Kavips asks… Should Cathy Cloutier become a Democrat?

Filed in Delaware by on June 10, 2013

He makes the point that she is the one who is in touch with her constituents, and her party is not, thus explaining all the votes that go against her party (universal background check, lost and stolen gun reporting, marriage equality, death penalty repeal). But that is not the reason for switching parties….

I was saddened to hear her Good Samaritan Bill (SB 116) was caught up in the maelstrom of Republican bills that must be shut out due to there just not being enough time to consider it. Had she been of the Democratic caucus, her bill could have been heard with majority of social legislation pieces that were vetted last month.

Indeed, as part of the vote tracking process, it is always amazing seeing Republican pieces of legislation getting assigned to the House Administration Committee or Senate Executive Committee or some other committee and never be seen again. Some bills are good ideas, like Cloutier’s SB 116, or the two year lobbying ban on former lawmakers instead of Rep. Kowalko’s one year ban (which was a cynical move on the GOP’s part as they know full well that Kowalko moved down to one year to attract more GOP and Dem votes).

So if Kavips is right, if Cloutier wants to see her bills move, it would help being in the majority party. And given some recent divergences from the Republican Party on key votes, you think she might be so inclined to switch.

But there are still some big disagreements on taxes and other issues between her and the Democrats. She could be another kind of Atkins, or she could be a Delaware Jim Jeffords or Arlen Specter and immediately change her voting habits and position on the issues. I think the key to this all will be how seriously is she challenged in the GOP primary in 2014? If it looks like she would lose a GOP primary, does she switch?

About the Author ()

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. heragain says:

    If she wants to talk about it, she has everyone’s number.

  2. Dave says:

    “So if Kavips is right, if Cloutier wants to see her bills move, it would help being in the majority party.”

    On the other hand, it seems kind of sad that the fate of good legislation depends on party membership and partisan politics. If Cathy has a good idea, does it make less or more so because she is a Republican or Democrat?

  3. puck says:

    What do we want with yet another Democrat with conservative economic thinking?

  4. Idealist says:

    I don’t think she’s up for re-election until 2016.

  5. PainesMe says:

    Why is this filed under “National”?

    I think this is also the same question being posed to Rep. Ramone.

    The question for Democrats, like Puck says, is would we want them in our caucus making arguments, or chairing committees and controlling legislation? Do we have to accept another fiscal conservative to build our majority? Or, would we want to run someone with progressive bona fides to get things like minimum wage reform done?

    I’m of the opinion that we don’t have to sacrifice quality for quantity.

  6. Delaware Dem says:

    @PainesMe… I checked the wrong box. I fixed it. Thanks for noticing.

  7. She’s far from another Atkins. She’s more in the tradition of former Brandywine Hundred R’s like Gwynne Smith, Jane Maroney, and, of course, Phil Cloutier. Socially moderate, fiscally conservative but not-penny-pinching, and not doctrinaire.

    None of them would be R’s under the Tea Party rubric. Cloutier doesn’t need to be. I think she should switch and then give that Peter Kopf guy the finger.

  8. Norinda says:

    Just another Moderate Democratic Centrist who may jump camp to
    get elected. How about Delaware electing the 1st Green Party Canidate?

  9. kavips says:

    Norinda. Several solid election cycles ago we had some decent Greens. But here was the problem. They had to spend all their efforts to say… “yoo hoo, I’m a candidate over here… Excuse me…” that they never formulated what they would actually do when they got into office. Much more, they never could explain how they could govern with two, not just one, parties working against them…

    Puck. In my humble opinion, having Democrats reflecting conservative districts. in the Democratic Party, instead of being Republican, is beneficial to both the candidate and his constituents because negotiation and compromise can occur within the framework of the same party. Getting an opposite member of the opposite party to negotiate or compromise in good faith, is impossible on the national level, and very difficult on the state level..

    It is better for all if that conservative candidate is a democrat instead of being a Republican… ( Hmmm. Is there still a point in being Republican anymore?).

  10. Chris Counihan says:

    If Sen. Cloutier keeps on voting the way she has been this session, I might even knock on doors for her in 2016.

  11. Chris Counihan says:

    Kavips: I just read your post about my campaign from before the election and I wanted to thank you for your kind words.