DL community steps up to help Don Peterson challenge Schwartzkopf in the 14th
The DL community contributed $534.12 to help Don Peterson take on the execrable Pete Schwartzkopf. $534.12 might not seem like a huge haul, but Don Peterson is treading a long and difficult path in taking on an incumbent who also happens to be the Speaker, so it is important to take a long view of projects like this.
Since I’ve been paying attention to Delaware politics, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an incumbent beaten on the first attempt. It seems to always take an election for a challenger to get his campaign footing. It is my hope that this support and future support from the DL community, small though it may be, helps Don Peterson fix his vision on the horizon and settle on the long term goal of beating Pete Schwartzkopf if not this primary, then next. If not that primary, then the next.
Bryan Townsend beat Tony DeLuca first time out.
So, don’t sell Peterson short. (Memo to Self: Pony up some bucks.)
I stand corrected. That sentence should read, “Since I’ve been paying attention to Delaware politics, it has been very rare to see an incumbent beaten on the first attempt.”
You’re also correct that sometimes you run the first time and set the stage for a successful second attempt.
John Kowalko, and BHL used the first race and the time in between campaigns very well. There are probably many others but they stick out in my memory.
Kowalko basically ran an effective “constituents services” operation, and BHL was her energetic self, getting out and about, directly asking people for their support and writing their names in her notebook.
My sincere thanks to Jason330 and the DL community for your support! We need to keep fighting the good fight for a more progressive DE and a more open and responsive government! It IS time for a change!
Anyone who believes that a freshman rep will better serve a district over the highest ranking rep in the chamber is delusional.
Why don’t you ask the people on the western side of Sussex if replacing their high ranking senator with a freshman has resulted in the same level of advocacy and service. (As a former resident of that area with family still there, I can assure you that that is not the case.) And before you make the point, this isn’t an exact apples to apples comparison. Venables was ousted by a republican challenger; still the end result is the same.
Other similarities with this race and Venables? People outside the district going to extraordinary lengths to oust the incumbent. Upstate Republicans were heavily involved in the nasty campaign tactics used against Venables, while it seems that most of you won’t be the ones directly impacted if the Speaker loses since you likely don’t live in that district, or Sussex County for that matter. Isn’t anyone at all concerned about the impact on Sussex County if the Speaker loses? Of course you don’t, because you have formed your opinion of the man and refuse to accept that he might represent his district and the entire county extremely well.
I’m just curious, but didn’t the guy this Speaker replaced do a lot of the same things that you all take issue with the current speaker doing regularly on this blog? The former speakers committee assignments by and large appear to be in line with this Speaker’s. Would minimum wage or repeal have faired better under the leadership of the previous Speaker in light of these similarities? If memory serves, didn’t the previous Speaker go out of his way to protect and further enrich the casinos in the state? I seem to recall he had one near or maybe in his district, so I assume you people called him out for this, correct? I’ll wait for the links to your posts.
Is there any possibility that you’ve villanized this Speaker for whatever reason, and laid all blame at his feet regardless if it was fair or if he was at fault? I’m sure the guy isn’t perfect- what high ranking politician is, by the way- but in all the posts that call for his removal, I just fail to see what crime he’s committed that’s any worse than those previously in his position.
I’d be more curious to hear how he treats his constituents, the staff who work for him, the people who regularly come in to contact with him for official legislative business? Are any of you those people listed above? Assuming that’s a no, I’d be curious what their take would be as I think they’d probably have some actual real life interactions and experiences with him with which to base their opinions. If they say he’s evil, then I stand corrected.
The staff who work for him? You mean the ones he fired and intimidated? That’s a huge difference between this speaker and any other speaker over the past 30 years. He turned a collegial institution into one ruled by fear and intimidation.
As to your basic premise, might I point out that Bryan Townsend ousting President Pro-Tem Tony DeLuca made the Senate a much better place, and was a boon for constituents and forward-thinking legislators alike?
BTW, had you bothered to read anything that’s been written here over the past few years, we haven’t ‘villainized this Speaker for whatever reason’. His actions have spoken for themselves. We’ve just enumerated them and called him on it.
Pardon my ignorance, but who did he fire? I have a vague recollection of a couple of part time staff that work when session is in not being brought back one year- I think Celia wrote about that? Is that what you consider a firing to mean, not being offered to return for a new cycle? That’s not what comes to mind when I recall others who have been fired from that place, yourself included as you’ve shared on this blog over the years. Those part time jobs are pretty sweet deals, I think on some level it’s probably refreshing to give new people those opportunities from time to time. If he’s fired anyone else, please feel free to share.
By the way, the rumor mill seems to indicate that the Senate has actually seen a significant amount of full time staff turnover this session- both the Ds and the Rs. Some of those folks left on their own for better opportunities I’m sure, but I believe the Pro Tem cleaned house and fired several full time staff members just this year alone. Perhaps this is the first that that rumor is being passed along to you, but if the Speaker’s reputation of fear and intimidation is merely based on not asking two per diem staff to return to a following session, I’d love to see you try and square that with Senate leaders firing full time staffers throughout the session.
As to the Bryan Townsend comparison, there’s a huge difference with losing the only influential Democrat legislator in Sussex County, versus ousting one of numerous influential legislators in NCC. You don’t live in Sussex, so I get that this concept might not translate well for you. I can say that a lot of the democrats left in Sussex are grateful that we have the Speaker, otherwise our issues and concerns would not get the attention that they deserve.
I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that if you ask any staffers who have worked for the two most recent Speakers, 99% of them would say the one that they were terrified of was Gilligan, not Schwartzkopf. I’m sure you still have lots of contacts in the House- maybe ask someone who worked for both and see what they have to say on the matter instead of speaking on their behalf and never following up to see if your accusations have merit?
Since you asked, heather, the reason progressives want Pete out is, first and foremost, he does not represent the interests of the state’s non-Dixiecrat Democrats. As Speaker, he should be responsible to everyone in the state, but like the rest of the far-too-large state cop contingent in Dover, he’s mostly been responsible for making himself powerful.
If he weren’t Speaker I wouldn’t much care, but since he’s making Delaware worse for everybody but you, I would like to see him taken down.
Does that help?
anonymous- Thanks, but no it doesn’t help. FYI, when legislators take their oath of office, they “swear to carry out the responsibilities of the office to the best of their ability, freely acknowledging that the powers of the office flow from the people they are privileged to represent.” Fairly clear to me that a legislator’s first and foremost responsibility is to represent those who elected them to serve. I’m simply making the argument that the people in his district, as well as those of us without any Democrat representation in Sussex County, see tremendous value for keeping him in office.
I’m not following your logic with regard to your second sentence- if you assert he has a responsibility to everyone in the state, shouldnt that include progressives, other democrats, as well as independents and republicans? Or was your point more that he should give greater deference to progressive dems over all others because that’s how you personally identify and where you see him as deficient on his positions? Beyond the repeal bill, can you point to any other progressive dem legislation he voted against on the House floor? Or does the no vote on repeal nullify all the work he did to get sexual orientation and gender identity added to the state’s discrimination laws, or his efforts to get civil unions and then marriage equality passed? He shouldn’t get full credit for those but I do recall he was on the front lines working on those issues, some for many years, to get them passed.
I’m curious- are you only accepted and embraced by progressives when you pass an arbitrary purity standard? If so, is anyone capable of passing such a standard? I thought I was a progressive but based on some of these comments, I’m not sure progressives have room for me in their club either.
“Beyond the repeal bill, can you point to any other progressive dem legislation he voted against on the House floor? ”
The Speaker doesn’t have to vote against a bill to kill it.
Right. He buried the minimum wage bill in an inhospitable committee. Some Democrat he is. He’s not a back-bencher from Sussex, he’s the Speaker of the House. There’s a difference. He’s SUPPOSED to be a leader of the Democratic Party.
He cut a budget deal last year with the Rethugs that went against the wishes of his own caucus.
Oh, and if Don Peterson defeats Speaker Pete, it will be EXACTLY analogous to Townsend defeating President Pro Tem DeLuca.
The fact that Sussex County can’t elect D’s is at least in part Pete’s fault. Pretty much the only one he helped to elect was serial screw-up John Atkins. Ever heard of him, Heather? Now he’s pushing recent Park Slope resident Kathy McGuiness for LG while trying to keep a prospective R from running against him b/c of eligibility issues. Do you see the inconsistency there, Heather?
Ah, I see. Even though the minimum wage issue has always been handled by that committee, because it’s an issue you support, you think the Speaker should make a special exception this one time to move it to some other committee to improve its chances for release. I get it now. Because I’m sure if he did it this one time for this one bill, that that wouldn’t become a regular request made by reps when they expect their bills to face challenges in the committees they are likely to be assigned.
I’ve always wondered why you made the leap to assign blame for the bill’s failure to the Speaker- why not blame the bill’s sponsors and supporters for not doing a better job working the committee members to secure the necessary votes? Isn’t that how this process is supposed to work? Can’t they sign out the bill unfavorably? Was that pitched as an option?
I have no idea, as I’m sure you don’t either, but it’s certainly much easier if the narrative is that the bill was doomed from the start in the House and it’s all the Speaker’s fault. It’s messier and harder to convey to others if you start asking individual sponsors if they’ve done everything they could to make it happen, so why even entertain that discussion?
Yes, he is a party leader, but his role as Speaker requires him to be fair and consistent in the way he runs the chamber to the best of his ability. Sometimes that means not bending the rules even when you might really want to do so.
Pretty sure Gilligan was equally behind the Atkins defection to run as a Democrat. Surely you recall the one track mind that was the House Democratic Caucus in 2008- to take back the House and for Gilligan to be Speaker. My understanding was that he wanted it so badly he was willing to do almost anything to make it happen. But sure- let’s just blame the current Speaker for the entire Atkins debacle. And for losing every other Sussex County seat to Republicans. 100% his fault and no one else’s.
Also, I thought a Deputy Attorney General working for the Dept of Elections deemed that guy ineligible to run, but now obviously because of your insightful comment above I can see that that DOJ attorney just said whatever the Speaker asked them to say, regardless of what’s in the law. Got it.
While we are at it, let’s go ahead and add global warming and world hunger to the list of things the Speaker is obviously completely responsible for as well. Cause that makes about as much sense as you have on this thread.
I know leaders are always the ones getting blamed when things go wrong, but come on – you have to see how nuts you sound, right? Ill concede he may be indirectly responsible for some of this stuff, but only if you admit that you are looking to make him the bad guy who should be blamed for everything that’s gone wrong in the legislature since he became Speaker. This kind of misrepresentation of the facts has to be personally motivated. I can see how you might still resent that guy for your own demise. But seriously, bitter is an ugly color on you, El Som. Time to make like Elsa, and Let It Go!
Since that didn’t help, let me add that he’s a dishonest fuckstick who is trying to continue the 50-plus year state police reign of unaccountability to the public. Go suck his dick on your own time.
Since that didn’t help, let me add that he’s a dishonest fuckstick who is trying to continue the 50-plus year state police reign of unaccountability to the public. Go suck his dick on your own time.
“Heather” my ass. You sound like his lieutenant governor candidate to me.
He’s no progressive, and neither are you, Park City.
anonymous- Thanks for proving once again that the GOP isn’t the only party filled with mysogynistic, angry men. Your comments about your issues with the Speaker are fair, but the fellatio comment to me was both gross and pathetic.
Why do some men say those disgusting things to women? Oh that’s right- they can’t handle being challenged, especially if the person who dares to do so happens to have a vagina.
We certainly don’t have to agree, but you ceceded any ground you might have gained when you disrespected me with that classless, sexist crap. I hope that you have daughters or granddaughters and that men aren’t still saying those things to them on a regular basis, whether it be online or in person.
PS- I’m not a candidate for any elected office(nor will I be), but I’m sure the people running in the Lt Gov race would laugh at your uninspired and shortsighted reply.
I would have said the same thing if you used a man’s name as your screen name, and if Pete was a woman I would have told you to diddle her on your own time. It’s meant as a show of disrespect.
I’m not angry because you’re a woman. I’m angry because you are trying to peddle Pete as some sort of progressive when he’s nothing of the sort. Like most cops he’s a bully, and unwilling to do his dirty work with his name on it. Your point about his treatment of the minimum wage showed me that you’re being dishonest. You know enough about how Dover works to know that manipulating the system is the way it works. Done properly, he should never have to cast a vote against it, because it should never reach the floor. To make the arguments you made is therefore disingenuous. You are here to lie for him.
Now let’s look at your swipe about outside money trying to unseat him. Again, you are politically savvy enough to know that anyone in leadership is elected by abou 6,000 people but holds statewide power. Those of us who don’t live in the district have no other way to oppose him. But you already know that and want to pretend you don’t.
In short, you have every right to vote for him. But if you come in here peddling horseshit about him you’re going to get called on it, Park City.
anonymous- I’m not peddling anything, I’m more concerned with ensuring the county in which I reside has impactful representation in the state legislature. I have zero confidence that Don Peterson will perform at the level required to be the sole democrat representing this county.
Also something of note (and assuming everything else stays the same) – if the Speaker were ousted, Sussex County would not be represented in any of the Democratic leadership in either chamber. The only Sussex County member of leadership from either party in either chamber would be Danny Short. Assuming there are no changes in the committee assignments, Sussex County will continue to have no voice on the joint finance committee and Hocker would be the only Sussex Countian on the bond bill committee.
Just give that some thought for one second, it’s kind of terrifying, especially for the few remaining democrats who still live here.
As someone who doesn’t live in Sussex, I don’t necessarily expect you to get it- but losing the Speaker would be terrible for my county and I don’t think I am wrong for wanting to keep this from happening.
Heather, as usual, you are wrong. The Labor Committee has traditionally handled mimimum wage bills–both in the House and the Senate. In fact, workers made out much better under Republican Speakers Hebner and Spence than they have under Pete.
Yes, he has the RIGHT to assign the bill to whatever committee he sees fit. But the reason he assigned it to Bryon Short’s Business Lapdog Committee was expressly to kill it. That’s a fact. You can dance all you want, but it was the ‘Democratic’ Speaker who killed minimum wage this session.
Which is one reason why this Speaker from Sussex County has been a disaster for D’s up and down the state. Losing him would immediately make that caucus more receptive to progressive legislation. And Don Peterson would be instrumental in making that happen.
How is it that almost a day has gone by where someone basically threatened to out a commenter (by guessing on a very specific person) and none of the people running this website have said anything? Add to the fact that the language used was vulgar and very offensive to women?
I’m not the biggest Schwartzkopf fan by any means. While I wasn’t involved in Delaware politics during Gilligan’s time, I can only go by what I have seen with Pete. I think every bill deserves a full vote of the House. But Pete went on record with the HB50 override stating he wouldn’t support it. When a suspension of rules didn’t work, he kept it on the ready list while never putting it on the agenda. He let fear of the Governor’s wrath decide over the will of the people and his own House. And then last week, when Kowalko made an attempt to bring it back after receiving what could be seen as very bad legal advice, Pete and Val refused to let him explain the reasoning behind it. When the override first came up in January, legislators (and Pete) knew Kowalko’s plan for weeks in advance. And they still refused to suspend rules. So when Kowalko does it without telling them, he gets blasted for that?
I’m all for having fun when it is called for, but when you run the show for a group of legislators, I would expect a bit more decorum and less hazing and joking around when they could be voting on laws. Instead, we have hundreds of bills waiting around for the last 2-3 days of session. I can’t speak for what Pete may or may not do for the residents of Sussex County, but as a Speaker of the House who has the power to let a bill advance in the legislative process or shove it in the drawer, I feel he has abused that power far too many times.
El Som- Didn’t that same committee release a bill to raise the minimum wage just the year before that eventually became law? Yes, the Senate stripped that bill of the CPI indexing making it an easier proposal to pitch, but the fact remains it was successfully done in the previous General Assembly. If it was possible then, why not again? I have no clue what it would have taken to make that happen, however I’m certain few bothered to try. It’s so much easier to lay blame on the guy at the top, so much harder to put in the work and negotiate the path to get the bill released. Life is hard, huh? By the way, did you contact your legislator expressing support for the bill? How about the committee members? Maybe the Speaker- did you email him about your support? I’m guessing the answer to all three is “no”- for an issue that’s of great importance to you, I’m wondering what you did to help, besides write whiny blog posts about how the bill’s committee assignment wasn’t fair?
Didnt the repeal bill make it out of the judiciary committee and receive a vote by the full House this year? That’s a bill the Speaker openly opposed, yet wasn’t he the one to finally negotiate its release? That doesn’t exactly square with your assertion that he kills bills he opposes by putting them in unfriendly committees to avoid taking a vote on the floor, huh? By the way, hadn’t we all been told repeal had 21 votes on the floor, if only it could get out of committee? What happened there? I’m sure you’ll figure out how the Speaker is at fault for this too, but any person with half a brain can see it was the people leading the charge in the House that failed to get that done. A squandered opportunity, indeed.
Seems like the Speaker has been pretty consistent, by running bills progressives support once they make it on the ready list. That doesn’t seem unfair to me, it seems like a transparent and equitable policy, which I’m sure you’ll find fault with nonetheless.
And as Kevin just reminded me, HB 50 was a bill that the Speaker I believe didn’t support, but that bill got 3 votes by the full House after making it out of the education committee (1 passed, 2nd defeated with Senate amendment, 3rd passed in final version) plus a scheduled vote to suspend rules to override the Governor’s veto (that failed, but still)- which seems more than fair given the circumstances of that pointless proposal. (I say pointless because it was a bill to protest testing, not a bill to resolve the problems with testing. At no point have the opt out people attempted to address the actual issue at hand- over testing in public schools- as evidenced by no bill, no discussion, absolutely nothing from those who worked on HB 50 all year. 6 months after a veto, it was all about the override. 6 months after that failed, there was a Hail Mary attempt to bring it back for a third time, which failed…. Again. So here we are, one year after the veto, and no better off than we were before opt out became the siren song for those who wanted to give Markell the finger, but not necessarily fix what’s wrong with how Delaware kids are tested.)
I know this back and forth is pointless as you are not the kind of person who goes in to a debate with the ability to hear and fully consider points of view not in line with your own. Perhaps someone else will read this and wonder if the info you often share is in fact a fair representation of what happened, who was involved, and why it went down that way. Your readers would do well if they adopted a healthier level of skepticism, and stopped quoting your posts as factually accurate reports, when that’s frequently not the case.
I do get it. If those are your reasons for backing him, I understand completely, and I also agree that Peterson would not be as effective a legislator — nobody would. But please understand that from my perspective he represents everything authoritarian and illiberal about Delaware’s power structures. His pro-gay stance is really his only nod to liberalism. And I hear enough about what goes on in caucus to understand that he can be vindictive. I’m sure Gilligan was too. So what? That doesn’t excuse it. Try using “but he was going as fast as I was!” next time you’re pulled over for speeding.
Think about it. Are resort-area voters really as conservative as Pete is on most issues, LGBTQ aside? Not the ones I know. I understand completely that you don’t want to lose a powerful representative — at this point, he basically runs the state, wielding as much or more power than Nancy Cook or Jim Vaughn once did; Markell hasn’t had any control of the GA since DeLuca’s defeat (and it’s on him that he made a deal with that petty tyrant in the first place).
Pete Schwartzkopf knows his way around politics. There is noplace more political than the police barracks (just ask Tom Gordon), and he’s a reasonably bright fellow. But I grew up with the example of Frank Rizzo’s Philadelphia in my face, and I know exactly how little the police are to be trusted with power.
While I respect your reasons for backing Pete, you must understand that they are diametrically opposed to my interest in a more open and responsive government. I will not let stand unopposed the idea that Pete Schwartzkopf represents some sort of progressive agenda for the state of Delaware. He demonstrably does not.
I hadn’t read your pathetic screed before I wrote my post, so I’ll respond here:
“I’m wondering what you did to help, besides write whiny blog posts about how the bill’s committee assignment wasn’t fair.”
Don’t be a dope. Representatives would never respond to an inside-baseball request like that. You sound like a first-grade teacher. Those “whiny blog posts” ARE a message to the legislator, who certainly is aware of what’s said about him on blogs. Are you really this naive or bullshitting us here?
The back-and-forth is pointless because you are someone who obviously follows the legislature closely, which means you almost certainly work there. You’re acting like a jerk.
Pete Schwartzkopf isn’t going to admit any of the things El Som has written about. So what? Ever hear of the First Amendment? Citizens are allowed to have whatever opinions about their elected representatives they want. If the Speaker feels he has been libeled, tell him to haul his cowardly ass to court and file suit. It will get tossed out faster than you can jump to cover his ass for him. But of course he would never do it, because 1) it’s bad PR and 2) discovery would be a bitch.
As I wrote above, you are basically arguing that “this isn’t his fault, that isn’t his fault.” Bullshit. He runs the place, and he runs it in ways I oppose. My donation to Don Peterson is entirely within the law, as is El Som’s opinion of the Speaker’s management of Delaware government. Learn to live with it.
Heather,
Not sure what legislative history you have been reading from the first part of the 148th General Assembly, but Schwartzkopf voted yes on HB50 the first time the House voted on it. And on the second go around, he again voted yes. Then weeks later, he publicly stated he wouldn’t support an override. So he supported a bill, not once, but twice. And then backed away from it when Jack had a temper tantrum in the form of his veto. HB50 was NOT an anti-testing bill. It was an anti-Smarter Balanced bill. The “too much testing” crowd came from those who opposed opt out. That was their attempt to remedy the opt out problem parents. It didn’t really work though because we still have all those pesky little assessments that do give better data than the Smarter Balanced Assessment which is still around. That great test that takes kids with disabilities about 3 to 5 times longer to take than their regular peers. That great test that parents still don’t know how their kids did on it this year long after they are out of school. The fact that this was about “too much testing” shows how well the masses were manipulated by the Governor and the DOE. And still are. But for those who advocated and fought for that bill, you disrespect the parents who went to Legislative Hall with no other agenda than fighting for their kids against a VERY BAD test. Note that I didn’t pluralize the last word in that sentence. So after a Governor tells us no matter what you do, he will veto it, what is that next step? Get the General Assembly to override the veto. But they didn’t have the stomach to piss off Jack. So they hide behind a suspension of rules so no one will EVER KNOW how they would have voted on the override. You said no legislation came out after that. The only legislation that would have satisfied me was a bill banning Smarter Balanced. Since no one offered that up, knowing the Governor would veto it, you are absolutely right that nothing has changed. And the Assessment Inventory Committee that was charged with dealing with the “too much testing” issue that came from the Governor (not the parents) had little to no substantial recommendations in their final report with the exception of not having a Social Studies state assessment next year (which came from the Secretary, not the committee, and the only reason for that is because they updated the “standards” and they aren’t ready for the test yet). If you think HB50 was about giving Markell the finger, then yes, we are guilty. He was the one who got the test here and who supported it every step of the way. But the heart of it was very simple: we didn’t want OUR kids taking THAT test. So before you come on here deigning to speak on issues you clearly know nothing about, I would suggest doing some research on the issue. Especially in regards to the vote count for a bill that the one you are supposed to be defending voted yes for twice.
Vulgar? Heaven forfend! Are you up for the Prig Olympics or something?
Saying that someone sounds like someone is not “outing” them. I have no idea who “she” is, or if she’s even a she.
Last time I checked there was no rule about vulgar language, and the tired old sexism trope is just that. “Suck my dick” has as much to do with sex as “shove it up your ass” does with proctology.
Oh, and one more thing Heather. The suspension of rules wasn’t “scheduled”. That’s kind of what makes it a suspension of rules. If it was “scheduled” it would have been on something we call an AGENDA. Something Pete put on the ready list after the suspension of rules failed and NEVER put on the AGENDA. I agree with Heather. She is not an elected official. She would know these things otherwise…
Yes, but it obviously offended her who defends him. Which is why I don’t generally make it a practice to use body part analogies to attempt to win an argument you were already winning.
I don’t believe one can “win” an argument, because I’ve never met anyone who has ever admitted losing one.
My,my . Such language by educated people . Pete S. is not a inherently evil person . The voters of Sussex county will decide this.
I never said he was evil. I said he was dictatorial and no liberal. Try to keep up.
“Don’t be a dope. Representatives would never respond to an inside-baseball request like that. You sound like a first-grade teacher. Those “whiny blog posts” ARE a message to the legislator, who certainly is aware of what’s said about him on blogs. Are you really this naive or bullshitting us here?”
I’m fairly certain that you misread my rely to El Som- if you kindly scroll up and reread the lines preceding that excerpt, you’ll see that I merely inquired if he had taken the time to express his support for the bill to his rep, the reps on the committee, and the Speaker. I frequently contact my state rep and state senator to encourage them to support or oppose numerous bills each session. I’ve even contacted committee members regarding bills that I strongly believe in asking that they release the bill so it can receive a vote on the floor. It’s been my experience that given the widespread use of blogs and social media, people have stopped contacting their reps directly to express their opinions, instead they just comment in some thinking that that’s sufficient for making your voice heard. I think that’s a really dumb way to get your message to elected officials- if you want to be taken seriously, contact them directly, often and not just when you adamantly oppose an issue, it’s just as important to communicate when you support a bill too.
Who said anything about libel and lawsuits? I know he’s well within his first amendment rights to have his posts be published on this site. However, I do take issue with the way he often represents his personal opinions and frequent assumptions as statements of fact. I believe he should make it clear when he’s making predictions about things he isn’t personally aware of – people will still read it, but it’s disingenuous when you consistently fail to provide those kinds of qualifications to your audience, especially when so many note that this blog is one of the few places they get their info about what’s happening in the legislature.
If I could be honest, I’d like to share that the massive shift in tone in your posts makes you seem a little unhinged, and thus unable to have a constructive, thoughtful, and respectful dialogue with those you do not agree with. It’s almost as if you’ve imbided just one or two too many by the time you post later in the evening, and that lessens your ability to remain in control and respectful. FYI- the amount of abuse, harassment, threats of violence, etc. that women are exposed to both online and in real life, it would seriously blow your mind. You honestly do lose the high ground by telling a woman to perform sex acts on men when the sole intention of saying this to her is to show disrespect and to be as offensive as possible. That behavior is textbook misogyny, and perhaps you didn’t realize that which is why I’m taking the time to calmly inform you. It’s really best if you look to make your points using different language, just a suggestion for your consideration moving forward.
Finally, I’m obviously not being very clear because I’m not saying nothing is his fault- I’m saying that blame shouldn’t rest squarely on his shoulders alone and that these issues are more complex than often portrayed. Countless reasons and /or people can be attributed to someone achieving success or failure in the hall. I’d be curious if his colleagues within the caucus are as dissatisfied with the way he runs the chamber as you claim to be. His unfair treatment of others in the workplace isn’t something I’ve seen or been informed about directly, but I don’t doubt there are reps in both caucuses who find his management style to be infuriating. I can appreciate their points of view, but I think it’s maybe a small minority of members who have raised these complaints, and until that’s resolved you can watch Orlando unfold, even meow, then did several diff state barks,
“I can appreciate their points of view, but I think it’s maybe a small minority of members who have raised these complaints, and until that’s resolved you can watch Orlando unfold, even meow, then did several diff state barks”
Hmmm, I did not write that last blurb. What in the world? Please disregard that last sentence, or more accurately the random grouping of words quoted above, as I have no clue how that was added on. For the record, my last sentence should have ended with “to be infuriating.”
Kevin- wow, it’s almost sad thinking that you wasted all that time pushing a bill that you knew all along wasn’t going to rectify the problem and wasn’t what you ultimately wanted in the first place. I’m not sure why the movement you led wasn’t upfront with what you wanted, to eliminate SB. I guess I don’t understand why you wouldn’t have that debate out in the open, instead of pitching the problem as one centered upon a parents right to make decisions about their child’s education. Why not get the masses you pulled together initially to have this fight instead? Frankly, the course you took with that bill could be perceived as offensive to the very kids I think you were hoping to ultimately help. HB 50 is a bill I think would most likely appeal to your typical “helicopter parent”, and other parents who already have the time and ability to invest in their child’s education. Those parents would definitely know about the opt out movement and would likely not hesitate to stop their kid from taking the SB test. Chances are those kids come from homes that are more likely to have some financial security and the child is less likely to be living below the poverty line. On those stats alone, one can assume a kid wil do better on the test than their poorer classmates, since their bellies are full and the have a quiet, warm, safe space to prepare themselves for the exams. In contrast, the kids I think you intended to help are the ones whose parents wouldn’t have a clue about the opt out movement, let alone how to go about getting their kid opted out of the test. Let’s say even if they knew about it, their availability to do so on behalf of their kid might be nonexistent. I’m sure you’ve heard this from others, If the test is bad for all kids, then proposing a policy that wouldn’t address the issue for all kids makes zero sense to me.
The House did vote on the bill three times, not twice- but you are correct, I couldn’t recall the Speaker’s vote on those three roll calls. Because that’s the takeaway for you, right? My failure to remember a roll call on a bill that never became law. Also wasn’t the timing for that initial vote to suspend rules coordinated with House leadership so it didn’t conflict with what needed to happen the first day of session in January? Everyone agreed it would happen the first Thursday, or that’s what the press reported at that time- which in my book makes that SCHEDULED IN ADVANCE, but obviously this wouldn’t be appropriate to include on an AGENDA. I’m not stupid, so trying to make me appear uninformed just makes you look petty.
Frankly I’m sure that you knew that HB 50 was likely getting vetoed if it got to the Governor’s desk. I’m pretty sure you or Kowalko are quoted in published stories acknowledging that that could likely be the bill’s fate in the end. So I’m baffled as to why you never formulated a Plan B. People who are trying to affect significant change and are serious about their work have contingency plans mapped out in advance to help them keep their issue moving forward, by eliminating or handling whatever problem they faced, and then adapting accordingly.
Don’t you think that your handling of the messaging around HB 50 and SBE in general didn’t help to clarify the issues that are connected to this policy, specifically the role of the assessment work group? I believe over testing was terminology you used previously and the bill sponsor has used as well to argue for HB 50. It seems that no one understood what your position was on this when it would have been timely, including that the assessment work group was a sham and the crux of everything was killing SBE. Hopefully you learned lessons from this failed attempt to get a bill enacted in to law. You had so much momentum early on, just imagine if that had been directed towards the elimination of SBE.
Again, I think this goes down in the record books as a squandered opportunity, and despite fighting valiantly to get something out of this mess, still no successes to be happy about long after the issue was DOA.
You are carrying Pete’s water, and he is deserving of your support. You reflect much of what people who can’t stand Pete dislike about Pete.
I’ll merely cite your misleading stuff on minimum wage. He put the bill in committee twice to kill it. After a public outcry which, BTW, we helped to lead (‘whining’ does have an impact sometimes) and which made it onto the front page of the News-Journal and also during an Election Year, Bryon Short and Andria Bennett claimed that they had been ‘misled’ by the Chamber talking points and would vote to release the bill. Then, and only then, did the bill make it out of committee. This notion that Pete was somehow passive and didn’t do Markell’s bidding is a lie. It was only when killing the bill became politically untenable for the would-be future Congressman and the Accidental Legislator (Bennett) that it got released–with the effective date pushed back yet another year.
His chief ‘effectiveness’ has been to quash progressive legislative priorities.
This thread, IMHO, has demonstrated why we need Don Peterson. Pete’s supporters have been reduced to misrepresenting what he has done. The people in the know, know. No amount of verbal subterfuge can gloss over that.
I don’t drink, and I am unhinged. Doesn’t mean you’re not full of shit. And “arguing from the high ground” is code for using “morality” instead of reason to buttress your arguments.
I’m not at all interested in a dialogue with you, respectful or otherwise. I’m interested in countering your bullshit.
As for your notion that citizens should repeatedly call their representatives, bullshit again. The squeaky wheel may get the grease, but it’s a stupid way to run a government. If all 6,000 people who voted for Pete called him about every issue he’d never get a wink of sleep.
And I prefer to elect officials whom I trust to do the right thing so I don’t have to nag them all the time. You apparently prefer your method. Good luck.
BTW, there is not a single person in the GA who is unaware of what gets posted on this blog. It’s quicker and more effective than your method.
“I do take issue with the way he often represents his personal opinions and frequent assumptions as statements of fact. ”
You would have to be a moron to be unable to tell the difference just by reading it. Maybe you qualify.
Heather. Heather, Heather, Heather… I could say so much here. You give me far too much power than I will take credit for. The reality is that it doesn’t really matter who you are, it’s what you represent. I have heard the same flawed logic from countless people. Did I make mistakes along the way with HB50? Sure, I own that. I’m sorry I wasn’t embedded in the political way of thinking and came at it from a parent’s perspective. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to hear the inner thoughts of those who opposed the bill like you seem to have the ability to do. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to sway the African-American communities in understanding this test is bad for ALL students. I’m sorry I didn’t have the ability to know what happens in Caucus, which, makes you, someone who is a) not an elected official, or b) not running for office, very privy to the ins and outs of the House.
I don’t think I have ever waivered from the elimination of SBAC. Something echoed by countless parents along the way. To state this was a failure on my part or those who advocated for our children, and calling us “helicopter parents” is disgusting on your part. Which makes you a consummate Markell Kool-Aid drinker in my book. A person knows when a fight needs to be suspended, as was the case with anything involving opt out or eliminating SBAC. I knew, after the suspension of rules, opt out would not be codified into law nor would SBAC (which are the proper initials for it, SBE usually stands for State Board of Education) be eliminated. Not in this General Assembly or while Jack Markell had the power of veto. I would have been an idiot to not know it was a strong possibility. He said as much on the Rick Jensen show even though he tried walking it back.
Frankly, your behavior is awful. You represent everything that is wrong with politics and education. You twist words, and then decide to put those same words in others mouths. I have no idea what makes you think you can speak for parents. If you were truly involved with the ins and outs, then you know damn well what parents were saying. But you paint us as rich and elite parents who just want our kids to skate through school with get out of jail free cards. You have no clue. You are just a political hack trying to defend someone who is getting called out. But when you insult parents who valiantly fought for something right and just and try to make us look like idiots, you crossed a line. If your thoughts are a representation of Pete Schwartzkopf, then I certainly endorse Don Peterson and I would encourage all Democrats in the district to do so as well.
This thread has become awash with minutia. The bottom line is that Don Peterson is an excellent candidate who combines knowledge of budgets and finance with a commitment to progressive values. Pete Schwartzkopf is an anti-progressive, anti-democratic bully who is bad for DE and therefore bad for Sussex. He needs to go.
I’d really enjoy responding to all of your posts point by point, but that would be a colossal waste of my time. Nearly every question I’ve posed over the course of this thread has gone unacknowledged and unanswered. Each of you refused to address any of the examples I put forth that challenged the narrative you’ve created for yourselves as it relates to the Speaker. Ultimately I know engaging you all on this thread isn’t going to make a bit of difference, in terms of pursuading you to change your minds. I never assumed that I could. My intent all along was to provide a point of view that’s not been considered in previous posts- that of a Sussex Countian who already has a real appreciation for what it would mean to lose the last and most important voice we currently have in state government. I make zero apologies for supporting candidates based on their ability to serve my community well. For those who don’t live here, it’s easy to sacrifice that kind of service for a candidate based on their untested beliefs and ideals. (Untested until they’ve taken actual votes on these issues). I’m also just fine with that fact that not everyone agrees with my point of view- a sentiment I doubt I share with many of the others that have recently weighed in on this thread. This is evidenced by the fact that some (well, most) of these guys completely lost their cool. They resorted to name calling and general nastiness, which says more about them and this dialogue than I ever could.
Yes, it says we’re nasty and lose our cool. Which does exactly nothing to exonerate the behavior of Pete Schwartzkopf. That is the topic at hand, is it not? I type my responses quickly; as far as I’m concerned it’s conversation. I’m not going to comb over the comment to make sure I don’t offend your tender sensibilities, and I really have no incentive to.
You have, as I said, every right to vote for him for what appears to be your main reason — he delivers the goods for his district, and one Democrat, however flawed, is better than none. But please, those of us who oppose his rule of the state legislature are a little too seasoned to buy into your version of these events.
My motto in this is the same as it was in the #HillarySoLiberal affair: Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. In fact, that’s pretty much my motto on everything.