More Shoddy Reporting at the News Journal (yea, again)

Fresh off his enlightening piece about links on Amazon.com’s website that lead to porn when Christine O’Donnell is searched, the News Journal’s intrepid reporter Chad Livengood enlightens us with his review of the first few pages of Christine O’Donnell’s book.  Chad has apparently gotten the Gannett memo “Kill the girl, kill the girl, yes master, yes master, tee hee, tee hee, tee hee hee hee hee.” (Thanks to Bill Cosby for that quote by the way).  One could ask (and I have) why Chad chose to focus his last blog posting on research surrounding her Amazon.com store instead of say, the partisanship of CREW who has literally a more than 3-1 bias of attacking conservatives and Republicans vs. Democrats OR the fact that CREW violated their 501(c)3 mandate to remain apolitical when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign season.  Agree or disagree with their (lies) position, the fact is that they broke the law.  He’s not yet provided an answer.  I assume he was busy with his latest concoction.  This Sunday he released his review of O’Donnell’s book (or at least the first few pages) and WOW are there factual errors.  I’m going to go through his piece (you can read the full piece here) and tackle some of the more egregious errors.

“Just like in her campaign, the impact of the witch ad is a central theme of her 358-page book, which combines O'Donnell's life story with reflections on her three failed Senate campaigns in Delaware and a tea-party-inspired manifesto for changing the country's direction.”

The ad is discussed in the book on a few pages but it’s not what one would consider a “central theme”.  The “Witch Ad” as it is known, is so well known, to leave out the story surrounding it would have been disingenuous. 

“O'Donnell claims someone from Hollywood-based television producer Fred Davis' staff "leaked" the "I'm not a witch" ad to the press and Internet without her permission.

"Within one day, it became the most-watched video on the Internet ... all before I'd seen any footage, let alone approved the final cut," O'Donnell wrote…

…O'Donnell's version of events that transpired last fall are already being disputed by Republican consultants who dealt with the campaign and contradicted by emails her own campaign manager sent to Davis and his staff.”

If I may, I was a campaign worker after the Primary election (clarified for legal reasons) for Christine O’Donnell and I performed many duties.  On the day of the commercial shoot, one of the things I was asked to do was to help track down supporters who would like to be in ads for O’Donnell.  I knew that the campaign had been directed by the NRSC to utilize Fred Davis, a famous and highly touted Hollywood producer as their campaign ad man.  Given Davis’ endorsements, I thought it was odd to be getting a call the day of the shoot and not sooner to allow us time to find people.  Fortunately, Christine had a lot of VERY good supporters and we were able to find a number of people.  Another staffer and I rode with the participants to a Philadelphia studio that was apparently once a warehouse of some sort.  After some snacks and some time spent in the Green Room while Christine shot her portions of the ad we were called in.  Only later did I find out why we were called so late.  Oh I had heard the rumblings that they were concerned with the potential content of the ad Davis had planned to create but I had so many other duties to attend to that I didn’t delve further into that.  I figured that this guy was a professional (and he is) and that it would all work out in the end.  Like Christine, I was a little concerned that going with a high end Hollywood producer was a little over the top but I was just a regular guy and what did I know.  I should have spoken up, I should have said something.  I feel like part of this is my fault for not confirming Christine’s own thoughts.  Of course, I couldn’t know what she was thinking but still, I could have said something.  When we finally entered the studio, Mr. Davis had each participant sit and answer some basic questions like why they supported Christine and what they thought of her and Mr. Coons.  Mr. Davis and his staff were nice but there was something weird, they were almost TOO nice.  After now having been around politicians and media types, I know the feeling for what it is a divine warning that the person talking to you is a slime ball.  The supporters that had come to be in the commercial were impressive and their words were powerful.  I felt uplifted hearing Bob, Melissa, Councilman Brown and Mike (a lifelong Democrat) speak and I remember saying to myself that given Fred’s talent and the supporters words, this was going to be an incredible set of ads.  It was raining out and so after chatting with Christine, the supporters and some of the crew from the shoot I pulled the campaign truck (talk about grassroots, the “campaign truck” was my 1997 GMC Sierra 1500 which I had decked out with yard signs taped on the back and sides…we were truly “grassroots” and yet, we’d just hobnobbed with people from Hollywood) around to the door and loaded up the gear.   I noticed a person I hadn’t seen earlier and I asked who they were.  I was told that the person was a New York Times reporter and that they’d wanted to do a story about Fred working with Christine but that the content of the commercials was still unknown to them.

What’s weird is on the way back, the tension in the truck was such that you could literally feel the air being sucked out.  We lightened it with some discussions about faith (yea, it was THAT tight) and some small talk.  Later, as I was in and out of what I called “The War Room” where the review of the ads was taking place, I found out that the NYT reporter had apparently been leaked a copy of the “Witch Ad” which to that point had not been approved or even SEEN by the candidate.

“Kyle Roberts, a media buyer from Alexandria, Va., who purchased O'Donnell's TV time, said "proper procedure was followed for all advertisements aired on behalf of the campaign."

"This includes creative approval by campaign officials," Roberts said in a statement.”

Unfortunately, Chad’s reporting here is shoddy and to be honest, he knows it.  I’ve seen the emails sent by Campaign Manager Matt Moran to Chad about this exact issue and the fact is that Kyle, the media buyer did follow procedure.  However, Kyle had NOTHING to do with the creative side.  He had nothing to do with which ad ran.  THAT is the crux of the issue.  Of all the ads that were shot that night, Fred Davis and his team only prepared the ad that Christine had specifically told him that she did NOT want to run.  The problem was that there was no time to wait for the other ads, the ones she’d specifically said she wanted to run with, to be delivered.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in media buys had already been spent and there was a deadline.  The campaign was up against the wall and with Christine on the campaign trail; Matt was forced to pull the trigger on an ad he knew was trouble.  The alternative was to literally piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Chad Livengood was made acutely aware of these facts but somehow they didn’t make it in.  Then again, there’s a lot that Chad knows that isn’t in the piece.

“Emails obtained by The News Journal show O’Donnell’s campaign manager, Matt Moran, approved the witch ad, telling Davis “solid message Fred … well scripted and delivered despite the horrible hair (assume that was intentional to help reverse her negatives with women?).””

Having been in the room when some of these discussions took place, I can attest that NOONE was happy about the ad and that of all the people involved, *I* was the most positive about it.  I thought if nothing else, it addressed the issue and that if there were other, stronger ads backing it up, like those cut by her supporters that fateful night, that it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal.  Of course then I realized it had gone viral on the internet.  I can attest to the sarcasm in Matt’s voice and emails.  He was FAR from even content with the situation but he had no choice.  Even the AP’s Randall Chase reported Matt’s sarcasm while Chad decided to leave that part out.

"No media company is going to leak the ad on behalf of a campaign," said one Republican consultant, who declined to be named because of what he said was O'Donnell's history of retaliating against critics. "If that actually happened, Fred's firm would no longer be working with O'Donnell…

... Moran and O'Donnell would not explain why Davis' firm continued to work for the campaign if they felt sabotaged by the airing of the witch ad as O'Donnell claims in the book."

Anyone else a little tired of reading about anonymous sources that more times than not, don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about?  Chad seems to take issue with the fact that Christine paid Davis despite this problem and that she continued to work with him.  Moran explained in his email to Chad that the situation around “The Witch Ad” was not good and they there were backed into a corner.  Remember also that Christine O’Donnell had been all but TOLD to use Fred Davis by the NRSC and she was between a rock and a hard place.  To put it simply, she was the Republican nominee and she needed the support of the party.  She was rebuilding her name within the party and doing all she could to repair bridges that had been burned during the contentious primary with RINO Mike Castle.  So Christine took some advice that he gut told her was flat out wrong.  She took a few thing on “hope” and given the money on the line, she really didn’t have a ton of choices.  Moran went on to explain to Chad that after that initial disagreement on strategy, Davis’ firm worked quite well with the campaign and created some really great ads like “Principles”, “Tax Man”, “Shame on You Chris” and “What I’m Made Of”.  Emails obtained by this blogger show that Chad Livengood was made ACUTELY aware of these facts and these ads before he published his piece.  Why didn’t they make it into the story Chad?

“Throughout the book, O'Donnell continues to show her distrust of the media and what she calls "unscrupulous reporters," though she doesn't take any to task by name.”

Christine didn’t take them to task by name but I will.  One is Randall Chase at the AP who has a history of leaving facts out of stories, another is Ginger Gibson whose reporting during the campaign was shoddy at best and flat out hit pieces and Democrat propaganda at worst and another is Mr. Livengood himself.  Between his report on porn while ignoring CREW’s political bias and their violation of the law and his seriously flawed “book review”, Chad is more than making the case for his inclusion as an “unscrupulous reporter”.  That’s really a shame too because his tenacity on the timecards of Tony DeLuca and other double dippers was much appreciated.  I’m disappointed in such tabloid journalism.

“With some of her campaign apparatus still intact, O'Donnell also has continued to deal with allegations from her past two campaigns that she used donations for personal expenses. At the same time, O'Donnell's campaign has gone after her accusers, filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney's Office and District of Columbia Bar Association against attorneys and a political watchdog who have called into question her campaign ethics.”

Actually Chad, as you are WELL aware, the U.S. Attorney in Delaware has cleared O’Donnell of any wrong doing and the FEC has found no anomalies with her campaign finances.   O’Donnell has launched investigations into the outright lies by her accusers and asked the IRS to look at CREW’s blatant violation of their 501(C)3 charter.  She’s also filed complaints to have CREW Executive Director and bar member Melanie Sloan investigated for her role in filing knowingly false affidavits on behalf of admitted liar David Keegan.  The so called “watchdog group” has a more than 8-1 record of accusing Republicans over Democrats while historically, more Democrats have been investigated for ethics violations than have Republicans.

“O'Donnell uses the book to settle a few scores with her political adversaries in the Delaware political establishment, claiming "the state party didn't lift a finger to help our campaign" in 2008 and sabotaged her bid for the seat long held by Joe Biden in 2010…

"…It shows how ill-informed Christine O'Donnell is about the history of our party, its leadership and the pro-life candidates in Delaware," said Rakestraw, who added that she doesn't plan to buy O'Donnell's book.”

The reality is that O’Donnell is right.  In 2008, O’Donnell was “endorsed” by the state party but the party did not feel confident that anyone could beat Joe Biden.  That has been the MO of the Delaware GOP for 10 years now since the Democrats took control of Dover.  The Delaware GOP has been running defeatist campaigns ever since and to be quite honest, I have questioned the dedication of the Delaware GOP leadership.  The fact is that the following video more than sums up what the Delaware elites think.  In the video, National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw is very candid about Christine O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart:

Christine raised a reported $7 million during her campaign however, she beat Mike Castle by raising far less than $2 million.  Perhaps this video shows you a little bit more about who Priscilla Rakestraw is:

The bottom line here is that the leadership in the Delaware GOP is not committed to winning.  It’s my SINCERE desire to see John Sigler change things but let’s call a spade what it is.  The Delaware GOP leadership simply has not been committed to winning.  The folly of the 2010 election really needs no recount but to remind you, former Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross, who was in fact the active chair at the time, said that Christine O’Donnell could not be elected dogcatcher and as you can see above, Priscilla sure had some strong words about Christine O’Donnell as well.  In fact, it’s well known inside party circles that Priscilla Rakestraw orchestrated the smear campaign against O’Donnell.  Rakestraw has also been implicated in a smear campaign against State Party chair candidate and Delta Airlines Pilot Mike Protack that resulted in trouble with Protack’s private market employer.  Protack is considering taking legal action against those who used their influence to attack him with unfounded allegations. 

“O'Donnell also alleges that Biden and Castle personally warned a supporter of the "consequences" of raising money for her in the 2008 Senate race against Biden. Like many of O'Donnell's allegations of campaign dirty tricks detailed in the book, the individual involved is not named.

Castle said O'Donnell's claim is "wholly inaccurate" and "the figment of somebody's imagination."

"I don't remember doing anything of that nature," Castle said Saturday.”

First of all, the “I don’t remember” line is not exactly smacking of surety of his statements.  The fact is that evidence suggests that Mike Castle did actively work to sabotage her campaign, that Karl Rove (a key advisor to Castle) actively worked to sabotage her campaign and that there is a long held understanding that Castle, Biden and Carper are thick as thieves. 

“She accuses Ross of abusing party funds by paying for robo phone calls against her in the primary.

Ross said there was nothing illegal about spending state party funds to help elect Castle, who won the party's backing at the state convention last May before losing the primary to O'Donnell.”

Sure is odd that the RNC’s position has been to stay out of primary races while Tom Ross and the rest of his leadership decided to inject themselves into this one in an UNPRECEDENTED manner.  It may not be illegal to spend the money on those robo-calls but it sure is an abuse of party funds especially now that we know if they’d saved that money, they would have had more to spend on electing Republicans.

“After GOP delegates endorsed Castle, the party decided to launch a negative campaign against O'Donnell because it seemed the best option for helping Castle breeze to victory for the U.S. Senate seat and make gains in the state Legislature, Ross said.

"While my dogcatcher statement may have been a little harsh, the truth of the matter remains, Christine O'Donnell is not a viable statewide candidate in the state of Delaware," Ross said in an interview. "We had the biggest Republican year in a hundred years, and she lost by a very, very wide margin, while bringing down the rest of the ticket."”

Well Mr. Ross is continuing to double down on his stupidity from the 2010 campaign.  This is a guy who named ME as Christine O’Donnell’s Press Secretary when I wasn’t even part of the campaign until AFTER the primary campaign was over.  Also, this is apparently a guy who ignores the facts.  You see, Ross claims that O’Donnell brought down the rest of the party but the facts actually bear out the OPPOSITE as the case.  You see exit polling from the Delaware Senate race shows that O’Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans.  You see O’Donnell drew more Republicans and Independents to the polls and fewer Democrats by percentage than the registration gap bore out.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.  I wonder if THAT is the reason those Republicans down ticket lost…because of Tom Ross’ failure to put together a Republican Party that represents Republican values.

Republicans Outshine Preseason Opener

Some of you may know, I’m a HUGE Philly sports fan and so I was in a quandary when I realized that the Eagles Preseason opener and the Ames Debate in Iowa were the same night. My plan was to record the debate and come back to it after the game but to my surprise, my WIFE decided at halftime that the 4th and 5th string Eagles didn’t matter. Boy was she right. It was well worth watching the Ames Debate live, especially with my new HTC EVO Shift 4G by my side and Tweetdeck feeding me the live stream of tweets to the hashtag #AmesDebate (not that I could read most of them as the stream was flying by, it must have been 100 tweets per second). The pulse of the Twitter verse centered on two candidates who have really utilized Social Media and it’s multiplying force to its advantage. Both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann got A LOT of attention on the streams as the debate went on. Gingrich and Romney each shared some space among the Twitterverse while most of the Ron Paul and T-Paw mentions were at best backhanded compliments and at worst pimp hand smacks. I know Rick Santorum participated but I don’t think I even saw his name mentioned on the Social Media landscape. I know that Frank Luntz, “Lord of the Dials” as I call him, is doing his own focus groups and word testing and he knows far more than I do about the pulse of the people I am sure but I wanted to break down what WE saw from each candidate and what our mood was here at home. As young(er) parents of 4 children we have a unique and different perspective on life but yet it straddles that line between the young, just out of college kid making it on their own and the worldly parent of young children trying to help them grow up right. I think our experience, youthfulness and wisdom will translate well to many people. You be the judge.

I’ll first cover each candidate from our perspective (in no particular order), pro’s, con’s and memorable zingers. Then I will tell you who we thought stood out and finally rank them in our current leaderboard with one line as to why they are where they are. Here we go:

Mitt Romney

Romney came into the debate with a lot of questions. Now I will admit, that I already had a slightly inflated opinion of Romney after watching his handling of hecklers during a rally in Iowa that was posted on TheBlaze earlier that day but my wife was under no such delusions and in the interest of fairness, we’ll weight this toward her opinion. Romney was the frontrunner in many polls but for us, he wasn’t our first choice (despite my recent discovery that he is a VERY distant uncle of mine…hey Uncle Mitt…share that wealth over here partner!). He’s polished, he doesn’t make many mistakes and he’s got a good business sense which makes him formidable when talking about the economy. I thought he also did a good job of talking about the need to restrain the growth of government. He did not appear to WOW or impress my wife much except in that he knows what he wants to do with the job and he didn’t dance around too many questions. The line that I think stood out for me was in response to an attack by Tim Pawlenty on Romney’s signing of a universal healthcare bill in Massachussetts. Pawlenty was once again asked about a statement he made earlier in the campaign season about Romney’s plan in Mass. and comparing it to Obamacare, he called it Obamneycare. Tim Pawlenty had previously ducked the question at another debate but this time doubled down on his answer to which Mitt responded “I think I’ liked Tim’s answer in the last debate better” then he proceeded to defend his actions in Mass. as follows, “There’s some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there’s some big differences,” Romney said. “We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law. It’s bad constitutional law. It’s bad medicine.” He also promised to grant all 50 states (not 57 states) waivers to Obamacare on his first day in office to give Congress a chance to repeal the bill and allow the states to opt out if they chose to. All in all, I think Romney sounded Presidential (as did Frank Luntz) and so did my wife but we expected that. This is not his first rodeo and so I think he could have been a little more substantive in his answers. We did like the fact that he spent more time comparing himself to Obama than to the other candidates which I feel shows leadership and an ability to run on ones record rather than personal attacks. We thought Mitt did well in the debate.

Newt Gingrich

Newt came into this debate as one of my least favorites based on his ability (or lack thereof) to beat Obama and his lack of commitment to the race. I’m also not a huge fan of some of his potential policy ideas but as debates go, he really had some zingers last night and he took on a media that focuses too much on personal destruction and less on policy. Gingrich said what a lot of us have been thinking over the last few years (decades in some cases). He also had some unflattering words for a Congress hell bent on NOT making a decision until the final minutes of a deal and then making a bad one. His overall performance wasn’t bad, as former Speaker of the House, I expect him to be able to think on his feet but I was really impressed with the fight he took to the current Congress. When asked about the debt reduction deal, and after zinging the press corps (and moderators Brett Bair, Byron York, Susan Ferrechio and Chris Wallace) for their focus on “campaign minutiae” over substantive policy arguments, Gingrich called the Super Committee “as dumb an idea as Washington has come up with,” and many of us would agree with that assessment. In this house we sure did. Gingrich was able to raise his stock a bit during the debate by not being afraid to take on the media, the moderators, the current Congress and Obama but he has a higher climb than many others because of some of his personal issues and because of his attacks on the Ryan Plan and his previous support of TARP, Medicare Part D and others. With that said, we thought Gingrich did well and we thought he picked up a few spots on our board but he didn’t wow us.

Herman Cain

It’s no secret (take a glance to the right of the screen) that Herman Cain was at the top of my board going into the debate. Now, the entrance of Michele Bachmann into the race and some of Herman’s slip-ups in the media have given me pause and reason to consider other candidates but he still hadn’t been passed. Cain is one of those rare candidates who don’t SOUND like politicians. He sounds real and he knows what he’s talking about. His business skills were on display last night as he talked about businesses and regulations. Herman had a great line about growth when he said “I don’t know one company that sits around trying to figure out how to stand still, it’s about growth!” Likewise, he rightly tied America’s energy policy to our national security and lightened the mood when asked about a comment he made in response to Obama’s mocking of calls for border enforcement. His response was “America needs to learn to take a joke.” He also said that he thought the federal government should be out of the business of educating our children and he also pointed out that “people should be committed to the Constitution of the United States first” before they are appointed to the federal government. Cain presented a real regular persons perspective sans political correctness and he really laid things out the way they are. He didn’t get a lot of time to make his points but he capitalized on that time well. We felt like he stood above the fray in the same way that Romney did and that he utilized his shortened chances to speak well. He reacted well to questions about things he said on the campaign trail and he didn’t flame out during the debate.

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty was one of the weaker candidates going into the debate and he did not disappoint from that perspective. He remained as one of the worst performers and really has made his name by being an attack dog on the other candidates. This time T-Paw as he’s known in the Twitterverse, found that he wasn’t just going to attack Mitt Romney for what he describes as the “Obamneycare” but he would also include fellow Minnesotan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who he described as failing in her leadership on issues like stopping Obamacare, stopping the debt ceiling increase and reducing government spending. In fact, at one point the debate between them got so heated that T-Paw actually asked Bachmann to stop leading because she was “killing us”. T-Paw’s defense of his own record as someone who not only supported but pushed through Cap and Trade and who supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance (one of the key problems with Obamacare) was shoddy, weak and he danced around those issues while throwing every dart he could at Bachmann. He looked more like a bully trying desperately to remain relevant (a la Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate race than he did like a Presidential candidate. He was off putting both to me and to my wife and he was not convincing. He did NOT increase his stock last night but I’m not exactly sure he could have given his record.

Rick Santorum

So Rick had a podium…and he spoke…and I can’t say I disagreed with most of what he said. He’s principled and he didn’t back down from Ron Paul on the Middle East. As the author of a bill sanctioning Iran, Santorum was clearly on the right side of the debate over whether to let Iran do whatever it wants with regards to its nuclear program and the threat they pose to the U.S. with terror cells working with Mexican drug cartels to setup terrorist training camps just across the border and their use of drug smuggling tunnels to transport weapons, ammo, terrorists and more into the U.S. Paul could muster little more than calling Santorum nothing short of a war propagandist and called for us to talk to the Iranians who have consistently said that they desire both the United States and Israel to be destroyed. Santorum stung Paul with the following comments, “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.” He followed with this, “He sees it exactly as Barack Obama sees it. That we have to go around and apologize for the fact that we've gone out and exerted our influence to create freedom around the world. I don't apologize for that. I don't apologize for the Iranian people being free for a long time, and now they're under a mullahcracy [sic] that tramples the rights of women, tramples the rights of gays, tramples the rights of people all throughout their society and is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world — and — is setting up training camps and is working with Venezuela and other countries south of our border to threaten us.” He also had a good call on political compromise and how you can do it without losing your principles.


His biggest slip in our home was on the abortion issue. My wife and I are STAUNCHLY pro-life but we recognize the care and attention that MUST be paid in the cases of rape and incest specifically. Personally our positions are in favor of life at every turn but we struggle with how it’s our right to decide that for a woman who’s been raped or who’s body has been violated by a relative. In our opinon, if the baby will be healthy then we should look to adoption over abortion but that is a VERY tense situation. So Santorum’s principled stand even on those rough issues is both refreshing on the one hand and potentially over the top on the other. We like Santorum but can he transfer to those in America who are less conservative than we are? My argument is that he was once a PA Senator, a large state with two large cities (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) but my wife argues that it would be similar to the O’Donnell race in Delaware where the media smeared everything and made every issue relate to these contentious issues. I can’t disagree with her position entirely.

Ron Paul

Dr. Paul is a traditional Libertarian and when it comes to monetary policy there is none better in my opinion. My concerns with him are and have always been with regards to foreign policy and domestic social issues. His open support of the legalization of drugs is dangerous to American society and to the American way of life. He touched on that issue during the debate although it was not a major focus. I thought Paul LOOKED a little frail and shaky and didn’t get a ton of time to talk (as usual for the lower tier candidates) but his fiscal policy was strong as always. Where Paul completely lost the debate (and in my opinion all chance of winning the nomination) was in his exchange with Santorum (from above) and Bachmann. Paul is flat out wrong to discount Iran and to blame America for the hatred of the Iranian regime. He misses the deep seeded hatred of the Iranian leaders for the freedoms and liberties that we have in the U.S. and his policy suggestions with regards to Iran are scary bad. I thought last night was a bad night for him and he certainly dropped a spot or two because of it.

Michele Bachmann

Michele was the subject of ire from Ron Paul and from Tim Pawlenty and she weathered the storm. She even handled perhaps the most disrespectful question asked of a candidate since the 2010 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware. Byron York from the Washington Examiner, presumably in an attempt to prepare Bachmann for a run in the mainstream media (as if she doesn’t know what they are saying about her) asked Michele if she would be “submissive” to her husband if she is elected President of the United States which implied, of course, that her HUSBAND would somehow be running the country instead of her simply because she believes in the Bible. Bachmann handled the situation well and responded after a long pause (to allow the boo’s to cascade down on Mr. York). The clip below illustrates the nights most uncomfortable moment:

Now Bachmann also had some exchanges with Tim Pawlenty (as mentioned above) and while Pawlenty came across as obtuse, abrasive and rude; Bachmann was cool and measured in her responses. She challenged Pawlenty on his support and push for a Cap and Trade law in Minnesota as well as his support for an individual mandate for healthcare like what’s in Obamacare. Her blows landed sharply and Pawlenty had no real defense for his positions. Meanwhile, Bachmann showed herself to be a leader on key issues that matter to the American people and someone willing to fight for principle even against dramatically high odds. She came out of the debate really unmarred and better for it in our opinion. She didn’t dance around the questions and she defended herself well. She did get bogged down in combat with Pawlenty who was clearly beneath her but we thought she handled it well and zinged him right back.

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman ducked a few questions and that immediately turned my wife off. He’s not the traditional Republican and if we needed to see what a RINO looks like as compared to the current crop of candidates, he certainly presents that option. Frankly, it’s a bad option and one that I hope few people choose but it’s a voice for those who think that “Hey, Obama’s not such a bad guy.” He didn’t do himself any favors last night.


Ok so that’s our analysis. Winners and losers: Cain and Bachmann were big winners in our opinion, Romney was as expected and Gingrich had a few zingers so they are the winners last night. Paul, Huntsman and Pawlenty really dropped their stock and Rick Santorum did what he could.


Here’s our list to this date:

1. Herman Cain – Cain is a real pragmatic candidate who is more of a regular guy than a politician. He’s a plain talker who speaks the truth and who is unafraid of being politically incorrect but he doesn’t come across as overly abrasive.

2. Michele Bachmann – Bachmann is tough and she’s not going to take any guff from Obama or the liberal media. She’s a fighter who doesn’t get frazzled (as we saw with the York question) in the heat of battle and she’s very smart and very right on the issues.

3. Mitt Romney – Ok, so this one was close but Mitt is showing us something lately. He sounds Presidential and he’s been saying the right things and he’s doing well in the debates but that is to be expected from a guy with so much experience.

4. Rick Santorum – We like Rick. He’s conservative, he’s smart and he’s got the right thought process. The only problem we see is that his conservatism may turn off swing voters and Democrats.

5. Newt Gingrich – We had Newt at the bottom before the debate but last night he really made strides to convince us that he deserves a shot. We still feel more like he’s running for Speaker of the House than President BUT his zinger on the Super Committee and his attacks levied at the media for their focus on campaign minutiae vs. substantive issues was also great. Questions still remain about his personal ethics, support for Bush era progressive policies like Medicare Part D and TARP and his attack on Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements.

6. Tim Pawlenty – Personally I think everyone from Pawlenty down should get out of the race and look for slots in the administration but in the grand scheme of things, if we had to pick someone from the bottom, Pawlenty is the pick over Paul, Johnson and Huntsman.

7. Ron Paul – Paul has dropped below Gingrich and Pawlenty because of his foreign policy alone. Anyone that doesn’t understand the threat of IRAN is clearly incapable of leading America in 2012.

8. Gary Johnson – Pot head votes are going here. Great.

9. Jon Huntsman – If we wanted Barack Obama, we’d vote for him.

The Talking Points Are Out

Friday, Standard & Poor’s, one of the largest credit rating agencies, downgraded America’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. This was the first time in history that America’s credit rating has been downgraded. Downgrades are a sign that the credit rating agencies are losing faith in a nation’s ability to repay its debts. It didn’t take long for the Democrat Party to cobble together talking points and protect President Obama either. By Sunday the Democrats were on message and blaming the downgrade on the TEA Party. Both David Axelrod and John Kerry were out publicly calling this a TEA Party downgrade on the Sunday talk shows.

For the last few months, the Democrats, President Obama and the Republicans (led by the TEA Party Freshmen) have argued over raising America’s debt ceiling. Democrats and Republicans battled over the actual debt ceiling increase while the TEA Party freshmen focused on lowering the actual debt numbers instead of increasing the borrowing limit. Marco Rubio implored the Congress to focus on lowering the debt instead of raising the debt ceiling and the TEA Party Republicans put forth a Cut, Cap and Balance plan that called for $4 Trillion dollars in cuts to the more than $14 Trillion national debt, a cap on future spending and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

S&P issued the following statement with its downgrade of the U.S. credit rating:

– We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.

– We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

– The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

– More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

 – Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

 – The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case…

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

As you can see, S&P plays the fence on the exact answer to the debt crisis but their focus is in fact on the debt burden and not the borrowing limit. They suggest a need for “progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues”. Now, each of us has to make a decision on whether we believe that raising taxes or cutting spending is the right answer but for those who look objectively at all of the facts, the best course of action is clear. We’ve absolutely GOT to reduce our spending and reform entitlements. Interestingly, the CBO released a report this weekend that shows that Social Security outlays already exceed collected revenues and in fact, without major reforms, our Social Security system is in jeopardy of complete collapse within the next 30 years or so. For current recipients, this means nothing at all if ones view is only of what directly affects them. If you look at it more broadly, that means people who are 30 years of age today and who have paid and still pay into the Social Security system may not see the fruits of their labors. Raising revenues instead of reforming entitlements or cutting spending is a feel good discussion. Sticking it to those who have more than we do is always more palatable than reducing our own comfort levels but if life teaches us anything, it’s that the easy way is hardly ever the right way. Even the most extreme of revenue increase plans does absolutely nothing substantial in the long term. 

Check out this video from Bill Whittle and then you tell me, address spending or “raise revenues” (a.k.a increase taxes, especially on the rich)?

 

Deconstructing the Delaware Liberal Myth

So I heard Rick Jensen talking about this blog post over at Delaware Liberal by "Cassandra_m".  Usually I don't even bother to present my fellow Delawareans over there with common sense facts because they often fail to listen to reason.  Governor Markell and I don't agree on much, including his own opinion that he is "pro-business".  Thus far Markell has shown himself to be almost anything but "pro-business".  When Delaware had the opportunity to push for an opt-out of Obamacare which threatens to destroy small-medium businesses and will demand more layoffs even from Fortune 500 companies, Markell supported it and refused to save Delaware businesses.  When the Obama Administration pushed Financial Regulatory reform through the Congress which has already shut down many jobs (potentially a thousand +) in the financial sector in Delaware, Markell supported it.  Markell has shown support for not only RGGI, the regional cap and trade system but also a national Cap and Trade system that would further punish (destroy) Delaware businesses and kill jobs.  So I decided to go ahead and post my critique of her blog posting here.  My comments are in bold.

Building Delaware's Future or How to Throw Taxpayer Money at BusinessesBy cassandra_m

Governor Markell has spent the past three days rolling out his plan to spend newly DEFAC-found revenues of $320M. Links to the Governor’s Press Releases on this are below, and worth looking at in their entirety:
Part I — Building Delaware’s Future Fund, Infrastructure:
Part II — Building Delaware’s Future, Tax Cuts
Part III — Building Delaware’s Future, Education
This is all being billed as a jobs plan, and some of it definitely supports the creation of employment — the Infrastructure proposals look like old school stimulus and takes into consideration that some newly built plant here will need expansion or adjustments to current infrastructure to operate.

Typically, the liberal spirit is to spend money in GOVERNMENT and to buy up as much land as possible so that future land use can be centrally planned.  In other words, if DuPont isn't playing ball with the government (say...on climate change) but Gore is playing ball, why not sell the government owned land to Gore instead of DuPont?  Don't think this could happen?  Well it already has.  Case in point: DelDOT land deals and Chris Tigani.

<back to Cassandra> The disappointing part of this is Part II, in which we find the Governor doing something I don’t think I thought I’d see — actually buying into the fairy tale that tax cuts create jobs. They don’t, of course, otherwise the 2000’s would have been way more robust than they were. And this plan actually extends the fairy tale — while it is certain that the financial industry is changing, there is no way to look at this industry and not see that the changes we see here in Delaware are structural ones. Jobs lost at Wilmington Trust and HSBC (and others, really) are due to serious restructurings that tax cuts won’t undo to any great extent.

Another glimpse into the liberal mindset here shows a complete and total unwillingness to put fact over ideology when they don't mix.  The reality is that going back to the 1920's, every time taxes have been cut, the economy has grown and revenues to the government have increased.  Every time.  Ok, ok, so THAT link was to a Heritage article and I know, YOU say they are biased.  Well, I guess that means that this link to the USA Today opinion piece by Bill Frist is out too?  Fine, I can understand that, but then how do you explain the jump in revenues in 2006 as reported by the New York Times?  The fact is that cutting taxes stimulates the economy as well as it does personal incomes.  It creates more wealth which can then be invested in new businesses or in expansion of current businesses.

<back to Cassandra> Tax cuts targeted at the Financial Industry are particularly galling — this industry has had the benefit of rivers of taxpayer funds in the form of TARP and multiple cheap lending facilities and now Delaware taxpayers are supposed to help support banks that are in trouble because of their own bad risk management. Again, without paying attention to the fact that there are quite a few of these jobs that won’t be coming back, no matter how healthy the economy gets.

Whoops!  Cassandra forgot to mention the REASON why these jobs "won't be coming back" to Delaware.  Part of it is because banks are under assault from all sides thanks to the financial meltdown.  Some of it is warranted and some of it is not so warranted.  A much larger part of it is Financial Regulatory Reform, also known as Reg Z.  Reg Z changed so much within the financial system (and the full impact to companies hasn't even been realized yet) that financial institutions now have some of their costs increased by 200% or more.  And while those who are committed to the causes of the left, namely bringing down the capitalist system in favor of a more redistributive model where your success only means we get to share more of YOUR wealth will not be convinced by a "biased source" it's telling to see what the company Accenture thinks of financial regulatory reform:
As we have seen, The Dodd-Frank Act has many interrelated implications for how all financial services firms will run their businesses, both short-term and long-term, and as a result, the financial services industry could look very different in five years time. The Act will increase costs, potentially hurt profits, produce new operational challenges and pose significant strategic questions about how firms will prop up their return on equity while absorbing the cost of more reporting to regulators, a more expensive cost of capital and the loss of some of their most profitable businesses. The most nimble and efficient banks, insurers and broker-dealers could pick up market share at the expense of their larger, less efficient competitors, which makes it crucial that firms make an efficient strategy for implementing reform part of the DNA of their businesses.
This is no insignificant point folks.  It's the very reason why banks are shedding jobs here in Delaware.  Key sponsors of the bill, Senator Tom Carper, Former Congressman Mike Castle and Vice President Joe Biden, all from Delaware.

<back to Cassandra> Tax cuts targeted at the top rate make no sense at all. (Full disclosure, I would benefit from this tax cut.) We are still in an economy that is finding its sea legs. It will take quite a long time to get to 7% unemployment rate, much less 5%.

And why would we want to cut tax rates on the people who create the jobs we are going to need in order to lower the unemployment rate?  Even if you don't buy the logic that I listed above, with a number of different factual sources from across the political spectrum that shows tax cuts in the past have always increased revenues and lifted the economy, you still can surely see how the rich provide the jobs.  People like Cassandra always like to go after the people making more than $250,000 as some sort of evil rich people who just want to take everything they can get their hands on.  The reality is that these are the people that create the jobs that lift our unemployment rate.  They are the small business owners, the upper level managers and the executives who create jobs.  With that said, it is easy to fall into the trap of desiring what others have, believe me there are times when I would LOVE to be a DuPont heir but we all have to remember that in America, you reap what you sow.  Until recently, America has been a place where you can keep the fruits of your labor but now it is increasingly becoming a place where government takes more of what YOU earn and gives it to those who have not earned it.  It's especially helpful to the liberal cause when these words come from someone who is part of that upper class.  When Joe Biden says "skin in the game" and people like Cassandra who claim to be in the upper class call for more like them to pay more in taxes, it sounds great!  But watch it, because most of them have found loopholes in the tax system that allows THEIR skin to be just a little smaller than most people.  (Tim Geithner anyone?)

<back to Cassandra> And while Delaware seems to have some control over its previous revenue problem, it is not in control of the *real* problem of government budgets everywhere — health care. Deliberately letting go of revenue streams in the midst of all of this uncertainty with no idea what kind of risks will be present next year or the following year can only make sense if you expect that you can just cover any future shortfalls by asking state workers to finance the gaps. Again. Besides, one of the *principles* of using this money is supposed to be:

Limiting our dependence on less reliable sources of revenue, specifically abandoned property. The plan suggests the best way to accomplish this is to cap the amount of this revenue being used to fund the state’s operating budget, and to use any additional collections for one-time investments.

First of all, Delaware does not HAVE a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem.  In 2009, Delaware spent $27,362 per taxpayer and we have gone from spending $8.3 Billion in 2009 to spending more than $10.6 Billion now in 2011.  The other problem that I have here is this idea that taxes are "revenue" to be "adjusted" at the will of the elites.  Taxes are "revenue" only in that they are income to the government.  Taxes are a public trust that the people pay to the government in exchange for core services.  With that said, our "core services" haven't been looked at in many years.  I ask you, are two golf courses and two marinas "core services"?  *I* can live without a couple of golf courses and a couple of marinas, how about you?  So if you reduce spending on these "discretionary" items, you free up enough money to reduce the tax burden on businesses and individuals.  As for asking state workers to "finance the gaps", Cassandra is using liberal speak for "taking pay cuts", I say that the New York Times admits the wage/benefit gap between the public and private sector workers.  In addition, there is plenty of room for public employees to contribute a little more toward their pensions and health care.  With that said, if you eliminate redundant, wasteful and costly state programs, it will reduce any potential pay cuts or increased benefit contributions.  But let's live in the world where taxes are "revenue"...even under that idea, tax cuts INCREASE revenue.

Bush Tax Cuts:  President George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.  Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion

2004 -- $1.88 trillion

2005 -- $2.15 trillion

2006 -- $2.40 trillion

2007 -- $2.56 trillion

<back to Cassandra> Unless these tax cuts are just for one year, you’ve just financed this tax cut for years assuming you’ll have this revenue on a recurring basis. And tax cuts of this kind are NOT an investment.
Reducing business taxes provides balance sheet support — not real incentives to hire. Because the majority of businesses on the planet will hire people because they can keep a pair of hands busy, cover the costs of that pair of hands and still make some money.

Oh Cassandra, you miss the points so eloquently.  Tax cuts ARE an investment, especially tax cuts for businesses and those who create jobs.  Reducing taxes provides PROFITS (what she refers to as "balance sheet support") to businesses and those profits are used by business owners to reinvest in their businesses, to expand production and yes, to create jobs.  Likewise, tax cuts for the wealthy put more money back into the pockets of the people who invest in businesses (venture capital anyone?).  This is a concept that JFK espoused and that the Congress in the 1990's confirmed. 

<back to Cassandra> Nowhere that *I’ve* ever worked has justified hiring based on the tax cuts available. (And yes, I hire people.) Tax cuts cover some of the costs of that pair of hands and/or maybe some of the profits. This is why lots of businesses who get a great deal of support from local governments can get up and go after that support sunsets.

No one has ever suggested that companies hire people only because of tax cuts.  What we've said is that tax cuts stimulate growth and stimulate hiring which is absolutely true.  This is why business exploded from 2000 to 2007 despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks, two wars and Hurricane Katrina.  

<back to Cassandra> See this book and this book for the gory details.

And once you read those books by the committed leftist former "journalist" whose wife runs a philanthropic distribution group that handled more than $160 million in donations, please take a look at this book and this book.

<back to Cassandra> It is possible that we do not have all of the details here, but there has to be a smarter use of found money than these tax cuts. At least a smarter use that still acknowledges that we are economically no where near being out of the woods. And if someone from the Administration wants to tell you that these tax cuts will pay for themselves, demand to see their calculations. Because this will be the first time that this has ever been true.

Cassandra, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever been true, in fact, Michael T. Griffith can point to 5 major tax cuts that DID pay for themselves, the Bush, Clinton, Reagan, JFK and Mellon (Harding & Coolidge administrations) cuts.  They didn't just pay for themselves, they preceded times of great economic growth and increased revenues.

<back to Cassandra> The recent budget submitted by the Governor reduced some of the grant funds available to service providers in the state. Groups that are doing extraordinary work in their communities. Groups that may be laying people off or not help others to become employable due to the reduced funds. And yet this doesn’t count in the employment calculation.

My first question is, if the work is so great, why does it require government to fund it?  As someone who runs a non-profit organization that does NOT accept government funds (by choice) I can tell you that the world of community "service providers" is muddied by many who are swimming in taxpayer dollars and providing little return on investment.  I know what it takes to run an organization on nothing but donations and I think it's a testament to the longevity of groups like Founders Values, Delaware Family Policy Council and others who operate solely on the donations of like minded individuals.  In fact, some of those groups even have entirely volunteer staff and still need to produce high quality results in order to continue providing their services.  These organizations should compete like everyone else instead of reaching for handouts of taxpayer dollars.  The best will rise to the top and the worst will dissolve and contribute their good ideas to those effective organizations.

<back to Cassandra> What is truly unfortunate is to see this genuinely smart man reduced to pushing the horribly false narrative about taxes, and basically work at reinforcing the republican-pushed idea that you can have All of the Government You Can Eat for Free. And provide a revenue stream to businesses too! Don’t expect leadership on this to come from the Dem Caucus, either. Because if Governor Markell can succumb to this fairy tale, there’s no chance the Caucus will get a sudden attack of responsibility.

What is even more unfortunate is that Cassandra does such a poor job of attempting to explain "Republican-pushed" ideas and that she attributes Governor Markell's mad dash to spend the cash to Republicans.  As you can see from this week's proposal from the Republican caucus in Dover, the Governor's plans don't even come close to meeting Republican goals.  Instead of going on a spending spree like a 17yr old girl with daddy's credit card in the Mall of America, Republicans have proposed tax cuts to stimulate the economy, spur investment, ease the pain at the pump and to fix failures in government that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.  Republicans show their responsibility and leadership in their plan by proposing to fix the way that DelDOT operating funds are spent and to provide transparency and openness with respect to how the agency works. 

Republicans as a rule call for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT (not "All of the Government You Can Eat for Free") but I'm glad that Cassandra agrees that government isn't free.  Now all we need to do is remind her that you can't get to a balanced budget simply by eating the rich:

I'm also happy to see her admitting that the Democrats have their own problems with leadership.

It's official

After much consideration, I have decided to support John Sigler for Chairman of the Delaware Republican Party and Greg Lavelle for Vice Chair.  I have waited until I could have as much information as possible learn all I could.  I feel that for Chairman of the Republican Party you can do NO better than John C. Sigler, former NRA National President and a longtime Republican and Reagan conservative.  He's the right person at the right time and in the right place.  On the Vice Chair side, I know Don Ayotte and I know Greg Lavelle.  Both are fine gentlemen with spirit, energy and integrity.  Lavelle adds the dynamic of bringing the elected officials BACK to the table of party politics.  No one can accuse Greg of being as conservative as Don, and that is a plus for Don, but Lavelle gave such a passionate defense of family values in objection to S.B. 30 that the Democrats cut debate early to ensure the bill would pass.  It's my belief that Dover SHOULD be involved in party politics, it's also my belief, much to the chagrin of some, that all sides need to be represented and Greg brings a balance I think that Don lacks.  In addition, while I like Don, I just don't believe that he is ready to be Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Delaware Republican Party. 

Most of this will not sit well with some in the conservative circles and as of this writing I have gotten at least a few calls/emails about the fact that I am supporting Lavelle of Ayotte (though mysteriously no one seems to care that I am not supporting Mike Protack.  Besides, anybody is better than Tom Ross.

Where is our response?

In the last 3-4 years Delaware has lost two auto plants, an oil refinery, 750 jobs at HSBC and now hundreds more will be leaving Wilmington Trust thanks to the merger with M&T Bank.  These are just the bulk losses.  Gone with them are THOUSANDS of support jobs and small businesses whose customer bases lost their jobs in these major layoffs.  Since 2007 it has been one hit after another but what do we hear from our leaders in Dover?  *Crickets* *Crickets*

To be fair to the Markell administration the auto plant closings occurred on the watch of Governor Minner.  Of course, Jack Markell was Gov. Minner's Treasurer and he was fully aware of the economic problems we faced and if he wasn't than he was derelict in his duties.  The reality is that in just a few years during two Democrat administrations, Delaware lost more than 3,700 jobs.  For all the economic star power in the Markell Administration, including Alan Levine (of Happy Harry's fame) whose cross the party lines appointment was seen as genius and an illustration of a Governor who understood the challenges in front of him.  Democrats and Republicans alike praised Markell and to this day he is given a pass.  No one from either party questions the fact that Delaware has not created jobs.

You would think that the administration would have worked to bring new businesses in to replace jobs being lost but you would be wrong.  The Chrysler plant, when abandoned by Chrysler was not turned over to flourishing companies like Ford, Hyundai, Nissan or Toyota.  Instead it was sold to the University of Delaware who will now embark on a decades long cleanup project to make the facility into a new medical complex.  They've promised grandiose plans that will lead to thousands of jobs but of course, they're long term projections.  The old GM Boxwood plant?  It's now owned by another company with lofty long term goals and no immediate results.  Fisker will employ 2000 autoworkers when it finally reopens the plant and begins making taxpayer funded electric cars.  Never mind the fact that every car it sells is subsidized 50% by state and federal taxpayers and that in all likelihood each car built will represent a net loss of taxpayer dollars.  Valero closed back in 2009 and nearly 1000 people lost their jobs.  In what represents the best hope for the creation of new jobs, it is expected that the plant will reopen under new management (PBF Energy, a foreign owned company has agreed to take ownership) this April and that 700 jobs will be picked up.  Still, that is assuming that everything goes to plan.  As for the more than 1400 jobs lost in the banking sector?  *Crickets* *Crickets*

Yet, still, we hear NOTHING from Dover and even LESS from the opposition party.  Where are the Republicans?  Why aren't they calling on Markell to produce jobs the way we hear John Boehner and Paul Ryan calling on the Obama Administration?  It's called "The Delaware Way".  The misnomer is that this is a unique brand of civility in Delaware but in reality it is nothing short of cowardice and wanton disregard for the business of the people.  It's very much the reason why there is single party rule in Delaware.  The Delaware Republican Party is scared to DEATH to call a spade a spade.  Sure, you may see a few people (like me, Charlie Copeland, Dave Anderson...etc.) with blogs who are critical of the administration but where are the press releases from the Delaware GOP leadership railing against this hemorrhaging of jobs and the lack of economic growth?  Far from being an act of civility, this silence is an act of servitude where the Delaware GOP ignores the transgressions of Delaware's ruling Democrat Party and in exchange is allowed a few token election wins.  Who would want to vote for a party that just does what the other party wants them to do? 

I'm calling on the Delaware Republican Party to STAND for something.  STAND UP for these people who have lost their jobs.  STAND UP for these people are desperately in need of help.  BE the GRAND old party again.  Stop maintaining the status quo and start rocking the boat.  Delaware needs leaders and there are people in the Delaware GOP who I KNOW can provide the leadership we need in order to turn our situation around.  What we need is for those leaders to STAND and to stop waffling.  Make your CASE...and the people will follow you.  I'm reminded of one of my favorite movies....Braveheart:

Craig: Sir William, where are you going?

William: We have beaten the English, but they'll come back because you won't stand together.

Craig: Well what will you do?

William: I will invade England and defeat the English on their own ground.

Craig: Invade? That's impossible.

William: Why? Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.

---

Robert the Bruce: Wait! I respect what you said, but remember that these men have lands and castles. It's much to risk.

William: And the common man who bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?

Robert the Bruce: No, but from top to bottom this country has no sense of itself. Its nobles share allegiance with England. Its clans war with each other. If you make enemies on both sides of the border, you'll end up dead.

William: We all end up dead; it's just a question of how and why.

Robert the Bruce: I'm not a coward. I want what you want, but we need the nobles.

William: We need them?

Robert the Bruce: Aye.

William: Now tell me, what does that mean to be noble? Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I.

---

Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier

Former Delaware Governor Pete Dupont is one of the most respected living politicians in the state and when he speaks, Delaware listens.  Gov. Dupont is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other national publications.  During his tenure as Governor, Delaware experienced a rapid and expansive growth and for that reason, Delaware looks to him as a leader to this day.  He is a fiscal conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, cut the taxes, reduce the spending and adhere to the Constitution.  Pete Dupont is in fact, a TEA Partier.  Gov. Dupont even honored the Delaware TEA Party groups by being the headline speaker at the 2010 Wilmington Tax Day TEA Party held annually at Dravo Plaza.  He addressed a crowd of hundreds who turned out on April 15th and he called for government to reduce spending, cut taxes and shrink the size of government across the board. 

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, Gov. Dupont explains the Nov. 2nd elections and calls Obama to the carpet.  He calls for Obama and the new Republican majority in the House to shrink government and remove burdensome regulations so businesses can expand again, cut taxes to stimulate the economy as the Reagan, Kennedy and Coolidge administrations did before them, reduce government spending by cutting discretionary spending and finally to repeal and replace Obamacare with common sense alternatives.  He cited a 136 page rule inserted by DHSS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that places the federal government into a role traditionally held by the states.  He left out however, a regulatory reform from the radical Dr. Donald Berwick and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that will create the much maligned "Death Panels" that Democrats (including President Obama) promised would be removed from the health care law.  Berwick's rule will allow doctors to be paid for providing "end of life counseling" which will be used along with "Comparative Effectiveness Research" to determine the most cost effective future treatments.  By creating an incentive for doctors to "counsel" seniors as to how long they may or may not want to live, the government is effectively removing choice from the equation.  Medicare doctors, who already enjoy a unique control over their patients, will have a financial reason to ensure that every patient receives counseling on how long they should live. 

In the end, Dupont calls on the new Republican House to "Get to it" and begin the work to reform government.  Understanding that the road will be hard and paved with bumps, the new Congress and the improved Senate must fight to reduce the size of government, limit spending, reduce the tax burden and replace Obamacare with common sense reforms while returning choice and competition back to the people and the states.  Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier at heart and he espouses the values and the principles which we hold dear.  In Delaware, we could not have a better man to look to for guidance as a grassroots movement.  I join Governor Dupont in his support of the new look Congress.  "Let's get to it".

Turns out Christine O'Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans

At least, that is how it would appear when one looks at the exit polling from the Delaware U.S. Senate race.  O'Donnell struggled with women(36% for 61% against) and with black voters(93% against) in the state.  It's been long understood that those groups are the most important blocs to win in Delaware.  Details of the exit poll breakdown show that O'Donnell tied Coons among white women (48% each) but lost black women 95% - 4% which accounts for nearly the entire 25 point swing in female voters.  What appears to have done O'Donnell in is the 18% of Republicans who abandoned the more conservative O'Donnell as opposed to the 9% of Democrats who crossed over to vote against Coons. 

So what does all this mean?  Republicans down ticket SHOULD have benefited from the increases in Republicans and Independent voters over the registration totals.  Remember, the registration gap at election time was:

Democrats:  47 %.  

Republicans:  29.4%.  

"Other" & Independents:  23.5%

Yet the exit polling shows that Democrats made up only 44% of actual voters in November:
Democrats:  44 %.

Republicans:  30%.   

"Other" & Independents:  27%

So in theory, this should have HELPED candidates down ticket, not hurt them as has been suggested by the GOP elite.  There is one explanation for why those candidates may have lost their races....the 18% of Republicans who voted against O'Donnell.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.

Democrats:  44%. 

Vince Meconi is back (again)

This guy just won't go away!  Vince Meconi, longtime Delaware government bureaucrat and Democrat insider is back on government payroll.  Meconi has been at top levels of Delaware government since 1993 and one of those posts, as the head of DHSS led him to the land of infamy.  He was the head of the agency that was responsible for the Delaware Psychiatric Center abuses.  Meconi presided over rapes, assaults and retaliations against whistle blowers at DPC and yet was given a generous pension for his inaction.  While he led DHSS, Meconi hauled in a whopping $143,000 and his pension for all his failures is $7,633.56 per month ($91,602.72 per year).  Heck of a pay cut for someone who is used to a 6 figure salary but not to worry.  While Meconi was out of work when Minner left office, the new Democrat leadership under Markell was just as corrupt and as such, a lifetime bureaucrat holdover from Minner is useful.  That's why Markell hired Meconi and invited him to double dip.  While still receiving his pension pay, Meconi was given a job with the new administration, short term of course (the job lasted nearly a year) pulling down just $73,125 in taxpayer funds.  All together, Meconi's annual take of taxpayer funds came to nearly $165,000. 

Even the establishment politicians in the Republican Party see Meconi as a problem.  Greg Lavelle, one of the more establishment of the establishment Republicans, filed a FOIA request to look into the Meconi hiring.  Now Vince is back, this time at the County level.  Incoming New Castle County Executive Paul Clark has hired good old Vince to be the deputy chief administrative officer of New Castle County.  This is a post he first held with the State government under Tom Carper.  Is it any wonder that Delaware elected Chris Coons and John Carney to Washington?  The people of this state are gluttons for punishment and they love being taken for fools and having lifelong politicians steal millions from the taxpayers.  This just goes to show that in Delaware, just when you think you're out, they pull you BACK IN!

Background:
DPC stories
DPC Unions expect inquiries
Timeline of abuses