The darkest of horses

February 28, 2011 · Posted in All politics is local, Campaign 2011 - Salisbury, Delmarva items, Politics, Polling · Comments Off on The darkest of horses 

Well, it looks like Michael Taylor got as many votes in my poll as he may get in the election at large Tuesday. (I’m only kidding – sort of.)

There are only two conclusions I can draw: either people REALLY liked my interview with the guy I posted Friday or they’re messing with my poll. Aside from the complete outlier of Taylor winning, the other seven candidates seemed to settle into the order they’ve had all along – the other notable trend is the waning popularity of Orville Dryden as he fell perilously close to missing the top 6 in the poll (assuming Taylor was an outlier, otherwise Orville finishes out of the money.) Tim Spies has also seen a downward trend.

My second possibility becomes more apparent when one looks at the pattern of voting – early on Taylor was in his usual bottom slot before he suddenly surged to the top in just a few hours. And once the field began catching him another spurt placed him well ahead again.

I am pleased that this poll had much more interest in a shorter timeframe, as 392 votes were cast.

And the final poll showed some stark differences due to the leftward influence of Progressive Delmarva. (I think it helped Laura Mitchell a lot, too.) Here’s how they stacked up, with their previous two poll finishes in (parentheses) beforehand.

  1. (7,8) Michael Taylor, 85 votes (21.86%)
  2. (3 – tie,2) Terry Cohen, 64 votes (16.33%)
  3. (8,6 – tie) Laura Mitchell, 54 votes (13.78%)
  4. (3 – tie,1) Muir Boda, 51 votes (13.01%)
  5. (1,3) Tim Spies, 48 votes (12.24%)
  6. (5,5) Joel Dixon, 36 votes (9.18%)
  7. (2,4) Orville Dryden, 34 votes (8.67%)
  8. (6,6 – tie) Bruce Ford, 20 votes (5.1%)

I think a more comprehensive (and perhaps realistic) picture occurs when the three polls I’ve done are combined.

  1. Terry Cohen, 143 votes (17.8%)
  2. Muir Boda, 134 votes (16.7%)
  3. Tim Spies, 126 votes (15.7%)
  4. Orville Dryden, 106 votes (13.2%)
  5. Michael Taylor, 101 votes (12.6%)
  6. Joel Dixon, 80 votes (10.0%)
  7. Laura Mitchell, 70 votes (8.7%)
  8. Bruce Ford, 43 votes (5.4%)

If I were to make a prediction, my guess would be that flipping Mitchell and Taylor around would probably put the actual order of finish pretty close – I think Taylor and Ford will be the two odd men out, while the three who have ran before make up your top three primary finishers. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Spies in second and Boda in third, though – it’s a hunch based on Camden’s voting strength. Orville Dryden will probably be the closest to the top three, but Mitchell or Dixon could end up in fourth as well – that order is the most difficult to figure out.

But before I wrap this primary coverage up I want to thank Two Sentz and those over at Progressive Delmarva for their assistance. There will be more polling over the five weeks leading up to the general election April 5th, but I may change a few poll parameters around based on how this went.

For Salisbury City Council

As promised, tonight I’m going to endorse three candidates for Salisbury City Council.

Last night I alluded that I had four candidates I liked and four…well, not so much. While all eight who are running should be commended for stepping up and doing so, the stark reality is that some are more qualified in my eyes than others. There are reasons I wouldn’t recommend voting for these four.

Unfortunately for Michael Taylor, he falls into the category of a really good guy who I simply don’t know enough about in a public situation to know if he’d be a good fit. I simply think this election occurred at a time in his life where he couldn’t make the case for himself due to his job – once we move to fall elections (assuming he remains in his current job at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center) Michael should have more time to wage a campaign in the public sphere.

Having said that, I think when the opportunity presents itself Michael should attempt to become more publicly visible. Taylor has some great ideas and thoughts (and perhaps a few hardy backers.) Hopefully next time around he can have the time to put up a campaign worthy of them.

Tim Spies is sort of a sad case in that I supported him last time. But this time around he seems more bitter and combative; while that can be a good thing at times he’s picking on an industry which, like it or not, should have a place at the table. He’s also lashing out at those he may be working with if he wins.

The clincher, though, was saying we may need a tax increase at the AFP forum. With the state eagerly seeking ways to extract more money from our pockets yet again the last thing we need is someone who’s only too happy to raise taxes and fees.

In the next case, Orville Dryden seems to fall back too often on the mantra of “working together,” and the impression I get is that he’s not completely thought through some of the issues he’ll have to face should he win. I know he lives right in my neighborhood and it would be nice to have someone on this end of town represent us, but it should be the right person and he doesn’t strike me as the right person.

Similarly, if Bruce Ford doesn’t care if he wins or loses, neither should I. But I think the worst offense he made during the campaign was when he responded that, “I believe that housing initiatives such as Mayor Ireton’s Safe Streets program are properly considered as crime fighting initiatives.” I don’t, because I haven’t seen Ireton’s neighborhood initiative as much as a crimefighting tool, but more of an effort to damage a number of small business people who may only own a rental house to help with their income. The larger players could afford these restrictions, but not the small fry.

So those are the four I don’t support, meaning my choice comes down to Muir Boda, Terry Cohen, Joel Dixon, and Laura Mitchell.

I liked Muir Boda enough in the 2009 campaign that I openly wished there were two seats available for both he and Debbie Campbell (and I sold him advertising space for this election.) While Salisbury made a bad overall choice two years ago they have the opportunity to begin to rectify that oversight and I recommend they do.

In Terry Cohen’s case, while she hasn’t always made moves I agree with I can’t see a reason why enough of the challengers would be an improvement. She is a quite thorough person (almost to a fault) when it comes to city issues and the city would be served best to give her another term.

So it comes down between the two political newcomers, who both would bring a fresh perspective sorely needed by a new City Council. They both have experience the City Council could use, as Laura Mitchell has a financial background while Joel Dixon has worked in public safety and serves the city as a volunteer firefighter.

In truth, the biggest difference between the two lies in their support (or lack thereof) for Mayor Ireton’s neighborhood initiatives – Mitchell is a supporter while Dixon is against them. And since we already have two Council members who serve well as fiscal watchdogs, the public safety perspective will be an important one. This tips the scales to a bright young man who’s willing to listen and grow on the job.

In the end, there are three people who deserve your vote on Tuesday for Salisbury City Council. To move Salisbury forward and begin the attack on problems which face the city (albeit we can’t get more help in that respect until two years hence) I’m voting for the following three people and believe you should too:

  • Muir Boda
  • Terry Cohen
  • Joel Dixon

See you at the polls!


February 26, 2011 · Posted in All politics is local, Campaign 2011 - Salisbury, Politics · Comments Off on Foreshadowing 

Tuesday is the Salisbury City Council election, so I suppose I better get down to making some endorsements in the race.

At the moment, though, I’m in a situation where I like four candidates, and the other four…not so much. But I can only pick three and there’s always the possibility that I remember something I heard or read that could change my mind – my situation is still in flux.

So look for that tomorrow. In the meantime, go ahead and vote in the poll.

Friday night videos – episode 59

February 25, 2011 · Posted in Delmarva items, Inside the Beltway, Maryland Politics, National politics, Politics, State of Conservatism · Comments Off on Friday night videos – episode 59 

Another edition of this long-running series is upon us, and the star doesn’t need rehab! Let’s see what we’ve got this time.

The recent CPAC event was a gold mine of video inspiration for conservatives. For example, Human Events interviewed Ann Coulter before she made her remarks.

Not to be outdone, latched onto Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for her take.

And on it went, as both entities catalogued dozens of interviews there.

Since the last time I did this, a number of videos have looked at the battle between TEA Party stalwarts on one side and Big Labor on the other, in Wisconsin and elsewhere. I have four different videos on the subject, beginning with Wisconsin’s protest.

Americans for Limited Government has its take on the Madison protests, then covered the event in Annapolis.

Expanding on the coverage was Renee Giachino and CFIF’s Freedom Minute.

But there’s one more protest which comes from inside the Wisconsin state house.

Sore losers. Wonder what would happen if Maryland Republicans adopted the same style of tactics?

This is different and a humorous take on overbearing nanny state governance from CEI, who is usually good at this sort of thing.

I don’t wear makeup but I sure don’t drink coffee with soy milk either.

Okay, there’s no music video this time because next week will be an all-music edition. So that’s it for this edition of FNV.

Interview with Michael Taylor

While Michael Taylor hasn’t consciously been the “stealth” candidate in the Salisbury City Council race, he’s only managed to make it to one of the forums and hasn’t raised any money.

But in the interest of informing the electorate I sat down with him on Monday over coffee (for him) and beer (for me) at SoBo’s. This is what you call a raw recording, taken in the restaurant’s dining room.

The interview.

In a little over 20 minutes we touch on most of the key subjects in question, so enjoy the conversation.

The NAACP forum and the campaign tone

Update 12 p.m. – Tim Spies replies to my questions – see end of the post.

Last night the final major forum before the primary election was held at the St. James AME Zion Church, sponsored by the Wicomico County chapter of the NAACP. It was taped for later broadcast on PAC 14, although editing the tape in time could be a challenge!

Ignoring the irony that the forum was held in a district which won’t have a say in the matter, seven of the eight candidates came to engage moderator Orville Penn and each other in a discussion which started out rather freeform as forums go but became more constrained as the evening wore on. For example, each candidate could make as lengthy of an opening statement as they wished but by the time closing statements were uttered, they were limited to one minute.

A focus of the forum was on civil rights issues, so the line of questioning was a little different than in other forums. After the opening statement of why each candidate was running they answered a number of questions briefly described as follows:

  • The most challenging civil rights issue the city faces
  • On crime, how the candidates stood on racial profiling
  • Whether they would agree with subdividing the city into five separate Council districts (this was a question I supplied, so I’m saving it for last)
  • How they would place work sessions at times more convenient to the public
  • Their opinion on trying to override Mayor Ireton’s veto of rescinding health benefits for certain members of Council via charter amendment
  • Civility, in general
  • Employment and attracting jobs
  • A closing statement

The loose format meant there was no set order to deliver the opening statement so the first person to speak up went first, and that’s the order in which I’m going to summarize the performance of each participant. Bear in mind, though, that some questions have such obvious answers that I may not necessarily go through each answer. Instead, I’m just going to go over the highlights of the evening as provided by each along with the impressions I received.

This means I get to start with Tim Spies.

In a relatively lengthy opening statement, Tim explained his military background before working his way into some of what drew him into the political scene. He told the audience that his Camden neighborhood was “sort of in the middle,” caught in a transition period where the two rentals on his street present when he moved there over a decade ago had evolved into over half the street now. “(That) doesn’t make for a stable neighborhood,” he added.

One mention in his opening statement aroused my curiosity. If, as he said, he had resigned in the middle of his third term as the Camden neighborhood association president to run for Council this time, why didn’t he do so in 2007 when he first ran? Since I know he reads my site (as I’ll bring up later) perhaps he can explain.

Spies mentioned his Weed and Seed experience when pressed on the civil rights issue, calling the afterschool programs sponsored by the group “a haven” for at-risk youth. On that same token, he later said in replying to the racial profiling query that there’s “close to a dozen” gangs in the city and we need to “embrace the (gang) problem as our own.”

One interesting idea Tim brought up in response to the work session question was changing the location of sessions to neighborhood venues. It’s worth considering on a trial basis, although it would also mean members would have to be more prepared because they wouldn’t be close to their offices in the Government Office Building.

Tim may have been responsible for the forum’s most heated moments, though. In responding to the health insurance question he chided fellow Council members for their politically motivated votes, calling it “a slap in the face.” He then chided outgoing Council President Louise Smith in his next answer, calling her “responsible for a great deal of incivility” and drawing a pointed response from NAACP head Mary Ashanti, who briefly halted the proceedings to remind participants to be respectful of those attending – among them was current Council member Shanie Shields, who Spies would have to serve beside should he be victorious (her term expires in 2013.)

But Spies wasn’t quite through with the cutting remarks, stating in his closing that, “my goal is to see that the things that happened in the last twelve years don’t happen again.”

Now, allow me to digress a moment.

As most of the candidates did, Spies had literature for distribution at the forum. One of his pieces was a partial reprint of my recent post called First reports. In it, he cited the fundraising figures and my assertion that perhaps three of his opponents could be considered SAPOA candidates based on who contributed to them. Fair enough.

But Spies opted to omit the following paragraph regarding his fundraising alliances with Terry Cohen, the latest of which is detailed in this press release turned Daily Times article. (I received the same release earlier today.)

However, it can also be shown that Cohen and Spies are running as a team of sorts, with the most obvious sign being a joint fundraiser. Thirty of their contributors gave to both (mainly as a result of the joint effort) but only one maxed out to both so far: Anita Malik of Salisbury. Other significant contributors to both Cohen and Spies are Mary Gibson of Salisbury ($100 each), Dorothy Truitt of Salisbury (also $100 each), P. James Doyle of Salisbury (also $100 each), David Suiter of Salisbury (also $100 each), Patricia Derrick of Salisbury ($100 to Cohen, $250 to Spies), and Gail Reilly Cross of Salisbury ($100 to each.) Whether that is enough for them to help the candidates or if they are holding money in reserve for the general election that both should easily qualify for is the question, and one which won’t be answered until late next month when general election reports are due.

I understand the business of politics, but I also have to ask if that’s an omission which would be made if Tim didn’t feel the need to hide that fact.

Still, Tim provided most of the exciting moments. That’s not to say others didn’t contribute.

Laura Mitchell “never thought I’d be doing this.” But she’s running for Council for her children and grandchildren.

She made a remark in her opening statement that I’d love to have clarified, telling us that she had been politically active on the state level. But she didn’t say in what manner, just that “voting is not enough.”

For the civil rights issue, Mitchell pointed out that we need affordable and livable housing, which most would agree with. But she also revealed as part of her answer that she’d grown up in “an abusive house” and was “determined not to repeat the cycle.” That was a surprise for most, including me, and something you rarely see in a politician.

She asserted that racial profiling “does occur (and) has occurred in the past.” We need a zero tolerance policy toward profiling, along with better training and incentives to keep officers on the city force.

In an echo of Spies on the health benefits issue, she believed that the City Council was trying to bypass the rules by proposing a charter amendment because they didn’t have a 4-1 majority to override Mayor Ireton’s veto. There were rules of order which needed to be followed to promote civility, she continued in answer to that question.

Turning to job creation, Mitchell also opined that we had overused enterprise zones during the boom times, but we could use them on a more limited basis for infill purposes.

Afterward, Laura informed me that I’d made an erroneous assumption in the “First reports” post, as her January event was not a fundraiser as I’d believed. (I’ve changed the post to reflect this.)

I already knew from previous forums that this was a city Muir Boda loved. But he was first to jump on the civil rights question, pointing out that it was a question of economic opportunity and among the measures to employ it were faith-based items. Considering the forum was held in a church and opened with a brief prayer, that was a winning answer. Even Tim Spies, who answered next, agreed.

He also had a little bit of a different perspective on the racial profiling issue since he worked so often with law enforcement – Boda said the situation was “getting better.”

Muir also expressed his disagreement with the health insurance charter amendment, saying it promoted an “atmosphere of contention.” He got points from most of the women in the room, though, when he remarked on civility that his wife is more right than he is – Laura Mitchell, for one, agreed it was a smart answer.

When Boda talked business, he believed that we needed to both reach out to the business community for ideas and take a page from the success of Berlin and its mayor, Gee Williams. We could also take advantage of Delegates Norm Conway and Rudy Cane, he thought. (Sorry, Muir, I see them more as roadblocks than problemsolvers.)

Finally, Muir told his fellow candidates that he appreciated the respectfulness they have exhibited as they were passionate without being personal. Afterward, he cleared up a question I had received from a previous commenter on the First reports post.

In essence, I thought Bruce Ford started out like he’d say a lot but really didn’t. “I need to make sure this community is viable” as a place for his kids to grow up in, he began. He had seen 13 years of “slow decline” in the city based in part on the negative coverage we get on the televsion news and local paper.

But one question which sprang to mind was when he spoke about “a lot of major concerns I need to look at” and then brought up the fact he works 80 hours a week at times. How does that affect his commitment to the job, particularly when he said in closing, “this is more important than me being elected…we need to ask is what we do right?”

Ford saw the Safe Streets initiative as a “first step” in addressing civil rights. But then he tossed out another idea, asking why some would pay rent that equals his house payment. Perhaps we could look into arranging financing?

If Bruce is saying what I think he is, well, our economy hit bottom in part because government tried to address this on a national scale.

Among the other questions, Ford believed it was “inappropriate” for the outgoing City Council to try and couch the health insurance issue as a charter amendment. He also had an idea about forming a committee to look for businesses appropriate to lure to the city.

If anything, though, Bruce was one of the candidates who seemed to always be a responder after the first one, so he couldn’t add a lot of new ground to the questions. He doesn’t seem very talkative to begin with, and being one of the later to answer didn’t help him in that respect.

Incumbent Terry Cohen spoke of her “culture shock” upon moving from Texas to Salisbury as a young teenager but realized “Salisbury is a town of potential.”

A couple items which helped her in politics was her membership in the Salisbury Business and Professional Women’s club (20 years) and the work ethic she inherited from her father, who worked for the Piedmont family of air carriers until the age of 86. I didn’t know she had served under two governors on the Maryland Commission for Women.

And she could use her incumbency to advantage in answering questions. She distinguished the roles of state and local government when it came to civil rights issues, while saying that “we break our kids” and tell teachers to fix them. When we neglect neighborhoods, we break our next generation, said Terry.

Since the relationship between the minority community and the police was “an important bridge,” Cohen praised new police Chief Barbara Duncan for being sensitive to those issues – she came from a community with numerous ethnic groups. Cohen also encouraged interested members of the public to attend the upcoming Citizen’s Academy to learn more about police work.

Obviously Terry was the target of the health insurance question, and she had to mainly recuse herself from answering. She did bring up a provision in the Maryland Constitution which prohibited a change of salary or benefits due a public official during a term in office.

Cohen also brought up a three-pronged approach to civility during Council sessions – prioritize issues, scrap the time limits as necessary to get the job done, and enforce the rules equally. (It was another, more subdued, slap at Council President Smith.)

Regarding business development, Terry contended “we can incentivize ourselves into a hole.” We need a diverse set of industries to create jobs.

She closed by reminding those attending that she had a track record of accomplishments, including the Maryland Safe Streets Program.

Joel Dixon seems to be a man of few words, and generally had some of the shorter answers.

But his reason for getting into the race – having $2,000 worth of property stolen “upset me a lot” and drove him to “go out and do something” is as sound as anyone else’s.

It was “ignorance between cultures” which helped aggravate our civil rights situation, and we needed to “break down barriers” to help fix it via interaction. “Racial profiling is wrong,” he added later.

Dixon didn’t agree with the charter process to address the health insurance issue either. Instead, civility dictated we follow the Golden Rule and “set your pride aside.”

He shined best on the business question, providing an example of where Salisbury didn’t promote a business-friendly environment and calling on the city to “market our strengths until we fix our deficiencies.” The campaign has been a learning experience for him, Joel concluded.

While Orville Dryden recounted his term as local postmaster-turned-bailiff to note on the crime problem, “it’s not all rosy out there,” he only vowed to work with other law enforcement agencies to tackle the problem. He seemed to retreat to the idea of “working together” a lot rather than propose more specific solutions. “I don’t know if crime has any color” probably wasn’t the answer those attending were looking for on profiling, for example.

Dryden may have ruffled the feathers of one of his opponents, though, when he asked why we should provide health insurance for City Council members when other employees are being furloughed.

Yet he was behind the curve a little when discussing the idea of spreading out impact fees over a period of time, as the city’s already taken steps in that direction.

Perhaps the one area he spoke differently was in asking people to get out and vote. He had the final word in the affair so that would be what stuck with the crowd most about him. “Make this one beautiful city,” Dryden concluded.

Finally, this brings me to the discussion of my question on redistricting.

As it stands right now, all five Council representatives live in an area west of Division Street, four of them live south of Business Route 50, and two live within blocks of each other in the Camden neighborhood. Admittedly, this situation could change for the better since all but Terry Cohen and Tim Spies live in other hitherto underserved portions of the city, but we could have three Council members in the same neighborhood if Cohen and Spies join Debbie Campbell on the City Council.

Not surprisingly, Tim Spies was dead-set against the reditricting idea, claiming it would “fragment the city.” Bruce Ford was also leaning against the idea, while Terry Cohen was open to a “robust” discussion of the issue and mentioned the fact similar changes were discussed at a work session.

The supporters of the idea had different approaches. Muir Boda would support the move, as well as having four Council districts and electing the Council president at-large. Laura Mitchell had a similar idea using Business Routes 13 and 50 to divide the city into quadrants. (That probably won’t work for equal population, though.) Joel Dixon and Orville Dryden also supported it, with Dryden saying that he may finally get a snowplow for his far east-side neighborhood. (As it turns out, he lives on the street behind me.)

Perhaps I have muddied the waters with the long post, but with five days to go and counting I’m still considering each candidate – even Michael Taylor, who missed the NAACP forum due to work reasons and didn’t answer my questions. However, later today I will put up a 20-minute audio interview I conducted with him earlier this week, which may clarify some of his positions.


I got an e-mail this morning from Tim Spies regarding the Camden Neighborhood Association presidency and his citation of my material.

In answer to your as-yet personally posed question regarding the presidency of the Camden Neighborhood Association, the association’s by-laws do not specify what actions are to be taken when an officer is a candidate for public office.  In 2007, I stepped aside for the duration of the campaign, the vice president ascended to the presidency and an interim vp was elected.  When the city election was over, the interim vp decided on his own to resign and I resumed the presidency by popular request.  We decided to do it differently this time, although, again, there are no rules to abide by.  I have resigned my position as president, effective as of our January 2011 meeting, the first meeting after declaring candidacy.  At that meeting I proposed no new business except to complete that resignation process.  In my ex officio capacity, I have no more control over the association than any other member at large.

Regarding my leaving out the last paragraph(s) of your council report on campaign contributions when providing it to forum spectators/participants, I felt that it was common knowledge that Councilwoman Cohen and I are sharing and contributing efforts toward one another’s campaigns.  We share many of the same opinions, but we are not connected at the hip – we have disagreements, but come to accord on virtually all of them.  We decided early on that a united front would better serve the purpose of meeting the sleaze and misinformation that characterizes the well-funded campaigns previously orchestrated by SAPOA.  As you can see from your own report, those contributions indicate the very real possiblility that several candidates are essentially fully funded by dollars donated by SAPOA members and/or “friends”.  I highly suspect that more maximum donations will come to those who seem to be SAPOA’s candidates of choice, possibly under individual and business names that are more or less unknown to the local public – from outside the city and even the state.  The rental industry in Salisbury has, at minimum, an annual income of $96,000,000.  As an organization, it exists, according to its opening website statement (which may have been softened since I first read it), to minimize the effect of government and community on its industry.  What better way to minimize government’s effect than to control it? 

I look forward to dialogue with you regarding this campaign and city government.

Tim, let me tell you – if it were “common knowledge” that you were coordinating efforts with Terry, it would have been just as common to know that SAPOA was backing some candidates as well – particularly when the forum is held in the part of town where many don’t own their homes.

And I’m curious – why are you turning your back on a $96 million industry? To get the same economic impact, we would have to import 1,920 jobs at $50k apiece. (Granted, a large portion of that money goes elsewhere but there will always be a rental industry here since it’s a college town. And a fair sum of that money comes right back to the city in taxes and fees.)

Waging jihad on SAPOA isn’t going to get the city anywhere, particularly at an economic period when homeownership is down.

Since I presume, by polling and other indications, that you’ll survive the primary election I look forward to continuing the debate.

Harris opens Salisbury district office

The message was: he won’t be a stranger.

Looking in to the Harris office.

A crowd of perhaps 50 people crammed into (and spilled outside) the new district office, which takes over a space in the Gallery Building vacated by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

About 50 people came out for the opening ceremony.

Eventually the Congressman arrived to greet wellwishers and speak to other media. I happened to be the only blogger there but WMDT-TV came down the street to check things out, as did the Daily Times.

Andy Harris speaks with a constituent.

A WMDT reporter prepares to ask Andy a few questions.

The newly-elected Congressman had a few remarks for those who waited to speak with him, noting that this was a scheduled off week by leadership as they exhorted their charges to “talk to the people more.” As a practice they will have at least one week a month off.

But he was “really excited to get back to Washington next week” and begin discussions on how to tackle the budgetary process for both the remainder of this fiscal year and next year. Andy called the debt and deficit “frightening” and warned that he’s “not sure we can get out of this.”

“The time for talk is way gone,” he continued.

After holding two townhall meetings earlier this week, Harris told those assembled he was surprised by the sentiment. Expecting a backlash on cuts, he was instead told, “how come we didn’t cut more?” and that those attending generally “appreciate finally being told the truth.”

And when people come up to complain about cuts, as they surely will, Andy vowed to ask them two questions: is the program worth borrowing from your grandchildren for, and, where else on the budget should the restored cuts come from?

He then opened it up to questions, and among them I asked how much he’s saving from the new office. I was told $500 per month, which equates to $6,000 per year (or, as I joked, about 1/10 of a job saved or created.) Then again, it could help to hire an extra part-time person to help with constituent service and that’s more important than a physical office.

I also learned through a conversation with a longtime observer that the former office had been a Congressional office for at least 30 years, to the era of former Congressman Roy Dyson. But this office has the advantages of better security and a more convenient location (it’s across the hall from the local IRS office and in the same building as Senator Mikulski – her office is on the other side down the hall.)

Staff, local elected officials, and Central Committee members gathered at the doorway for the formal ribbon cutting. (I took the picture instead.) One other announcement made at the event was there will be a local townhall meeting the week of March 21, with more details announced a few days prior to the event.

The new district office is located at 212 West Main Street, Suite 204B.

Odds and ends number 26

February 24, 2011 · Posted in All politics is local, Campaign 2011 - Salisbury, Campaign 2012 - President, Delmarva items, Maryland Politics, Personal stuff, Politics, Polling · Comments Off on Odds and ends number 26 

I have a bunch of stuff today which piqued my interest but only needs anywhere from a sentence to a couple paragraphs to take care of. So here goes.

Over the last few days as the Madison protests continue, we’ve had Big Labor flex its muscles in a number of locations around the country. Needless to say I can’t be everywhere at once, and I was working during the Annapolis protest.

However, my blogging cohorts have helped me out. With on-the-spot reports I feature my Potomac TEA Party Report friend Ann Corcoran from Annapolis and the excellent photojournalist who goes by the moniker ‘El Marco’ reporting from his hometown of Denver on his Looking at the Left website.

Corcoran also lets us know that the unions will be back with their Astroturf in Annapolis on March 14, with the intent of making this a bigger and better protest. (By the way, school is scheduled to be in session for Wicomico County students on March 14 so the teachers here risk the last preparation day for grade 3-8 assessment tests if they skip town to attend.)

Turning to national politics, the other day I was talking about the prospects of Ron Paul’s third Presidential bid. Well, the ‘money bomb’ on Monday for the Liberty PAC that Paul leads raised over $750,000 – the ticker inhabits the front page of the Liberty PAC site. Guess he can afford those plane trips now and, if I were a betting man, I’d wager an announcement of his 2012 campaign will occur shortly after (or even during) the Iowa trip.

Finally, let’s talk about a poll or two. This morning Rasmussen released a poll claiming that 67% of Americans don’t support the ‘cut-and-run’ Democrats in Wisconsin (and now, Indiana) – naturally, the only group which approved by a bare plurality (48-44) are those who self-identified as Democrats.

Speaking of those who identify themselves as progressives, I have some exciting news on a new experiment.

I’m working with Progressive Delmarva‘s ‘Two Sentz’ on a joint poll which will appear at both sites later this afternoon; it’s the final polling on the City Council primary race.

While I’ve found that the fundraising results roughly parallel the polling I’ve done insofar as the top contenders are concerned, it’s obvious my readership skews to the right. So in order to perhaps get a clearer picture of the electorate I figured I needed to add some lean to the left. So we’ll see what the results show when the poll ends on Monday.

And then we’ll all see just how accurate we were Tuesday night.

First reports

This morning the City of Salisbury released 37 pages of candidate financial reports which cover fundraising for the pre-primary period. So who’s winning the fundraising race? Well, in order of finish for the period:

  1. Tim Spies, $2,360 from 45 contributors
  2. Terry Cohen, $2,155 from 49 contributors
  3. Orville Dryden, $2,100 from 9 contributors
  4. Joel Dixon, $1,850 from 9 contributors
  5. Muir Boda, $1,635 from 9 contributors
  6. Bruce Ford, $310 from 2 contributors
  7. Laura Mitchell filed her report stating, “contributions to date are insufficient to require a full report.” However, she did hold a fundraiser in early January so presumably she has raised a little money – just not up to the $600 threshold. (In speaking to Laura after the NAACP forum, she informed me the January event was not used as a fundraiser, so I stand corrected.)
  8. Michael Taylor filed his report with the same message, but listed contributions as zero.

Perhaps my polling isn’t so far off after all based on monetary results – the five who are leading the pack have significantly larger financial resources than the remaining three.

And if you look at the contributor lists, some interesting alliances occur.

Seven of the nine contributors to Orville Dryden maxed out their contributions to him (the city allows only a $250 contribution per candidate.) All nine also gave to more than one candidate:

  • Charlene Lococo of Berlin gave $200 each to Dryden, Muir Boda, and Joel Dixon.
  • Bret Hopkins of Fairfax Station, VA gave $150 each to those three.
  • Bryan Fox of Lexington, SC gave $250 each to Dryden and Dixon.
  • Paul Allen, also of Lexington, SC gave $250 each to Dryden and Dixon.
  • Gabriel Investment Company of Salisbury gave $250 each to Dryden and Boda.
  • Lauren and Keith Fisher, both of Salisbury, gave $250 apiece to Dryden and Boda.
  • Lynne Smith of Salisbury also gave $250 apiece to Dryden and Boda.
  • Susan and Arthur Spengler together gave $250 apiece to Dryden and Boda.

While I don’t know what each of these contributing individuals do for a living, one could construe this as evidence these three are the so-called “SAPOA” candidates. Boda only had two other contributions from individuals and Dixon received much of his other support from his family.

However, it can also be shown that Cohen and Spies are running as a team of sorts, with the most obvious sign being a joint fundraiser. Thirty of their contributors gave to both (mainly as a result of the joint effort) but only one maxed out to both so far: Anita Malik of Salisbury. Other significant contributors to both Cohen and Spies are Mary Gibson of Salisbury ($100 each), Dorothy Truitt of Salisbury (also $100 each), P. James Doyle of Salisbury (also $100 each), David Suiter of Salisbury (also $100 each), Patricia Derrick of Salisbury ($100 to Cohen, $250 to Spies), and Gail Reilly Cross of Salisbury ($100 to each.) Whether that is enough for them to help the candidates or if they are holding money in reserve for the general election that both should easily qualify for is the question, and one which won’t be answered until late next month when general election reports are due.

I should also send kudos to Brenda Colegrove, the Salisbury City Clerk, for making these reports available in a timely manner. It’s nice to get this information before the primary to assist in this important decision.

Saving jobs by not raising taxes

Tomorrow begins the hearing process for a piece of legislation dubbed the Lorraine Sheehan Health and Community Services Act of 2011. But if there were truth in advertising, the bill would be called the Vast Alcohol Tax Increase Act of 2011 And Beyond.

By raising taxes what they claim would be a “dime a drink” a group of General Assembly Democrats claim they can raise over $215 million for mental health services. In truth, they’re attempting to raise taxes nearly sevenfold on distilled spirits, over sevenfold on wine, and by a factor of almost thirteen on beer. If they indeed raise the beer tax from 9 cents to $1.16 per gallon it raises the price of a 12-pack by over a dollar. Since most people buy their alcoholic beverages in the form of multiple drinks (such as a case of beer or a fifth of whiskey) the price change would be much more than a dime.

Moreover, the proceeds would be spread out over a number of funds, including the General Fund. (A portion is even earmarked for tobacco cessation.) But here’s the real reason we “need” this extra tax:

The 2007 Governor’s Working Families and Small Business Health Care Coverage Act has expanded health care to over 52,000 parents but has not been implemented for tens of thousands of childless adults because of lack of funds.

Yet I thought that’s what the 2007 Special Session tax increases were for! I guess they found out they hadn’t extorted enough from working Maryland families.

There is a new website up to combat this tax increase called Save My Maryland Job. It claims that the crossfiled HB121/SB168 would cost the state 8,300 jobs in the hospitality industry. This would hit the local tourism industry hard, since Ocean City’s “family resort” certainly has a number of establishments which sell alcohol. “Our state’s hospitality industry contributes more than $4.55 billion in economic activity and employs 2.2% of the state’s workforce,” they claim.

It always seems the solution to Democrats is to raise taxes. So far this session there are proposals to raise taxes on booze, increase the gas tax, charge a fee for using plastic grocery bags, jack up the cigarette tax again, and so on. (That was just from a quick one-minute perusal of bills under the category of revenue and taxes.)

But we are tapped out, and instead of backing off the process of taking over our lives it appears the majority in the General Assembly might insist on doubling down. Haven’t they done enough damage?

The Senate bill will be heard tomorrow at 1 p.m. If other hearings are a guide, look for a number of so-called victims to be trotted out while opponents get short shrift.

Madison: the shape of things to come

February 22, 2011 · Posted in Patriot Post · Comments Off on Madison: the shape of things to come 

I’ve written for The Patriot Post for a number of years, but they invited me recently to contribute to their commentary page.

Last May we saw violent political riots in Greece and last week a February of discontent began in Madison, Wisconsin. While the issues at the heart of the Wisconsin protest aren’t exactly identical to the austerity measures dictated to the Greek government as a condition of accepting a continent-wide financial bailout, they’re still all about spending money the government doesn’t have.

The Madison protest arose from a GOP bill which would both curtail the negotiable items in labor contracts and bring to heel the ability of public sector unions to continually collect dues by removing “closed shop” provisions for certain employees and mandating annual authorization elections — those provisions strike (no pun intended) at the heart of the Big Labor political machine. To stall the inevitable passage Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate took advantage of a rules loophole and left the state, leaving their Republican counterparts fuming but powerless to take action on the law. Considering these Democrats have been offered sanctuary by religious leaders in adjacent states, they could be gone awhile.

(continued at the Patriot Post…)

Informing the electorate

February 21, 2011 · Posted in All politics is local, Campaign 2011 - Salisbury, Delmarva items, Maryland Politics, Politics · Comments Off on Informing the electorate 

We know that the race for Salisbury City Council is a non-partisan one, and I’ve asked the candidates a number of questions which touched on how they would approach city issues.

But there is also a question of underlying political philosophy, and one answer where this is best expressed comes from which party they are registered with (if any) and which candidates or causes they’ve contributed to over the last few years. Are they already politically active in that respect or not?

So I asked a friend who had the registration records for a hand in determining their age, voter registration information, and what elections they participated in, then went to the Maryland Center for American Politics and Citizenship website to look up a few pieces of information on each candidate regarding their political contributions. While most had contributed to some candidates or causes, none came close to the maximum $4,000 per candidate or $10,000 per cycle allowed for each four-year electoral cycle. 

Muir Boda

Age: 37 (38 on General Election Day)
Registration: Libertarian
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008. (The Libertarian Party has no primary.)
Contibutions: Mike Calpino $25 (1 occasion), Libertarian Party of Maryland $180 total (4 occasions)

Terry Cohen

Age: 53
Registration: Democratic
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008; Primary Election 2006, 2008
Contributions: Jim Ireton $25 (1 occasion)

Joel Dixon

Age: 25
Registration: Republican
Voting Pattern: General Election 2008; Primary Election 2006, 2008
Contributions: Anne Arundel Fire PAC $270 total (8 occasions)

Orville Dryden

Age: 64
Registration: Republican
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008; Primary Election 2006, 2008
Contributions: Ron Alessi $100 total (2 occasions), Bob Ehrlich $45 total (2 occasions)

Bruce Ford

Age: 50
Registration: Democratic
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008; Primary Election 2008
Contributions: none on record

Laura Mitchell

Age: 45
Registration: Unaffiliated
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008 (no primary for unaffiliated)
Contributions: Martin O’Malley $20.10 (1 occasion)

Tim Spies

Age: 59 (60 on General Election Day)
Registration: Democratic
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008; Primary Election 2006, 2008
Contributions: Jim Ireton $30 (1 occasion)

Michael Taylor

Age: 52
Registration: Republican
Voting Pattern: General Election 2006, 2008; Primary Election 2006
Contributions: none on record; although there are several Michael Taylors in the state database none are from Salisbury.


So we have a nice variance of ages (from 25 to 64) and affiliations here: three Democrats, three Republicans, a Libertarian, and an unaffiliated voter. Something for everyone I suppose.

Admirably, they all seem to be relatively active voters as well.

If this is a help to your decision, that’s a good thing. I’m sure someone will criticize me for bringing party into a non-partisan election but it’s worth remembering that people change affiliations all the time (this information provided to me on voter registration is from July, 2010) and not everyone marches in lockstep with party philosophy – many Democrats in these parts cross over to vote for Republicans but we saw a number of Democrats win in 2010 and it couldn’t have been all Democratic voters pulling them through. Most voters cast a ballot for the person.

But in case you’re wondering, the two who will remain on City Council are both Democrats so if you want party balance that could factor into the decision.

Next Page »

  • I haven't. Have you?
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Link to Maryland Democratic Party

    In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:

  • Part of the Politics in Stereo network.