Category: Campaign 2020

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Role of Government

This is the eighth, penultimate part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, the role of government is worth 14 points. 

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

I have decided to tackle the candidates in order for this part, which will lean heavily on my interpretation of previous parts.

“What finally made me decide to run were the nanny state regulations involving Delawareans’ exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights,” said Republican Julianne Murray. And where was she the last fifty years? I guess it’s a case of better late than never. “COVID-19 has shown that the government can and will take away freedoms from Delawareans in an unconstitutional manner,” she continues.  “We must address this so that future Governors have checks on their power.”

The question is who will have the check? I don’t know if we can trust the Delaware General Assembly as currently comprised. I’m actually afraid, absent a GOP majority in the DGA, that she will find out just how hamstrung she really is once she uses her executive power to strip away the most egregious violations of rights based on John Carney’s pandemic executive orders. Do you think they would have let a Governor Colin Bonini get away with anything he proposed in 2016? I give her 6 points out of 14.

John Machurek (L)

I have always liked certain aspects of the libertarian point of view; however, there are some detrimental portions as well. Cue Machurek saying recently on social media, “Philsophically I’m an anarchist. However, the government has a long way to go before we get to the point that we discuss having a government or not.” To me, that’s akin to the two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner – with no rules, we devolve to a Darwinian social order.

“As a libertarian I stand for each individual’s liberty and pursuit of happiness,” he also claimed. “I am standing with all who have been victims of injustice and will work my campaign to make sure voices of liberty are heard and protected in Delaware.” Worthy of note: since he is pro-choice, he cuts out the very life that is required to enjoy the liberty and pursuit of happiness. It’s the difference between what I gave his fellow Libertarian Senate hopeful Nadine Frost and the 4 points out of 14 I’m giving to John.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

She began her platform well on this subject by promising to “Curtail abusive government powers to protect Constitutional liberties.” She also vowed to “Protect our most vulnerable people.” Okay, at a state level I can maybe buy that. But she lost me with “Establish and maintain a fundamental human rights code.” I sort of think there already is, and it’s called the Bible. But that’s just me.

I do like her idea about bringing initiative, referendum, and recall to Delaware as we are the only state that has none of those remedies available to us as I recall. So I’ll give her 4 points out of 14 as well.

John Carney (incumbent D)

He said this four years ago: “As a former Secretary of Finance, John knows we can’t continue with business as usual. Increased spending in areas like health care are outpacing our ability to afford it, and crowding out other priorities like improving education and creating jobs. John believes it is time for a “reset” that takes a hard look at spending and revenue. If Delaware state government is going to continue to offer the services it provides to a growing population, and expand in areas where it’s weak, it will need to be more efficient and better able to eliminate unnecessary spending.”

I haven’t seen that effort. And need I mention how he’s become a dictator to the extent that six Republicans and two smaller party members lined up to run against him? He gets o points out of 14 because I don’t think he gets the proper role of government at all.

Standings: Murray 36.5, Machurek 32, DeMatteis 15.5, Carney 1.5.

That, then, is my impression of how each candidate sees the role of government. I’m going to look at intangibles in the last part.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Taxation

This is the seventh part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, taxation is worth 13 points. 

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

One would imagine that our contenders are in favor of lowering taxes. But surprisingly not all have brought up the issue to a great extent, and they are addressing several ways to lower the burden.

I suspect this will be one of the more actively updated posts as time goes on.

Julianne Murray (R)

Unlike her entire bill of rights devoted to small business, Murray has platitude-speak down when she says she will, “Cut taxes and regulations. Nothing hurts job growth like higher taxes and endless regulations. As our next Governor, Julianne Murray will lower the tax burden and streamline regulations to encourage entrepreneurship.” Well, you can’t lower the sales tax but I’ll bet there are some business taxes they’d like repealed. Because she has at least a goal and purpose, I’ll give her 6 points out of 13.

John Machurek (L)

John would lower taxes, too, but he doesn’t really go into where, why, or how. It’s a missed opportunity. 3 points out of 13.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

This is another issue Kathy has been silent on, unless it’s in her book/plan that I have not read yet. No points.

John Carney (incumbent D)

Four years ago John said, “If we need to raise more revenue, we need an approach that promotes a growing economy, that’s fair to all taxpayers, and that minimizes the burdens on those least able to pay.

As governor, John will bring that same leadership to a bipartisan effort, working with business and other community leaders, to get our budget back on track without sacrificing the quality services that so many Delawareans depend on.”

So I guess I shouldn’t have said our contenders are in favor of lowering taxes, because we’ve found out through experience that John did not. When it came to the choice of tightening belts or extracting revenue, too often Carney chose the latter. You can see this in the next paragraph. 0 points out of 13.

One measuring stick I use to compare tax burden between states comes from the Tax Foundation, which annually ranks the states on how much of a toll they take from the general public. Delaware just misses the top 10 overall, but it is a schizophrenic ranking because it rates high in some categories (led by the lack of a sales tax and low property taxes) but scrapes the bottom in two key measures: individual income tax and corporate tax, where it ranks dead last at #50. So those two categories need reform, keeping in mind the ideals of a fairer, flatter tax system that’s not used to reward or punish behavior or property ownership. Address these and it goes a long way in securing my endorsement.

Standings: Murray 30.5, Machurek 28, DeMatteis 11.5, Carney 1.5.

My final two categories await, with the role of government as I perceive each candidate adopting it coming up next.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Job Creation

This is the sixth part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, job creation is worth 12 points. 

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

Over the last few months I’ve become a subscriber to the e-mails emanating from a group called A Better Delaware. It’s a group which believes we need to improve our economy by streamlining government and eliminating regulations, pointing out that our economic indicators lag among states. It’s become even worse now because growth is probably not an option in 2020 thanks to the incumbent governor’s handling of the pandemic.

To various extents, all of these candidates agree we should open up the state. But it’s also revealing to learn their philosophy for business and economic growth, and that’s what this installment of the dossier is all about.

Julianne Murray (R)

The bread and butter of her campaign is the topic of job creation. Rather than cite her platform chapter and verse, I’ll simply inform readers she has put together what she calls a “Small Business Bill of Rights.”

Because we already have a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, I’m leery about anything else called a bill of rights, particularly in this case as they are granted by government and not inalienable. It’s more of a particular set of policy priorities, many of which make good sense, given a catchy name. Based on that I don’t see Murray as quite the small business zealot as some of her primary opponents were, which is good, but it remains to be seen how balanced of an approach she will take if someone like a Big Three automaker or large manufacturer sees an opportunity in Delaware.

On the whole, though, the platform is well spelled-out and worth 10 points out of 12.

John Machurek (L)

There is an elegant simplicity to what John is advocating for. In fact, in 2012 he said he would “allow the free market to decide what’s best and to regulate itself and allow people to make choices for themselves. I know this sounds like a simple solution, but it really is that simple.” Yes, it is. We don’t need overly restrictive licensing, so he would get rid of it. He would lower corporate taxes as well. “I feel the government should not pick winners and losers,” he said eight years ago. “I feel giving money for job creation would be exactly that. We are broke and don’t have money to hand out.” It’s a great approach that’s just slightly behind Murray’s only in the sense that it’s not as fleshed out. 9.5 points out of 12.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

Much of her platform is devoted to this subject: Kathy would “end megacorporate welfare” and “revitalize Delaware’s economy towards dynamic sustainability.” (Whatever that means.) She also joins her peers in wishing to cut bureaucratic red tape for small businesses, and vowed to travel the country to bring businesses to Delaware.

Here’s the interesting part though. “I am the only candidate with a twenty two year history of hands on healing. The only candidate that built products to be manufactured.

While other candidates say they will bring manufacturing back, I am the only one that can actually do it. Why? Because they are my products to give.

No other candidates running for Governor has a list of product that can be put into production insuring jobs in three of its counties.”

The question, of course, is this: if she is correct that this product is a scalable product and it’s destined for success, what are the ethics in using a state office to enrich herself at the expense of any would-be competitors? It seems to me she should be able to establish this without needing to be governor.

For her, I will split the difference and grant Kathy 6.5 points out of 13.

John Carney (incumbent D)

The initial 2016 economic plan Carney presented is here. In part, he promised:

We need to provide Delawareans with well-paying middle class jobs of the future as we strengthen our current economic base in manufacturing and financial services.

I want Delaware to not only be the First State when it comes to incorporating a company, but also the First State when it comes to growing a company. That means having a thriving financial services sector that creates jobs in technology. It means keeping our uniquely talented workforce in the fields of bioscience and sustainable chemistry. And it requires a robust entrepreneurial economy…where Delawareans are developing new technologies to bring to the market place.

The role of government in promoting a strong economy is to create an environment where businesses can thrive and invest in Delaware. That means moving faster than any other state when it comes to helping locate or grow a business that will create good jobs. And it includes a regulatory environment that is fair, thoughtful and timely. Delaware’s current regulatory structure rests on a 40-year-old patchwork of inconsistent and often inefficient mechanisms that I would modernize and streamline as Governor.

John Carney economic plan, 2016

Of course, John was muddling along until he blew any and every advantage he may have gained by unnecessarily shutting down the state during the pandemic. Since this is about job creation, he gets 0 points out of 13.

All I know is that this is a group of people who want the working folks of Delaware to prosper. (One thing I’ve not seen touched upon, though, is right-to-work legislation.)

Standings: Machurek 25, Murray 24.5, DeMatteis 11.5, Carney 1.5

Once we get the prosperity my next category asks if they’ll get to keep it as I talk taxation… if the candidates are willing to volunteer their plans, that is.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Second Amendment

This is the fifth part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, Second Amendment issues are worth 11 points. 

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

It was an event I thought about making a post out of, but in this era of the CCP virus (h/t The Epoch Times for that moniker) I thought depicting a mostly maskless event wouldn’t go over well. Regardless, back in August I was at a local gun club for its family day. And one thing I quickly learned was that it was a place with hot and cold running politicians – no surprise with a primary coming up.

While there were a few local politicians of note – oddly enough, I realized who some were by the legislative plate on their cars – it turned out via happy accident I was due for this part of the dossier. (My wife told me about this event that Saturday morning so we squeezed in a little free shooting before heading up to see her family.) So for the purposes of this section of the dossier I’m adding bonus content.

My disclaimer: I wasn’t there for the entire event so some of these candidates may have circulated there prior to our arrival – for example, I saw U.S. Senate candidate Jim DeMartino (who lost in the primary to Lauren Witzke) working his way out as we were walking in.

Julianne Murray (R)

Of all the Republican gubernatorial candidates at this event, Julianne had the most formal setup and was engaging with voters, including me:

Yet our brief conversation didn’t touch on 2A issues – heck, I was impressed enough that she knew of this website.

The meat of what she states about the topic can be summarized this way: “Julie knows that limiting our Second Amendment rights does not translate into tough-on-crime measures. It doesn’t make anyone safer. It only punishes law-abiding citizens. Like you, Julie worries about the violence in our communities. She wants safe streets and safe gathering places for our friends and family. Julie will look beyond the rhetoric to find the real source of the problem and find solutions that do not infringe our rights. By addressing the true problem, we will be taking the politics out of the issue. Unfortunately, our Governor and the media like to perpetuate misinformation and dangerous rhetoric in order to push an unconstitutional agenda that threatens the rights of law abiding citizens. As Governor, Julie will defend the rights of our law abiding citizens, hold law breakers accountable and support our first responders.”

This is intriguing to me on two levels. I notice the way she states the proposition gives her a little bit of wiggle room, but, more importantly, there’s the phrase, “the real source of the problem.” I can’t fathom if she doesn’t agree with the adage “an armed society is a polite society” or if she really wants to begin a one-woman, one-state war on the cultural rot and lack of respect for life that may well be a root cause of gun violence. Moreover, if we don’t have a tyrannical, overreaching government, the need for Second Amendment protection on that front abates. That’s why I find this interesting. I have yet to listen to a three-hour (!) podcast with Murray so I hope to get more answers there. In the meantime, I split the difference and give her 5.5 points out of 11.

John Machurek (L)

While he promises not to enact any new gun control measures, it’s somewhat telling that John is for “Constitutional” carry but not concealed carry. I don’t see him as a force to reverse the excesses of the current regime, so he gets just 3 points out of 11.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

Unfortunately, she seems to be silent on this important subject. No points.

John Carney (incumbent D)

In 2016, John noted he would be “directly confronting” the issue of gun violence by working with other states, making sure schools have up-to-date safety plans, “confronting the issue of mental health and gun access,” and restricting the sale of so-called “military-style” weapons.

Barely a year later, Carney promised, “In the coming weeks, my team will work closely with lawmakers to craft legislation that would prohibit the sale of assault-style rifles in Delaware,” in order to “make our state safer.” (I guess he didn’t specify who he was making it safer for, but it turns out he was doing so for criminals.)

It’s this damage to Second Amendment rights that our next governor has to undo. 0 points out of 11. If I could give him negative points I would.

Standings: Machurek 15.5, Murray 14.5, DeMatteis 5, Carney 1.5.

I don’t need to hustle to find more from the candidates on the next subject, which will be job creation.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Education

This is the fourth part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, education is worth 10 points. 

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

If there is a topic of importance to all the candidates running for the state’s highest office, it’s education. Some spend more time on it than others, but they generally have something to say.

Julianne Murray (R)

Aside from remarking, “We need to be teaching our children HOW to think – not WHAT to think,” I have yet to find a more broad-based educational platform on Julianne yet. It’s a good philosophy, but with no meat on that bone she gets just 3 points out of 10.

John Machurek (L)

Eight years ago, when he was running for a seat in the Delaware General Assembly, John put together a very solid analysis of the education issue. A couple key points: “The public education system is failing and it is NOT in many cases due to the educators, but rather the government,” and, “The Federal government provides less than 7% of Delaware’s public education funding, and yet that small percentage comes with mandates, compliance requirements, and strings that take control of our classrooms away from parents, teachers, and elected school boards. The Delaware Department of Education runs roughshod over our local school boards, using questionable data to declare failed schools, while committing millions to under-researched ‘reform’ initiatives that have yet to demonstrate any ability to improve education.”

Among his suggestions for improvement were making the State Board of Education an elected board, removing the Cabinet-level position of Secretary of Education and replacing it with a state superintendent of schools selected by the Board, shifting more authority to local boards, and creating school vouchers. Overall, it was a pretty good platform, so he gets 8 points out of 10.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

Her platform statement is that she would “Regenerate Delaware’s public school system for all students by setting higher standards and embracing science, math, the arts, and vocational education.” Unfortunately, the nuts-and-bolts of getting from point A to point B are missing, as are students whose parents would prefer them go to a parochial school or homeschool. So I can only give 1.5 points out of 10.

John Carney (incumbent D)

The initial 2016 education plan Carney presented is here. In part, he promised:

We need to create an education system where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Despite improvements over the past decade, too many students, especially poor and minority students, are not meeting the standards that have been set…

The challenges we face in improving our public education system are very difficult to overcome. We have to give every child access to a quality early education that sets them up for future success. We have to care for our students’ needs physically, emotionally, and academically to keep them on track. We have to give educators the resources and support they need to reach students who come to school every day with different abilities, challenges, and ways of learning. And we need to ensure that as students graduate they are well prepared to enter the workforce or continue their education in college.

John Carney education plan, 2016.

I’ll grant he’s only had four years, but I thought Lenin could do it that quickly.

But it sounds like he’s taking a village to raise a child and leaving families out of it. This is the same attitude which complains that closing schools for the summer denies kids a good breakfast and/or lunch – since when was that our responsibility?

I just wish he would try to improve the entire education system, not just public schools. 1.5 points out of 10.

Because it is a small state, Delaware could be a model for the rest of the country if we do things correctly. It’s easier to turn around a canoe than a battleship, and I think the best way of turning it around is through school choice as money follows the child. Public schools could still exist and they could continue to give a less and less thorough education on traditional subjects as they emphasize what is allowable under “cancel culture,” but they will do so to emptier and emptier classrooms. Finally they will get the point.

Parents used to scrimp and save to be able to afford a house in a desirable school district. Thirty years ago, we did just that and made it by about five blocks into a nice neighborhood elementary school that fed into one of the two most desired high schools in the Toledo Public Schools district. But we can go way beyond that and allow people trapped by economics in poorer zip codes to more easily find a way to give their kids the education they need. The right governor can make that a reality if he or she is willing to try.

Updated standings, and another lead change: Machurek 12.5, Murray 9, DeMatteis 5, Carney 1.5. Sadly, the maximum score at this point would be 40 so no one is setting this competition on fire (mainly due to a lack of response to earlier questions, but even in ones where they do.)

Regardless, next up will be a special segment of the dossier as I discuss the Second Amendment.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Law Enforcement/Judicial

This is the third part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, law enforcement and judicial are worth 9 points.

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

Julianne Murray (R)

I didn’t have anything for Julianne until the day before I did this originally, when she remarked, “As your next Governor, I will never play politics with our public safety and I will never defund our police. The police will have a Governor who they can rely upon to give them the tools they need to do their job and the public support they have earned.”

She added, “I will not support liberal policies that are causing massive retirements of officers here in Delaware. They are retiring because they don’t believe they have backing from the top. Like you, I don’t want 911 calls to go unanswered.”

Since then she’s added the obvious, that she sides with police over the rioters but believes bad cops should be “weeded out.” Overall, it’s a relatively safe answer worth 5 points out of 9.

John Machurek (L)

Machurek has promised on social media to review prisoners and enact criminal justice reform and cannabis legalization. In a previous political run he also vowed to end “no knock” warrants; on the other hand, he is against capital punishment and enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local police. So he gets just 1.5 points out of 9.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

So far all I have been able to glean out of Kathy is her avocation for family court reform in order to make it more equitable for all concerned. I’ll give her 1 point out of 9 despite being dubious about what is not equal.

John Carney (incumbent D)

Carney’s full 2016 proposal is here. In that he noted:

“We need to deploy our resources with more of a focus on keeping dangerous, violent criminals off our streets. We also need to shift toward rehabilitating non-violent offenders and helping them become employed and productive members of society. Even more important is preventing our young people from turning to a life of crime in the first place.”

Given the recent “peaceful protests” in Wilmington and Dover that turned into rioting, looting, and property damage, it’s apparent Carney has not followed through. So he gets 0 points out of 9.

Updating the standings, we have a new leader, although none of them are setting this competition on fire: Murray 6, Machurek 4.5, DeMatteis 3.5, Carney 0.

This was actually a category where I deferred to the candidates and their views. Aside from enforcing the law fairly and appointing judges who will properly interpret the law according to the federal and state constitutions, I don’t have a really specific “ask” in this category. The next one is slated to be education.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Social Issues

This is the second part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, social issues are worth 8 points.

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

Normally these will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents, but this time I’m changing up for editorial license.

Delaware has a reputation as a “blue” state, and as such they have embraced two things that are wrong with our culture: abortion and same-sex “marriage.” While the federal courts have now spoken on both subjects, wresting control of these away from the states where it properly belongs, only two of our four candidates have acted on the subject – unfortunately, they either advocate for or have signed legislation working in the wrong direction.

As the two women in the field, I would be curious to know the views of Republican Julianne Murray and IPoD’s Kathy DeMatteis. But I can’t give them points for nothing.

Libertarian John Machurek stated that he considers himself pro-choice, but would require parental consent for minors and not publicly fund them. Essentially it’s the inverse of the Democrats’ view. He also believed that anti-discrimination laws can be a “slippery slope” but equal marriage should be a Constitutional right. So he gets 0 points out of 8.

Democrat Governor John Carney signed pro-abortion legislation in June 2017 and is on record for supporting gay “marriage” so he gets 0 points out of 8, too.

I’d love to know how the others in the field would stack up to this, but I suspect most wouldn’t touch the subject with a ten-foot pole because they’re being advised to avoid social issues. That’s not my advice, though: as always, make the case as to why it’s in the recipient’s advantage to have these laws.

Because of this lack of action, the standings remain the same: Machurek 3, DeMatteis 2.5, Murray 1, Carney 0.

But they won’t for long: more people join the fray on my next part, which covers law enforcement and the judicial system.

2020 gubernatorial dossier: Agriculture/Environment and Transportation

This is the first part of a series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 Delaware gubernatorial election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, agriculture/environment is worth 6 points and transportation is worth 7.

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

These will be presented in the order of Republican, Libertarian, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and Democrat, who in all cases are incumbents.

The 2020 Delaware gubernatorial candidates have talked about a lot of stuff, but these are two categories I haven’t been able to find too much on.

Yet the balance between agriculture and environment is an important one for Delaware. Not only is Sussex County #1 in broiler production nationwide (within one mile or so of me there are, by Google Maps and my count, 58 chicken barns) but in the nearly a year I’ve lived out here I’ve seen countless melon buses* and not a few semi-trailers presumably full of watermelons from the packing house down the road, tractors up and down my road at all times of the day and night, and even a cropduster spraying the field across the road from me one Saturday morning. And that doesn’t count the ongoing corn and upcoming soybean harvest that will start in the next few weeks.

On the other hand, there are concerns about the by-products of chickens, a nasty odor I sometimes catch a whiff of coming out the door. And those environmental concerns don’t even cover the beach on the other end of the county. So I would love to know how my candidates will balance these interests.

Those farmers also need methods to get their products to market, and Delaware seems to be lacking in that department. Once you get north of Dover, there are interstate-level highways to take you north and south, but downstate drivers are snagged in a morass of traffic lights and beachbound traffic limping its way down congested Delaware Route 1, U.S. 113, and U.S. 13 toward Ocean City, Salisbury, and points south. (East and west could use some improvement, too, but that’s on Maryland.) These highways need to be addressed, too.

So we will begin with agriculture and the environment, where a couple candidates have made statements. I had to reach back to 2016 to find John Carney’s, though, since he has eschewed an issues page this go-round.

Julianne Murray (R)

If Murray has had something to say about agriculture or the environment, I haven’t found it yet. So no points.

John Machurek (L)

John has the standard libertarian view of allowing the private sector to determine what is best for the environment, which I agree with for the most part. Lacking more details, I will give him 3 points out of 6 for the philosophy.

Kathy DeMatteis (IPoD)

Kathy’s platform promises to “Promote farmland preservation, sustainable agriculture, food processing, and related agribusiness vertical integration.” I don’t mind these items, but would certainly love to know the details of government involvement, especially on farmland preservation which I believe should be generational. 1.5 points out of 6.

John Carney (incumbent D)

You would think for a moment that John gets it when he notes farmers are the stewards of the land and was in favor of developing “practical…and effective” policies on agriculture.

But he gave up the game right away when he stated, “John believes one of the most serious threats facing Delaware is that of climate change and sea level rise.” It’s not that serious of a threat and we can’t change the climate anyway. Saying that gives John an automatic 0 points out of 6.

As for transportation, I have a stunning lack of attention to a vital topic, although Republican Julianne Murray recently called for an audit of DelDOT thanks to irregularities in the EZPass system. It’s sort of a peripheral issue, but I will give her 1 point out of 7.

Her IPoD opponent, Kathy DeMatteis, has also acknowledged the need for infrastructure improvement in her platform in a non-specific fashion. So she gets 1 point out of 7 as well.

So early standings are not what you might think: Machurek 3, DeMatteis 2.5, Murray 1, Carney 0.

Nor do I have much to work with on the next category, social issues, but that will be the next installment.

*For those readers outside Slower Lower Delaware, a melon bus is a well-used school bus that has had its back seats, windows, and much of the sides and/or roof removed. They put padding on the floors, remaining side walls, and window sills so the watermelons aren’t damaged in transit, and they fill the entire back of the bus up to the windows with melons – it’s quite a sight. These jalopies come up from Florida (at least that’s where they are tagged) with running school buses which have retained their seats to transport the workers who pick the melons from mid-July to about mid-September.

2020 federal dossier: Intangibles

This is the final part of a ten-part series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, intangibles are only worth 5 points – unlike other parts, however, these points can be subtractive as well. Intangibles are items like issues that I don’t cover, their websites, how they are running their campaign, and so forth.

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

As has been the case in each of my revised parts, I’m working through the Republicans for House and Senate first, followed by the Libertarians, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and incumbent Democrats last.

Lee Murphy (R) (House)

Like his primary opponent, Lee keeps opioid abuse at the forefront of his campaign. Aside from that, though, he keeps things rather close to the vest: it’s telling that I had to dig out some nuggets of information.

After a decent start, the lines of communication between the Murphy campaign and me have become a bit strained. I think we work at cross purposes.

One thing Lee has going for him is that he has run a statewide campaign. But the strike against him is that he’s not run a successful statewide campaign and the person he lost in said statewide campaign to is generally the butt of political jokes for his colorful personality and party-jumping skills. Obviously Lee has lost some races in hopeless situations, but this one was like fumbling at the five-yard line on the way to the winning touchdown.

He has picked up the pace to an extent after winning the primary, however. The question is whether his Democrat opponent’s mile-wide support is more than an inch deep. He needs to ask what his opponent has done for Delaware as opposed to what she’s done to Delaware. I am adding two points of five to his score.

Lauren Witzke (R) (Senate)

Lauren is not shy about expressing her opinion. Perhaps that’s not quite the standard temperament for the Senate, but it seems to work for Ted Cruz. It has gotten her into a little bit of trouble lately as well.

Out of a lot of interesting statements to consider in this category, I’m picking out two.

“So far the righteous anger and frustration conservatives have felt over the years, has only been channeled to only result in tax cuts and deregulation rulings in favor of the socially progressive billionaire class – A billionaire class that looks down upon and views anyone on Main Street America, the American worker, or any social conservative (for that matter) with contempt.”

She is correct to a point; however, I believe the tax cuts and deregulation have improved the lot for all of us. Billionaires are in a better position to prosper, but bear in mind that they have written many of the regulations in order to tamp down potential competition. So deregulation defeats their purpose.

Secondly:

“I reject Bernie’s socialist ideology. But I understand why my generation seems to embrace it. Crippling student loan debt, unaffordable healthcare, unemployment, addiction, low wages, and in-achievable home ownership for the younger generation has become a stagnant norm.

When a socialist candidate provides solutions to their current problems, we’d be fools to believe they won’t embrace it. We have a serious battle ahead of us against a radical socialist takeover.”

What we need to do is properly educate Millennials that what the Bernie/Biden brigade is promising is fool’s gold, the value of which will indebt their grandchildren’s grandchildren to a one-world tyranny where they will be cogs in the machine unless blessed by birth to be in the ruling class. The rest will suffer the serfdom of the Dark Ages.

It’s where I depart from Lauren’s big-government philosophy, because regardless of the intentions of big government, in the end it only succeeds in reducing our liberty.

However, there are two things Lauren is doing very well in this campaign: nationalizing her race (which is a must in an uphill battle like this) and engaging voters at a far more frenetic pace than either her primary opponent or the Democrat incumbent. (However, he will simply bombard the airwaves with 30 second commercials about “orange man bad” and call it engagement. That’s the advantage of a seven-figure war chest Lauren doesn’t have.) And while I don’t agree with her embrace of Big Labor, that overture does make an inroads into her opponent’s core constituency.

I endorsed Lauren in the GOP primary, but in the general election she’s presented a contrast not just to her Democrat opponent but to the other two ballot-eligible opponents as well – and it’s not always favorable to her. Initially I was adding a full five points to her score based on how she has run her primary campaign but now I think she only merits three additional points out of five.

David Rogers (L) (House)

The biggest intangible I can find for Rogers is his belief that we should end qualified immunity for the police as well as the War on Drugs. Both of these seem like knee-jerk reactions to current events, although the latter platform plank has been a longtime libertarian staple in some form or another. (To some extent, I agree with it.)

But to the extent that I have had to dig out information about his campaign, it is a problem. I realize that the minor parties don’t have money to speak of, but with ballot access already assured (unlike the situation in other states) the Libertarians should be selecting candidates who are more willing to spread their word. On this token, they fall short of their IPoD competition. I’m deducting three points of five from his score.

Nadine Frost (L) (Senate)

One intriguing idea that arguably could have made it into the role of government category is that of prohibiting Congress from meeting in Washington, D.C. for more than sixty days a year. “Those asses want to bribe our legislators?” she writes. “They are going to have to fly to every effing district and meet them in a one-to-one basis. That oughta cool their jets.”

Nadine doesn’t mince words about the VA (a “corrupt, mismanaged” institution) either.

But her big win is stating, “We are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Big Government feeds on these rights, and spits on the very citizens it is supposed to serve,” adding, ”Politicians in general cannot have a serious effect on the economy – only negative consequences.” That to me is a message to Lauren Witzke as well as Chris Coons.

For the resources she has, Nadine has run a fairly decent campaign. I’m giving her four points out of five.

Catherine Stonestreet Purcell (IPoD) (House)

This is the sort of rhetoric which tells you CSP is not a politician, “(There has been a) disinformation campaign launched to separate and divide Americans. I think there should be warning labels on FAKE news and fabricated stories. Stiff penalties for crisis actors creating productions that don’t exist and whose intentions are to stir race wars.” It sounds way off on the right, but some of her positions are well left of center.

Out of all the candidates, I posit that she is running the most unconventional race by far. Of course, the problem she has is the same as most other minor-party hopefuls: no name recognition. She may have better face recognition based on her signs, but there aren’t photos on the ballot. All things considered, as hard as she is working on social media I will leave her score the same.

Mark Turley (IPoD) (Senate)

I alluded to his wish to be a moderating influence in my last part. So while I don’t have the rhetoric I get from other corners of the Senate race, I don’t see him as one who would make needed change either. And his campaign is about as low-key as one can get, which is not conducive to winning or making a difference. I’m deducting one point of five.

Lisa Blunt Rochester (incumbent D) (House)

She is running the ultimate “play it safe” campaign and resting on her supposed laurels. Sadly, that may be good enough because too many voters are uninformed and I can only push back the frontiers of ignorance a little bit at the moment. I can also take off the full five points.

Chris Coons (incumbent D) (Senate)

We’ve already see him whine about Amy Coney Barrett, which reminds me of his campaign that states, “Chris… works hard to protect our federal courts. He has earned a reputation as a tough, detailed questioner when pressing President Trump’s judicial nominees about their positions on key issues like race discrimination, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ equality. He has also been crucial in blocking some of President Trump’s least qualified and most dangerous nominees from lifetime appointments to the federal bench.” The only position that matters is how they interpret the Constitution – do they believe it is supposed to be interpreted as written or just made up from what they think it should be?

And when he says, “Protecting the civil rights of every American is one of Chris’ top priorities,” I wonder if some Americans are less protected than others. The same goes for my right to votes, as “Chris is leading efforts to protect the right to vote for all Americans and to ensure that exercising your right to vote is safe, even during the COVID-19 pandemic.” It was safe until you started pushing the vote-by-mail scam where someone’s vote out of whole cloth cancels out my legally won ballot which I’m going to show up to cast because I can.

We have three people on the ballot who would be way better Senators than Chris Coons. I deduct all five points.

Originally I did my endorsement at this point for the GOP primary, but I think I will hold off for two reasons. One is more punch to the post as I will do the governor’s race at the same time, but the other is because I have two rather close races. Take a look at my standings:

Standings:

House: Murphy 33.5, CSP 24, Rogers 13.5, LBR (-1.5).

Senate: Frost 45.5, Witzke 43.5, Turley 7.5, Coons (-3).

On October 24, I found out Nadine Frost had a website, which allowed my to enhance both my dossier and my scores:

Senate: Frost 55, Witzke 43.5, Turley 7.5, Coons (-3).

There are categories for each of my top two which were left blank so I want to maximize the opportunity for score improvement. I anticipate making a mid-October endorsement, in time for most mail-in ballots to be sent.

2020 federal dossier: Role of Government

This is the ninth part of a ten-part series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, role of government is the largest slice of the pie, worth 14 points. 

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

In this instance, I’m providing an overview of how I see the candidate serving as a member of the House or Senate. As has been the case in each of my revised parts, I’m working through the Republicans for House and Senate first, followed by the Libertarians, Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), and incumbent Democrats last.

Lee Murphy (R) (House)

Lee is a very lucky guy. I don’t see him as a doctrinaire conservative; fortunately, in getting through the primary, running right down the center stripe made Lee look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan and that was good enough for Delaware Republicans. But then again…

One thing I did prior to writing this part was to look up where Lee stood on issues two years ago when he had a primary against a guy who had run as a Democrat two years prior and nailed illegal signs to trees, and lost. (I like that the internet is forever and he recycled the “gomurph” website. Because of this, I’ve supplemented some previous parts of this over the weekend.) I think he’s shifted a little bit to the left between 2018 and 2020.

As a Congressman, Lee would likely be one of those who we would like for about half his votes and wonder what he was thinking with the other half, particularly with the environmental issues. If he’s fortunate enough to prevail, he almost seems to me like a short-timer who would maybe get through a term or two, not passing anything that would be memorable for how it brought government to heel as it needs to be. In reading his platform and interacting with his campaign, Lee doesn’t come across as the stout conservative we need but more as the Republican whose most agreeable vote every two years may well be for Speaker of the House. 5 points out of 14.

Lauren Witzke (R) (Senate)

Compared to her primary opponent and his questionable overtures toward limited government in citing the Constitution, we know where Lauren Witzke stands. She fits squarely into the mold of the “big-government conservative” and that strain of populism needs to be eyed suspiciously and kept in check wherever possible.

Those who inhabit Lauren’s corner of the political world are unapologetic about using government to achieve their ends, which to them justifies the means. If the size of the welfare program doesn’t change but the focus shifts to rewarding a different type of behavior, such as having kids in wedlock instead of out of wedlock, it’s considered a success.

This has always been an argument I fail to comprehend: a politician like Lauren believes the government is spending the money regardless of whether it achieves the goals of social conservatives, isolationists, and other strains of populist or not, so we are better off in spending it our way. Of course, the third option they don’t consider is that of bringing government closer to the people by letting states decide how they want to address issues (and spending less in the meantime.) Given their long-term decline in population, perhaps states in the Rust Belt would be very amenable to the style of family-friendly incentives Lauren is proposing at a federal level – something a place like Texas or Florida may not wish to embrace. But one size fits all to Uncle Sam, amirite?

I get that Lauren’s electoral strategy is to nationalize the race by tying herself to Donald Trump and advocating for his no-holds-barred approach to government. It’s just how Trump picked up the union blue-collar vote nationally and how Lauren hopes to spring the upset by attracting the union Democrats who help run New Castle County. It might just work, but is this what America needs in the long run? 4 points out of 14.

David Rogers (L) (House)

Because information on him has been so scarce and hard to come up with, it’s hard to get a good picture of Rogers and his run. My impression of the Libertarian Party has been that there is a left-libertarian side and a right-libertarian side, and Rogers seems to be more toward the left based on what I have found him to say. If he were to win, I believe he would exhibit the worst aspects of the Libertarian Party, the part which seems to forget that this experiment in liberty was meant for a population with a mature morality, not one seeing liberty as a license to avoid responsibility. 3 points out of 14.

Nadine Frost (L) (Senate)

The one thing that intrigues me about Nadine is that she is a pro-life libertarian, which to me represents the right-libertarian side of the coin I alluded to with Rogers above. I don’t think I would agree with her on every issue, but out of all the Senate candidates I believe she has the best idea of the role of government. Anyone who calls to repeal every law that involves “victimless crimes” but adds, “If states want to keep pursuing them that’s their right (see Amendment 10), but the Feds need to go home” has figured this out. 12 points out of 14.

Catherine Stonestreet Purcell (IPoD) (House)

Purcell is perhaps the most intriguing candidate in the race, and I suppose if you believe it’s an asset that she can’t be pinned down in terms of political philosophy then she would be a winner. I see everything from Qanon citations to ideas which are well left of center in her social media, so she is a definite wild card. I think she would be somewhat to the moderate left side, but if she would caucus with the GOP and be the dogged investigator she holds herself out to be, that would be beneficial. Then again, there’s always room for such a talent in journalism. 7 points out of 14.

Mark Turley (IPoD) (Senate)

Mark is trying to portray himself as a moderate who would work with the best ideas from both sides. My problem with that, of course, is twofold: the Left has no ideas that don’t involve additional federal government control and those who inhabit the middle of the road get run over. I also think that the idea of him benefitting his line of work – which is renewable energy – would be counterproductive to our goal of a thriving economy. So he doesn’t score well in this category. 2 points out of 14.

Lisa Blunt Rochester (incumbent D) (House)

The fact she has dropped her issues page for her 2020 run and has continually touted the fact she is the first minority female Congressional representative in Delaware history tells me that she is coasting on name recognition.

Yet the person who’s supposed to be representing all of Delaware regularly speaks to issues that divide us, working harder for certain races, genders, and privileged groups than others. Perhaps she’s a good person, but I believe we can do a lot better because she’s not representing the best interests of this state. 0 points out of 14.

Chris Coons (incumbent D) (Senate)

In one way, I think Chris seems to get his traditional role as Senator. His calling in political life seems to be that of getting the federal government to cover up for the mistakes the governance of his home state makes. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to get the disconnect between the failure of the state government and the needed reform of the federal government, which can’t happen because “orange man bad.” On issue after issue, he fails the productive people of Delaware – however, the small bit he does in fulfilling his role gives him the meager score I will grant him. 1 point out of 14.

Standings:

House: Murphy 31.5, CSP 24, Rogers 16.5, LBR 3.5.

Senate: Frost 41.5, Witzke 40.5, Turley 8.5, Coons 2.

With that, I have nearly reached the end of my look at these candidates. It’s comprehensive to be sure, but there are other things which have slipped through the cracks that I consider as part of my final piece: the intangibles.

2020 federal dossier: Entitlements

This is the eighth part of a multi-part series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, entitlements are worth 13 points. And in case you are wondering, I don’t get along with the “it’s our money that we’re only getting back” crowd – to me, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are entitlements. Here’s where I will see what the candidates have to say.

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

It’s become an annual rite of sorts – it seems like every year we hear the news that Social Security and Medicare are projected to take in less than they give out years sooner than projected. We’re assured they’re not going to go bankrupt but there may come a point where they won’t be able to meet the promised benefits. (That always seems to be just about the time I am eligible to collect.)

The fix is relatively simple, they say: ratchet up the retirement age, begin means testing, or place more income inside the reach of the Social Security tax (which caps someplace in the low six figures.) On the other hand, we have a President who earnestly believed a booming economy would solve the problem. All I know is that something will be done in the next few years because doing nothing will be its own action, with consequences.

I’m going to foreshadow my thoughts on the next part regarding the role of government here by stating some unpopular opinions.

The problem with the federal approach isn’t the end goal, but the approach. As I see it, there is an implication that we need a federal solution to a problem they created when in fact health insurance is one of those commodities best handled at a state level. The needs of Florida and its high retiree population are vastly different than a state like Maryland which trends younger.

It should have been a priority in the previous Congress to rip out Obamacare by the roots, but instead our side fumbled it away. I’ve heard the argument that most of the program was rendered moot by Congress removing the tax penalty (putting it outside the boundaries of NFIB v. Sebelius) but nothing would have sent the message more clearly than a straight repeal. We also kicked the other entitlement cans down the road thanks to a lack of emphasis on a fix from the top.

Seeing how gutless Congress is on these subjects, and having a long memory of the reception a modest proposal on Social Security received (remember George W. Bush wishing to privatize a fraction of it?) it’s frankly disappointing to see no new ideas from the field. Again foreshadowing, I’m not sure the GOP portion of the Congressional field wishes to rightsize government. It’s more the approach of making government perhaps run more efficiently but not trying to restore a more Constitutional approach.

Since I originally wrote this, much of the field has checked in on the subject. We remain in the same batting order.

Lee Murphy (R) (House)

“The government needs to get out of the health insurance business once and for all. Competition should drive the market for health insurance, not mandates from the federal government. I believe that individuals are best equipped to make health insurance decisions for their families.”

I like that, so far. But there’s more.

“The citizens of this country should be offered a competitive choice for health insurance plans. I support legislation allowing families to buy health insurance across state lines. It would drive down the cost of health insurance, making it more affordable and more accessible. If you live in Delaware and a better plan is available in Nebraska, you should be able to buy it.”

That’s been a standard GOP line for awhile, but there’s a lot of merit to it – and it’s a start to what needs to be a lengthy adult discussion. 4 points out of 13.

Lauren Witzke (R) (Senate)

This is one subject Lauren has not updated us on, but we still have time. No points.

David Rogers (L) (House)

And he starts out so well: “Too often the government tries to help people out only to end up creating a cycle of dependency.”

Then the wheels come off and Rogers goes against the grain of his party, stating, “There are too many restrictions on if people can have money and how they have to spend it.  This ends up making the government very paternal in nature, and it also leads to a massive bureaucracy.  We should eliminate all social welfare programs and replace them with a universal basic income.  We should treat all people as if they are adults and if they need assistance we give it to them.”

I thought the idea of libertarianism was to enhance the individual. A UBI program simply becomes wealth redistribution from those who wish to work to those who don’t. Thus, he gets 0 points out of 13.

Nadine Frost (L) (Senate)

It’s brief but golden: “Public health belongs to the states, CDC can only provide guidance. No provision in the Constitution for government to run public health.” Bingo! There’s no provision there for Social Security or any other entitlements – spare me the tired “general welfare” tripe.

Since I wrote this I didn’t think Nadine could improve on this, but she did: Social Security “is, was, and ever will be what is known as a ‘Ponzi Scheme’, which means that payouts at the top are covered by incoming payments from the bottom.” She gets it! 11.5 points out of 13.

Catherine Stonestreet Purcell (IPoD) (House)

This is like a sketchbook of ideas:

“Reach the goal of affording everyone in America equal healthcare at reasonable prices. Restoring funds stolen from social security.” Not sure how you can get back what was spent long ago, though.

“Reducing the price of healthcare and medication costs so that all Americans can receive affordable healthcare.” It’s a good idea, but it’s missing some steps from point A to point B.

“Establish a SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE to ensure transparency and efficiency of the spending of our nation’s tax dollars… I have 32 years banking experience which I can use to conduct audits. This should reveal much waste and funds can be redirected towards American healthcare programs.” I don’t think the powers that be want that – they benefit from the waste.

“I would also expand on home healthcare programs as they appear to be more effective than nursing homes. Both patients and healthcare providers enjoy a happier environment.” It seems to me the private sector can take the lead on this. The mixed bag gets her 3 points out of 13.

Mark Turley (IPoD) (Senate)

Mark wants to: “Provide affordable health care and affordable prescription drug prices for all. Provide a solid safety net for those who cannot afford health care benefits. Provide a platform for sustainable social programs. No need for Medicare for All, however.

Provide, provide, provide. You basically created Medicare for All without the fancy name. 0 points out of 13.

Lisa Blunt Rochester (incumbent D) (House)

From 2016, she charges, “Most Republicans in Washington want to gamble with our seniors’ wellbeing by privatizing Social Security and cutting Medicare, I’m running for Congress to ensure that doesn’t happen.” Too bad because the Republicans have the right approach.

But it gets worse. “Protecting and strengthening Obamacare is vital to the interests of our state. The Affordable Care Act has brought the number of uninsured down to historic lows, taking the burden off the backs of taxpayers and helped stabilize sky rocketing insurance rates. The law is not nearly perfect, but it is already a huge step forward.” Demonstrably wrong.

“Tens of thousands of Delawareans have insurance now, but we still have to do more to bring costs down. Republicans in Washington propose we do this by taking away insurance from millions of people. This is not the way to improve our system.” The way to improve our system is to add a little personal responsibility and competition, neither of which you’ve encouraged.

No wonder you don’t do an issues page. 0 points out of 13.

Chris Coons (incumbent D) (Senate)

“Chris believes that access to quality, affordable health care is a right, not a privilege, and in the midst of a global pandemic he’s fighting harder than ever to make this a reality for all of us.”

Health care is not a right. I am not entitled to have you pay for my health care.

“Chris has pushed back time and again on President Trump and congressional Republicans who want to put Americans’ health care back in the hands of insurance companies.” So instead he would give it to some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat. We can change insurance companies. 0 points out of 13.

Standings:

House: Murphy 26.5, CSP 17, Rogers 13.5, LBR 3.5.

Senate: Witzke 36.5, Frost 33, Turley 6.5, Coons 1.

I’m going to share my thoughts on the candidates and how they seem to perceive the role of government in my next, penultimate part.

2020 federal dossier: Foreign Policy

This is the seventh part of a multi-part series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, foreign policy is worth 12 points.

This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.

Foreign policy ties in well with the previous categories of immigration and trade, but to me the subject is more than that. As long as we have troops in harm’s way, support of the military will be a key aspect of our desired policy as well as a stance that considers our interests first, not the vague wishes of some global organization. I’d like us to be a nation which treats its friends like royalty and isn’t afraid to spit in the eye of our enemies.

It’s perhaps not surprising that I have only received the most meaningful input from our Senatorial candidates since they have the most to do with foreign policy in terms of approving treaties and such. However, the House is important as well because they are supposed to have the power of the purse.

So let’s start on this road. As usual I am going by party beginning with the Republicans for House and Senate, respectively, then proceeding through the Libertarians, Independent Party of Delaware candidates, and finally the incumbent Democrats Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons for House and Senate, respectively.

Lee Murphy (R) (House)

I have gone through most of what I have seen from Lee and haven’t found a comment on the issue. I’m sure he has opinions to share, though. No points.

Lauren Witzke (R) (Senate)

Lauren is advocating for a very isolationist foreign policy, to wit: “Our military will be strengthened but used strictly for the defense of our nation at home. She will not support meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, and rejects regime change abroad. Foreign aid will be ended except in the events of natural disasters, and funds will be re-diverted towards Family Restoration efforts and American infrastructure.” Another way she puts it: ending the “forever wars.”

However, there is a contradiction there to something else she’s noted on social media: “Christianity is increasingly under attack in the United States and Europe. When I’m in the U.S. Senate, these attacks will not be taken lightly!” In the case of Europe, isn’t that meddling in their affairs?

Look, I’m actually for defunding the UN (and not our police departments, as she’s also written) but either you’re hands off or you’re the world’s policeman. Our foreign policy over the last 80 years or so has tended toward the latter thanks to our involvement in “entangling alliances” like NATO and others.

I give Lauren mad credit for one thing, though: she knows who the enemy is in more ways than one: “If Chris Coons and his Democrat allies weren’t busy crafting their fake ‘Russian Collusion’ narratives, our lawmakers could have focused on the real national threat from China, which has cost us not only the lives of 80,000 (at the time she wrote it, now closer to double that) Americans but untold trillions of dollars in economic damage.” 7 points out of 12.

David Rogers (L) (House)

Rogers holds the common libertarian view of isolationism, believing it was wrong for both George W. Bush to invade Iraq and Barack Obama to topple the Gaddafi regime in Libya. “I believe in having a military that is strong enough for self defense,” he adds, “but I do not believe in continuing our imperialistic military doctrine.” I think that is a sound approach. 7.5 points out of 12.

Nadine Frost (L) (Senate)

Echoing the libertarian approach, she noted on social media about meddling in other countries, “It comes back to bite us in the ass.” We’re spending a fortune to be the world’s police force, she says, but would consider intervening if invited in. 7.5 points out of 12.

Catherine Stonestreet Purcell (IPoD) (House)

Believes we should foster world peace by embracing our diversity. Now that sounds bad, but at least she lives it as her social media has friends around the globe. I don’t agree with the approach but at least she’s not a hypocrite. 3.5 points out of 12.

Mark Turley (IPoD) (Senate)

Is quiet on the subject, at least as far as I know. No points.

Lisa Blunt Rochester (incumbent D) (House)

The campaign of issue avoidance continues. No points.

Chris Coons (incumbent D) (Senate)

It’s probably best he doesn’t include this on his issues page. No points.

Standings:

House: Murphy 22.5, CSP 14, Rogers 13.5, LBR 3.5.

Senate: Witzke 36.5, Frost 23, Turley 6.5, Coons 1.

We are closing in on the final three categories in this federal sweepstakes. The next one I have is entitlements. Sure, the people want Social Security and Medicare fixed but have these fine folks spoken out about it?