Jason Scott’s Latest Tempest in a Teapot

Jason Scott of Delaware Liberal has a post up which he claims casts doubts about the commitment of the Republicans in the Delaware Legislature to open government. The reason why creating doubt about their commitment is important to Jason and other establishment Democrats is because Rep. Bruce Ennis' commitment to open government is weak at best and awful at worst, and Joann Christian's commitment, his Republican opponent, is superior. The voters in the 14th Senatorial district will determine tomorrow who will replace the late Sen. James Vaughn.

Jason Scott believes Joann Christian's commitment to open government can't be genuine because Dave Burris, who has been very active in Christian's campaign, recently formed a PAC and PAC's don't have to report their contributors until after the end of the calendar year. Now one should have to go no further than simply pointing out that Jason's implication that Ms. Christian's commitment to open government isn't sincere is not equivalent to Jason's comments:

There's you big "open government" hero. And lord knows I hate Celia Cohen but she is right when she says, "The campaign finance law is supposed to open a window on campaign financing, not pull a curtain. "

Come clean Dave. Who is Joanne Christian going to be working for if she gets to Dover? (link)

In short, "Dave Burris formed a pack" doesn't equal "Joanne Christian isn't really committed to open government." The absurdity of Jason's argument is obvious to anyone who doesn't share his frequent manic, cultish episodes of devotion to the establishment perspective of the Delaware Democratic Party.

That Celia Cohen weighed in on this matter and attempted to make something out of nothing is not the least bit surprising and is, in fact, predictable. Cohen nearly always covers status quo candidates favorably during elections because her well of source material from political and governmental insiders would reduce to a trickle if she did not. No one knows or has written about that more extensively and incisively than Jason Scott himself. But once more the partisan cult demon possessed Jason in this instance and he failed to ask himself why Cohen dramatized Burris' creation of the PAC now.

But Jason's blunder is far worse than the absurdity of his argument. The implication that Burris formed this pack hastily to throw money to the Christian campaign is, as a matter of fact, false. But neither Cohen nor Jason could know it. But I did and have for several months.

I don't know the date exactly, but a week or two after the end of the General Assembly in June, I talked to Burris on the phone and, during the course of the conversation, I told him I was actually receiving encouragement to primary Rep. Bob Gilligan next year. The basis for the encouragement resulted from a piece Mike Matthews wrote at the end of June.

I told him that one well-connected Democrat told me that Gilligan wasn't liked in some circles within the Democratic Party, and he was sure I could get about $40,000 to $50,000 for the race in donations. I believe I told Burris something like it was more likely that the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow than that I would seriously consider running for elected office.

Dave then told me that he had plans to form a PAC and that if I did run for Gilligan's seat, he believes I would be the kind of candidate the PAC would contribute campaign dollars to. He specifically said that although he doesn't share many of my political and legislative positions, he does share my commitment to open government and that would be worth supporting.

For those of you I've told that I have received encouragement from some Republicans to run against Gilligan and with the possibility of some funding to boot, now you know the principal facts behind my claim.

The implications of this event for Jason's argument based on Cohen's story are the following:

• Dave Burris didn't form this PAC just to support Christian. Vaughn was still in office in July and very much alive and no one ever thought of her then as a potential candidate for his seat when it came open.
• While Dave Burris did file to establish the PAC recently, his plan to establish it has existed since July of 2007.
• The PAC is potentially non-partisan, at least in primary races. If it would consider contributing funds to me, at a minimum it sees no benefit in maintaining status quo candidates and is willing to gamble on real reformists and activists.
• A commitment to open government is apparently one of the qualifications for receiving contributions from this PAC.

One last matter. There are Delaware PACs that only or mostly give to Democrats and who are undoubtedly giving funds to Ennis's campaign. They also won't have to report their contributions until the end of the calendar year. Of course, Jason forgot to mention that fact within his post.

The Implications for the Delaware Democratic Party

I am very glad that Jason put up his post because it illustrates a huge problem I have with so much of the so-called activism that goes on within the Delaware Democratic Party.

While it is certainly true that the Delaware Republican Party and its elected officials haven't shown until last year a huge and public commitment to open government, there is no doubt they have made it now. I can't read people's minds. I don't know if many of these Delaware Republican legislators have had a sincere conversion to open government or how many have always held these views. I doubt that some of them really care about open government and I believe some have signed onto to the Delaware GOP legislative bandwagon because now, and this is important, it's good politics to do so. Open government now matters to the voting public in Delaware.

But I know this: it doesn't matter one whit if the Republican legislators are sincere about open government because a vote for open government cast by an insincere and grudging legislator still counts as a vote for open government. That's all that matters to me.

I also know that if a GOP legislator publicly commits to open government but fails to vote for it, he or she can be held accountable for it and deservedly get creamed for lying when they come up for reelection. I'll do everything I can do to publicize their hypocrisy.

But as a Democrat what bothers me most about the "activism" of Democrats like Jason Scott and to a large extent the Delaware Progressive Democrats is they take the absolutely wrong lesson from the Delaware GOP's discovery of open government. Instead of realizing that the Republicans' commitment to open government should incite us to spend our energy criticizing our party's political and legislative leadership for allowing the Republicans take from us what should be our issue and commitment. That's what we should be concentrating on.

This is where it gets pathological. Instead of vigorously calling for reform within the Delaware Democratic Party, Democrats like Jason Scott believe the best way to support open government in Delaware is to criticize and cast doubt upon the commitment of the Delaware GOP's commitment to open government.

Tell me. How does that advance open government in Delaware? If it causes us to keep elected Democrats like Bruce Ennis in power, it also keeps the doors closed to the inner workings of much of the activity in Legislative Hall.

Far worse is that anti-democratic and despotic leaders like Democratic Party Chairperson John Daniello and state Senator Thurman Adams couldn't be more pleased when "activists" like Jason concentrate on casting doubt on the Republican's commitment to open government. They can maintain their commitment to anti-democratic and closed government values and policies because the focus is not on them but on the Republicans. Duh.

Since we are telling the truth, let's just go all the way it. Why is it some of these so-called Democratic Party activists criticize the Republicans for taking the very positions that they (these Democratic "activists") hold and the Democratic Party should take the lead on? I'm sure there must be a variety of reasons and they no doubt vary from one "activist" to another. But I have determined the following exists:

• To take on your party and its awful leaders invites personal attacks, frequent criticism, doubts voiced about your loyalty or degree of progressiveness, and can affect even fundamental matters like employment, invitations to work on campaigns, party committee assignments, etc.'

• If you frequently call for widespread reform within the party, you won't get nearly as many handshakes, pats on the back and greetings from powerful people at party social events. But you will get the "off the record" respect from many of the best of them and quite a bit of information.

• If you are an activist and frequently call for widespread reform within the party and if you hope to run for office someday, chances are you'll get tepid or no support from the present party hierarchy. But if you are worried about that, I believe you'll continue to worry about it if you are elected and you will be just as useless to bringing good and open government to Delaware as, on the whole, Bruce Ennis is now.

I prefer to take the correct lessons from the Delaware GOP's commitment to open government. First and of preeminent importance, as a citizen I want to encourage candidates who will bring about the open government that the people of Delaware deserve. As a Democrat, I want to use the GOP's commitment as a call for widespread reform within my party, one that actually makes my party's commitment to open government far more extensive and thorough than anything the Delaware GOP has offered.

I want my party to reform to the extent that I will be able to write that the Delaware GOP's ideas for open government are a faint flicker of the Delaware Democratic Party's. I want to endorse Democratic Party candidates that are far superior to Joann Christian on this issue. I want to be able to be a member of a party that when I talk to a Dave Burris and he tells me he is forming a Pac, he also says to me, "Dana, if you ever run for office, don't expect to get a dime from this pack because your party's commitment to open government is too open."

Do you get it yet? That is real activism.