January 2008 – Page 2

GOP Presidential field – dropping like flies

In more bad news for those of us who would again like a conservative President somewhat in the mold of Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson announced his withdrawal from the race. In a brief statement on his website, Thompson wrote:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

A withdrawal of few words. But it leaves a gaping hole in the field as the two most mainstream conservative candidates remaining have dropped out in the last week.

I’ve been asked who I would endorse for President, since my first choice dropped out over the weekend, and I was leaning toward Thompson. Well, scratch that. Unfortunately, I’m not nearly as excited about any of the other candidates with the exception of the hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-him-in-November John McCain. I’m excited in the wrong way about him, as to me he’d almost be as bad as Hillary.

So I’ll have to go back to the drawing board I suppose. There’s more information out there about the candidates than I had when I made my initial decision so it gives me a chance to read up and study on them again before February 12 – that is, if none of the others drop out.

It’s sort of a sad commentary on the election process that states representing just 7% of the population have decided but several in the original field have already been whittled away. This makes for a renewed call for a small number of regional primaries, rather than the way we have it now.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Late edit: Lee Cary at American Thinker has an excellent postmortem.

Why are we losing?

A story by Larry Carson in the Baltimore Sun today points out that since 2004, Democrats have accounted for 51% of registrations while Republicans have only managed 15% of the total. This compares to a 37-30 Democrat split in the period from 2000-2004.

Obviously that’s bad news for the Maryland GOP, which is already a severe minority party in the General Assembly. Registered Democrats get all the propaganda from the party, which in turn builds up name recognition for Democrat candidates. But seeing that the source of this information was the notoriously liberal Sun, I decided to do some checking into the numbers myself. I looked up the end-of-year voter registration numbers for 2003 and 2007.

Indeed, the GOP has lost voter share in 15 of Maryland’s 23 counties, while gaining slightly in seven (Baltimore City and St. Mary’s County were a statistical wash.) However, the Democrats lost share in 19 counties plus Baltimore City.

It’s the other four counties that are absolutely punishing the GOP though. These four counties represent 37.8% of the 2007 voter total and while each of them gained at least an 0.5% Democrat share, the GOP lost an average of 2.85% in those four counties: Charles, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s. Worst among them was Charles County, which saw a 6.9% swing (Democrats up 2.5 points and GOP down 4.4 percent.) Those four all are in the top 11 counties in terms of total voter registration – in fact there’s no GOP plurality county until you get to the eighth largest county, Frederick County.

Judging solely by geography, I’d have to say that the numbers are up for Democrats in those areas because chances are these voters work in governmental jobs and thus are in public sector unions. Charles County has seen a lot of spillover as people stream southward out of Prince George’s, while Howard County is getting suburban sprawl from both ends. It’s an unfortunate by-product of federal government growth, with the state being affected as well.

But what is the Democrats’ appeal to these voters? Obviously some are in the public sector unions and vote as they’re directed to. On the other hand, many are average suburbanites who aren’t really into politics except during the week or two before the election when they start paying attention to the campaign commercials on TV. The rest of the year they get their news off the local TV station or from the dominant newspapers in that area, the Washington Post or the Sun. As an example, those voters believed in 2006 that Martin O’Malley would cut electric rates which were raised because of big, bad Governor Ehrlich and those eeeeevil Republicans. It was a direct appeal to their pocketbook and it worked. And by raising taxes early in his term, O’Malley is counting on the public to forget about their anger by the time 2010 rolls around – sadly, a good number of them will. Meanwhile, I guarantee right now that the GOP will be savaged for running a “mud-slinging” campaign if they attempt to remind voters that, hey, O’Malley raised your taxes.

But let’s look beyond that and look to the principles for which each party stands. As a proud Republican, I know what my party believes in but sometimes you have to look at the other side. So I went to find what Democratic principles were.

(I was tempted to leave a vast blank space here, but their party’s website does actually state some of what they stand for.)

Most important to me is their vision statement:

The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

That’s all well and good, sort of like motherhood, apple pie, and all that jazz. It has its appeal because it’s easy to understand. But when you think about those words, it’s more obvious where the nanny state has its root, particularly in advocating health care and retirement security. Nowhere do they mention freedom or liberty.

Compare this to the Republican principles I agree with, straight from the Maryland GOP website:

I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

The first principle directly contradicts one of the Democrats’ main bases of power, the unions. Unions believe in strength through sheer numbers, and rugged individualism is discouraged.

Principle number two offends the race and gender pimps because we still need to “make up” for three centuries of discrimination against blacks and women, with gay rights a more recent addition to the parade of bigotry victims.

The third principle offends those who push class envy because not everyone has shared in prosperity equally.

For #4, I’ll grant that the the last 2 or 3 Congresses that were under GOP control kind of dropped the ball on the “fiscal responsibility” part but certainly did their part on the individuals keeping the money that they earn. Oh wait, those were tax cuts for the rich as the Democrats continually say.

Since many government functions are unionized, they say we can’t have #5 and allow essential services to have a profit motive.

Actually, in some respects the Democrats agree with number 6 – indeed they are trying to bring government right into your home. They’ve already made it to a number of public places (like the smoking ban in February) so sooner or later it’ll be right into your door.

For number 7, the one thing that Democrats seem to come up with as new and innovative are ways to usurp the power from the people through confiscation of more tax money and restrictions on how one can live their life, like banning incandescent light bulbs as part of the energy bill.

While I consider the Long War a part of principle number 8, the Democrats see it as a war for oil. So why is gas still $3 a gallon?

Obviously, number 9 is a sum of the conflicts of opinion between the two parties.

So these are the differences between the two parties. Why are we losing?

Part of it comes from things we can’t do a whole lot about. While there is a thriving blogosphere that is at least more balanced than the mainstream media, the fact is that we’re only reaching thousands while they reach millions. And for the foreseeable future, the vast majority of our children will be indoctrinated rather than educated, at least to the extent that we can’t counter the propaganda the children are forcefed – particularly on so-called manmade global climate change.

But I think more of it is attitudinal. Many on our side are afraid to express their beliefs because they imagine they’ll be seen as racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobe, etc. Generally that’s what those on the “progressive” side fall back on when they begin to lose their arguments.

In my case I’ve had people tell me that I write too long of posts, but possibly that’s because they’re afraid I’m starting to change their mind on things. Perhaps not; but the way I build an argument is to get the facts out and then use them to my advantage. I say that I’m right and here’s why – if you care to counter that’s fine, it keeps me on my toes. As far as politics goes, I draw my inspiration from a document that’s always on my desk, my pocket-sized copy of the Constitution. And I believe it’s where the Republican Party’s principles derive from at their root.

We’re not going to change all of these suburban voters overnight; in fact I’d be pretty scared if we did because that would tell me they’ll be the type that blows with the political winds. But one thing I would strive to do in changing their minds is to generally have an upbeat, positive message. We can point out flaws in the arguments those on the left make, but also be prepared to have solutions of our own ready. One example would be creating a “shadow” budget for Maryland that retains necessary services but makes real cuts where prudent to show as a comparison to Martin O’Malley’s budget. Another would be to point out this fall that absentee voting as currently constituted is easier than early voting without as much possibility of voter fraud, so your vote is more likely to count.

51% of Maryland voters registered Democrat. The trick is not to tell them that they made the wrong choice but to convince them there’s a better one.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

More fun with Pipkin flyers

I read today an excellent summary of the First District race by G.A. Harrison at Campaign Edge. However, he did miss one thing that I’ve noted on a couple occasions:

While I am confident that Pipkin has done one or more mailings I cannot comment since I haven’t had access to them.

Maybe he hasn’t had them in his hands, but I’ve posted on them on at least a couple occasions so he could get the gist of them. Here’s a couple more examples:

This flyer talks about opponent Wayne Gilchrest's record, with Pipkin being mentioned on the last page as one with a 'plan to change Congress.'

This flyer simply tries to paint Pipkin's two opponents with the same liberal brush Martin O'Malley rightfully deserves.

In the second one I just got yesterday the only mention of Pipkin’s name is in the disclaimer, “Paid for by Pipkin for Congress.”

But it seems that the tone has changed from the first six mailings I’ve gotten, ones that seemed to serve as an introduction to the candidate and where he stands. Now Pipkin has adopted a much more negative tone as the days dwindle to the primary. And I seem to recall that many of Andy Harris’s negative attacks were derided as the work of a desperate campaign – now that the shoe is on Pipkin’s foot, does that mean he’s now desperate to try and make up a few polling points in a close race?

Pipkin also continues to cite a bill that supposedly showed Andy Harris voted for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, but I explained HB253 in this earlier post. E.J. keeps using the example though because it’s a buzzword.

One advantage the Democrats will have in this contest is that none of their candidates have ever held a legislative position, so the GOP can’t dig up any “gotcha” votes on them. What our side will have to do is look at what the Democrat winner has said in public forums and on his website in order to contrast their proposals with the Republican winner’s. I’m happy to help with that aspect.

I would suspect Andy Harris’s campaign also has received copies of the Pipkin mailings through their own means as well. But the guy who’s actually sitting prettiest right now is Wayne Gilchrest because he’s already gotten used to the attacks from both of his main opponents and he can point to endorsements from serious GOP heavyweights like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, and most recently President Bush. In essence, the party hierarchy doesn’t mind rewarding incumbency over principle, and that bothers me.

But I guess it means I have to work harder to convince those at the top that principles win elections. It will make for an interesting night on February 12 as the results pile in.

Hunter abandons race after race abandons him

The end of the road has come for the Presidential candidate I preferred, one who was the most conservative in the race according to the American Conservative Union ratings (lifetime rating of 92.)

After a poor showing in the caucus state of Iowa, it was the media that truly put an end to his campaign by excluding him from debates in New Hampshire and afterwards. As the inverse of success breeding success, ignorance bred ignorance and most who may have considered Duncan Hunter as a conservative alternative to the McCain/Huckabee cabal assumed he had dropped out.

FOX News quotes campaign spokesman Bob Bevill:

“We thought we’d do much better in Nevada, but the numbers weren’t there. We were not able to get any traction.”

In recent weeks Hunter, a California congressman, was forced at every stop to dispel rumors that the campaign was already dead and was unable to talk about the issues, Bevill said.

“The media has a ‘vote someone off the island’ mentality and Duncan Hunter was a casualty of that,” said Bevill.

For his part, Rep. Hunter noted:

“The failure of our campaign to gain traction is mine and mine alone. But we have driven the issues of national security, the border fence, the emergence of China and the reverse of bad trade policy.”

I tend to disagree to some extent on both counts as the partisan media ignored Hunter’s campaign pretty much from day one in favor of more moderate alternatives like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani; moreover I feel the so-called frontrunners have maintained positions much weaker on the issues Hunter cites, particularly John McCain and his stance on the immigration issue. Unfortunately, Republicans still smarting and dispirited from the 2006 election are playing a prevent defense in order to stop Hillary Clinton from winning, rather than voting closer to principle and supporting the more conservative candidates.

So, with a goodly amount of help from the partisan media, another conservative bites the dust. It’s unclear who Hunter will endorse should he decide to do so, but I’m likely going to place myself in the Fred Thompson camp, with some misgivings of course.

Meanwhile, I hope the other candidates give serious thought to at least a security- or defense-related Cabinet post for Duncan Hunter, who also would make a fine Vice President.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Update: Michelle Malkin has Hunter’s full remarks.

A new local GOP group

While perhaps it took longer than I would have liked, it’s better late than never to see the reformation of the Lower Shore Young Republican Club.

First things first – their initial meeting will be Thursday, January 31st at 7 p.m. in the Ramada Lounge here in Salisbury. Anyone from age 18 to 40 is invited to join, but I’d be willing to be they might be kind to emeritus members as well. You can respond via e-mail to lowershoreyoungrepublicans@gmail.com.

But why is this important in the scheme of things? Simply put, the YR’s make up many of the volunteers and ground staff a campaign needs to get voters to support them at the polls. Quite possibly having the assistance of a local YR chapter may have made the difference in the 2006 District 38B election…they could’ve helped Michael James overtake Norm Conway and prematurely retire the longtime Democrat fixture in the General Assembly. The Young Republican clubs serve as the training ground for many Republicans who eventually seek elected office or run the campaigns for various candidates. (Once in awhile they spawn politically influential bloggers too.)

On a social level it’s a good opportunity for people to mingle and meet those of like mind politically. At the Maryland GOP conventions you’ll find the YR’s always have a party suite going and it’s a happening place. Not only that, the Young Republicans have their own state and national gatherings and it will be good to see our part of the Shore represented at those once again.

So even though I’m a little beyond the magic age of 40, I’ll still go to the meeting just to check things out and see how much local interest there really is. I invite my readers of like mind to join me.

So far I’m not “stimulated”

Today President Bush called on Congress to put together an economic stimulus package as the country slips toward the “r” word, just in time for the 2008 elections.

And with this call comes some good common-sense ideas, one being to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their 2011 expiration. (The Administration talks about making the tax cuts “permanent” but we all know that nothing in Washington is permanent except government’s lust for power.) However, that argument has gotten nowhere with the majority party in Congress because they still subscribe to the notion that those tax cuts only benefitted the wealthy, conveniently forgetting that those who actually pay taxes would naturally benefit from tax cuts. Instead, the Democrats wish to consider still more ways to transfer wealth from those who are producers to those people who aspire to nothing more than getting as many government handouts as possible.

The nub of my problem is the Pavlovian response by those in government to do something – anything – to solve the problem. Once again it takes away from any incentive to be self-reliant and learn from mistakes. As in most economic matters, the problem will only be worsened and prolonged by having the government stick its nose into the mess it helped to create in the first place by growing so large that it sucks money out of the economy that could be used for other purposes.

One plan that is being discussed is a return of the tax rebate checks most Americans received a few years back – possibly $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples. I suspect that like 2001, these checks would be “advanced tax credit” checks – so it’ll be sort of like where you take out a loan in anticipation of a tax refund. You get more up front but less at the end, plus I’m sure states like Maryland will consider that extra income to be taxed.

All right, so I get an $800 check. The feds want me to buy something in the hopes of goosing the economy. But a lot of people who are behind on their mortgage bills and credit cards will simply send that cash along to whomever they owe, which will help bail the banks and creditors out. It’s a similar argument to the one over the subprime mortgage bailout, which helps the creditors but doesn’t teach those who weren’t of enough sense to borrow within their means that they should consider their options more carefully.

And why is it that the federal government now reflexively hands out taxpayer money when the chips are down? They seem to have become the insurer of last resort for America.

If you really want to put money in the pockets of Americans right now, I have another suggestion for a short-term fix. How about suspending backup withholding for a few months? Since most Americans have their tax lives set up to get a hefty refund and “screw” the government (who’s actually screwing these people by receiving an interest-free loan from them) all that would do is make their eventual refund a little smaller. Furthermore, maybe if people actually had to write a check for the full amount due they’d understand just how much of a bite we all have taken from us.

Instead, as Michelle Malkin concludes, “(t)he stimulus will stimulate more of the same bad behavior that got people into trouble in the first place.” Some people never learn.

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Andy Harris: receiving shots like a front-runner?

In almost every political campaign, the people who are leading the pack get a whole lot of carping from those behind the lead dog. Two recent events are shots across the bow of the Andy Harris Congressional campaign. One misses the mark but the other could be a heat-seeking missile.

I actually alluded to this in a post on fellow candidate Robert Banks this morning, but yesterday Baltimore Sun columnist Laura Vozzella led off her thrice-weekly effort with allegations that Harris’s campaign is behind a flyer purportedly distributed by a group called “Progressive Marylanders for Social Justice.” The pink flyer details the “wedding” of David Gilchrest, Wayne’s brother, to his longtime partner. Vozzella then ties this into another dirty trick thought to be at the behest of Andy’s 2006 State Senate campaign, late-night robo calls from a phony group called “Gay and Lesbian Push” that advocated voting for Andy’s then-opponent Pat Foerster.

Unfortunately, aside from Vozzella’s word we have no evidence that these flyers were widely distributed in the district. Somebody’s gotta know where they came from but at the moment it looks like a baseless charge that happens to tie in with other earlier allegations.

On another, possibly more serious front, the campaign of fellow State Senator E.J. Pipkin provided me with this press release:

Pasadena attorney James Braswell filed an official Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint against the Andy Harris for Congress and the Club for Growth.

“It is time to take a stand for truth and rule of law against Andy Harris and the Club for Growth,” said Braswell. “Their behavior is disgusting to voters of the First Congressional District, but more than that, it is illegal. Clearly, Andy Harris displays a lack of integrity by his flagrant disregard of campaign laws.”

The Club for Growth has been attacking Eastern Shore Senator E.J. Pipkin and Congressman Wayne Gilchrest to benefit Baltimore Senator Andy Harris in the race to determine the Republican nominee for the 1st Congressional District. Last week, the Club for Growth announced that they would be spending $250,000 in media over a two-week period. Instantaneously, the Andy Harris for Congress initiated a direct mail campaign. The negative and misleading attacks were nearly identical.

Both groups use the same negative message at the same time. Federal election law does not allow coordinating activities between the Club for Growth and Andy Harris’ campaign.

The Club for Growth has funneled money from all over the country into the 1st Congressional District to benefit Andy Harris. Federal Election laws are very strict and limit the amount that any individual can donate to $2,300 and any PAC to $5,000.

“The Andy Harris for Congress campaign and The Club for Growth have had a cozy relationship for several months,” said Pipkin for Congress campaign manager Mike Brown.

(snip)

(Brown) adds, “What we have here is a group of ‘win at any cost’ extremists that have chosen to ignore the law. The people of the 1st District deserve to know that Andy Harris and his staff of amateurs are willing to distort, deceive, outright lie, and break the law if necessary. In the end Republican voters will see through them and remember that E.J. Pipkin fights for the taxpayer.”

The complaint asks the FEC to look into the dealings of both Andy Harris and The Club for Growth.

Braswell isn’t a totally neutral observer, as you can see here. He also ran unsuccessfully in 2006 for a House of Delegates seat.

On the other hand, the Club For Growth PAC has seen more than its share of political controversy already. They’re no strangers to the Federal Election Commission.

It just so happens that the outfit was involved late last year with another race that interested me, a special election in my former stomping grounds of Ohio’s 5th Congressional District. There were also accusations of campaign wrongdoing in that race, one on which the Club For Growth PAC spent at least $266,000 in supporting runner-up State Senator Steve Buehrer against the eventual GOP nominee and seat winner, State Rep. Bob Latta.

It may be a first, but I have to hand it to my old hometown paper the Toledo Blade as reporter Joshua Boak wrote a good summary of the charges, including this passage:

The possibility of an FEC investigation is the latest twist in a brutal race tainted by hostile ads and aggressive tactics that already have led to hearings by the Ohio Elections Commission.

By selectively dissecting each other’s records, Mr. Buehrer and Mr. Latta are battling over who is more committed to lowering taxes, limiting government, and upholding conservative values. An FEC inquiry might cause the battle to spill past the Nov. 6 primary election.

A former FEC lawyer said the incident with Mr. Hooser may lead to suspicions, but the complexities of establishing the definition of “coordination” makes proving a case difficult.

“It’s complicated because it’s been subject to court challenges and in some ways unresolved,” said Allison Hayward, who is now a law school professor at George Mason University in Virginia. (Emphasis mine.)

Boy, does that race sound like the First District or what? And according to a September article in The Hill, the Club For Growth has become quite active in the political arena for the 2008 campaign, weighing in on a number of races. They’ve been a leading critic of GOP Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, for example.

While the overall aim of the group is good, it sounds like a dangerous pattern is developing here as far as the Club For Growth and its associated PAC is concerned, including an FEC lawsuit contending illegalities in the Club’s election activities from 2000-2004 (The Club For Growth responded here.) Unfortunately, it affects the person in the race with whom I happen to agree the most but it’s important to look at all sides and do a little digging sometimes in the effort to inform voters.

In this case, Pipkin may have a point. But questions do remain on just how strong the pro-taxpayer record Pipkin claims to have really is. It’s not just cutting taxes – I’d like to see a little more emphasis on the spending side as well.

Crossposted on Red Maryland, because it’s important stuff.

A 1st District candidate goes positive

He may not have a ton of campaign cash to air the ad, but I like the idea:

In an effort to help clean up the race for Congress in Maryland’s First District, Judge Robert Joseph Banks’ campaign will begin airing a positive radio ad this month. His message comes hot on the heels of the scandal involving the endorsement of Congressman Wayne Gilchrest by fictitious gay rights’ group Progressive Marylanders for Social Justice, alleged in the Baltimore Sun (in a January 16 column by Laura Vozzella) to be an Andy Harris “smear campaign” tactic. Prior to that, Banks himself was accused by the Harris Campaign to have thrown his hat in the ring at the request of Congressman Gilchrest to dilute support for Harris. Judge Banks’ ad offers “an alternative to the tired old rhetoric of promised change.” He touts his pro-life stance, opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens, his support for our troops in their fight against the War on Terror, and pledges to vote against every tax increase.

Judge Banks also reminds his opponents of President Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” He has repeatedly vowed to support the winning candidate and maintains that his bid in this race is to ensure that the Congressional seat “remains red.”

He goes on to say, “If the Party is going to gain any ground in the state of Maryland, we need give up these little turf battles and come together. Further fracturing our Party only hurts us in the long run. The Democrats kiss and make up the morning after election night – why can’t we do the same?”

I received the text of the radio ad as well.

Can we talk for a moment?

Just you and me.

I’d like to talk about the race for Congress in the First District. Have you noticed all the negative campaigning – all of those horrible, mud-slinging attack ads?

There is an alternative to the politics as usual – an alternative to the tired old rhetoric of promised change. Elect Judge Robert Joseph Banks to Congress. That’s me, by the way.

I am the only Eastern Shore native in the race. I was born and raised (in) Earleville and spent most of my life in Cecil County. Governor Bob Ehrlich appointed me an Orphans Court Judge in 2006.

I am a pro-life candidate who is the father of three beautiful girls. I do not support amnesty for illegals. Furthermore, OUR families should be given tuition breaks at our public colleges, not illegals. I will vote against every tax increase. Most importantly, I support our men and women in uniform – here and abroad. They sacrifice every day fighting the Global War on Terror.

There – you CAN air a positive political message! I am Judge Robert Joseph Banks and I ask you for your vote in the Republican Primary on February 12th.

You know, I hope they didn’t forget the disclaimer on the ad. The opening sounds like it might be a bit creepy but overall it’s a good message that should appeal to GOP voters who haven’t decided on their guy yet, problem is it may be too little and too late.

There are a couple facts though that do beg the question about the accusation of Banks jumping into the race to dilute support for Andy Harris. According to the data supplied to the state Board of Elections, Banks claims an address that is actually located in the Third District. And at the time he filed for the First District seat, no Republican had yet filed to run in the Third District – presumably Banks would have had a clear advantage as the first GOP representative in the field, one who had served in public office. Maybe Brian Griffiths would have been spared his complaint about the Third District situation.

But I appreciate whoever put me on the mailing list for getting this, it gives me another opportunity to inform voters of all their choices on February 12th.

Speaking of Republican choices, it’s come to my attention that several Kent and Queen Anne’s County Republican groups have put together a Republican Candidates’ Forum to be held Sunday, January 27th at Washington College in Chestertown from 2-4 p.m. So I would expect Judge Banks to be there along with several of his GOP cohorts since it’s a good location for them. Think I may have to take a ride up myself – they were smart and scheduled this on the off week before Super Bowl Sunday!

A reply to “ShoreThings”

In my previous post about State Senator E.J. Pipkin and gun rights, ShoreThings made a comment about the context of the Second Amendment and completed the actual wording, which includes the portion about a “well-regulated Militia.” Later interpretations have taken this clause to mean an organization such as the National Guard as the “well-regulated Militia” in question, subordinating individual rights.

The District of Columbia has attempted a similar argument at the Supreme Court, where the question to be decided is (according to Wikipedia):

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

My response takes a little different tack in talking about context – not of the times, but of the document itself.

ShoreThings:

Since you placed the whole Second Amendment out there to talk about the militia, please regard the context in which the amendment is placed.

The 1st Amendment protects religion, speech, the press, free association, and redress of grievances.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens a right to self-defense against a tyrannical government.

After the right to self-defense, the 3rd Amendment goes further in prohibiting armed agents of the government free reign in the home.

That security extends to persons, houses, papers, and effects with the Fourth Amendment.

Amendments Five through Eight insure that the government has the burden of proof in cases where one is accused of a crime and that punishment needs to fit the crime if the person is convicted by a jury of his peers.

Amendments Nine and Ten reserve rights not specifically granted to the federal government to the people and the states, respectively.

In my view, any federal gun control laws circumvent not only the Second Amendment, but also the Ninth and Tenth. All of these were placed for a reason, to attempt to insure that no tyrannical government such as the 18th century British Crown would ever again taint American soil. But there’s a lot of people in DC attempting to.

That refers in some part to the SCOTUS case I cite above but to those in the nanny state who think they know better than we do. So hopefully that answers your comment in a proper manner.

I also ran across another comment on Red Maryland taking me to task for “shoddy reporting.” But the context and argument I was making had little to do with Pipkin’s Second Amendment record and stand, which indeed is admirable (except I’d rather see him work for not simply enforcing federal gun laws but for rolling them back), rather it’s for the reach that he made to equate a difference in opinion he has with Senator Harris on Sunday hunting into disdain for gun rights. In that respect, both candidates have found favor with pro-Second Amendment groups.

But I applaud both commentors in these posts for taking the time to respond and advance their counter-arguments. Keeps me on my toes.

Crossposted on Red Maryland, to the chagrin of some.

Pipkin fires at opponents about gun rights

Today in my mailbox I received the sixth in what seems to be a continuing series of mailings promoting E.J. Pipkin, and in this one he decided to go negative too.

Maybe this is the sign of a desperate candidate? We know Andy Harris is desperate when he goes negative - according to Pipkin, that is.

(Sorry the picture’s a bit off, I kept getting too much glare from my flash otherwise. I don’t own a professional studio, you know.)

So I decided that he looked at the records, maybe I should too.

Pipkin’s ad noted that Gilchrest “voted for Bill Clinton’s ban on certain firearms owned by millions of law-abiding American citizens” but didn’t give me the exact vote they determined this from. Then he took Andy Harris to task for voting against expanding deer hunting season (HB9, 2002) and not allowing Sunday hunting in certain Eastern Shore counties (SB717, 2007.) But according to the vote tally for the latter bill, Harris did not vote either way on that bill’s third reading, a vote Pipkin did support in the 40-4 decision. Apparently Harris is simply adamantly against Sunday hunting, also voting against another similar bill in 2006. On the other hand, Harris has no problem with the concept of hunting via the internet, as the Senator voted twice against bills that Pipkin supported prohibiting the practice. I look at it this way – as long as someone is there in the field collecting the meat and hide for good use and not just killing for sport there’s no issue in it to me. (Truly I’d never heard of the concept before doing this research.) But the General Assembly felt differently.

But is not allowing hunting on Sunday or letting people hunt via internet truly germaine to gun rights? More important to me is the right to get a permit and carry.

Last year Andy Harris was a co-sponsor of SB762, which would have “(r)epeal(ed) the requirement that the Secretary of State Police find that a person has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun before issuing a handgun permit to the person.” In other words, shall-issue. Unfortunately that bill got nowhere.

Another bill sponsored in part by Harris (SB10) in 2004 would have “(a)llow(ed) a person to sell, rent, or transfer ammunition for regulated firearms to persons under the age of 21 years who are members of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard.” Makes sense to me, since they’re in the military anyway!

Not to be outdone, Pipkin sponsored a bill (SB424) in 2005 that would “(repeal) a provision that establishes a procedure for the collection and reporting of handgun shell casing information.” The next year E.J. co-sponsored SB911, which was the predecessor to 2007’s SB762 that Harris sponsored. Why Pipkin dropped his sponsorship of essentially the same bill one year later is a good question.

And Wayne Gilchrest has a decently pro-gun record in some respects. While Pipkin’s mailing didn’t cite the bill that he hammered Wayne on, the Project Vote Smart website shows Gilchrest did vote for defunding enforcement of trigger lock laws and voted for protecting firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with guns they sold. Not spectacular but certainly not evidence of the gun grabber Pipkin made Wayne out to be.

To turn a phrase then I’d have to say Pipkin’s argument recoils on him when it comes to gun rights. Of course, I’m not seeing where any candidate is in favor of rolling back some of the federal gun restrictions should they assume or remain in the First District Congressional seat, and that’s disappointing to me. A reminder to all of you, please reread the Second Amendment:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Wicomico County Lincoln Day speaker announced

We’ve known about this for a few days, but today it became official. Two-time candidate for Governor and, more recently, the head of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration for the U.S. State Department Ellen Sauerbrey has agreed to be our speaker for our annual Lincoln Day Dinner on Saturday, February 9th beginning at 6:30 p.m.

Actually, she’s a major player in Maryland politics that I haven’t yet gotten to meet so this should be an interesting time. I know I’ll be sending in my check tonight – after all I’m also one of the sponsors of the event through my advertising.

And you never know who else may show up, since that’s the weekend before the primary election here in Maryland. So I encourage those of you with a conservative bent to join us at the SU Commons for what promises to be a good time.

Speaking out

While it’s probably a waste of my time and certainly against my better judgment, I’m going to comment on some of what was said at Salisbury News over the weekend regarding my “proper” influence rank. Here’s the quote:

The fact that Mike is now all the way down to #16 means someone is listening to something because that’s where he belongs right now.

I have to differ with that, since that’s actually as low as I’ve ranked over the course of the rating system. On average last year my rank was #6, so over time that seems to be where I fall, some weeks higher and some lower.

I suppose having a low rank just means I have to try a little harder, although my post on Pipkin’s pay to play yesterday got a “legitimate” link from Delmarva Dealings, plus a couple other recent posts have gotten other bloggers’ attention. I thank them for reading and linking, hopefully those readers see my points I’m trying to make. Speaking of DD, obviously G.A. Harrison will now be a force to reckon with since he’s also developed a sister site called Campaign Edge to go along with his linkage to Salisbury News.

It still irks me though that I’m accused of crossposting solely to pump up my Maryland political influence rankings. The fact is, I had high ratings even before I started crossposting with Red Maryland in September. Certainly I crosspost to increase the number of readers I get, whether on my blog or someplace else. Unless you’re running a private blog, that IS the idea, isn’t it? Lord knows Salisbury News talks a lot about record days and I’ll be the first to admit that insofar as Salisbury bloggers go he gets the most readers. Being a event-driven blog that concentrates on what goes on in and around the Salisbury area, naturally people will go read SN because at times there’s a breaking story that won’t be in the newspaper until the next day (or next week, or never.) He even has began to take in stories from other news sources, sort of like the Daily Times does with the Associated Press wire.

But is it truly political in nature? Sure, there’s a fixation on all that’s wrong with politics in Salisbury and Wicomico County – no shortage of fodder there – but his political agenda definitely focuses on one person, Barrie Parsons Tilghman. She’s the mayor of one small town, a town he doesn’t even live in! To each his own, I guess.

Let me give people an example. Each Monday Salisbury News gets a post from Andy Harris with his talking point of the week. It’s reprinted verbatim and readers react. I can’t complain too much about the strategy; after all I’m a Harris supporter and it’s a wise use of resources seeing that people read that blog and insofar as I know it’s free advertising.

But I don’t always take things at face value. With Harris, I’ve been critical of the negative campaign he’s ran because I’ve seen him speak and he’s got a positive message on the stump, why not take it to the people? And I’ll talk about what other candidates on both sides of the race say with a liberal dose of my viewpoint. (That’s about the only liberal you get out of me.) Comments and challenges are welcomed here.

It’s why I was INVITED to become a contributor to Red Maryland and also into the Maryland Bloggers Alliance back in 2006. People tell me I have a talent for writing, who am I not to believe them?

And given what has been said about me quite frequently from a particular source, a source who also agrees on the one hand that I can write a mean sentence but then runs me down a paragraph or two later for writing too lengthy of posts or for not being a good businessman – overall I’m glad I’ve stayed independent in all of this. While I do crosspost from time to time, it all starts right here.

For what I have accomplished and built from less than zero is something for which I can take all of the credit. There is only one writer of monoblogue, hence the name. The probability is really great that mine will never be the most-read blog in the world or even in this little town I call home, but I’ve found that people almost always respect my work and have shown that through placing me on their must-read bloglists. There’s something to be said for that regardless of my political influence rank.

Now that I’ve said my piece, feel free to comment but that’s the way I see it. Tomorrow will be time to move on to important issues again.