Dogging the blogs
Before I begin, as promised on Friday the U.S. Senate and Maryland General Assembly “debates” are posted below in the next two posts.
But I was pretty perturbed after Ron Alessi’s diatribe yesterday morning. In his “view across the river” he savaged the local blogosphere, and unfortunately some members of my own party are joining the amen chorus on Alessi’s side.
Be honest here – if it weren’t for the local blogs would we have anywhere near the news coverage that we do? There’s a lot that the citizens of Salisbury and the Eastern Shore would be unaware of had it not been for the efforts of people who have found an outlet to tell stories that may or may not have been covered in the regular media. Now the regular media gets many of its story tips from those who spend the time writing up news and first-person accounts of their investigations, discoveries, and other information that they feel is worth sharing. In this case, Mr. Alessi and his allies seem to feel they are being piled on for things they may not feel are germaine to his campaign. But Ron spent almost his entire time on the air Tuesday morning answering Bill Reddish’s questions that pertained to topics brought up by the local blogs, then went out of his way to trash them with his closing statement.
I’m going to say right here that I’m not a supporter of Alessi’s bid for County Executive, but my mind was made up long before this WICO incident occurred. Of the three candidates in the race on the GOP side, I think he’s the least desirable but that’s based on factors other than lawsuits or campaign finance. Simply put, I feel both Bob Culver and B.J. Corbin have more to offer the county.
Saying that, I do feel sometimes that we bloggers go out of bounds on occasion. Obviously we all have our points of view, and we’re not unknown to slant the facts to make our arguments. But it’s relatively easy to determine our point of view up front, and we in the blogosphere forgo the pretense of balance for the most part. (Gee, my predecessor blog to monoblogue was called “ttown’s right wing conspiracy” – where do you think I stand?)
In my case, I have a bias but when I put on my reporter hat, most say that I’m very good at recounting the events that took place. When I get reaction to my reporting, it’s more often than not positive because I write down what happened then translate it to my website so others may know what I saw and heard. And if I speculate, I say so. If you want opinion I have plenty of that to go around as well.
And one opinion I have is that, if Ron Alessi wanted to score points with the voters by trashing the local blogs, he’s got another thing coming. What he forgets is, for all the things the blogosphere may not be as it evolves and grows through its infancy, one thing they are is passionate. And it’s the most passionate voters who go out in September to pick their party’s candidates.
Speaking of passion, I came across a post today on Gunpowder Chronicle I thought was worth mentioning and supplementing with my own opinion as it ties to my campaign for Central Committee.
In his post, GC lists the members of Congress who voted for McCain-Feingold. On it were 2 of the 3 who represent the Delmarva Pennisula in the House, Mike Castle of Delaware and our own Wayne Gilchrest. (Virginia’s Thelma Drake was first elected in 2004 so she didn’t vote on it.)
And this brings me to a platform plank I have. In November I’ll have the choice between a Republican who’s no better than a 60 or 65 on the American Conservative Union ratings (most are in the 80′s or 90′s) or a Democrat who’s sure to be well under even that miserable total – only a handful of Democrats are above 50 according to the ACU. My Republican nominee voted for McCain-Feingold, voted against ANWR, and joined a call for debate on Iraq when this was already done twice before. But, of course, I have no choice in the matter because no one wanted to run against Wayne Gilchrest and I’m sure the Maryland GOP would frown on someone who dared to do so. (It’s why Michael Steele is a presumptive nominee despite having primary opposition.)
Because of my experiences in Ohio with the state GOP playing similar games, I am a strong proponent of contested primaries. If someone of a more conservative mindset wants to challenge Gilchrest in 2008, I’d welcome him or her with open arms to the race, Maryland GOP be damned. It should be up to the voters to decide, not a handful of people in Annapolis who think they know who the most “electable” person is. Those types are the people who kept Arlen Specter in the Senate rather than supporting a better candidate in Pat Toomey.
Yeah, there I go, causing trouble again and I haven’t even been elected yet. Have I told you all that I’m a guy seeking some changes in how the Republican Party in Wicomico County and the state of Maryland is run?
Ten Questions…MGA Debate (part 2)
Part 2 of the Senate debate is below, and Part 1 of this debate can be found here. Here’s a quick review of the players in each district.
Senate District 37:
Rich Colburn, Republican – website and original responses.
House of Delegates District 37A: no responses.
House of Delegates District 37B:
Jim Adkins, Democrat – website and original responses.
Addie Eckardt, Republican – website and original responses.
Senate District 38: no responses.
House of Delegates District 38A:
Patrick Armstrong, Democrat – website and original responses.
House of Delegates District 38B:
Sonny Bloxom, Republican – website and original responses.
Michael James, Republican – website and original responses.
Jack Lord, Republican – website and original responses.
And now, let’s resume with Question #4.
Question #4:
This year a state takeover of several failing Baltimore City Schools was thwarted by the General Assembly overriding an earlier veto of a bill Governor Ehrlich rejected. A few states, though, are attempting to remove themselves from the federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations for various reasons, even at the risk of losing federal dollars. Do you support the federal NCLB mandates or do you feel the state could and should go without the additional restrictions (and funding)?
Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): Maryland can ill afford to forego federal dollars by removing schools from the “No Child Left Behind” regulations. I continue to urge my constituents to do as we have done which is to urge federal representatives to address federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations making them more reasonable. The current regulations cause the teachers to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources preparing the children to pass tests in order to graduate instead of getting back to the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): With regard to” No Child Left Behind” there are some very good aspects, especially the focus on every child receiving a quality education and meeting reading and math standards. Yes, there are some parts that need modification and there has been much discussion with the federal government about this. I would not reject the opportunity to continue with the program. What is more important to me is that we have put over 1 billion dollars into education over the past five years and we put a plan in place to assist schools in the event that students and schools were not making progress. What will happen to those students in the Baltimore city schools who are not reading and doing math? Will they graduate? I think not. Will they be able to get jobs and find meaningful work without the skills necessary to succeed? Or will they not graduate and wind up unemployed, on the streets, or in jail? I have visited an elementary school (an Edison School) that is doing well – students are achieving. I favored the intervention from the State Board to help those failing schools.
James Adkins (D, 37B): I would have to look at the numbers and whether or not Maryland could stand to lose the funding. Right now, NCLB is placing an ever increasing burden on our school systems. The real question is whether or not our students are graduating with more knowledge and are better prepared to enter the workplace and adulthood due to NCLB. Only time will tell, but “bright ideas” from Washington and even from Annapolis may not be as effective as the appropriate resourcing of good ideas by those who have to implement policies.
Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): Today I believe that Maryland should stick with NCLB and the federal funding it brings. As for he legislation passed by Congress, NCLB is a lousy legal mess. The problems it creates for teachers and the roadblocks it puts into place for students are numerous. While many provisions are important for the future of our schools the majority of NCLB has failed our children and our schools, as many states and school boards across the country and in Maryland have discovered. This in mind, Maryland is currently in compliance with NCLB and I believe that we should continue to accept the federal assistance for our schools at this time. As for Baltimore, if a failing school cannot be remedied by the local jurisdiction than it should be taken over by the State until a solution can be found. No school in Maryland should be allowed to fall below our highest expectations for performance and quality education.
Jack Lord (R, 38B): No child left behind means accountable teachers and schools. Most schools could not do without the Federal funding. Worcester is probably the exception. They have some of the highest test scores but receive the least funding of any School system in the state.
Michael James (R, 38B): I support NCLB.
Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): I support the federal NCLB mandates and would urge the state to seek modifications to it where appropriate for our state needs.
Question #5:
In the 2006 General Assembly, the Blackwater development in Cambridge became a contentious issue which led to legislation that was eventually defeated. However, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has continued to apply pressure to legislators and encourage voters to speak out on what they perceive as a threat to bay water quality. On the other hand, the city of Cambridge sees Blackwater as a needed shot in the arm for its economy and tax base. Where do you see yourself on this issue and related development matters?
Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): Regarding Blackwater, I am a strong believer in private property rights. Also, a project that is 3 years old and $10 million dollars into the process should not be thwarted. When it comes to related development matters, I favor managed growth. Growth should be limited to regions already set aside for it in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should not be easily amended simply to accommodate a large development.
James Adkins (D, 37B): I don’t think we should use housing construction alone as the answer to strengthening the Eastern Shore’s economy. We need a full spectrum of employment here on the Shore and must look over the horizon to see what the Shore will look like in the next 50 years. It is a difficult balancing act to recruit the businesses and then make sure that we can provide the employees to run the businesses. The Eastern Shore needs to be able to plug into the high technology located in places like Montgomery County. Unless we can provide this type of opportunity here on the Shore, we will continue to build houses here and people will continue to drive across the Bay Bridge for work there just adding to the congestion on our roadways. Just think what our roads will be like in the future, if we don’t solve this problem. Finally, we have only one chance to get this right. We have to get a handle on growth here on the Shore or we will lose our way of life.
Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): There was a bill in Annapolis that would interrupt the local planning process regarding land development. In regards to the Blackwater legislation, the bill was introduced by western shore legislators without any conversation with the local delegation, which is the customary way of bill introduction. I did not support the bill as it did not come through the local delegation and would usurp the local process prematurely. Dorchester County is often the last frontier for development and since the development of Sailwinds Park, the subsequent focus on the Hyatt, and downtown redevelopment, I believe the process put in place through smart growth and the critical areas needed to be honored. The entire community needed the conversation about growth and the impact on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. As I have traveled across the country, I have been impressed with development that has been managed with sensitivity to the local culture as well as the environmental assets. I have always believed that growth will come to Dorchester and it is important that it be managed carefully with as many citizens involved in the discussion and subsequently the decisions. Cambridge cannot expand services for citizens without some growth. Most of the county is not available for development due to the tidal and nontidal wetlands and the amount of farmland necessary to maintain farming as one of the major businesses. I co-sponsored HB114, which makes several changes regarding local planning and requires local jurisdictions to plan for potential annexation and include in planning documents. It also requires cities and counties to work together. I believe this legislation will address the concerns raised by the Blackwater situation.
Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): I believe that development can occur without serious damage to the bay and surrounding waters. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have in place the proper laws requiring strict environmental protections from runoff and waste disposal. I believe that Blackwater is a dangerous development plan and should be held to much stricter environmental protections than those that are currently in place. As for the lower shore, we understand the importance of the Bay’s health and we understand the need for growth. I propose we hold developers accountable for protecting the bay as they build and ensure that every possible safeguard is in place to prevent further devastation to the waters around the eastern shore.
Jack Lord (R, 38B): Since that development is in District 37B I would defer to the wishes of the two Delegates representing that area.
Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): The state needs to be more involved in land use issues, especially where their interest is greatest (ie. bay water quality, sensitive habitats, and road/transportation systems).
Michael James (R, 38B): From my view, the Blackwater Developers played by the rules, followed the permit process, and communicated with state and local officials from the beginning. It may have helped their cause to do more in the beginning to reach out early to their future opponents, but that is just speculation.
I feel the state government plays a needed role in protecting our environment and should monitor development to ensure that the benefits are not outweighed by problems, current or future. The state should stay active in development matters, however I feel it is unfair to legislate retroactively.
Question #6:
The last two sessions of the General Assembly have seen an inordinate amount of time spent dealing with personnel matters and political appointments. Some have claimed this as a usurpation of power properly belonging to the executive branch (governor’s office) but others see this as a proper extension of the duties of the General Assembly. In your opinion, has the General Assembly gone too far or does the Governor still wield too much power when it comes to personnel decisions?
Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): The General Assembly has gone too far. Thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent already regarding this issue. This is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The Governor is the Chief Executive of the State and consequently should be able to work with individuals with like-minded philosophies. My question is what exactly do my Democratic counterparts not understand about the definition of an at-will employee?
Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): I believe the General Assembly has gone too far to block the Governor’s prerogative that has been the practice for the past 40 or more years. In the previous administration the changes were frequent but I don’t remember anyone questioning the Governor at that time. Government can get pretty entrenched over the years and if agencies are not functioning well, the Governor is held responsible whether he was responsible for the problems or not. The Governor answers to the citizens and if there was one message that rang true during the 2004 campaign it was that government was growing too fast and was not as efficient as it could be. The current Governor put together a transition team to review state government and to recommend changes, which they did. Outcome performance measures were established and managing for results became the expected practice. I did learn this past session that the Legislature does wield a lot of power as well and action became overreaching as bills were introduced and passed that exceeded Constitutional authority.
James Adkins (D, 37B): Maybe the answer is yes and no to both questions. The Governor was operating under expanded “at will” authority provided during the previous administration and authorized by the General Assembly. We can’t keep changing the rules depending on which party is in power. A governor needs the flexibility to have key positions filled by those who support and will implement his or her vision for operations of the executive branch. However, the chief executive and his staff must use good judgment and fairness when implementing policy.
Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): Members of both political parties can agree that political establishments in Maryland have too much power. I believe that removing some of the more basic appointment decisions from the governor is a reasonable step to take. Our executive branch has more power than any other in the country and by reducing that power we can be sure that appointments are keep in check now and in future administrations of either political party.
Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): The General Assembly has gone too far only because we have a Repulican Governor. They would never have done this with a Democratic Governor. They have a legitimate role to play but should do it for the right motives not for politics. Also, they need to remember they are the legislative branch of government and not the executive.
Jack Lord (R, 38B): Only since the Democrats have lost control of the appointment process and large numbers were replaced are they upset. I think the system works fine.
Michael James (R, 38B): The General Assembly has gone too far. They have now spent over $1,000,000.00 on their politically motivated hearings.
******************************
I tell you, this is SO much easier to put together than the U.S. Senate version. Maybe I just asked better questions? On Friday I’ll do the final four questions to wrap up the debate, and Sunday I’ll endorse the candidates I feel would be best for the Eastern Shore in all of the contested primaries.
Ten Questions…Senate Debate (part 2)
Tonight I’m doing the second of three parts for the U.S. Senate “debate” formed from the Ten Questions. This covers Questions 4 through 6, part one is here.
Question #4:
Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?
Blaine Taylor (D): Since my first of 15 poltical campaigns, I decided to advocate the abolition of ALL PACS: Political Action Committees. In addition, all paid advertising on television and radio should be abolished for the 2008 elections, and the necessary air time seized from the private industry networks who’ve abused the trust given them by We, the People. WE own the airwaves, they don’t, and it’s time to fire them all. Sufficient air time should be provided for all candidates free of charge. That would eliminate ALL fundraising events AND clear out Washington,DC of ALL lobbyists, just as Christ drove out the moneychangers from the temple. When I filed for the current race on July 3rd, I made the decision that I would neither solicit, nor accept. any contributions whatsoever, and have, indeed, returned all such donated funds to date. I am not playing that whore’s game! I will not be had, either by Democratic unions or GOP robber barons, and that’s that!
Allan Lichtman (D): The public financing of elections is the only way to curb the dominant influence of money on our politics. For their millions in campaign contributions wealthy corporate interests reap many billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of corporate welfare. The way to get rich in America is not to drill for oil or dig for gold, but to contribute to politicians.
Look at the campaign contributions accepted by his opponent, Congressman Ben Cardin, from the pharmaceutical and health products industry. For his 2004 re-election Cardin accepted $29,500 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, far more than any other member of congress from Maryland, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He accepted $8,000 from Pfizer alone. In 2003, he was the only member of Maryland’s congressional delegate to follow the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and vote against The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, which would have authorized the importation of low-cost, safe prescription medications from Canada.
For his 2006 Senate campaign Cardin has accepted $40,000 from Constellation Energy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This is the company that is pushing to raise electric bills for their customers in Maryland by 72 percent. Overall he has raked in more than $63,000 from electric utilities.
You cannot serve both the common interests of the people of Maryland and the private interests of lobbyists and wealthy corporations. You cannot claim to be standing up to the pharmaceutical industry and the big energy companies when you’re raking in their cash.
I would ask: Which matters more: affordable prescription drugs, a decrease in living costs, reasonable gas and electricity prices, or swelling the already deep pockets of wealthy corporations?
As a candidate I pledge to take no PAC money from private corporations. As a Senator I pledge to take no perks, as indicated above.
Richard Shawver (R): My run for office should coat (sic) less then $5000, it’s hard to think of people or company’s from out of state giving money to candidates.
Earl Gordon (R): No answer.
Lih Young (D): The way to eliminate corporate corruption is not by rhetoric legislative bills. Most likely the legislative bills are bad, and often with serious hidden agendas and appropriation to benefit a few. A lot of legislative bills are unnecessary, except to keep legislators busy, without time to think, or to deal with more important bills or other things, e.g., resolving and provide proper remedies against “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks: operation, unjust practices; actually prosecuting and eliminating frauds, crimes or corruption (public or private, corporate or government). There are Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other existing good laws, which need to be enforced, implemented; but are often ignored, violated intentionally, as by the rampant of “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” with endless immoral, unlawful acts, frauds and crimes, which breed more corruption and violence domestically and globally. U.S. Senate, or even three branches of government, law enforcement, government attorneys, prosecutors, local- federal are not doing rights; failed to carry out their responsibilities to enforce the good laws, protecting people, their rights, resources, properties, reputation, due process, etc. Important but often ignored: Prosecute and eliminate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation, unjust practice, manipulation, influence. Stop processing bad or unnecessary legislative bills; proper processing of complaints, files, records, resolution. Based on merits, cost-effectiveness, priorities, socials cost-benefits; stop bad appropriation. Rigorous review, analysis: budget, based on merit, principle, priorities, cost-effectiveness, social cost-benefits. Promote quality, peace, justice, fair election processes; televise, disseminate, maintain meaningful information; issue, candidate, debate. Oppose: unjust practices, manipulation, influence; bad legislative proposals, hidden agenda with false excuses (economic development, housing, transportation, whatever) for private gain (officials, developers, lawyers, etc.); nonsense grants, programs, projects: facilitate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”. Major transaction or land deal should be rigorously reviewed objectively by academically very well trained, based on merits, priorities, cost- effectiveness, social cost-benefits, etc., through competitive processes, general soliciting, fair market mechanism; not arranged by the developer or inner circle; should be openly discussed with residents, in official meetings, Mayor/Council/ public hearings; not misleading, concealing, unjust manipulation or influence; not rushed through as the consent agenda items as mall purchases of goods and services. Eliminate, prevent: abandonment of public resources, land, propertes to benefit a few or “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” including developer, government attorneys, lawyers, law firms, etc.) at the expense of general public and future generations, including other jurisdictions, especially with grants and public debts from the state and federal; sold, leased out (secret hidden agenda, even huge acres, decades-long lease) with zero or no fair compensation, despite citizen’s objection; unnecessarily leased private properties for government use at very high costs even with short lease (a few years or shorter); with extra high costs to construct building, furnish expansive equipments; and when construction is done, lease expires, completed products abandoned or free to a few; often disguised by partnership, economic development, school, education, public safety, etc.; several rounds of unjust abandonment and purchase; misleading public roads, highways, when in fact abandoned to private; unjust projects, appropriation; misuse, abuse, misappropriation; false road construction, maintenance; false records: land, roads, maps; unjust demolition of building even in good condition to initiate new construction, project, purchase, including library or school.
David Dickerson (D): Yes, let us strengthen these laws and establish a ceiling of the amount of money a candidate can raise for their campaign. Moreover, should it be allowed that candidates can dine in Hollywood and Las Vegas to obtain funding for their Maryland campaign? By establishing term limits, it will disallow candidates from Congress to use their influence on Federal government committees to raise money from around the country. Remember Corzonne in New Jersey using his own $60 million to win the U.S. Senate seat? Well, he did, and then he went on to become Governor of the state.
Kevin Zeese (Green): The FEC is an agency that does not work (sadly like many government bureaucracies). The Federal Election Commission should be changed so that it is not a deadlocked Commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. We should add three non-Dem/Repubs so that things can get done and people are represented. According to Gallup 38% of Americans see themselves as independent of the two old parties, 31% are Dems, 29% are Republicans. The FEC should represent that breakdown rather than be an agency that protects the two parties. I favor a voluntary check off system that is well advertised so that people can contribute to a fund for political campaigns. That is how public campaigns should be financed. Re private speech, the same limits that apply to campaigns should apply to so-called 527 organizations and the reporting of who is funding these efforts should be immediately transparent so people know who is paying for the message and what their interests are.
Campaign finance is another example of many issues — where the public wants reform and where the two parties do not provide it — because reform will threaten their hold on power and weaken the special interests that fund their campaigns. According to a brand new bipartisan poll released by the watchdog group Public Campaign, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns – that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not.
Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak (R): My campaign is already implementing campaign finance reform. We have spent well less than $5000, the FEC requirement for filing paperwork.
Mike Schaefer (D): We should not eliminate these laws. I think they are enforced without common sense sometimes. I was once in a federal campaign and took $25,000 from my stock account, a margin loan against my securities, and considered it a loan to the campaign. The FED pointed out that loans can only be made by banks, not be national brokerage firms, and thus the $25,000 was a gift to my campaign by Charles Schwab & Co., which exceeded the then $1,000 limit and anyhow corporations are prohibited from making any donations. I was fined $3,500 and resented the total abuse of federal statutes to punish an innocent oversight—when the same amount of time should have gone to investigating some chicanery. (Soon after the laws were changed to permit brokerage firms and other non-bank financial sources to make loans to candidates—I warranted thanks for raising the issue). I prefer a level playing field and have considered limited expenditures in any election to a certain multiple of the salary of that office, like Congress(is it $150,000?) races might have a $300,000 limit in primary and $600,000 limit in general. Some of these guys have raised millions; would require that any banked political money exceeding the foregoing limits be returned to sender, or given to a charity, or confiscated by the US. Today incumbents bankroll millions to fighten-off any competition; that is not putlic service. America thinks that a good percent of its elected officials are political prostitutes and you don’t get any argument from me there. Las Vegas and San Diego,Cal. are sending at least two local legislators to federal prison this years, we need more of that. And perhaps we should cut 50% all legislative salaries, the taxpayers would benefit and this would encourage self-made financially independent men and women of character instead of ‘job seekers’ who file for any open elected job which inevidentable pays a lot more than they ever earned in their life. Really!
Dennis Rasmussen (D): Campaign financing is a more difficult issue. Money – and the ability to raise it – is a measure of viability of a candidate or cause. I do believe that citizens’ ability to express their desires and concerns via political involvement is a First Amendment Right.
Public financing has some merit, but how do you decide the criteria for who gets the money? If you leave that policy to elected office-holders, I can assure you they will create a system that will limit funds to challengers.
McCain-Feingold had good intentions, but produced the unintended consequences of creating independent 527 organizations. There are legitimate pros and cons to that occurrence. Reform is needed, but it needs study and honest input.
Question #5:
While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?
Zeese: The United States cannot bring stability to Iraq as we have made too many mistakes, e.g. invading based on inaccurate or false information, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Haditha, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, searches of homes in the middle of the night, checkpoint searches and killings at checkpoints. We need to announce that we are leaving and do so promptly. Actually getting out in an orderly and safe way will take approximately six months, at the longest. During that time we should go through a reconciliation process where we recognize the damage we have done and pay for it. That is the real pottery barn rule — you break it you pay for it. If the Iraqi government wants a peace keeping force we should help to organize one through the Arab League or other regional power, if that fails then through the UN. But we need to get our toops out. They are not able to resolve this matter and are just sitting ducks. I agree with many in retired military, foreign service, intelligence and national security experts who say the Iraq war was a mistake of historic purposes and the longer we stay the bigger the mistake gets. We are making the US less secure by staying, stoking the potential of a civil war in Iraq, helping a theocratic state come into existence. As General William Odom says — all we fear is made more likely by staying in Iraq. The sooner we exit — in an orderly and responsible way — the better.
The real issue in Iraq is the desire of the leadership of both parties to control their economy and the economy of the Middle East — for as long as it has oil. It is evident that the United States is not planning on leaving. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad — ten times larger than the typical embassy, the size of 80 football fields. We are building 14 long-term military bases. We are putting down long and deep roots and plan on staying. The challenge is to change our economy so we are no longer dependent on foreign oil – indeed on fossil fuels at all. That is where we should put our resources and focus — not on militarily and economically dominating the Middle East.
Schaefer: We need to give our top military officers, generals and admirals, more influence on the conduct of the war; and Bush needs to cultivate others nations as he has done so very well as to Britain. I am shocked at Congressman Cardin’s call for a timetable for return of all troops by next year, his press release could have been written by al-Zarqawi. His view was repudiated by the Congress the next day. We need to support our President in his military posture but we have an equal obligation to question his judgment, and seek prosecution and impeachment if evidence indicates intentional misconduct. That is why it is important that the Democrats have control of either the House or the Senate so that the conduct of the Bush Administration can come under the looking-glass instead of being protected by the abusive power enjoyed by a Congress and Senate of the same party as the President. We can never know the truth when one party controls the Executive and the Legislative, and by appointments, the Judicial branch.
Shawver: Before any troops are sent to any country, it should be clerly (sic) look into, remmber (sic) Korea, Viet-Nam.
Dickerson: I served in the military as an Air Force Security Police Combat Arms Instructor, and my Chief Master Sergeant lives on the Shore, so I better be careful with this answer. We are all Americans, so arguments in the U.S. Senate do not solve problems. Our Congress decided to go to War in Iraq, and we cannot change that decision. We cannot completely pullout our troops, but we can craft an “Exit Strategy” that is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. We need Europe, Russia and China’s financial and political support after we redeploy. A post-Iraq has to be supported by the world community. If we pullout of Iraq now, then we would be providing Iran the opportunity to invade Iraq and seek revenge for the Iraq-Iran War. We need to create a timetable for our exit, and have the Iraqi government get serious about it. When is the world going to wake up the Arab League. Do the Arabs care about the peace and stability in the region, or do they just watch us do the dirty work?
Taylor: The immediate first step is to withdraw ALL our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan during 2007, WITH all their expensive equipment. The second step is NOT to invade Iran, Syria, and Lebanon on the behalf of the terrorist State of Israel. The third step is to abolish ALL foreign aid to Israel in 2007 and spend ALL that money to rebuild our own country in my proposed Marshall Plan for America and 2nd New Deal for American CITIZENS. The fourth step is to end our foolish and counterproductive 1948 alliance with the State of Israel in 2007, and thus end the war of terror on us. I submit to you that the interests of 295 million non-Jewish American citizens far outweigh those of 6 million Israelis and 5.2 million American Jews. The fifth step is to abolish ALL dual citizenships with other nations as inherently evil AND anti-American. The sixth step is to execute convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, not release him. The American recognition of the State of Israel in 1948 was the worst diplomatic blunder in all of our history, and should be reversed before they drag us into World War III, which in time is exactly what WILL, indeed, happen. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. You haven’t asked, but I would bomb all North Korean missile sites tomorrow morning, and would NOT invade Cuba, which the current President is planning to do—along with Syria, Iran, and Lebanon—the week after the Republican Party wins the coming fall Congressional elections. We should also seek a peaceful solution of our current naval differences with China, not go to war with it—also as the President is planning to do before he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. Our esteemed President Nixon stopped the on-rushing Sino-Soviet War in 1969 in its tracks, and so can we now!
Gordon: (I believe) that it is full time for the voters and the legislative branch of our government to give an ear to Generals Scowcroft and Abizaid, and Director Goss as well as the other Americans who are expressing grave concerns about the Administration’s Iraq doctrine, and to further warn the administration of any military ventures into Syria or Iran (1) without the expressed permission of the United States Congress and (2) acting upon irrefutable evidence that those two nations were in the process of implementing a military strike against the United States mainland or on its military bases abroad. The administration has turned the Iraq war into a quagmire and possibly worse, in terms of potential for a wider war. (I) strongly support Congressman John Murtha’s call for the withdrawal of American Military Forces from Iraq. Congressman Murtha is acting in the best interest of the U.S. long term security needs. Any one who condemns Congressman Murtha’s proposal, in light of the revelations of what is taking place in Iraq, should read the history of the German sixth army in Russia during the reign of Hitler.
Rasmussen: It is too late to argue the merits of being in Iraq. The question is how do we objectively measure and achieve a winning outcome? The consequences of losing Iraq will affect the next several generations. I do not support an arbitrary time-frame for withdrawal. An exit strategy needs to be fully developed with definitive objectives that can be measured before any meaningful withdrawal of American resources. We must win with honor, secure Iraq for the Iraqi people by providing means of law and order and basic infrastructure, and return our troops as quickly as possible!
Vovak: All wars are political since politicians begin wars, not generals. Logically, politicians are responsible for ending the wars they create. The usual method of changing a policy is for people to pressure politicians to change the status quo. Hence, to oppose a war is not an act of disloyalty to our nation (or its soldiers) but an act of patriotism, because the American system is used to make a change in American policy. In Iraq, the mission has been accomplished and most troops need to return home immediately. I believe that if troops return home gradually then American soldier deaths will ultimately increase dramatically. I sense a Vietnam-type quandary rupturing in Summer 2006 with a divided nation wanting to remove all troops from Iraq or to substantially increase the number of troops. The American public will elect leaders outside of the traditional thinking of Washington, D.C. By contrast, I support The Afghanistan War, which is rooted in stopping terrorist groups. All terrorism must end.
Young: Support humanity, peace, justice. Respect other’s cultures. Cooperate with United Nation, other countries. Oppose: horrible violent force, invasion, occupation, Deprivation/destruction (countries, population, properties, soldiers; resources, reputation; public, private); unjust practices, manipulation, influence, falsification, false excuses; problems (credibility, moral, mental, financial, fiscal), official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks Government budget to carry out necessary government function; maintain truly quality, honest, integrity employees, appointees, commissioners, volunteers; etc.; eliminate “fraud- crime- injustice networks”, corporate welfare. Define and identify the “terror” or “crime” right; not opposite, falsification, misleading, deceit; false excuses to victimize people (here or overseas), as often by the “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks: Fighting the terror overseas, with UN, alliance of other countries. Pay for damages, restitution, reparation to victims; penalties against those who caused the problems or damages. Reconstruction mainly to benefit the general public of the victimized countries; not to benefit a few; with UN, alliance of countries.
Lichtman: Since announcing my candidacy for the United States Senate last September, I was the first Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to specifically propose and advocate a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, with specific goals and timetables. My original timetable, announced at my campaign kickoff on September 28, 2005, I specified that troops be withdrawn from Iraq no later than the end of 2006.
Unlike some of my opponents, I have consistently and emphatically challenged President Bush’s pretenses for the war in Iraq, and his lack of strategy for victory in the region for the last three years. I have also shown my disapproval for the war by attending anti-Iraq War rallies, meetings, forums, and protests throughout Maryland and the D.C. area.
Occupation creates insurgency; only sovereignty creates stability, which cannot be imposed externally, by force. Our continued military presence in Iraq inflames the insurgency and makes Iraq a magnet for terrorism. The president says that Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism. It was not, however, before his misguided invasion. The CIA’s own National Intelligence Council warns that Iraq and future conflicts “could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are ‘professionalized’ and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself.”
It will take years of renewed diplomatic ties and an unobtrusive positive promotion of humane, Democratic values ultimately to end tensions in the region. Therefore, I propose the following:
Ending the War
• As a United States Senator, I would not support any funding for perpetuation of the war beyond 2006, except financial and logistical resources aimed towards bringing American soldiers home from Iraq.
• I would also sponsor a Senate Resolution specifically calling for the prompt withdrawal of American troops.
• As part of my withdrawal plan, the United States would make it clear that it has no ambitions for permanent military bases in Iraq or American control over Iraqi oil.
Reprioritizing our Military Objectives
• There are too many urgent needs at home which are being neglected because our financial, logistical, and National Guard resources meant for homeland security are stretched too thin worldwide.
• We must utilize our National Guard to strengthen our Homeland Security by better securing domestic transportation hubs and American borders.
• National Guard personnel can assist in the rebuilding effort of American cities recently uprooted by natural disasters.
Finding and Eliminating the Threats from al-Qaeda
• The terrorist group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks is still the biggest threat to American security.
• America must refocus our efforts to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members worldwide.
Regaining American Credibility Throughout the World
• America must work proactively to restructure diplomatic ties with our allies and rejoin the world in multilateral initiatives to promote peace and protect our environment.
• I support the investigation into any unlawful abuse of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Gharab detention facilities.
• Those who break the law should be prosecuted, and conversely, any detainees found to be innocent should be freed.
• Promote positive Muslim-Judeo-Christian relationships in the entire Middle East, including in Iran and within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. America needs to again provide real, proactive leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict such as displayed under the Clinton administration.
Leading Iraq into the 21st Century
• Monitor the development of Iraqi forces with renewed support from our allies.
• Help Iraqis establish fair labor practices and vibrant local economy that will ease transition into the world economy.
• Promote strong public education and programs that emphasize democracy, international engagement, and tolerance of all cultures.
• As an expert on voting rights and democratic systems I would travel to Iraq as a Senator and offer my assistance in developing a working democracy.
• As a Senator I would introduce legislation for an investigation similar to that of the Truman Committee during World War II to assure that aid money is well-spent and wealthy, politically-connected corporations are not making illicit profits at the expense of the American taxpayers and the Iraqi people.
Question #6:
Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?
Gordon: It must be noted that during the administration of Gerald Ford, the US wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran, because Iran was led by the Shah, a man they saw as America’s friend. The reactors the Americans wanted to sell to Iran were the kind that could produce the materials to construct nuclear weapons. Many of the senior government officials who wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran are some of the same people who are now pushing the war in Iraq and for democracy throughout the Middle East.
Today Iran is ruled by a group of men who would have loved to inherit those nuclear reactors from the Shah. Had they done so, Iran would have at least five hundred to a thousand nuclear bombs today. And they would have to be thankful to the Neo Cons.
Shawver: If Iran nuclear program, is for electrical power, fine. If it’s to threatened (sic) Israel it should go befor (sic) the U.N.
Zeese: The President does not have the final decision to go to war (and a military attack on Iran would be an act of war). Under the U.S. Constitution the President cannot declare war only the Congress can. James Madison said this was the most important clause of the Constitution because they had seen Kings and Queens send countries into unnecessary and costly wars. Yet since World War II it has been the most ignored clause of the Constitution because the Congress lacks the spine to take responsibility and do its duty. If the United States bombed Iran without the Congress declaring war it would be illegal under U.S. law. Further, under international law it would be a war of aggression — the most serious offense any country can make against another. Iran is not threatening the U.S. — they are also not threatening Israel — and their religious leaders have issued an edict against nuclear weapons, indeed against weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been offering, for over a year, to negotiate with us over all issues, including Israel. We should take them up on that negotiation. Right now everything that Iran is doing is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement. Israel, which has 250 nuclear bombs, has not even signed the agreement. The United States is developing new nuclear weapons as well – tactical nuclear weapons — and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. This is hypocritical and undermines our moral standing to challenge Iran. Further, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy — President Bush lists Iran as a member of the axis of evil, then we surround them militarily with bases in Afghanistan on their eastern border, in Iraq on their western border and in the Persian Gulf to their south with our Navy. Then the Bush administration engages in the same exaggeration and manipulation that it did in the build up to Iraq. Hopefully, people will not fall for it again as Iran is a bigger challenge than Iraq. Iran is four times as large as Iraq. It we were to attack it will create further unrest in Iraq and further destabilize the region. The US will be further isolated in the world and our military force, which is already stretched to the breaking point, will be unable to handle another military quagmire. We need to change our approach. Out goal with Iran should be to make Iran our ally in the region — not our enemy. We have a lot more in common that is being discussed. If we turn them into allies we can bring stability to the region, keep our access to oil and actually resolve conflicts (including Israel-Palestine) instead of expand conflicts.
Lichtman: I strongly oppose a preemptive strike by the Bush administration. Such action would weaken the security of Israel, undermine the war against terrorism, overextend our already thinly stretched military and pose a grave threat to world peace. I have long proposed the carrot and stick approach to Iran, with negotiations that combine both real sanctions against Iran, with cooperation on meeting the nation’s alleged energy needs.
Young: Support humanity, peace, justice. Respect other’s cultures. Cooperate with United Nation, other countries. Oppose: horrible violent force, invasion, occupation, Deprivation/destruction (countries, population, properties, soldiers; resources, reputation; public, private); unjust practices, manipulation, influence, falsification, false excuses; problems (credibility, moral, mental, financial, fiscal), official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks .
Stop minorities bashing. Improve quality of officials. Support civilian review board.
Improve race relationships, by deeds, not rhetoric; diversity in good faith, not for political reasons; or to benefit/facilitate “fraud-crime- injustice networks” operations; not relaying/shuffling at the expense of justice, productivity against good workers/citizens, especially minorities. Investigate/ prosecute/ eliminate: serious problems: unjust appropriation, siphoning resources to benefit a few, “fraud-crime- networks” Investigate/ prosecute/ eliminate: minorities-bashing, hate crimes; injustice, false excuses, imprisonment, detention, torture, unfair treatment, victimization; deprivation of resources, reputation, families, social relationship; racial profiling, discrimination, victimization, retaliation, official misconduct, falsification; unlawful acts, crimes; tampering of evidence, witnesses, etc.; three branches, local- global, especially by “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice works”, including DOJ, FBI, law enforcement, judicial/ legal/ financial/ accounting personnel, their unjust practices (false excuses, manipulation, influence, destruction) destroy individuals, families, businesses, communities, peace, democracy. Their damages are more serious than 9-11-2001 World Trade Center incidence, President Bush’s wars, President Nixon’s Watergate, Florida election 2000, financial/ accounting/ legal disasters, notorieties (e.g., Enron bankruptcy, Andersen accounting). Illinois Governor issued moratorium, because of DNA tests disapproved the death sentences of some death row inmates. Maryland conducted a study about the disparities in death penalty. Examine inmate/detainee population, true causes of imprisonment, bond; disparate treatment; official misconduct, brutality, frivolous cases (civil, criminal), improper complaint processing, procedures, proceedings; administrative, judicial levels. Thorough investigation, using the complaints/cases, testimonies of this candidate before officials, legislative committees, public hearings, the Office of Court Administration; varieties of issues, including legislative proposals, budgets, etc.; accumulative, never properly resolved. Shame: judicial branch asked lawmaker (Maryland General Assembly) to abolish the record- keeping or accounting.
Vovak: America needs to continue to negotiate with Iran.
Rasmussen: I favor full international sanctions and isolating Iran if they fail to be part of the Community of Nations. If they truly want only nuclear power, we should assist and control the output of fusionable material. Iran will threaten to bargain with oil and access to oil. In the long run, it will destroy their economy, so I don’t believe they would withhold oil or access to oil as a long-term weapon. Military strikes are a last resort, and only after an attack or the threat of an eminent attack on Israel or others in the Middle East.
Taylor: I would favor diplomacy first with Iran to halt nuclear weapons production, but if our otherwise incompetent CIA can PROVE they are forging ahead, then I would opt for a surgical, missile first strike and take them out straightaway. As a former Vietnam veteran soldier and military affairs writer worldwide now, I do not believe a full-scale ground invasion is necessary. We’ve already had two Vietnams; let’s not spawn a third!
Schaefer: I am not optimistic as to the efficiency of the United Nations, these nations seeing how America has handled inspections problems re: Iraq might now be more open to a USA inspection team doing a credible audit of the capabilities of involved nuclear nations, both friends and foes. The UN cannot compel anything. Frankly if power-generation involves essentially the same nuclear capacity that an attack utilizes, there appears to be no solution, other than having a CIA operative reporting to the US Embassy in each county in confidence, with any discomforting information being shared with the President and leader of each house of the Congress. If the equipped nation is arrogant, or inflexible, then we must seek world opinion(media) incondemnation of that country and its leadership and perhaps termination of economic relationships with sabre-rattlers.
Dickerson: The President decided to go it alone the first time with Iraq, so let us not make the same mistake again. We have a U.N. Atomic Energy Commission, based in Vienna, Austria that should be in charge of the inspections and negotiations. Israel is equipped with a nuclear arsenal, so the other countries feel threatened as well. I have worked with people from Israel, at Motorola, in the Mossad, and I can assure you, that Israel is monitoring the situation quite carefully. The U.N. Security Council needs to be the global authority on this issue. The President of Iran is a mad man for directing his comments against Israel, but leave this one to Europe, Russia and China to work out. The world is tired of us acting as if we are the World Police with all of the answers. If the world is not united in boycotting Iran, then the boycott will not work. If they have an alternative supply chain from Russia or China, then there is no power in the boycott. A pre-emptive strike could ignite the Jihad even further, so let us use all of our diplomatic power backed by a strong military.
******************************
So ends part 2. On Friday I’ll do the third and final portion of this “debate”.
Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
Link to Maryland Democratic Party
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
