Month: July 2007

The missing links (and added ones too)

In an effort to improve my website, I spent part of my evening going through all of my links to make sure they still worked. To my surprise, I’ve found that some sites that previously were linked to mine no longer were, so I decided to drop those links. Most of them were out of the area, but a few local ones have been cut too. You may notice the category order has been changed up somewhat as well. Further, many of these categories are now ordered from most to least recently updated, so frequent updates push a website closer to the top. (For some reason, that’s not quite working right. Scratch that. I’ll just place them back in random order.)

In the meantime I added a number of political links. Most of the ones I added were campaign blogs from various candidates, which I’ve sometimes found helpful as background information on issues. (And sometimes I feel like I’m getting the tour of Iowa. I’m sure it’s a nice state but sitting in Maryland I really see no point.) Also now there’s a couple new categories for “Campaign and Political Blogs” as well as “Political Websites” where I link to the local and state GOP as a start.

I also opted to drop the categories and links for the Green, Libertarian, and (inactive) Constitution Party candidates because I don’t think they have a Maryland primary. The idea for me is to have links to people one can actually vote for in the state. If a person’s not on the ballot in Maryland why bother with placing a link? Once the general election field is set and those parties are included then I’ll add back the proper links as those minor parties determine their contenders.

I think this makes the site more useful as a political resource, which is one of my goals. I’ll likely continue to add links to various political groups I use for reading and additional resources, placing them in the “Political Websites” category.

Whether I continue to maintain my #1 status for next week is yet to be determined, but I’m going to try hard to either keep it or get it back!

Who will I support? – part three

The other day I was reading an article Michelle Malkin wrote on her website that talked about Republicans being a little apathetic when it came to their Presidential choices, noting about the apathy, “That’s about where I’m at now, alas. How about you?” 

Well, Michelle, here’s one part of your answer, courtesy of monoblogue.

Today I’m going to hit up issue number 10 on my list, election reform. This also includes camapign finance so it’s a relatively broad issue and candidates are all over the map on it.

If you go back and look at my chapter on election reform and campaign finance, my pet issues are voter ID, early and absentee voting, and removing campaign financing restrictions in exchange for instant disclosure.

But one thing I didn’t mention that deserves consideration because it’s favored by many Democrat candidates while I’m against it is the issue of felons voting. Here is the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied of abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

While Democrats argue that “condition of servitude” can be construed as a jail term, to me serving time is not “servitude”, but punishment. Slavery was servitude where those born into it had little or no choice in the matter; serving jail time is commonly (but not always) because of a choice made to violate laws that society dictates. And something tells me they’d do their damndest to deny Scooter Libby (who is now a convicted felon despite the trumped-up charges) his franchise.

As I did the research, I found that this is a “trap” issue for Democrats, who by and large were on the opposite side of the fence to me while the GOP candidates pretty much (with one notable exception) stayed away from the subject. In a way that’s wise, because I see this as mostly a state issue so not discussing it in a national campaign is actually closer to how I feel about it. Probably the main area of concern I have with existing law is in the area of campaign finance.

Thus, unlike my last installment which predominantly featured Republicans, this time we showcase Democrats trying to federalize everything – it’s something they’re good at.

However, the GOP does go first and there’s one guy who mentions the subject.

John McCain:

Most Americans understand that competitive elections in a free country require money. Since campaigns require spending funds to communicate with voters, they know we can never take money completely out of politics, nor should we. Americans have a right to support the candidates and the parties they endorse, including financially if they so choose.

But what most Americans worry about profoundly is corporations or individuals with huge checks seeking the undue influence on lawmakers that such largesse is intended to purchase. That is why John McCain has fought to enforce long-standing prohibitions on corporate and union contributions to federal political parties, for sensible donation limits, disclosure of how candidates and campaigns are funded, and the diligent enforcement of these common sense rules that promote maximum public participation in the political process and limit opportunities for corruption.

John McCain understands that in America the people are sovereign, and deserve a political process worthy of the sacrifices that have been made by so many to keep us free and proud. As President, John McCain will see to it that the institutions of self-government are respected pillars of democracy, not commodities to be bought, bartered, or abused.

Wow, that was easy. Now we turn to the Democrat side, beginning with Joe Biden.

Joe Biden:

This is from a news report on a New Hampshire debate:

Biden argued that political campaigns should be financed publicly to remove special interests from the political process.

Hillary Clinton devotes an issue page to voting, and also I found an excerpt from a speech she gave on government reform:

(W)e have to reform our election system. That’s where our democracy starts. We have to make sure that every vote is counted and every vote counts – and we know that the best place to hold a government accountable is at the ballot box. Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of interference with our electoral system in the last years, and there have been new requirements that have been put up as obstacles, that have really discouraged people from exercising their right to vote.

I’ve introduced legislation called the Count Every Vote Act, which is a comprehensive voting reform bill. It will make our voting systems more accountable and accessible. It will expand the right to vote of most of our citizens. It will create more opportunities for people to register to vote, and it will give greater assurances through paper-verified ballots that those votes will be counted. We need more oversight in our electoral system to discourage manipulation and deception. It is almost heart-breaking that I have to mention this on my reform agenda. American should lead the world in the best electoral system, using the best equipment.

Mike Gravel weighs in with what he calls the National Initiative.

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich has plenty to say on the subject, devoting two pages on his Presidential website to the twin issues of election reform and campaign finance.

Barack Obama chimes in from his website as well.

Bill Richardson:

In 2006, Governor Richardson signed into law the landmark New Mexico Make Every Vote Count Act, that moves the state to a single paper ballot system, makes New Mexico’s elections system more transparent and helps guarantee that every New Mexican’s ballot will be counted.

Looks like it’s time to add them up; or in this case it’s going to be subtract them out because I don’t agree with the vast majority of what these candidates say. Moreover, the stakes start to get higher as this part counts for nine points.

John McCain has my permanent disdain for introducing McCain-Feingold, and it doesn’t look like he’s learned anything since then. While he pays lip service to our right to donate to campaigns, his proposal’s not worked whatsoever, never mind it violates the First Amendment as I see it. It’s solely because he’s a Republican that I don’t hammer him for all nine points, he loses 8.5 and moves into negative territory overall.

No, Joe Biden, we do not need public financing of campaigns. He loses half of the possible points only because he said very little on the subject otherwise. A big minus 4.5 to you.

Hillary also has a completely wrong-headed approach, with the possible exception of a paper trail. Why make Election Day a national holiday? If a person’s not going to vote, they don’t deserve a day off to not do it. Same-day registration is a quick invitation to voter fraud, and who decides whether a person is an “impartial observer”? Most states already have provisions for elections to be supervised at the polling place by at least the two major parties. And something tells me Ben Cardin had a hand in the part about “(allowing) the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting.” You lose 8.5 points, Hillary.

Mike Gravel wants to use the Constitution to change our country from a Constitutional republic to a true democracy. All this would create is mass chaos as public opinion on some topics wildly diverges from one place to another, nor is public opinion always correct. After all, I’m told that the majority of people in Colonial times would’ve preferred to stay under the British crown. Should we have listened then? So much for your plus rating, Mike, you lose nine points.

Dennis Kucinich goes through a so-called progressive wish list of voting rules: completely public financing, Election Day as a holiday with instant registration, felons voting, and a concept called “instant runoff voting” where people pick a second and third choice, used if no candidate gains a majority. That may work in a primary situation (which occurs at the state level) but I’m not sure that’s feasible nationally. I’ll be ranking my choices in order here so I’m doing something similar; however, I only get one vote next year. So I give him credit for an interesting thought that may merit study at the state level; also he favors including “credible” third-party candidates in the debates. My only complaint there is who determines “credible.” I’ll subtract only six points overall; he has some decent ideas but the total package is dreadful.

Barack Obama notes his attempt to nationalize election rules and is dead-set against voters showing ID. That’s 180 degrees away from my view, so he loses all nine points.

Finally, Bill Richardson is just vague enough that he doesn’t lose many points. I’ll grant him that he did this on a state level; however, my assumption is that he would follow through with this on a national level, which violates states’ rights. So he loses three points.

In the revised standings the biggest change is McCain plummeting, and this time starts to reveal the divide that there is between Democrats and Republicans. But I also added and subtracted points based on comments Marc made regarding my previous gun control post; having read the evidence he submitted I found some of my point totals were worth changing. I’m adding 3.5 points to Ron Paul’s total thanks to this article (much appreciated since I found nothing on the subject on Paul’s website), subtracting 1/2 point from Rudy Giuliani, and adding 1 point to Bill Richardson on the Democrat side.

With these changes also factored in, we get these revised totals.

Republicans:

  1. Duncan Hunter, 8 points
  2. Ron Paul, 7.5 points
  3. Mike Huckabee, 6.5 points
  4. Sam Brownback, 4.5 points
  5. Rudy Giuliani, 3.5 points
  6. Tom Tancredo, 3 points
  7. Fred Thompson, 2 points
  8. Tommy Thompson, 1 point
  9. Mitt Romney, no points
  10. John McCain, -3 points

On the Democrat side, note that having no points is simply because there’s no opinions on the first three issues:

  1. Chris Dodd, no points
  2. John Edwards, no points
  3. Bill Richardson, -2 points
  4. Joe Biden, -4.5 points
  5. Dennis Kucinich, -6 points
  6. Mike Gravel, -8 points
  7. Hillary Clinton, -8.5 points
  8. Barack Obama, -9 points

On Tuesday we move up to the 9th place issue, that of trade and job creation. The economy is an issue and something tells me that there’s going to be some serious movement starting next week.

Shorebird of the week 7-19-2007

The poker face of Delmarva Shorebirds infielder Todd Davison.
Todd Davison bats in one of his first Delmarva games, June 5 against Lake County.

Sometimes hard work pays off. In this case, a trip back to extended spring training helped Todd Davison find a better stroke at the plate and earn him this week’s Shorebird of the Week honors.

Early in the season, Davison struggled with the Frederick Keys, hitting just .212 (7 for 33) in 15 games. So back to the O’s Florida minor league complex he went. Once he worked through his problems at the plate and began “hitting the cover off the ball” down there, he was reassigned to Delmarva and has played here since, joining the team in early June. Delmarva was probably the proper destination for the 2006 19th round Oriole draft pick out of the University of Delaware (hailing from Somers Point, NJ) since Todd didn’t hit too well at Aberdeen last season, just .208 in 50 games. Less success at the plate at extended spring may have meant a return to the IronBirds or a release.

With the Shorebirds, Todd’s batting has kept up very well. He got off to a really good start (.294 in June) and has managed to keep the average pretty solid, batting .260 as of this writing. Todd’s also hit his first two professional home runs in a Delmarva uniform and maintains a tidy .720 OPS.

I’d look for Davison to finish out the season at this level and give Frederick another go in 2008. While the organization has drafted high for corner infielders and has a pretty good second baseman at the big league level in Brian Roberts, depth at middle infield may be a needed commodity for the Orioles system in the near future.

Tawes Crab and Clam Bake overview

This was my first round. I made sure to get more of the fried clams, they were great!

About 5,000 people joined me down in Crisfield today to eat crabs, clams, and lots of other good food and drink. This is a pictorial article about my impressions.

Somerset County takes this opportunity to push their county for economic development purposes.

One business entity doing its share of recruiting was the U.S. Army.

One of the most elaborate business tents, this belonged to the Hebron Bank. There were dozens of businesses and groups with tents or parts of tents.

Obviously with this not being as much of a political year as 2006 (my first time there), the business community took most of the slack in getting tent spaces filled up. One person I talked to complained that the event was almost getting to be overrated as a political gathering because of all the corporate presence – he pined for the Schaefer days. But I would think the Crisfield Chamber of Commerce prefers the business showcase and that politics take more of a back seat. Next year’s event will likely be the same way as there’s only two races on the docket and, while candidates will be established in the Congressional race that highlighted this year’s event, the Presidential race will be down to just the presumptive Democrat and GOP nominees. The truly business-oriented event will be 2009’s, since there’s no early primary in 2010.

Both major parties had a tent or portion of one in Crisfield today. The Democrats had the smaller of the two, and sort of a lackluster turnout.

There was a fairly small Democrat tent there. No O'Malley, small tent.

I’m guessing that their turnout was smaller because they didn’t have their big names coming here. Supposedly Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown was about, but I did not see him. I did say hello to two of our local delegates, Norm Conway and Jim Mathias, at the event.

Meanwhile, the GOP had a portion of a much larger tent (appropriate, don’t you think?) with all of the Tri-County represented.

If you hadn't registered to vote, the GOP was happy to help you out!

A view of tables full of Republicans and friends enjoying the day.

Signs wave for Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester County Republicans.

The only Presidential candidate with any sort of item there was Mitt Romney, as somebody brought a bunch of his signs. But I did see a nice lady with a Newt Gingrich button.

Mitt Romney wasn't there in person, but a supporter was.

Loking at the Congressional race, three of the four major-party candidates for the First District Congressional seat were in the house, with the incumbent away but having workers there in his stead.

These two young ladies were helping out the incumbent by distributing his stickers to those willing to sport them.

Beacuse of today’s Congressional session, Wayne Gilchrest wasn’t here. At the start it seemed like he had a lot of kids about passing out his items, but toward the end they seemed to disappear. I think the fans below that the Gilchrest camp distributed disappeared quickly as well.

I didn't see a whole lot of these waving about. Whether it was because of a nice breeze or a lack of supporters is to be determined.

Meanwhile, both challengers on the Democrat side had a small presence, with just a few supporters milling about. Of the two, Chris Robinson seemed to be a little more prepared with his stuff. Here he chats with some of his supporters.

Democrat Congressional candidate Chris Robinson (far right, in white shirt and tie) talks with some of his small legion of helpers at the Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.

Queen Anne’s County State’s Attorney Frank Kratovil is the other Democrat seeking the nod to run against Gilchrest. I actually met the gentleman, he’s a nice guy – just wrong on the war.

Sometimes I wish I was quicker on my feet because I couldn’t define victory when Frank and I discussed the Long War. (That’s why I do this gig.) But here’s how I define it: we achieve victory when the threat from al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic fundamentalist entities is subdued militarily to a point where they are no longer a significant threat to our security and safety here in America. At that point, I expect the restrictions placed temporarily on our civil liberties (such as the PATRIOT Act) to be lifted. If we withdraw from Iraq now, we cannot achieve that objective unless the fight is brought over here because at this point the military fronts are Iraq and Afghanistan.

So this is the guy you’ll likely see at candidate forums, pictured below:

Democrat hopeful Frank Kratovil (left) and a supporter at the Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.

I saved Andrew Harris, the challenger on the GOP side, for last because he had by far the largest group assisting him at the event. Now, it wasn’t rock star standards but the turnout on his part was pretty good.

The only candidate with his own tent. That's what good fundrasing will get you I guess.

There were a LOT of yellow-clad Harris helpers at Tawes, I was impressed.

Andy actually was a bit late in arriving (about 2:00 or so.) Unlike what I recall about Martin O’Malley last year, Harris didn’t arrive with a large entourage. (It was already there?) He just came in the gate like everyone else.

GOP candidate Dr. Andrew Harris (center, in baseball cap) is a little late but none the worse for wear.

You know, here’s another reason I couldn’t run for higher office. I wonder if Harris, Robinson, or Kratovil ever got something to eat? Just occurred to me I never actually saw them take a bite.

And it didn’t take long for those arriving to be exposed to the politics of the day.

Candidate supporters line up along the main entryway.

For the GOP’s part, I did get to chat briefly with Senator Lowell Stoltzfus and Delegate Jeannie Haddaway. Haddaway noted she’d be the speaker at an upcoming WCRC meeting in the fall, and we’ll be glad to hear from her. I also renewed acquaintances with a number of friends on the GOP side, and actually met a reporter I’d spoken to on the phone about the Gilchrest race, Tom LoBianco of the Washington Times. So now I have a face to the name. And he wasn’t the only media person there by any means.

There were two things that surprised me business-wise and one shocker politically.

There's a lot more of these left than I figured there would be.

Attendance must have been off because as I recall they ran out of mugs last time around.

I took both of the pictures above toward the end of the day. I’m wondering if attendance was a bit off because of the heat and threat of rain. We did have a shower pass by to the south but this year it didn’t rain on the event. The weather was actually tolerable. Either they made more items assuming another crowd like last year’s or they didn’t get the count they thought they might. I suppose it’s the loss of those who paid for tickets but didn’t use them.

On the political side, the first new signs I saw sprouted up were in Princess Anne, the same place a large O’Malley sign has sat for a year (since Tawes 2006.) Those were Kratovil signs. The next signs I saw were turning onto Route 413, where Chris Robinson and Wayne Gilchrest signs vied for position all the way to Crisfield. I only saw a handful of Harris signs with the first not being until I hit Marion. That was shocking to me, but then again, a lot of signs were at the tent so maybe the Harris campaign’s idea was to keep their powder dry. I did hear one Harris supporter complain about that strategy though.

So it was a long and filling day for me. I had a pleasant surprise or two as there were some people who I’d not met previously but knew me from monoblogue. That was pretty cool. Overall, I had a good time as I expected to, and I’d like to take an opportunity to thank all those who put it together because they do a great job working while we visitors have the fun. My hat’s off to you.

Who will I support? – part two

Today I move up to my issue ranked number 11, Second Amendment rights. It’s a topic I happened to write about right after the Virginia Tech shootings. And I get the feeling that this issue will begin to separate the men from the boys; or more properly the GOP from the gun-grabbing Democrats. Unlike my last effort discussing property rights, almost every candidate has a stance on the Second Amendment.

Once again, if I have a link I’ll simply use it, if the stance is part of a general issues page I’ll quote. This is also a handy method to tell which candidates spend more in-depth time discussing particular issues and which ones seem to wish their site be a contribution inlet. I’ll start with the GOP side and work my way through the Democrats. Since this issue is slightly more important, I bump the point totals up from 5 to 7.

Sam Brownback:

Gun Rights/Second Amendment

At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. This Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential, as the Amendment itself affirms, to “the security of a free state.” Restrictive gun control laws aimed at weakening this constitutional right are not the answer. Instead, it is important for the government to enforce criminal gun laws already on the books, for communities to stand against gun violence, and for parents to teach children about gun safety.

Also, according to a press release on his site, “Brownback is proud of his 13-year track record of supporting the right to bear arms and his lifetime ‘A’ rating from the NRA.

In addition, I have a video link from the Brownback blog that discusses the Second Amendment.

Rudy Giuliani:

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

Plus I found a video where Rudy discusses the Second Amendment, focusing on the DC gun ruling.

Mike Huckabee places his views here on its own web page.

Duncan Hunter:

Second Amendment

It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

John McCain notes his Second Amendment views here.

Tom Tancredo:

I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.

On his blog site, Fred Thompson outlines how he sees gun rights.

Tommy Thompson:

Governor Thompson is a gun owner who signed legislation that banned Wisconsin communities from passing anti-gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

For the other two on the GOP side, I didn’t find anything pertaining to Ron Paul’s or Mitt Romney’s views on the subject, although it was stated by Sam Brownback that Romney’s a flip-flopper on the issue because Romney has only been an NRA member a short time and was not a particularly gun-friendly governor in Massachusetts. I have to give Brownback a few props (how about 1/2 point) for violating the Eleventh Commandment when he feels it necessary. It’s not a personal attack at all.

Now it’s on to the Democrats. At the start of planning this series I struggled with the concept of “negative” points, but a bad view is worse than no view at all and should be penalized. Besides, if a Democrat is in negative territory and a Republican is in positive territory, there’s not much doubt whose side I’m on is there?

But oddly enough, I found only one Democrat willing to make a stand on the Second Amendment, Mike Gravel. The other seven didn’t see that as an issue of enough importance to bother with – possibly because they cater to their gun-grabbing base? Here’s Gravel’s stance on the issue:

Mike Gravel:

While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment, he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one.

Of course, the question is how do they rate? We’ll actually have a little more movement this time around as 9 of the 18 hopefuls (8 of them GOP) took a stance.

Sam Brownback starts out well, but loses points because he speaks of enforcing existing gun laws and not repealing them. But he wants no further laws so he gets some credit, I’ll give him 4.5 out of 7 points, since he got the half-point bonus.

Jim Gilmore has the NRA leadership post, which is good. Despite that I have the same quibble with him as I do with Brownback, in that he advocates no rollback in federal law. Also, logic would dictate that getting the guns out of the hands of criminals would mean fewer guns on the street. After all, is a criminal not going to commit murder just because for him having a gun is illegal? Jim picks up 3 points.

Rudy Giuliani points at his record of keeping guns out the hands of criminals but makes no mention of getting the federal government out of the gun law business. On the other hand, he does mention in the video something that rings true – regardless of his personal views, the Constitution is clear on the matter of gun ownership. And he also shows an awareness that individual states need to have their own laws, so I’ll give Rudy 4 points.

Mike Huckabee comes thisclose to getting all seven points, I just wish he’d talked about repealing bad laws with the actual term. But he’ll get 6.5 points.

Duncan Hunter could do better if he expanded on his short statement. His heart’s in the right place but I want specifics, not platitudes. Hunter gets 3 points for effort.

With the exception of advocating trigger locks, John McCain’s Senatorial record is pretty good. But I see nowhere in the white paper where he’d roll back federal laws either. I’ll give him 5.5 points.

Like Hunter, Tom Tancredo suffers from a lack of specifics. Obviously I support the Second Amendment; hell, even most Democrats say they do with certain caveats. He’ll get three points for his effort but that’s all.

Fred Thompson did a nice commentary with background information and correctly points out that there are advocacy groups who would like to see the Second Amendment eroded. So he has a grasp of the problem; now what’s his solution? He’s lacking in that so he only gets two points.

Nor does Tommy Thompson say much about the issue, which is unfortunate. Signing one bill, albeit fairly sweeping, does not a pro-gun candidate make. One point.

On the Democrat side, I have to surprise myself and actually give Mike Gravel one point for advocating training and licensing. While firearm licensing is truly a state issue and not a federal one, he’s not explicitly in favor of taking away guns so I’ll give him a bit of credit.

With the number of comments on gun control from the GOP and Jim Gilmore’s withdrawal from the race it means my GOP standings are revised to a degree and will mostly reflect this issue.

  1. Duncan Hunter, 8 points
  2. Mike Huckabee, 6.5 points
  3. John McCain, 5.5 points
  4. Sam Brownback, 4.5 points
  5. Rudy Giuliani, 4 points
  6. Ron Paul, 4 points
  7. Tom Tancredo, 3 points
  8. Fred Thompson, 2 points
  9. Tommy Thompson, 1 point
  10. Mitt Romney, no points

And on the Democrat side, it can now be argued that, for at least three days, I support one Democrat (Mike Gravel) more than one Republican (Mitt Romney). Trust me, I doubt that will last, having seen both websites! And just wait until the D’s go into negative territory with all of the issues yet to come. Today’s rating is what you call a statistical fluke.

  1. Mike Gravel, 1 point
  2. Joe Biden, no points
  3. Hillary Clinton, no points
  4. Chris Dodd, no points
  5. John Edwards, no points
  6. Dennis Kucinich, no points
  7. Barack Obama, no points
  8. Bill Richardson, no points

On Friday, I’ll continue this series by looking at my next most important issue, election reform.

Kratovil speaks his piece

I guess I’m going to have to start early with a request I made last year during the campaign season for Bill Reddish to let me know who his 7:40 a.m. guests will be on the “AM Salisbury” radio show. I was caught unaware this morning but managed to listen to most of his interview with First Congressional District hopeful Frank Kratovil of Queen Anne’s County.

The overall theme Frank had was that it was a time for a change. Noting that “I think we can have more effective leadership than we have in Washington”, Democratic hopeful Kratovil spoke during the 10 minute interview mostly on the issues of Iraq and immigration.

In his personal view, Frank thought the “decision to go in(to Iraq) was incorrect” and talked about his support of the Iraq Study Group report, which tends to favor diplomacy over military action to root out and eliminate the terrorist problem. (I happen to think the name of the confab was incorrect, it should’ve been “Iraq Surrender Group.”)

Hindsight is quite easy when things aren’t going as well as hoped. I seem to recall the vast majority of Americans (possibly including Mr. Kratovil) were chomping at the bit in late 2001 and 2002 wondering when we’d get even for the attacks of 9/11, and chastising President Bush for attempting diplomacy to resolve the situation. One word I did not hear escaping from Frank’s lips today was “victory.” Like Congressman Gilchrest, Kratovil would be a cheese-eating surrender monkey and vote for withdrawal just as soon as he was sworn in.

On the other hand, I agree with Kratovil’s call to “enforce the (immigration) laws we have”, but I wonder if he would feel that way given the Democrats’ tendency to support amnesty in order to gain the favor (and raw numbers) of Hispanic voters. He did speak about his experiences regarding the illegal immigrant problem affecting his own job as State’s Attorney for the county, but will that translate into votes against the party line? There’s a reason I bring this up.

The other day I received a press release from Andy Harris’s campaign talking about how often Wayne Gilchrest has strayed from the GOP party line. The study, done by the website cqpolitics.com, noted that Gilchrest voted barely 50% of the time with his party. It so happens that Gilchrest is both the top (or bottom) Republican in Congress by that measure and number one amongst all Congressmen.

On the Democrat side the least loyal House member is Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi. However, he still votes the party line 69.2% of the time in this study from 2007. Only four Democrats held under 75% loyalty to the party. Simply put, despite the Democrat challenger’s tough talk on immigration and the “law and order” approach instilled in him by his job, Frank is very likely to be a reliable vote in the liberal “D” column on at least some issues his district would like him to vote for in a conservative manner. Obviously, he’s also going to favor maintaining the ineffective (if not downright disastrous) leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in the House as well.

With the support of the Maryland Democrat machine (including Governor O’Malley) behind him, the chances are quite good that Kratovil will face either Wayne Gilchrest or GOP challenger Andy Harris in the general election come November, 2008. It will be an interesting sight to see whether Kratovil runs right and fakes left or vice versa once the campaign begins in earnest next year.

Two open letters

Last night I made an effort to get this website to be more informative and focused on the upcoming Presidential campaign. I wrote two separate e-mail letters, one focused on Democrats and one focused on Republicans.

Now while I’ll likely catch hell from some quarters of the GOP for giving a forum to Democrats there’s a lot of my readership that’s Democrat and they may as well be informed too. After all, I can’t change the world if I’m preaching to the choir can I? It’s called giving them rope to hang themselves. And we all may stumble onto a good idea or two from them that’s worth discussion. As long as the people on the port side can keep it relatively clean and advance my posts with their comments, I’m quite ok with them being wrong. My theory is that they’ll get it sooner or later.

With that, here’s the note I sent to the eight major Democrat campaigns:

My name is Michael Swartz, and in the interest of full disclosure I’ll tell you that I’m a staunch Republican and plan to vote accordingly in the 2008 election. I’m planted squarely and firmly in the tenets of the Constitution as the Founders intended.

I also write a political website called monoblogue. In about 18 months of operation I’ve built up a reputation as being fair to those of all political stripes so a good portion of my readership runs in the spectrum of liberal to moderate Democrats. We can agree to disagree amicably. Moreover, one of my political heroes is Newt Gingrich, both for the fact that he’s forward-looking as far as seeking solutions to the problems our country faces and because he engages liberal Democrats in thoughtful issues-based dialogue regarding how best to approach these concerns.

And above all I have a goal for my website, which is to continue to build readership to such a point where I can profitably sell advertising and supplement my eventual retirement, since I have little hope Social Security will be around at that time! In short, I have and want to continue growing a readership that likely would appreciate your thoughts on what I consider some of the key topics facing us as Election 2008 approaches.

So despite the fact we’re on opposite sides of most issues I’d appreciate your campaign’s input. Set me straight if I’m not telling it like it is. Defend your positions. I welcome comments that advance my posts one way or another. The reward for you is advancing national dialogue and getting your position out, while the reward for me is twofold: sharpening my argumentive skills to make me a better writer and, more importantly for the goal of monoblogue, to build my readership.

I hope that, unlike Fox News, you’ll take me up on this offer and join the debate.

Of course, I did send something to my brethren on the Republican side and it went like this:

As a Republican on my county’s Central Committee it’s obvious that I’ll be supporting my party’s candidate on Election Day 2008. So you need not worry about that should you secure the nomination.

But I am undecided about who to support in the primary. So in order to help me make my decision I’m researching all of the candidate websites to see who I’ll place my support behind leading up to Maryland’s primary in February. And while it’s good practice for all GOP voters to study the candidates in this manner, my study is going to be a little different and a lot more public.

I do a political website called monoblogue and my readers will get to follow along as I come to my conclusion regarding the guy I’ll throw my support behind. From nothing 18 months ago, I’ve slowly and painstakingly tried to build a quality commentary-based website and I’m pleased to say I’ve grown to a point where I get about 1500 readers a week and rank among Maryland’s top politically-based websites (sitting at #4 as of this writing.) But it’s just a beginning and I want to continue to grow my readership to a point where selling ads is feasible and profitable. Hopefully you’re all good capitalists and can relate.

So as I make this decision, I’d appreciate your input in supplementing the issue notes you maintain on your website, which have become the core element of my decisionmaking. You may through your comments also have to engage liberal Democrats, who I’ve encouraged to comment as well. A little debate is good for all of us.

What I’m looking for is a win-win situation – you get a member of the rapidly growing “pajamas media” and a Constitutional conservative in your corner, and I get the benefit of your input as I strive to improve readership.

To that end, I encourage you to peruse my site and feel free to comment as you feel appropriate. As a bonus you may learn something about the Eastern Shore, our little corner of Maryland, which is reasonably solid GOP country. We encourage you to pay us a visit sometime!

Of course, I’ll share what the responses turn out to be. I’m betting it’s a bunch of form e-mails although some of the Democrats may freak.

I’m sure a number of you think I’m totally crazy for doing this, likely including about six other members of the Central Committee. But I was taught that you can’t get what you want unless you ask for it. I’m not losing anything besides maybe a half-hour of my time that it took me to compose and send the e-mail.

This also could help me achieve another goal in that at some point I want this to be a income-producing endeavor – but I need to gain readership. Part of attaining that is establishing a national contact base and the other part is continuing to improve with my writing skills. Improving my writing may come in handy in other parts of my life too.

As it’s been stated many a time; nothing ventured, nothing gained. This is my venture.

Number 1 at last!

I guess everyone else in Maryland took the week off? 🙂

It’s sort of amazing that I spent the first part of last week heavily talking about baseball yet moved up in the rankings. But I think Friday’s post and some controversy I’m having at the moment pushed me up the standings, pending the certain recount.

This means I get another opportunity to thank all of you who read my site, make good comments which advance the discussion (even you, Henry – I guess someone cares, don’t they?) and interact with me in “real” life with your thoughts and ideas.

As you’ll see this afternoon, I’m attempting to bring more national politics into my discussion. (It’s kind of funny, I was expecting a drop in the rankings so I just billed myself as a “top 10” Maryland blog.) It’s not like I’m forgetting my roots, but in order to promote change on a national scale, I need to have a national focus. Sometimes our city and state are the canary in the coal mine though so I’ll keep my ear to the ground.

By the way, I wonder if it’s the (for lack of a better word) incestuous nature of Eastern Shore blogging that helps our collective rankings. We have three of the top four blogs this week in Maryland (monoblogue, Delmarva Dealings, Salisbury News) which is unusual for an area that only has about 5% of Maryland’s population. Or maybe it’s because we have the most common sense politics?

Again, I’d like to thank all of you who read and comment for helping me to one of my goals! Woohoo!

Radio days volume 5

This won’t be too long as a review. As I’ve stated before, the way I approach these things is two friends talking politics with a microphone stuck between us.

But I still like the disclaimer I came up with, “the views and opinions expressed by this politician do not necessarily reflect the views expressed by common sense.” That was pretty much on the fly, I actually wrote that during the break. The other thing I wrote down (didn’t talk about it) was the fact that the state of Maryland is giving Allen Family Foods $1.7 million for 750 new jobs, but the jobs only need pay $7.73 per hour plus benefits. How long is it going to take for that $1.7 million to be paid back in taxes and economic impact? Working full-time at that wage only grosses $16,078.40 (based on 2080 hours per year). I know that amount would qualify for EITC and probably doesn’t make a whole lot back for the state in income taxes – so why the subsidy? I’d love to have someone explain that to me.

Anyway, it was nice to chat about things like the upcoming Crab Feast in Crisfield and our “cheese-eating surrender monkey” Congressman. I’ll have to look for a letter next week as he explains away this vote. (I thought I got an e-mail yesterday that explained it as well, but I’ll be damned if I can find it.) In the meantime, I did get assurance from the Harris campaign that he and his supporters will be down in Crisfield, and Andrew himself will have his own “radio day” Wednesday (the 18th) on the AM Salisbury program. (The usual 7:40 a.m. slot, WICO-AM 1320.)

Speaking of the Harris campaign, they did point out a New York Times article about party unity, part of which noted:

But a CQPolitics.com “party unity” study for the first half-year of the Democratic-majority 110th Congress shows that there still are a number of House Republicans seeking to strike independent postures — which contrast with the still-strongly conservative demeanor of their overall caucus.

And the analysis shows that these members appear more and more willing to distance themselves from President George W. Bush and other Republican leaders who are suffering from very low public approval ratings.

For example, the leading House Republican dissident over the year’s first six months, Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland, voted with most of his fellow Republicans against most House Democrats on just over half of the votes that broke mainly along party lines (the measure used in CQ’s long-running party unity studies).

To be exact, Gilchrest’s party unity score was 52 percent. While the nine-term House incumbent has bucked his party on some issues, particularly those involving environmental protection, for many years, his breaks with the party line have been much more frequent than usual this year. In 2006, his party unity score was 75 percent.

Hey, that sounds like something I saw as well.

Now I got some not-so-nice comments about my performance from another blogger, who wrote, “I wasn’t even around when I got calls this morning from OTHER PEOPLE who said that the Bill Reddish Show was a sleeper at 7:40 AM.” Tell me, who were the other people? I can tell you that I got a call from G.A. Harrison at the show’s break and he left me a message stating I was doing a “great job.” And obviously Bill must think I do all right as a guest, he keeps inviting me back (as well as G.A. for that matter.) It actually works out well for Bill, G.A. does more with the local scene and I focus on state and federal politics. And Bill’s the guy who has to worry about ratings, just like I keep trying to build my readership.

It just goes to show you can’t please everyone, I guess. I thought I did pretty well and I definitely had a good time.

Late edit: Back to Gilchrest…h/t to the newest MBA member, David at Abolition of Man. I found out the Iraq resolution was HR 2956 so you can read it yourself and judge accordingly.

Who will I support? – part one

Welcome to those of you seeing this through Carnival of Maryland 11. This is the first of a series that will continue on Tuesdays and Fridays through August.

As many of you know, I still haven’t made up my mind regarding who I’m going to support for the GOP presidential nomination. So it’s high time I did it.

Most people have some pet issue that they base their support on. I’m definitely not a one-issue person in that my support isn’t based on a candidate being simply pro-life, pro-gun, anti-judicial activism, or wherever their passion lies. As frequent readers know, my issue base is much more broad and, while it’s generally considered conservative, I don’t subscribe to the portion of conservatism that advocates Constitutional amendments regarding flag burning, abortion, etc. Much as the recent immigration fight had its opponents (including myself) that advocated simply tightening enforcement of existing laws, by and large I’d like to see Congress and the federal government as a whole follow the Constitution they already have, with a few additions that I spoke about previously.

But the first part of my decision comes on the issue of eminent domain and property rights. This is how the game will be played:

Each issue is worth a certain number of points. In this case, eminent domain ranks 12th on my list of the most important issues so it’s worth just 5 points. Other issues will rank accordingly higher and be worth more points.

The points are not static. In this example I only found three candidates who had an explicit position on the eminent domain issue – thus only three get a score right now. But if I find out later about other candidates with a view on the subject I’ll amend the scores accordingly. This will also hold true if one or more do a John Kerry-style flip-flop.

And most importantly, if a supporter wants to pitch their guy and give me evidence to back up the statement they make, I’m open to changing scores. But like Ronald Reagan I’m going to “trust but verify.”

To make this an easier read, I’ll go by the following rule. Having perused all the major candidate websites today, some have their issues page as just one page with short descriptions and others do separate pages for each issue. Particularly when they get to the most important issues, it’ll be wise on my part to simply link to a page rather than make the articles much longer. So if there’s a separate page, I’ll post the link to follow and if not I’ll quote directly.

So here goes. The three candidates who get my initial score are all Republicans: Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. Gilmore has separately paged what he terms the “National Property Rights Initiative” and writes about it in Human Events; meanwhile, Hunter and Paul are more brief so I’ll reproduce their statements below.

Duncan Hunter:

Kelo property rights/eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court:

I am deeply concerned with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government’s use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion in the Kelo case.

Additionally, I cosponsored H.R. 3268 (Gingrey-GA), the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005, which abolished the capital gains tax on private property taken by the government through eminent domain. I also voted in favor of a legislative amendment Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) offered to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, prohibiting federal funding from being used to improve or construct infrastructure support on lands acquired through the use of eminent domain of private property for private development.

Ron Paul:

Property Rights and Eminent Domain

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

All three have written thoughtful pieces on the subject. But Gilmore’s plan had just a little bit too much extra bureaucracy and regulation to me, adding a Special Assistant, a Presidential Commission, and a mandate for the HUD Secretary. So it’s an effort but not done all that well, he’ll get 2 points.

Duncan Hunter has gotten behind some good common-sense legislation and properly points out that it is indeed up to Congress to take care of the problem. His approach is actually more proper (asking Congress to take care of the problem) than Ron Paul’s, although Paul does note correctly that federal agencies (which are under the purview of the executive branch as well) do play a role in overreaching their proper bounds. The only fault I’d find with Ron Paul is his use of the hackneyed “special interests” phrase. Thus I give Hunter the full 5 points and Paul 4 points.

Like the first inning of a ballgame, it’s too early to make predictions but all three of these guys got off to a good start. So the early standings through one post are:

  1. Hunter, 5 points.
  2. Paul, 4 points.
  3. Gilmore, 2 points.
  4. Brownback, no points.
  5. Giuliani, no points.
  6. Huckabee, no points.
  7. McCain, no points.
  8. Romney, no points.
  9. Tancredo, no points.
  10. F. Thompson, no points.
  11. T. Thompson, no points.

Of course, since no Democrat has that issue among the websites I looked through (generally I did a search for the word “Kelo” and the phrase “eniment domain”) no one got points. But judging from their liberal leanings and the known persuasion of most of those on the Supreme Court who voted for the defendant in Kelo v. New London, I doubt there were points to be had anyway.

And like I said, if you’re a supporter or work for a candidate and you can show me where I’m not finding something or interpreting incorrectly, by all means set me straight. I may have missed something on a website or a related blog.

In the meantime, on Tuesday I’m planning on moving up to the 11th most important issue, that being Second Amendment rights. I know we’ll get some points out of that subject!

Late note: Jim Gilmore dropped his bid on July 14th, so I have one less website to peruse now. That’s too bad, he was in the early running for my endorsement. He was a bit handicapped because of a late start and health issues (eye surgery). I wish him good luck with his future endeavors.

Yep, another shameless plug

I’ll be on Bill Reddish’s show yet again tomorrow, talking politics and whatever else comes up. Maybe I’ll discuss our Congressman voting for defeat again.

If I’m in the ornery mood I’m in right now come tomorrow morning, it may get interesting. Should be twenty minutes of good radio if that’s so, starting at 7:40.