Skip to main content

Answers to some questions posed by my friends across the blogosphere

There are few outstanding question/observations, none of which is yet substantive enough for a complete post, but all of which deserve an answer.

Item One: Delawaredem notes Tyler's endorsement of Mike Castle for Senate and wonders what my take would be. Not difficult to figure out, DD, if you look at my comments last year around election time:

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.


I do still like Mike Castle personally, and I think he has done some important things for Delaware over the course of his career. But I'm not on the Castle bandwagon. This should not be read as any sort of preference for Beau Biden, either. All other issues aside, I hate legacy candidates. Yes: Beau did his duty in going to Iraq. But so have hundreds of thousands of other Americans, because it was the duty he signed up to do. He gets the same credit as they do in my book: no more, no less. As for his performance as AG, my first answer is "what performance?" And my second answer is: "What are people reporting as a preference to polls at this point, other than name recognition and party identification?"

I'm not voting for Mike because his record over the past eight years has soured me. I'm not voting (at this point) for Beau, either, because I have absolutely no idea what he stands for besides latent nepotism.

So, DD, that kind of leaves me without a candidate. Not a pretty answer, but a straight one.

Item two: When I wrote about Howard Zinn being upset that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, somebody asked me if I used Zinn's work in the classroom. I used to, but I don't anymore. Why is a little complicated, but boils down to this: Zinn's People's History of the United States is a wonderful counterpoint supplementary reader, but it is not structured so as to replace any of the mainstream textbooks. Zinn basically strings together a bunch of neat stuff from each period but there is no over-arching narrative and no attempt to cover anything that doesn't happen to interest Howard. Moreover, the book is now significantly dated in terms of the sources he uses. A lot of people have done newer and better work. In upper level courses I still use some of his essays.

Item three: Waldo seems to have taken exception to my image of the State of Delaware bending over to get reamed out by the Federal Government with regard to Real ID. He has a legitimate point: the imagery was crude (it did match my mood at that particular moment) and it would not take a large stretch to connect it to anti-gay posturing. Unfortunately, when I read the following sentence in the WNJ story it just kind of jumped into my brain:

Delaware, which didn’t resist the federal Real ID mandate, is expected to be ready to meet the requirements of Real ID.


In the old it-seemed-like-a-good-turn-of-phrase-at-the-time mode, this evoked the image of an unresisting victim.

It was at best an unfelicitous and insensitive usage, but I do think Waldo stretches to make the comparison with Rush Limbaugh's use of that language to argue that Barack Obama is a racist and my post on Real ID, which advocated a position with which even my friends at Delawareliberal completely agreed.

I will note specifically the distinction that Rush accuses President Obama of personally demanding sexual service in his metaphoric image, whereas I specified the Federal Government and not any individual. Real ID is not an Obama initiative, it is a legacy. Besides: even my opponents would note that I spend a lot of effort to refer to the President correctly and respectfully even when I vehemently disagree with him. In that I agree with George H. W. Bush.

So, Waldo, I'll plead guilty, but to a signficantly lesser charge.

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
"I hate legacy candidates."

I don't think a person's right to run for office should be impeached (even rhetorically) simply because one of his or her parents is an elected official. Besides, should anyone be surprised when a child follows in a parent's profession: think of police officers, lawyers, doctors, small business owners.

What disturbs me more is someone like Castle who has virtually made his ENTIRE career running for office. When does Cincinnatus retire to his homestead anymore and allow others to govern?
Mike W. said…
I'm with you Steve. There were too many negatives for me to be able to vote for Castle so I voted for Parks.
Anonymous said…
Did you ever read or use "American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns; The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper That Tried to Report It" by Richard N. Rosenfeld?

Check it out if you haven't. It is a terrific contrarian history of the revolutionary period.

anonone
Eric Dondero said…
Remember the rule:

Even the very worst Republican is better than any Democrat from a libertarian perspective. (Not saying Castle is a "worst Republican," kind of middle-of-the-road.)

Anyway Steve, you're gonna get a little coverage on this tomorrow at Libertarian Republican.

This is a Stunning Political Development worthy of national media attention, beyond tiny little Delaware.

HEADLINE: Top Libertarian Party member backs Republican for US Senate!

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?