January 2010 – Page 2

WCRC meeting – January 2010

For the second time in the last three meetings, our scheduled speaker had to bail out on us at the last minute. If this keeps up our club is going to start getting a collective complex.

Actually, it was a weather-related incident which kept U.S. Senate aspirant Corrogan Vaughn at home, so we’re hopeful in rescheduling his appearance before September’s primary. Undaunted, we began as always with the Lord’s Prayer and Pledge of Alllegiance, both led by WCRC president Marc Kilmer, who also noted in his opening remarks that “Massachusetts went well.” So the year is off to a good start.

I read the minutes I compiled last month as the secretary pro tem, and the Treasurer’s report was related by our regular secretary, Dave Parker. We have a “significant amount” of money we can use for 2010, and opined that it was more than our Democrat counterparts have. (The trick will be to spend it wisely.)

Marc then regained the speaker’s role, appealing for members to pay their 2010 dues and noting that we had the preliminary meeting to discuss 2010 election strategy last month. This will be an ongoing effort.

The January meeting also begins the process of selecting 2010 officers, and with one exception all of the 2009 officers were willing to return to their positions. Fortunately we have a volunteer for a replacement, so unless nominations come from the floor during February’s meeting the WCRC officer slate will be essentially unchanged.

Dustin Mills gave the Young Republican report for YR president Mark Biehl, who was having weather-related problems of his own. They are still in the process of planning two events: their second annual food drive to be held in late March or early April (date to be determined) and hosting the 2010 state Young Republican convention, which Dustin promised would have “significant” guest speakers.

Matt Taffeau of the Salisbury University College Republicans briefly noted his own organization’s recent accomplishments (they are over two dozen strong and have heard from a goodly number of local and state candidates as their recent speakers) and promised a large presence at the Lincoln Day Dinner, which will be held February 6th on the SU campus.

We had a new report from the Republican Women of Wicomico and their president, Shirley Smack. She reminded our group that the RWW would be hosting a lunch with Maryland GOP Chair Audrey Scott on Wednesday, February 3rd at 11:30 a.m. at Brew River in Salisbury. They also have a monthly program which airs on local public access station PAC-14 and are looking for members. By the way, guys can come to the February 3rd luncheon too!

The most lengthy portion of the evening came from the Central Committee report. First, county Chair Dr. John Bartkovich announced our two new members, who were selected after the state convention allowed our ranks to expand. Also, due to the high number of quality people to choose from, we picked two associate members.

And, as noted above, Wicomico County’s Lincoln Day Dinner will be Saturday, February 6th at the Commons at Salisbury University. The fun there begins at 6:30 p.m. and speakers will be Kendal and Bob Ehrlich.

During our tri-county Central Committee meeting earlier this month members came up with several possible topics to use as the overriding messages we’ll encourage local candidates to adopt, and the meeting tonight was used as a focus group to test some of the concepts. Obviously candidates would have their own ideas on how to deal with these issues but the themes our group came up with seemed to resonate well with the group. The only addition was when Joe Holloway brought up the “arrogance” of those in power in both Annapolis and Washington, D.C.

Certainly it was fodder for a lively discussion as we debated the merits of a number of topics, but preferring to stay away from certain issues as part of an overriding message candidates could agree on seemed to be a consensus as well. Eventually we’ll hone these suggestions down and begin with three to four themes…but at this point I won’t tip our hand.

Our final business item came from Woody Willing, who gave the monthly voter registration status and announced our annual Crab Feast would be held about a month sooner than normal. The August 28 date was picked to maximize the number of candidates who would be present as early voting for the primary begins September 4th.

With that being said, our next get-together will occur on February 22nd. Yes, we are planning on a guest speaker and hopefully he or she will be able to attend!

The job losses continue

And so does the speechifying of GOP candidate for Governor Larry Hogan. He’s not pleased Maryland lost another 4,100 jobs last month.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the December jobs numbers for Maryland today. Another 4,100 people were added to Maryland’s unemployment lines last month. Larry Hogan, who has emerged as the leading potential challenger for Governor, made the following statement:

“These aren’t just numbers. These are real people. They are fathers and mothers just struggling to make ends meet, put a roof over their family’s head, food on the table, and a coat on their kids backs. It’s real people like my youngest daughter Julie and 300 of her fellow coworkers who were laid-off by a Baltimore company just last week.

O’Malley officials revealed this week that they need to borrow another $300 million from the federal taxpayers in order to prop up the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Fund. They admitted that ‘this is necessary because of the unprecedented joblessness Maryland has experienced since 2007’, meaning since O’Malley has been Governor.

The incumbent Governor recently has begun to say he cares about jobs, jobs, jobs, at several press conferences and photo ops. After today, I am sure he will throw together a press conference, or appoint another commission to study how to create more government jobs. But, no last minute campaign stunt can change the undeniable fact that this anti-business Governor has lost more jobs than any other in Maryland history.

It is time for a change. It is time we had a Governor who understood that it is the private sector that creates jobs and leads us into economic recovery – not more government. Marylanders are looking for a leader who will take action immediately to stimulate our economy and encourage businesses to start hiring again. The people of Maryland deserve better.”

Larry Hogan is the founder and owner of several small businesses in Maryland. He has emerged as the leading threat to O’Malley and has more cash on hand in his campaign account than any potential gubernatorial challenger from either party.

More and more businesses are throwing in the towel as the economic recovery continues to sputter – meanwhile, Washington spends more and more money on who-knows-what. Well, we do know that O’Malley is in line for a nine-figure bailout to balance his FY2011 budget so we can account for that little bit.

The irony is that another Washington policy presumably supported by O’Malley is making the problem with the MUIF worse. Continually extending the time period a person can collect unemployment is drying up the fund because jobseekers can now spend much more time collecting the subsidy from the state.

The MUIF balance, as most insurance funds are, is predicated on the probability that a worker will collect unemployment benefits a certain amount of the time balanced against the much longer time period his or her employers contribute to the fund. Ideally the rates are calculated to balance out or show a slight excess to the fund over the expected timeframe an employee works during his or her lifetime, and it’s adjustable based on the history of the occupation and employer.

However, these difficult economic times, coupled with the desire to continually extend the benefit period, completely play havoc with the actuarial math done to set rates. The unprecedented payout period and shortage of employers contributing to the fund have created this double whammy, and increasing the rates charged to employers to cover the shortfall only makes it more difficult for them to retain employees because their overhead costs increase. And you guessed it – that adds even more to the unemployment rolls. Can anyone say vicious circle?

On the other hand, perhaps it’s a little bit too much to ask but I’d like to know what specific changes Hogan is proposing to alleviate the problem. Certainly the O’Malley jobs record is worthy of criticism (although I’m curious if O’Malley is indeed the champion of Maryland job-losing governors) but just which policies would change under a Hogan administration, and how would he get them through a likely Democrat-controlled General Assembly? (Getting enough Republicans to sustain his vetoes would be a start, which means picking up 14 seats in the House of Delegates or 2 in the Maryland Senate, if memory serves me correctly.)

At least there’s a Republican in the race who’s calling O’Malley out – I’ll give Larry that much.

Supremes level the playing field

This happened late last week, but it’s interesting to collect various takes on the issue. So I have one from the left, one from the right, and then my own.

We’ll begin with Mitch Stewart of Organizing For Against America. I did a little bit of paring to get rid of the links.

(Last Thursday) morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It’s a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.

(snip)

The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn’t buy “issue ads” — which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates — in the closing days of campaigns.

The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.

With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans — and Republicans seem ecstatic.

While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy — and we need to show that the American people stand with him. (All emphasis in original.)

On the other hand, Bill Wilson and the folks at Americans for Limited Government were much more pleased:

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson (Thursday) praised the Supreme Court for overturning key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign restrictions, calling the decision “a decisive victory for the First Amendment, free speech, and open and fair elections.”

“The Roberts Court will go down as the greatest defender of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it,” Wilson declared, calling the overturned restrictions “censorship.”

(snip)

According to the majority ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Limits on independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”

“Under this ruling, corporate entity restrictions on political campaigning have thankfully been overturned, as they have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Wilson.

Wilson also condemned Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling the decision “un-American.”

“Chuck Schumer needs to have his head examined,” Wilson said, adding, “the First Amendment was upheld in this case. It doesn’t get any more American than that.”

In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled against provisions that restricted Citizens United from broadcasting a movie it developed, Hillary: The Movie, that was supposed to air during the 2008 Democratic Primary. In particular, the court ruled that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by a corporation is a violation of the First Amendment.

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.

(snip)

Wilson said that the ruling “could set a template for groups to unhinge unconstitutional restrictions in the future through pre-enforcement challenges.”

Their release was actually much longer and featured commentary by their legal counsel, but you get the picture.

The aspect of McCain-Feingold which most gave it the perception as an “incumbent protection plan” was the artificial restriction on certain political advertisements 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, which is generally the timeframe people begin to pay attention to the campaigns. (A 60 day period in a normal general election cycle begins roughly around Labor Day, the time conventional wisdom holds that the campaign begins in earnest.)

But the Supreme Court decision seems to indicate that the Citizens United case couldn’t be properly resolved without sweeping away other related precedent the majority found incompatible with the First Amendment guarantee on free speech. I tend to agree with that approach because when a decision is made, it’s far better to err on the side of freedom than it is to be overly restrictive. Could corporations abuse their newfound power? Perhaps, but it bears repeating that the final arbiter of their success will be the people who vote and elect leaders.

It’s also worth pointing out that unions, who typically side with Democrats on political issues, also had their ban lifted as well. Those special interests as well as trial lawyers, environmental groups, and other pro-statist advocates simply get competition from the corporate world now – and there’s no guarantee corporate interests will automatically favor Republicans. Democrats who assist in corporate rentseeking efforts won’t be the target of negative ads from corporations, and the states which do allow direct corporate contributions to campaigns don’t seem to have any greater number of problems because of that.

Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. Instead of having legislation arbitrarily decide who gets to express their point of view and who doesn’t, it is now up to us to be more informed about who is backing candidates and why. Any journalist worth his or her salt is certain to point out that the favorable ads from corporation X are backing candidate A, and undoubtedly once word of that gets out environmentalist group Y will respond by bashing both the corporation and the candidate, throwing their support behind their favored candidate B.

With the $1 billion-plus spent on the Presidential campaign in 2008 it’s obvious that the stated McCain-Feingold goal of getting money out of politics has failed miserably. So why not try the novel approach of getting money out of government and lessening the incentive for special interests to interfere?

Fox (hearts) Palin – but will it help her in 2012?

On Monday it was announced that Fox News inked former Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin to a multi-year contract as a contributor to the news network. While her on-air duties were not specifically spelled out, it’s expected that she’ll provide expert analysis to the network’s election-night coverage and host an upcoming Fox News program called “Real American Stories,” which the network bills as, “a series exploring inspirational real-life tales of overcoming adversity throughout the American landscape.”

Straddling a border between politics and media is nothing new, although more often than not the line has been crossed the other way – Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are but two examples of those who made their name in media before trying their luck in politics, while Senator and former presidential candidate Fred Thompson has managed a successful career in both arenas. Former CNN host and anchor Lou Dobbs is among those considering a similar move into the political scene after years in media.

But more and more that border is being traversed in the opposite direction.

Before Palin joined Fox News, one of the network’s brightest new stars was former Presidential contender and fellow governor Mike Huckabee. While his 2012 Presidential hopes may have been snuffed out by the recent murder of four police officers in Washington state by Maurice Clemmons, a convicted felon Huckabee helped to free from prison by commuting his sentence while serving as governor, when he was signed by Fox Governor Huckabee was still considered by many as a favorite for the 2012 GOP nod along with Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Obviously in Huckabee’s instance, the Clemmons incident didn’t stem from anything he said as a Fox News employee. But given the propensity of the remainder of media to judge Sarah Palin by unrealistically high double standards, anything Palin says on the Fox network can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.

Perhaps the best approach Fox can take with Palin heeds the old show business saying, “always leave ‘em wanting more.” One criticism leveled at President Obama is that he is always on television, the very definition of a media hog. Contrary to belief inside the White House, this overexposure is hurting his approval and credibility.

After Ronald Reagan left office as Governor of California, he had the opportunity to write and deliver a brief radio commentary each weekday for several years leading up to his 1980 campaign. These short essays kept him just close enough to the fray to be remembered but didn’t make him seem overexposed by being in the media for hours on end.

By that same token, if Governor Palin has the opportunity to judiciously dole out her appearances instead of being a nightly staple on Fox News it will enhance her political chances in the long run. With fewer opportunities for critics to jump on any misstatement she makes, Palin won’t be making the news so much as she’ll be delivering her message. And since her message of conservative principles is currently popular with the largest segment of the American people, exerting as much control of it as possible is in her best interest politically should she desire to return to that arena.

At the moment Palin’s approval ratings are comparable to those of the current Oval Office occupant. If she’s shrewd about the opportunity presented to her, Sarah Palin could create the message of her 2012 campaign and have the luxury of controlling it too.

Michael Swartz, an architect and editor of monoblogue, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Hey, I like the tagline and link. This effort for LFS cleared on January 15th and was picked up by the Palos Heights (IL) Reporter on January 21st.

Weekend of local rock volume 28

My first concert of 2010 involved some pretty hard-hitting stuff. The fancy poster tells it all.

In fairness, these handwritten posters promoted all of Coyote's upcoming shows. It's generally rockin' on Saturday nights.

The four-band bill consisted of three bands I hadn’t seen before and a headliner I’d had limited exposure to. First was a five-piece band of young guys who dubbed themselves Too Legit To Quit.

Like several other modern metal bands, Too Legit To Quit uses two lead vocalists who alternate between lyric lines.

I was starting to get a good feel for them, but sadly the bassist broke a string and their legitimacy stopped four songs in. Good thing I didn’t wait for pics.

Next up was the heavy sound of Gravelight.

Another five-piece outfit, Gravelight combined elements of death metal with a surprisingly melodic sound.

The thing I liked most about Gravelight was how they wrote songs with bridges very reminiscent of early ’80’s rockers like Iron Maiden or Judas Priest – stuff I grew up with. I think it would be interesting to hear these guys in the studio with a cleaner sound system and see how that compares.

Good thing I got these early too, since the makeup was starting to run just a bit by the end of the set.

Something I can’t figure out about these guys, though, is why just two (the singer and drummer) wear makeup.

Next up was Virginia-based Bitter. They came prepared to earn their gas money home.

The award for best marketing goes to these guys. I didn't pick up a CD because I wanted to hear them first and by the time I was ready to they had split the scene.

Boy, was I glad they were from Virginia. That guitar on the right was definitely at home there.

I suppose I'll know it when I see these guys again - if I don't see it on the drum I'll know the 'Stars and Bars' guitar.

Musically, they put on an enjoyable set – maybe not as adventurous as Gravelight but still a very good effort nonetheless.

Of the four bands, I would say these guys were the most 'professional'. Maybe the one drawback is that they have a similar vibe to a lot of other bands out there and it's hard to find a place like that.

One thing I liked about all three bands heretofore unseen to me was that they played all originals (or if they weren’t I wasn’t familiar with the original song.) Order 6-D6 played a stray cover or two, but overall that was the best part of the night.

I don’t know if body shape has anything to do with it, but my favorite aspect of Order 6-D6 is the vocals.

You may not be able to read the shirt, but I found it amusing: 'Fat People Are Hard To Kidnap.'

I had seen these guys just once before, when 96 Rock had a ‘Battle of the Bands’ at Pork in the Park last April. They did an impressive three-song set there so I put it on my mental checklist to see them again when I had a chance.

The band feature soulful vocals backed up by some hard-rocking guitars. Soon they'll be adding another guitarist.

I found out one thing at the show – I need to pick up their latest CD to see if they sound as good there. Even their choice of covers was interesting – a song by the Misfits and one by The Doors. (That was done with their future second guitarist, he’ll come on board in the next month or so to make the band a five-piece.)

If there's one thing I dislike about Coyote's as a venue, it's having that mirror directly behind the stage! Maybe a second guitarist will help by crowding the stage some more.

As a start to 2010, it was a good show to get the rust off after a month away and something a little more heavy than I’d seen in awhile.

Last night I saw some old, familiar friends and that’s my next installment of Weekend of Local Rock next weekend.

Odds and ends number 21

Once in awhile I do a post to highlight topics which are important but not quite enough to merit a full post. Since I’ve discussed the Scott Brown victory several times this week, I don’t want to keep hammering the subject but I did get additional dispatches worth mentioning. So here goes.

Earlier this week, I spoke with U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz about helping out with the Brown campaign. This is his “official” release on the subject:

Queen Anne’s County Commissioner Eric Wargotz took time off from his own campaign for U.S. Senate in Maryland to travel to Massachusetts over the weekend to work for Scott Brown’s Senate campaign. Commissioner Wargotz stated, “We felt the single most important thing we could do for our Country was to be in Massachusetts helping Scott Brown be the 41st vote against socialized medicine.” Wargotz volunteered with the Brown Campaign’s “Freezin’ for a Reason” get-out-the-vote effort by going door-to-door in six inches of fresh snow.

“It was amazing to watch the voters take back their Senate seat. The common theme at the polls was that people were tired of being told what do and how to vote. They were tired of machine politics that produced nothing but bigger government, less choices and less freedoms,” said Wargotz. “After meeting voters on their doorsteps, many asked how they could help. These were – Republicans, Independents and Democrats – who had simply had enough. I was witnessing history unfold before my eyes.

The same game-changing history is now unfolding here in Maryland. For decades, Maryland’s U.S. Senate seats have been controlled by special interest groups and have been entirely unresponsive to the needs of the average Marylander. But Marylanders, much like the citizens of Massachusetts, are tired of politicians who think they “own” their seat. The two U.S. Senate seats afforded Maryland by our Constitution are owned by the citizens of Maryland. This fall, look for the citizens of Maryland to take one back!

Whether the citizens of Maryland actually wise up and change their U.S. Senator remains to be seen, but as a campaign tactic this was brilliant. In one fell swoop Eric created a little bit of campaign buzz for himself, learned a little bit about running in a large-scale statewide race, and perhaps created an IOU which can pay off handsomely later on – do you think a fundraiser with a popular sitting Senator wouldn’t be lucrative? Obviously there’s a downside if Brown turns out to be a RINO like his New England counterparts Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins generally are, but in the moment this has to be considered an early advantage in the race for the GOP nod.

Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity was also beaming; here’s part of it:

In crystal clear fashion, (Massachusetts voters) told President Obama and Congressional Democrats to end this health care takeover now.

The meaning and magnitude of Scott Brown’s historic victory is truly stunning.

Consider Massachusetts. Before Mr. Brown’s victory last night no Republican Senate candidate in Massachusetts had won since 1972. The seat he was seeking had been held by Ted Kennedy for almost 50 years and the Kennedy family was on the campaign trail against him. All 10 congressional districts in Massachusetts are held by Democrats. In 2008, the congressional Democrat in Massachusetts with the lowest winning percentage was Barney Frank – and he won with 68%! Just 12% of voters in Massachusetts are registered Republicans.

But, Scott Brown did not win because voters suddenly love the Republican Party. He won not with a message of “Send more Republicans to Congress.” Instead, his most salient message was “send me to Washington to be the 41st vote against the health care takeover.”

The Democrats know this as well. On Sunday when President Obama campaigned with Ms. Coakley, neither of them said one word about health care — the issue on which the President has staked everything. They know that even in Massachusetts — the liberal bastion of the nation — their health care takeover has been rejected by a majority of the people.

Before Tuesday, Massachusetts was the largest state with one-party representation in Congress, yet they have elected the occasional Republican to lead the state.

Phillips has a point, though, when he opines that the message Brown sent was not nearly as much pro-Republican as it was pro-conservative. And perhaps it’s only because Democrats had worked their way up to utter control of Congress by getting the 60-vote majority, but nonetheless Scott Brown was victorious thanks to a nationwide effort. Given a 58-42 Senate majority for Democrats instead of 60-40, maybe Martha Coakley would’ve won and Dr. Wargotz would’ve stayed home. You never know, but being the prospective 41st vote certainly helped Scott Brown win.

And what effect did TEA Party activists have? Amy Kremer of the TEA Party Express had some thoughts:

These (Rasmussen Poll) numbers are amazing. In Massachusetts, one of the bluest of blue states, 40% of voters view the anti-tax, anti-government spending, greater personal liberty tea party movement favorably.

This is an effort that began less than one year ago, and yet the awareness and support for the tea party movement has reached a sizable chunk of voters in Massachusetts.

We saw the first hints of the power of this grassroots uprising in the NY-23 Special Election, where conservatives rose up and forced the GOP to drop their support for the liberal DeDe Scozzafava. On that same day voters in New Jersey and Virginia also delivered a shockwave to the political system.

And now, a great victory has been won in Massachusetts.

Many different groups involved in the tea party movement contributed to Scott Brown’s victory in a number of ways, and each brought their own strengths to the table. The totality of this effort was a massive surge in fundraising for Brown, volunteers for Brown, and hundreds of thousands of phone calls made in support of Brown and the Get-Out-The-Vote effort.

Some of the tea party movement’s critics have repeatedly sought to undermine this movement by sensationalizing the occassional personality clash or difference in tactics by one group or another. But in the end principles drive this movement and the passions of tea party activists brought them together in common cause once again.

To those who oppose this movement and who think that we in the tea party movement are going away, or that we won’t work together, you are wrong. Too much is at stake, and tonight’s victory in Massachusetts is just the start of things to come.

To be fair, the original release also stated that the unfavorable number for the TEA Party movement is 41 percent, and if you use the Rasmussen rating of strong approve/strong disapprove they’re at a minus-6. (The similar factor for President Obama, though, has reached minus-20 at times.)

If you think about it, though, given the constant bombarding of the mainstream media portraying TEA Party participants as lily-white racist gun-toting radicals and liberals’ constant use of the derogatory term “teabaggers” (since the term has a homosexual connotation) to describe them it’s pretty surprising their support is so high in Massachusetts. In a state like Texas or Oklahoma, my guess is that TEA Party approval ratings would be in the 60’s or even 70’s.

Don’t forget, though, that group is the one who nationalized the election. Until the eleventh hour, national Republicans were providing little assistance to Scott Brown, so it was a truly grassroots effort. TEA Partiers and others of like mind realized that, with the proper amount of assistance to get out his message, Brown could actually win the special election.

Of course, on a national scale TEA Partiers would have to multiply their efforts manifold to get similar results because November’s races won’t be as easy to nationalize. But they can stay sharp in the interim with the number of primaries we as a nation go through before the main event (such as Rubio vs. Crist in Florida.)

Obviously it will be difficult to nationalize races like we have in Maryland and Delaware, but it’s possible.

If one good candidate can emerge to face Barbara Mikulski, hard work (and a little corporate help thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision) could convince Maryland voters it’s time to turn away from having a partisan Democrat hack as our Senator.

Delaware may be a harder case because odds-on favorite Mike Castle is comparatively liberal by TEA Party standards, and Christine O’Donnell has ran and lost statewide before. But Democrats may do us a favor and try to keep one Senate seat the “Biden seat” instead of the “people’s seat.” Biden is biding his time about running, though, so he may decide to stay as AG and try again later once his father retires from the political scene.

The impact of Massachusetts will be felt for awhile, but political events have a way of shifting constantly and this euphoria could be just a footnote in a few months. We can enjoy it now, but there’s more work to do.

Friday night videos episode 20

This won’t be the longest version; let’s see if I can make it the best. I’ll begin with a nice wrapup of the March on Annapolis last week. I was hoping this video would come out sooner, but better late than never.

I hope that Twisted Sister gets its few royalty pennies from this one as well.

It was a little chilly at the event, so the next video is necessary to warm things up. I talked about this earlier this month and Freedom Action came up with the video to poke fun at Al Gore.

We just saw a successful campaign by Republican Scott Brown to wrest control of one Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate from the Democrats. Some people don’t like the new media and their efforts to shine a little sunlight on their campaign. These are two looks at an amusing but illustrative incident in the Bay State.

Filmmaker, writer, and political figure Daniel Vovak sent along this interview he did on “The District Dish.” He’s the writer of a movie called “The Blue Dress”, which he bills as a comedy about the Monica Lewinsky affair.

In a way, Daniel’s struggle to get this movie out without the backing of a major studio is akin to the trials and tribulations local musicians go through to get their music out. This week I feature another band I saw at the 12 Bands of Christmas last month, Woodstok Nation.

Today marks the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Last year, Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona stood before Congress and made an impassioned plea for the unborn.

With that I close out another edition of FNV. Wait until next week and I’ll have more good stuff.

The scenario

Originally today I was going to go back and try to wrap up the week of Scott Brown, but instead I think I’ll do that tomorrow or Sunday.

A few days ago, a friend of mine posited a scenario assuming Scott Brown won and the Senate version of Obamacare was forced into the House for an up-and-down vote. I’ll let her do the rest:

Nancy Pelosi is then going to try to force the Senate bill, unchanged, through the House. The problem is, without the Stupak language, she certainly loses Joseph Cao, and she’ll also probably lose Stupak and a few other Dems on conscience alone. She’ll probably lose a few more who had the sh*t scared out of them today, but will hide behind their consciences. That means she has to go back to them Dems who voted no– you know, folks like that guy who “represents” you. I see the dialogue going something like this:

Nancy: I need your vote on this bill.

Frank: If I vote for this thing, I haven’t a prayer of being reelected, and will be hung in effigy in every town on the eastern shore.

Nancy: You are going to lose whatever you do. The only reason you won in the first place is because the GOP was divided. Not going to happen this time. But, if you vote for the bill, when you lose, the administration will find you a cushy job– maybe an ambassadorship somewhere where hanging an ambassador in effigy is enough to get a person locked up. If you vote no, don’t expect any help finding a job.

So, what’s your take— assuming the scenario plays out about like that, what do Kratovil and his ilk do?

Well, this may not happen because Pelosi’s already claimed she can’t get 218 votes for the Senate health care bill, and maybe she’s already had a similar conversation with Frank.

Quite honestly, I don’t think Frank Kratovil would fall for this (perhaps others would) because, in my (admittedly limited) personal dealings with him he doesn’t come across as a smarmy political hack like some other Democrats I’ve met do. I know he’s been involved in politics since his college days, but he’s made at least some attempt at maintaining an independent streak with a couple votes and stance on illegal immigration.

That’s not to say Frank won’t be looking for a federal job if he loses in November – certainly Stevensville isn’t a terrible daily commute to Washington and the Justice Department is always looking for sharp legal minds. (Kratovil doesn’t seem like the lobbyist type, but you never know.) Nor is it out of the question to think a 2010 loss for Kratovil could lead to Kratovil vs. Harris act 3 in 2012.

But I think the Brown victory represented a “come to Jesus” moment for Kratovil as well. The issue where Frank is probably most conservative is illegal immigration, so this week was an opportune time for him to jump on board a House resolution supporting the “E-verify” program, improved border security, and not granting amnesty to illegals already here. In an effort to maintain his job, Frank’s voting record for the rest of the 111th Congress just might be comparable to Roscoe Bartlett’s. Anything to avoid the “liberal” tag.

Since there’s likely not going to be a primary challenger to Kratovil’s left, the true portsiders are going to have to hold their noses and vote for Frank in November. Of course, those on the right will go for presumptive GOP standardbearer Andy Harris, who will certainly be tarred by Kratovil’s supporters as the second coming of President Bush.

That leaves the people in the center, who just happened to be the ones who spoke loudest in Massachusetts. While Kratovil has spent the last year catering to the perception of being middle-of-the-road, I don’t think he can stay there without being run over by either his party’s leadership or the voters of the First District. We know how he voted before the TEA Parties began and once he’s safely re-elected I think he’d travel back down that route.

Then Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama wouldn’t have nearly as much to worry about.

Spinning a Bay State loss

As many of you know, I’m one of the reportedly 13 million on the mailing list of Organizing For Against America. So once in awhile I have to have some fun with what they say and the occasion of Scott Brown’s win in heretofore reliably liberal Massachusetts is one of those times. Mitch Stewart of the group had this to say:

Yesterday’s disappointing election results show deep discontent with the pace of change. I know the OFA community and the President share that frustration.

We also saw what we knew to be true all along: Any change worth making is hard and will be fought at every turn. While it doesn’t take away the sting of this loss, there is no road to real change without setbacks along the way.

We could have simply sought to do things that were easy, that wouldn’t stir up controversy. But changes that aren’t controversial rarely solve the problem.

Our country continues to face the same fundamental challenges it faced yesterday. Our health care system still needs reform. Wall Street still needs to be held accountable. We still need to create good jobs. And we still need to continue building a clean energy economy.

The President isn’t walking away from these challenges. In fact, his determination and resolve are only stronger. We must match that commitment with our own.

But it won’t be easy. Real change never is. For that reason, I am grateful you’re part of this fight with us.

First off, I wasn’t disappointed with the results at all, and the only discontent with the pace of change was that it was going too fast in the wrong direction!

Reread paragraph number four. First of all, I disagree completely with the premise that our “health care system still needs reform.” What needs reform is the manner it’s paid for – the delivery of the system is quite good. Opening up the system within each state to competition so there’s more than a handful of providers and cutting out some of the frivolous mandates to promote more accessible basic coverage would be a start and not run into the thousands of pages. Eliminating the linkage between work and health insurance makes obvious sense, too. And there’s no need for a coverage mandate – I know Scott Brown voted for the Massachusetts system and that’s one place where he and I disagree.

And then we have Wall Street. The populists in Washington have come out against what they term “excessive” bonuses and pay for Wall Street firms. Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives receive similar compensation packages without nearly the outcry.

I look at the situation this way. If you don’t like what an executive is making, don’t do business with the firm – use a local bank or investment company whose compensation structure is more in line with what you believe is fair. I hold no grudge on executive pay because there are few executives who have exhibited the talent and drive necessary to rise to the top of the corporate ladder, and they are being compensated for doing so. There might be 10,000 employees at a Wall Street firm, but only one guy is in charge and obviously the board of directors made a deal in good faith with him or her to be their leader. By that same token, I happen to think the UAW contracts with the Big Three are excessive but it’s the fault of the companies for letting them become so and not telling the union to stuff it. So the problem can cut both ways.

Now let’s talk about how to “create good jobs.” How about keeping private sector money where it belongs – in the private sector? Thus far, much of the job creation from the stimulus is either busy work on roads and other infrastructure (some of which is duplicative, like milling and repaving a perfectly fine stretch of highway) or “saved” jobs in the public sector (which has a higher proportion of union jobs than the private sector), positions kept when states were bailed out of their budgetary misfortunes.

A far better route to creating good jobs would be to eliminate the uncertainty of whether onerous health care and environmental legislation will come to pass and lowering the tax burden on businesses. And while you’re at it, keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Let the areas of the economy which work best get back to work and slowly the remainder (particularly the building industry) will spring back into shape as well.

Finally, if we are to “build a clean energy economy,” we should do it without unfair subsidy or rentseeking multinational corporations trying to ace smaller competitors out of the “green” market. The market long ago decided that carbon-based energy was the way to go because it was inexpensive and reliable – that and we still have enough to meet our demand for decades to come, particularly when it comes to coal and natural gas. Renewable sources are nice, but expensive and frankly too unreliable to count on for large-scale use. If the wind doesn’t blow (or blows too hard, such as when a hurricane or tropical storm passes by) a wind turbine creates no power. But as long as we can dig or drill for coal or natural gas and transport it to where we need it – which we’ve accomplished for decades – those supplies are stable and reliable.

I have no idea if Scott Brown or any of his GOP cohorts will read this critique, but if they want to maintain the momentum that the 2009 elections in Virginia and New Jersey began and the Massachusetts win continued, they should take these words to heart. The problem with the statist agenda pushed by the author of this e-mail and endorsed by the current administration is that there’s no real mandate for it.

At its heart, America is a right-of-center country. When independents get a taste of a radically leftist agenda pushed on a national scale, they revolt – first at the local TEA Party, then in those political races which have garnered national attention. Scott Brown was a shoo-in once the Bay State’s race became the United States’ race because the “hope” and “change” promised a year ago wasn’t the variety of hope and change America truly wanted or needed.

Over the last year we’ve learned a painful lesson and all the spin in the world can’t change the fact that we want something better. November isn’t that far off, and graduates of the most recent economic School of Hard Knocks will be doing their own grading at the ballot box.

Something tells me the statist agenda will get a big, fat, red “F.”

Maryland’s budget woes

At least from the GOP side of things. Don’t worry, I have my take too.

But let’s start with the Republicans in the House of Delegates and their opinion:

The Maryland House Republican Caucus today responded to Governor Martin O’Malley’s Fiscal Year 2011 spending plan by characterizing it as a template for Governor O’Malley’s mismanagement of the state of Maryland. The spending plan includes increases in state spending, the cleaning out of the state’s paltry special fund balances, place markers for more federal bailout money and leaves a $1.5 billion deficit for next year, which grows to more than $2 billion the year after. It also increases the governor’s staff budget, provides more environmental giveaways and continues the ongoing bloat at the University System of Maryland. The House Minority Caucus released the following statement:

“This spending plan by Governor Martin O’Malley shows his abject refusal to get Maryland on a fiscally responsible path,” House Minority Leader Tony O’Donnell said. “It leaves us with a $400 million hole this year, $1.5 billion next year and at least another $2 billion hole the year after that. He says he’s reducing spending but that’s not the reality. The fact is that he is spending more Maryland tax dollars this year while hoping for another bailout from Congress and the White House. Maryland has no more road for Martin to kick the fiscal can down. We are broke because of this governor and his allies in the General Assembly.”

Minority Whip Chris Shank added, “Our special funds are bankrupted. Our transportation funds are long gone. The remaining businesses Maryland has are set to go broke because of the policies of this administration and the majority in the General Assembly. Honest talk from this governor would require him to tell Maryland’s taxpayers that he’s going to raise their taxes again next year. That’s not likely to happen.”

O’Donnell concluded, “Enough is enough! It is time that this governor and the majority in the General Assembly start listening to the citizens of Maryland and get our fiscal house in order. Stop the election year buyoffs and start managing the people’s money for a better future today.”

And now for the Senate view:

Overshadowed by the deplorable state of the state budget released yesterday was the admission before the Senate Finance Committee by officials of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation that Maryland needs to borrow over $300 million from the federal government to replenish the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.

State officials said that the claim volume is unprecedented because of the elevated levels of joblessness throughout the state since 2007 (the year Governor O’Malley took office).

“At this stage, the trust fund is bankrupt,” said Minority Leader Allan Kittleman (R-Howard, Carroll). “Moreover, Governor O’Malley’s legislative proposals would make things worse – we must not permanently expand program costs under a federal mandate that only provides short-term revenues. Obviously, that fix is not financially sustainable.”

Business groups join Republican legislators in opposition to O’Malley’s legislation.

So you have perspectives from the opposition in both houses of our General Assembly.

While the state portion of the budget is smaller than last year’s, spending as a whole only decreases slightly to $31.9 billion. All that means is that the federal share of the overall budget continues to increase to where federal dollars now contribute roughly $3 out of every $5 Maryland spends. To me, this is an untenable position, particularly if a future Congress and President ever grow a collective pair and restore the federal government to its proper role. Maybe that’s not in the cards anytime soon, but otherwise there’s little reason for state government and the Tenth Amendment may as well be stricken from the Constitution.

Meanwhile, there’s also the prospect of borrowing from almost every fund available except the “rainy day” fund, which Governor O’Malley claims needs protection to maintain Maryland’s bond rating. If there were ever a rainy day though, I would think it’s now.

And then we have the irony of borrowing $300 million to replenish the unemployment fund at a time when Maryland is one of eight states still losing jobs. When you run a state which has been ranked 45th in business friendliness, perhaps it’s time to reconsider what plummeted a state which formerly was in the middling ranks of that category to its depths.

Recently I wrote an op-ed on how businesses who have struggled maintaining employment have also seen local and state governments using the “clawback” provisions in their contracts to regain the taxes they abated to encourage employers to locate there. All that does is make it even more difficult for businesses to recover and my argument was that government shouldn’t be as harsh on employers who have only recently run afoul of the guidelines as on those who never lived up to their promises. Maryland is a state which seems determined to squeeze every dime out of their private employment base and make it all but impossible to make a profit in the Free State.

If O’Malley wins in November and Democrats keep their stranglehold on the General Assembly, I predict 2011 will be a repeat of 2007 – but without the contentious Special Session. He and his allies probably won’t wait to start twisting the vise on Maryland taxpayers and businesses some more, as happened in the 2007 Special Session. Last time we endured a tax increase on cigarettes, adding 1% to the sales tax, and an ill-fated “tech tax” increase which eventually morphed into an income tax surcharge on the few wealthy Marylanders left. Perhaps next time it will be a gasoline tax, utility tax, increasing license fees, or a myriad of other ways to attempt to make up an increasing shortfall. (Obviously video slots aren’t doing the job.)

When us regular folk have to make tough decisions we place all options on the table, but it’s apparent that Democrats don’t place everything on the table when considering budget cuts. Perhaps it was too ambitious to attempt to cover uninsured Marylanders or maintain a tuition freeze when their costs are going up. But everything needs to become an option, even those items Democrats hold their nose at like reducing the size of government.

Freezin’ for a reason

I had an interesting conversation with Maryland U.S. Senate hopeful Dr. Eric Wargotz today.

If you don’t follow the campaign on his Facebook page, you may not have known that the Queen Anne’s County Commissioner and one of his campaign staffers, Don Murphy, took a couple days earlier this week to help out Scott Brown’s campaign for the U.S. Senate seat formerly known as “the Kennedy seat.” Hereafter I think we’re going to refer to that as “the People’s Seat.” Fortunately, Scott Brown will be the temporary occupant, at least until he faces the voters of Massachusetts in 2012 in a bid for a full six-year term.

Obviously this was a situation where Dr. Wargotz could learn firsthand the perils and pitfalls of campaigning statewide in a state that’s somewhat smaller than Maryland geographically but features a lot of the same sorts of voters – a mix of urban Democrats, suburban independents, and Yankee conservatism where the plurality of voters refuse to affiliate with either major party. (Of the rest, Democrats hold about a 3:1 advantage – that’s even more daunting than Maryland’s roughly 2:1 ratio of Democrats to GOP stalwarts.)

One thing that struck Dr. Wargotz was that Brown’s staff was at first “totally unprepared for the attention they got.” Since the buzz began over the last three weeks of the campaign, they were left short on many of the items one would associate with a political campaign – the supply of T-shirts and bumper stickers was nowhere near filling the demand. But Dr, Wargotz excitedly related the feeling among the capacity crowds he experienced at those Brown rallies he attended and how in going door-to-door there was enthusiasm among those who answered. (They weren’t quite as thrilled about the constant robocalls from both sides, though.)

In describing Brown, Eric noted that he was “a regular guy…what you see is what you get.” Thus, the public perception made by his unassuming style and pickup truck rang true. Contrast that with the “ice queen” personna of his opponent (not to mention the number of times she stepped in it verbally) and a following was created not unlike that which Sarah Palin garnered during the 2008 campaign. Of course, how Brown treats his Senate seat will determine just how much of the initial buzz wears off. While it’s putting the cart WAY before the horse, Rush Limbaugh used a short segment of his radio show today to compare how many days Scott Brown would be in the Senate before the 2012 election to the number of days Barack Obama spent in his seat before throwing his hat in the Presidential ring.

It was that kind of seminal event. But time moves on and our conversation also turned to Eric’s Senate race.

There is a rumor going around that Bob Ehrlich may not necessarily be interested in a rematch with Governor Martin O’Malley(a recent poll had O’Malley leading that matchup 48-39 with 13% undecided) and may instead challenge Senator Barbara Mikulski. (The same poll gives Mikulski a 64% approval rating, proving once again that Maryland voters are sadly uninformed and that they didn’t call me.) I don’t think Ehrlich would go that way, but the possibility exists. The former governor spent time in Congress so considering a return wouldn’t be a stretch.

If that happens and Ehrlich jumps into the Senate fray, Eric said he’d “be in no rush to leave” the race. Honestly, I think the former Governor wants his old job back but now, since Ehrlich has taken so long to consider his options, there are good candidates occupying both races. Obviously Dr. Wargotz would have time to step back to his current seat (since filing deadlines aren’t until July) but I admire his fighting spirit.

Just like Massachusetts voters decisively reclaimed the People’s Seat, I personally think the former Governor has to regain the respect of the voters and dithering doesn’t help the cause.

In the meantime, I appreciate Dr. Wargotz to spend a few minutes updating me on his trip. Quite honestly, I think it was a very shrewd move as far as his campaign goes because a little bit of self-promoting buzz never hurts. Nor would a fundraiser with Scott Brown, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if something like that wasn’t in the works for later this year. (Perhaps I stumbled into a scoop, Eric? I know you read here.)

And by the way – apology accepted.

Brown wins! What’s next?

We had a rare dose of January election fever because of the timing of a special election in the state of Massachusetts won by Senator-elect Scott Brown. Combine that with the inaugurations of Gov. Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey (both Republicans) and obviously the Republican Party is feeling its oats at the moment.

But that party is over, and now the efforts become localized as most states will go through their primary season beginning next month with Illinois. Maryland and Delaware are among a handful of states with exceptionally late primaries, our September 14 date falling just seven weeks before the November 2 election. I actually like the compressed campaign season, although others in my circle of party leaders would prefer an earlier primary – particularly when there’s a contested race. Some may recall there was an abortive bid to change Maryland’s primary day to a June date back in 2006 when it appeared that two Democrat heavyweights (Martin O’Malley and Doug Duncan) would contest their primary while then-Governor Bob Ehrlich was unopposed on the GOP side. But Duncan withdrew his bid for personal reasons and the controversy died soon afterward.

Obviously the Brown race became nationalized. Even among my circle of Facebook friends, which is relatively Maryland-centric and lopsidedly Republican, there were a few sporting the Brown campaign logo in place of their profile picture. The Our Country Deserves Better PAC found that commercial time in Massachusetts was getting so expensive for their pro-Brown ads that they opted to just buy available national spots – the small difference in price was worth it to them.

Nationalizing local races seems to be a successful path for Republicans. Given their status as bellweather races just a few months into the Democrats’ takeover of the presidency, the elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia became nationalized just like the Brown vs. Coakley race in Massachusetts and the Hoffman/Owens/Scozzafava Congressional race in New York’s 23rd District. In three of the four races the GOP candidate won and Democrat Bill Owens won in NY-23 with a bare majority (and the endorsement of nominal Republican Scozzafava when she withdrew at the end.)

One thing this Massachusetts race also proves is that being associated with the TEA Party movement can help a candidate win. I think they learned a little bit from the NY-23 race, with the biggest lesson being that we shouldn’t demand utter purity from a good candidate. Yes, I’m not completely down with Scott Brown regarding health care since he thinks that, while the bill currently in Congress is bad, as an idea compulsory health insurance is good. This is from his campaign site:

I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.

However, I think Brown can be persuaded by either the argument of allowing freedom of choice (those who don’t want to purchase health insurance should be allowed to maintain that right) or the supposition that each state should be allowed to determine its own way as Massachusetts did. Their needs aren’t the same as Maryland’s nor is either state totally congruent with a state like Mississippi. In any case, his feet need to be kept to the fire like anyone else – he may have won, but let’s not annoint him savior or start the comparisons to Ronald Reagan just yet. It’s not like he just came in off the street to become Senator – in fact, Brown had worked in the public sector for almost 20 years and spent the last 12 in Massachusetts state government as an elected official. In many ways, he just happened to be the right guy with the right message at the right time.

This can also be an object lesson to those who have never been in politics about the value of spending some time in the “belly of the beast.” Rarely (there are exceptions to the rule, but not many) does a person jump straight into a federal office without spending some time honing their craft and message at the local level. It also gives them an appreciation for having to deal with the levels of government above them and why things need to change.

Obviously there are a few in the TEA Party movement who are impatient and want to jump up to the top in order to shake things up. But my advice to them is to start at the lowest levels first – I can use the analogy of professional baseball and say that almost everyone who plays in the big leagues spent at least some time in the minors improving their skills and perfecting their talents before being ready for The Show.

As a member of a Republican Central Committee, one of our tasks is to find people willing to step up and run for office. Obviously being a County Councilman isn’t as glamourous and doesn’t have the perks associated with being a Congressman but, like Scott Brown, you need to start someplace. Unlike some others I know, I don’t mind seeing primary challenges to incumbents and Lord knows we need new blood in some positions.

So one thing I hope stems from the TEA Party movement and its recent political successes is a willingness for people who have the talent needed and believe in a pro-liberty message – one advocating limited and fiscally reponsible government at all levels – to stand up and say “I want to be a public servant and step up to the plate.”

It’s our time – let’s take advantage while we still can.