Mike hits the nail on the head:
A clear sign of (the DE GOP’s) cowering can be made by the fact that they feel threatened by maverick individuals within their own party who are seeking the respect and attention they deserve. (snip)
The Republican leadership, however, seemed to be operating on the cavalier attitude that they knew better than the thousands of registered members of their party.
When I read that memo I thought it was leading up to an endorsement of Tyler Nixon. The Delaware GOP is so wedded to the “Delaware way” that that they have gone beyond simple disregard for the concerns of voters and now seem out-rightly disdainful of the concerns of voters. Nixon’s stuborn determination to run on “ideas” was an afront to the GOP.
I hope Nixon finds a race that fits for him this next cycle because I fear the other two alternatives:
1) The GOP irrelevance becomes institutionalized for the next 20 years creating an even less accountable Democratic party. Or…
2) Nixon gets some leadership position in the GOP and then the Democrats could be in real trouble.
November 30, 2006 at 11:44 am
Mr 5% is the key to saving the party?
thanks for the tip.
November 30, 2006 at 11:49 am
Don’t mention it.
He is on Al’s show right now and I have to say that I disagree with him about “fusion” candidates.
November 30, 2006 at 1:24 pm
They won’t have enough sense to give Tyler Nixon a position of power within the party. But they should. However, even if they do Jason, we’ve still got you on our side so I’m not too concerned.
Onward!
November 30, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Awe Shucks!!
November 30, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Why, thank ya, Jason and Rebecca, too! This is high praise, indeed. I take it as that because I know that Jason is big on principled bipartisanship. We have to work with each other, in the last analysis, if we are ever to move forward in progress for all, not just the few.
When I first read the GOP Conscience letter I was honestly dreading being named in it, even if for good reasons. I have certainly given enough cause already to my party’s fading power elitists to continue their internal jihad against any efforts I make. I did not need the fires stoked more.
Glad to see I have the disrespect of “happycon”, someone who is just wrong on everything.
Jason, I know why, from a political perspective, you support anti-fusion law in Delaware. My opposition disregards the internal needs or external verities of two-party politics.
It is based on 1) structurally diffusing the concentration of electoral process power from the hands of any centralized decision makers (party elites) and 2) opposition in principle to any measure whatsoever that would tend to reduce democracy or narrow electoral access, particularly when there are no valid public policy or process arguments not purely based on the inconvenience or the discomfort of either “major” party.
I think the answer to all this is not anti-fusion laws but much earlier primaries. This has been something I have posited for a long time (since Lee-Burris 2000) but never found the slightest interest from decision makers (who saw late primaries as incumbency protection measures, above all).
Although I chose to take the Independent Party nomination well before the primary, i.e. certainly not as a ‘do-over’, I hope you give some credence to the fact that had the anti-fusion proposal been law I would never have been able to mount the campaign I did through November, putting some good measures on the table and maybe even shaking a few cages.
Whatever the case, I was technically not a fusion candidate. There was only one : Barbara Lifflander, who did nothing to harm Democratic chances in her race, nor really did any other quasi-fusion candidates to harm other races for either major party.
I guess I should ask : would you have chosen the elimination of those few you think are pesky ‘do-over’ candidates had it also meant that I would have been completely cut from the general election process by my own party’s abuse of the process against my candidacy?
Maybe we need to think not just of “principled BIpartisanship” as the worthy end, but rather “principled partisanship”, which comprehends a much greater scope.
Principles must always come first in this equation.
Food for thought.
Regards,
Tyler