Founders Values is a well known Delaware educational group that focuses on the founding principles of our nation. They strive to educate the electorate and children on those founding principles and on the Constitution and related documents. They have been active for about 18 months and they have organized many events including a number of TEA Parties across the state. Their members have been an active force in the recent political landscape in Delaware and have even impacted legislation in the state and nationally.
In June of 2010, Founders Values administered a survey of likely Republican voters in the U.S. Senate primary between longtime Congressman Mike Castle and Conservative activist Christine O'Donnell. The poll found O'Donnell leading Castle by nearly a 3-1 margin. It was the first (and almost only) poll that found O'Donnell in the lead among likely voters until her upset victory on Sept. 14th. While laughed at initially by local media personalities, the poll proved to foreshadow the results of the Republican Primary.
The group obtained the names of the two front runners for the Republican nomination in the Special Election for New Castle County President. Delta airlines pilot Mike Protack, who ran for Governor in 2008 and former State Representative Tom Kovach are the names who have been mentioned as the leaders for the spot. Protack ran unsuccessfully in a Republican Primary in 2006 against eventual nominee Jan Ting who faced Tom Carper(Christine O'Donnell was also a write in candidate in that Primary Election). He then ran in the GOP Primary for Gov. in 2008 but left the race to run as the Independent candidate. Protack ran in 2010 for the 3rd County Council seat but faced a primary opponent in Janet Kilpatrick who was seen as Mike Castle's personal nominee to oppose Protack who was backed by the TEA Parties. Kovach ran in the 2008 special for the 6th district Representative seat in Brandywine Hundred. He narrowly defeated the Democrat (by just over 100 votes) in the race but lost this year to Debra Heffernan.
The telephone poll conducted on 11/12 & 11/13 and was a survey of more than 300 likely Republican voters in the New Castle County Council President special election. 60% of the respondents chose Protack where just 40% chose Kovach as their desired nominee. See the Founders Values Press Release for more information.
Founders Values Executive Director Jon Sherman said "We believe that these poll numbers represent the mood of the Republican electorate and we hope that the leaders of both parties will understand that this is an important process that should be left to the people to decide."
Mike Protack has been tied to the Patriot movement in recent years. He was an early supporter and helped to organize the Wilmington TEA Party events in 2009 and 2010 and earned the endorsement of the conservative group Common Sense Communities Society in the Republican Primary. He has a very good name recognition and being a card carrying union member helps him with with a voting bloc that does not often fair well for Republicans. He has been plagued by the notion that he is a perennial candidate for one office or another but even that stigma appears not to hurt him among members of his party when compared to Mr. Kovach.
Tom Kovach is a contrast to Protack as he is the hand picked candidate by Mike Castle. Castle is the long term Congressman who was ousted by Christine O'Donnell and the TEA Party groups in Delaware. Castle and Kovach all but endorsed Chris Coons and publicly were quite critical of O'Donnell and her "TEA Party supporters" despite the fact that those supporters contained a majority of the Republican Party voters. Kovach is rumored to be a supporter of the policies of Chris Coons including the Stoltz development of the Barley Mill Plaza location that citizens group CRG has been a staunch opponent to. This could pose problems for Kovach when it comes to raising money and garnering votes from the Greenville and Elsemere areas affected by the development. Many Republicans believe that Congressman Castle has waged his own personal war against the majority of party voters who ousted him in September and considers those who supported O'Donnell his enemies. He has built a coalition of current and former legislators and party officials and some see Mr. Kovach, a staunch supporter of Castle, as yet another example of Castle's personal war with the electorate.
Only time will tell who the Republicans support. What's a near certainty is that the Democrats will choose AFL-CIO Vice President Tim Sheldon. He will be backed by Paul Clark and Clark's wife Pam Scott who is an attorney with Stoltz in the Barley Mill case. Though Sheldon, the Democrat would be the party's first choice, it's not inconceivable that they could work out a deal with Castle to bring in the more moderate Kovach as Council President. If Protack or a more conservative candidate were to get the nod, it's likely that they would face off in a heated blitz with Sheldon. The date of the election has not yet been set but the Democrats are due to announce their choice this coming Friday.
Showing posts with label union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union. Show all posts
Sunday, November 14, 2010
New Poll Shows Mike Protack is Republican Favorite for County Council President
Labels:
Conservative,
county council,
Delaware,
Democrat,
election,
endorsement,
GOP,
government,
New Castle County,
politics,
Republican,
T.E.A. Party,
union
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Free Speech Now Under Attack by Congressman Castle
H.R. 5175 is now being pushed through the house. This is the bill co-written by Delaware's own Mike Castle which is intended to reverse the Supreme Court decision from earlier this year that upheld that per the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause, government has no business regulating political speech. Those opposed to the ruling said it would flood politics with corporate dollars which would of course dilute the all powerful Union money and of course even out the system and allow EVERYONE a voice. Progressives and their union friends can't have that now can they?
Once again Congressman Castle has his heart in the right place with this bill but he overreaches again with his Progressive friends in Congress. The bill seeks to prohibit government contractors and those negotiating for government contracts from participating in electioneering on behalf of candidates and/or parties. The question is, would this include the unions like SEIU, AFSCME and the AFL-CIO? Would the unions who currently hold government contracts be excluded from the bill? According to the Campaign for Liberty, thanks to the NRA's sweetheart deal that provides "parity" across ideological lines, the answer is yes. Organizations with more than 1 million members across all 50 states and who have been around for more than 10 years would be exempt from this provision. Why not just say no to everyone regardless of size if they have a government contract? Also, why does the bill limit the size of the contract to to above $7,000,000 taxpayer dollars in order to qualify for these rules? If you really want to stop these expenditures by government contractors why don't we stop them all regardless of the size of the contract?
The bill also stops foreign business owners from influencing elections. I haven't read anything in the bill relating to this condition that I do not think is fair. There's no reason foreign nationals should be influencing American elections.
The next section details coordinated campaign communications. This portion of the bill explains that American groups/corporations/unions cannot coordinate their messages with the political campaigns. The bill states that it stops donors from evading “contribution limits by making campaign expenditures which, while technically qualifying as independent expenditures under law, are for all relevant purposes coordinated with candidates and political parties and thus raise the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption". Someone should talk to SEIU and Barack Obama about that. I guess that means no more block walking with their union shirts on?
The next section mandates that all persons/corporations who make independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 must file an electronic report which will be made public. Corporations must also release the individual names of their employees who contribute to 3rd party funds that are used to make independent political expenditures. The bill further goes on to mandate that companies use specific types of their own funds for candidate assistance and even suggests that they should use a separate bank account.
Disclosure must include the name of the organization, the top funder (if an individual) or the top 5 funders if a group. Each must make a statement authorizing the message.
As usual, government's solution to the problem is to stand on liberty's throat. What we need in the bill is the following AND ONLY THE FOLLOWING:
1.) It must prohibit active government contractors and those negotiating for contracts(including labor unions) from engaging in electioneering.
2.) It must stop majority owned foreign corporations and foreign nationals from engaging in electioneering or contributing to political segregated funds.
3.) It must mandate full disclosure of each organizations total expenditures per candidate and mandate that ever political advertisement contain a full disclosure of the core group that funds it. (this means if the ad is placed by "Working Families for Skunks and Possums" which is funded by ACORN...ACORN must be identified as the funding group)
Once again Congressman Castle has his heart in the right place with this bill but he overreaches again with his Progressive friends in Congress. The bill seeks to prohibit government contractors and those negotiating for government contracts from participating in electioneering on behalf of candidates and/or parties. The question is, would this include the unions like SEIU, AFSCME and the AFL-CIO? Would the unions who currently hold government contracts be excluded from the bill? According to the Campaign for Liberty, thanks to the NRA's sweetheart deal that provides "parity" across ideological lines, the answer is yes. Organizations with more than 1 million members across all 50 states and who have been around for more than 10 years would be exempt from this provision. Why not just say no to everyone regardless of size if they have a government contract? Also, why does the bill limit the size of the contract to to above $7,000,000 taxpayer dollars in order to qualify for these rules? If you really want to stop these expenditures by government contractors why don't we stop them all regardless of the size of the contract?
The bill also stops foreign business owners from influencing elections. I haven't read anything in the bill relating to this condition that I do not think is fair. There's no reason foreign nationals should be influencing American elections.
The next section details coordinated campaign communications. This portion of the bill explains that American groups/corporations/unions cannot coordinate their messages with the political campaigns. The bill states that it stops donors from evading “contribution limits by making campaign expenditures which, while technically qualifying as independent expenditures under law, are for all relevant purposes coordinated with candidates and political parties and thus raise the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption". Someone should talk to SEIU and Barack Obama about that. I guess that means no more block walking with their union shirts on?
The next section mandates that all persons/corporations who make independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 must file an electronic report which will be made public. Corporations must also release the individual names of their employees who contribute to 3rd party funds that are used to make independent political expenditures. The bill further goes on to mandate that companies use specific types of their own funds for candidate assistance and even suggests that they should use a separate bank account.
Disclosure must include the name of the organization, the top funder (if an individual) or the top 5 funders if a group. Each must make a statement authorizing the message.
As usual, government's solution to the problem is to stand on liberty's throat. What we need in the bill is the following AND ONLY THE FOLLOWING:
1.) It must prohibit active government contractors and those negotiating for contracts(including labor unions) from engaging in electioneering.
2.) It must stop majority owned foreign corporations and foreign nationals from engaging in electioneering or contributing to political segregated funds.
3.) It must mandate full disclosure of each organizations total expenditures per candidate and mandate that ever political advertisement contain a full disclosure of the core group that funds it. (this means if the ad is placed by "Working Families for Skunks and Possums" which is funded by ACORN...ACORN must be identified as the funding group)
Labels:
Congress,
government,
Mike Castle,
U.S. Constitution,
union
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)