Ernie Lopez thanked Park City for her excellent volunteer work on his behalf
I tend to ignore Kathy McGuinness because her campaign is not credible, and because I tend to think that BHL is an odds on favorite to win. Still, our next Lt Governor will be the winner of the crowded Dem primary and crazy shit can happen.
Kathy McGuiness isn’t a Democrat. She’s still registered in Utah, unaffiliated. She’s a joke. And an asshole.
I did hear she put a LOT of hours in for Ernie, though…..
Do you think Valerie Longhurst’s endorsement of KM makes her more credible?
Valerie Longhurst should go back to running the refreshment stand at the Little League games. According to the Peter Principle, that should have been the highest her “talents” took her.
Valerie Longhurst is representative of everything wrong with Dover and with the Delaware Democratic party more generally. She’s a vapid, dumb, mean person who thinks the GA is a high school, nay, a middle school. Fits right in with KM’s campaign. This state is becoming such an embarassment, led by folks like Longhurst and Schwartzkopf, part of me actually hopes the Republicans get their shit together at some point and clean out the cobwebs down there. Because these people represent the worst aspects of the state, not the best. They are painfully inadequate people.
Yes, KM and Lopez are very close.
I really wish we hadn’t gone there. Seriously.
Don Peterson is always looking for volunteers and donations. Check out his website at donforachange.com.
KM voted for the ocean outfall.
Nice profile in courage and foresight.
The people in down down Rehoboth couldn’t afford land application. The cheapest home in town limits is about 600K. Rentals 2K a week or more
“She’s still registered in Utah, unaffiliated.”
Except for the state, her party affiliation is the same Bernie Sanders. I guess sometimes it makes a difference and sometimes its doesn’t.
Yeah, it does. Pro tip: If you’re unaffiliated but sometimes a Republican, you’re not Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, Bernie Sanders is an asshole too.
@JTF: Actually, given the evidence of Delaware, being a Democrat is a pretty good sign of being an asshole, too. Shoe fit?
Some assholes are Democrats. Some assholes are Republicans. But all Republicans are assholes.
I had a math problem on a test like this once
@JTF: Gotta disagree with you there. Ever hear of Jane Maroney? In my experience, Democrats in this state have been more apt to be assholes than Republicans, at least until recent years. Ever hear of Tom Sharp? They are also more likely to be environmentally progressive. Ever hear of Russ Peterson?
@Dave: Claiming that all unaffiliateds belong to “the same party” is like saying all atheists believe in “the same god.”
Anon you’re using examples of politicians from 20-30 years ago, are you going to bring up the Republicans(circa 1800’s) are the party of equality line too?
@a
Never claimed that. By definition unaffiliateds do not belong to any party. I simply said that some unaffiliateds can become (or claim to become) Democrats and some can’t.
Sanders and McGuiness are unaffiliated. Sanders became a Democrat (temporarily), which was acceptable. McGuiness becoming a Democrat is not acceptable. Hence my statement that sometimes it’s ok and sometimes it’s not.
The obvious discriminator is that Sanders is liked and admired for his views. McGuiness not so much. My conclusion is that certain behaviors are acceptable in cases where there is a shared philosophy and politics, but unacceptable when philosophies are not in alignment.
“her party affiliation is the same Bernie Sanders.”
Sorry, I must have misunderstood that. Can’t imagine how.
As I noted during the Civil War, the Democrats were damned happy to count him as one when they caucused, and when the voting started. So let’s not play that game.
@hmm: Ms. Maroney is still alive and kicking, and still advocating for children. Quite a difference when we’re talking about people who are still alive, but if you want to pretend that all Republicans are exactly the same, don’t be surprised if people think the same of you, whatever your affiliations.
It’s one thing to say “everybody in the KKK is racist,” as it’s a tenet of the organization. Being an asshole is NOT a tenet of Republicanism, whatever the tribalist part of your brain is telling you.
Republicans in Delaware, until the death of Bill Roth, were assholes mainly in their protection of the chemical industry and the rich. But they weren’t all assholes about it. Before the death of Kennedy, Republicans were very much the party of civil rights in Delaware; the Democrats were aligned with Dixie. This was in my lifetime, not the 1800s. Some of those people are still around, on both sides. Being an asshole became a tenet of the party only after the Gingrich revolution, and it was very much because that colonic polyp was a bush-league version of Trump. Newt the Baptist, if you will, dipping all the Republicans in sewer water.
So don’t lecture me about going back to the 1800s. Wilmington lunch counters were segregated into the 1960s.
JTF. & Jason 330. CHECK your comments
Not accurate. Sounds like on a mission.
What’s not accurate? Is she no longer a Schwartzkopf stooge? That’s really all the information needed to reject her.
Donna, check what comments?
She talks pro business and job creation, which is what this state really needs.
I wish she ran as more of an’ outsider’. We need some folks to shake up Dover a little!
“She talks pro business and job creation”
Giving business every item on their wish list is not pro business. Just like letting a child eat ice cream for every meal is not pro-child.
The “pro business” agenda has repeatedly led to economic disaster. Business needs to understand they will do well when the people do well.
She talks pro business and job creation
So what? Neither one of these has anything to do with the job of LG.
“She talks pro business and job creation, which is what this state really needs.”
The lieutenant governorship is legally defined as a part-time job with no responsibilities beyond casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate. She has no power to do anything she claims she’ll do in the job.
Beyond that, government does not create jobs, and any politician who talks about job creation is lying. The No. 1 barrier to job creation in Delaware is the poor public education system.
“Giving business every item on their wish list is not pro business. Just like letting a child eat ice cream for every meal is not pro-child.”
Good one.
“The lieutenant governorship is legally defined as a part-time job with no responsibilities beyond casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate. ”
True. But people still want to hear what candidates think about policy issues. Otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. A campaign for lieutenant governor is actually a tryout for governor.
Speaking of McGuiness, she was at a debate last night hosted by WDEL. Looks like WDEL and the State News were the only ones to cover it. http://delawarestatenews.net/news/lieutenant-governor-candidates-struggle-stand-debate/
I had a large hot fudge sundae from King’s for dinner last night
The democrats in Delaware are mostly self serving corrupt assholes but the Republicans are a pathetic joke and aren’t even competant enough to be in power
Mouse FTW.
“A campaign for lieutenant governor is actually a tryout for governor.”
None of the six candidates, with the possible exception of the otherwise objectionable Bethany Hall-Long, could legitimately run for that office. We should not provide this one as a $56k a year internship.
Abolish the office.
Sanders and McGuiness are unaffiliated.
Sanders became a Democrat to run for President and McGuiness became a Democrat to run for office here.
As I noted before, Sanders caucused with the Democrats and they were more than eager to accept him, or at least his vote. His views clearly were rejected by a majority of Democrats, so there doesn’t seem to be much threat of a party takeover. Some people say “he wasn’t a Democrat” as if that was a mark of shame rather than a mark of distinction.
The point being, of course, that the “unaffiliated” don’t mind adopting a party when looking for a promotion.
So the observation is it’s pretty hard to run a campaign without a party. OK, but that’s not a comment on people’s fickleness, or the wonderfulness of our political parties. it’s a comment on the binary nature of a first-past-the-post system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
In short, they join a party because they have no other practical option. It’s a tool necessary for the job. You have no idea how much they “mind” doing so. In Sanders’ case, my guess would be he minded it a lot.
Some situations require hiring a lawyer. That’s not an explanation for getting a law degree.
Oh, and MY point being that you never made note of the fact that he wasn’t a Democrat until it supported your position. Ironically, those who insisted on noticing his independence like to charge others with conducting “purity tests.” And they always miss the irony.
Oh, and MY point being that you never made note of the fact that he wasn’t a Democrat until it supported your position.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t do this, largely because this matters way more to the people changing their affiliations. Because it was a way to rationalize not knowing the rules of the road. But if you have a link, let’s have it.
But if you are going to make a virtue out of not joining a party, you shouldn’t get your panties in a twist when it is pointed out that the unaffiliated are as opportunistic as the affiliated.
@anonymous
This point is moot when one of the candidates who was unaffiliated, or registered with another party, now touts her “democratic values” as a badge and part of her campaign message. She apparently doesn’t mind changing her values when it suits her, or when the overwhelming voter registration favors a certain party.
If you register as a D just to run, then fine, say it. Stick to your ideals. If you do it, but then claim to have “always been one,” then you are just a charlatan and deserve to get called out on it.
@Cassandra: My apologies. I don’t recall who made which specific points and why, I only recalled the point being made quite often. I do recall that you started out pro-Sanders. I suppose I should have aimed the comment at DD and pandora, who I recall had the biggest problem with the anti-Clinton leftists.
Again, I object to the characterization of running under a party banner as “opportunistic.” I find neither side, Sanders nor the Democratic Party, acting any more opportunistically than the other. If you want to make a virtue out of joining a party, I trust I don’t need to point out that you’re in no position to belittle others’ “opportunism.” As I pointed out, this is the nature of the system, not the humans trapped in it.
@Dem703: She is Schwartzkopf’s pawn. That’s all I need to know, and all anyone should need to know.
Schwartzkopf is a Democrat in name only. I wish people would understand that being pro-LGBT is no longer proof of liberalism; it’s merely evidence of residence in the modern real world. Ernie Lopez is pro-LGBT, isn’t he?
Schwartzkopf represents the police power in this state. Carney will not challenge him, so he’ll be the most powerful elected official in Delaware. We need to stop this in every way possible, and defeating this nothingburger should be Job 1.
@anonymous – yes! Defeating Schwartzkopf should be the number 1 goal for the democrats in Delaware.
I would vote for anyone of the six who had the guts to run on abolishing the office. And saving 600K a year for expenses, staff, etc. That’s the first whack at the bloated Delaware budget which increased 4.5% last year . Since none of them are, then I am looking for someone who at least has a little bit of a business mindset who won’t turn Delaware into socialist Vermont.
“I am looking for someone who at least has a little bit of a business mindset who won’t turn Delaware into socialist Vermont.”
Democrat Jack Markell made tens of millions of dollars in the private sector. Democrat John Carney thinks we need to cut Social Security benefits. What on earth makes you think Delaware is in danger of turning socialist?
http://delawarepublic.org/post/mcguiness-questions-legal-pot-despite-dispensary-dreams
What a hypocrite. Democrat or Republican? For weed or against it? I guess whatever is advantageous to her at the time.
“McGuiness also previously worked on Schwartzkopf’s political campaigns. Her other letter of recommendation came from Sen. Ernie Lopez (R-Lewes).”
So, does Ernie do political favors like this for everyone or just his “close friends”?
The gas tax is going up next year. Huge tax increases on the horizon..
Folks also want to legalize marijuana statewide.
Are there any spending cuts? No guts from legislators.
Whatever happened to consolidating 18 or so school districts for efficiencies?
How about the Staffing/ consultant cut by JFC in department of education only for them to stay on because DOE found another million laying around to keep them on?
“Ernie Lopez is pro-LGBT, isn’t he?”
Well he was on the record as “not voting” for SB 190, the equal protection bill. So I guess it depends on whether that was a pro or con LGBT bill.
Uh, Chris…when did you turn into a libertarian troll?
@Dave: Funny, I always thought that the indication you were “against” something was by voting against it. The point was that in Delaware, even Republicans don’t rail against LGBT issues, so voting for them doesn’t make Schwartzkopf liberal.
You’re not in Washington anymore.
Really? “…In Delaware, even Republicans don’t rail against LGBT issues”
Were you there during the debates for Non-Discrimination, Civil Unions, Marriage Equality and Gender Identity? Most Republicans did more than just “rail” against those bills. They said the future of the family and the republic were at risk. Only two Republicans voted for marriage equality and gender identity protection- Senator Kathy Cloutier and Representative Mike Ramone I don’t know if Ernie Lopez is “pro-LGBT” personally, but he voted against every LGBT bill since he was elected. Voting for LGBT legislation these last 10 years is a mark of being a liberal. It is because social issues such as LGBT rights, Women’s choice and responsible gun control remain litmus tests on both the right and the left
“Were you there during the debates for Non-Discrimination, Civil Unions, Marriage Equality and Gender Identity? Most Republicans did more than just “rail” against those bills. They said the future of the family and the republic were at risk.”
I live in a Republican area. I hear the campaign pitches of Republicans all the time. They never bring it up, and they never brought it up before those debates, either. Now you want to fault them for arguing against something before the Assembly during debate on the bills. In other words, only capitulation would prove them non-enemies. You’re pathetic.
“It is because social issues such as LGBT rights, Women’s choice and responsible gun control remain litmus tests on both the right and the left”
So 20th century. People like you allowed the selling out of the working man’s party for that handful of beans. You allowed a dying political movement to set the agenda, so that instead of fighting for an economy that shared the wealth with all those people, they got to sue their employers instead. Yay!
Public policy is about far more than obtaining equal rights for all, yet that’s all Democrats can point to as success in 25 years. Why? Because they capitulated to corporations on the real issues.
Look, you’re either stupid or you’re venal, and I for one do not appreciate you fluffing your crooked little political party at every opportunity.
You, just as much as any Republican, want to use social issues to win votes. Which makes you part of the problem.
I don’t have any issue with anyone (whether Sanders or McGuiness) acting in an opportunistic manner. What I do have an issue with is when they rail against a rigged system while trying to take advantage of the rigged system or trying to change the system (open primaries) to benefit themselves. I think it’s hypocritical, which I believe is the greater sin.
People ought to stand on their principles. Most of the time, Democrats do a better job of it than Republicans, who I constantly accuse of having “principles of convenience” (or my other way of saying the same thing – “everything for me, but not for thee”).
I don’t much care about characterizing folks as liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican because what they do defines who they are. Once upon a time, party affiliation meant something. Now it’s just the scorecard so you can tell who the players are and really, I’m not sure it does that any longer, especially in a one party state like Delaware.
anonymous makes some good points. However, I still believe (like Crane I imagine) that the Democratic Party is a plausible vehicle in the long term for bringing back some economic justice. While it has “sold its soul” the fact that it continues to pursue basic fairness and equal rights in the meantime is a plus.
I mean, I think Clinton is going to be the President, and leader of the Democratic Party at a pivotal moment. The Party can continue to support corporate hegemony and probably limp into a second term, and fall apart as the GOP is falling apart now, or it can reinvent itself as the working man and woman’s party.
What I do have an issue with is when they rail against a rigged system while trying to take advantage of the rigged system or trying to change the system (open primaries) to benefit themselves.
This. Because the useful thing to do if you join a party would be help dismantle the rigged system, or at least hijack enough of it (see, Tea Party) to bend it towards where it should go.