s 2008 gubernatorial Democratic primary. When there are two great choices, you can choose one and piss off the other, or you can admit that both are great, let the voters choose one over the other, and endorse the primary victor. This should only be done when both candidates are great.
Furthermore, note that PDD is related to the DE Democratic Party, but is not one and the same. While PDD endorsed candidates must be from the Democratic party, candidates for endorsement are not chosen based on the state party supporting them, nor on the likelihood (or perceived likelihood) of the candidate winning an upcoming primary or general election (PDD would of course love for each endorsed candidate to win in November, and encourages its members to support endorsed candidates with their time, talent, and contributions to improve this likelihood). Endorsed candidates are chosen on the strength of their genuine individual support of progressive ideals, their past work on progressive issues, and on the strength of their expected support of PDD in furthering PDD;s progressive ideals, once they are in office.
I think it is very easy to confuse this PDD with Pervasive Developmental Disorders. You all drank a little too much of your own kool aid.
Just to clarify, Jim Maravelias’s endorsement had nothing to do with Jaques’ vote against union-backed casinos. We endorsed Jim because his questionnaire answers were very progressive and we were quite impressed with him during our interview with him. He is definitely a Liberal, with a capital L and deserves the vote of the progressive/liberal community.
Turn your back on Jaques? I cannot believe this hard-working, thoughtful, intentional, public servant, who has served so diligently, and faithfully in his NEW and FIRST term in office, was DISSED, and essentially booed by his own. You folks don’t deserve his service. Just because you’re progressive doesn’t mean you’re productive. And while MANY have great ideas–just try doing ALL THE WORK TO GET THERE. PDD tripped over themselves on a great work in progress, not continuing support for Jaques.
BOO and HISS
This entire process seems really hinky to me. Rebecca Young not involved? She IS PDD, as far as I’m concerned. Idealistic, realistic, steeped in the grassroots movement, and a rarity in the political arena as she is totally selfless.
No endorsement for John Carney?? Forget about his work on the environment; and cancer issues in Delaware, which virtually every other powerful Delaware politician has pointedly ignored while collecting the big bucks from the chemical industry.
He is running against this decade’s champion for the Liberty League, the group that the duPonts founded to screw FDR and all he stood for; or a teabag nutcase. He turned in his application late, or some such nonsense? This ‘endorsement’ process looks like the kissing of someone’s ring was a requirement. Not progressive.
Oh, but there’s more. No endorsement for Mike Barbieri, a true progressive legislator in the 18th against the corrupt Terry Spence, the same Terry Spence who (perhaps not so) coincidentally is being endorsed by union thug Brian McGlinchey’s Working Families Party? Which perhaps also explains the perplexing endorsement for an officer in McGlinchey’s union over Earl Jaques. Perhaps PDD has forgotten the ‘D’ in the equation.
I could go on, but I really wonder who the current leadership of PDD is serving. At this point, it’s not the cause of progressive Democrats in Delaware.
One more. An endorsement for Gerald Bleeping Brady?? Is PDD endorsing anti-choice legislators now? Ohhh, but he IS the Executive Director of the Delaware AFL-CIO. That means that he gets paid to run the organization, and gets paid to shill for them in Dover. I worked for this guy, and progressive he isn’t. Unless cameras at every intersection is your idea of progressive.
This one makes no sense at all–unless McGlinchey and/or other union thugs are seeking a hostile takeover of PDD.
Not to mention the head-scratching endorsement of Mike Kozikowski for a NCC row office. Was the endorsement based on sun tans and muscle shirts? It wasn’t based on progressive politics.
Something is seriously wrong here…
Was the Sussex recorder of deeds race considered? Or the 20th Senatorial District? Both have Democratic primaries.
And where can this list be found outside of DL? The website still lists endorsements from 2008. Suggests that y’all aren’t really serious about this.
You know, Bulo, I’m glad you asked about Brady. Because I look at this list and have a difficult time understanding exactly what a Progressive Dem is supposed to be. Karen Peterson might be the benchmark in this group, so I don’t quite understand how Brady gets on the list. Or Mike Kozikowski for that matter. And wasn’t Carney the one who wouldn’t commit to NOT joining the Blue Dogs if elected (I think I remember someone reporting that back from a meeting with him.) So even if Carney does do alot of good work (and he does), how *could* a Progressive Dem organization actually endorse someone who won’t tell you that he won’t join a group specifically against progressive legislation?
anon,
It was in a press release and even appeared in this Sunday’s NJ.
So are they acknowledging that their endorsements are only worth a fleeting mention on a blog and in a newspaper? They’re not important enough this year to paste the e-mail onto their website?
I just want to see the announcement in PDD’s own words and list, in full, which might explain away some of my questions. But I don’t know because they can’t update a two-year-old page.
Why don’t you get off your lazy ass and stop expecting everyone to carry your shit?
Oh, and that mention in Sunday’s NJ? It was from their Dialogue Delaware blog – which focused almost exclusively on Carney’s non-endorsement. Yeah … huge impact PDD is having, all right. Go progressives. Rah rah rah.
http://blogs.delawareonline.com/dialoguedelaware/2010/08/25/progressive-dems-carney-for-congress-but/
Jason,
Go fuck yourself. I am not a member of the press nor a blogger, and thus was not one of the sainted few to receive the press release. I simply asked you folks In The Know here if they had the announcement posted anywhere. Apparently not. Thanks for the clarification. It further reinforces my belief that progressives in Delaware can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am cut to the quick, but my point stands. The crybaby schtick identifies you as a lame ass loser.
So a “crybaby” is now defined as someone who expects people playing the political game to play the political game in a halfway competent fashion and update their websites? OK, I get it.
Jason uses the wrong word sometimes. I’m pretty sure he meant “handjob.”
That’s it. I just love these hand jobs who go around pretending that they don’t have any agenda.
Surprised by a couple of these…and the lack of some others. However, would be surprised if Jaques ever got a PDD endorsement. Don’t really think of him as a progressive Dem.
There is a legitimate answer to every single question all you nice people asked. But do you want an answer or are you just mouthing off? Let me know because I’d be glad to tell you why or why not the candidates were endorsed that you found fault with.
June,
This is a serious question. Why were there no endorsements in the 20th Senatorial District primary or the Sussex Recorder of Deeds primary? Did PDD look at those two races?
PDD has historically, based on its membership, been more on top of events in New Castle County than in Sussex. In some sense, most PDD members know more about what’s happening in Annapolis than in Georgetown. For this reason, this year’s PDD endorsement committee focused on candidates for federal office, statewide office, and candidates from New Castle County. There is a fairly high risk that we would not have had enough information to make informed decisions about various Sussex candidates.
We made an exception in the case of Jim Westhoff, a candidate who came to at least one PDD meeting this year. With Jim, we provided him with a survey which he completed and returned, and we conducted a followup phone interview and email exchange in arriving at our decision.
When more Sussex residents join PDD (with its New Castle County meeting location), the endorsement committee next time can potentially include people who can more competently consider the strengths and weaknesses of candidates downstate.
ElS–you raised your dissatisfaction with the endorsement of Gerald Brady. I offer some quick comments
1) the PDD membership did not raise traffic cameras as a top issue when the endorsement committee met with them to identify what to focus on this year. It may be a top issue for you, but it was not by PDD members when we asked. We (the PDD committee) did not inquire about a candidate’s view on this traffic camera issue with candidates in our survey or discussions.
2) candidates and legislators occasionally change their points of view over time. Furthermore, some recognize that their personal views are sometimes trumped by their responsibilities as legislators. Every candidate endorsed by PDD this year expressed support, in their role as elected official, for the fundamental woman’s right to reproductive freedom. In some cases, a legislator’s position on this issue changed from their response(s) in past years.
Increasing/evolving support for progressive issues by elected officials is one of PDD’s goals, and I celebrate such progress.
PSB-Some people are capable of evolution. Hacks like Brady and his fellow dinosaurs are not among them.
It’s not Brady’s POSITION on red light cameras necessarily that’s at issue–it’s Brady’s making this his highest legislative priority and successfully sponsoring legislation to multiply the number of these cameras. Clearly, you’ve just stated that PDD was unaware of this, GREAT prep work by you and those who endorsed, as you blissfully were about Brady’s position on choice. Can you cite his progressive agenda that has made him one of PDD’s favorites?
Since you have not cited one single example of “increasing/evolving support for progressive issues by elected officials”, please cite one in Brady’s case. Maybe there’s a first time for everything. And maybe you can find one example of his moving from ‘terrible’ to ‘bad’. But don’t try to kid a kidder. Brady is a hack, and a dishonest one at that. The man lied to my face and then lied about me in a closed caucus. He will never be a progressive, and deep down you must know that. The guy’s like 65 or so, and not known for his keening and questioning intellect. Explain to us specifically why you chose him from among other far more worthy choices.
And please explain to me how you cannot endorse a progressive legislator like Mike Barbieri against a hack like Terry Spence. If you consider Gerald Brady a progressive Democrat, but not Mike Barbieri, you’re sadly completely out of touch with reality.
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, it leaves me even more confused than before! Geography has not been an obstacle for PDD in the past. Last time around, you endorsed Paradee, Ryan and Deaver in Kent and Sussex, and they didn’t even have primaries.
But if that’s your endorsement process these days, I’d definitely rename yourselves to focus on New Castle County. A “statewide” group tha fails to issue an endorsement in either of the two Sussex Democratic primaries creates the impression that none of the four candidates involved are progressives. That might be the case … but it might not be.
If you are firmly based in New Castle County, then of course you’re not going to get anyone from Sussex spending four hours on the road in one day to go to a meeting. That’s ludicrous.
Here’s what puzzles me. Why not endorse Dave Sokola? He’s pretty progressive. He sponsored SB 141 (HB 99), he’s pro-choice, he fought for open government. I don’t get it. Bruce Ennis, but not Dave Sokola?
To add to anon’s point, no endorsement for Russ McCabe? Kent County’s Rep. Darryl Scott, who promoted a laudable progressive agenda at considerable political risk to himself?
And, if you claim to be more ‘centered’ in NCC, how can you not possibly endorse Sen. Dave Bleeping Sokola, for cryin’ out loud, one of the most consistent progressive legislators in the Delaware State Senate? What caused you to make these seemingly incomprehensible decisions?
Inquiring people want to know the answers to these questions. To me, it just looks like you’re way out of your league.
Sandy beat me to the punch on that one. Price I pay for being so long-winded…
did a candidate have to complete your questionnaire and/or attend an interview to be endorsed? was wondering if this possibly accounted for the lack of endorsement in some instances? if so, that would seem to make sense…
Ronh, if it’s OK, could I just expand on your question a little? As someone who once got a PDD endorsement years ago, I know that a questionnaire and interview were and, I think, are part of the process.
My questions, based on PSB’s responses are, did all Democratic candidates statewide receive a questionnaire?; if so, what was the criterion used in determining who should be interviewed?; if not, why not?; what, other than what was on the questionnaire, was considered (i.e. what people have actually done in the past)?; what were the endorsements ultimately based upon?
There’s a certain nebulousness in PSB’s responses that would benefit from further clarification. So, I’d appreciate answers, as I’m someone who has supported PDD in the past.
El Som – Russ might not have sought the endorsement, seeing that the 36th isn’t exactly progressive territory. My guess is that his campaign manager didn’t want Russ to go for it.
MJ – The 35th isn’t exactly a bastion of liberalism, either, but Westhoff had the balls to go for it.
BTW, El Som – if PDD is becoming a McGlinchey front group, then it definitely would have endorsed in the Sussex recorder’s race. John Brady just got the WFP nomination.
Let’s not judge the choices of candidates here. Some of them aren’t as easy to make as you might think. I just want some answers on the endorsement process from those in a position to provide them.
I understand what you’re saying anon. But PSB said that PDD was ‘centered’ on NCC races, I know not why. I didn’t say that PDD is becoming a WFP front group, and I don’t think that’s the case.
But, having said that, I find both the failure to endorse Barbieri and the endorsement of one of McGlinchey’s lieutenants in another race incongruous at best.
El Som: You said of Gerald Brady – “This one makes no sense at all–unless McGlinchey and/or other union thugs are seeking a hostile takeover of PDD.” Forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning.
You’ve probably got me there, anon. Sometimes the Freudian implications are impossible to ignore, even if that’s not what I think I thought I meant…
That endorsement makes absolutely no sense. I really don’t think that a ‘hostile takeover’ is happening, but I just can’t fathom that endorsement at all.
Two concert tickets to one of my upcoming shows to someone who can provide the most plausible explanation for the endorsement. And/or the most humorous.
“The 35th isn’t exactly a bastion of liberalism, either, but Westhoff had the balls to go for it.”
I’m flattered. Thank you. I’m getting great responses from people as I’m going door to door. I think we’re going to surprise a lot of people when we turn this enormous district from red to blue. –Jim
Jim – I was at one of the Democratic meetings last year when you made your pitch for the Senate nomination. One person, not known for his liberal leanings, later said with a hint of respect in his voice: “You know, he was the only person who called himself a liberal. That’s something.” Saying what you believe in wins people over, whether or not people agree with you. Best of luck!
I had an RD meeting last night so I missed the fun of the banter here.
A lack of endorsement does not mean that we concluded that the candidate is not progressive. It could mean that, but it could mean any of a range of other things.
we did not endorse candidates who did not return surveys, nor those who did not return surveys in the timeframe allotted and communicated. We recognize that there could (and likely are) some wonderful, progressive candidates who were not endorsed by us, and that there are wonderful Democratic candidates running against miserable Republicans who were not endorsed by us. That is the nature of the beast.
we did not take into account the level of conservatism of a candidate’s actual/likely opponent in making our determination.
An endorsement means that the candidate convinced the PDD endorsement committee that they sincerely hold progressive values and that they are committed to championing progressive causes if elected, including working well with PDD.
There is no doubt that we could have been hoodwinked by a candidate. That happens. If so, this will have been done by deception, which will be clear at their next election, and we will not be silent about it.
We are not infallible by any stretch of imagination. We are dedicated to doing our best to identify candidates that are worthy of supporting now, based on our understanding that they will be supporting us if elected.
PSB wrote: “We recognize that there could (and likely are) some wonderful, progressive candidates who were not endorsed by us, and that there are wonderful Democratic candidates running against miserable Republicans who were not endorsed by us. That is the nature of the beast.”
Not if you were doing your job properly, it isn’t.
And, Gerald Brady–progressive in what way, shape, manner or form? It’s not like this guy just appeared on the scene last week. He has a body of hackwork to his credit already. Was the questionnaire your sole source of information? Might not an examination of the public record have been in order?