DSEA Endorsements

Thanks to the reader who sent this in to the tip line.     The marketing geniuses at DSEA apparently don’t realize that senate and house districts overlap.  Or they just don’t care.  Either way doesn’t say much for their endorsements.

She was impressed with the Bryon Short postcard but then got the same exact thing the next day for Cathy Cloutier and wasn’t so impressed.    Seems like they are using the same template for all candidates and their “Priorities” don’t involve giving specific reasons for endorsing a candidate.   If you’ve gotten one in another district, scan it and send it to news@resolutedetermination.com.

UPDATE FROM THE 20th RD: “We also received identical fliers for Nick Manolakos and Dave Sokola a few days apart from one another. Did the same double take.  They are identical aside from names to the two posted on your blog.”

Read Full Post »

You want more of the same? Go ahead and re-elect the State Senate Leadership

The 2010 challengers to three long-serving, out-of-touch, legislators:

Dave Lawson, Louis Saindon, & Fred Cullis

If you want change, then vote out 3 of the Senate’s 20+ year incumbents. Why do I raise the point about change?

In today’s News Journal Mr. Michael Heyman, communications director for Progressive Democrats for Delaware, wrote a brief piece entitled, Sen. DeLuca’s action recalls the days of desk-drawer veto.

The Democrats have controlled the State Senate since 1972 (38 years ago), and the average tenure of a Senate Democrat is about 20 years. If current trends hold, only death seems to remove them from office. I don’t say that with any disrespect to either Senators Adams or Vaughn, but it is a fact. No other Senate Democrat has chosen to walk away from their power position since 2002.

So, let me explain how the selection of Senate Pro-Tem works:

The Senate Democrats have a significant majority in the Senate (13 to 8 when I was there, 15 to 6 now). The Democrats cut the necessary deal in their closed door caucus room as to who the Senate leaders will be. They agree to unanimously support their Pro-Tem decision, therefore guaranteeing that he/she will win on the floor (the Pro-Tem requires a vote of the entire Senate – simple majority). The Republicans are then told, “Vote for the Pro-Tem that we have selected or we will fire your staff, take away your offices, eliminate your committee assignments, cancel your Street Funds (CTF funds), etc.”

Since the Pro-Tem is going to get 11 votes anyway (remember the Democrats already agreed to support their internal choice unanimously), why fight a losing battle and lose staff, committees, offices, etc. It is the beginning of a two year General Assembly, so this decision won’t impact the next election. So, the Republicans also vote for the Pro-Tem giving him/her “unanimous” support.

2002 was an exception because Tom Sharp was retiring, and there was a battle between Thurmond Adams and Patty Blevins. The Democrats were split 6-7 between them. The Republicans were able to play a role and chose a conservative democrat over a liberal democrat. From the deal, we got an extra staffer for ~4 years (and Harris McDowell got to be Majority Leader). Note, both Blevins and Adams would have run the Senate in the same dictatorial fashion. So it wasn’t much of a choice. The choice was between conservative status quo and liberal status quo.

2010 gives a great opportunity to alter this dynamic and shake up the majority so that it is more responsive to the entreaties of people like Mr. Heyman. Vote out Patricia Blevins, David Sokola, and Nancy Cook. The Democrats will still have a majority, but you’ve sent a message that you won’t blindly re-elect the people who unanimously put Tony DeLuca in charge of the State Senate.

To quote from Mr. Heyman:

It’s unfathomable that one man has the unilateral authority to forbid a vote on a bill, then allow it in the next breath — and then forbid it again an hour later. When does it stop?

How much influence does the president pro tem of the senate have? Besides shunting recalcitrant senators off to the least popular and lowest paying committees, there is nothing to stop him from cutting a senator’s staff at will. It was common knowledge in Dover — and it shouldn’t be a surprise — that the unbending former president pro tem, Sen. Thurman Adams Jr., used his heft to anoint his successor. It takes a special senator to stand up to someone with that kind of unbridled authority.

My only quibble with Mr. Heyman’s remarks are that Patty Blevins agreed to the DeLuca deal. She could have made a stab at Pro Tem, but in the end she got what she wanted, anyway. That is, Tony DeLuca did not make the DSU no-vote decision on his own. Or the decision to kill the Rep. Melanie George’s bill that fixes the unjust Mandatory-Minimun drug sentencing scheme and gives addicts a chance to clean up. Patty Blevins was making the decision right there with him.

You say that you want change? Are you ready to walk that talk?

Read Full Post »

#1 Reason to Vote for Fred Cullis

I really hope the Cullis campaign has fun with this quote from today’s News Journal regarding how 140 DSU students won’t get scholarships this fall:

Five minutes later, Gilligan emerged and stormed across the building, ripping open the House chamber doors and returning to his seat. At 1:46 a.m., the Senate adjourned for the year. Sen. Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere, said it was too late to stick around and debate the bill.

“We’re tired,” Blevins said shortly after adjournment. The House continued to work until 2:02 a.m.

 

 REALLY??    SERIOUSLY????      You’re tired??

There’s one night a year you know you will be working late in Dover.   Can’t you take a nap that afternoon so you can stay up until 3 or 4am?

What a lame excuse and such stupid thing to say to a reporter.

Fred Cullis has an even better shot now cause I know he doesn’t get tired!   

Team Cullis – let’s get some photos posted of Fred burning the midnight oil!   There should be a postcard sent to every house in the district with the above quote.

Here, I got it started for you:

Go to his website –  www.cullisfordelaware.com – volunteer, make a donation and if you’re in the 7th, vote for Fred in Nov!

 

 

Read Full Post »

Double Dipping in the Delaware Legislature

Here’s a great WHYY First segment from April that discusses “Double Dipping” in the Delaware State Legislature:

Senator Bunting’s bill – Senate Bill 96 – can be found here.

Read Full Post »

Do you want the 40 largest cities in the United States to pick our President?

The Constitution’s electoral college process is pretty bizarre to say the least. Many people believe that it was put in place to ensure that small states, like Delaware, had a voice in Presidential elections. I think that that explanation is wrong. The electoral college was put in place to ensure that southern, slave states could determine the President. Legal voters in the slave States got extra votes by counting non-voting slaves as 3/5’s of a person giving each southern slave state more US Representatives, and as a result, more electoral votes (The number of electoral votes per State is set by adding together the State’s number of US Representatives and Senators).

Other than a couple of Adams Presidencies (both of whom served only 1 term), all of the first Presidents came from the South (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe – all of whom served for two terms). As the population grew in the western territories, the South eventually lost its lock on the Presidency through the election of Andrew Jackson, who served two terms (although Jackson was not, technically, southern, he grew up in the Carolina’s, was military Governor of Florida, and was elected to the Presidency from Tennessee). Martin Van Buren, who followed Jackson, continued Jackson’s policies for the most part having served as Jackson’s Vice President. Van Buren was, therefore, acceptable to the South and served for two terms.

So 12 of the first 14 Presidential terms were held by Presidents viewed favorably by the southern slave-holding States.

So, while the electoral college doesn’t advance small state interests in any significant way, it does require that candidates balance their positions between urban, suburban, and rural interests by focusing elections towards an entire State rather than a narrow special interest. To win the Presidency, you must win at least 3 of the 5 most populous States: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Texas, or California. Each of these States has significant differences in issues facing their large urban centers and their rural farming communities. If you eliminate the electoral college, Presidential candidates will no longer need to campaign in any rural setting, and probably can bypass most suburban settings as well. By simply campaigning in large cities, and buying significant media (aka television), candidates will win by targeting their message to a list of narrow special interests. That would be a major change in how elections are held today, and the law of unintended consequences would loom very large, indeed.

After 225 years, perhaps a debate on changing the electoral college is called for. Let’s have that debate the way the Constitution stipulated – through a Constitutional Amendment — not some cheap, ill-prepared stunt.

Delaware’s House Bill 198 (found here), which would bypass Delaware’s participation in the electoral college, is a really bad idea. The sponsors of the bill are: Rep. Dennis E. Williams and Sen. Michael Katz. The Caesar Rodney Institute recently put out an email blast with some additional reasons that the bill is wrong for Delaware:

• A President can be elected by ANY plurality: 15, 20 or 25 percent of the vote is enough. NPV does not provide for run-offs, nor does it require candidates to meet a certain threshold.
• The margin between two candidates could be very close, yet Delaware could find itself unable to participate in a recount.
• Delaware could be forced to award its 3 electors to a presidential candidate who was not on our ballot.
• Other states might use recount standards that differ from Delaware’s. They might thus cause election totals to tilt in favor of their candidate, as opposed to Delaware’s
• Delaware could be forced to award its 3 electors to a candidate who was overwhelmingly rejected by Delaware voters.

Read Full Post »