Day: September 19, 2011

Let the gerrymander begin

Why am I not surprised that the three members of the state’s redistricting panel who could be bothered to show up for a meeting on the lower Eastern Shore looked so disinterested? Maybe it’s because they knew there was already something in the can?

According to Len Lazarick and the Maryland Reporter, the Congressional map could look like that described in this article today. Certainly the Democrats who managed to pack GOP voters into two Congressional districts last time around have outdone themselves this time by making the First Congressional District roughly an R+20 district, give or take. That’s great news for Andy Harris, whose district actually remains relatively similar except for losing the small portion of Anne Arundel County he represents but gaining the northern parts of Baltimore and Harford counties now in the Sixth Congressional District. Maybe the Democrats figure that, by running Frank Kratovil again and lying some more about Andy’s record, they can still pull the upset like they did in 2008 in an R+15 district.

On the other hand, Roscoe Bartlett’s Sixth District would be nearly sliced off at the western line of Frederick County, instead taking the predicted southern turn through extreme southern Frederick County to encompass a large portion of what is now the Eighth Congressional District in Montgomery County. Other current Sixth District voters in Frederick County would flip over to the Eighth District; meanwhile, much of Carroll County would be added to an L-shaped Seventh Congressional District which ends up in the heart of Baltimore City. Yep, those voters have SO much in common. The eastern edge of the Sixth District switches over to the First.

And poor Anne Arundel County would again be divided between four Congressional Districts: the Second Congressional District which hopscotches around the Baltimore suburbs, the Third Congressional District which veers around in a convoluted sort of “Z” shape around much of the rest of Baltimore, the Fourth Congressional District shared with Prince George’s County, and the Fifth Congressional District which stretches southward to the Potomac River. Nope, no effort to gain political advantage and protect incumbents there.

Once again, should this map or something similar be adopted, Maryland will be the laughingstock of good government advocates and further enshrine themselves into a Gerrymandering Hall of Shame. Simply put, the three districts which involve Baltimore City are a complete joke when it seems to me their interests would be better served by having one Congressman to call their own rather than sharing with the rural expanses of Carroll County or various points in the suburbs.

And the sad thing is that this committee obviously didn’t listen to legitimate concerns expressed by members of both parties who said they should better respect geographic lines. Local Democrats will obviously be crushed to see their wishes of a “balanced” First District tossed out the window – of course they’d get over it if the changes meant the Democrats had a 7-1 Congressional edge in a state they should rightfully (by voter registration numbers) enjoy only a 5-3 margin.

Nope, it’s all about power, particularly in the jigsaw puzzle they create in the middle of the state. So how do we get standing in court to fight this?

Dossier: Michele Bachmann

Political resume: Michele was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000, serving three two-year terms before seeking and winning the Minnesota 6th District U.S. House seat she currently holds in 2006. She announced her Presidential bid during a candidates debate on June 13. RealClearPolitics.com has her pegged as fifth among nine Republican Presidential candidates; however, she has lost significant ground since the entry of Rick Perry into the race and polls about 7 percent.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Michele has a limited voting record and comments on the issue, but her positions are fine so I’ll kick her off with one point of three.

On property rights (five points): Bachmann cited Fifth Amendment rights in castigating the BP settlement. I think she knows government’s place in this regard, so I’m giving her four of five points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): On Second Amendment issues, Michele gets high marks from both of the two main gun lobbying groups (Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association) and applauded recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment. She gets the seven points.

On education (eight points): Michele’s  voting record on the issue is spotty, so while she wants to abolish the Department of Education, I found a little bit of fault with some of her votes. I’m giving her six of eight points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): I like what Michele has to say about national security. And while veterans groups gripe about this proposal, it makes sense to avoid double-dipping, at least for the time being. I’m giving eight of nine points.

On immigration (eleven points): She has the right idea about securing the borders on her campaign site, but Bachmann goes no further as to how. Enforcement of existing law would be a good start, though. The anti-immigration group Numbers USA ranks her highest among GOP candidates, and while I don’t completely agree with their overall stance on the issue it’s a good indicator she’ll do what’s right for Americans. I’ll give her nine points.

On energy independence (twelve points): She does a nice job of stating the problem, but Bachmann would do well toexpand her palette of solutions. Indeed, government needs to get out of the way but maybe I’d like a little more. Her voting record is solid, though, so I’ll give her ten points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): Michele has as her “number one priority” to repeal Obamacare, and decries the “entitlement mentality” many Americans have. She advocated “reform” before she got into the Presidential race, and what she said is a pretty good start. Yet when Rick Perry called Social Security a ‘Ponzi scheme’ she was quick to call him out on it, so I don’t know if her heart would be into reforming that dying program. Six points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Like many of her counterparts, Michele is a free trader. But she differs in that she doesn’t have a specific pro-growth plan yet, aside from the boilerplate reduction of regulations and government. This hurts her because she’s already got a reputation as more of a generalist than a policy wonk. I can only give her seven points in this vital category.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): It’s ironic that Michele once worked for the IRS but has called for a fairer, simpler, and flatter tax system where everyone pays a little bit. To me, that actually makes sense – isn’t the idea to have everyone with a little “skin in the game”? And Michele is on target with the general critique of “crony capitalism,” I just wish she’d point out more examples of Obama doing this than Rick Perry. She has also expressed support for the FairTax but hasn’t taken the steps to back it. While she’s a TEA Party darling, I’m not sure she’s shown the bold leadership we need so I’ll give her only 12 of 15 points.

Intangibles (up to three points): Michele signed the Family Leader Pledge, which is a mixed bag: it shows she’s pro-life and for marriage between one man and one woman, but calls for its enshrinement in the Constitution, which I don’t agree with. However, she’s also a reliable supporter of Israel so I can give her a point for that. But the verbal gaffes! They are a problem, and it makes me wonder if she always thinks before she speaks. Yes, I know many candidates make them but she seems to be more susceptible and the press is quick to call her out on them. As such, she’ll net one point here.

Continue reading “Dossier: Michele Bachmann”