When I took this photo of Nick Cunningham in late April, he looked like the farthest thing from a Shorebird of the Week. Even after this effective appearance against Greensboro, his ERA had only dropped to 7.88 and it would balloon again by the end of April to 11.88, exceeding even his ghastly 10.09 ERA he had here in 2014 when he allowed 45 runs (40 earned) in 35 1/3 innings. Batters hit .369 against him last year; although it dropped to .314 in April he was still giving up multiple runs seemingly every other game.
One advantage for players who struggle early in the season, though, is a roster dodge teams often do. Since Aberdeen and other short-season teams aren’t playing yet (but have roster space) teams will “demote” struggling players to the lower level, placing them out of game situations but maintaining the chance to work with them on the side. Presumably that was Cunningham’s lot as he was “sent down” May 6 and returned on his 24th birthday, May 21.
Since his return the leaf has turned over, as Cunningham has gone 3-0 with a 1.73 ERA and 1.03 WHIP – it was as if a totally new pitcher had arrived. Even in a couple spot starts Nick has been effective and fans no longer cringe when he comes in from the bullpen.
Over the years I’ve featured a number of players who toiled in mediocrity (or worse) before the point came where they seemingly and suddenly “got it.” Perhaps the 20th round selection from the University of Arizona two years back “got it” during the two weeks he was off the active roster because he’s become much more effective. Augusta found that out when he scattered three harmless hits in three innings on Tuesday night to get the win as he held a 5-4 lead.
In any case, he may be lining himself up for a chance at the next level. It took Nick parts of two seasons to advance from Aberdeen, and his second bite of the Delmarva apple is now far sweeter than the first. Just don’t count him out if he struggles to start in Frederick.
This week is the week many of us get our bad news. Yes, health insurance premiums are going up again.
While I haven’t been at my new job long enough to really compare rates and coverage, we were informed ours was increasing by an unspecified percentage – I think it’s in the 5 to 10 percent range if my memory of the old rates serves. Meanwhile, my fiance’s employer is seeing increases of between 10 and 13 percent, depending on plan.
Knowing that, I pulled out a calculator and did some quick number-crunching. Based on a 10 percent increase and her rates for a family plan, I deduced the annual deduction would increase by over $1,100.
Now stop and think for a minute. In these days of tight belts but comparatively low inflation otherwise, the average wage-earner gets an increase of 3% this year. Let’s say you are a median wage-earner in this region, which is just under $40,000 – I’ll make it 40 large for easy figuring. If you figure that 3 percent raise is $1,200, it means almost all of that raise was swallowed by your insurance increase. So much for that vaunted $2,500 annual premium decrease.
And so much for your family vacation, putting aside money for college, and those nice little extras. Add in the increasing deductibles and co-pays and it seems like you got no raise at all – in fact, you may wonder how you will make it through a month when everything seems to be increasing by 3% a month. (Granted, we are catching a break with gas prices edging back down – a $1 decrease per gallon is like a tax-free $400 to $600 annual raise.)
Now I don’t blame the insurance companies because they have to keep themselves in business at a time when there are more and more mandates placed on them. (For example, I’m sure a few pennies of that increase go to covering in-vitro fertilization for same-sex couples, which this month became yet another mandate under state law.)
So if you’re wondering why you can’t seem to get ahead, this little bit of basic math may be an explanation.
In relatively breaking news, Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina has filed a motion to vacate the House chair. Translation from wonkspeak: he wants to remove John Boehner as Speaker of the House. However, Meadows has couched his request in such a way that it has to go through committee, which essentially is a death sentence for the resolution. As he told the Washington Post:
What I’m hopeful for is this provided perhaps the impetus to have a discussion, a family discussion, where we can start talking about how we can make sure that every voice, every vote matters, and really about representing the American people. Ultimately what I want to is to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
So really this is not an effort to get rid of Boehner but to put him on notice? That won’t go too far. The time to get rid of John Boehner was in January, but there was no organization behind that effort. Short of him resigning as Speaker, we are stuck with him through 2016. Even if a majority of Republicans supported the effort, the Democrats probably won’t bite because John Boehner is probably the best Republican Speaker they can get, and there are a fair number of Republicans who will suck up to leadership.
America really needs a do-over in 2016. If there were ever a time for the “throw the bums out” mentality, it would be right now. Tough-talking complete outsider Donald Trump is light-years in front in GOP polling, and while it’s likely that lead will dissipate when people begin to pay attention it should be noted that early in the 2012 campaign, during the fall of 2011, those miffed at Washington were backing the outsider businessman in the person of Herman Cain. Like Trump talks tough on immigration, Cain made a lot of hay around his 9-9-9 tax program. Ugly rumors of an extramarital affair did Cain in, but we will need to wait to see what, if anything given his celebrity, can be dug up on the Donald.
I sense a mood of resignation from rank-and-file Republican regulars, though. In the back of our minds we figured this was how it would be despite getting the Senate back after an eight-year hiatus. There is always an excuse with this bunch, and even though people are weary of Barack Obama the press is not actively driving down his polling numbers as they did for George W. Bush – so there is the illusion that he is still popular. But well-liked presidents don’t lose over 80 Congressional seats during their tenure. (Bush lost 36 in 2006, but had gained 17 in the two preceding elections.)
I think the impression was that we would make Obama’s veto pen his most-used writing instrument, but once again we are being let down by a spineless leadership who quakes at the thought of being blamed for anything. News flash: you will be anyway so you may as well be guilty of what you are accused of.
No, we won’t see a Speaker of the House fall, but we will get more evidence the natives are restless.
Sometimes we make the best advance plans and they go for naught. It happened to the Wicomico County Republican Club tonight when not just one, but both of their scheduled speakers had to send their regrets thanks to Uncle Sam and an Annapolis meeting. So we heard from neither Jake Day nor Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio tonight.
But we did get some business done and firmed up a number of dates for future reference.
Alison Pulcher filled in for Jake Day a little bit as his campaign manager, officially sending his regrets by noting he was “really sad” that he couldn’t be there. One question which was asked is why the onetime Republican switched parties, with Pulcher responding her belief that he has “ideologies on both sides of the plate.” She herself was impressed with the passion on both sides of the aisle here, as she isn’t a native to the region.
In his Central Committee report, Mark McIver confirmed the Lincoln Day Dinner is slated for November 7 and will feature Andy Harris. But he also asked for a moment of silence for longtime WCRCC member Blan Harcum, whose farm was the scene of an incident today that left Mark “devastated.”
After that silence, McIver was asked whether the Central Committee had any involvement with the local liquor board, which they do not. But it was a point that we should check into as appointments were allegedly made at the behest of one of our local Senators, and not the one who is of our party.
The conversation then turned to the elected school board as McIver was one of those chosen to testify in an open work session before County Council. Intentionally or not, it was somewhat stacked with Democrats and opponents of an elected board.
Marc Kilmer chimed in, announcing public hearings were scheduled for September 10, 22, and 29, and October 15. They would be distributed between the Pittsville/Parsonsburg area, Delmar, the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center, and First Baptist Church in Salisbury. The only confirmed date/location so far is September 22 at the WYCC.
Kilmer conceded, though, that things may be beyond our control. When it comes to getting the legislation necessary for the transition, “the only person that matters is Jim Mathias.” Custom requires that all Senators representing a county should be on board with legislation affecting it, and Mathias shares representation with Addie Eckardt, who supports the elected board.
Since the two newest school board members were there, it was asked if they could make the point to the incoming superintendent that this was something they may have to work with. The process will begin soon, but one thing I didn’t know is that the new administrator has to win state approval as well. I suspect we may not get the school board’s first choice.
Because we lost an officer when Joe Collins was selected for the Board of Elections, we had to select a new 2nd vice-president and Dave Snyder stepped forward. He was elected by acclamation.
The next announcement was that the Wicomico County Fair was coming up August 14-16. I had a signup sheet out for fine Republicans to work at our table, and I’m pleased with the response. Ann Suthowski suggested we let the elected and appointed officials know we would be there.
Another event on the horizon is the Crab Feast, which is coming together. We should have the liquor license this week, so “our biggest fundraiser” was just in need of volunteers to help with setup, cooking, takedown, and the silent auction. We are set for September 12 otherwise, and the tickets are just $30.
That was pretty much the extent of a tidy meeting which came in under an hour. Next month we hope to reschedule Jake Day (and maybe Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio) – regardless we will reconvene on August 24.
Do you recall the “new” water-saving toilets that you had to flush twice to get the job done? Don’t look now, but Rick Manning tells us that “technology” is coming to dishwashers:
What could go wrong?
Nothing so long as homeowners don’t mind grunge baked onto their dishes due to the failure to have sufficient water to clean off the food. No matter how much Cascade and JetDry you put into the system, not enough water means disgusting baked on egg, and other delights.
The purported reason for the water limitations is to cut those dreaded greenhouse emissions to comply with Obama’s on-going global warming jihad. In Obama’s Ivory Tower world, it is inconceivable that a dishwasher that doesn’t actually get dishes clean might cause people to take alternative action. The most likely of which is to use much more water by hand washing every dish before it goes into the dishwasher and effectively only use the appliance for killing bacteria through the high heat drying process. Or, perhaps people could go full Madge, and only hand wash dishes rendering the modern appliance and convenience useless.
The idea is to wash a full load of dishes in 3.1 gallons of water. As of 2012 an Energy Star dishwasher uses 4.25 or fewer gallons so we are going through all this to save perhaps 300 gallons of water a year, or about 10-12 average showers.
Of course, as Manning points out, this assumes a dishwasher gets all the items rinsed off and doesn’t bake it on but good. In our household we generally pre-rinse dishes to lend the dishwasher a hand, so that doesn’t really change our strategy. But when I was single I didn’t bother because, after all, that’s what the dishwasher was for!
There is a time when returns diminish to almost nothing. Sometimes I think the EPA believes in their heart of hearts that the optimum amount of water needed in a dishwasher would be zero, but that’s impossible unless you can clean the dishes with pixie dust and blow the debris away with unicorn farts.
The dishwasher is supposed to be a labor-saving device, and I know: for over a decade I lived in a house where the dishwasher was my two hands. There was really nowhere to place one in our kitchen. So it is a benefit to be able to use somewhat less water to do dishes – after you fill one side of the sink with a gallon or two of sudsy water and run the tap when it comes time to rinse on the other side it’s likely you’ll use 8 to 10 gallons of water. Thus, a dishwasher is an improvement both in water efficiency and time, because who wants to stand and do dishes for a half-hour?
That’s not to say that the market won’t demand a less thirsty dishwasher, but that should be up to the market. When low-flow toilets originally came out, there was a black market as consumers who could make the drive went to Canada to buy the good old-fashioned 3-gallon models. By next year, that old underground railroad may be back again to provide dishwashers that do it right the first time.
Follow the money. Someone did and a whole slew of America’s corporate giants had some ‘splainin to do.
Over the past few days, the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website has followed a story where a website called Second Vote tracked corporate donations to Planned Parenthood, notorious alleged purveyor of aborted baby parts. Three of the 41 immediately denied they donated to the organization nor did they match employee contributions, while others downplayed their role by protesting Planned Parenthood was a 501 (c)(3) like any other eligible group and it was up to employees to contribute. By week’s end, Planned Parenthood eliminated this lightning rod for criticism by pulling the entire corporate donor list.
It would be an interesting study, though, to figure out whether these companies have any restrictions at all on giving to pro-life groups – that is, when they can actually receive 501(c)(3) status the IRS is reticent to give out. Perhaps pro-lifers should adopt the tactic of this group, which is more politically correct and has both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status as two “separate” entities. Or maybe they can be “engaged in education, training, organizing, action, and coalition building” as this 501(c)(3) is. Somehow I doubt the IRS gave them any issues.
Maybe the biggest objection on this whole front is that our tax dollars help Planned Parenthood carry out its mission – even if they can’t legally spend the money on providing abortions, surely they are using it to pay the staff who does the service and they can use the medical equipment in a number of other procedures. If they just happen to be abortions where they avoid doing things in a “crunchy” manner, so be it.
What it all comes down to is that Planned Parenthood would come to a lot less grief if they just got out of the abortion business. After all, its defenders say that only about 3% of its procedures are abortions, so it would be like a 3% budget cut, wouldn’t it? You wouldn’t miss three measly percent and the staff would have plenty to do to keep them busy, right?
Obviously I don’t see this occurring, despite the fact its founder has been associated with the 20th century eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger was in favor of contraception “to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles and among the most ignorant people.” Considering the outsized proportion of minority abortions to their overall numbers, she may be attaining her wish.
Body parts, though, don’t reflect poverty, upbringing, or ignorance. They seem to have a value regardless of source, so why can’t we give a value to the lives snuffed out for their ghoulish harvest? Obviously corporations concerned about their image already have, if only to avoid the bad optics of being associated with abortion these days.
Third out of my ten priority issues for the 2016 candidates is energy, where candidates can score up to seven points with an agreeable policy. You’re likely asking what would be agreeable to me, so here is a quick primer.
As you likely know from reading this site regularly, I’m in favor of letting the market determine what is efficient and inexpensive. Since oil is plentiful and relatively cheap within our shores, I think we need to allow exploration wherever possible including offshore areas currently off-limits. The same goes for natural gas, with hydraulic fracturing being a proven technique to extract both oil and natural gas. It should be encouraged, including the infrastructure needed to more safely transport it – yes, that means build the Keystone XL pipeline.
Maybe the best way to put it is that I advocate a “most-of-the-above” energy policy. Those items which are exceptions would be federal subsidies for the solar and wind industries, which should be made to compete on a more level playing field. We need to also dump the Renewable Fuel Standard because it makes no sense to grow food to turn into fuel. This may not make me a lot of friends in the corn industry, but it’s time to end the failed experiment.
I also have nothing against the coal industry, so let them keep mining and burning coal.
Now that you get the idea of where I stand, where do the candidates stand?
There are a couple more specific resources that I used for this exercise. On the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Huffington Post blogger Heather Taylor-Miesle shared the following, with some assistance from the League of Conservation Voters:
- Jeb Bush would phase out the credit in three to five years.
- Chris Christie “endorsed the RFS as the law of the land,” and has similar tax credits in his state so I would consider him an extender.
- Ted Cruz voted in the Senate to end the PTC.
- Carly Fiorina would be for phasing out the PTC by 2020.
- Lindsey Graham also voted in the Senate recently to end the PTC.
- Mike Huckabee appears to be noncommittal on extending the credit, saying it “needs to be debated.”
- Last year, Bobby Jindal released a detailed energy plan I’ll refer to frequently for this exercise. He’s also in the phaseout camp for the PTC but has an intriguing financing idea to take its place.
- John Kasich is new to the race, but he signed into law restrictive setback rules for wind turbines in Ohio.
- George Pataki “thinks wind energy is mature enough to flourish with no government support.” So I would assume he would at worst phase it out over time.
- Rand Paul also voted in the Senate to end the PTC.
- Rick Perry doesn’t want a federal PTC but is fine with states adopting it.
- Rick Santorum was for phasing out the PTC when he ran in 2012.
- Donald Trump is “vehemently opposed” to wind power.
- Scott Walker would also phase out the PTC “over a period of time.” He also signed strict siting legislation similar to Ohio’s.
I also leaned on a well-done Ballotpedia article for many of these candidates, as well as their campaign websites. This gives me an idea of just how much they are committed to energy as a topic for the campaign.
But I honestly wish every candidate would cover every issue as thoroughly as Bobby Jindal presents his energy platform. Even the title is optimistic: “Organizing Around Abundance.” There’s not much at all to dislike within it, either. I spent a very productive half-hour reading through the report and if he doesn’t win the Presidency we should at least make Jindal the Secretary of Energy. The next President has the blueprint dropped into his or her lap right here.
Total score for Jindal – 6.9 of 7.
Ted Cruz couches his energy policy as one of jobs and opportunity, and in that respect he is right on. He voted to end wind subsidies, and told an Iowa crowd in the middle of corn country that ethanol subsidies had to go. His Ballotpedia energy profile lists any number of bills he co-sponsored to assist in deregulating the energy industry. The only question is how well he would be able to use his bully pulpit, but there’s not a lot to dislike about the Cruz approach so I give it high marks.
Total score for Cruz – 6.6 of 7.
Listen, if he wants to live a sustainable lifestyle on his own time that’s cool but “well thought-out regulations” is generally an oxymoron to the highest degree. So while I like his stances on encouraging drilling and exporting oil and natural gas, Rand comes in a cut below the top tier.
Total score for Paul – 5.0 of 7.
On his state level, Rick Perry has presided over a boom in most energy sectors, although some accuse him of lagging on solar. He signed a modest renewable energy portfolio, which thanks to abundant wind resources is covered – at a cost of several dollars a month on state electric bills.
But Perry, surprisingly, doesn’t have an energy policy spelled out. I know he’s fracking-friendly and supports exporting of oil, but the key unanswered question is just how far he would allow a state-centered approach to go if it gets in the way of his overall goals. Are state’s rights that paramount?
Total score for Perry – 4.2 of 7.
While Lindsey Graham voted recently to end the PTC, there are areas of his energy program which cause me concern. (He gets kudos for wrapping it up in one easy-to-digest package, though. It’s more than most of his counterparts put up.) The nagging thought I have is about “investing in cutting-edge technologies.” Did we not learn a lesson with Solyndra? And in the back of my mind, I wonder if he still believes this after seeing five years of the fracking boom?
Total score for Graham – 3.6 of 7.
It’s always revealing to see who the Left dislikes most, and Scott Walker was declared as the “worst candidate for the environment.” This was basically because he didn’t fall in with Radical Green. He seems to remind them of Snidely Whiplash, even cutting funding for a renewable energy research center. Yet on a state level he has kept a number of programs going, even though he was also worried about the effects of wind turbines on health.
But I saw the flip-flop on the RFS, and that hurt his chances with me. Nor does he delve into energy on his website.
Total score for Walker – 3.5 of 7.
Mike Huckabee is all over the map on energy. He won’t commit one way or the other on wind, has gone from ethanol supporter to opponent depending on venue and audience, but says we should exploit “anything and everything” when it comes to domestic energy. I like the ideas of relaxing export and exploration restrictions on oil and natural gas, but suspect that green energy subsidies won’t be going away soon as he once backed cap-and-trade. He would be better than some others, and I like the America-first attitude, but he falls short of the top tier with his indecisiveness.
Total score for Huckabee – 2.7 of 7.
You would think Jeb Bush would be very good on energy given his family’s interest in oil. But he has a go-slow approach in several areas, including the delayed phaseout of the PTC and a call for “rational” restrictions on fracking – remember, “rational” is always in the eye of the beholder. He is in favor of finishing Keystone XL and opening federal lands to drilling, which is a minor plus, but also endorsed a national goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025 – that would be a job-killer. I’m just afraid a Bush administration would be a repeat of his brother’s, where we were saddled with programs such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (which he wants to keep) and regulatory demise of inexpensive incandescent light bulbs.
Total score for Bush – 2.5 of 7.
While George Pataki deserves some credit for advocating an end to New York’s fracking ban and correctly feels that wind subsidies need to be blown away, what worries me are his thoughts on ethanol. I think the jury is still out on “clean,” but while corn-based ethanol is relatively renewable and American-made, I would rather eat my corn than put it in my gas tank. I can’t eat tar sands or sweet light crude.
Like Bush above, Pataki also signed the “25 in ’25″ pledge, so I don’t think he gets that the market should lead, not government.
Total score for Pataki – 2.5 of 7.
Chris Christie has a very mixed record – great for items like pulling out of the RGGI boondoggle that Martin O’Malley entangled us into, but in the same breath he banned new coal-fired power plants in the state. After putting out a one-year moratorium on fracking, he at least came to his senses 2 years later and vetoed a fracking ban. Offshore wind projects are stalled, but he has high hopes for solar. Rationalizing our approach to regulations and lifting the ban on exporting crude oil are positives, but not going after some of the biggest hurdles to a free energy market negates these campaign planks.
As a whole, though, he’s less trustworthy than Bush but hangs around that same level.
Total score for Christie – 2.3 of 7.
Making news on how his views have changed on the climate is the bulk of my look into Marco Rubio‘s policies. At one time he voted for looking into a cap-and-trade program for Florida, but claims he was never really for it. At that time he had a lot of green-friendly ideas, so I don’t know where he stands now. It’s a trust issue.
Total score for Rubio – 2.0 of 7.
Carly Fiorina has slim pickings when it comes to energy; however, her vow to eliminate the PTC by 2020 is at odds with the “all-of-the-above” approach she championed in 2010. More recently she’s tried to convince skeptical audiences we can innovate our way out of climate change, but that innovation once included support for a cap-and-trade program once proposed by John McCain. I just don’t see a whole lot of consistency and the lack of an issues page on her site makes it even worse.
Total score for Fiorina – 1.5 of 7.
John Kasich is new to the race, and as such has no energy platform on his website. But several discouraging acts of late give me pause: an effort to increase taxes on energy producers coupled with the reversal of an earlier decision to allow fracking on state lands outweigh positive moves to freeze the state’s renewable energy portfolio requirements and place prudent tabs on wind turbine siting. I see more of the same leftward drift with Kasich.
Total score for Kasich – 1.4 of 7.
While he isn’t opposed to fracking, the pandering Rick Santorum did in Iowa at the feet of King Corn made me wonder if he wouldn’t do the same on other issues. He once voted against the PTC but Iowa is also a leader in wind, so who knows what he will say next. Will he really stand up to the EPA? You would think a candidate from a fracking state would say more on his website and in general about energy, but Rick doesn’t.
Total score for Santorum – 1.4 of 7.
Okay, we know Donald Trump understands the economic benefits of fracking and loathes wind and solar power. But I have no idea what this will do with policy. All the hullabaloo over immigration and John McCain isn’t helping either.
Total score for Trump – 0.5 of 7.
You may have noticed an omission among the group atop the post when it came to wind. Quite frankly Ben Carson is a non-entity when it comes to energy issues. Aside from a vague reference to “developing our natural energy resources,” the biggest indicator I could find is this piece where he claims in one breath he wants a free energy market, but makes the exception for not just E-15, but E-30. If you want to lose the boat owner vote you just succeeded wildly.
Total score for Carson – 0.0 of 7. (Yes, that is a goose egg.)
It used to be that Social Security was the “third rail” of politics – touch it and you’re dead. But now I think social issues have become that for the GOP; nevertheless that is my next topic.
Lately this has been a familiar position for Yermin Mercedes – getting congratulations for yet another home run blast. (This particular one occurred Sunday, erasing an early 1-0 deficit and providing the first three Delmarva runs in a 16-6 blowout of Greensboro.)
And it’s a tale of taking advantage of an opportunity as a player chases his dream through the lowest of the low rungs of the minor leagues. Once the property of the Washington Nationals, where Mercedes hit .296 in 123 games over three seasons for their Dominican Summer League team, Yermin wasn’t through when the Nationals cut him loose after 2013. Instead, he traveled to the U.S. and latched on with the Douglas Diablos of the Pecos League, an independent loop based in Texas and the Southwest. It was a bizarre 2014 season as Mercedes played with three teams in two leagues: Douglas and White Sands of the Pecos League for 54 games and the San Angelo Colts of the now-defunct United League for six.
All told, the numbers were eye-popping: a .380 average with 17 home runs, 74 knocked in, and a 1.119 OPS. It’s worth noting, though, that these are not pitching-rich leagues: the aggregate Pecos League average last year was .314 with an .852 OPS. Regardless of the quality of the league, by season’s end Mercedes had the first step on his path complete as the Orioles inked him to a minor league deal last August 28 for the 2015 season.
But the story gets even better. Delmarva looked to be set at catcher with Alex Murphy and Jonah Heim, both high draft selections in 2013 who were ticketed for the Shorebirds. Unfortunately for them, the duo has only caught 43 games as both have been sidelined by injury. Heim’s injury in late May paved the way for Mercedes to replace him, and Yermin has hit as one may expect with a .291/6/25/.887 OPS slash line in 32 games.
Yermin’s been in the pro ranks since 2011 but the Dominican native is still only 22 and has played a little bit of first base and third base in his career, along with three innings of mound duty last season.
And he’s been a one-man wrecking crew in the last week: along with his three-run smash against Greensboro that reversed the early deficit, last Thursday he hit a grand slam in a 7-4 loss to Lexington after a 3-run blast in an 11-3 win the night before. Not only that, his 2-run 9th inning triple tied the homestand finale against Greensboro Monday before he scored the winning tally in that 3-2 victory and last night he knocked in the first of the two runs Delmarva beat Charleston with, 2-0. In seven games he has three home runs and 14 RBI.
Add in the fact he’s caught 38% of would-be base stealers (after posting close to 50% in the DSL) and you may wonder why the Nationals didn’t keep him around. The Orioles are probably glad they didn’t.
I know I’m a day late to the party, but I think most people with political sense already had Ohio governor John Kasich priced into the presidential market, so to speak. So what does he bring to the table and does his late announcement make sense?
If you look at the GOP race, it is chock full of governors. Let’s make a list, shall we?
- Jeb Bush had two terms as Florida’s governor which mostly overlapped his brother’s tenure in the White House.
- Chris Christie is in his second term as governor of New Jersey.
- Mike Huckabee served two-plus terms as Arkansas governor, becoming governor when Jim Guy Tucker resigned in 1996 and winning election in 1998 and 2002.
- Bobby Jindal is finishing his second term as Louisiana’s governor.
- George Pataki was governor of New York for three terms, with 9/11 being the biggest milestone.
- Rick Perry became Texas governor when George W. Bush resigned to become President, and won full terms in 2002, 2006, and 2010.
- Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin in 2010, survived a 2012 recall attempt, and won re-election in 2014.
Aside from the failed recall, Kasich comes in on roughly the same career trajectory as Scott Walker – both are Midwest governors who tangled with Big Labor, although Kasich’s reforms were not as successful.
So what does he have that others don’t? Kasich was a Congressman for nearly two decades, which eliminates everyone else in the field except Jindal, who had a much shorter run. But in reality, he’s coming in on the centrist side of the GOP spectrum, which is already somewhat crowded with Christie, Pataki, and to some extent Jeb Bush. Among non-governors, it’s territory that is familiar to Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham. Certainly there are many trying to woo that segment of the Republican party.
But while centrists may be the ones donating money, the question is always whether they will show up to vote. Primaries, more often than not, are contests where the more conservative candidates win because their backers are more passionate. Ask Senator Castle from Delaware about that sometime. The establishment knows this, which is why in a state like Ohio the GOP does its level best to clear the field beforehand. (In 2010, despite there being a Democratic incumbent, John Kasich was the only Republican in the primary.)
Ohio has had eight presidents, and with the exception of William Henry Harrison, all of them were Republicans. (The elder Harrison was a Whig.) It’s a must-win state for the GOP, which is one reason why the Republicans are having their convention next year in Cleveland.
So don’t sleep on Kasich. I doubt he will be my first choice, but over the next few weeks I’ll see how he looks on my issues.
Consider this an open letter to the 16 or 17 Republican presidential campaign teams.
From the sound of it, we are planning to do our Wicomico County Lincoln Day Dinner in early November. Originally we wanted to get Larry Hogan as our speaker, but so did everyone else and then he announced he’s fighting stage 3 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Given the length of the course of treatment, it’s not likely he’ll be doing a great deal of traveling and public appearances during that time – however, should he decide to drop by the door is certainly open. I’m sure Larry would be gracious, even if it wasn’t his endorsee Chris Christie doing the talking.
Yet it’s always been puzzling to me as to why we in Wicomico County can’t get a better “name” speaker. After all, we are the “crossroads of Delmarva” and that has to count for something, right? Not only that, we have a wonderful venue at Salisbury University that we have used for several years – the food is always good.
So I look at this as a great chance for a presidential candidate who wants to think a little bit outside the box and perhaps swipe a few votes with some retail politics. We’re not all that far from New Hampshire and there are several attributes the schedulers may want to consider:
- Between Maryland and Delaware there will be 54 Republican convention delegates (38 for Maryland, 16 for Delaware.) Even though Iowa and New Hampshire have a more advantageous position on the primary calendar, they only account for 53 delegates between them.
- There is a potential audience of 102,793 Republicans within the four counties that make up the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland and Sussex County, Delaware. That doesn’t count unaffiliated and crossover Democrats who are desperate to not vote for Hillary.
- All of them are within the Salisbury media market, and it’s not like the news in Salisbury has a lot of content. You may get wall-to-wall coverage if you show up.
- We have a pretty good fundraising scheme in place which we used for the Patriot’s Dinner with Lt. Col. Allen West last year.
- Lastly, not every Lincoln Day Dinner actually has a Lincoln. We do. He might even bring some Union troops along.
Generally our Lincoln Day dinner gets between 100 and 150 people – but I see no reason we couldn’t get 300 to 400 with the right candidate. The optics of a sold-out venue would be a shot in the arm for any campaign, so why not take advantage? You can’t let Donald Trump be the last one to show up at a Maryland event.
Back in 2012, the all-but-lost cause of Newt Gingrich came to Salisbury and drew plenty of regional attention, so here’s my earnest plea on behalf of the good Republicans of Delmarva: retail politics may well go a long way here. Do it while you’re still in the race this November and it may pay off in a year’s time.
Besides, isn’t the old adage “ask and you shall receive?” I’m asking nicely.
By Cathy Keim
Abortion is murder. If we would stop dancing around about choice, privacy, complicating circumstances, etc. and just state the facts plainly, then the discussion would be clearer.
When a woman is pregnant, there are two people involved: the woman and the baby in her womb. After an abortion, there is a woman and a dead baby outside her womb. (Yes, there is also a father, but he cannot stop the mother from having an abortion.)
This is amazing in its gruesome truth. We, as a nation, have murdered over 55 million babies since 1973 when seven of our Supreme Court justices determined that abortion was just fine.
Now there is a video to reveal how hardened one can become to this terrible truth. If you murder enough babies, then it just becomes another day at work. But we find out that murdering babies isn’t enough. Profit can be made by selling pieces of the murdered children.
The undercover video was filmed in July 2014 by the Center for Medical Progress, an advocacy group that reports on medical ethics. They dispatched two actors posing as representatives of a human biologics company to a business lunch with Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services.
Dr. Nucatola casually discusses how she extracts body parts unharmed so that they can be used in medical research. These children that Planned Parenthood refers to as blobs of tissue have such developed tissue that it is sold as hearts, lungs, livers, and brains. All these years Planned Parenthood has been lying to cover their evil actions, but when a purchaser is involved the blobs of tissue are correctly identified as the functioning organs we knew they were.
The mothers that are willingly killing their own child can soothe their conscience by saying that the destroyed pieces of their child are going to help medical researchers find a cure for terrible diseases that afflict many people.
I am sorry, but this is not a decision that any mother should make. An adult may decide to donate a kidney to another person, but we do not allow people to donate their heart to someone else. We do not kill a person to obtain their organs for someone else.
Why is there a consent form for the mother to fill out, but the living child in her womb has no advocate if she decides the child must go? A mother that is in the process of killing her child really should not have the option to donate the poor dead child to medical research so that she can feel that some good has come out of the episode.
Planned Parenthood first tried to say that the video was deceptively edited, but now they are having to regroup and say that the tissue harvesting is legal. Even that is suspect because the video shows Dr. Nucatola discussing changing the baby’s position to enable the abortionist to harvest the desired parts without damage. Federal law states that the abortion cannot be prolonged to allow harvesting.
It is fine by me if this federal law can be used to shut down Planned Parenthood or to remove government funding, but let us go back to my original premise. Abortion is murder. Is it any surprise that once the decision is made to murder a little human being that other bad decisions will follow?
There is the federal government helpfully setting up laws on how the mother must give consent for her baby to be divided up for tissue harvesting. If mom consents, then it is legal.
Next the government makes another law to protect mom from the abortionist prolonging or changing the procedure to increase the yield of good body parts.
Finally, the government makes a law that making profit on the body parts is not okay, but getting reimbursed for the work involved in securing parts of a child is legal.
Once you declare that murder in the form of abortion is legal, then you continue to make one bad decision after another. Are you surprised that a murderer, an attractive young female doctor, would speak calmly of dismembering little bodies while chowing down her lunch?
We have called evil good and good evil for so long that we are hardly even shocked by this story. It is time to speak the truth plainly even if it offends people. I am offended that tearing little ones to pieces in the womb that should be sheltering them from harm is done with monotonous regularity in this country.
Just as a woman could not sign a consent form to donate her body parts resulting in her death, so she should not be able to sign a consent form to donate her living child’s body by way of abortion.
As always, once the government intrudes, the long list of laws, regulations, funding, and exceptions increase. It is time to call abortion murder and be done with all the subterfuge.
Increasingly our country is being divided into two camps with no room for compromise. In this instance, one camp wants murder and the other wants life. I am firmly on the side of life.
Editor’s note: I think it’s worth noting that, while Cathy used a Fox News link to detail the Nucatola story, that news item is filed under “opinion” and not on the lead news site. The video was only opinion insofar as Dr. Nucatola had her guard down because she believed she was speaking to a potential client.
There are a lot of my friends who are deriving a certain amount of schadenfreude over the fact Martin O’Malley was heckled off the stage at the Netroots Nation conference yesterday, as was fellow Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.
But I want to concentrate on what O’Malley reportedly said in response at the start of the interruption: “I know, I know…Let me talk a little bit…Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.” For that, he was shouted down and unable to continue.
I’ll set aside the complete lack of tolerance once again shown by the “tolerant” far left and say that I agree with O’Malley on the last part: all lives do matter. But I’m sure that if you asked the vast majority of O’Malley backers – or even Martin O’Malley himself – about the lives of the unborn, he would immediately change his tune. This is the problem; not only with the Left but with a fair number in the center and a troubling and increasing number on the Right.
It turns out that, as editor of this website, I know exactly what my cohort Cathy Keim is going to write about and tomorrow she will be sharing her thoughts on abortion and the Planned Parenthood situation. (Trust me, you will like what she has to say. I almost ran it today but know that my audience is larger on weekdays and the piece deserves a wider reading.) It’s no secret where we stand on the subject, though.
And it’s even more ironic that the same people who thundered and carried on about #blacklivesmatter are aborting themselves at a far higher rate than the population at large. Do the lives only matter when they are outside the womb?
Just the other day a young couple we know from being at their wedding in January of last year had their first child. I’m sure if you asked them when his life began to matter, they would have said that it became paramount the moment they discovered she was pregnant with him. Maybe they weren’t in the greatest financial situation and their lives will never be perfectly settled as long as the young father serves in the military, but they were understandably excited with the role they would be taking on.
A quote from the Guardian story shows the mentality of the Left. This is MoveOn executive director Anna Galland:
The presidential candidates’ responses today to the powerful protest led by black activists at Netroots Nation … make clear that all Democratic candidates have work to do in understanding and addressing the movement for black lives.
Saying that ‘all lives matter’ or ‘white lives matter’ immediately after saying ‘black lives matter’ minimizes and draws attention away from the specific, distinct ways in which black lives have been devalued by our society and in which black people have been subject to state and other violence.
Do you mean devalued as in receiving an oversize proportion of abortions? Sounds like the extension of your desire of having “choice” to me.
But even more so, it begs a question about how black lives specifically have been “devalued”: presuming this goes back to the days of slavery, what would be considered paying off the debt my great-great-great-great grandparents (and I think I’m recalling the family tree right; there may be another great- missing) supposedly incurred to black people for enslaving them? That is if my ancestors ever held black slaves and I think back in that era they were still in Germany and what is now Poland, so I doubt it.
Obviously that question is rhetorical because no amount would ever satisfy the minds of those who choose to make themselves victims.
In short, all lives matter but it’s the choices we make that determine how much they matter. Those at Netroots seem to want government to determine what constitutes mattering and allow them, through the power of coercing those who made correct choices, to receive atonement for their incorrect selections in life – many of which involved turning their back on God to one extent or another.
Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders may be church-going men, but that which they allow to happen in the name of compassion makes me wonder what they’re being told from the pulpit.