The Waterboy

scan_95594825_1 Today I found out that my state representative thinks his job is to be the Governor’s waterboy:
“Part of my job is to carry the water for the governor and it’s just that simple.” ~ Rep. Pete “The Waterboy” Schwartzkopf
We just got out of an election season where John Carney, the former Lt. Governor, and Jack Markell, the State Treasurer at the time, took great pains to articulate that as separately elected officials they were NOT there to “carry the water” for Governor Ruth Ann Minner…yet somehow my separately elected 14th District Representative thinks being Governor Markell’s waterboy is HIS job? Are you kidding me? The people of the 14th District deserve to be represented by someone who doesn’t think their job is to be the Governor’s lackey, “it’s just that simple.”

16 thoughts on “The Waterboy”

  1. “The people of the 14th District deserve…”

    Chuckle.

    And just who do you think elected him?

  2. Yikes, what an unfortunate choice of words, but very telling. There are political hacks on both sides of the aisle, but few admit it so clearly !

    I wonder if the good people of the district are listening. Or maybe they like it that way.

  3. Maria, Pete did say Part of my job…”, so please don’t overlook that.

    How many in his position would admit publicly to that part of his job? It happens all the time, therefore it is fine with me regardless of which side we are on.

    Personally, I think his candor speaks well of Pete!

  4. No it’s not part of his job. Can you imagine Turdman Adams saying the same thing?

    No surprise with Perry being the apologist for one of his own kind. I can’t wait until Perry gives that kind of benefit of the doubt to a Republican.

  5. When you are going up against the Delaware Way you need a lot of water. Better to carry water for Markell, than to carry it for Thurman Adams and the racinos.

    Pete was expressing his support for the Governor’s mandate of change, in the context of the racino tax. Maria added the word “lackey” not Pete. And Maria deliberately dropped the context of the quote to make it appear Pete was expressing slavish support of the governor beyond the racino bill.

    I am disappointed with the shallowness of this post. It is a knee jerk attack with a lack of critical thinking. It is a Drudge style post intended to generate heat but no light. Maybe the racinos will line up a nice job for Maria.

  6. “This is a proposal of the President. Part of my job is to carry the water for President Bush and it’s just that simple.”

    Can you imagine noman’s reaction if that was a quote from a republican? Save it for someone who’ll buy it, noman.

    And “waterboy,” “lackey,” “puppet,” is there suddenly a difference?

  7. In my defense, my comment about the job was supposed to be a cheap shot at the racinos, not at Maria.

    And there is no shortage of comments from Republicans on how it is everyone’s duty to support the President – they use that concept like a weapon. But carrying water is in Republican DNA.

  8. Rep. Schwartzkopf clearly is a man who chooses his words carefully so I would have to believe he ment what he said. It is unfortunate that he has forgotten or never knew that his only job is to represent (hense the titlle of Representative ),the people who elected him.
    He also would better serve his constituents if he would study the history and intent of our three branches of government.
    The legislative branch is not intended as the facilitator of the administration , but as a check and balance. This does not mean that a Representative cannot have the same views and goals as the governor . So in this case it would seem that Rep. Schwartzkopf either made a verbal faux pas or a Freudian slip.

  9. Maria, if I am not mistaken, you updated your original post. If so, and you are going to do that, I suggest you label the updated part as such, because your update might change a person’s response, though for me not this time.

    Secondly, you did not acknowledge that Pete said “Part of my job ….” That makes a big difference, which at least partly nullifies your criticism.

    And Elwood, re Thurman baby, my perception was that RAM carried his water!!! That’s changed! I don’t think that Markell carries anybody’s water but his own and the people of DE. His problem: A $750 million shortfall. That’s mercury, not water! I’d like to know what Bill Lee would have done with that heavy bucket.

  10. It was a pretty dumb thing to say, particularly given how he has been butting heads with the Guv lately over the particulars of the racino legislation (I’m sure Markell didn’t appreciate having a substitute bill introduced on the day of the LAST public comment session at Del Tech).

  11. Maria,
    Since when did I become your enemy? I would like to explain my comment. I did say part of my job was to carry the water for the Gov. It is something I learned from watching Majority Leader(now Speaker) Gilligan when we were in the minority. The Gov. has certain pieces of legislation that he would like to introduce in furtherance of his agenda or, in this case, one of his proposals to balance the budget. However, he is not permitted to introduce legislation as we all know so someone has to sponsor his legislation. That duty falls to the leader of the Gov’s party which, in this case, is me. The term “carrying the water” is a political term for introducing the gov’s legislation. It doesn’t mean I have to support it or even vote for it. It is just a means to introduce it into the House. There is a difference between carring the water and being the waterboy. In this particular case, I do support the bill to take a bigger split from the casinos and I would like to see the DelPointe project in the Millsboro area which would bring approx. 6000 jobs over 3 years to the county with the highest unemployment rate and a lot of good paying full time jobs when the project is built out. That’s why I supported the bill. I am trying to help the state with the additional money so we can try to reduce the impact on state workers and I am trying to help Sussex County by enabling jobs to occur which is how you get out of a recession- creating jobs! I know you won’t agree with me because of your moral objection to gambling and I respect that but I don’t have the luxury of just saying I don’t want one piece when it comes as a package which is the only way to get the votes required to pass it. If, or I should say when, we pass it, we can start to try to help the state employees but without that $55 million we can’t even begin to reduce the state employees burden.
    I can honestly say that I no longer surf the blogs on any kind of a regular basis and I was directed to this one by a friend. I also don’t usually actively participate in the blogging but, since it was you Maria, I decided to write because of our past friendship and hours spent on your radio show. I probably won’t respond to any replies to this entry but, if anyone wants to call and discuss what I wrote, my home number is 227-6252.
    Pete

  12. “I know you won’t agree with me because of your moral objection to gambling”

    Pete, you sat in the Georgetown public hearing where I expressed my views on this topic. I did not make a “moral objection” to expanding gambling in Delaware, my objection was that our Governor had an entire book containing his plans for getting Delaware on the right economic track, and gambling wasn’t mentioned, it also wasn’t a centerpiece of any legislator’s campaign. It’s a fast, easy way to generate money, but it in no way will make the state more attractive to other businesses.

    And Pete, you represent the district I live in, and I would never have cast my vote for someone if I thought they would go to Dover to do another politicians bidding.

  13. Maria just wrote: “And Pete, you represent the district I live in, and I would never have cast my vote for someone if I thought they would go to Dover to do another politicians bidding.”

    This is preposterous, Maria, for you to write this after Pete carefully explained his obligation to introduce Governor Markell’s legislation package, even if there may be elements of it with which he does not himself support, or, if there is a separate item that Pete himself favors, like DelPointe.

    On the other hand, it is fine for you to object to Pete’s position on the DelPointe proposal, an objection which he acknowledges even though he misunderstood your basis which was not a moral objection, rather based on your opinion that it would do nothing to attract new business to the state.

    It’s a given, every politician must finally make a choice on each issue; it’s a given that any particular choice will not satisfy some of his constituents.

    Following Pete’s explanation, Maria, are you still confused about Pete’s duties?

Comments are closed.