Reality Check

This may come as a surprise to some, but the Delaware GOP is in total disarray. After going through the convention process and electing new state-wide officers, we were informed that the newly re-elected chairman would be resigning immediately, and this only weeks after the convention.

So now another convention has been called, and we will again elect a chairman. But believe it or not, this is the least of the troubles facing the Delaware Republican Party.

It is true that the new chairman will play a large role in turning the party around, and creating an environment in which the party can grow, and again lead, however, first the members of the party must recognize the problems facing the Delaware GOP. When I say members, I don’t simply mean the active working members of the various committees. I mean every man and woman who is a registered member of the Delaware Republican Party, because it will take every member to heal the wounds, and set a course for the GOP in Delaware. It will mean at times setting aside old battles, to put the needs of the whole before the needs of the special interest, to understand that to lead, to govern, first we must win. And to do that there are certain realities that we must all face.

It is no great secret that there has been an ever-growing divide within the Delaware Republican Party. It is no secret that divide began to expand sometime around 2006, it became a gaping chasm in 2008, and has turned into the “Grand Canyon” of political divides since 2010.  It would be foolish to say that certain candidates were not blamed for this divide, on one side Mike Castle is blamed, on the other side Christine O’Donnell is blamed. This is one of those old battles that must be put aside if the party is to move forward.  And if we are honest, then we must recognize that to blame candidates is only half of the story. It is almost always the voters who hold a grudge after a primary or general election lost. The team mentality plays out in many ways, sometimes people feel that if their team can’t win, then no body should win. A rivalry begins and grows to the point, that voters can lose sight of the bigger picture. Some have even come to believe, that taking out members of their own team is more important than defeating the true opposition.

That is where we have come to in the Republican Party of Delaware. In many ways the divide is geographical, north vs. south, but there is also a divide based upon socio-economic differences, the so called, have and have-nots. Then there is the divide based on the perception of what constitutes being a “TRUE” conservative. This last one is probably the most divisive of all, because it is totally suggestive. Each small group, and even each person, will have a slightly different view of the definition of conservatism. Each will claim to be right, and many will insist, that failure to adhere to their view of conservatism, will not simply make you less of a conservative, but will actually make you a “LIBERAL”.  It is this “check list politics”, or purity testing, that has become the norm for many who seek to be the face of the Delaware GOP.

On the other side you have what have come to be called the “moderates” of the GOP, or RINOs (Republicans in name only), they see the self-proclaimed true conservatives as “right-wing nut jobs”, they hold a grudge over past losses, they feel that the new direction of the party is not only detrimental to the GOP in Delaware, but to Delaware itself, because the new direction has led to one party rule by the Democrats.

If we first look at the geographical nature of the divide, we will see that it is not based simply on location, but is based on differing needs.  Put simply, the people in northern Delaware have a different view of the role of government than do the people of southern Delaware. In New Castle County a large number of people need public transportation, they rely upon public water and sewer. They are more likely to call the police and wait for aid, than to defend themselves with weapons they own. This is not simply because they are liberals and that they like big government, it is based on the realities of living in a more urban environment. This reality has caused many to not fear government, but to rely upon it, so they do not understand many of the fears that people in southern Delaware have.

In southern Delaware, people own cars to travel at will, they have wells and septic systems that they are responsible for, they will defend their homes first, and then call the police to report the death of the intruder. Again this is not based simply on an inherent loathing of government, it is the reality of living in a more rural environment. Public transportation doesn’t work in the spread out Sussex County, and while public water and sewer are expanding, there is still no dire need to rely solely upon them, and with the often lengthy response times for police, it only makes sense to be able to defend your own home. This is not simply because they are conservatives and hate all things government, it is based on the realities of living in a more rural area. This reality has caused many to not rely on government, but to rely upon themselves, and they do not understand why others would give up what they see as freedom.

To heal the geographical divide, we must first recognize these differences, and as a party work to find compromise that addresses all of the needs, without attempting to minimize the needs of others. This is ever so important when choosing candidates, the candidates in New Castle will have to reflect the needs and views of New Castle, and likewise the candidates for Kent and Sussex must reflect the needs and views of those areas.

The trouble comes when we talk of state-wide candidates, because every area expects the candidate to reflect their needs and views to the exclusion of all others, anything short of one-hundred percent compliance to those needs and views will result in being labeled either a liberal or a right-wing nut job. Candidates will need to be honest when talking to voters, and voters will need to be informed about not only their own needs, but the needs of the entire state, and they must be willing to compromise for the good of the entire state.

As for the socioeconomic divide, well that is as old, as the ages. There has been and always will be those who think they are better than others simply because they have been more successful, then there are those who are simply jealous of that success. These differing levels of success will again affect how individuals will perceive the role of government.

Those who have been successful to varying degrees will see no need to spend more tax dollars on programs and  projects, that they have no need for, especially when they are specifically targeted to raise the tax revenue to pay for those programs.

Those who have not been as successful will in many cases reach for any floating branch as the river rises, and they will see the successful people as greedy for not wanting to pay higher taxes to save the less successful. Both are natural responses, and neither makes one more or less conservative, they are simply human.

So how do we turn this ship around? First we need leadership that is not afraid to speak the hard truths to the rank and file of the entire state, we need leaders who will also listen to the needs and views of the entire state, and not attempt to silence opposing views. Leaders who can find compromise that addresses those needs without ignoring one group simply to benefit another.

The Republican rank and file must become the most informed voter base in the state, for with information, comes knowledge and authority. However, the rank and file cannot simply seek that information from like-minded sources. They cannot simply create echo chamber clubs, that do little more than regurgitate tired old, hate filled rhetoric. They should seek that information from diverse sources. Yes, even from sources they perceive as the opposition, for we will always learn more from those we oppose, than we will from simply talking with those we agree with. How can we find compromise, if we never talk with those we  oppose?

To begin, we within the Republican Party must work to put aside the past. We must find ways to work together to raise money and find candidates that fit the districts that they run in. But we must do this from a stance of unity.  This does not mean that we will always agree one-hundred percent of the time, but we must be willing to listen, to hear, and to recognize what our fellow Republicans are saying, and not simply discount it because it does not fit hand in glove with our own.

Many may disagree with what I am about to say, but in reality the Republican Party of Delaware has all of the pieces to the puzzle, it is only a matter of the right people being able to put them together.

In New castle County we have people who know how to, and who have the ability to raise the money needed to run a successful party. In Kent and Sussex we have people who know how to, and have successfully organized at the grass-roots level, to get out the vote and to motivate volunteers. A party that can do neither of these, will never be successful. The trick is to bring the two together.

I truly believe that we can, but it will require that we put aside our blind adherence to a single issue, that we put aside our old anger, over old battles. That we recognize the need for small compromise, in order to make gains.  That we recognize that some who claim to have the best interest of the party at heart, truly don’t. That some who refuse to compromise are not “true conservatives” putting principles before party. But are simply mean, uninformed demagogues who seek only to destroy, and not to build or grow.

Yes, the Delaware Republican Party is in disarray, but it is not hopeless.

 

 

55 Comments on "Reality Check"

  1. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus thinks Franks did a fine job thinking and writing this out and in a perfect world it could work. Good luck with seeing this happen.

    Tuxamus Maximus hopes that the Sussex GOP really looks closely at the candidates that they put up for future elections. The Sheriff is goofy, another that is indicted for most likely being a pervert and a third that is being sued by an 18 year old for being…well whatever. Makes one want to say hmmmmmmmm.

    Add all the infighting, name calling, lying and outright bullies of a vocal minority and Frank and those like him that understand the word compromise have a long road to hoe.

    Lots of good GOP people that have been active that are sitting on the sidelines waiting for some to fade away. Good Luck with all that!

  2. anon. says:

    Sir Charles LaMont Dupont Von Copeland isnt your guy. Hes a arrogant jackass that wont play outside Greenville. Good luck.

  3. anon says:

    “There is an epic battle headed our way.” “This battle has been in the making for many years now. Some have tried time and time again to be the peace makers, to no avail.”

    “Here in the state of Delaware we have seen the opening skirmishes. I am proud to say that the “Concord and Lexington” of this war may well have been fought right here in my home county of Sussex.”

    “So now the GOP faces a fight from within. It is a war of their choosing.”

    “…at the last Sussex County GOP meeting the shot heard round the state was fired. The battle was waged. From the reports that I have heard it was not pretty.”

    “In attempting to squash the uprising, he (Sams) has added fuel to the fire.”

    “We will either wrest control of the party from the establishment elite, or we will tear it down and start over.”

    “Those on the left within the GOP will tell you that those of us on the right within the GOP are going to destroy the party by waging this war. Well that may well be true.”

    “…when you hear some party wonk tell you that Frank Knotts and his like are destroying the GOP, remember that this is a war of their choosing.”

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    anon, thank you for posting those quotes from my former articles. In doing so you have shown that I was one of the people who was pushing for a larger voice for the more conservative wing of the party. I was involved in that battle. I have seen what I consider to be great gains for the conservative wing of the Delaware GOP.
    Now of course those quotes were taken out of context of the entire article and the times in which they were written.
    What you have shown is that in the past I was determined that the more conservative people within the party should be heard. And that today I have recognized that both they are, and that to continue to fight the war simply to punish others will only destroy the party. We have our voice, and instead of using it to grow the party, it is being use to destroy the party.
    By showing that in the past that I had a different view than I do toady, shows that my article above is written from the perspective of someone who has been able to put old battles behind me, and who now sees that the party must come together or fail. It is those who I fought along side of, who do not recognize the gains that have been made, and who seek only to punish, that will drive the party further into irrelevance, by becoming that which they purported to oppose.
    They have become the elitist, the insiders, those who would tell others to leave the party if they don’t like it. They have become that which I wrote my previous article about, they are no different than the very people they and I fought against to gain a voice for the more conservative voters within the Delaware GOP. So now I oppose them, I am consistent in my opposition of totalitarian style rule within the GOP. I care little whether it comes from up state, down state, moderates, conservatives or liberals. The very idea that you can grow a party while telling people to get out, only further demonstrates the lunacy of their position.
    Now to the other anon who said,
    “Sir Charles LaMont Dupont Von Copeland isnt your guy. Hes a arrogant jackass that wont play outside Greenville. Good luck.”
    Well you may want to do a little research, there are election numbers out there that show that Greenville and Greenwood vote very similar, which shows that the idea that the two are so different, may be simply perception.

  5. anon says:

    keep telling yourself that frank no one else is buying it. Flip flopper you attack & condemn GOP members who still have the same values they did 2 years ago when you wrote the original piece.
    “Knotts thinks that the very act of not agreeing with him is an act of violence. In his delusional, paranoid state, he will regard what ever violence he commits as justified in the name of self defense.”

  6. Frank Knotts says:

    anon, if you are actually reading what I wrote back then, then you would know that I am consistent in my views, though the people who are the problem have changed, the problems are the same. As for people having exactly the same views years later? Well that may be an educational problem. “People who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”
    As for your quote of, “Knotts thinks that the very act of not agreeing with him is an act of violence. In his delusional, paranoid state, he will regard what ever violence he commits as justified in the name of self defense”.
    I have to admit that I do not remember where that one comes from, or who said it, maybe you could provide links rather than simply pulling out of context quotes to serve your small minded agenda. I write about the party and you come here to attack me, okay. In doing so you demonstrate that you are exactly the type of person I am referencing in my articles. Please continue to come here and show the rest of the visitors your intellectual vacancy.
    As for defending myself? Damn right my friend. I will respond in kind to defend myself.

  7. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Having worked closely with “true” conservatives for many, many years (and considering myself one), I remain convinced that a “true” conservative is one who TRULY is a conservative, as opposed to those who give LIP SERVICE to conservative positions, only to fool the voters, and then pursue an entirely different agenda when given the chance.

    The divide is not as big a problem as many in the GOP think. But any problem is insurmountable if it is neglected. A hole in a ship can be patched. But if ignored it will sink the ship.

    If the divide were a requirement for 100% perfect adherence to conservative positions, then it would be very difficult or impossible to bridge that chasm.

    But the problem is much easier to solve, if properly understood.

    It’s a question of TRUST. That isn’t easy to rebuild. But rebuilding trust is at least possible. It may take time. It may be tough. But it at least is a game plan that can actually be implemented.

    What conservatives mean by a “true” conservative is a sincere conservative, someone who actually means what they say.

    The other kind is simply saying what they think we want to hear to fool, manipulate and scam voters. THAT is what the conservative movement finally got fed up with, hopping mad, boiling over with contempt and anger. Conservatives got tired of attempts – often transparent and sloppy — to manipulate them.

    The majority of strong conservatives may not see it that way themselves. But their insistence on a strict adherence to a strong conservative agenda is a result of this concern.

    A homeowner may ask $400,000 for a house worth $300,000, hoping to settle on a final price of $275,00 instead of $250,000. The seller may be AFRAID that if they offer a $300,000 house for $300,000 they will get beaten down to $200,000, especially if they are selling under pressure.

    So conservatives demand strong conservative policy positions as a way of trying to smoke out SINCERE conservatives versus FAKE conservatives. They figure that if a candidate will stake out very strong conservative positions, then if elected to office they might actually stay true to at least half of them.

    But if a candidate is not willing to go on the record with strong conservative positions, this is a dead giveaway that the candidate is LYING and doesn’t mean any of it, and the candidate will be a full-on flaming liberal if elected to office.

    If we elect a candidate who — in promises — agrees with us on 80% of the issues, experience tells us that the candidate will actually vote in office only 40% of the time the way we want. If we get a candidate who agrees with us 100% of the time, then we might be lucky to have them actually vote with us 70% of the time in office.

    So the insistence on a “TRUE” conservative is an attempt to distinguish between fakes who are just telling voters a little of what they want to hear and those who truly mean it.

    And this dynamic has been developing for so long that most conservatives have forgotten why and how, and they don’t really remember how and why we got here themselves.

    Even if conservatives aren’t thinking in those terms, I am convinced that most conservatives are perfectly willing to accept differences of opinion and different positions on issues.

    What they will NOT tolerate — what has become like salt in the wounds — is being LIED TO by candidates just telling them what they want to hear.

    Christine O’Donnell holds a “liberal” position on nuclear power. She sued under laws against workplace discrimination, seen by some as intrusive in the free market. She has praised Hillary Clinton (apparently to focus on women in politics and to reach out to Democrats and independents).

    Yet conservatives supported Christine because they BELIEVED her sincerity on most conservative issues. If Christine says she will fight for X, conservatives believe she will gosh-darn fight for X come hell or high water.

    As an example for other candidates might follow, her personal story enduring abuse for her beliefs helps make the grassroots believe that she will fight for what she believes — because she has already done so and already paid a price for it, yet keeps on truckin’

    Newt Gingrich was certainly imperfect both as a human and as a politician. Newt has supported and implemented some liberal positions like spending. Newt Gingrich sat down with Nancy Pelosi and endorsed government initiatives on man-made global warming. Yet many conservatives supported Newt, because when Newt says he is going to fight for something… they believe him.

    Ronald Reagan compromised sometimes. But conservatives believed that Reagan was fighting for as much as he could get on conservative issues, and that if Reagan had to cut a deal, conservatives really believed that Reagan was achieving as much as could be achieved.

    The biggest divide, in my opinion, is TRUST.

  8. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Overall, this is an excellent article and analysis, along many different dimensions, including the effort to find real solutions. Solutions not only on issues or problems but in terms of people understanding each other and learning to get along.

    One of the roles of political / governmental leaders is to work with other people, build understanding and motivate teamwork and working together. So it is important. That doesn’t mean burying disagreements. But it means not letting those disagreements bury you, either.

    And please think that objections are aimed only in one direction. But some who need to hear these things will only respond, if ever, to private discussion.

  9. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Mosely has just demonstrated that even though he and I have disagreed in the past, that we have still found that 80% common ground. And let me be clear, that putting an old battle behind you is not the same as forgetting the lessons learned from fighting it. We can either learn and move forward or we can hold grudges and forever be caught in the past.

  10. Harry Whittington says:

    Yet conservatives supported Christine because they BELIEVED her sincerity on most conservative issues. If Christine says she will fight for X, conservatives believe she will gosh-darn fight for X come hell or high water.

    That fairy tale doesn’t sell anymore. Delaware has restricted our 2nd Amendment rights and spat on traditional marriage and she did not utter one word.

    Thousands of conservatives from all ends of the state flooded Dover to fight for these issues, they took time out of work and found people to take care of their children while Christine O’Donnell was on Twitter worrying about whether or not she could fit into her Vera Wang gown for the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

    Mike Castle is gone and she needs to go with him. If you want to heal the divide, start by throwing her into the crevice before you seal it up. That’s the only way moderates will trust conservatives enough to begin the healing.

  11. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry, I am not suggesting that everyone thought that way or that you think that way now, or that some haven’t changed their mind.

    Your viewpoint may be entirely valid.

    My point is only that the conservative wing of the GOP wants to TRUST that a candidate will actually do in office if elected what he or she says on the campaign trail.

    You might come to a different conclusion about a particular candidate. That’s fine. That’s not my point. You are certainly free to believe and to argue that any particular candidate should be viewed as you think.

    All I am saying is that I don’t believe conservatives need to have a candidate who is 110% off-the-charts conservative. I believe that the conservative wing can be satisfied with a mostly conservative candidate (e.g. loosely speaking 80% agreement) if they BELIEVE that the candidate is going to keep their promises when elected.

    I believe the deepest, strongest, main fear of conservatives is that if a candidate offers an agenda that is 80% conservative in the campaign, they will actually vote conservative only 40% of the time once they are elected.

    The conservative wing feels that if a candidate is 100% conservative on the campaign trail, we might be lucky to get conservative votes out of them 60% to 70% of the time once they get in office.

    I am not asking you to agree that any particular candidate should be trusted.

    I am simply saying that if a candidate can persuade the grassroots that the candidate means what he or she says, the conservative grassroots will accept some variation or deviation on some issues.

    It is up to each candidate to stand up and make the voters trust him or her.

    And the way people thought and felt in 2010 might indeed be different than the way people view the candidates in 2014 or the future.

    A candidate has the burden of making the voters trust him or her.

    But the conservative wing of the GOP has many open wounds and sore points feeling that it has been lied to for decades.

  12. Harry Whittington says:

    As an example for other candidates might follow, her personal story enduring abuse for her beliefs helps make the grassroots believe that she will fight for what she believes — because she has already done so and already paid a price for it, yet keeps on truckin’

    That was your point, how great she is. She was abused because her opponents did not believe she was the “fighter for conservatism” that she claimed to be, and she is not.

    Conservatives have been fighting for our 2nd amendment rights and traditional marriage in Delaware for several months, while she was working out, drinking green shakes and worrying about how she will look in her expensive gowns.

    How quickly she became a disengaged member of the elite as soon as she had a few bucks in her pocket.

    What a shame, I was hoping this blog wasn’t going to become another DP where out of state gadflies ramrod their agenda through despite facts to the contrary.

  13. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry Whittington June 8, 2013 wrote: “That was your point, how great she is. She was abused because her opponents did not believe she was the “fighter for conservatism” that she claimed to be, and she is not.”

    No, my point is that is how she was PERCEIVED by many. You may have a different perspective. And you might want to argue that your perception is correct. You may also want to argue that how she was perceived in 2010 is different from how many may perceive her today.

    My point was that

    (1) attempts to attack Christine O’Donnell only bolstered her “credentials” with conservatives and failed to undermine her, because they increased the perception that she had paid a price for her beliefs and was continuing to pay a price for her beliefs. So the more she was attacked, the stronger she got in the perceptions of conservatives, because conservatives believed her and trusted that she would fight for their beliefs.

    And if there is to be healing and bridge-building across the party, the non-conservative wing(s) — whatever we might call them — should understand what conservatives are thinking.

    THEY DON’T HAVE TO AGREE. They simply need to understand.

    (2) DESPITE Christine herself holding a few non-conservative positions, conservatives supported her anyway. So it is clearly not necessary for a candidate to be 110% off-the-charts conservative.

    My point was that conservatives have strongly supported candidates even if they vary from the “perfect” 110% conservative orthodoxy, if conservatives TRUST those candidates to do what they promise.

    They don’t have to promise a 100% perfect conservative agenda. But whatever a candidate promises, the voters need to believe them that that candidate will be the same person in office as they are on the campaign trail.

    That’s my theory anyway: Conservatives are looking for people who will be the same when elected as they are on the campaign trail.

    Whether any individual candidate meets that test is up to your opinion, and everyone’s personal opinion.

    Has Christine made the most of her opportunities since 2010? Well, that’s an entirely different topic. And anything I might be able to offer on that topic that might possibly be helpful shouldn’t be shared in public. There isn’t much hope of me being listened to. But whatever tiny possibility there might be would have to be a personal conversation.

  14. anon says:

    plenty of conservatives took time out of their busy daily schedules to speak out against at the hearings about gun control, same sex marriage, etc only to be ridiculed in this blog site. Claiming to to have learned from past mistakes, along with letting go of grudges while still using the same old tactics from 2 & 3 years ago proves outright hypocrisy.

  15. anon says:

    “My point is only that the conservative wing of the GOP wants to TRUST that a candidate will actually do in office if elected what he or she says on the campaign trail.”

    And the reason they don’t trust anyone is because EVERY candidate in the GOP these days seems to show up with no resume and no accomplishments, yet stands up and mouths the same words – taxes, military, family values – and NOBODY ever challenges them as to what those specifically mean and why they’re important. They try to out-conservative the other candidates without ever proving they’ve thought about the issues in the least. And in the districts where the GOP registration is strong enough to get them elected anyway, you don’t know what you’re getting. So when they go to Dover/Georgetown/Washington and vote counter to the party line, you only have yourselves to blame.

  16. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Mosely, if you don’t wish this entire conversation to be about Ms. O’Donnell then let’s turn the discussion away from her specifically and talk about the party in general.
    I happen to agree with you about the conservative wing not trusting that a candidate from New Castle will be the conservative they say they are.
    But we must look at both sides here. The more moderate wing of the GOP in Delaware does not trust that the conservative wing will not primary moderate incumbents and candidates at every turn and for good reason,hence there is no working relationship between the two wings.
    This goes back to a point I have made often, GOP members should play in their own sand box and find candidates that fit their districts and let other districts find their own. Quit the attacking of up-state candidates by people from Sussex.
    It is time we in the GOP take the “Money Ball” approach to party politics, and find the candidates that are most likely to “get on base”, or in other words, win elections.
    On the state wide level the state committee must play a larger role in finding and vetting candidates. And when there are primaries, it is up to the party members to set the example for the rank and file and heal any rifts ASAP!

  17. Frank Knotts says:

    It would help if all anons would put numbers behind the anon.
    To the one who said, “plenty of conservatives took time out of their busy daily schedules to speak out against at the hearings about gun control, same sex marriage, etc only to be ridiculed in this blog site. Claiming to to have learned from past mistakes, along with letting go of grudges while still using the same old tactics from 2 & 3 years ago proves outright hypocrisy.”
    Again you make general accusations without linking to actual statements. No credibility! As for 2&3 years ago I was saying the same things about the more moderate wing of the party, I am now saying it about the radicalized right wing of the party because they are now acting like elitist idiots telling people to like it or leave it. These are the same types of things I railed against in 2010 when the moderates were saying them. That my friend is consistency, not hypocrisy.

  18. anon says:

    the only thing more consistent about your hypocrisy is your total lack of ability to realize or admit you are a hypocrite. There is no link to my statement about plenty of conservatives attending the hearings. I was one of them there are plenty of pictures to prove those who were in attendance. Your face can’t be found in any pictures of those conservatives who made it a point to take time to have their voices heard in legislative hall. Instead you sit as high judge and jury passing judgement on others who actually do something. who aren’t afraid to speak at legislative hall. How soon you forget you are still one of those “radical elitists” who still wants to dictate the direction the party should go in. You didn’t see any light you just found some different coattails to ride on. Nah there’s nothing any different about frank knotts a leopards spots never change color.

  19. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank, if I comment on only 1 or 2 points, I don’t disagree with your other points.

    But there has been so much talk about the need to vet candidates.

    That’s not the issue.

    For almost an entire year from late 2009 until the 2010 primary, the GOP establishment in Delaware and nationwide was telling everyone who would listen every negative thing they could find — true, partly true but twisted, or totally fabricated — about Christine O”Donnell and to some extent Glen Urquhart.

    The Republican voters of Delaware just didn’t care.

    It had nothing to do with a lack of vetting, in one sense or another.

    The driving factor was that the voters couldn’t care less. The voters wanted to stick a thumb in the establishment’s eye. There wasn’t a lack of negative information. There was a lack of interest on the part of the voters.

    So to heal the GOP, one has to understand why the primary voters wanted to give the establishment the big raspberry.

  20. Frank Knotts says:

    Okay anon with the avatar, if we are going to continue this conversation, then I think you should look up the word hypocrisy first, either I am consistent, or I am hypocritical, which is it?
    Wipe the droooool off your keyboard and try reading what is written, not what you think is written, you guys really have a reading comprehension issue don’t you. I don’t think I asked for a link to photos, only to the comments you were attributing to me.
    As for who shows up where? Well only a small, narrow mind would think putting all the eggs in one basket is a good idea. Yes some people thought making a big show of gathering in Dover and acting like liberals was a good idea, others chose to speak with legislators one on one about the issues, quietly with respect and without the veiled threats. Some chose to look like the villagers from the Frankenstein movies, with pitchforks and torches, while others attempted to seem more reasonable. Not everyone was interested in growing the brand of some uninformed special interest group that runs around touting that they are the end all of liberty, when really they would stifle freedom faster than the liberals.
    You are so consumed with grinding your axe against me that you can’t even discuss the points made here, you choose to attack me instead of my ideas. And you don’t even realize that you are the perfect fool, oh sorry I meant foil, oh well either works, you are the perfect foil to demonstrate the hate filled rhetoric coming from the radicalized right of the party that is driving away the people who have the resources to win. You think because you show up in Dover waving some home made Jethro Bodine sign around and shouting at elected officials, that you are a patriot. Grow up and put on your big boy pants. Address the issues, not the people.

  21. Harry Whittington says:

    Another comment about poor, poor Christine O’Donnell. No mention of how her campaign accused Mike Castle of “cheating on his wife with a man,” but then that takes away from the poor, poor Christine mantra. No wonder she wasn’t in Dover fighting for traditional marriage, her campaign was willing to tear apart a man’s marriage just so she could win.

    I think it’s a shame that Republicans in the state didn’t have a chance to celebrate her fitting into her $2,000.00+ gown for the White House Correspondent’s dinner because they were too busy fighting for their 2nd Amendment rights, trying to preserve traditional marriage, or at work trying to make sure they could feed their families after the Delaware government decided to keep all of the tax hikes from 2009 (she didn’t fight against that, either).

    Until conservatives get rid of her, and her little lap dog from VA, the party will never heal and there will never be any “trust”. She as divisive for moderates as Castle was for conservatives. Make a choice.

  22. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank Knotts writes: “The more moderate wing of the GOP in Delaware does not trust that the conservative wing will not primary moderate incumbents and candidates at every turn and for good reason, . . . Quit the attacking of up-state candidates by people from Sussex.”

    There is no guarantee of course but it wouldn’t hurt for people to talk to each other more and not only in public conventions. I know that sounds so simplistic that it may seem a little trite. But it really would help.

    As a case in point, around December 2008, Christine O’Donnell asked the DEGOP leadership whether or not Mike Castle would be running for the US Senate seat in November 2010 as a result of the opening created by Joe Biden becoming Vice President.

    The Party leadership completely ignored Christine O’Donnell’s inquiry, at least as far as I have ever seen.

    Had the DEGOP leadership not been so arrogant and stuck up and full of themselves, the entire 2010 experience might never have happened.

    Mike Castle filed with the Federal Election Commission for the U.S. House seat in November 2008 and did not amend that until late October 2009.

    By that time, the DEGOP leadership had already fielded their candidate for U.S. House and Glen Urquhart was also seeking the seat.

    So it was no longer an available option for Christine O’Donnell to seek the House seat while Castle sought the US Senate seat. By October 2009, Christine would have to primary someone in either race, so the offer was (obviously) no longer available.

    Christine O”Donnell’s suggestion around December 2008 was to talk things out EARLY, come to some consensus, and start campaigning on a unified ticket from almost 2 years in advance.

    No, that doesn’t prevent anyone else from jumping in. But it does help if everyone knows what is going on and has a chance to talk it out — EARLY.

    WHOM should the DEGOP sit down and talk to?

    How about everyone and anyone? What’s the cost? A pot of coffee? A box of donuts? If anyone wants to talk about future campaigns or the future of the party, and they are a registered Republican, why would the party leadership NOT talk to everyone and anyone?

    Because of the arrogance of DEGOP insiders, a chance to talk things through and perhaps come to a consensus slate was missed.

    That’s because the DEGOP elite was not interested in cooperating or working together with the conservative wing of the GOP.

    Notice how the insiders vs. Sussex divide was mirrored in the US House race between Rollins and Urquhart. SO it was not just about Christine. The same pattern appeared in both the US Senate and the US House race, exactly the same pattern.

    It was the DEGOP elite’s attitude that was “my way or the highway.” They wanted their candidates, come hell or high water, and to hell with the conservatives and to hell with Sussex, 1/3rd of their own State.

    So the conservative wing decided to play fire with fire.

    The elite’s “my way or the highway” attitude has been matched with the conservative / grassroots “my way or the highway” attitude.

    Sometimes to get someone to stop slapping you, you have no choice but to slap them back. (That’s why I had to sue Christine O’Donnell to get her to STOP doing certain things as repetitive behavior. Someone has to tell her that she has a “kick me” sign taped to her back and get her to STOP making the same mistakes year in year out, again and again and again.)

  23. Harry Whittington says:

    Christine O’Donnell told the GOP in late 2008 that she would run for Congress if Castle ran for the Senate. Her email stating that fact is easily found on the internet.

    In June of 2009 Castle was handing out “Castle for Senate” stickers at the GOP Convention.

    Glen Urquhart didn’t file for Congress until February of 2010. Rollins didn’t file until April 2010.

    Is DelawareRight going to become another site for the rewriting of Christine O’Donnell’s history in Delaware by an out of stater who has no idea what he’s talking about?

  24. anon says:

    “Is DelawareRight going to become another site for the rewriting of Christine O’Donnell’s history in Delaware by an out of stater who has no idea what he’s talking about?”

    Harry Whittington is my hero.

  25. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry Whittington June 9, 2013 writes: “In June of 2009 Castle was handing out “Castle for Senate” stickers at the GOP Convention.”

    Mike Castle filed with the Federal Election Commission for the US House race in November 2010 in November 2008.

    Therefore, if Mike Castle was actually campaigning for the US Senate race, he was breaking the law.

    Mike Castle was registered with the Federal Election Commission campaigning for the US House seat. SO if he was spending any money for the US Senate race, Mike Castle was violating Federal law.

    Mike Castle did not change his campaign organization registration with the FEC to the US Senate seat until late October 2009.

    So you apparently have evidence of Mike Castle violating Federal law. You need to provide your evidence to the Federal Election Commission and the US Attorney for the State of Delaware.

    Ha, ha. No, we know you don’t because your story is B.S.

    Mike Castle would not campaign for the US Senate seat knowing that he had not registered for it with the FEC. Hogwash. Balderdash. I call “B******t.”

  26. Jonathon Moseley says:

    anon June 9, 2013 writes: “Is DelawareRight going to become another site for the rewriting of Christine O’Donnell’s history …”

    That depends on you:

    Can you learn the lesson from history or not?

    COMMUNICATE — early and thoroughly — and things go better.

    DON’T communicate, and you have problems.

    When someone — anyone — says “Hey, I’d like to talk about my plans to run for office in 2014 [or 2016 or 2018 or 2020]. Could we sit down and have a cup of coffee”

    What are you going to do?

    A) Sit down and have a cup of coffee and hear what they have to say?

    Or

    B) Be stubborn and arrogant and wait for things to blow up in your face?

    Which approach would you recommend for the future success of the DEGOP?

    Everyone, on all sides, will need to have an “arrogance prohibited” policy if there is going to be a future for the Republican Party in Delaware.

  27. Frank Knotts says:

    anon, no Harry is not the hero, and neither is Mr. Moseley. They are both prime examples of what is killing the Delaware GOP. Neither of them realizes that they are both right and both wrong. They are both talking about how each side “FEELS”! The problem is neither is willing to be the bigger person and say that both sides are to blame for what happened in 2010, and what continues to happen today.
    2010 is the past, and if the GOP is to have a future, then all Republicans must get past Christine O’Donnell and Mike Castle, in my opinion neither will ever hold office in the state of Delaware and to keep dragging the dead carcass of that election around does nothing but cause the GOP to stink.
    Harry, accept that Mike Castle was defeated, it matters little how, because it happened and you can’t change it.
    Moseley, accept that the moderates refused to support Ms. O’Donnell in the general election and she lost, because it happened and you can’t change it.
    So to all the Harrys and Moseleys out there, ask yourself this question, what are you going to do now to help elect Republicans? Because fighting this battle over and over again does just the opposite, it elects Democrats.

  28. Harry Whittington says:

    Ha, ha. No, we know you don’t because your story is B.S.

    Sue him:

    http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/05/16/no-live-blog-of-the-de-gop-convention/

    That’s from May 16, 2009.

    Frank, I know Castle isn’t coming back, I’m good with that. What I’m not good with is keeping around an out of state agitator whose only purpose seems to be to rewrite O’Donnell’s questionable history with the GOP so she can run again.

    Virtually every comment of his is riddled with lies. Delawareans shouldn’t have to keep swatting this bug, he can’t vote here, he can’t practice law here. Keeping him around guarantees that no one will ever be able to “move on”.

    Want me to “move on”? Then purge them the way you demanded that Castle be purged.

  29. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry, you are indeed the problem.

    The topic and challenge was and is:

    a) Conservatives will not support a candidate if they do not trust that he or she will actually do when elected what he or she promises on the campaign trail.

    110% conservative positions are not required. But the candidate must convince the voters that he or she will actually keep his or her promises.

    The revolution by conservatives is NOT in pursuit of 110% conservative candidates, but FURY at being lied to — again and again and again.

    Consensus candidates are possible… but only if they can convince the voters that when they promise to fight for X, they are going to actually in fact vote for X when elected.

    b) Frank Knotts noted that on the other side of the party, moderates believe that ANY candidate the moderates support will be attacked and destroyed by the conservative (“Sussex”) wing of the party.

    I suggested that it might help — not a guarantee of course — if people actually *TALKED* to each other — and early, and with sincerity.

    Now, how can the moderate wing hoodwink and fool the Sussex conservatives into supporting an unacceptable candidate? ANSWER: You can’t. Let that dream die. Ain’t gonna happen. Not ever.

    But if you want to know if a candidate would be acceptable to a majority of the party,

    ASK THEM !

    Talk to them.

    Stop trying to hoodwink, manipulate, intimidate, brow-beat, and out-maneuver, and just TALK to each other.

    And if you can learn from history and experiences, the 2010 campaign ought to teach you and everybody the importance of such a chance of approach.

    Harry, can you please tell us why it would NOT be a good idea for members of the party to communicate better, more, earlier, and more completely?

    Can you tell us from 2010 or from any other situation in life how things would not have been better if people had communicated more with each other?

    Your objections about Christine vs. Castle only prove my point and prove you wrong.

    As for your link, it has Jason330 — not a Republican and most assuredly not a delegate to the GOP convention — spreading a rumor, followed by numerous posters demanding confirmation… and getting none.

    It may be that someone had a “draft Castle” impulse and printed up stickers.

    But if Mike Castle’s campaign produced the stickers, then Mike Castle violated Federal law.

  30. Harry Whittington says:

    Not even a picture on a website from 2009 is proof enough to put the man from Virginia, who wasn’t even there, to rest.

  31. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry Whittington June 9, 2013 writes: “Virtually every comment of his is riddled with lies”

    And yet the post you rely upon makes clear — in the comments — that the supposed Castle for Senate stickers were made of PAPER that people had pinned on their shirts.

    The Delaware LIBERAL blog post makes clear that people had, on their own, made up PAPER stickers indicating their desire that Mike Castle would run.

    HOWEVER… how does any of this help your argument?

    DEGOP leadership was INVITED to talk about the 2010 election as early as December 2008, by conservative Christine O’Donnell.

    Did they ever respond?

    There’s the giant gaping iceberg-ripped hole in your ship, Harry, right there.

    Did the DEGOP respond to the invitation?

    When given the chance to sit down like mature adults and talk about the future 2010 election in December 2008, how did the DEGOP leaders handle it?

    Did they:

    a) Invite Christine, and possibly others, to sit around the conference table and order in some pizza? Maybe get all the potential candidates together.

    OR

    b) Did they arrogantly give Sussex conservatives the middle finger?

    There’s the gaping hole in your ship, Harry.

    DEGOP leadership was given an engraved invitation to consult and confer and try to seek consensus.

    They didn’t want to. They gambled that Mike Castle could win. They gambled and lost.

    Now…. what lessons would you learn from that for the future?

  32. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Were they from Mike Castle?

    The posters on the website you rely upon said

    RSmitty: “The “paper” as he calls it wasn’t doctored. These were actual pins that a few people had on, but there wasn’t any concerted distribution.”

    So the only eyewitness, not Jason 330, says that these were *NOT* being distributed by the Mike Castle campaign — which would have been a “concerted distribution.”

    Sorry, you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the tush.

    Once again, if Mike Castle campaigned for US Senate in June 2009, he violated Federal law.

    Under 18 USC 1001 making a false statement in a government filing is a FELONY.

    If Mike Castle filed an official statement with the FEC that he was running for the US House in 2010, but was actually running for the US Senate, Mike Castle made a false statement to the Federal Election Commission in violation of 18 USC 1001, which is a felony.

  33. Jonathon Msoeley says:

    In the post Harry relies upon,

    Unstable Isotope says:

    May 16, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    I’m confused. Did Castle say he was running for the Senate or not?

    Exactly…

  34. laffter says:

    FRANK- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
    Limit Moseley, please don’t let him destroy this blog
    Please don’t let him ramble on and agitate poster……

    If you don’t want to block him fine, I get that,
    But limit him to 100 words or less and one post every 8 hours

    This is ridiculous

    Harry W is right, we don’t need and unethical attorney from out of state , who is the epitome or the saying
    ” if you can dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bullsh**”

    Enough is enough- he has a home over at DP with the other misfit toys- actually his level of accuracy regarding anything is about the same as Pat Fish

    Neither could find their way out a wet paper bag nor would know the truth if it hit them in the face

    You guys have tried hard to have a decent blog- I misbehave too from time to time but when called out on it well comply
    Mr. Moseley has no such boundaries…..

    Don’t let this blog be ruined too…..

    Just sayin……and I will bet many here agree with me

  35. independent consultant says:

    R.I.P.

    GOP

  36. Jonathon Moseley says:

    What part of Republicans in Delaware should sit down and talk to each other do you have a problem with?

    Oh, wait, you and Harry want to go off on tangents and avoid the point. I see.

    For Republicans to come together in unity, it would help to TALK about which candidates would be agreeable to everyone.

    The importance of that goal is clear from recent election history in Delaware.

    But the goal of many is to avoid and evade any solutions that might help the Republican Party win in the future.

    What part of 2010 would have gone better if the party had communicated starting around December 2008 about the 2010 election can you not accept?>

  37. waterpirate says:

    While fresh perspectives are at times hard to hear and refreshing, the fact remains. COD is caught, cleaned, and cooked. Everytime I hear about who is at fault in that mess, I want to puke. Water gone by. Instead of disecting the minutiea, the end all is that a party divided will get the other partys candidates ellected, period.

    There is far to much meddling for many peoples liking. Stay in your own RD and mind your store, we will mind ours.

  38. Dave says:

    The attention paid to COD, except as comedy, is misplaced. She was merely the manifestation of the far right fringe that had the hubris to believe they were the voice of the people, when it was really just themselves they were hearing.

    If you at the majority (regardlesss of the party), they mostly centrists. One can debate forever, whether they are center left or center right. The operative condition is the center. Whether they are 9-12 ers, or Patriots for Jesus (I made that up), they are small bu vocal minority of the electorate.

    Most people want to know how the potholes are gonna get filled. Most people believe that we need to consider what to do, if anything, about sea level rise. Most people could care less about putting the bible in schools, as long as Johnny can read, write, and add. Most people are fairly pragmatic. Histrionics and outrage plays well in the media, which sells papers (or clicks) but it doesn’t represent the majority of the people and their interests.

    COD was an attempt to ride a sea of discontent sparking a revolution, but most people are not interested in rebellion. Food on the table and a roof over their head satisfies physiological needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. Self actualization comes later.

    Aside from the standard refrain “This country has gone to hell in a handbasket,” no one cares that the UN is trying to take our guns and control our lives via Agenda 21. And they don’t care because they don’t believe it regardless of how many times chicken little declares it.

    COD was not the tip of the spear. She was the face paranoia. She did her job well, including the proverbial people hiding in the bushes.

  39. Dave says:

    As an afterthought, I believe that COD serves a continued useful purpose. Not her personally of course. Just her name or memory. That purpose is to remind those who desire change that the champion of that change matters. The CODs and the Bachmans of the nation needed to be able to lead and it is impossible to lead when the people they expect to lead are too busy laughing at them to follow. Choose your champion wisely. The Minards of the world, who pulled kids off a school bus, because the driver was gay, are the jokes that you elect as your leaders. Unfortunately, the jokes on you.

  40. Jonathon Moseley says:

    The part of Dave’s comments that I disagree with is Dave’s use of the past tense.

    Christine O’Donnell was the point of the spear. There may be a new point of the spear. But the spear hasn’t gone anywhere.

    Christine O’Donnell is tweeting about her personal life, and enjoying life for a change. She might run again, but I wouldn’t put my money on it.

    The greatest factor that will motivate her to run is if the DEGOP tries to nominate another in-your-face moderate (meaning a liberal in disguise). The greatest factor that will (in my opinion) motivate her NOT to run is if the DEGOP does what I encouraged (not me only of course) and sit down and TALK to each other and come up with a candidate that everyone can be reasonably happy with. Maybe not ecstatic, but reasonably satisfied.

    If the DEGOP runs a candidate that is reasonably attractive to all wings of the DEGOP, then that will be the greatest reason (in my opinion) for Christine to go on living her own life and to not sacrifice any more. If you do what I was talking about, then Christine would be unlikely to run, because there would be no need for it if you find a candidate everyone can get behind.

    But the conservatives whom Christine was speaking for have NOT gone away and have gotten and will become even more vocal and intense.

    So there might be a new face of the revolution. But the revolution hasn’t even gotten started yet.

    As the implementation of Obama Care turns into a train wreck of train wrecks — the mother of all train wrecks — and scandal after scandal is exposed, all of the factors Dave touches on are still with us and getting stronger and deeper and more firmly-established and even better organized.

    Christine O’Donnell may not choose to sacrifice any more of her personal life. She may choose to let others share the load in the future.

    But the DEGOP has no future if DEGOP moderates, elites, and insiders put their hands over the eyes and drive the car off the cliff unwilling to look at the reality in front of them.

    The people to whom Christine gave voice have not gone away and aren’t going away.

    In other words, Dave is right that we should not confuse the messenger with the message. Dave is wrong in putting any of his analysis in the past tense.

  41. Frank Knotts says:

    Okay, I knew it would happen if enough rope was given. Mr. Moseley has shown his total lack of knowledge of what is actually happening in Delaware due to his not actually living in Delaware, when he says,
    “But the DEGOP has no future if DEGOP moderates, elites, and insiders put their hands over the eyes and drive the car off the cliff unwilling to look at the reality in front of them. ”
    Mr. Moseley, if you knew half of what you think you do, you would know that the so called conservatives in Delaware have become the, “elites, and insiders”, and they have, “put their hands over the eyes”, and are driving the car over the cliff.
    I sat at a Sussex GOP meeting last night and watched as people stood to speak and felt the need to identify themselves as 912 Patriots, not as concerned citizens or even Republicans, but as this sub group of malcontents who are only interested in stirring the pot.
    They attacked a man who had spoke about his view of Common Core, and because it was counter to their pitchfork and flames view they became aggressive and bordering on nasty. These were all people who are registered Republicans.
    The so called revolutionaries have no desire to talk with the other side in order to defeat the Democrats, they wish only to punish those within their own party for past offenses.
    I once argued that the moderates could never win elections in this state without the conservative base, and I was right. However, the conservative base now thinks it can win elections without the moderate wing of the party, and they are wrong. The GOP will never win elections in Delaware until reason again take the lead, and I don’t give a rat’s behind who the tip of the spear is.

  42. waterpirate says:

    The true irony here is that the most of the overly vocal members of the party are as guilty now of everything that they accused the former members of, and worse. Clearly a pot meet the kettle situation. What is most disturbing to me is that the fighting is over nothing. Senator Petttyjohn would be a testament to that. People elect their leaders and representatives, not the party.

  43. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus gets up, stretches, yawns, repositions then lays back down and just before falling off to sleep again thinks “same old same old. Sussex GOP see foot and shoot it” Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  44. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Frank Knotts writes: “I once argued that the moderates could never win elections in this state without the conservative base, and I was right. However, the conservative base now thinks it can win elections without the moderate wing of the party, and they are wrong. “

    You are right, and I have been trying to argue this forever, although people can’t hear past their personal pet peeves.

    If an airplane is taking off with only 1 wing, WHICH wing — the right or the left wing — can the airplane fly on having only 1 wing?

    We can debate endlessly whether it would be better to fly an airplane on only the right wing or only the left wing. But that debate is a fool’s errand, because the airplane can’t fly on only 1 wing. It doesn’t matter which wing is better. You’re not going to fly an airplane on only 1 wing, no matter which wing is “better.”

    Like the Hatfield and McCoy’s, there is a long history of REAL and perceived grievances going back and forth and very long memories in a State that (in spite of being 110 miles long) operates with a culture like a small town. People still remember what you did to me (metaphorically) 20 years ago.

    But the Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans. Delaware Republicans are already outnumbered.

    So no Republican is expendable.

    DEGOP elites have looked at the Republican party in terms of some Republicans being expendable or even undesirable. The DEGOP cannot afford to lose anyone.

    In May 2008, when the conservatives choose Christine O’Donnell as the GOP nominee against Joe Biden. The other candidate was not a moderate or elite or insider, but also a conservative.

    DEGOP leaders could have: (a) said we need everybody in the DEGOP, and even if we don’t like her let’s meet with her and try to train her and bring her up to speed. She’s the nominee of the party, so let’s make the most of it.

    When I resigned as Treasurer, we were very actively talking to the party and many distinguished people to work with the DEGOP leaders and get an experienced DEGOP insider as Treasurer. We were also actively discussing who in the DEGOP would serve as campaign manager.

    It was the #1 and really only task and topic of discussion coming out of the convention: Working with everyone in the DEGOP together in unity. It was completely understood and agreed by everyone in Christine’s campaign that that was the order of the day: Working together.

    The task at hand on Christine’s plate was to close ranks and work together. From our side, it was VERY, VERY much expected as normal, textbook campaign politics that after the nominee is chosen, the party reunites and comes together and works in unity for the general election. That was overwhelmingly Christine’s understanding and expectation and game plan, as well as mine, and everyone else’s working with the campaign.

    I resigned as Treasurer because the game plan was to get a Delaware establishment Republican as Treasurer.

    I resigned as Campaign Manager because the game plan was to get an experienced Delaware Republican as the Campaign Manager for the general election.

    It was so overwhelmingly our expectation that the DEGOP would work together for ALL of its nominees, that I was and have continued to be shocked to see the opposite so completely.

    (b) Or the DEGOP could have stuck their nose in the air and seek to sabotage the nominee of the party — if only at the least by total neglect.

    When I left in May of 2008, there were so many plans in motion for how Christine’s campaign would work together with all of the DEGOP that I am astonished that none of it happened. And they weren’t my plans, although I supported them. Everyone in Christine’s campaign assumed, expected, and supported the idea that the party works together for its nominees.

    What if instead of neglect and worse the DEGOP had taken the attitude that we need ALL Republicans, so let’s work with all of them, even Christine? What if starting in May 2008, the Party had done its best to groom its candidates instead of smear them?

    Now, you can’t go back and relive the past.

    But you can decide that when you get up this morning you are going to do better next time.

  45. Jonathon Moseley says:

    waterpirate June 11, 2013 “The true irony here is that the most of the overly vocal members of the party are as guilty now of everything that they accused the former members of, and worse. ”

    I think that is true. But sometimes people cannot understand what they are doing until they get a taste of their own medicine. Sometimes people cannot change until they are on the receiving end of their own behavior. Only then, perhaps, will they open up their eyes and go “Ohhhh! That’s what they are complaining about.”

  46. Harry Whittington says:

    Another “poor poor Christine” post by Jon Moseley. Really?

    In 2008 Christine was nominated, not by Sussex, Sussex voted for Tim Smith, but by NCC and Kent.

    The state party turned their campaign headquarters over to her from the Convention until September and she used it as her HQ so she wouldn’t have to spend money on rent.

    The state party allowed her first (of many) campaign manager to LIVE in the office for two weeks, until he quit because he wasn’t being paid. He was a nice guy from Oklahoma with a long, winning resume.

    In 2008, the state party was broke, but they still sent out mailings for her, and when the election was over, they opened up HQ for her AGAIN for a fundraiser just for her, so she could settle some of her debts.

    Now, how many lies do we have to endure about events that this troll was NOT around for?

  47. Harry Whittington says:

    From our side, it was VERY, VERY much expected as normal, textbook campaign politics that after the nominee is chosen, the party reunites and comes together and works in unity for the general election. That was overwhelmingly Christine’s understanding and expectation and game plan, as well as mine, and everyone else’s working with the campaign.

    Is that why Christine ran a write in campaign in 2006 after she lost the primary? And I seem to remember that in 2010, after she lost the nomination at the Convention, she primaried the winner, instead of “coming together.”

  48. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry Wittington continues the error. Paraphrasing Harry’s Lament, “YES, we can fly an airplane on only 1 wing, as long as it is our wing.”

    Harry writes: “The state party turned their campaign headquarters over to her from the Convention until September and she used it as her HQ so she wouldn’t have to spend money on rent.”

    No, that is a lie. I toured the office space in a strip mall that was offered as a MULTI-candidate office in NCC. It was *NOT* the State Party’s headquarters.

    The owner of a strip mall donated the use of some vacant retail space in NCC to be used by many candidates jointly. Several candidates shared the space. It was not the State HQ and it was not arranged by or paid for by the State DEGOP.

    The over $6,000 put on my credit cards in 2008 were supposed to be paid back by the Friends of Christine O’Donnell campaign from the fund-raising letter that the DEGOP kept promising to send out to all of the DEGOP’s supporters and donors. I wrote several drafts of that letter, including creating letterhead for use on the color printer that I bought for Christine — never paid for.

    So I was keenly aware of the false promises by the DEGOP that the DEGOP leaders never kept. I was continually asking for reimbursement of my credit card charges as they were coming due.

    Not only was the DEGOP State HQ NOT made available to the Party’s US Senate nominee, but late in the 2008 cycle the fund-raising letter was found in the back of a closet, NEVER MAILED.

    The Party (like everyone) does not provide their donor list. You have to give them the letter, they put the address labels on, and then mail. No one lets their donor list out of their control.

    In this case, the fund-raising letter, which I was personally depending on carrying large credit card balances, was put in the back of a closet at the DEGOP State headquarters and never labeled or mailed.

  49. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry Whittington June 11, 2013 “Is that why Christine ran a write in campaign in 2006 after she lost the primary”

    No, she was asked to do that by DEGOP leaders who were afraid that Statewide candidates would be hurt by low turn out among conservatives. They were afraid that conservatives would not show up to vote for Jan Ting, so the DEGOP would lose other election races Statewide.

    I think those who urged Christine to run a write-in campaign are cowardly for not stepping forward and admitting it.

  50. Jonathon Moseley says:

    Harry Whittington June 11, 2013 “The state party allowed her first (of many) campaign manager to LIVE in the office for two weeks, until he quit because he wasn’t being paid. He was a nice guy from Oklahoma with a long, winning resume.”

    How can you pay someone with no money?

    Had the DEGOP sent out the fund-raising letter as they promised, it would have been possible to pay a campaign manager.

    Harry Whittington June 11, 2013 “In 2008, the state party was broke, but they still sent out mailings for her,”

    The process — I had to personally do this during the convention contest, before Christine was the nominee — was to deliver the letters ALREADY STAMPED for the DEGOP to add the addresses.

    So the DEGOP did not pay for the postage. And the DEGOP did not pay for the letters. The letters were delivered already printed and already pre-stamped. All the Party had to do was add the addresses and drop them in the mail.

    Harry Whittington June 11, 2013 ” and when the election was over, they opened up HQ for her AGAIN for a fundraiser just for her, so she could settle some of her debts. ”

    And yet there are no donations reported from such a fund-raiser with the Federal Election Commission. Apparently it did not raise more than expenses — if it ever actually happened.

  51. pandora says:

    This is becoming the Jonathon Moseley show.

  52. Harry Whittington says:

    Looks like Jeff Cragg lured him away from DelawarePolitics to destroy this blog. Why not just rename the site “Virginia Right” now and spare us the effort of trying to get dialog going between people who can actually vote in Delaware.

  53. The Central Scrutinizer says:

    If one weren’t already aware of the gradual decay of the GOP over the years, one might consider the recent revelations of the darker, less-honorable sides of those who’ve proclaimed themselves on the “righteous” side of the political fence as an implosion within the core. How high the fall from their horse!

    The truth is that the GOP has been in gradual decay for a long, long time; the implosion began in earnest when, in plausible desperation they swallowed the religious-extremist poison pill; unless they make the improbable choice to regurgitate, their descent into irrelevancy as a corrupt caricature of constitutionality is assured.

    Locally, we have the ongoing pestilence of Sussex County Council Republican, Vance Phillips & that pesky rape allegation, in which he doesn’t deny violating his marriage by having the affair & which has now lead to a civil suit by the plaintiff, a young girl, sordid details available for public review; neither does he deny the assault on Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher, who was on the receiving end of a wound to the face via thrown projectile & kick to the groin from our esteemed councilman Vance Phillips. Way to go, Vance. Why have you not yet resigned?

    In a related puzzle, Eric Bodenweiser won last year’s primary for SD-19 in an upset (RINO Joe Booth was expected to win easily by the status-quo), but being a person of principle & integrity (read “honest” for those unfamiliar with those terms), suddenly some last-moment devastating allegations from a vague source, unsubstantiated to this date, led Eric to drop out of the race; as the deadline for nomination had passed, then-GOP chair John Sigler whined & cried bitterly, & exercising due diligence the Elections Commission bowed to the court & Brian Pettyjohn appeared as the GOP candidate, now state senator. Odd, that the DE AG’s office has repeatedly postponed its case against Eric, who refuses to take any plea. It remains to be seen what the AGs office will do, put-up or shut-up? Eric would have one heck of a case, should he choose to pursue it. Sadly, the damage had been done, & a good man was out of the race & will likely never run again.

    Sherwood “Duke” Brooks & Steve Grossman should have been much more “conservative” in their efforts being so publicly active & visible, as surely the GOP doesn’t find their tarnished past any benefit.

    Way to go, Duke! You, veritable bastion of conservatism, one of those damned pot-smoking counter-culture druggies? Really, smoking weed in a bong? Say Not So! Duke managed Kevin Wade’s gubernatorial campaign for Delaware last year, who was an outspoken opponent to such typically anti-establishment activities. Has anyone thought to contact Kevin on what his thoughts on this are?

    Steve Grossman pays another otherwise insignificant potty-mouth, Frankie Knotts, renowned for not only his incoherent hacks but also for his completely irresponsible habit of driving a vehicle loaded with volatile propane fuel, which requires not only a CDL, but a HAZMAT endorsement. Is Frankie still wobbling all over the road driving a veritable bomb, or is his wobbling now limited to posting bombs in a blog?

    In SD-6, Ernie Lopez, a teacher & transplant from New Castle County, showing his true RINO colors, managed to alienate both the Left & the Right at the same time when, freshly elected & still wet behind the ears, he supported HB 16, the “stolen gun reporting bill”, enraging the vast majority of his conservative supporters while at the same time, opposed HB 75, the “marriage equality bill”, publicly announcing specifically on personal grounds in retaliation against the social liberals & campaign smears by Andy Staton’s run last year. Bad move, Ernie, making it personal. Poor Ernie walked into a veritable firestorm of backlash from conservatives too. Oh, yes, Ernie also sponsored HB 147, An Act To Amend Title 11 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Police Chief Due Process, removing the right of municipalities in Delaware to manage their own police departments.

    Steve Smyk, RD-20, another GOPer & retired DSP trooper, didn’t take long to join his fellow retired DSP trooper Pete Schwartzkopf in bringing us further into a police state & financial disaster by supporting HB 81, AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 19 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE POLICE OFFICERS’ AND FIREFIGHTERS’ EMPLOYMENT RELATION ACT, effectively allowing unionization (aka Teamsters organizing) into small towns. Way to go, Steve! Isn’t “unionization of the public servants” a big-government, statist thing?
    Elect police officers into office & you get a police state.

    Of course, in another recent revelation, former NRA president John Sigler made the surprise announcement that he was resigning as Delaware State Chair of the GOP, purportedly as his business, Psychotherapeutic Services, demanded more of his time. However, as the record of lobbying activity plainly shows, his business included lobbying for HB 88, which further erodes our rights under the 2nd Amendment. His “colors” are showing, & they’re running in the wash.

    No wonder Don Ayotte left the GOP, after discovering his very own party was actively working to sabotage his campaign last year. Brent Wangen also experienced resistance from his party when he ran for Sussex County Council 3rd district as a GOPer.

    Of course, contrary to the GOPer headmasters supporting RINO Mike Castle who was abandoned by the conservatives’ rank & file in favor of the more religious radical Christine O’Donnell, we should all remember the huge upsurge of support from the GOP for the conservative’s choice, right? NOT!

    In short, the accusing fingers that are pointing blame for the implosion of the GOP are pointing to none other than the GOP themselves. “They eat their own young.”

    They have met their enemy, & they are themselves.

  54. independent consultant says:

    The GOP is utterly brain-dead and it’s body is on life support.
    Likewise, the Democrats are moribund.

    It’s about time that the voters pulled the plug on the whole rotten mess.

  55. Frank Knotts says:

    Ah! Another puppet from the island of misfit toys. This time they call themselves Central Scrutinizer.
    But I do want to thank them for giving me a reason to brag.
    SC says, “Steve Grossman pays another otherwise insignificant potty-mouth, Frankie Knotts, renowned for not only his incoherent hacks but also for his completely irresponsible habit of driving a vehicle loaded with volatile propane fuel, which requires not only a CDL, but a HAZMAT endorsement. Is Frankie still wobbling all over the road driving a veritable bomb, or is his wobbling now limited to posting bombs in a blog?”.
    Once again they take the easy shot by questioning my sobriety. I have on numerous occasions spoken about my wasted youth(pun intended), I have spoken of how I found Christ and was saved.
    Yet these anonymous lurkers can only manage these weak unfounded attacks.
    But let me again address this. If CS knew anything about anything, they would know that by the very fact that I have a CDL HAZMAT license, that I am required to pass random and mandatory drug testing, that I am also required to pass a TSA federal background check every time I renew my license. As for my abilities at my job, I recently attended my company’s regional driver rodeo. This event involves written, and oral testing and an obstacle course. I received a 100% on the written exam, 95% on the oral exam, I took 1st place in the obstacle course, and 1st place over all among thirty drivers. So when these anonymous poltroons call into question my sobriety, or my job skills, they only demonstrate their complete lack of knowledge about my job, and me personally. The people who know me know the truth.

Got something to say? Go for it!