Skip to main content

My picks for the Delaware elections.

I'm sure that the picks of the folks at Delawareliberal will draw much more local attention than mine, but what the hell....

For US Congress I'm voting for Libertarian Mark Anthony Parks and against Republican Mike Castle. There are no end of reasons to vote against Castle at this point, as much as I like him personally. [Truth in advertising: as Governor, back in the early 1990s, Castle appointed me as co-chair of the State Social Studies Curriculum Frameworks Commission.] But Mike has rolled over too many times for the Bush administration despite an image of bipartisanship. He'll win again this year, but he won't get my vote. I'm choosing Mark Parks not just out of party loyalty, but because Mark is a man who keenly believes in limited government, personal freedom, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He won't win, but I'm hopeful we haven't heard the last from him.

For Governor I'm going to vote for Jack Markell, despite most of his current campaign positions, because I've got confidence in the fact that his fiscal instincts are inherently sound and I've no confidence whatever that Bill Lee is even paying attention.

For Lieutenant Governor I'm going to vote for Matt Denn, placing more confidence in his work ethic than anything else, although I think several of his education ideas have merit. Besides, I absolutely refuse to capitulate to assholes who will vote against Markell-Denn purely on the basis of religion.

For Insurance Commissioner I'm going to vote for John Brady, who has a record suggesting he actually knows what the hell he is doing.

For 20th District Representative I'm going to vote to return Nick Manolakos to the General Assembly.

Let's see: one Libertarian, two Democrats, and two Republicans; ticket-splitting in the finest Delaware fashion.

And for President? That's another post, another day.

Comments

Brian Shields said…
The same way, I will vote for two Libertarians, four Democrats, two Republicans.. and following Shirley's lead, two write ins for races I feel both don't represent me.

Senate and Sussex County Council District 1. In my council district a man is running unopposed to a seat he hasn't held before with absolutely no platform. I can't vote for him if he offers no issues.

I haven't decided what word to write in yet, but it will be some ideal I do not see in these candidates.
"For Lieutenant Governor I'm going to vote for Matt Denn, placing more confidence in his work ethic than anything else"

I like the rest of your picks but I think this one is weak. Denn held a state office. in the same time Copeland held down a state office, a company and led a non-profit.
Anonymous said…
"I absolutely refuse to capitulate to assholes who will vote against Markell-Denn purely on the basis of religion."

Religion? I think I've missed something. What's the religious argument?
Joe
They're both Jewish, which has led to some significant resistance in some quarters
They're both Jewish, which has led to some significant resistance in some quarters

Unbelievable. I had not heard this.

I am voting for Markell for Gov, Copeland for Lt Gov.
tom said…
I'm going w/ Copeland for Lt. Governor because he's been the closest thing we've had to a libertarian in the General Assembly.

And while I'm glad that Markell beat Carney in the primary, and I think he'll be a better Governor than Minner, I'm voting for Lee. I see his lack of a huge agenda as a good thing, whereas Markell is committed to spending lots & lots of the taxpayers money. I have no real expectation that he could win, but I have to vote for the policies i prefer, and "no tax increases" definitely beats Markell's program.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...