Schwartzkopf Slams the Sheriff

Pete Schwartzkopf is quoted in this Huffington Post piece about the Sheriff issue down in Sussex County.  Rep Schwartzkopf even links to the article on his Facebook page.  Here's the money quote:

"He continues to say he's law enforcement, and he's not," said state House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, a Democrat, who introduced a bill that specifically denies sheriffs the ability to arrest suspects and investigate crimes. "It's not a good position to be in, to have no authority over a person who carries a gun. It's scary."

Pete's right about that last part, but what Pete means is that he wants that authority over the gun carriers instead of the people having that authority.  The folks in Sussex County can vote the Sheriff out of office if they don't care for the manner in which his deputies carry out their duties.  That's called local control and local accountability.  Can they do the same if they're unhappy with the performance of the State Police?  No they can't, and that's the scary part.

Will McVay for 32nd District Representative

It came to my attention today that the Executive Committee of the Republican Party Kent County Region intended to interview the two candidates for the 32nd District Representative seat for the Delaware General Assembly.  Their intention is to perhaps endorse one of the candidates over the other.  Let's ignore, for the moment, whether the party elite has any business making an endorsement when the law provides for a state funded primary so the people can choose their own candidate without interference from party bosses.  I took the liberty of sending a letter to each of the members of that Executive Committee to express my support for one of those candidates.  I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the merits of my chosen candidate since he is my son, Will McVay.  I had written the letter several weeks ago in anticipation of presenting my thoughts in person to the next meeting of the entire Kent County Republican Committee.  You can read the letter for yourself in the following paragraphs.  I hope this letter convinces you, as I hope it will convince them, that the only sensible choice for 32nd District Representative is Will McVay.

Presentation to the Kent County Republicans in Support of Will McVay for 32^nd  District Representative

Many of you think you know all you need to know about Will McVay.  Well, I’m his father, and I know him better than anyone else in this room, except maybe his mother.

Let me tell you what I know about Will.  Will is the smartest person I know.  I know a lot of smart people, but none who are his intellectual superior and few who are his equal.  .  Any of you in this room who have ever debated him, know what I’m talking about.  He can hold his own in a debate with anybody.  ANYBODY.  Trust me.  I know this better than most.  Now I know that he’s not just smart, but sometimes, he’s a bit of a smartass as well.  Will’s got attitude.  He’s edgy.  As I’ve told many of my friends, he’s an acquired taste.  Will’s not the kind of politician who will charm you with his sense of humor and amiable personality.  We have plenty of those kinds of politicians.  Maybe too many.  He’s the kind of politician who will amaze you with how much he understands for someone of his tender age.  He’s 27. 

Most of you know that Will ran for this office, 32^nd District Representative, as a Libertarian in 2010.  He lost.  He got 6.1 % of the vote.  Pretty lousy showing ya think?.  Think again.  6.1 % of the vote for a Libertarian is remarkable.  Libertarian vote totals are like a dogs age.  You need to multiply by 7.   A 6.1% Libertarian vote is like 42% in dog years, or Republican votes.  And this was starting with a base of zero.  We had no campaign staff, no professional advice, no party infrastructure or corporate knowledge.  We learned as we went along, and the result we got was achieved by force of intellect and hard work.    We didn’t win, but our vote was the margin of victory for the Democrat.  You may not have liked that, but it demonstrates the power of this young man to influence people and bring them into the fold.  And since two years ago, we’ve only gotten better and stronger.  Can Mr. Parrott promise that kind of dedication and performance.  I’m gonna say no. 

Will hasn’t lost sight of his goal from two years ago.  He wanted to be 32^nd District Representative back then.  He wants it even more now.  For the last two years, Will has been in training both to win this job, and to do this job.  He’s spent the last two years talking to voters, learning about the issues that matter to Delawareans, and observing General Assembly sessions from the gallery.  He’s also been introducing himself to Delaware’s legislators and lobbying them on behalf of the people of Delaware.  He’s gotten to know some of those legislators pretty well.  He can tell you which ones of either major party are true public servants, and which ones aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit!  Will has spent the last two years training himself to do the job he has his heart set on.  Has Mr Parrott done any of that?  I’m gonna say no.

Will McVay is a bit of a troublemaker.  I don’t think I need to convince anybody here of that.  The Republican Party will not control Will McVay.  If you want somebody you can predict, and someone you can control, then, meaning no disrespect, Ellis Parrott is a better choice for that.  But I submit to you that maybe a trouble maker is just what this party needs.  When this election is over, no matter how well the Republican Party fares, we’re still going to be a minority party.  Are you willing to settle for a meek, quiet and well behaved legislator who will be satisfied to vote no on the Democratic budget, and then blend into the woodwork?  Or would you like to see someone like Will who will be in their face, or to be a little more blunt about it, someone who will be in their shit twenty four hours a day.  Some one who will argue, bargain, amend and fight against one party rule in the legislature.  Someone who will win every fight he engages in, even the ones he loses, because he went down fighting.  You know I’m not making this stuff up.  You’ve all seen him in action.  Wouldn’t you rather unleash him on the Democrats instead of having him on your case all the time?.  I almost feel sorry for those poor sons of bitches.  Will McVay can offer you that.  Can Mr. Parrott offer you that?  I’m gonna say no.

Now there are those of you who will argue that Will is too young.  He hasn’t paid his dues.  It’s not his turn.  He should defer to his elders.  Well I’m one of his elders, and I think that’s a load of crap.  I don’t do this very often, but I’d like to quote a verse from the Old Testament.  It’s from Job.  As coincidence would have it, Job 32.

Job 32

Elihu

 ¹ So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. ² But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. ³ He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him.^{[a] 4} Now Elihu had waited before speaking to Job because they were older than he. ⁵ But when he saw that the three men had nothing more to say, his anger was aroused.

 ⁶ So Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite said:
   “I am young in years,
   and you are old;
that is why I was fearful,
   not daring to tell you what I know.
⁷ I thought, ‘Age should speak;
   advanced years should teach wisdom.’
⁸ But it is the spirit^[b] in a person,
   the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.
⁹ It is not only the old^[c] who are wise,
   not only the aged who understand what is right.
 ¹⁰ “Therefore I say: Listen to me;
   I too will tell you what I know.
¹¹ I waited while you spoke,
   I listened to your reasoning;
while you were searching for words,
 ¹² I gave you my full attention.
But not one of you has proved Job wrong;
   none of you has answered his arguments.
¹³ Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom;
   let God, not a man, refute him.’
¹⁴ But Job has not marshaled his words against me,
   and I will not answer him with your arguments.
 ¹⁵ “They are dismayed and have no more to say;
   words have failed them.
¹⁶ Must I wait, now that they are silent,
   now that they stand there with no reply?
¹⁷ I too will have my say;
   I too will tell what I know.
¹⁸ For I am full of words,
   and the spirit within me compels me;
¹⁹ inside I am like bottled-up wine,
   like new wineskins ready to burst.
²⁰ I must speak and find relief;
   I must open my lips and reply.
²¹ I will show no partiality,
   nor will I flatter anyone;
²² for if I were skilled in flattery,
   my Maker would soon take me away.

Even in the Bible there is a precedent for the perceived wisdom of the elders to yield to the enthusiasm and vigor of the young.  There is an old saying that progress happens one funeral at a time.  It might not be polite for Will to express that sentiment in this room.  Not that he’d shy away from it if it had occurred to him.  But I think I have the credentials to make that observation.  I’ve got almost as much gray hair as anybody else in this room.  I believe that the face of the Republican Party going forward, and starting with the face of the 32^nd District Representative should be the face of a young man.  A face full of enthusiasm, a face full of fight, and yes even a face with a good measure of irreverence.  Can Mr Parrott offer that face to the voters of the 32^nd district?  I’m gonna say no.

Thank you.

Jess McVay

PS

If you don’t already know where Ellis Parrott stands on a given issue, that’s his fault.  If you don’t already know where Will stands, that’s your fault. Will has a blog where he has been discussing issues since the 2010 campaign.   www.willmcvay.com   Will and I do a weekly one hour radio show where we discuss politics in Delaware and the nation.  www.blogtalkradio.com/citizenslave  Will has an active Facebook presence http://www.facebook.com/#!/mcvay.will  He’s got over 3500 Facebook friends.  They’re not all in the 32^nd district, but I can tell you that still translates into phenomenal positive name recognition , especially, but not exclusively, in a younger demographic. 

Will McVay is the only choice here if you want to win the 32^nd District.

Thanks again,

Jess

There is No Such Thing as the Most Important Election of Our Lifetime

Is this the most important election of our lifetime?  If you answered yes, did you also think 2008 was the most important election of our lifetime to date?  How about 2004?  Are you starting to see a pattern here?  Did you vote for a candidate you didn't like very much because he was the lesser of two evils, but the election was too important to vote your conscience?  Couldn't vote your conscience because that election was too important, and you couldn't risk letting "that other guy" get in?  You'll vote your conscience next time.  This election is too important.  They've got you.  The time to start voting for principle is now.  www.garyjohnson2012.com 

My Take on the Delaware Republican State Convention

Delaware Republicans gathered today in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware for their annual convention, and my wife, my son and I were in attendance.  The mood was upbeat, and we spent the first hour mingling with the people in Delaware who make the party work.  There was a sizable contingent of Ron Paul supporters and the 9-12 Delaware Patriots were well represented too.  We saw some old friends, made some new ones, and put faces to names for some of our Facebook friends.

Lost on many of those present, but painfully obvious to those of us in the audience who are more of the Liberty persuasion, shall we say, was the fact that the official party line in Delaware seems to be that Mitt Romney has been anointed the Party's nominee.  This despite the fact that the National Convention is not until August; Mitt Romney, though he won Delaware on Tuesday, has not yet locked up the required 1144 delegates to secure the nomination; and Ron Paul continues to contest the nomination in primaries throughout the country.  Delaware Republicans, like those in the mainstream press, continue to treat Ron Paul as if he were invisible.  Won't somebody show the man some love?

My son Will and I had been selected as alternate delegates to the convention, but were moved up to delegate positions when the roll call revealed that several delegates had not shown up.  There were some formalities, but the first real item of business was to vote on a slate of three Republicans to represent Delaware in the Electoral College, should the Republican nominee win the presidential election.  That vote proceeded without controversy, and the slate now includes one elector from each of Delaware's three counties.

The next item of business was to vote on the slate of delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.  The State Party Parliamentarian went to great lengths to explain the mechanics of those selections by the State Executive Committee, and he made quite a good case that those selections were fair and unbiased.  Nevertheless, when the vote came, there were significant numbers of objections to the slate as presented.  So many no votes were registered, that a vote by paper ballot was called for.  Those of us in the Ron Paul camp largely voted no because it was obvious that none of the delegates selected were particularly friendly to Ron Paul.  This had been expected of course, and we had intended to vote no as a symbolic gesture of our disapproval.   But we were quite surprised at the number of no votes.  There were clearly more no votes cast than the Ron Paul folks could take credit for.  In retrospect, I believe that the other contingent of no voters were those objecting to the inclusion of Tom Ross and Mike Castle on the list of delegates.  Those representatives of the "old Party establishment" are particularly unpopular with the 9-12 folks who see them as largely responsible for all the strife and division in the party in 2010.  If anyone reading this has any further insight into the back story there, I'd love to hear it.  At any rate, when the paper ballots were counted, the original slate was approved by a comfortable margin.

Next came the nominating speeches.  Will and I had a small agenda of our own to advocate for at this convention, and this is the time to explain it to you, dear reader, and to those of you who were present at the convention, but didn't quite understand our point.  We received quite a few questions afterward.  The issue revolves around Article VI Section 18 of the Rules of the Republican Party of the State of Delaware.  I've provided the link, but to save you a few mouse clicks, let me quote it here.

The primary function of the General Convention shall be the endorsement of candidates for national and statewide offices.  Once an endorsement has been made, non-endorsed candidates shall not be entitled to the use of any party resources or materials, nor shall they be permitted to campaign at any party events or functions, including but not limited to posting signs, handing out literature or buttons, or otherwise engaging in activity which would be considered campaigning.  

Will and I see this rule as particularly un-democratic (small d), and we wanted to raise this point at the convention, and start a conversation about the wisdom of its existence.  Will had been asked to deliver the nominating speech for Rose Izzo who has officially filed as a Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives.  Will wanted to address the inequity of this rule as part of his nominating speech for Rose.  You can read the text of the speech here.  All Republican and Democrat candidate filings includes the payment of a filing fee.  For US House, the fee is almost $3500.00.  This fee, by the way, does not go to the state.  It goes to the party.  It's kind of like "pay to play."  And if Rose should lose the vote for the party's endorsement, but stays in the race anyway, she will be paying the party $3500.00 for exactly nothing in return.  Quite to the contrary, the party can spend that money to support the campaign of her opponent.  Rose, in effect, would be forced to contribute to her opponent's campaign for the "privilege" of running for office.  Of course Rose's opponent, Tom Kovach, would suffer the same fate if he were to lose the vote for party endorsement.  Now, you might argue that the party has to decide on a candidate at some point.  What's wrong with this system?  I would answer that deciding on a candidate is what the primary is for.  That happens in September.  Why should 341 party delegates at the convention get to unduly influence the prospects of any candidate?  It makes more sense to us for the decision to rest solely with the voters in September.  To quote from Will's speech:

"Your vote today is not just for an endorsement from the state party. Your vote today would press a thumb on the scale of the primary election scheduled for September 11th, which will actually select the nominee, and effectively excommunicate any of the approximately 177,000 Republicans who could not be here today and may support the non endorsed candidate"

Or as I have remarked in a paraphrase of George Orwell, "All candidates are equal, but some candidates are more equal than others."

Will's speech went on to pledge on Rose's behalf (last paragraph), that if she received the endorsement of the convention, that she would waive the mandatory disenfranchisement of all other candidates as prescribed by the rules.  A vote for Rose would be a vote for "All of the Above."

Let me take a moment to digress on the subject of "All of the Above."  In the Libertarian Party, it is a fundamental principle, call it an article of faith if you will, that all elections for party officers, candidates, etc. provide for a choice of "None of the Above."  It's the party's way of declaring that they will never be compelled to elect the "lesser of two evils."  If no candidate passes muster, the electorate reserves the right to vote for "None of the Above."  And this prerogative is exercised on a regular basis.  Now since a vote at today's convention for "None of the Above" would imply that no one could use the resources of the party, a minor tweak to "All of the Above" was necessary.  Will's intention was to share with our fellow Republican delegates a time honored and highly revered tradition of the Libertarian Party.  It's a tradition that could easily justify an entire article of its own.

Returning to the issue of "the rule", I want to take our argument one step further. I'm shifting now from an intellectual discussion on the merits, to an historical point of view.  Many of you will clearly remember the 2010 election season when the convention's endorsement of the two "establishment" candidates, Mike Castle and Michelle Rollins, led to the political "excommunication" of Christine O'Donnell and Glen Urquhart.  The party used Article VI Section 18 to cut off resources to the campaigns of O'Donnell and Urquhart, and at least in the case of Christine O'Donnell, actively campaigned against her.  Anyone remember the "Dog Catcher" remark?  The schism that occurred in the party in 2010 as a result of this ill considered rule has still not completely healed, as was evidenced by the delegate vote I referenced earlier.  We argue that our objection to the rule is not simply an academic difference of opinion.  It has had real and tragic consequences in the not very distant past.

Following Will's nominating speech and the speeches nominating Tom Kovach for the same office, the Chairman of the convention asked if there were any more nominations from the floor.  I rose to play my part in this exchange.

"Mr. Chairman:  In keeping with this convention's theme of unity, and recalling the rift that was created in 2010, when this convention endorsed candidates before the people of Delaware had had their chance to speak, I nominate All of the Above for US House of Representatives.

Long story short, my motion was ruled out of order, as I expected it would be.  I appealed the ruling of the chair.  William seconded my appeal.  There was some discussion with the parliamentarian.  I prevailed in my argument that I was entitled to a vote of the delegates on my appeal.  A voice vote was taken.  I lost my appeal by an overwhelming margin (got my ass kicked, truth be told).  I thanked the chair and took my seat.

 What did it all mean?

The Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party took its first steps today in exerting its influence in the internal workings of the Delaware Republican Party.  If there wasn't any such thing as the Liberty Caucus of the Delaware Republican Party before, there is one now.  We used the convention process to promote an ideological position, and we did it civilly, respectfully, and within the confines of the rules.  We took advantage of an opportunity (even if it was accidental) to work with those of a different point of view (9-12 Delaware Patriots) on an issue where our goals aligned.  That was the vote on the delegate slate.  We raised an issue of process within the convention rules, and hopefully started a conversation about modifying those rules going forward.  And finally, we served notice that the Liberty movement within the Republican Party may have started with Ron Paul, but it doesn't end with Ron Paul.  Liberty is here to stay.  I believe that Delaware Republicans will learn to accept that.

All in all, it was a pretty good day.

Jess

First Day Of Spring

Today is the first day of spring.  Alfred Lord Tennyson once wrote, "In the spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love."  Well, I'm not quite a young man any more, and in the spring, my fancy lightly turns to thoughts of politics.  So, in keeping with that brief preamble, let me take this opportunity to announce that have submitted my Candidate Filing Form.  As of this afternoon, I am officially a candidate for Kent County Registrar of Wills.

More to follow.

Jess