Month: October 2007

Smearing those in the right

Generally campus doings at George Washington University are genteel and just draw interest from students and friends of the university. But a flyer described as a “parody” by those who finally admitted to it caused a nationwide stir and drew attention to yet another example of a group of “progressives” doing so well that which they accuse us on the conservative side of doing, smearing a group for political edge.

The flyer was the answer by a group of anti-war students to the upcoming Islamofascism Awareness Week, sponsored by the Terrorism Awareness Project. GWU is one of 200 or so college campuses where conservative groups (in this case, the Young America’s Foundation) will make efforts to alert students about the threat we face from radical Islamists.

Somewhere along the line I thought college campuses were supposed to be places where free thought was encouraged. I’m sure that the George Washington campus has some sort of Islamic student association who regularly gets out the message they wish to portray about their religion. On the other hand, it’s not arguable that those who carried out the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist activities before and since belonged to the Islamic faith. 

In this case, it’s how Islamic groups carry out their religion that’s at issue here. Carrying that to a logical conclusion, it’s plausible that the Islamic students at GWU are representative of the, say, 98% of Muslims who have little or no problem with America but the Terrorism Awareness Project wants us to be vigilant about other 2 percent, the ones who aim to either convert us or kill us.

But the seven anti-war students insulted two different populations in their attempt at humor. They achieved this twofer by first invoking the tired old stereotype of conservatives as anti-Arab racists and doing it in such a way to remind people of the old portrayals of blacks as “Aunt Jemima” types. But most of all, they did this in a manner that just wasn’t funny. It just goes to show that the left wing is all about diversity in every way except diversity of thought. They certainly aren’t doing so hot in the area of political humor, either.

Speaking of smears, was what Senator Harry Reid stated yesterday on the Senate floor anything short of incredibly boorish? He made it sound like the letter he penned to Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays regarding Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldier” comment and the E-Bay auction that followed (netting over $4 million for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation since Rush matched the winning bid) was a great masterstroke on his part, and that he and Mays were in on the whole thing. It was truly a groundbreaking event; not just because of the amount of the bid, but in proving that politicians will try to slide anything that they say to their advantage, no matter how bad it makes them look.

Gilchrest shows he can play Republican

Yesterday I got this press release from Wayne Gilchrest’s camp:

GILCHREST VOTES FOR BAN ON TAXING THE INTERNET

U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Maryland-1st) voted in favor of legislation Tuesday that extends the ban on taxing the Internet for another 4 years.

H.R. 3678, called The Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments of 2007, passed by a vote of 405 to 2.

“This extension is important because it was due to expire on November 1st,” Gilchrest said. “But I’ve cosponsored legislation that would permanently prohibit taxing the Internet and I hope this Congress acts on that legislation.”

Gilchrest is a cosponsor of H.R. 743, which permanently bans Internet taxes and has 238 cosponsors in the House.

The legislation passed Tuesday extends the moratorium on certain state and local taxation of online services and electronic commerce until November 1, 2011.

Congress first banned Internet taxes in 1998. Over the last decade, Gilchrest has voted to make the Internet tax ban permanent, but those bills died in the Senate. Temporary bans have passed instead, the most recent passing in 2004.

“With an emerging industry like the Internet Congress should be doing everything to encourage its growth, not tax it.  Economic growth is the key to our strong economy, and this measure should help promote growth in one of our most promising fields,” Gilchrest said.

What Gilchrest doesn’t note is that he signed on as a cosponsor just a few days ago, on October 3rd. By the way, the two who voted no are Rep. Michael Turner (OH-3) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14). Eshoo is the lead sponsor of the bill to make the moratorium permanent so I’m guessing she voted as she did to encourage a vote to perpetuate the exemption. Not sure what led Turner to vote against the continuation. The bill in question, HR 3678, is here.

Also, for the third day in a row the Daily Times weighed in on the race (this time with an AP story written by Kristen Wyatt.) Again they use another in-your-face style quote from the Gilchrest camp:

Gilchrest planned a few small house parties in coming weeks to raise money for his campaign, Caligiuri said. He’s also got a bigger Republican gun than Ehrlich coming to the Eastern Shore. Gilchrest plans to attend a Talbot County event, but not a fundraiser, with President Bush on Saturday, Caligiuri said.

Doesn’t that go under the advantages of incumbency? I would think that the local GOP officials would be invited to the event simply because they’re elected officials. It doesn’t mean Bush is weighing into the race – in truth, he’ll be in Talbot County because several Bush Administration officials maintain second homes there.

Besides, given Bush’s low approval ratings derived in part by the perceived unpopularity of the war in Iraq, would Gilchrest want to be seen with him anyway?

Crossposted on RedMaryland.

District One gets a little nastier (and more crowded)

First I’ll start with the crowded part. Baltimore County resident and onetime Ehrlich Administation official Robert Banks jumped into the First Congressional District GOP race this week. Banks cites his campaign as the “middle ground” between the hardline conservatism of Andy Harris and the moderate record of incumbent Wayne Gilchrest. So it’s another guy to send Ten Questions to and once he gets his website up (if he has one) I’ll be sure to link to it so we can all see what the middle ground truly is.

As well, according to the Maryland Board of Elections website another Democrat is in the fray, Anne Arundel County resident Steve Harper. Only Democrat Christopher Robinson among the previously announced candidates has yet to officially file.

Now the nasty part. In today’s Daily Times article on the First District race, Congressman Gilchrest is quoted:

“(Harris) will need $1.5 million to get 40 percent of the vote,” Gilchrest said in an interview Monday. “I don’t think Harris can get 40 percent of the vote. Once people know his philosophies, he’ll get 20 percent of the vote.” (emphasis mine)

With Harris being a well-funded opponent who enjoys name recognition on the Western Shore, it’s very likely given the number of people now in the race that the winner will be the one with the largest plurality rather than the majority. However, this is not the largest number of opponents Gilchrest has faced – in 1990 he beat seven opponents to win nomination. Did a little hunting on the Maryland Board of Elections website, looking up each election Gilchrest ran in and how well he did:

  • 2006 – unopposed in primary, won 68.8% in general election.
  • 2004 – 61.9% in primary over one opponent, won 75.9% in general election.
  • 2002 – 60.0% in primary over two opponents, won 76.7% in general election.
  • 2000 – unopposed in primary, won 64% in general election.
  • 1998 – unopposed in primary, won 69% in general election.
  • 1996 – 65% in primary over five opponents, won 62% in general election.
  • 1994 – 65% in primary over three opponents, won 68% in general election.
  • 1992 – 47% in primary over four opponents, won 51% in general election.
  • 1990 – 29% in primary over seven opponents, won 57% in general election.
  • 1988 – 55% in primary over one opponent, lost with 49.6% in general election.

In that 1988 election he lost to Democrat Roy Dyson, the man he’d beat two years later.

Conventional wisdom would hold that Gilchrest gains a little bit of an advantage over his opponents with each one that enters the race because even if they get a small percentage it’s more likely to come out of the anti-incumbent sentiment that’s expressed in almost every election. However, one thing I’ve never seen is a job approval poll on Wayne Gilchrest. We all know President Bush’s approval ratings run now in the upper 20’s, but what about Wayne’s numbers – particularly among the GOP voters? Granted, I have a small circle of friends who are mostly of the politically connected type but many of them are quite frustrated with Gilchrest’s antiwar and generally moderate stance. 

Further, the moderate Democrats who Gilchrest gets a bump of support from in the general election can’t help him in the GOP primary unless they switch parties, something they only have until November 19 to do. Most of the heavy campaigning likely won’t begin in earnest until after the holidays and by then it will be too late for Gilchrest supporters who are registered Democrats to help him if they see one of Wayne’s opponents surging ahead in the polls. It will also make for an interesting general election dynamic as the Democrat nominee will have to walk a tightrope between the moveon.org types who are taking over the party, particularly on the Western Shore, and the more moderate Humphrey-style Eastern Shore Democrats.

It makes for one of the best Congressional races in the country and definitely will be a bellweather for the 2008 general election.

Crossposted on RedMaryland.

Brownback backs out

If the reports are correct, it looks like the GOP field is back down to nine major and semi-major contenders. Apparently Senator Sam Brownback is dropping his Presidential bid, citing fundraising issues.

Sam wasn’t among my top choices for the post, and the times I saw him debating I thought he pandered way too much. His appeal was mostly to the hardline social conservatives who want a Constitutional amendment banning abortion among other issues of that ilk – those criticized by some as wanting smaller government except in the case of legislating morality at the federal level. With that stance, he appealed to many of the same voters who gave Mike Huckabee his Iowa momentum; obviously Huckabee did a better job of gaining their support as he’s polling in the mid-single digits instead of 1% or less as Brownback was.

Others hammered Brownback’s immigration views, including a last-minute switch of his vote on the amnesty bill over the summer. This stance earned him the moniker “Senator Switchback” from influential conservative commentator Michelle Malkin.

Like Tommy Thompson last week, Brownback will likely endorse one of his opponents at some point. The pundits seem to be split as to whether he would lend his support to one of two aspirants who are seeking to get to (or back into) the top tier of candidates, the aforementioned Mike Huckabee or John McCain. My money is on McCain as he’s a fellow Senator and has a similar stance on immigration as well. It would give a little bit of a boost to McCain, who was once the odds-on favorite but slipped deep into the field after the immigration fiasco.

Future plans for Brownback may include a 2010 run for governor of his home state, Kansas. Current Governor Kathleen Sebelius is term-limited out of office and Brownback vowed when first elected in 1998 to serve just two Senate terms. It’s possible the voters of Kansas could allow the two to switch jobs, which would flip a Senate seat from Republican to Democrat.

So who will drop out next? It’s just a gut feeling I have but I think the next “out” is Tom Tancredo, with my endorsed candidate Duncan Hunter being another possibility. The others, including newest candidate Alan Keyes, will likely hang on through at least the first set of primaries.

Crossposted on RedMaryland.

Legislative checkup, October 2007 (Congress)

Time for another in my occasional looks at how the people representing Maryland’s Eastern Shore are faring in Congress. The last time I did this was June 23, so we’ll see how much they accomplished with bills they have sponsored and votes they’ve taken since that date. This will include our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest; and Maryland’s two Senators, Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski.

I’ll begin with Wayne Gilchrest. He has just four bills under his sponsorship, all of which currently langush in committee:

  • H.R. 16 is the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2007, which reauthorizes an existing law;
  • H.R. 3166 is to “reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003”;
  • H.R. 3841 is to “prohibit the commercial harvesting of Atlantic menhaden for reduction purposes in the coastal waters and the exclusive economic zone”, and;
  • H. Con. Res. 153 “express(es) the sense of the Congress regarding the need for a nationwide diversified energy portfolio, and for other purposes.”

So he’s shown himself as interested in the environment and energy, but we already knew that. With that slim record of sponsorship, it’s probably more useful to see what voting pattern he’s had on some bills of interest. That comes later in the post.

Ben Cardin is much busier, sponsoring a total of 55 pieces of legislation in this session with 33 of these being amendments to other legislation. A few of the recent bills I found interesting were:

  • S.1899, “To require every American to have health insurance coverage”;
  • S.1934, “A bill to extend the existing provisions regarding the eligibility for essential air service subsidies through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes”, and;
  • S.2115, “A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend for 6 months the eligibility period for the ‘Welcome to Medicare’ physical examination and to provide for the coverage and waiver of cost-sharing for preventive services under the Medicare program.”

As with Gilchrest’s bills, all of these are in committee.

In looking at what Senator Mikulski has attempted to get done, there’s nothing truly groundbreaking unless you consider an attempt to create a semipostal stamp for Alzheimer’s research or congratulating Cal Ripken Jr. on his Hall of Fame election groundbreaking. She seems to be the go-to woman for a lot of legislation relating to health care, however. I also found it noteworthy that she introduced a number of amendments to one bill, that bill being the appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice. She’s part of the Conference Committee ironing out the differences between the House and Senate versions.

I suppose in looking at the record of what these three sponsor it’s a case of all three trying to create or at least maintain the federal government as primary regulator and moneychanger for the country. None of them seem to be interested in getting the government off our backs; if anything they’re looking to increase our share of the pie a little bit. Personally, I’d take a smaller pie rather than a bigger slice but that’s just me I suppose.

Looking at some of the votes now, this must be where Wayne Gilchrest racked up a bunch of that 48% of the time he voted with the Democrats. It happened a lot with amendments and with these bills:

  • The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (passed 273-149, Gilchrest joining 47 Republicans and all 226 Democrats that voted in favoring passage.)
  • The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act (passed 223-201, Gilchrest one of just four Republicans joining a 219-10 Democrat majority in passage.)
  • The likely misnamed “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act”, which sought to “provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.” (Passed 314-97, Republicans split 98-94 with Gilchrest in favor.)
  • The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act; or, “to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.” (Passed 233-191, Gilchrest was one of 19 Republicans voting yes while 177 said no.)
  • Wayne also voted for a bill, “To mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.” (Passed 229-194, Gilchrest one of 6 Republicans joining a 223-4 Democrat majority in favor.)
  • Charles Rangel and Nancy Pelosi, respectively, sponsored these two related bills, the “Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007” (passed 221-189, Gilchrest one of 9 GOP members in favor) and the “New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act” (which passed 241-172, Gilchrest being one of 26 Republicans saying yes.)
  • The Patent Reform Act of 2007, which Gilchrest voted for and passed 220-175. I note this because it’s one pet issue of Gilchrest opponent Joe Arminio.
  • Gilchrest was one of only 16 to vote against the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (passed 397-16. By comparison there were 19 who didn’t vote.)
  • As we’ve read recently, Wayne voted to reauthorize and expand SCHIP. It passed 265-159 as Wayne was one of 45 GOP members to vote yes.
  • Gilchrest also voted with the majority Democrats on the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 (passed 263-146) and the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 (passed 264-148). More tax dollars thrown at issues better solved by the private sector.
  • There is one bill though where a significant number of Republicans defected but Gilchrest wasn’t one. The “Tax Collection Responsibility Act”, an act in part “to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies.” It still passed 232-173 with 22 Republicans in the majority.

You know, I really need to do this more often. There were about 500 or so House roll call votes I had to skim to find the most pertinent ones. It’s much easier to do the Senate for two reasons: one, they do fewer votes; and two, probably 90% of the time Cardin and Mikulski vote as a bloc with their Democrat cohorts. In fact, I looked up all 145 Senate votes since I last did this exercise and our Senators only split votes 5 times – on FISA, confirming OMB Director Jim Nussle, increasing the debt limit, and twice they split votes on troop redeployment where Cardin was the dove and Mikulski the hawk.

Our illustrious Senators also voted as a group for SCHIP supplanting private health insurance, for a rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine, in favor of “card check” rather than a secret ballot for union representation, against limited immunity in cases like the private citizen who uncovered the Fort Dix Six, against requiring voter identification, and for bike paths rather than bridge repairs. Just thought you’d like to know.

It’s amazing the sausage grinding that goes into making laws. I suppose when you have as much of our money to play with as these folks do and act as a group who has long since bypassed the limits placed on their action by our Constitution it’s almost beyond the scope of most people to really care about what happens in Washington. But every so often I get curious and take the time to do so. I have to say though I honestly wish that there wasn’t so much to do on the subject!

The market basket, October 2007

This may seem quite the unusual post for a political blog. I’m not really a consumer affairs spokesperson but there is a political tie-in to this series of posts I’ve done every six months since April of 2006.

The event that made this idea for a grocery comparison come to mind was the enactment of the Fair Share Health Care Act last year. Better known as the “Wal-Mart” bill, it originally passed Maryland’s General Assembly during the 2005 session but was properly vetoed by then-Governor Ehrlich at the end of the session. However, one of the first items on the 2006 agenda for the Democrats in the General Assembly with the support of their union thug allies was to override the Fair Share veto, thus it was to become Maryland law when I began the series. Later that summer, though, a federal court stopped its enforcement due to its conflict with ERISA statutes and the apparent death blow to the bill came this summer in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Originally the idea behind “market basket” was to track the price effect this attempt at punishing achievement had on Wal-Mart in comparison to its local competitors. April 2006 would be my basis point (since the bill was set to commence in July of 2006) and as time went on I could track the effects Fair Share would have had on Wal-Mart versus its competition, who labored under no such restrictions. All that went out the window once Fair Share was nullified; however, I still believe this is a valid study to continue because of other government policies such as the increase in the minimum wage and emphasis on solving our fuel problem with foodstuff (e.g. ethanol taking a large chunk of our corn crop.) These also affect the price one pays at the cash register.

The methods of comparison are relatively simple – I just use a base group of twenty items commonly found in our local grocery stores, noting which ones are on sale the week I do my shopping. Most of the time I use national brands because they’re easiest to compare directly, also I buy many of them for my own personal consumption. The actual list of items can be found via the links below, with the prices in effect at the time of purchase (all are .pdf files):

What I’ve found the most intriguing is the larger jump from Wal-Mart and Food Lion compared to the other two. One possible reason is that both outlets have undergone a facelift since I began the process so part of the pricing is likely makeup of the renovation costs. On the other hand, Giant closed one of its two Salisbury stores and their standalone pharmacy so their facility cost has decreased – it may be part of the reason they’ve moved up to #2 in my store price rankings. And while Wal-Mart is still by far the most wallet-friendly of the four stores, their onetime advantage of 25-35% has slipped to about 20-25% as they’ve actually raised their prices more quickly than anyone else. They’ve been suspected of that sort of dirty pool before as they cut prices so low no one can compete and as local players are driven out of the market they raise their prices. In this case though all four chains have survived in Salisbury with just the Giant store and pharmacy closing.

It’s no shock to see that the largest price increases seem to come from dairy products. Milk has shot up 26.4% in the 18 month period, cheese 11%, and eggs a whopping 82.9 percent. Instead of solely raising the price on its yogurt, Breyers joined most of its competition by reducing their 8 ounce cups to 6 ounces for the same price. (Needless to say I was pretty perturbed by that one, yogurt’s a lunch staple for me.) Bread also made a healthy jump, increasing 28.4% over the time period.

Small wonder that people think the economy’s not doing as well as the unemployment rate and the stock market may suggest. When the price of two food staples has gone up over 25% in 18 months, it puts a pinch on families by driving their total food bill upward. And there’s little sign of abatement in either price as feed continues to be expensive for dairy cows and wheat acreage decreases due to the demand for corn to be processed into ethanol. It’ll be a trend that bears watching when I do this again in April 2008.

Giuliani picks up a half point

I think this was something that only political junkies noticed, so I guess I qualify. On Friday it was announced that former GOP Presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson was endorsing Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.

Readers may recall that the onetime Wisconsin governor and Bush administration official dropped out of the race after finishing sixth in the Ames Straw Poll back in August. Thompson expected no worse than a second-place finish at the event so the poor results showed that his bid would be fruitless. Further, he was only in the low single-digits in most national polls.

In my view, Tommy didn’t do well in the polls because he was perceived as being a continuation of the Bush administration by the right-wingers in the party. In studying the issues I thought of him as a big-government type and while he’s possibly a little closer to current candidate Mike Huckabee in that regard – in some respects Huckabee most resembles Bush with regard to “compassionate” conservatism – endorsing Giuliani is no giant leap for Governor Thompson.

It’s not yet known whether Thompson’s former campaign will have any of its debt retired by Rudy’s millions. However, this apparent quid pro quo has occurred on the Democrat side as another onetime Midwest governor, Iowa’s Tom Vilsack, had much of his abortive Presidential campaign shortfall taken care of once he endorsed Hillary for President.

It remains to be seen as well how much campaigning Tommy will do on Rudy’s behalf, although the release claims that “(a)s National Co-Chair, Thompson will help promote Rudy’s record of results and leadership as Mayor of New York City, while talking about the Mayor’s bold vision for America.” Something tells me that areas considered the GOP backwaters like Delmarva would be the types of places where Rudy would send a surrogate like Tommy Thompson in his stead, but we’ll see how much love he and the rest of the GOP contenders give us as the campaign wears on.

It’s time for some answers

One thing I strive to do with monoblogue is inform the voters of my area about those who they’ll be asked to select from in upcoming elections. As I’ve often said I hate politics based on sound bites and thirty second commercials.

Back on September 8, I sent out what I call the Ten Questions to five of the candidates who are seeking the First District Congressional seat. Incumbent Wayne Gilchrest and challengers Andy Harris, Joe Arminio, John Leo Walter, and Christopher Robinson were all sent a copy based on contact addresses from their website. (There was no e-mail contact noted on Frank Kratovil’s and to be quite honest it slipped my mind until just now to send him a snail-mail copy. If a Kratovil supporter wants to help me out and supply an e-mail contact that would be fine too.) Maybe it’s just another survey to them but it’s citizen journalism in my eyes and I had multipartisan participation last year when I did this for U.S. Senate and local General Assembly candidates.

The idea behind the Ten Questions was to help the voters get a feel for how they’d approach a number of issues I and most likely many others in the First District deemed of great importance. In no particular order my questions ask about energy independence, taxation, infrastructure spending, illegal immigration, health insurance, federal mandates, the Long War, ethics in Congress, trade and job creation, and who they’d prefer to work with in the Oval Office. I thought I put together a broad spectrum of questions that sought basic answers on how these aspirants thought best to attack these issues – unfortunately thus far I’ve been met with nothing but silence.

The goal of this was to devote a particular post to each candidate’s answers, with a small amount of editorial content at the end. (You can find examples from last year under the “Ten Questions” category along the left-hand column.) Then around the first of February, the idea was to have separate debate-style posts for the Republicans and Democrats so voters in each party could compare and contrast their views, informing the electiongoing public where these men stand. And it’s free publicity for the campaigns.

However, 37 days have elapsed since I sent out these questions and I have zero responses. It makes me wonder what all of the candidates are trying to hide (excepting Mr. Kratovil, of course.) Certainly some have their hot-button issues on their websites, but this exercise was intended to force some more specifics out of them. However, they can answer with six paragraphs or six words, it’s their choice.

Maybe it’s time for my loyal readers to put some pressure on their candidates to answer my questions. I tried to write them in a balanced manner and present some alternatives because I knew the intended targets had viewpoints all over the political spectrum. Also, if some of my non-local readership would like to ask these questions of their own candidates, let me know and I’ll send you a copy for your use (with proper source credit, of course.)

Otherwise, I’m just left to wonder why they’re afraid to answer the questions of one First District voter. Personally, I feel that if they don’t want to answer my questions then just say so – while I’m not going to be happy about that at least I have a response to judge them by. But I reserve the right to let my readers know of their recalcitrance.

Election Calendar: October 15-28

There’s not much to add to this week’s version of the Election Calendar, so I’ve taken the liberty of placing a little bit of First District election-related news and notable quotes at the tail end of this post.

First the events:

Wednesday, October 17: Frank Kratovil is slated to be the speaker at the Wicomico County Democrat Club meeting, they meet at the Knights of Columbus in Salisbury from 7-8:30 p.m.

Thursday, October 18: It’s still on the Joe Arminio calendar that he’s supposed to be speaking to the Dorchester County Republican Women’s Club up (I would assume) in Cambridge. Yes, that’s all I have on the event.

Thursday, October 25 (tentative): Once again it’s Wayne Gilchrest‘s biweekly turn on WICO-AM 1320 at 7:40 a.m. I suspect host Bill Reddish will change topics this time since most of the conversation last Thursday centered around Gilchrest’s recent Middle East trip. In it, Gilchrest called for a “immense surge of diplomacy” with Iran and Syria but also said that “no one wants to see troops leave the Middle East.”

On the other hand, Reddish’s Friday talk with challenger Andy Harris centered mostly on domestic and state issues. Among the notable quotes:

“Wayne’s a nice guy, but he votes for taxes.”

“The government really shouldn’t be in the healthcare business…SCHIP is about single-payer healthcare (and) the President was right to veto it.”

Andy also vowed to do two other items in the monoblogue playbook: co-sponsor a bill to implement the FairTax and serve no more than 12 years, stating, “if you can’t accomplish what you want (in that time) you should step aside.” Obviously it was a slam at Gilchrest, who’s seeking a tenth Congressional term.

Thus ends this exercise in the killing two birds with one stone department. I’ll certainly have another event to add for next week as the date will fall within the two-week timeframe so readers have that and hopefully much more to look forward to on next week’s calendar.

Rethinking eminent domain

Well, I’m not but the American Institute of Architects is. Back in February I recounted an e-mail that I got from this organization that gladly accepts my dues but I don’t often agree with as far as political policies go. For example, they’ve swallowed the man-made global warming Kool-Aid bigtime.

Be that as it may, every so often they solicit input on their position statements, and the occasion of my February post was to talk about my input on one the group penned on eminent domain. Apparently the rest of the membership also had objections because yesterday I got my weekly e-mail from the AIA and part of it was to gather comments on a revised version. For ease of comparison, here are the original and revised versions:

Original:

The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. State and local governments must ensure that eminent domain laws do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.

Revised:

The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain can be a necessary and appropriate tool for government to secure land for the reasonable implementation of publicly owned projects. Only under very special and unique circumstances should that tool be used for projects that will ultimately revert to private ownership. In these circumstances, eminent domain should be considered a tool of last resort and only be applied if there is a clear and compelling public need and benefit demonstrated and supported through an open, broad-based, and transparent community planning process. In all cases, eminent domain should be applied in ways that fairly consider the value of existing land uses and communities, while respecting individual citizens’ rights, and community history.

It’s much closer to what I’d like to see, and I think all I’d add at first read is the phrase “private property” to the last sentence so it reads, “…while respecting individual citizens’ private property rights, and community history.”

While I’m on the subject, it also gives me an opportunity to talk about a group that was in the news quite a bit when the Kelo ruling was handed down in 2005 but has faded from the limelight since. As a part of the Institute for Justice umbrella, the Castle Coalition is a group dedicated to fighting abuses of eminent domain by government. They also have prepared a report card detailing which states have the best eminent domain laws and which lag behind – 28 states have “passing” grades with Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota all earning a solid “A”. Here in Maryland we rate a “D” while just over the line in Delaware they get a “D-“. Delaware’s low grade places them with California, Tennessee, and Vermont at the bottom of the barrel.

As a person who gets his paycheck indirectly from a whole host of developers wishing to improve their properties, generally I’m in favor of few and reasonable restrictions and regulations on property development. I think the AIA position I originally pegged as “property owners be damned” certainly was changed because of input from forwardthinking architects and associated professionals like me, and maybe we’ll get them next to advocate more aggressively for a position on eminent domain reform similar to that of the Castle Coalition’s. Given their pattern of political donations, though, I’m not holding my breath.

1500 people in a parking lot?

Barack Obama came to Maryland the other evening. Speaking in one of the most prosperous minority strongholds in the country and charging between $15-25 for admission (not a whole lot considering the average income), as an outside observer I’d have to classify just 1500 people bothering to turn out as a blow to the Obama campaign, showing the strength of the Clinton machine in Maryland Democrat circles. He may have done better with the high-end donors he spoke to after the outdoor event, but the $30k or $40k he made on the Prince George’s Community College event is pretty much a drop in the campaign bucket.

For their part, Barack’s campaign seemed to spin this as part of their appeal to youth. The problem with approach this is twofold: youth do not vote in nearly the numbers their elders do nor do they have the large amounts of money required to fund a national campaign. The puny turnout also may put a little egg on the face of our state Attorney General, Doug Gansler, who’s serving as a co-chair of Obama’s Maryland campaign.

As for the content, here’s how Sun writer David Nitkin pegged it:

Obama deliver(ed) a stump speech thick with anti-Bush rhetoric.

“People are yearning for justice,” said Obama, who had spent most of the day in New Hampshire. “They are hungry for change.”

In the heart of one of the wealthiest African-American communities in the nation, Obama attracted a diverse crowd that greeted with relish his call for a new energy policy and an end to the Iraq war.

Yes, that would appeal to a college crowd which still succumbs to rumors about reinstating the draft and hears daily the global warming propaganda. For example, here’s an excerpt from Obama’s campaign website on energy policy:

Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years… Scientists predict that absent major emission reductions, climate change will worsen famine and drought in some of the poorest places in the world and wreak havoc across the globe. In the U.S., sea-level rise threatens to cause massive economic and ecological damage to our populated coastal areas.

So Barack, even with his carefully crafted populist image and self-positioning as an outsider to Washington politics, went in front of a youthful crowd and delivered a gloom-and-doom, hate-Bush, America is the source of global evil speech. People, especially young people, are indeed hungry for change but they also believe in, at least in some part, the vision of America as a shining city on a hill. If anything, Obama and his party represent a group wishing to jump farther from the ideal than leading us into it. Fortunately, the low turnout at the event (and lack of media attention leading up to it) may also show that people are not buying a negative 2008 campaign.