Huckabee on immigration, take two

Many readers may recall that I graded the Presidential candidates on their issue stances over the summer in order to determine who I’d support. Back in August I graded Mike Huckabee this way:

Mike Huckabee has the right ideas about the border fence and opposing the late, unlamented immigration bill. But aside from those who commit crimes (aside from the very act of entering illegally) he does nothing with the millions of illegals already here or their employers. I’ll give him 11 points (out of 25) – not quite half since he addresses not quite half the issue from my standpoint.

In fact, a portion of this from his website was what I based his original assessment on. It appears that his campaign added some to this issue page after the checkmarks because he repeats the part about the $3 billion that was passed for border security. Oops. This must have been in the same timeframe as the end of last week when Mike Huckabee came out with what he called the “Secure America” Plan. It was a revision and extension of what he noted originally in several areas.

First, he puts a date certain on a border fence with interlocking surveillance camera system, which he vows to have complete by the middle of 2010. (Duncan Hunter says if elected he’ll have that done in six months so what’s the holdup?)

He’s quite inspecific about personnel though, only calling for an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents. I’m sure he means more than one, but not having a figure in mind nor placing it in the context of how many agents we currently have makes this a meaningless platitude. The same goes for giving “(full) support” to law enforcement personnel. That phrase sounds like something that could turn porcine once Congress gets a hold of it. We know what numbers Congress intended in the bill passed this summer so some additional clarity would be great.

I have some issue with the next part, “Prevent Amnesty”:

Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.

First of all, the order on leaving the country is backwards. Practically every country has a United States embassy, why not make the illegals who are here for economic reasons go back to their country of origin first and then register there? Have you ever heard of the internet? It’s great for sending paperwork. Moreover, if we haven’t caught the millions that are already here illegally, what makes us think that we’re not going to go through the same “catch and release” we’ve been doing for decades? These illegals, particularly the criminal element like the MS-13 gang, aren’t going to fret over a 10 year bar on reentry because they’re ILLEGAL. They already broke the law once! That’s why the fence needs to get done now.

Let those who want a second chance the right way leave and come back.

On the other hand, Huckabee finally addresses gaps in the employer aspect that were missing from his original immigration stance. I like this aspect, but I will guarantee you that some group like CASA de Maryland or other Latino advocate group will drag that law into court before the ink is dry on President Huckabee’s signature.

Next is immigration reform through the FairTax. Honestly, I think he just threw that on as a buzzword. He needs to expand on how that would be an “economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally” because I sure can’t figure it out. If anything, having tax-free income may have the opposite effect.

On point 6, “Empowering Local Authorities”, he doesn’t repeat his earlier pledge to crack down on “rogue cities” (better known as “sanctuary cities”) and without a stick that carrot will not achieve the desired results.

His ideas for document security, particularly “(rejecting) Mexico’s ‘matricula consular’ card”, I can’t argue with, nor do I have a problem with the dual citizenship aspect.

But regarding the last part, the one issue I take is not addressing to my satisfaction the issue of “chain migration” and citizenship by virtue of birth. We know that thousands of pregnant women illegally cross the border just to have their babies here and use them as their stake to claim citizenship – the term is “anchor babies.”

Finally, it’s interesting to me that Huckabee cites his source for much of the ideas behind the “Secure America” plan. As he states:

This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. (“Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate,” National Review, May 23, 2005.)

If you want the original Krikorian article, I’m linking it here. Krikorian concludes it this way:

The silent majority on immigration is becoming increasingly restive and vocal, and this issue will only intensify as the next election approaches. Aspiring GOP candidates should capitalize on the current disquiet and seize the political high ground before their opponents beat them to it. Anyone desiring conservative support, and the Republican nomination, would be wise to adopt the above plan. It would be a shame to have to get used to saying “President Clinton” again. Wouldn’t it?

It looks like Mike Huckabee is trying to get that high ground and to some extent he’s succeeded. But there’s nothing that says no other candidate can use the ideas. More importantly, whoever uses the ideas can’t be allowed to go wobbly once the drive-by media and the illegal immigration sycophants (but I repeat myself) start their cacophany of protest. A half million Mexicans marching in the streets of Los Angeles make for a good news story but those of us who are here through legal means need to use our votes to alleviate the problem.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

2007 White House Christmas Card

I have no idea how I rated being on the list to get one of these, but I thought I’d share it with my readers. Huckabee can wait a day!

The front of the card.

Inside with Scripture verse.

The inside Biblical verse is Nehemiah 9:6 (NIV):

You alone are the LORD.
You made the heavens, even the highest heavens,
and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it,
the seas and all that is in them.
You give life to everything,
and the multitudes of heaven worship you.

Now I noticed on the back that it’s a Hallmark card and paid for by the RNC. Since I’ve not gotten a card like this previously I’m unsure if that’s standard procedure or just something to make me feel more important (as in a reprint of the actual card.) It’s not like I gave the RNC any money this year and it didn’t have any fundraising appeal attached so who knows?

I just know it will look nice on my card tree because it was the first Christmas card I got this year, my parents had the second.

Odds and ends no. 9

It’s one of those days I have a lot on my mind but not a lot to write about.

I pointed out a few times recently that the situation in Iraq seems to be coming off the table as an issue in 2008 because the surge seems to have worked and we’re in the process of slowly drawing down our troop strength in that theater, returning to pre-surge levels by the middle of 2008. What this means is that border security and illegal immigration is becoming the number one issue in most Americans’ minds. I bring this up because the poll-surging Mike Huckabee has come out with a detailed “Secure America” plan that bears study. I may review it tomorrow, tonight I simply want to bring it to your attention.

The other day I praised Bill Reddish for bringing out a lot of what Congressional candidate Christopher Robinson really believes in a ten-minute interview. So once I found out today that his scheduled interview was with fellow candidate E.J. Pipkin, I was looking forward to hearing from him – alas, Pipkin called in five minutes late and there wasn’t much of a chance for listeners to get to know him better. Obviously Pipkin’s chosen taxes and fiscal responsibility as his pet issue but I’d like to know a lot more and I’m sure others would too.

Speaking of the First District race, word comes from the PolitickerMD website (h/t to Red Maryland as well) that Rep. John Boehner, House Minority Leader, has endorsed the re-election of Wayne Gilchrest. Shades of Specter vs. Toomey 2004. While Boehner has the right to endorse the very moderate incumbent, in looking at things from a reinventionist Republican’s standpoint I just have to shake my head in wonder.

I’m going to wrap up with a few blog-related items. First and foremost, one blog I became familiar with from all the readers I had in my Rushalance back in October was Bob McCarty Writes. While I link to his site below, this post on Pearl Harbor Day deserves special mention so even though I’m pretty much a day late I don’t want to be a dollar short.

Turning to local stuff, it was pointed out by Salisbury News last weekend that our little area had the top three most influential political blogs in the state, at least as BlogNetNews measures it. (Now if Joe would only learn to spell my name correctly.) I would also make the case though that we have some of the most contentious websites in the state too, judging by the mudslinging that goes on in the local blogosphere. I try to pass on by it, but sometimes it grates on my nerves and right now in my mood I’m not going to be able to put up with as much. How about all of us doing the good job we do reporting news instead of making it?

Lastly, I’ve been remiss the last few days in not mentioning that, after almost 18 months, I finally have some Eastern Shore company in the Maryland Bloggers Alliance. Welcome to Shore and More, a blog I’d already linked to, but another in our MBA family of fine websites. Looks like we’re up to 43 members and many thousands of readers from around the state.

As promised, a review of Huckabee’s immigration plan tomorrow. It’s scary to think that we’re just 27 days away from the Iowa caucuses.

Ripples from a bailout

The leading financial news these days has been of the subprime mortgage bailout. While Michelle Malkin has succinct advice that I tend to agree with, I want to go back in time a little bit. There’s obviously reasons why the 6 percent of homeowners behind on their mortgage payments got that way, and it can’t all be profligate spending.

At first blush, this is what I thought about the news on her site:

So the people who have already shown themselves to be poor credit risks will get to take advantage of the taxpayers’ generosity. Do you think that they’ll take advantage of this break sponsored (albeit unwillingly) by people like me who didn’t buy a larger house than I could afford and do something to change their ways, or will they take advantage of the smaller house payments to buy more electronic goodies, ratchet up their credit cards, and the like?

Remember what happened the last time government gave “free” money to victims after Katrina?

That covered the spending angle. But then I thought about it a little more and realized that there has to be some who had thought ahead to the time when the rate would adjust upward and tried to make it work, but other things got in the way.

One example of this comes from a relatively new local blogger (“Average Girl”) who talked about her situation. She gave an example of an family whose combined monthly income is $3,500 net. After the bills she details (including a $900 a month rent/mortgage payment) they’re only left with $405 a month for a car payment, clothes, emergencies, etc. It’s relatively typical for most families who juggle bills on a monthly basis.

So what has changed for these families that 3 or 4 years ago were confident that they would be able to make their house payments (or re-refinance) when the rates went up?

First of all, the housing prices simply stopped going up. As a personal example, a little over a year ago I made an offer to buy a house in Salisbury. It was listed for $134,900 – one year earlier the owner had bought the place for $90,000. I didn’t offer that whole price because I wasn’t going to be the sucker who allowed a 50% rollover in one year, but somebody else did buy it – for even less than I’d offered a couple months before. The sellers still made a tidy 36.7% profit though in about 17 months of ownership.

In looking for a house, I saw that prices had zoomed up in this area about 50% in 2004-2006. People assumed the good times would roll and the increase in value would either make the house an investment on their way to a better home or give them a backstop to refinance at favorable terms with the appreciated value. (By the way, that house I used as an example is back on the market at the original listing price.)

But that old economic axiom of supply and demand saw a lot of builders try to cash in on the trend too. It kept me busy for the better part of three years doing condo work but those who came in past the peak are now sitting on a whole lot of unsold units. This housing glut drove the prices down and placed a lot of people underneath a mortgage more costly than their home’s reduced value.

I think people could have survived the drop in housing values though until reason number two came into play. In the last two years energy prices have surged dramatically. Here in Maryland, the cost of electricity jumped up by 1/3 or more (depending on supplier) while nationally gasoline costs have gone up by about the same margin. A second sticker shock occurred while trying to fix the first problem, with the price of corn (the component that’s blended with gasoline to make ethanol) nearly doubling. Not only is there a direct cost to the consumer at the gas pump and at the supermarket for all the products made with corn and corn by-products, but farther down the line businesses pass their additional costs to consumers, increasing inflationary pressure.

A third area of concern was the steady increase in interest rates. The Fed had continued to slowly raise the prime rate over a two year period – in July 2004 it was 4.25 percent but by July 2006 it was 8.25 percent. (They finally saw the subprime mortgage problem and began lowering the rate in September. Currently it’s 7.5 percent.) This may not seem like a lot, but with all of the credit card debt being carried by homeowners who wanted to furnish their nice, expensive homes anyone who had a card with interest based on prime plus a percentage saw their interest charges continue to press upward.

These three factors combined to erode the cushion that many families anticipated when they made their deal with the devil to get a larger house than may have been prudent for their budget. Again using a personal example, I was told I could borrow up to four or five times my income but decided to go by the old rule of thumb to not borrow more than 2.5 times my income for a house. Unfortunately, the sentiment that people like me who borrowed in a rational manner are getting screwed over is pretty pervasive, and there’s no way that any credit for doing this will accrue to President Bush – the partisan media will likely ask “what took you so long?”

Honestly, I’m of the opinion that events should have been allowed to run their course. It’s a market correction that occasionally occurs. No one was crying the blues for the oil companies when oil prices cratered in the late 1980’s, instead most of us were reaping the benefits of cheap gasoline. While not allowing a huge number of foreclosed homes to hit the marketplace and depress my home’s value benefits me personally, the ones who are hurt are those who could use a return to sanity in home prices to enter the market (particularly young couples) and the ones who don’t get to learn the valuable lesson about not living beyond their means but could use it.

Yes, there will be some who get financial breathing room from keeping their low “teaser” rate for awhile longer. But don’t think banks won’t find other ways to make back those lost interest charges. And even if they don’t enhance their revenues in that manner, not having to dump a lot of foreclosed housing stock for pennies on the dollar can do nothing but improve their bottom line.

What’s even more sinister to me is that a bipartisan effort to get the government involved in taking any risk out of the mortgage market will lead to yet another huge government bureaucracy, one that will mandate banks lend money to anyone who applies regardless of credit history. (Yes, I know we already have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This bailout impacts them as well.) As we’ve seen with a hundred other examples, once the feds get involved it’s nigh upon impossible to get them out of the heretofore free market.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Energy from the Democrat side

With a good interview, ten to twelve minutes can be quite revealing. So it was this morning listening as I usually do to Bill Reddish’s AM Salisbury program. Today he interviewed Democrat Congressional hopeful Christopher Robinson and definitely scored some points in his verbal fencing.

As you may know from my coverage of the recent SU Democrat forum, Robinson is one of the cut and run brigade, trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. (If you believe Clarice Feldman of the American Thinker website there’s only 200 or so foreign al-Qaeda fighters left in Iraq.) Regardless, the surge has worked and we’re getting ready to draw down our numbers in that country. However, Robinson opined that perhaps the terrorists are waiting on our election results; after all, they’re a very patient lot and have no problem with spending lifetimes trying to achieve change. In any case, Robinson noted that we need “to focus on things at home.”

The one domestic focus he chose to talk about was energy independence. Christopher thought we should be “resolute about conservation” because he didn’t want to look for new oil (we “need to start listening” to environmentalists – as if they haven’t had their say for the last thirty years) nor did he wish to consider nuclear power (we “cannot continue to pollute the atmosphere.”) I guess what’s left is solar and wind power, neither of which are ready to provide the amount of energy our economy needs at a lower cost than oil and coal do. This even with nearly $100 a barrel oil and expensive anti-pollution measures required to burn the regional high-sulfur coal.

A statistic Robinson cited was that from 1977-85, we reduced our dependence on oil overall by 17 percent, including 50% on Middle East oil. What he didn’t go into was what happened in that era economically, particularly under President Carter. I remember the gas lines and the price going up to a dollar a gallon. One particular memory I have of that era was the old-fashioned mechanical gasoline pumps which had to be retrofitted or replaced since the pricing mechanism only went up to 99.9 cents. While as Robinson opines, “Jimmy Carter was right on energy conservation,” he was also the President who popularized the “misery index” and holds the record for the highest numerical average. And while some of the decline in oil usage can be traced to Americans buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars (remember the Chevette or the Dodge Omni?) I think more of the drop is a result of the economic slowdown that plagued the Carter years, part of the overall malaise in America at the time.

And if Robinson believes that we need a Carteresque solution to energy independence, you will definitely need to recall just what Jimmy Carter advocated, like this example. One part of the reason that imports dropped was because President Carter set import quotas on oil.

I liked Bill’s retort on the oil issue. Drilling and transport is safer than it was 30 years ago, and I think the twin masters of environment and exploration can both be served. Then again, I’m convinced that Democrats do like to share misery equally, creating government dependence, and one way to do so is by squeezing the supply side of energy and creating the high prices that naturally reduce demand. It worked like a charm during the Carter years, which explained why the misery index got to the heights it did.

I also need to comment on one other thing Christopher Robinson said about Jimmy Carter, that he was a “fiscal conservative.” If Robinson’s idea of fiscal conservatism is a President who created two new Cabinet-level agencies (Education and Energy) and the bureaucracy that goes with them, give me the real thing like Reagan’s tax cuts.

All in all, it was a revealing interview about how liberal Democrats think. As I said, a good interviewer can bring out a lot in ten minutes if you’re willing to listen to what is said and Bill Reddish accomplished that goal this morning.

Semiblind alert

My friends from Semiblind make their radio re-debut with their new drummer tonight at 6:00 on Ocean 98’s LiveLixx radio program. If you live outside the area from Salisbury east that falls within Ocean 98’s signal (98.1 on the FM dial) you can go to either the Irie Radio website or LiveLixx Myspace site to listen in and even watch.

So I’ll be listening…something tells me they may put their spin on some holiday cheer.

Oh, also, someone needs to take my place in watching them and other good area bands at the Twelve Bands of Christmas show at the Steer Inn in West OC on December 29th. Skip Dixxon didn’t consult with my calendar when he picked the date; otherwise I’d have told him I’ll be out of town! It’s a bummer but parental units are important too.

And yeah, there’s political stuff below, don’t sweat it.

Post-gig edit: Boy, they did a nice job. I told you Michelle could sing.

A little research and other First District stuff

So what is the advantage of incumbency? In Wayne Gilchrest’s case, it’s pretty good. I decided to do a little bit of digging into election results because I was curious about something.

What I looked up was the performance of Wayne Gilchrest vs. both of his challengers who have made previous runs for office, Andy Harris and E.J. Pipkin. It’s somewhat of a more valid comparison with Pipkin since his district is enveloped by the First District while Andy Harris’s district runs into a little more Democrat-friendly territory in Baltimore County.

The methodology is relatively simple; county-by-county results for the contenders in the last three elections. Pipkin ran on the same ballot as Gilchrest in all three (2002, 2004, 2006) while Harris and Gilchrest shared the election in 2002 and 2006. One can argue that Pipkin came in as a new face in 2002, but subsequent elections should have eliminated that factor.

I’ll start with Gilchrest vs. Pipkin. There are four counties in Pipkin’s District 36; Caroline, Cecil (both of which are shared with other districts but still solidly GOP country), Kent, and Queen Anne’s. Here’s their shares in each county, by election:

Caroline County:

  • 2002: Gilchrest 80.9%, Pipkin 62.8%
  • 2004: Gilchrest 79.7%, Pipkin 48.9%
  • 2006: Gilchrest 70.4%, Pipkin 65.0%

Cecil County:

  • 2002: Gilchrest 72.1%, Pipkin 58.9%
  • 2004: Gilchrest 72.9%, Pipkin 51.3%
  • 2006: Gilchrest 65.1%, Pipkin 57.1%

Kent County:

  • 2002: Gilchrest 80.8%, Pipkin 58.7%
  • 2004: Gilchrest 79.5%, Pipkin 42.5%
  • 2006: Gilchrest 72.1%, Pipkin 60.9%

Queen Anne’s County:

  • 2002: Gilchrest 80.6%, Pipkin 66.8%
  • 2004: Gilchrest 80.1%, Pipkin 55.5%
  • 2006: Gilchrest 73.0%, Pipkin 69.7%

It’s obvious that Pipkin has cut what was once a 13 to 22 point deficit down to between 3 and 11 points in each county, which bodes well for his challenge in his home area. However, that increase is tempered by the fact that it’s mostly in voter share lost by Gilchrest rather than a large Pipkin gain.

Now let’s look at Gilchrest vs. Harris. Again, this is a bit more skewed since Andy’s area overlaps into other Congressional districts.

Baltimore County:

  • 2002: Gilchrest 76.7%, Harris 56.2%
  • 2006: Gilchrest 69.9%, Harris 55.8%

Harford County:

  • 2002: Gilchrest 75.8%, Harris 62.3%
  • 2006: Gilchrest 70.6%, Harris 58.6%

This trend is a bit more troublesome for Harris as he continued to trail Gilchrest by 12-14 points in his home area. However, the district overlap may play into the deficit so this guide’s not as useful for Harris as it is for Pipkin.

I did get wind of a poll that had Harris down a few points to Gilchrest before E.J. Pipkin jumped in, with both candidates’ numbers in the 40’s. (The spread was right around the margin of error.) The scuttlebutt that was going around at the convention was that Pipkin was getting into this race to secure the GOP nomination for Gilchrest, who would then announce that this would be his final term and endorse Pipkin as his successor in 2010. Planted rumor or not, it has some plausibility considering the timing of Pipkin’s entry.

And then we come to the next subject: Courtesy of Politicker MD, their “Quote of The Day”:

“I only accept contributions from people who can vote for me, and I wish every member of Congress subscribed to that.”

– Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, 08/25/02

“After the last finance report, when we realized the Club for Growth was going to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into this race, it wouldn’t be a fair fight. He’s taking PAC money, money from all over the country. We have to fundraise as aggressively as Andy Harris.”

– Gilchrest campaign manager Tony Caligiuri 12/03/07

That was 7-8 points ago for Wayne. If you’d like to see a copy of the new Wayne Gilchrest “I now take PAC money” invitation, click here.

The Daily Times also weighed in today (besides the Politicker MD quote) with a story by Joe Gidjunis that seemed to give the “everyone else is doing it” excuse on Wayne’s behalf. It seems to me that the Club For Growth was involved in the ’02 GOP primary election here as well but obviously the poll numbers weren’t as tight for Wayne that time.

With the deep pockets of E.J. Pipkin now involved, this race might be the first local race to spend millions for the Congressional seat – certainly it will set a record by primary day.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Radio days volume 9

Not sure how many heard me on WICO this morning since I didn’t plug the appearance. It’ll probably be the last time this year I’ll be on because Bill’s going on vacation late next week and I think he doesn’t return until 2008. At that point there will likely be a flurry of political guests since I’m sure he’ll try and get all 10 Congressional hopefuls from the First District on, plus his usual chats with Congressman Gilchrest and Senator Cardin along with Rick Pollitt, Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, et. al. from the Wicomico political arena. I’m sure he’ll also host his recurring non-political guests like Karen (?) from the Sheriff’s office. Anyhow, I suspect I may be asked again right around the primary, but we’ll see.

This time I didn’t have notes so I spoke pretty much what I wanted to say off the top of my head about recent party happenings. My favorite quip was talking about E.J. Pipkin’s two-year election cycle while the rest of the state is fine with four years. I thought I did okay but unfortunately without doing the advance plug I didn’t get any feedback from anyone else. However, it was nice to give some indication about what happened at the convention to a wider audience. (I have to say though my readership’s been quite strong the last few days and I had a pretty high-up commentor on my last post, one Maryland GOP Chair Jim Pelura. Thanks Jim, and the rest of my readers as well.)

In this case, I decided to post for the record that I was on the radio once again but will also use the space to point out some other items of interest.

In my mail today I got a full color four page advertisement from the nascent E.J. Pipkin Congressional campaign. Somehow I don’t think this was whipped together since he announced Thursday, so maybe my cohorts at Red Maryland had some help in making his jumping into the race one of Maryland’s worst-kept secrets. On the mailing was his website address, so he is now linked from here. At the moment his issues page leaves a lot to be desired, but hopefully in the next week or two he’ll add more things for me to grade him on and compare him to others already in the race. I also plan to do a little bit of research on another Pipkin-related topic for a future post just to sate my curiosity.

You may have noticed that I didn’t do my usual Sunday Election Calendar. First of all, spending three hours putting together Sunday’s convention post was quite enough sitting at the computer. Secondly, there weren’t any events to add anyway. Here’s last week’s edition if you wish to see the one item that remains on the docket.

Normally I don’t discuss the happenings of our county Central Committee meetings, but tonight we pretty much wrapped up the preparations for our 2008 Lincoln Day Dinner, with the exception of finalizing a speaker. It’s close enough to the primary that we’re leaving it subject to change; however we do have a backup plan. We’re holding it on Saturday evening, February 9, 2008, in the Bistro Room of the Salisbury University Commons. I’ll have more on it as the event draws closer, of course.

2007 Maryland GOP Fall Convention (part 2)

If you’re coming back after a weekend away from the blogosphere, part 1 is here. That covers Friday’s goings-on.

Saturday dawned somewhat sunny and definitely cold.

We all got up at sometime Saturday morning after the socializing. A couple of our speakers joked that they slept quite well in the good Republican air of Carroll County. I only slept so-so myself, but that was just from anticipating Saturday’s events.

Our breakfast speaker was Harford County Executive David Craig. He made several good points in his speech, but the one I took most to heart was when he made a saying attributed to Abraham Lincoln where he claimed to have spent 1/3 of his debate preparation on what he would say and 2/3 of it on determining what his opponent would say. I look at things the same way, which is why I try to make it to Democrat events when I can. He also told us that while Democrats may think some of their people are idiots, they’ll still vote for their idiots before our Einsteins. One additional thing he was proud about was being one of the two county executives who did not submit a “doomsday” budget – neither he nor John Leopold of Anne Arundel County participated in that charade.

Breakfast complete, it was time to start convention business.

Final preparations were underway for the morning session.

We got through the Call to Order, Opening Prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance when the first deviation to the day’s plans was made.

District 5 State Senator Larry Haines speaks to the convention.

State Senator Larry Haines was allowed to utter a brief, impassioned message to the convention, calling the O’Malley tax increases “immoral” and the special session a “sham.” He urged us not to let citizens forget about this.

Then we had deviation number two as, just on the verge of accepting the agenda as written, discussion centered on shifting the Resolutions Committee report that would deal with the number of by-laws changes being considered from a separate afternoon session to later in the morning session. After that discussion, the motion to accept the agenda was defeated and the motion then made to change the agenda accordingly was passed.

We then made a minor change to the convention rules about proxies, deleting the 30 minute time limit after the convention opened for proxies. I don’t think it made a difference, quite honestly, but the concern was about the afternoon session.

Maryland GOP Chair Jim Pelura making remarks to the convention.

After accepting the minutes of the Spring Convention and the Treasurer’s Report, Jim Pelura once again spoke on the state of the Maryland Republican Party. Much of it was the same as his remarks the night before, being “extremely proud” of the party winning the messaging vote regarding the tax hikes. “The Democrats own the tax increase lock, stock, and barrel,” he noted, and they “were heading down a slippery slope.” There was no need to change our message since we were on the right side of the issue.

Of course, traditionally after the Chair reports, we hear from our national RNC representatives. Joyce Lyons Terhes stated the the special session was a “blueprint in fiscal insanity” and also told the convention that “internal party changes can wait” – by-law changes wouldn’t elect Republicans. Turning to the national side, Louis Pope told us what we already knew – 2007 was a “challenging year” for the Republicans, but there was some good news. President Bush’s approval ratings were continuing to rebound, the Republicans had good issues for 2008 (immigration reform, the economy, and the War on Terror outside Iraq), and the RNC and the House Republicans were outraising their Democrat counterparts. Only on the Senate side were we being outraised, but that was an issue since we have many more seats to defend this cycle than the Democrats do.

Pope also gave us some information on objectives for 2008. One was increasing our GOP Congressional delegation from 2 to 3 or even 4, that as part of a trend toward making Maryland a more red state. He told us that “if you see Hillary in Maryland after Labor Day, we’re winning the war on the ground.” It meant that the Democrats would be spending time and money in a state considered one of their bellweather states. We also found out about the paths to become a delegate to the Republican Convention in Minneapolis – between both parties, over 400 had filed to be a Delegate to their party’s convention for the February 12 primary, plus there would be additional opportunities to go to our convention for volunteers and others.

According to the Credentials Committee, 195 of 257 eligible members or their proxies were in attendance so we had our quorum and could begin to discuss changing the by-laws. But first we had to accept the rewritten ones (with a few friendly amendments generally to correct misstatements, such as placing “Central Committee” where “Executive Committee” was supposed to be.) Despite a small amount of opposition, that was done by voice vote.

Then we got down to several resoultions for changes to the by-laws submitted by various members of the Party. Two of them in our original packet dealing with the concept of regional chairs were withdrawn, leaving a total of seven to deal with. Of those, the Resolutions Committee had approved six to go to the floor. Approved by the Committee were the amendments for Renumeration, Political Activity, Staff Hiring, Elected Office Prohibition, Party Oath, and Procedure. The one rejected by the Resolutions Committee was the Candidate Support Amendment (incumbent protection.)

Because it was rejected by the Resolutions Committee, the first vote we had to deal with was a vote to bring it out to the floor despite the thumbs-down by the committee. I was one of those who went to the microphone to speak against that effort, citing the example of the Ohio Republican Party denying voters an opportunity to select their candidates. After passionate debate, the vote was taken.

In our conventions, we have a unique system called LCD voting. Because not all counties have the same number of Central Committee members, each person on a Central Committee has a vote proportional to their county’s share of the total number of registered Republicans in the state, then multiplied by the total number in the House of Delegates. So instead of each person having one vote, the vote by share varies. My vote counted for 0.42 votes in the effort.

In actual delegate count, 103 delegates voted for the amendment and 91 against. However, based on the LCD count we go with, the motion failed 59.58 votes to 62.34 votes. It came down to Worcester County having all five of their members who were there voting no – thank you Worcester County! Eleven counties voted for it, eleven against, and two were even.

To make a long story short, we killed this effort at incumbent protection!

The Party Oath, Elected Office Prohibition, Staff Hiring, and Procedure amendments all were adopted by voice vote. After some debate, we had a roll call on the Political Activity amendment, but it passed with a solid majority of both raw numbers (119-73) and LCD votes (77.06-44.86).

On the other hand, many speakers had big problems with the Renumeration Amendments, and even with an attempt to water it down somewhat, that failed in a resounding voice vote.

We recessed after the passionate debating and broke to take the first of two training seminars being offered. This way the hotel staff could reconfigure the room for lunch. These seminars dealt with three issues: the Voter Vault program, outreach to business groups, and general fundraising. I actually took these photos during their afternoon sessions since I only signed up for one.

One seminar dealt with business outreach.

This one explained the Voter Vault computer program.

The other was the one I attended, a general fundraising seminar with Louis Pope and Delegate Gail Bates.

I found out some useful stuff that we may be able to adopt in our county. But I won’t give away any trade secrets here.

We had two speakers at our luncheon. One, whose pictures did not come out, was State Senator Janet Greenip. The other, pictured below, was Delegate William Frank.

Delegate William Frank was one of our luncheon speakers.

Senator Greenip mostly hammered on the special session, but Delegate Frank was more descriptive with his remarks. He noted that our side may lose the votes, but we certainly win the debate. In his words, the special session was “brutal”, a “trainwreck”, a “disaster.” There was no revenue problem, but a spending problem. Compounding matters was the lack of fiscal notes for most bills and the few hearings that were enacted. Moreover, the tax increases would have a “negative effect” on charitable giving. On the other hand, Frank felt we had a “good shot” on at least getting the computer services folks off the hook. He also wondered aloud if Martin O’Malley would spend a lot of time during the session out campaigning for Hillary.

After lunch was over, the second training sessions were scheduled. I opted not to sign up for those, instead milling about and checking out the campaign tables. Actually, first I had to check out the campaign truck:

The driver parked this right outside the rooms where the seminars were being held.

One table wasn’t a campaign table, but it had a great bumper sticker on it:

Welcome to O'Malley Land...what's in your wallet?

As I noted yesterday, most of the Presidential hopefuls were represented. Mike Huckabee had his room Friday night and followed up Saturday with a small table of items as well.

Mike Huckabee had a few people wearing his items that were on display here.

John McCain’s people didn’t have a room this time, but still were bribing folks with food. There was also a flyer on my chair for the afternoon session claiming he was “the only Conservative who can beat Senator Clinton.”

John McCain's people may disagree but donuts don't necessarily equal votes.

In what may be one of the few things they share during this primary season, Mitt Romney’s and Fred Thompson’s items shared a table in the lobby.

Fred on one side, Mitt on the other. Sounds about right.

Unfortunately, my personal favorite candidate Duncan Hunter was absent, as was Tom Tancredo and (surprisingly) Rudy Giuliani. There were Rudy buttons here but this guy had no Duncan Hunters for me.

You could get a campaign button, past or present, from this guy.

Finally, we come to Ron Paul. Of course, he had a table. But the guy doing the laptop couldn’t get his stuff to work properly. In fact, I spent probably a half-hour or so debating Paul’s merits with Deborah, whose hands you see in the picture working on the duct tape.

I'm not sure Deborah ever finished with her duct taping since I debated her for a half hour.

I have to say it was one of the more interesting conversations I’ve had in awhile. Since I’m sure she’ll be reading this, I wanted to let her know something:

As you may know, my philosophy is one of achieving victory, which I define as 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. And 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.

I posted that on August 13. I write better than I talk.

Anyway, back to the convention, which still had what I thought would be a brief afternoon session to go. In fact, we were down to only 124 delegates when the count was made for a quorum. So we talked about our voter registration goals that only 7 counties met (mine not one of them) and things that could be done to achieve them. Just before we were to wrap up and finish new business, a motion was made to reconsider the passage of the Staff Hiring resolution from that morning because there wasn’t a set salary on the resolution. However, the budget with a salary for the Executive Director and staff had been decided the night before.

Before the vote, State Senator Larry Helminiak appeared upset and got his piece in during the debate, noting there were important issues to work on like immigration and taxation, yet we were arguing over by-laws. “Stop bickering” was his advice to us. With that the motion for reconsideration failed on a 56-68 raw vote (31.47 to 51.15 in LCD numbers.) Six counties’ full delegations and many others had already departed, which explains the lower vote totals.

Finally and mercifully, the conventioned was adjourned and we could all make the long trip home. Unlike the rumors that swirled around the convention, both Pelura and Executive Director John Flynn lived to fight another day and personally I’m not unhappy. Our party is what we make of it and rather than complain about leadership, why not suggest ways to do things better and build up the grassroots of the party. For example, my blog doesn’t cost the party a thing but it mostly reflects on the principles they want to impart. At this time, a more united front is what we need and in 2010 the critics are free to take their shot at being the Maryland party chair. Let’s hope that this occurs after we get back the governorship and give whoever he or she is a good number to work with in the General Assembly.

2007 Maryland GOP Fall Convention (part 1)

This is going to be an absurdly long post unless I split it up between last night’s events and today’s. So the post on today’s activities will come up tomorrow. Don’t you all love cliffhangers anyway?

Contrary to the rumors, there was no coup but the 2007 Maryland GOP Fall Convention was not without controversy. We were nicely welcomed though to arguably the reddest county in our blue state:

It's always nice to see your name up in lights and feel welcomed!

The same goes for the sign that greeted us inside. Okay, no lights.

The scene of our action. Apparently this was the first time in memory the convention had been held in Carroll County.

I have to start without being political and say we had a nice facilty to host our event, with the possible exception of a lobby that was a bit crowded. But the folks at the Best Western did a nice job, particularly in having a PC with internet access in my room! That’s how I commented on Red Maryland at midnight this morning.

Generally the first “offical” event on the docket is the Executive Committee meeting. While I don’t have a vote there I like to attend to really see what’s going on. There was a pretty good gathering of people in the room, and most of the discussion there came about as the 2008 party budget was debated.

Jim Pelura gave the Chair’s report and sounded reasonably positive, or at least spun things nicely depending on your perspective. Over 2007 the party had raised $350,000 without any help from the “old guard.” He also claimed (correctly in my case) that the fundraising shows the GOP in Maryland hasn’t given up, nor is it disillusioned. He also spoke about some of the events held during the year, including book signings, house parties, the anti-tax rally in October, and our Legislative Briefing.

Then Pelura pushed a few upcoming events, first of all this one:

John Bolton is the guest of honor at a GOP-sponsored house party tomorrow night.

After that on the docket is the Legislative Pre-briefing on January 7th. We also found out the guest speaker for next year’s Red, White, and Blue dinner will be former CIA operative and FOX News contributor Wayne Simmons. One thing I thought about afterward as someone on the Executive Committee opined that every county should participate and at least buy a table was why not have regional RWB dinners? It’s not that appealing to us on the Eastern Shore or out in Western Maryland to shlep our way into Baltimore on a summer weeknight for the event. But if you had two others on a smaller scale, say, one in Cumberland and one in Cambridge, it would cost more to put on but they may draw people who don’t want to drive all the way to Baltimore.

My thought on the RWB dinner aside, there was some animosity shown by Pelura about what he termed “leaks galore” to the blogs, who were putting out “garbage.” To him it was “unacceptable,” and he threatened to withhold word about meetings and the budget until he was gently reminded that the by-laws didn’t allow that. Still, he felt his “trust (had been) betrayed.”

Then the talk turned to next year’s budget. There were two sets of revenue numbers released, one with conservative projections and one with optimistic projections. While Pelura had “no doubt” that we could make the optimistic set of numbers, the large majority of the committee eventually settled on the more conservative set, feeling that raising expectations too high and not meeting them would be damaging for PR.

The convention went off board at that point and excitement ensued. No, it wasn’t the coup attempt some anticipated, it was a very special guest in the person of Michael Steele. Of course he got to say a few words.

I’ve heard him say this before, but Steele again reminded us to “get over 2006.” Essentially, we were back to where we were in 1998, and we needed to “do something to fight.” After all, why aren’t we talking about the O’Malley record? (I guess Michael doesn’t spend a lot of time reading Red Maryland, O’Malley Watch, or monoblogue for that matter. Maybe he means official party organs aren’t quite getting the word out as he hoped.) He concluded that “we cannot give up” and cited the example of the recent elections in Louisiana, where the hard work of the GOP there not only elected Bobby Jindal for governor, but ousted a longtime Agricultural Commissioner, “a guy who had his name on every gas pump in the state.”

Then we had another deviation as State Senator David Brinkley also contributed a few words. His message was to “stop squabbling.” It would be echoed by others during the floor activity on Saturday as well.

But eventually the budget was adopted, the due reports from the various auxiliary entities of the Maryland GOP were given, and the Executive Committee meeting adjourned. At that point the focus turned to merriment.

While there was some small bits and pieces of campaign info floating around Friday night, as shown here…

Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney items shared space on this table.

…the main thrust of activity was social gatherings in various hospitality rooms and suites. In the convention hall proper, Mike Huckabee’s Maryland campaign organization had secured a large room.

Supporters of Mike Huckabee had a room and video board going in our conference center. I took this while they were setting up but they really didn't draw a lot of folks even while I was in there.

As it turned out they were pretty far from the other action so I don’t think they had much of a gathering going there, at least not while I was present – to me it seemed pretty lifeless. I was sort of surprised that, unlike the spring when the Romney and McCain campaigns both had hospitality rooms, neither of those campaigns had a large presence this time. (I should note that the Carroll County Republicans had a nice pre-event party in the Conference Center that turned out to be a good noshing supper for me.)

Moving back to the hotel proper, several entities had their own suites. One was the Maryland GOP itself, who had the Presidential suite. That was an okay affair. The real party action as far as people went was in the Young Republican suite. So far in my short Central Committee career they are 3-for-3 on throwing good, well-attended affairs.

It was a boisterous scene in the Young Republican suite. I had to laugh at the bathtub full of beer cans too. But they were cold, I'll give them that!

The last of the three suites that was going was hosted by the one First District Congressional candidate I saw at the convention, State Senator Andy Harris.

The Andy Harris suite was a nice steady draw for most of the evening. They did one smart thing - all their beer cans had Harris stickers on them.

I actually spent the better part of my time in that suite chatting up a number of people including Andy, but mostly talking to Harris campaign manager Chris Meekins, along with my Wicomico cohorts who also spent considerable time in Andy’s suite. I found out some interesting stuff from Chris, mostly items I can use on background for future posts as the campaign progresses. I felt much more up to speed after chatting with him.

Meanwhile, Andy was chatting up other people. If I’m not mistaken, the gentleman on the left in the photo is bestselling author Ken Timmerman.

State Senator Andy Harris (right) discusses something - maybe a book idea? - with author Ken Timmerman.

That’s where I left things on Friday night, besides the late night Red Maryland comment. Tomorrow I’ll go into the nuts-and-bolts of what happened on the convention floor.

Finally, I would be remiss in not taking a moment to blow my own horn. (I know, it’s something I do a lot but bear with me.) Today is the second anniversary of monoblogue. My humble little website began with this quite non-political post on December 1, 2005, and I look forward to a lot of exciting stuff in year number three – beginning with the convention floor fireworks tomorrow!

If you came from Red Maryland, you can pick up Part 2 here.