Friday, July 10, 2009

Libertarian Party of Delaware: Wendy Jones for State Senate

From Jim Rash, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Delaware:

The Libertarian Party of Delaware is proud to announce that Gwendolyn (Wendy) Jones will run for the 19th Senate District in the special election to be held August 3rd on the Libertarian Party ticket. Wendy is looking forward to representing the people of the 19th District and bringing a new spirit of liberty to Legislative Hall.

An active member of the Libertarian Party for almost 20 years, Wendy is a member of the LPD Executive Committee and currently serves as the LPD Sussex County Secretary. She is a strong supporter of individual rights and, as a long time small business owner, will work to restore free-market entrepreneurship, creating jobs for Delawareans. Her support of the Second Amendment is evidenced by being an NRA member for about 25 years, currently holding a Life-Endowment level membership. She is also a Gun Owners of America member and she is the Delaware representative for Pink Pistols. She carries a well worn copy of the U.S. Constitution which will be her guide in Dover.

A Milton resident since 2001, Wendy has spent her spare time giving back to her community, mentoring at H.O. Brittingham Elementary School in Milton, and she is currently donating her professional driving services for Sussex County Mobility Consortium.

Wendy's official campaign site [still somewhat skeletal] is here. Note to Wendy and Brian: first priority, frankly, is to get that donation page up. Knowing it will pale by comparison to the Demopublicans and pseudo-Demopublicans of IPOD, we can still raise a small kitty for Wendy if every registered Libertarian in the State [or even independents] would send her $25.00.

This is a short campaign (to 3 August), but it is an important one, not just for Libertarians but for the State. Are we going to play business as usual with the Delaware Way? Probably. But we could also send a message here.


Anonymous said...

Is that what it is all about for you, Steve? Supporting candidates who thinks being a member of the NRA and the "Pink Pistols" are some kinds of accomplishments?

Really, Steve. I guess that this must be some standard of high public service for libertarians, but it really is a sad sad commentary on your party.

Pink Pistols? It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically sad.


Steve Newton said...

Spare me. In other words, your contention is that

(a) "normal" people shouldn't run for public office

(b) Gun Rights organizations, especially gun rights organizations that specifically support the right of the LGBT community to protect itself do not represent public service or legitimate political activity.

No, you'd rather elect the daughter of the previous incumbent based on the elitist idea that she should inherit the position?

Your elitism is showing.

Anonymous said...

As opposed to being a third place finisher in the Miss Delaware pageant?

I would rather have a political activist than a beauty queen who probably only reached the showing because of her daddy's power.

Or a career politician who has been nothing but a shill for his party.

Anonymous said...


None of those "contentions" that you listed are mine, but maybe that's all you can do when you're supporting a candidate who lists memberships in gun clubs as somehow demonstrative of public service.

And where did I mention the Adams family progeny as my preferred candidate? No where. I hate legacy candidates, particularly when there is no relevant record of public service.

But leave it to you to try to divert attention from the fact that the nominee of your party has no record of public service and thinks that carrying a copy of the Constitution and being a member of the "Pink Pistols" has somehow contributed to the betterment of the world.

I like to see people with at least some record of actually helping improve the world run for office.

So you can try to divert, deflect, and project, but your candidate is still pathetic.

By the way, usually you're more clever in your rhetorical devices.


Brian Shields said...

If anyone wishes to donate to the campaign, but cannot until we have it set up, please send an email to and we will send you information when it becomes available within the next few days.

Steve Newton said...

Of course you made that contention, or else you know nothing about the Pink Pistols. I generally assume you've done some homework.

At the very least, Wendy has demonstrated far more sensitivity to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the willingness to work for that in public than Thurman Adams or his progeny ever did.

As for your preference for public policy experience, that's done us a lot of good over the past decade in DE hasn't it? We got into this mess at least in part by relying on the Adams and Booths of this world to make the tough decisions--something at which they have failed miserably.

Funny, you usually do better than snipe at people based purely on your aversion to folks who are pro-gun rights. But I understand: putting a Second Amendment advocate in the General Assembly--regardless of anything else--would strike you as worse than either nepotism (Adams' daughter) or a conservative GOPer (Booth).

Bring your best game next time you try playing.

Shirley Vandever said...

I actually HAVE a pink pistol, LOL.

Never heard of that organization, but I'm going to have to look them up.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't arguing for Adams or Booth, here or anyplace else. You keep trying to change the subject, but I am not biting. I was specifically pointing out the mediocrity of your candidate.

Given the choice, I'd prefer someone working for Operation Pink over Pink Pistols. Gay's right to own guns doesn't seem to be a pressing issue for the U.S. and I question the qualifications of somebody who thinks that it is.


Steve Newton said...

Candidate qualifications are always a comparative issue. Running against a woman whose two primary qualifications are her father's name and her third-place finish in the Miss Delaware pageant considerably lowers the bar.

You prefer Operation Pink to the Pink Pistols--obviously your political preference, but the fact that somebody makes different choices than you do is not a disqualifier.

In the A1 intellectual world, gun rights = mediocre candidate. I understand that.

Steve Newton said...

Apropos of nothing in this thread, but if you are still reading, please send me an email to the address you can find by clicking on the "About Me" link on the front page.

I have a proposition for you.

Anonymous said...

Polly is making a whistle stop tour of her district today, stopping in Bridgeville and Georgetown through Greenwood and Milton. Having already followed a bunch of celebrities on Twitter (now redacted), she set up a website with zero issues posted (same for Booth, btw), and got her campaign donation link going.

Looks like the fauxcandidate is in full swing.

Anonymous said...

i'm very curious as to theWendy Jones position on senate bill 94 that provides for de-criminalization of medical marijuana in delaware

Anonymous said...

i'm not really sure where that 2nd amendment thing begins and ends, but if it's open ended, there's this really cool surface to air missle launcher i've kinda had my eye on.....

Anonymous said...

I truely supported Thurman and all he done for Delaware. That does not mean I will support Polly. As far as I have seen she does not have the knowledge to hold a seat. She is running on her daddy's name and expects the sympathy vote. Her campaign has her at the farm and in front of the trucks. This is probably the first time in years she has been that close to either. In school she was in her own little click not noticing the other students. How is the past going to reflect the future? Is she going to be gunho now and forget us if she gets in office. She will never be Thurman Adams even though she is campaigning on his name.

Anonymous said...

Funny don't bash Booth here he has a good record and he is a family man and he is in church every sunday!

Steve Newton said...


You do realize you are responding to a post from 2009, don't you?