Jason is dead on balls accurate here, the DEGOPHQ is simply out of touch with its base and is playing to the voter registration database. They’ve been doing that for years and low and behold we’ve seen record losses in Dover. Why? Because we are a state of pale pastels and not bold colors. Because Mike Castle, who should really have switched parties a year and a half ago is leading the DEGOPHQ around by a leash. My job is thankless too but that doesn’t mean I don’t TRY. I can’t see how the DEGOP leaderships actions over the past year have helped their cause at all.

And just to address tweedle dee and tweedle dumber (Bill Holt and think123):

Your analysis of a TEA Party candidate’s response to the question of tort reform is both ignorant and illuminating. It shows that neither of you actually have a CLUE what the TEA Party stands for and it speaks generally to your progressive ideology. In fact, your “Democrat candidate” argument is closer to what a TEA Party candidate would likely argue. Though each persons opinion differs I believe that addressing tort reform in either of the following ways would be acceptable to most in the “TEA Party” movement:
1.) Congress has the power, per the Constitution, to convene special courts in cases it deems necessary. One way to effectively end malpractice abuse is to have the United States Congress create district courts that have the express purpose to handle medical malpractice cases. The review board for the cases will include judges, lawyers and even practicing doctors who may be called in at any time (like jury duty) to give their opinions on a particular case. Once the review board determines the validity of the case it may issue a ruling either to press the case forward or to return it based on it’s lack of legal or medical merits. This would provide more of a buffer of safety by removing the very costly and time consuming abuses of the trial system. It will also ensure that cases with merit recieve the attention they deserve and not bogged down by frivolous claims that lack merit.

2.) As your “Democrat” candidate suggested we could leave it to the states to decide. Texas did just such a thing and they were able to drastically decrease their malpractice insurance costs while still maintaining a record of faily adjudicating malpractice claims. Delaware candidates have also recently proposed similar legislation that would create special healthcare courts that would be similar to our current chancery court system (which is the envy of many states). Most of these suggestions have come not from Democrats as you might suggest but from TEA Party leaders and Republican candidates.

Incidentally, your argument by the “Democrat” candidate is not likely to be one you would hear outside of Kent and Sussex counties. A more likely scenario by a Democrat candidate when asked about tort reform would be:
“Uh, yea, we’ll think about it.”
In fact, these are pretty much Barack Obama’s exact words from his State of the Union speech. Why wouldn’t they act? Because the trial lawyers pay most of the Democrats expenses. Come back when you two have a clue.

The problem is that he did make a glaringly obvious error that if unchallenged could hurt our candidates and party. I know that he does not want that. I hope that he sees this for what it is. I am a friend moving to cover a gap. I am not an enemy attacking. I know the same is true of you, Jason. You have been an asset for many years to this party.

P. S. Ms. Izzo may have noticed that I gave her no strengths. It is because I do not know her yet, not because she has none.

It is the first test for a candidate. It does not have to be the last. It does serve a valuable purpose of helping candidates who are not ready to not waste 5 months. It can help candidates have an early deadline. They have to hone their message by May instead of floundering until late summer.

I would like our primary to be moved up in the year, but the convention is an avenue to test the message, fundraising, and organization of candidates.

DEGOP HQ is just as broken as Washington, and they are out of touch with the rank and file working Republican.

Democrat candidate:
I support voluntary state by state reform, with emphasis on making sure injured parties are the first concern. On the matter of restricting malpractice jury awards, it is important to remember jury trial is the foundation of our legal system. Those injured at the hand of a negligent doctor must have access to every legal remedy. Reform is best left to individual states. Malpractice suits have been cut in half by voluntary reform over the past ten years. It’s interesting to note only 30% of premiums doctors pay are actually paid out to injured parties.

Tea Party candidate:
That is just double talk so lawyers can donate to Democrats. Where Americans understand that our rights are given to us by our Creator at our conception and therefore can’t be taken by any man or any group of men neither Congress nor King nor Court. That’s my Tea Party and we are smart.

With that said, I do think that any of the candidates for U.S. House who decide not to run or who do not make it through the primary would do well to consider looking at other races in the state. They’re all excellent candidates for a spot in Washington and would be welcome additions in Dover as well.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33693.html

“Buffett urged Obama to say that “we’re going to cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in Florida or the Cornhusker kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and we’re going to — we’re going to get rid of the nonsense. We’re just going to focus on costs and we’re not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things. And I would say, as president, `I’m going to come back to you with something that’s going to do something about this, because we have to do it.’”

Like Democrats in Congress, Buffett would like to expand access to health insurance, but he said he does not “believe in insuring more people till you attack the cost aspect of this.”

“If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we’ve got, or plan B, what is in front of — the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill,” Buffett said. “But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that’s what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it’s going to have to do some tough things.”