Why Not Invest A Few Shekels in These Candidates?
In no particular order:
1. Sean Matthews, 11th RD: Even if you backed Dennis E. Williams in the primary, you’d have to admit that Matthews is infinitely preferable to R candidate Judy Travis, whose support comes from far out of the political mainstream. As opposed to your traditional Brandywine Hundred R, Travis is one of only two House candidates to get the support of the Delaware chapter of the Faith & Freedom Coalition. I won’t put words in their mouth, I’ll just quote them. Uh, liberally:
Welcome to Walking with God and the Bill of Rights
It is with great joy that we welcome you to join us in our journey to walk with God and to defend the Bill of Rights. The combination may sound strange but they are more closely aligned then you may think. We at Faith & Freedom believe that our Founding Fathers made a covenant with God. Not along the lines as great as was made with Abraham, but the results are the same.
But with our Founding Fathers they went to God and asked for His divine blessing on their mission to break free from tyranny; they knelt down and ask God for His wisdom, council, and blessings. God’s response to their surrendering to His will was to give us a nation and a homeland. This was the covenant between our Founding Fathers and God. We honor God, give him thanks and praise, and he will lead us in our efforts.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights where put together in a way that could not pass until Ben Franklin reminded them how they had turned to God for His help in forming this nation, so how could they not build this country without Him. They again knelt in prayer and praised God. These two documents were inspired by God and placed on the hearts of Madison, Jefferson, Henry and others.
Our real troubles started when we turned from God and the values, morals, and Bible He gave us. New math, new age, and environmental worship have replaced the real education, the Constitution, and God. Things have not worked out so well ever since. We welcome you here to join us in going back to our future.
Travis is also a favorite of the Rose & A Prayer anti-choice folks. She does not reflect the views of most Brandywine Hundred voters and is far to the right of most of them. Which is why the R’s are trying to hide her from the public. Matthews also immediately brings a public education perspective that is sorely lacking in Dover. Plus, he opposes capital punishment and supports decriminalization of marijuana. Worth an investment in a competitive race, which this is.
2. John Mackenzie, 22nd RD: A rarity. Campaign stuff that’s worth reading. Click on this and on this. Not only is it clear that he wrote his own copy, but he comes across as someone who will be a serious legislator and quite the progressive. He perhaps reminds me most of Michael Barbieri, who is one of the most outstanding legislators we have. We could use several more legislators like him, and Mackenzie is in that mold. He gave Liane Sorenson, a superb senator, a real run for her money in a previous race, and word has it that he’s a door-knocking machine. Worthy of our support. While I admire Steve Newton, I’m psyched for Mackenzie.
3. Marie Mayor, 20th RD: Well, let’s see. She’s right on the issues, she’s running a great campaign, she never really stopped running after the 2012 election, she almost won last time, and she, too, would immediately take her place as one of the best legislators in Dover. The political stars could also be aligned, as the anti-Obama folks won’t overrun the Sussex County results like in 2012. I also believe that, once she’s elected, her constituent work will enable her to get reelected several times over. Let’s help her win!
You know that I’ve already ponied up for Brenda Mayrack. With that in mind, who else should I write a check for? I’ll consider your ideas if you consider mine.
Tags: El Somnambulo, Featured, John Mackenzie, Marie Mayor, Sean Matthews, Steve Tanzer Delaware
I am not religious and disagree with most conservatives on social issues and foreign policy. That said, I am curious: what proof do you have that Judy Travis did anything to earn Faith & Freedoms endorsement? 30 day reports are out and they didn’t donate to candidates. They also endorsed Tackett, which leads me to believe they are acting on their own without asking candidates. If you have access to info please share. Otherwise I view this as hopeful speculation to tarnish image. Even if Travis is right wing and shares some or all of their positions, there is no proof she holds the same views as that organization.
Well, two things. They DID endorse her. In writing. Did I miss her renunciation of the endorsement? Don’t think so. Your logic makes no sense. Plus, according to their own website, they’re doing behind-the-scenes polling and other work on behalf of the candidates they’ve endorsed. If she doesn’t want their support, now’s the time for her to say so. They can stop doing the work they claim they’re doing. Those endorsements were made months ago, never heard a peep out of her.
And Travis has a track record, having run against Bryon Short back in 2010. As someone who lives in that district, her views were out there (literally and figuratively) for everyone to see.
What logic doesn’t make sense? I didn’t argue that she wasn’t endorsed. She was along with other candidates; some of them publicly oppose the major positions they hold (prolife no matter what, anti cannabis, anti gay marriage, etc.) I’m pointing out that just because she was endorsed doesn’t automatically mean she shares the same views. Your blog posts are typically backed up by facts. This time you didn’t cite any remarks from her that confirm those views. That makes it seem like it’s hopeful speculation.
Right, happens all the time. NRA endorses supporters of common-sense gun safety laws. Dominionists support atheists. The Chamber supports labor guys.
Uh, except it doesn’t. I’m sorry I threw away her 2010 lit. I know what her stands were then. This year, she appears to be speaking in boilerplate.
I, for one, can’t trust anybody endorsed by such an out-there right wing group who decries any separation between church and state. Can you? “God and the Bill of Rights marching together”. It’s not like they endorsed a lot of candidates. Only a select few passed muster. Has anyone renounced their endorsement? Dave Tackett didn’t. And he got what he deserved.
Judy Travis still can. Will she? It’s not up to me, it’s up to her.
You have a good point about how the NRA wouldn’t endorse anti gun candidate. But those are legitimate organizations. This seems more like a group that is in a small minority trying to attach themselves to candidates who have a shot so they can be seen as mainstream.
No they’re not. They’re full of high profile right-wing R’s at the national level. Don’t believe me?:
http://ffcoalition.com/
Ralph Reed is the founder and chairman. Their website cites endorsements from Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, and others. It’s right there on their website. Nothing approaching a moderate among them.
The Travis endorsement came from the Delaware chapter of that coalition. Might I point out that many of those national endorsers represent precisely why local R’s, especially in Brandywine Hundred, have abandoned their former party?
The local group isn’t the national organization. If they were they’d be sending out mailers and doing other things for candidates. That’s why I firmly believe they’re just a small group of church people trying to attach themselves hoping if one wins they get credit. I wouldn’t overestimate them.
They are who they are–the local chapter of THAT national organization.
Judy Travis can disavow their endorsement or not. And, according to their own website, they ARE doing things for the candidates–from the Delaware website:
“AT FAITH & FREEDOM COALITION DELAWARE, We are committed to educating, training, and mobilizing people of faith and those who love our country to be effective grassroots defenders of religious freedom and supporters of our Constitutional Republic.”
They then go on to cite their role in turning out ‘values voters’ in close elections. They have every right to do that, and the public has a right to know about it and about who FFC Delaware is campaigning for. A typical tactic is distributing cards in churches supporting candidates who tow the fundamentalist dominionist line. Yet one more reason, IMHO, why churches don’t deserve tax-exempt status, they are witting co-conspirators.
And candidates can either embrace or disavow such support. And voters can use those candidates’ decisions in determining who to vote for.
It’s not that difficult.
That doesn’t say they are doing that. Check out the national website again- it’s an exact copy of national organizations mission. No mention of them actually doing things for candidates. For the burden to be on the candidate, who may or may not be aware of the hundreds of groups that endorse in Delaware, then there should be evidence the candidate supports those same views. Again, you’re probably correct in assuming she does, but it’s still purely speculation until she is asked.
It’s not up to us to ask. IT’S UP TO HER TO ANSWER.
I’m getting tired of your linguistic games. It’s NOT purely speculation, it’s informed inference, based upon everything we know about the endorsement and her previous political positions.
But how can she answer if you never asked? I’m not saying anything bad, just pointing out that your speculation in this article is an assumption. Faith and freedom hasn’t posted any surveys and, from what I’ve seen, she hasn’t publicly supported them. NRA endorsements mean something because candidates answered a questionnaire, so the burden would be on them to explain. In this case there is zero evidence, so you can’t say she supports faith and freedom’s views, even though inference leads us to believe she does. You wrote how you can’t put words into her mouth but then went on to quote faith and freedoms mission statement, leaving readers to assume she supports those views.
If deliberate denseness is all you and she have, then it’s time for this conversation to end. Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t YOU call her and ask her if she subscribes to their views? She presumably can read and, by now, she’s well aware that the issue has been raised. I quoted the Delaware FFC entire endorsement post about two months ago.
I never said I can’t put words into her mouth, you misquoted me. Here’s what I wrote:
“Travis is one of only two House candidates to get the support of the Delaware chapter of the Faith & Freedom Coalition. I won’t put words in THEIR mouth, I’ll just quote them. Uh, liberally…”
If she wants to address it, it’s her choice. If she wants to ignore it, it’s her choice. If she wants to call the Al Mascitti Show nest Tuesday to respond (I’ll be on), it’s her choice. If she wants to respond right here on the blog, it’s her choice, and we’ll give her all the e-inches she needs to make her case.
That’s my final word on this subject. You can try to spin this all you want, but, at this point, we’re both just going around in circles. Nats-Giants have started…
You posted the press release on the Faith and Freedom Delaware endorsements here.
I’m right there with Mackenzie, especially when it come to the DE Economy. We can’t keep giving money recklessly to companies like Fisker (failure) & Bloom Energy, with no ROE. Joe Miro said; “if he knew what was in the Bloom Energy deal, he would not have voted on it.” Then Mr. Miro should not be in office. Whay are we stuck, for the next 20 years, with Bloom Energy, even if they fail!!!
Thank you Mr. Governor!
El Som, I generally agree with your recommendations however I cannot support Mr Matthews until he clearly states his positions on a woman’s right to chose and the death penalty. His position on a woman’s right to chose is couched with language which sets off alarms or so I have been told by multiple people. His reasoning for his death penalty position is suspect and does not seem to address the fundamental issue. I completely agree with your concerns about Mrs Travis. However, Mr Matthews seems to have strong ties to his Church and religious beliefs as well. I would like to understand if and how his beliefs impact his public policy positions. As DL endorsed him in the primary, I would hope that DL understands his positions. Even better maybe have Mr Matthews answer them so that Progressives can feel comfortable supporting him. Not being Judy Travis is not enough to garner my support. As always, thank you for your insights. Jen
Here’s what he says about the death penalty in response to a candidate questionnaire:
“I think the death penalty process is too lengthy, too expensive, and frequently leaves the families of victims without closure for many years. I believe “life without parole” is a better, more timely option..”
Since I urged that people contribute to his campaign, I agree with you that he should make clear his position on choice. Since I wrote the piece, I’ll ask.
Which brings me to a final point. This whole question as to whether Travis subscribes to EVERY ELEMENT of the FFCDelaware agenda is pointless when you think about it. I wrote a piece highlighting candidates who, IMHO, deserve support from me and other progressives. To somehow try to morph this into an argument over whether Travis REALLY believes ALL the elements of their wacky agenda misses the point. Getting in bed (in a chaste matter, no doubt) with a buncha people who want to throw out the separation between church and state is enough for me.
These Sean Mathews Q&A responses work for me.
I’ll match every DL reader’s contribution to Mathews up to a total of $200.00. That’s a quick $400.00 that he could probably put to good use.
Put three cents on your online contribution so they can tell me how much I owe.
Thank you El Som
Word is that when those who oppose the. death penalty were looking for support Mr Matthews was not very welcoming. While his position is ok his response leaves me wanting. His position on Choice is alarming if what I have been told is accurate. To be clear, I am no fan of Mrs Travis. I would never ever support her. However, Mr Matthews is very cryptic about his own religious association. His bio reads Church volunteer with no reference to the actual Church. I am told the congregation and his Church are very conservative. Strongly anti-choice. I am not sure if this is true or if/how that translates to his public policy views. Before I support him, I need to know where he stands. I am tired of being duped.
I appreciate your work for DL and Progressives. Jen
On the death penalty, the choice is clear: a persuadable, or ‘gettable’ vote for repeal, vs. someone who will not support repeal. That’s a true choice.
BTW, it sounds like the ‘cryptic’ language you’re hearing is coming from opponents, most likely Williams, who has not yet wrapped his head around his loss. You write about what you’ve been told. You strike me as being astute enough to also question the people who are telling you these things. There was a lot of ‘whisper down the lane’ in that campaign.
Honestly an acquaintance of mine asked Mr Matthews directly about Choice. She liked Mr Williams positions but she did not like him. Mr Matthews answer to her was couched with “personally opposed common sense restrictions” red flag language. That doesn’t work for me. Just wondering if what she communicated is accurate or if he has refined his position. I won’t take up any more or your time on this. Thanks Jen
Jason: I just went in for $50.03.
I do want to rant about this:
This is an answer from someone who has not paid one lick of attention to the actual policy being discussed here. The state has mechanisms to get polluters to pay for the sites that they can link to those polluters. Many of our waterways are contaminated by excess nutrients, stormwater runoff and sedimentation, invasive plants species and contaminants in bottom sediments, bacteria and other stuff that is more difficult to pinpoint that the usual point source contamination. Some of that contamination and runoff is from all of the crap people put on their lawns that runoff to waterways. If you think about the Brandywine River, much of its contamination and sedimentation problem starts way upstream in Pennsylvania — you won’t spend money on a polluter pays strategy there (because you won’t win), but you can spend money on a strategy of planting and coutouring streambanks that will reduce sediments AND could catch some of the pollutants coming from upstream. This is another infrastructure project — for everyone who talks about the useless beach replenishments as economic investment, a long-term effort to help cleanup interior waterways is probably a much better economic investment.
Sean Matthews has consistently ducked and shuffled on Choice.
No he hasn’t, John. That is a falsehood.
For your benefit, and for the benefit of anybody who might have a question about this, why don’t we let Pro-Choice Delaware’s candidate survey answer those questions?
Go here to check out the whole thing:
http://www.pro-choicedelaware.org/voter_guide.php
Just scroll down to RD 10 and read for yourselves.
For the record, Pro-Choice Delaware asked 11 questions. Sean Matthews scored a perfect 11 for 11 on those questions. Sean Matthews was endorsed by Pro-Choice Delaware over Judy Travis, who did not answer the survey.
JM, you owe the readers an apology for deliberately misrepresenting Matthews’ positions. And, JenR, if that’s not enough information for you, I don’t know what is.
Thanks El Som
I had heard he did not respond to PP during the primary. Thanks for following up.
Jen
You may want to ask the person who told you that why they lied to you.
No I don’t believe she did. His answer then was ackward and couched. If you ask a candidate how they feel about life instead of choice you sometimes draw out a different response. She is pro choice but asked about life to see where he stood.
Spontaneous answers can differ from surveys. At this point I feel more comfortable based upon PP.
Thanks again
Jen
Thanks EL – here is the deal…
I’ll match every DL reader’s contribution to Mathews up to a total of $200.00. That’s a quick $400.00 that he could probably put to good use.
Put three cents on your online contribution so they can tell me how much I owe.
Marie Mayor has a great chance of unseating one of the worst Rs in the House. Give her money to get rid of this creep!
Paulette Rappa, Democrat candidate for the 37th District, is running a vigorous campaign in her challenging district that is heavily populated on the two ends of the district and sparsely populated in the center. Rappa has done an outstanding job of focusing on the issues that include education, the economy, social equality, and housing. The mother of eight is an experienced educator, and astute in evaluating a situation and determining the correct course of action. Rappa knows when to compromise and when to hold fast. She has held numerous leadership positions and her mediation skills will suit her well in Dover. The voters in the 37th Representative District are fortunate to have a real voting choice this year,
El Som: Let’s say I’ll keep an open mind and hope my sources are proven wrong. Matthews has voiced a good initial position against the privatizing of public education. He’s young and can certainly grow.