Short Touts Sneaky Pete’s Support

Filed in National by on September 30, 2015

Somewhat surprised to see a couple of the names on this list. Totally not surprised to see others.

Today over a dozen of my colleagues in the Delaware House of Representatives announced their support for my campaign for Congress. I’m truly honored to have the support of so many of Delaware’s hard working leaders.

State Legislators Supporting Bryon Short for Congress:
Pete Schwartzkopf, Representative Valerie Maglio Longhurst, Rep. John Viola, Rep. John Kowalko, Gerald Brady, Rep. Melanie George Smith, Rep. Stephanie Bolden, Debra Heffernan, Rep. Quinn Johnson, Rep. Sean Matthews, Rep. Earl Jaques, Rep. Bill Carson, Rep. Trey Paradee, Rep. Sean Lynn

Bryon Short's photo.

About the Author ()

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

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. JTF says:

    Really disappointed to see Kowalko and Matthews on this list. Thought they were better progressives than that. Really giving into the Establishment “Democrat” tripe – really hope someone primaries them over this.

  2. Jason330 says:

    LOL! I don’t know if you are being intentionally funny or not.

  3. Bane says:

    No Jason. He’s drinking the Kool Aid. JTF also forgot to mention Sean Lynn. Seems that 3 of the Liberal 6 are backing Short. Could it be that all this hype about Townsend being the real progressive is just…. hype. I mean, lets be honest here. John Kowalko is the King of legislative progressives. I mean he sets the bar. Before you cast dispersions JTF on John Kowalko, a man who has never compromised his progressive integrity, maybe you should ask yourself… What does he know, that you don’t?

    It’s like that movie Draft Day when the Browns got word that their potential #1 pick didn’t get any of his teammates to attend his birthday party. So they had to start asking questions like… what do they know about him that we don’t. I think its strange that this guy only has one endorsement amongst 62 colleagues… liberals included. But here comes the defense… (In a simple whimpering voice) “Well, he goes against the establishment so of course he doesn’t have supporters in Dover”… Blah Blah Blah.

  4. Jason330 says:

    It is also possible that Kowalko’s integrity isn’t what it used to be. I’m sure there are pretty sleazy deals of all sorts going down. The Dem primary is the race afterall.

  5. I totally understand why Sean Matthews is backing Short, and I don’t blame him. Remember when Dennis Williams screwed Short out of a leadership position? Bryon did. A lot of his people really helped Sean Matthews defeat Williams in the primary. And I’m glad they did.

    As to Kowalko, unless he’s the hero of his own progressive fantasy, he ain’t happy. He views Townsend as a rival, which once again reveals the petty mind we’re dealing with here. It’s also one of the reasons he used to diss Mike Barbieri, who had a record of effectiveness that Kowalko could only dream of.

    There’s also the matter of institutional pride to consider. It is exceedingly rare (in fact, I can’t recall a single instance) for a State Representative to run for higher office in Delaware. That counts for more than you might think.

  6. Jason330 says:

    That checks out.

  7. JTF says:

    uhhh Mike Castle ring a bell?

  8. John Kowalko says:

    Yeah, shame nobody offered me $144,000 a year to abandon my electorate. None of you know me or the reasons I make decisions and choices so take your self-aggrandizing lack of facts and fanciful musings to those reflections in your mirror and judge yourselves. I’m assuming you might know the real you. And by the way Jason, your petty little mind that conjures up these sleazy little deals of all sorts that are infecting everyone like an Ebola virus would be better used to publish a fictional comedy/drama. You could call it Me, Myself and the Bitter Man (can you guess who that is?). Since you have chosen to imply that I’ve compromised either my integrity or my earnest zest for progressivism than I’d suggest you wrack your brain, sort through all of your sources and even consult your colleagues who pretend to know anything at all about my thoughts or what really goes on in Dover and post one item…PROOF. I guess now you’ll suspend comments or sling your vitriol and then suspend comments. Some of you should get out more. Soak up the sun, enjoy a cool breeze or even let the rain caress your face. In other words get a life in the real world.
    Hey JTF ….802 French St. fourth floor Department of Elections bring a check and file for office. Of course you’ll have to reveal your true identity. No cloak of anonymity to hide under.

    Representative John Kowalko

  9. We may not ‘know your thoughts’, but we know the relentless drivel that you spew.

    Case in point, your most recent post.

  10. Mike Castle was a State Senator, not a State Rep. There have been a couple of State Senators who have run for higher office. Nancy Cook and David McBride ran for LT. Governor, but both lost to SB Woo.

    And then there’s Colin Bonini…

  11. John Kowalko says:

    Vitriol slung from “bitterman”, time to suspend comments.
    John Kowalko

  12. Wiki says:

    el som – googling isn’t that hard.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Castle

  13. Dorian Gray says:

    My old Windy Hills mate is out of control… most of the time I think he’s lost his mind… but at least he’s not a company man. Close the fucking comments!

    Seriously, perhaps your contributors could contribute something that isn’t predictable. I’m bored.

    JK… you’re a fucking nutter for sure but keep shitting on this crew. They need a needle in eye.

  14. Jason330 says:

    JK’s had a chance to make his case for Short. Instead we get lunatic ravings. Some ally you’ve got there Mr Short.

  15. Wiki says:

    Jason, pretty sure he’s your ally mate.

  16. Jason330 says:

    It is simply politics that deals get things done. It makes sense on its face that people get something in return when they give something. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word sleazy? Who knows, but it doesn’t seem that an actual argument in favor of Short is going to be forthcoming.

  17. Anonymous says:

    A better choice than Townsend!

  18. kavips says:

    Right now it boils down to a vague choosing between having someone in Congress who works to make America better by changing what isn’t working well right now, or keeping America the same for whom things are working rather well right now.

    The clarity of those lines will probably change as we edge closer to the vote.

  19. John Manifold says:

    El Som’s basic point stands. No State Rep has run for higher office since Sherm Tribbitt. Castle had been a one-term Rep, while in his 20’s, many years before becoming a statewide candidate.

  20. MikeM2784 says:

    Mr. Kowalko,
    Instead of buying into responding to vague personal attacks, which I agree are somewhat unnecessary, could you give us your reasons for supporting Short instead of Townsend? I’m in earnest…it seems as though you and Mr. Townsend have more in common with your positions than you and Mr. Short…is there something we should know? Or just personal preference?

  21. Dorian Gray says:

    In the interest of fairness let’s be very clear what happened here.

    Jason questioned Kowalko’s intergrity and El Som’s little personal jab at Kowalko were pretty shitty as well. The assumption is he is jealous of Barbieri’s track record, sees Townsend as a rival and is “petty.” If someone were to question your motives and character, Jason and Steve, you’d get your tails up as well. I’ve seen it happen in this space.

    If I didn’t know better I’d think you guys were baiting the guy into another little internet rant. So let’s not pretend that JK’s response was completely unwarranted.

    I understand why Kowalko may feel like he needs to defend himself against attacks first before laying out a case for Short because his integrity and motives were indeed attacked, no question.

    Now on to Kowalko. Mike’s correct. Just explain why you support Short not Townsend first… then point out what assholes Jason and Steve were.

  22. Jason330 says:

    Fair enough. My questioning of JK’s integrity was in response to Bane who took JK’s integrity as a given because it suited his narrative. My view is that I don’t think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to get the feeling that some deal was struck.

    Deals are how politics get done.

  23. Geezer says:

    You don’t have to like Townsend to oppose Short. Short worked for Carper. Nuff said for me.

  24. Dorian Gray says:

    Geez… If we disqualify everyone for higher office who has ever worked for the Corporatists, Centrists and otherwise weak-kneed pseudo-liberals this State has so often elected the list of suitable candidates is going to be incredibly sparse.

  25. JTF says:

    I don’t know what Kowalko’s deal is or isn’t with this – still disappointing that progressives in this state remain so fractured. I hope we can open whatever this quid pro quo is1!!

  26. Nuttingham says:

    How do we know that’s actually Kowalko and not an opponent posting under his name? That post could easily be read as a parody. Although if it was, the satirist needs a bit lighter touch.

  27. Delaware Dem says:

    Yeah, I would like to know why Rep. John Kowalko thinks Bryon Short is at all Progressive. Endorsing a Carperite is pretty shocking.

  28. Bane says:

    I stand by what I said about the integrity of John Kowalko. He is a damn good man and a great progressive. I am however beginning to question either the integrity or the intelligence of Jason and El Som whom, UNTIL THIS RACE, I have had much respect for. They are saying things that would not pass their own logic test.

    A. First they say that the only way things get done in Dover is via sleazy deals. (Correct)

    B. Then El Som accuses (which has become a trend) Kowalko of not being able to get things done in Dover. Which is an understandable situation given our acceptance of ‘A’. (Correct)

    C. However, he praises Townsend for being the most active Senator in Dover, who gets bill after bill passed in this same cesspool. (Conflict)

    A + B cannot logically = C

    It would seem to me that your theory of Dover being a place where it’s difficult to get things done without being sleazy would be more of an indictment on the barely known freshman Senator who has mysteriously gotten more than 20 bills through the legislature rather than John Kowalko who has not had as much success with getting his bills through that same cesspool of back room deals and sleaze. If the only argument against the man is that he worked for a Democrat in an era where there were only 2 democrats statewide that you could work for in (at the time) a republican state, that may be one of the dumbest reasons not to support a person.

  29. Jason330 says:

    Let’s agree that this endorsement doesn’t make sense on its face, so it needs explaining. My suggestion of deal making is a possible explanation. I’m not wedded to it, especially if someone else has a better explanation.

  30. mouse says:

    I’m so confused

  31. Delaware Dem says:

    Bane, please explain to me the progressive credentials of Bryon Short, and how he is the more progressive choice than Bryan Townsend. That is what John Kowalko is saying with his endorsement, that Short is more progressive than Townsend. So I demand that it be explained on a policy level if Kowalko is to remain a “Great Progressive.”

  32. Nuttingham says:

    It’s too bad we can’t change names on this site. I’d love to be “Earnest Zest.”

    But that might seem “self aggrandizing.”

  33. JTF says:

    @Delaware Dem – exactly! Townsend has been a leader on every major social and fiscal issue in the state sinc ehe came to office. N0 one has been a more brave a competent leader. I really with KoWACKo and his minions wouldnt be so jealous of the fact that hes a young and handsome guy who people want to have lead them!!11

  34. Dorian Gray says:

    Hey, DD. Maybe Kowalko thinks Short is more electable.

    Joking aside, perhaps fucking insults are not the very best way to get your questions answered. And multiple exclamation marks to boot.

    The idea that Kowalko, as nutty and jumpy as he can be, is jealous of Townsend’s youth and looks is insulting and fucking ridiculous.

  35. Jason330 says:

    Burn!

  36. Dorian Gray says:

    Frankly I already don’t like Townsend. Maybe the best way to support him is in silence, because what you’re doing isn’t helping.

  37. Jason330 says:

    People vote for and against people for myriad reasons.

  38. Bane says:

    Why is the responsibility on me to explain Short’s credentials? I have said nothing about him, nor have I gotten on this site making unfounded claims about him. It is the Townsend supporters who have done that. I have yet to support anyone because I need questions answered from all candidates, not just one. I have only questioned others decision to prop up Townsend as some liberal lion and bash Short because he worked for someone that every political staffer worth their salt in this state has probably worked for at some time or another. Something does not smell right here. I’m getting visions of Jack Markell all over again. We had a corporate executive who was liberal on a handful of issues. Then this site got all googly eyed and drank all the kool aide. Now I have a corporate lawyer who “claims” to be a liberal, but introduced an amendment to tank Opt Out. I don’t care what El Som tries to sell me, only an idiot would write an amendment giving a 16yr old student (not their parent) the ability to opt out of an educational requirement and actually think that it has a chance to pass. If not for the last minute work of John Kowalko to get the amendment removed, that bill would still be in the house. I know what that was. That was sleazy playing both sides. A fake friendly amendment with sinister intentions…. A nice wink to the corporates that they have a friend who is behind enemy lines. This same group of contributors have been hustled before, and I think I’m seeing it again.

  39. jason330 says:

    I agree that the Jack Markell infatuation should give liberals pause. Speaking only for myself, I stood next to Townsend at an ADA event and heard him lay down some progressive qualifications. Maybe I drank the Kool Aid, but I also see Short’s campaign being staffed up by team Carper. That gives me more pause, than the idea that I might be Markelled again.

  40. Bane says:

    But Jason… I can do the “who worked for whom” game also. Brian Boyle worked for Chip Flowers. A man that was far less successful than Tom Carper, with even less integrity.

    What about Raser-Schramm, didn’t he run Markell’s campaign for Treasurer? Didn’t he work for Ruth Ann? Uhh… Good luck finding anyone in this state who doesn’t link back to any of the electeds you have a problem with. I just don’t think that that is a fair assessment for anyone. Not Townsend’s camp or Short’s. It would set them all up for failure. The best staffers typically get picked up by the candidates at the top of the ticket. It would seem to be an unrealistic situation to automatically disqualify anyone because they worked for Carper, Carney, or Markell, because who else are you going to get with statewide campaign experience?? An outsider?

  41. jason330 says:

    A fair point. The club is the club. However, here in the early stages of the campaign I think we are trying to read some tea leaves, and Short appears to me to be a Team Carper operation from the get go. For me, that’s what made JK’s name on that list stand out.

  42. SussexAnon says:

    The lack of a Bryon Short supporter on this site defending him could be an indication of his progressive bona fides.

    If there is a progressive argument for Short, I would love to hear it. Seriously. Not being cynical.

  43. Jason330 says:

    Or it could be an indication that the campaign isn’t worried about blogs….? The fact that the election is the Democratic primary though might make standing mum a little risky. I can see this thing being close.

    And Short himself seemed to be at least aware of the fact that progressives and liberals turn out for primaries because he highlighted the JK endorsement in the NJ write up of this.

  44. anon says:

    I have just one question, other than the fact that he worked for Carper (not unusual in Delaware political circles) what makes Short less progressive than Townsend? They seem to have identical votes on progressive issues and on most issues, they’re both business minded, and neither of their parents can spell “BRIAN.”

  45. Anon says:

    Short’s strategy is to make him and Townsend seem similar. Townsend’s strategy needs to be keep on keeping on.

  46. I think it’s been laid out several times as to how Pete got Short to bury the minimum wage increase bill in his business-friendly committee. I think it’s been laid out several times here as to how Short’s agenda was to cut ‘bureaucratic red tape’ on business. It’s been laid out several times here that, when the BC/Highmark merger came before his committee, he was quoted as saying that there’s ‘nothing I can do’ to slow down the bill or even improve it. Which is why I don’t think they’re even close when it comes to progressive cred.

    As to Kowalko, when he and Connie Merlet basically overthrew the leadership of PDD, several progressives were subsequently denied endorsements. That was his doing, and that’s where I finally got off the bus for good when it came to Kowalko. Which is why I continue to call him petty. The only plausible explanation for denying those endorsements is/was petty jealousy. So, Dorian, I maintain that Kowalko is jealous of anyone who threatens his own view of himself as The Only Progressive Worthy of the Label. That position is not bleeping ridiculous if you know the man. I wish I knew him less well.

  47. anon says:

    I can’t find that “nothing I can do” quote about the Highmark merger anywhere except this site. Can you cite it for me from another source?

    As for the merger I don’t see where the legislature was given the opportunity to vote on it, other than one bill that clarified some points which passed through both chambers with only two “no” votes.

    http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS146.NSF/vwLegislation/SB+146?Opendocument

    I did pull up a docket from the merger hearing, and it’s interesting that Bryan Townsend was at that hearing for Morris James but did not testify. Isn’t he a corporate lawyer? He’s also the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee and well, banking/insurance blah blah blah.

    http://www.delawareinsurance.gov/departments/bcbs/Oct%207%20tranx.pdf

    Short was very open about the minimum wage bill, he did not support it during the economic downturn when Delaware was bleeding businesses. When the economy regained solid footing he backed it. That is reasonable, not regressive.

    I think Townsend and Short are fairly equal when it comes to progressive credentials. I also think that sometimes personal biases get in the way of facts.

  48. $8.25 an hour? Reasonable? Bullshit. It was only when there was an outcry and public backlash that first Andria Bennett, and then finally Short, backed down. As to ‘when the economy regained solid footing’, is THAT what happened during the time that Short kept the bill in committee? Also thus ensuring that the minimum wage increase would be delayed for another year? Short wasn’t being fiscally responsible, he was doing the bidding of the people who will now fund his campaign.

    The ‘nothing I can do’ quote was directly out of the newspaper. If you go back to when we first noted it, we provided the link. Look it up yourself. I’m done doing people’s work for them.

    Especially trolls.

  49. Mitch Crane says:

    I write to clear the record on the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Delaware merger (really a take over by) with Highmark. The legislature had little authority to approve or oppose a merger of insurance companies. The authority over such matter lie totally with the Insurance Commissioner.

    What was an issue was a state law that requires approval by the Attorney General of any mergers or takeovers of “non-profits”. BCBSD was a non profit. Much of Highmark’s operation is for profit. Then Attorney General Beau Biden opposed this takeover. He and I were the only public officials testifying against it in the legislature and in the Insurance Department hearings

    Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart claimed that if BCBSD did not merge with Highmark, it would be “insolvent in 6 years”. The legislature passed a bill stripping the Attny General of the authority to block the merger. This happened in 2011. Bryan Townsend was not elected to the Senate until the next year.

    Stewart approved the merger. Highmark now has a near monopoly on all aspects of health insurance in Delaware.

  50. That’s right, Mitch. And Bryon Short supported that bill. That was the bill I referenced.

    Oops, did I say ‘supported’? Bryon Short was the House prime sponsor of the bill. Read the weaselly thing for yourself:

    http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/9608aad0dd75b215852578b6005d042c?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,insurance

    Never even made it to a House Committee. Was passed under ‘Suspension of the Rules’. 5 nos: Bolden, Jaques, J. J. Johnson, Kowalko, and Dennis P. Williams. Became law over the strong objections of Beau Biden.

    I’d like to personally thank anon for encouraging me to go back and take a look at this. Bryon Short was the prime House sponsor of the bill that took away the AG’s ability to influence the disastrous merger of BC/BS and Highmark. Your next Democratic congressman?

  51. Dorian Gray says:

    So maybe you could have posed this specific question originally and like constructively rather than do the whole insults and assumptions thing. That way we get an answer rather than a two-day 50+ comments waste of time. (Full disclosure: I personally enjoy the wasting of time bit.)

    Also, the insurance legislation item you just explained supports my proposition that Short is more quote-electable-unquote which seems to be the key characteristic for candidates based on the editorial positions of this weblog.

  52. Here’s what I wrote about the BC/BS bill that Short sponsored. From June 28, 2011:

    “Today’s Senate agenda kicks off with legislation pushed hard by Blue Cross/Blue Shield and vigorously opposed by Attorney General Beau Biden. The bill would pave the way for a merger that BX/BS has long sought, but which the AG questions based on how it would impact consumers. Sen. Blevins and Rep. B. Short are faves of the insurance industry, and they’re leading the fight on behalf of the ‘not-for-profit’ giant. Here’s the News-Journal’s take:

    “Also Tuesday, Blevins expects to bring a bill to the Senate floor that is seen as crucial to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware’s merging insurance plans with Pittsburgh-based Highmark Inc. Attorney General Beau Biden has been at odds with Blevins and Blue Cross over the bill, with Biden demanding that the insurer create a foundation to fund care for needy Delawareans from some of its $170 million in reserves.Blevins hoped to hammer out a resolution with Biden over the weekend, though passage of the legislation was unclear Friday.”

    “I haven’t counted votes on it yet,” she said.

    From June, 29, 2011:

    “That’s not to say that bad legislation can’t be worked even with public notice. SB 146 gives the finger to Delaware’s neediest as two ‘not-for-profits’ merge w/o promising even a cent of their obscene reserves. $175 million in reserves for this ‘not-for-profit’. The Senate basically decided that what they passed in 2004 was not what they intended to pass in 2004, hence AG Beau Biden has no authority to challenge the merger between BC/BS and the Pittsburgh-based Highmark. It gets worse. From today’s News-Journal article:

    As an alternative method of safeguarding the reserves, an amendment to Senate BIll 146 would require review and approval by the Department of Insurance of any payment Blue Cross makes in excess of $500,000 from the reserve fund to Highmark.

    “In a committee meeting last week, and through compromise discussions this week, Biden was steadfast in his opposition to Blevins’ bill. He warned that, through the deal, Highmark would gain control of Blue Cross’ entire pot of reserves. (IC Karen Weldin) Stewart has the power to ultimately approve or deny the deal, should it proceed. A public hearing is scheduled for early September.

    That’s no safeguard. That’s a blank check. Can anyone, anyone, cite an example of KWS daring to challenge BC/BS? Don’t bother to answer. Rhetorical question.”

    And here’s what I wrote on June 30, 2011:

    “‘Damage’ is indeed the operative word as SB 146, which places the $175 million reserve of BC/BS of Delaware at risk to Delawareans, passed the House and goes to the Governor for his signature. Barring a gubernatorial veto or legal action, all that stands between a windfall for BC/BS and Highmark is Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart. Someone who has never succeeded at anything and who now likely has a lucrative golden parachute waiting for her when she departs office, possibly from BC/BS, holds the fate of $175 mill in Delawareans’ money in her hands. Could the General Assembly at least pass legislation today barring the Insurance Commissioner from taking a job with the insurance industry upon leaving office? Now do you see just what a horrible situation we’re in with KWS at the helm? 5 legislators voted no, and they deserve special mention: Stephanie Bolden, Earl Jaques, J. J. Johnson, John Kowalko, and Dennis P. Williams. Only five out of 41 placed the public good above the power of big insurers. They alone deserve credit here.”

    And yet ‘anon’ would have us believe that this bill merely made technical corrections? $175 mill in technicalities.

  53. jason330 says:

    “…based on the editorial positions of this weblog.”

    LOL. A dog and his bone. If this blog has a coherent editorial position it is news to me. My position, FWIW, is to vote for the most liberal electable Democrat, because the alternative (another Republican in office) is intolerable.

  54. Anon says:

    That’s interesting DG, because the insurance legislation item actually supports the statement that Short helped lead the charge to screw Delawareans and defeat Beau Biden.

  55. Well, Short DID help lead the charge to screw Delawareans. Prime sponsor of the bill that did just that.

  56. anon says:

    I cited the same legislation and pointed out that it passed the Senate 21-0 with even Senator Peterson voting yes. Are you asserting that Townsend would have been the lone no vote in the Senate, because I don’t think that’s a plausible conclusion. (I apologize for mixing up the 2 “no votes” with the 5 “no” votes in the House).

    Since Townsend was at the hearing where Mitch Crane testified, it would be interesting to find out why he was there and who he was representing. At least then there could be a better comparison on the topic.

  57. We KNOW what Bryon Short did: Sponsored legislation that Beau Biden begged the General Assembly to defeat.

    How about asking your boy why he did what he did?

    Instead of implying that, if Bryan Townsend was there, it MUST have been something sinister. That’s just intellectual dishonesty. Putting $175 mill of health care reserves at risk was worse than sinister. And that’s what Short aided and abetted by his sponsorship and vote.

  58. Mitch Crane says:

    Bryan Townsend was not present when I testified. There were many attorneys representing many interests during the hearing process. An attorney should not be criticized for who he or she represents. When I was in private practice I represented all sorts of people I did not identify with. That is an attorney’s job.

    As to the senate vote. Two senators who voted for the bill told me afterward, after I explained what the result of passage would be, that they would have voted NO if they had known. The House vote came after and there was time to discuss it with John Kowalko and some others.

    I am happy with both Townsend and Short. We are happy we will have that choice

  59. calvin sparks says:

    This is like arguing who was more to the right….Hitler or Stalin. Seriosly though, as someone who has not thrown his support behind anyone, who is the true progressive in this race. I would like to know. Do we have a progressive at all or just a couple of guys who are really exceptional at playing baitband switch

  60. Jason330 says:

    The true progressive in this race is Brian Townsend.

  61. calvin sparks says:

    Jason, I am leaning that way!