August 2011 – Page 2

My purity

Subtitled, a comment which deserves a post.

On my mullings the other day about a Maryland General Assembly leadership fight I got a comment from Anne Arundel County political observer Jerry Shandrowsky. He noted:

You talk about demanding “some ideological purity among Republicans.” I think you really want blind partisanship.

Well, let’s assume for this argument that the reason a political party comes into being is that the adherents share a particular philosophy. In American history there have been numerous political parties, with some being so narrowly tailored that they basically focused on one issue (like the Prohibition Party, which is still around but is far removed from its heyday a century ago.) But the most successful parties have a much broader palette of issues they address, normally guided by a desire for some sort of social change. As examples, the Communist Party wishes to install a Soviet-style collectivist system of government, the Libertarian Party places a value on personal freedom and tends to promote isolationism as an extension of that, and the Green Party stresses environmental issues. It goes without saying that I’m not down with every aspect of the GOP platform, which was last revised prior to the rise of the TEA Party movement. In turn, though, there arguably would not have been a TEA Party movement had it not been for the dramatic shift in governance after the 2008 election.

Certainly I’ve been disappointed with Republicans before, and toeing the party line is often difficult when their highest vote-getter is not where I am philosophically (see McCain, John or more locally Gilchrest, Wayne or Ehrlich, Bob.) At that point I have to concede the aspect of moving the ball forward and simply hope not to lose a whole lot of ground, weighing the electability factor in. But I really, really hate having to vote against someone.

Yet there can be exceptions. There have been times where I’ve strayed from the GOP reservation to vote for what I saw as a more conservative alternative – yes, I was a Perot voter and there was a scenario I could have voted for a conservative Democrat over a moderate Republican last year. (It didn’t come to pass, though.)

So let’s look at an ongoing process I’m still working on – that of selecting a 2012 Presidential candidate to support. I’m going issue-by-issue trying to find statements and other ways candidates have addressed issues important to me. None of them have been perfect, and it’s interesting to note the wide variance in philosophies in the race. We have Republicans who veer left on a number of issues who are among the bottom-feeders. Others with a more libertarian streak score highly in some areas but fall well short in the area of foreign policy because I don’t tend to be an isolationist.

What I’m finding is that those candidates who are TEA Party favorites tend to score the highest, which is why Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are doing the best. (Bear in mind as well that I haven’t graded Rick Perry, although I suspect he may fall somewhere in a group just below the top tier based on what I understand about his immigration stance – on the other hand he’s not a favorite of the establishment and that will help him in my eyes.) These are candidates who believe in limited, Constitutional government where decisions are made away from Washington, D.C. Of course, promises may not bring results but at least this is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff and (in most cases) the records don’t lie. (Obviously this makes a Cain candidacy somewhat of a crapshoot.)

Now consider what I said in my post about the Maryland General Assembly Republicans. Unlike the party leadership fight we had last December, where we had the debate over what philosophical direction the Maryland Republican Party needed to take and by proxy who would best lead them there, I didn’t have the chance to look at what was being said by the candidates. In this case I could only look at the way those in the running voted, so I did.

Unlike that party leadership election, I don’t have a ballot in the House GOP delegation’s process. Certainly I can encourage Delegates to make the proper decision but they make the call.

Now distill the TEA Party philosophy I’ve exhibited in my Presidential choice down to the leadership race. There are two candidates for each position, and in both cases one has voted as I would quite a bit more often than the other. If I’m concerned about the direction the Republican Party takes, wouldn’t I support those who vote in the manner I believe exhibits the philosophy of limited government the best? Why would I elect a leader I only agree with 50 to 70 percent of the time when I could have one I agree with 80 or 90 percent?

There’s no doubt I’d like the Maryland Republican Party to be a strong and viable force in state politics, and it’s my contention that we should be the conservative alternative to liberal, big-spending Democrats who love the nanny state. Leadership which can’t be counted on to stand firm to principle is worse than no leadership at all, and that’s the concern I expressed.

But when push comes to shove I’m a conservative first and a Republican second. I really hate it when I have to compromise because most of the time our side ends up losing valuable ground we had maintained prior to the compromise. Think of it as the reverse of “pushing back the frontiers of ignorance,” as Walter E. Williams likes to say.

We need to take a page from the other side – they never stop trying to usurp our freedom. If they can’t win an election, they’ll use the judiciary system. If they can’t pick the judge, their bureaucracy will govern by fiat. If their bureaucracy can’t impose its will they’ll mislead voters into electing them by prosing “hope and change” or to “drain the swamp.” And so the vicious cycle continues.

I say it’s time to reverse course. If you’re on the edge of a cliff facing forward, you’d better believe “R” is a better alternative than “D.”

Weekend of local rock volume 40

You know, I promised this edition about a month ago and completely forgot.

To be honest, I have no idea if Third Friday came off tonight because of the storms which rolled through town (by several accounts.) I was actually up the Shore for my job so I couldn’t make it to 3F this month anyway.

But these bands were featured at last month’s Third Friday, so better late than never I suppose. Let’s begin at the Plaza with alex&shiloh and the Hot Mess.

alex&shiloh played the Plaza stage for July's Third Friday.

A second shot of alex&shiloh from July's Third Friday.

I’ve seen alex&shiloh together as a duo but this was their full-band debut. There was definitely a nice variety of instruments and sounds in the few songs I heard from the band as I was strolling the Plaza – they seemed to have something of a folksy vibe to them in this arrangement.

Moving around the corner to the courthouse, I came across The New Standards.

Despite the intriguing dual-percussion lineup, they played the most classic rock. While there’s nothing wrong with that at all, perhaps I was expecting more of a jam band feel to them and that may have been the case in those times I was out of their earshot. Still, if I were out to see any of the three bands in a more formal setting this would be my first choice.

The last band along East Main Street was Skyway Nine.

I have to admit that of the three I heard by far the least of Skyway Nine so they didn’t have a lot of opportunity to make an impression on me. But the one thing which did stick out was that the singer needs to find songs to better complement his voice. Sometimes the wrong song makes all the difference.

As I noted up top, tonight was supposed to be another Third Friday but I don’t know if it went off as normal because of the rain. On the bill were three local acts, in order of stage from Plaza to East Main the slate was The Hot Meals, Bigtimeshipwreck, and The Tent Pins. I’ve heard Bigtimeshipwreck before and enjoyed them so I was bummed to miss out on their show.

Oh well, next month is another chance although I have plans to see a big show the night before.

Shorebird of the Week – August 18, 2011

Matt Bywater delivers a pitch in a recent game. It's not certain if his location was where he wanted it, though.

One definition of the level of play the South Atlantic League is known for is ‘raw.’ Teams place a lot of players here who, for one reason or another, need to work on one or more aspects of their game to advance and while much of the talent may be there it almost always needs a little polishing.

Take Shorebirds pitcher Matt Bywater for example. The 22-year-old Pepperdine product and California native has explosive stuff, as evidenced by averaging over a strikeout per inning in 45 innings split between Delmarva and the Gulf Coast League this season – 47 Ks to be exact.

On the other hand Matt can be frustrating to watch, like during the start against Hagerstown on August 11 where he walked 8 batters in just three innings of work. Bear in mind this came immediately after a start in Kannapolis where Matt allowed just five hits, an unearned run, and no walks in seven innings of work. That stands as his best Delmarva start, with perhaps the next best being last night at Lakewood where he allowed just one free pass and five hits in 5 2/3 innings.

So we don’t know if Jeckyl or Hyde will show up – in Matt’s six starts since becoming a Shorebird he’s allowed 19 walks in 13 innings in three starts, while allowing three walks in 16 2/3 innings in the other three.

Of course, Matt has a high ceiling as the Orioles picked him in the 7th round of last year’s draft – however, he didn’t make his pro debut until this season in the GCL where he dominated to the tune of an 0.59 ERA in 15 1/3 innings of work. His WHIP was under 1 despite allowing nine walks as he gave up just five hits.

His numbers with Delmarva are a little less superhuman – 0-2 with a 3.94 ERA in 29 2/3 innings. He’s had three good chances at that elusive first professional win; alas, the bullpen has let him down each time. Bywater has fanned 30 and walked 22 since becoming a Shorebird, so it’s very obvious where his talent is the most raw.

But with possibly three more outings this season as a starter, Matt has the chance to stake a claim to a starting role next season either here or possibly in Frederick. It’s all in whether he can corral his impressive stuff.

Fight the power

It’s late notice to be sure – and that was probably intentional – but Senator Ben Cardin is holding a Medicare and Social Security Forum TONIGHT (Thursday) at 7 p.m. in the Worcester Room of Salisbury University’s Commons.

The reason I say this omission was intentional is that the TEA Party wasn’t exactly welcomed at the last event, nor is this meeting on Ben’s public schedule insofar as I can tell. But in order to get a full hearing and not just something from a relatively pre-selected crowd, it might be a good idea for the younger generation to attend as well – after all, we’re paying for seniors’ health care and Social Security.

While the protest outside may or may not occur, getting the right people inside may open a few eyes.

Verizon on strike: is the middle class really in peril?

With no end in sight, the varying group of red-clad picketers at the Verizon location just around the corner from me promises to be a sight I’ll see for awhile – at least until the economic reality of making no money from working begins to rear its ugly head. According to reports like this, the union and company have been far apart in negotiations.

The Communications Workers of America union calls the strike “standing up for middle class jobs.” Their complaint is that an immensely profitable Verizon has “regressive demands” which “would roll back 50 years of bargaining gains.” Too, the union condemns the “Wisconsin-style tactics” employed by the company.

And the union is getting support in its efforts – for example, the Teamsters who represent UPS workers have ordered drivers not to make deliveries to Verizon facilities where they would cross a picket line. (Sounds like an opportunity for FedEx.) The CWA also claims that over 100,000 have signed a petition decrying Verizon’s “corporate greed.”

Yet Verizon states a case that the workers represent a division of the company that’s not profitable and all they are asking is for well-compensated union employees to chip in a little bit on their benefit packages. The company is also accusing the union of misrepresenting the company’s bargaining demands and also several incidents of vandalism and sabotage. (That seems to be par for the Big Labor course, as I’ll explain later.)

In essence, the conflict boils down to this: Verizon is trying to cut costs in a division that’s on its way to obsolescence. No longer are Americans tied to a phone line as more and more households have eschewed a landline phone for cellular service. Nor does Verizon even have the monopoly on landline service as they used to because cable providers and others have made these services available. Unfortunately for the Verizon employees affected by the strike, their business will eventually go the route of the horse and buggy just as that of the telephone operator went away years ago when direct-dial phones became available.

The other irksome item within the union’s argument is playing that old class envy card. Their claim that the “very profitable company has paid its top five executives more than $258 million over the past four years” doesn’t address how these corporate leaders were paid. Most likely much of the compensation came in the form of stock options granted because the company was “very profitable” – would they prefer these executives lost millions of dollars instead? (By the way, that $258 million number works out to $1433.33 per striking employee per year. Would the strikers accept such a measly pay raise on even a $60,000 salary, let alone upwards of $90,000?)

Certainly that sounds like a huge amount of compensation for these executives – after all, who wouldn’t want a gig where they made an average of $12 million per year? But then again, would you like the hard work and long hours these people put in on their way up the corporate ladder? I doubt these positions were handed to them, and they certainly require more thought and skill in a number of areas than the average line worker would be able to exhibit. A failure on a line worker’s part may mean a few hundred customers are inconvenienced until someone can fix the issue. A CEO’s screwup could drive the entire company to bankruptcy and cost thousands of workers their jobs – so let’s get a sense of proportion here.

It seems to me the unions are becoming more and more desperate as they realize their hold on power is slipping away. Thus far Verizon has managed to keep their service going – albeit at a somewhat slower pace – and as the strike drags on Verizon’s management may find that they can do without some of these striking employees on a more permanent basis. Surely above all that’s what the CWA is afraid of, and the sabotage now may lead to more violent attacks later.

While it’s not related to the Verizon strike, consider an event which happened near my old hometown where a non-union electrical contractor was wounded in an attack – presumably by a union electrician or supporter. (Having “SCAB” spraypainted on the business owner’s vehicle would be my first clue.) There’s no question Toledo is a rough-and-tumble union town and has been for decades; why do you think I’ve called them “union thugs” before? I know how they operate so as soon as I saw the “Ohio business owner” blurb for the story I figured it was from Toledo.

Still, the idea that someone would actually attempt to gun down a business owner who was protecting his property appears to me to mean the stakes are deadly high in Big Labor’s case. After all, consider the unions had the federal government’s apparatus lock, stock, and barrel for a two-year period but couldn’t get everything they wanted because a number of people said “no, you cannot have card check” and “yes, corporations have the same right to political speech as unions do.” That had to hurt, even if they picked up an automaker or two in the process.

Now does this mean the Verizon strike will turn deadly? I pray not, as cooler heads on both sides need to prevail.

But those walking the picket line around the corner from me have to know they’re whistling past an economic graveyard because in this day and age workers need to be flexible and the ball is usually in the company’s court. In all honesty, they’re only being asked to work under the same rules most of the rest of us already do and as such be thankful they have a good job.

Bear in mind profits are by no means permanent, nor are corporations. Too often a union has won the small battles of getting workers raises and better benefits only to lose the war when the company closes shop because it can’t compete anymore. There’s always the likelihood that in ten years Verizon may be a distant memory, another casualty of an ever-changing world. No work stoppage can ignore that fact.

The leadership fight to come

Last week Mark Newgent of Red Maryland gave us the story about a possible Republican leadership fight upcoming in the House of Delegates. According to Mark, the tag team of Delegates Nic Kipke and Michael Smigiel will challenge the current House Republican leadership of Delegates Tony O’Donnell and Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio for the positions of Minority Leader and Whip, respectively.

The upstart pair are challenging the current leadership based on two separate but related items: the House GOP establishment “leading from behind” on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants petition and a perceived lack of fiscal conservatism, especially from Delegate Haddaway-Riccio.

Well, let’s look at the record, shall we?

In 2011, Kipke was alone among his leadership peers (the group of four including O’Donnell, Haddaway-Riccio, and Smigiel) in voting for the Invest Maryland boondoggle. He was also the only vote among the four to allow the expansion of suits brought for workplace discrimination to include places of public accommodation, which will subject small businesses to harassing lawsuits from aggrieved members of the general public as well as disgruntled employees. Kipke also voted to extend unemployment benefits via SB882, which also depends on so-called ‘stimulus’ funding.

And that’s not a new trend. In 2010 Kipke was the sole member of the group to vote for the pro-union ‘Fairness in Negotiations’ Act, along with accepting the $126 million federal bailout of our unemployment fund (with strings attached, of course) and the 2010 version of the “bond bill.”

You may not be able to access my monoblogue Accountability Project records because I placed them off the public website – but I can still dig them out. And I did.

In retrospect over the 2007-10 term, neither O’Donnell nor Smigiel consistently voted in such a manner to annoy me – in my Accountability Project scoring system Tony O’Donnell ranked 3rd for the 2007-10 term and Smigiel was 17th, in part because he missed a number of votes in 2009 (the absences lowered his overall score.) Otherwise Michael would have likely landed in the top 10.

On the other hand, Haddaway-Riccio ranked a very pedestrian 27th while Kipke was behind her in 29th place. (Bear in mind that there were only 37 Republican members of the House of Delegates at the time, with the lowest Republican – the late Delegate Page Elmore – ranking 39th overall.)

To quote the Newgent Red Maryland piece, it’s Smigiel who “wants a fiscally conservative leadership team ‘willing to fight for the conservative principles they expound.'” The question, then, is why he hitched his wagon to Nic Kipke given Kipke’s penchant for going along to get along with the other side on a number of key issues? (I really didn’t get into the environmental side of things where he and Haddaway-Riccio both cast votes in favor of the “Sustainable Growth Commission,” ‘Sustainable Communities,’ or the Chesapeake Conservation Corps. How is encouraging top-down state planning and little green community organizers in any way conservative, fiscally or otherwise?)

Personally I don’t think it’s wrong to demand some ideological purity among Republicans with a base in conservative principles – especially in the leadership – and it’s really making me wonder who is encouraging Kipke and Smigiel to pick this fight just before the Special Session, a time where we need strength in numbers and good strategy to thwart the massive tax increases planned by the Democrats.

Perhaps O’Donnell was behind the curve on the SB167 petition issue, but those who have been rooted in the way things always have been done tend to be the most resistant to change. Yet the Republicans in the House of Delegates this time around did a lot of good because they generally possessed a united front. Unfortunately, it seemed like one of the weakest links to that front was Nic Kipke – and, based on his legislative record, now is no time to go wobbly by placing him in leadership.

Timing is always important…

Darn! I got all excited when I misread the title of District 38B Delegate Mike McDermott’s latest message as “Rally by the River.” I’m used to that term because that’s what the city of my birth called its Friday night party downtown; a weekly event during the summer which carried on for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s and had an ill-fated attempt at a rebirth last year. (Think of Salisbury’s Third Friday on a 20x larger scale, held on a weekly basis, and set in a park directly on the river.)

But instead McDermott’s gathering is a “Rally on the River,” and I don’t foresee any classic rock bands long past their prime at the event. (Besides, we already have that covered with ‘Chickenstock.’) However, attendees do get to hear from McDermott along with House Republican leadership (at least for the time being, anyway) Minority Whip Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio and Minority Leader Tony O’Donnell – and I presume none of them will sing.

There’s a reason I pointed out the timing, though. State law says a sitting member of the General Assembly can’t fundraise while the body is in session, and a Special Session begins later in October. McDermott notes in his message that “the upcoming Special Session in mid October promises to be full of challenges and attacks on the wallets of Marylanders.” His event will be held October 8th, just days before the cutoff.

In many respects the event reminds me of the “Picnic in the Park” former State Senator Lowell Stoltzfus used to have, particularly since that fundraiser was always held in the early fall and featured a number of political speakers who gave their impressions on the election or General Assembly session to come. As an added bonus, Mike also returns to the location where he kicked off his successful 2010 campaign two years earlier.

The details can be found here. It’s not an overly expensive fundraiser, but I already know I have to send my regrets as I have a prior commitment that day.

T-Paw first to go

I suppose third wasn’t good enough and the impact of Rick Perry entering the race was too much for Tim Pawlenty to overcome. Today he announced he was ending his Presidential bid.

Like Tommy Thompson four years ago, the former governor of a state adjacent to Iowa didn’t carry the day as he thought he would. While Tim received nearly 2,300 votes of the 16,800 or so cast, he lost the battle to his fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann by a better than 2:1 margin. That’s likely what sealed his fate.

It’s likely that Pawlenty’s support may drift mostly in two directions, since he didn’t endorse a candidate in his announcement. I think the portion that already wasn’t leaning toward Rick Perry will just go ahead and embrace the Perry campaign, while others may help Jon Huntsman keep his flailing bid alive.

Meanwhile, despite his puny 35-vote performance, bottom-feeder Thad McCotter is going to continue his long-shot bid. His campaign had its predictable spin on the results:

“For this campaign, the Straw Poll was not about votes, it was about introducing our candidate to the public in our first large forum,” said Christopher Rants, McCotter senior adviser. “For a campaign that has only just begun, it was important that we show the people of Iowa – and the rest of the country – that this was a serious candidate ready to address serious issues for our country. By any measure, we did that this weekend.”

I’m sorry, Christopher, but getting 35 votes is lousy. Rick Perry’s campaign has just begun as well and he got over 700 – as a write-in who didn’t even campaign in Iowa this week. Try again.

So we still have the same net number of hopefuls we did last week as the one who entered was countered by an early exit.

Bachmann takes Iowa, but Paul a close second

Well, the results of the Ames Straw Poll are in, and they’re not a complete surprise.

Michele Bachmann, 4823 votes (28.55%)
Ron Paul, 4671 votes (27.65%)
Tim Pawlenty, 2293 votes (13.57%)
Rick Santorum, 1657 votes (9.81%)
Herman Cain, 1456 votes (8.62%)
Rick Perry, 718 votes (3.62%) – write-in
Mitt Romney, 567 votes (3.36%) – skipped event
Newt Gingrich, 385 votes (2.28%) – skipped event
Jon Huntsman, 69 votes (0.41%) – skipped event
Thad McCotter, 35 votes (0.21%)

By dividing the vote totals by the percentages of the top two finishers, I’ve deduced there are roughly 187 votes for candidates not listed. That means Sarah Palin (if she received all of them, which I’m sure she did not) would have finished well back in the pack and ahead of just Huntsman and McCotter. Considering Rick Perry finished sixth without being on the ballot, perhaps she’s not the formidable “Mama Grizzly” we may have thought she’d be.

While Bachmann and Pawlenty were expected to do well, Rick Santorum probably raised a lot of eyebrows by coming in fourth. Surely Pawlenty’s team has to be disappointed by how badly he was trounced by Michele Bachmann, though – being the second-most popular Minnesotan in Iowa is bad enough, but he lost by a better than 2-to-1 margin.

Having Ron Paul come in second is no real surprise, as he tends to do quite well in a situation where voting is confined to a small space that can be packed by his rabid following. But Paul tripled his 2007 performance in Ames, going from 9.1% to 27.7 percent. Perhaps he’s more of a player this time, but most likely still not good enough to win the nomination.

A few months back in the spring, it looked like Herman Cain was the “it” candidate, but apparently his support has cooled off. It’s likely Bachmann’s entrance has cut heavily into his support and he may be an early casualty in the race because of this result.

In looking at the bottom five, you have the newly-announced write-in (Rick Perry) who did reasonably well. It would have been interesting, though, to see how he would have done had he been on the ballot. I’m sure he wouldn’t have beaten Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul but I think he would’ve knocked Pawlenty down to a fourth or fifth place finish.

The next three did not represent themselves in Ames, so their campaigns will chalk their poor finishes up to that factor and not how much they may or may not have appealed to the Republican regulars who attended. In that respect, I’m not surprised at the order in which they finished. However, with only 1/5 or so of the votes of the next person up, the much-ballyhooed campaign of Jon Huntsman may be in trouble because it’s not catching fire with the grassroots.

I’ve checked Thad McCotter’s website over the last hour, and aside from a Tweet congratulating “my colleagues” Bachmann and Paul on their finishes, there’s no indication of his future plans. But such a poor finish when he spoke for himself at the event doesn’t bode well for his chances. When your votes are outnumbered 138 to 1 by the winner’s, that’s a pretty big hill to climb.

So I suppose the silly season has begun in earnest. As I said yesterday, the only shoe which may need to drop on the GOP side is whether Sarah Palin will make a late entry into the race.

(On the Democratic side, there’s always a chance that Barack Obama may have a primary challenge from the left. If nothing else I’d just like to hear Obama say “I’ll whip his ass” like Jimmy Carter did regarding Ted Kennedy’s longshot bid. That might be the only ass our President whips since SEAL Team 6 isn’t available anymore.)

Once I get back to doing my candidate rankings I’ll add Perry in and see who I select. At the moment I’m backing the frontrunner but it’s all subject to change.

Santorum’s sacrifice

Two months ago, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum threw his hat into an already crowded ring for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. His announcement on D-Day invoked his “courage to fight for freedom.”

While Santorum isn’t the only conservative in the field, he does have a nice pedigree for soliciting Republican support. During his tenure in Congress, Santorum was known as a go-to guy for social conservatives. In that time Rick authored or sponsored bills to protect newborn infants, promote adult stem-cell research (as opposed to embryonic stem-cell research), and maintain workplace religious freedom.

Yet in order to stand out in a group of perhaps a half-dozen candidates of varying conservative credentials, Rick had to move beyond his social conservative base and come up with other issue arguments which appealed to both Tea Party regulars and Republican voters at large who may have recalled his ignominious 18-point defeat by current Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006.

(continued at Pajamas Media…)

If Perry is in, then who’s out?

Since a number of published reports have Texas Governor Rick Perry entering the 2012 Presidential race as soon as tomorrow, the obvious question is – who will have their share of the support pie taken?

Personally I’m of the opinion that, if one was to compare this situation to the stock market, a Perry run has already been priced in. A certain number of people have already been sitting on the sidelines just waiting for an official announcement from Rick and now they will join the game – so the “pie” is a little bit larger.

Yet another school of thought intrigues me as well. Let’s break the remaining thirteen or so in the field into three groups – they’re ranked within each group in order of national support, more or less. An asterisk (*) denotes that the candidate is entered into tomorrow’s Iowa Straw Poll.

The Legislators:

Michele Bachmann (House member from Minnesota)*

Ron Paul (House member from Texas)*

Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House from Georgia)*

Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania)*

Thad McCotter (House member from Michigan)*

This group will likely have little change in the order or in their amount of support. Some think that Bachmann has the most to lose from a Perry candidacy, but I tend to disagree.

The Outsiders:

Herman Cain (former CEO, radio host, and onetime U.S. Senate candidate from Georgia)*

Roy Moore (Alabama Supreme Court justice and candidate for Governor)

Fred Karger (longtime political consultant from California)

Again, since Herman Cain is by far the class of this small group there’s probably little for them to lose if he gets in, although it would make life somewhat more difficult for Roy Moore if he indeed decides to stop exploring.

The Governors:

Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts)*

Jon Huntsman (former governor of Utah)*

Tim Pawlenty (former governor of Minnesota)*

Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico)

Buddy Roemer (former governor of Louisiana)

This is the group most hurt by a Perry bid, because there are many voters who feel having some sort of executive experience is the best attribute for a President. Four of our previous five Presidents before Obama served as a governor, with George H.W. Bush the exception. And that exception deserves an asterisk of sorts because the elder Bush was Vice-President for eight years under Ronald Reagan.

I believe a Perry candidacy hurts Mitt Romney to a small degree because he’s sort of the anointed, establishment candidate and Rick Perry isn’t really an establishment darling. On the other side of the coin, Buddy Roemer has little support to lose and Gary Johnson is playing to a libertarian group that splits its allegiance between him and Ron Paul.

The two candidates who really have the most to fear about Rick Perry getting into the race are Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Pawlenty is running as a candidate who won as a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state by being just moderate enough to appeal to independent voters. But Perry trumps that because he’s won twice in a state where, in theory, demographics should be favoring Democrats – Texas has a growing Latino population.

Huntsman loses out because his good economic record in Utah pales in comparison to the job creation in Texas. Jon has had trouble establishing a base of support anyway because the establishment prefers Romney and conservatives are distrustful of someone who worked for the Obama administration.

Since the Iowa Straw Poll has a write-in ballot space, it will be interesting to see how much support Rick Perry gets from those who don’t like the other nine choices presented to them. Some who are skipping the Ames gathering will probably pooh-pooh the results regardless of how they do (unless they win, of course) but I suspect the bottom three will find it more difficult as time goes on to make an impact in the race.

Yet the biggest question of all may be whether the last big name candidate will finally decide to jump into the fray. Time is running short for Sarah Palin, as building a grassroots effort takes some planning and we’re just about five months away from the start of primary season – even less time than that to qualify for the ballots.

And fourteen to me seems about four to five too many to be sustainable. If you take the four who didn’t secure a place on the Iowa Straw Poll (Johnson, Karger, Moore, and Roemer) you can probably make a pretty safe bet that the latter two won’t find their way onto a ballot. Gary Johnson will fight on to continue bringing the libertarian small-government argument into the race while Fred Karger will go as far as his status as the lone gay candidate will take him. Neither will come close to winning the nomination but they’ll press on for principle’s sake.

The two odd men out I see among those who made the Iowa Straw Poll ballot are Thad McCotter and Rick Santorum. McCotter should have started his bid much sooner because he doesn’t stand out in a crowded conservative field already dotted with more well-known House members, while Santorum probably can’t shake either the label of “biggest loser” from 2006 or the ill-fated Arlen Specter endorsement two years earlier.

By January I think the field will look like this, in about this order:

Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Herman Cain
Gary Johnson
Fred Karger

Crucify me if you must – especially those who like Bachmann and Cain – but once people begin paying attention I think they’ll retreat to the candidates they feel are most safe. I think Bachmann makes a good run but the press is out to destroy her and there’s still enough of an establishment base of Republicans out there to prevent her from winning. Nor would they let a complete political outsider like Herman Cain emerge, either.

Obviously that’s not the order of my preference, either, but I’m sure I occupy a place somewhat to the right of the GOP electorate at large – particularly in several early primary states where the balloting is open to independents as well. I’m sure I’ll be disappointed with the early state primary results like I was in 2008.

But I won’t give up the fight – come on America, I dare you to prove me wrong.

Shorebird of the Week – August 11, 2011

jeremy Nowak has held down an outfield spot since joining the team for the second half. Photo by Kim Corkran.

Jeremy Nowak awaits his turn at bat in a game last week. Photo by Kim Corkran.

Since joining the team in June, Jeremy Nowak has likely done all that was expected of him. With a brief 8-game repeat of Aberdeen under his belt (a stint where he went 8-for-28 with 2 homers and 6 knocked in,) Jeremy has provided a good share of offense for this new-look team in the second half.

Right now the 23 year old from Cheektowaga, New York via Mt. Olive College – both sort of out of the way as far as baseball is concerned – is hitting .277/3/15/.816 OPS in 42 games with Delmarva. It appears Nowak has figured out the pro ranks after hitting just .179 in 52 games with Aberdeen last season. But the Orioles didn’t lose faith in their 13th round pick from 2010 – they just let him learn in extended spring training before assigning him to a team in mid-season.

Nowak started out great in his first half-dozen games, going 8-for-19 with a home run and six runs batted in. The league began to catch up to him in July, but Jeremy seems to have made the necessary adjustments and is bringing his average back up.

One thing to like about Jeremy is his idea of the strike zone, as he’s fanned only 36 times in 155 at-bats while taking 25 walks. That’s an asset which could serve him well at the next level, and since this is the time of year the Orioles begin to consider the 2012 prospects of the players in their minor league system that could lead Jeremy to begin his first full season at the advanced-A level. If not, the Shorebirds would have a solid hitter for the heart of their order.

Both photos by Kim Corkran.