When do the candidates drop out?
We’re just 45 days out from the Iowa caucuses (believe it or not) but there are still ten serious candidates seeking the GOP nomination.
I bring this up because, in the 2008 cycle, we had already lost a few people when they realized the money wasn’t going to be there or they had no path to victory. This is going to be true among probably six or so of the 2012 contenders, but they soldier on regardless.
Perhaps this is because the person who was counted out a month ago may make a meteoric rise in the polls based on a campaign plank, a great debate performance, or just the fact they were viewed as the hot new item in public perception. Thus far, this phenomenon has benefited several candidates: Herman Cain (twice), Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Newt Gingrich. Even Tim Pawlenty had his turn, although once his down cycle arrived (at the peak of fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann’s cycle at the Iowa Straw Poll) he decided to exit the race. Way back when, before the race had really jelled together, Jon Huntsman had a turn at the wheel too. But by the time he actually announced that support was gone.
On the other hand, one has to wonder if the turns will ever come for guys like Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, or Rick Santorum. They continue to suffer from abysmally low poll numbers, and the question is now getting to be whether they’ll have the money or manpower to get their message out before it’s too late.
And you’ll notice I didn’t mention Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. It’s because both seem to have a narrow strata of support which ranges in the low twenties for Romney and right around ten percent for Paul. They don’t seem to deviate much from those plateaus, which begs the question of whether the field is too crowded for them right now. Presumably they can tread water until some of the bottom-feeders finally exit the scene.
I’m going to do a poll for a few days and see what you think will be the result of the coming shakeout. I think it’s interesting to speculate who just doesn’t have the horses to continue on.
Joe the Congressman?
Having lived in the Congressional district in question for a long time, I think this is quite funny.
First of all, the Republicans who are running Ohio’s redistricting process played quite the nasty trick by lumping two longtime liberals in Congress into the same Congressional district – Ohio’s Ninth District, which used to be primarily a Toledo-based district represented by Marcy Kaptur since 1983, now snakes along the Lake Erie shoreline toward Cleveland and has since the 2000 redistricting. But the newest Republican lines have now expanded the district far enough eastward to take in the residence of one Dennis Kucinich.
Newt’s third way
For several years I’ve received Newt Gingrich’s weekly letter from Human Events, and it’s usually a pretty decent read from a pretty smart guy. But now that he’s in the running for President and moved up onto the list of leading contenders, one needs to scrutinize his words more carefully and some of what I don’t like about Newt came out in his latest edition.
The Washington establishment’s reaction to the runaway spending is a policy of austerity and pain.
Democrats would cause austerity and pain on the individual by raising taxes, thereby shrinking family and business purchasing power.
Republicans would cause austerity and pain to government by cutting spending and thereby shrinking the services and income transfers government provides.
Clearly, shrinking government is preferable to overtaxing the American people but we must remember that there is a third alternative to pain. It is the path of innovation and growth.
So the question is whether Newt is really serious about cutting spending – after all, he is running for the Republican nomination, isn’t he? Newt would rather target his cuts around the edges, like this:
The key to today’s budget problems is to recognize that there is a world that works (largely but not entirely in the private sector) and there is a world that fails (bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors). With even a little creativity, we should be able to maximize the world that works and eliminate the world that fails.
For instance, if we applied modern private-sector management systems to government they would save up to $500 billion a year. That is three times the goal of the Super Committee.
Newt points to a website called Strong America Now, which claims that a quarter of all federal spending is wasted and advocates the Lean Six Sigma model in order to shrink spending down to size. (I’d say that number is quite low, but then again it all depends on your definition of waste.) While it’s a good idea to point this sort of thing out time and again, the trouble is that we’re working within the same parameter – if the system is irreparably broken, nothing can save it. Moreover, this working within the system will likely suffer the fate of most government estimates – the actual amount saved will likely fall short of expectations. And certainly the cuts will be just fine and no one will dispute the need for them until someone’s ox is gored, and there are a lot of sacred cows running around Washington.
My contention is that we need to shrink the services and income transfers government provides in order to bring the federal government to heel, so if Newt doesn’t want to do that I can’t get behind him very well. (I will admit in this case, though, that Newt is right about the idea of block-granting Medicaid to the states.) Being an advocate of a smaller, less powerful federal government I believe the idea of austerity there would bring some pain, but it would only be along the lines of a “you might feel this stick” pain when you’re giving blood or getting a flu shot. In the long term, the patient is much better.
To be perfectly frank, I would have less of an issue paying higher taxes in the state if I had the assurance that the federal government would shrink accordingly. The problem we have now is that all three levels of government seem to want to take more and more, and none of them will look into their proverbial mirror and ask themselves if what they are providing can’t be done better at a lower level or through the private sector. Placing a private sector model on government may be some improvement, but in terms of political philosophy it’s no different than lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately, my fear is that any money “saved” by the ideas espoused by Strong America Now would just be transferred to some other department, agency, or bureau in an ever-expanding statist paradise.
Perhaps I can borrow a phrase Newt made famous to describe the approach we should take. In my view, it’s time for government to “wither on the vine” but I just don’t think Newt is the guy to make it happen.
It’s a war, I tell ya!
I’m not sure just how many outlets got this ‘letter to the editor’ but State Senator E.J. Pipkin lays out his case that Governor O’Malley has indeed declared a War on Rural Maryland. I’ll excerpt from his letter here:
Despite protests to the contrary from the O’Malley Administration, it has been clear for the past few years that the Administration’s programs, policies and proposed legislation constitute an assault on rural economies and property rights. Whether the War on Rural Maryland is intentional or not is beside the point. The fact remains that implementation of the Administration’s policies and legislative proposals, from the proposed septic system ban to higher tolls, taxes, and fees will strip rural Maryland of any real opportunity to create jobs and boost its economy.
A secondary election day
I always thought it was the Tuesday after the first Monday, but today was quite the election day on three different fronts.
One election I participated in was a straw poll held at the MDGOP Fall Convention over the weekend, with the results tabulated and announced today. (My analysis comes after the jump.)
Endorsement tit for tat
Perhaps the battle for the Republican U.S. Senate nod in Maryland could come down to domestic policy vs. foreign policy, at least in terms of endorsements.
After Dan Bongino took the lead with backing from several members of state and federal government, opponent Rich Douglas has countered with a leader who’s been mentioned as a possible Secretary of State in a GOP administration and another ambassador, as well as a former state party Chair. The Douglas campaign picks it up from here:
Richard Douglas, an Iraq veteran, former Diplomat and small business owner, is pleased to announce that Ambassador John Bolton has strongly endorsed his accelerating campaign to unseat incumbent Democrat Ben Cardin in the United States Senate.
Ambassador Bolton said, “Douglas is the most qualified Senate candidate to emerge in Maryland in forty years. Douglas will bring badly needed experience to the Senate at a moment of profound crisis. He has my full endorsement.”
Ambassador Bolton served both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. A Baltimore native and lifelong Maryland resident, Bolton is considered America’s foremost authority on constitutional law and foreign relations.
Douglas welcomed Ambassador Bolton’s endorsement, calling him “Maryland’s most admired conservative.” Douglas continued, “I am grateful for Ambassador Bolton’s strong endorsement and I am determined to justify the confidence he and other Marylanders have placed in me.”
Ambassador Bolton represents the third major endorsement for Richard Douglas in two weeks. Former Maryland State Republican Chair Audrey Scott endorsed Douglas on November 1, calling him “clearly the most experienced and and capable candidate running.” Ambassador Roger Noriega, who hosted a hospitality suite for Douglas at the Maryland Republican Party convention in Annapolis, endorsed Douglas on November 8.
So the question for voters is going to be an interesting one if you presume Rich Douglas and Dan Bongino are the two leading candidates. It’s obvious that Richard’s forte is foreign affairs, while Bongino seems to have a lead with those who favor smaller government – the TEA Party crowd. So how will the pair cover themselves on what would be perceived as their weaker points?
Having heard Bongino speak, I have some concerns about his foreign policy when it comes to the Long War. On the other hand, I’m not familiar enough with Douglas to know whether he would be a budget hawk and make the tough choices necessary to bring federal spending under control in cooperation with a presumably GOP-controlled House and White House.
There’s also the question of establishment vs. outsider to consider. If you consider the most recent past MDGOP Chair as the “establishment” then there’s no question that Douglas is the insider while Bongino – who is backed strongly by the upstart gubernatorial candidate from 2010, Brian Murphy – plays the role of the outsider. So there’s that struggle to get votes in the middle, among the GOP rank-and-file.
And the intrigue may continue as I was assured by Bongino this weekend that he had additional endorsements up his sleeve; presumably Douglas has his own roster of outside supporters as well. Despite the fact there were eleven candidates in the ring for the GOP nod last time around, in the end it basically came down to two names. We may have that same style of race in 2012, too. So endorsements have some importance because they create buzz – and free press. When you’re up against a guy with a couple million in the bank, that free exposure never hurts.
Why it should be Keim for the District 4 seat
Tomorrow the Wicomico County Council has a decision to make, and it’s of paramount importance they get it right.
As many of you know, it was a week ago that we interviewed a half-dozen candidates, all seeking to be on our four-person list that we submitted for the County Council seat. While all six had their good qualities, to me one candidate stood out above the rest and apparently the rest of our body agreed with me because she was rewarded with the highest number of votes.
While I can’t speak to the reasons the other Central Committee members picked her, it was apparent to me that Cathy Keim has a number of assets useful for a County Council member: active in both the political realm and the community at large, she can hit the ground running on the issues because she’s a frequent attendee at County Council meetings. In her application and interview, Cathy touched on a number of subjects which will be hot-button issues in the days to come and demonstrated she’ll be a well-informed advocate for the citizens of District 4. I can tell you she’s already reaching out to interested citizens on a number of issues, looking for input from various corners.
And while it’s apparent that no one can completely fill the shoes of the late Bob Caldwell, I happen to think Cathy will blaze her own trail and help lead Wicomico County in the right direction during these perilous times. This opportunity presents itself to her at a point in her life where she will have both the time and energy to be an outstanding member of County Council, and she will have three years to make the job her own. I have no doubt that she will.
So I encourage the other six members of County Council to select the best person for the job tomorrow and appoint Cathy Keim to ably represent the citizens of District 4. While we gave the Council the requisite number of choices, one stood out. I call on my readers to let County Council know Cathy Keim is the best candidate.
Odds and ends number 37
A lot of little items piled up in my inboxes while I’ve been away, so let’s see what I dig up.
There was another incident at our convention that attracted notice, as the tires on two cars belonging to campaign staffers of U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino were slashed. I guess someone doesn’t like Dan, but I doubt it’s one of his GOP opponents whose supporters did this.
This incident also affected a friend of mine who was riding home from the convention with one of the staffers, so she didn’t get home until late. Bet she slept well last night.
Otherwise, Bongino had enjoyed a good week as he garnered an endorsement from 2014 candidate and Harford County Executive David Craig.
Cathy Keim reminded me that tomorrow will be the monthly meeting of the Wicomico Society of Patriots, which will be held at Adam’s Ribs in Fruitland beginning at 7 p.m. The subject will be election fraud and what can be done about it, presented by Election Integrity Maryland.
While there’s been no reports of election fraud locally, it’s not a bad idea to have an inkling of what to look for. The Board of Elections locally is quite sound, but additional eyes and ears aren’t going to hurt.
Maybe they needed some additional eyes and ears in the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration, as Delegate Justin Ready points out:
Today, Delegate Justin Ready (R-5A) was appalled to hear of the gross financial discrepancies within the Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA). As referenced in the Maryland Reporter, the DDA has been holding onto a surplus of thirty eight million dollars, rolled over since 2010. The funds which were hidden from prior audits consist of twenty five million dollars in state funds and twelve million dollars in Federal aid to the administration. “I am very disturbed and disappointed to hear about this gross abuse of funds within the DDA. With thousands of people with disabilities on the state waiting list – and Maryland facing an ongoing budget deficit – these tax dollars could certainly have been put to much better use than just sitting in bureaucratic limbo,“ said Ready, a member of the Health and Government Operations Committee.
“Perhaps even more appalling is the fact that lobbyists and government officials used DDA’s lack of funds as a rationale for passing an alcohol tax increase that directly hurts small businesses and consumers in our state. The alcohol tax increase originally proposed to raise more revenue for the DDA and for programs helping people with disabilities. Many of the people I met were very sincere and were suffering with major physical and mental disabilities. It is sad to learn that during this same time, funding could have been available to many of these individuals,” said Ready. (Emphasis mine.)
So we were lied to? You know if a Republican were in charge you’d never hear the end of this story, but those in charge chalk it up to accounting errors. And more troubling is the fact a tax increase came based on a perceived shortfall – so what else is being held back?
It’s a matter of trust.
Turning to lighter fare, a blogger friend of mine can now claim to be a bestselling author. Bob McCarty’s new tome Three Days in August is now a top ten seller in Amazon.com’s ‘Law’ category. So congratulations to Bob on the book’s early success.
And there’s a new home-based business in town, as founder Gretchen Parks informed me.
The new site pulls listings from many popular websites including Monster.com, CareerBuilder.com, Craigslist.org, and more to create one daily listing of jobs available. And instead of covering one small region, this website covers the whole Delmarva Peninsula with jobs for all three states and even work from home listings.
The site’s creator, Gretchen Parks, works from home and knows how discouraging the job search can be. “As a freelancer, I am always trolling the job boards and looking for my next client or opportunity. The competition is fierce and every edge that you can have can make all the difference.” Parks said.
Parks had the idea to create this blog site to fill a need. “I saw people online looking for work and asking others if they knew of any openings. Online groups have formed to help each other, but the job listings are not plentiful in these groups because only the person looking knows the extent of their experience and qualifications for any given job,” she said.
There’s no doubt there’s a need for her service, and perhaps she can build this up as a local clearinghouse for employers and job seekers. But it will be a tough row to hoe with a number of other job sites already in place and with the backing of various media outlets. I wish Gretchen the best of luck.
Finally, you may have noticed this morning that my website was briefly hacked by a miscreant. Well, with a little help from my server and a little bit of study on the back end of my website I managed to repair the problem, as you can see. So I’m back, and a little bit wiser. Think I have some people worried?
MDGOP 2011 Fall Convention in pictures and text
At the risk of a slow-loading post, there are 30 photos on this one. But I took a lot more, and you know every picture tells a story with me. And this is the story of the Maryland GOP Fall Convention, brought to you by…
I’ll begin with Friday night, the usual social time for the convention. Even though I’d never been to the Sheraton in Annapolis, once I saw these I knew I was in the right place.
(Of course, I took that snapshot yesterday morning.)
Rule 11 survives…barely
I plan on more complete coverage of the events of this weekend tomorrow, but this evening I wanted to update you on the status of the resolution Heather Olsen and I presented to the Maryland GOP Fall Convention.
Just as a review, and also to make things a little less confusing, this is the text of what we originally submitted. It would have been a new section of the Bylaws that’s currently reserved because of proposed changes last spring which weren’t completely adopted:
ARTICLE VII – POLITICAL ACTIVITY
7.1 Political Activity of Members.
No member of the State Central Committee shall sponsor or endorse any candidate of a political party other than the Republican Party in connection with any partisan election or primary in which there is a Republican candidate. Failure of a member of the State Central Committee to comply with the foregoing standard shall subject such person to such sanctions as may be imposed by the State Central Committee, which may include a vote of censure and/or a request for the resignation of that member.
7.2 Neutrality in Primary Elections
a. Neutrality Policy. It shall be the policy of the Maryland Republican Party to remain neutral in all contested primary elections, unless waived as outlined below. This shall be construed to extend to asking the national Republican Party for a waiver of its neutrality rule to assist specific candidates, known as Rule 11.
b. Waivers to Neutrality. Waivers to this policy can be granted through one of two methods, either of which may be utilized at the discretion of the Chair:
1. At a state Party Convention, an affirmative Convention Vote of 2/3 of members present. This vote would be exempt from the procedures outlined in Section 8.4 of the Bylaws and conducted as a “one man, one vote” ballot.
2. Outside of a state Party Convention, an affirmative vote from 3/4 of the total number of Central Committee members. Affirmative votes confirming permission to waive this section must be received from at least 16 of the state’s 24 jurisdictions and represent 3/4 of the total number of Central Committee members, excluding vacancies.
c. Individual Members. Except for the restrictions made in Section 7.1, individual members of the State Central Committee are free to endorse any candidate in an individual capacity, but cannot do so in an official capacity to imply the endorsement of either their county Central Committee or the state party.
So that’s the basis in which we began the day.
Well, the first item out of the chute was an amendment to strike the second sentence of Section 7.2b (1) to eliminate the “one man, one vote” portion of the original. In truth, I had no issue with that although I would have preferred “one man, one vote” because I had two separate paths to adoption and presumably a vote at a county level would be conducted differently. But it wasn’t a deal-breaker to me to lose it.
There was some confusion over a second part of the amendment to strike the “excluding vacancies” clause in 7.2b (2) so that was eventually withdrawn by the sponsor. This change passed by voice vote, almost unanimously.
The second item was much more convoluted and controversial. Introduced by Prince George’s County Central Committee member Michael Gorman, it would have stripped the power to decide on a waiver from the Central Committee at large and given it to the Executive Committee. His amendment would have also weakened the mandate of 7.2a to become a non-binding advisement. Needless to say, Heather and I weren’t in favor of this amendment.
But a funny thing happened on the way to cutting off debate – Nick Panuzio of Talbot County shocked everyone by making a motion to adjourn. Since that had to take precedence over other business, we voted on that motion and it failed by a 313-178 margin in our voting system. (In actual votes, the margin I tallied was 100 for, 124 against.)
Then another motion was made to divide the question into two parts: one dealing with the advisement portion and the other with the transfer to the Executive Committee. This also took precedence to the amending vote, but it failed by the slimmest of margins in our voting system: 249.46 votes for to 249.62 against. (In “real” people terms, though, this would have passed 124 to 106.)
Yet it didn’t matter in the end, as we finally got to the question we were tallying when the surprise motion to adjourn took place – the Gorman amendment failed handily 307-194.
So it finally came down to our proposal, as amended to strike the “one man, one vote” system.
I can tell you that fourteen counties voted in favor, with nine against and one a tie.
In actual votes (by my tally) we had 119 yes votes and 109 no votes. So we had a majority in both actual people and the convention vote, which finished 287-208. But thanks to a rule change at our Spring Convention, we needed a 3/5 majority to pass this change and we fell a heartbreaking ten votes short. Based on 495 votes, we would have required 297 to win.
In the postmortem, I found out that the sole reason Howard County voted all nine votes against was because they wanted to introduce an amendment to make another change, one I could have lived with. But the question was called too soon for them to get to the microphone and those 25 convention votes cost us the ballgame. Now perhaps I could blame them for throwing the baby out with the bathwater but I can understand this wasn’t a perfectly written bylaw change – Heather and I just did the best we could.
So we will go back to the drawing board, although I’ve been told by at least one national committee member (who actually supported the measure) that he really didn’t think it would be necessary now. But I have two words for that member: Roscoe Bartlett. Hopefully with the early primary they won’t feel it necessary to place a thumb on the scale, but we need to watch them like a hawk to make sure. I spoke briefly with Dave Wallace at the convention and he seems like one credible alternative for those who think Roscoe has gotten too accustomed to life inside the Beltway.
As I said at the top, tomorrow I will have more complete coverage of the GOP confab. But I felt like I owed my readers the update on an issue I’m passionate about.
By the way, this will mark my return to Red Maryland – I’ve been away from that sandbox for far too long.
Checking in
Well, day one of the Maryland Republican Party convention is just about in the books. On the bylaw amendment front, it looks like there’s a decent chance change is a-comin’.
In case you were wondering (and I’ll have much more on this tomorrow or Sunday, depending on the time this wraps up) there were suites for both Herman Cain and Mitt Romney here, while Ron Paul has a table as well. Both Dan Bongino and Rich Douglas had spaces, although Bongino had a ballroom.
So I’m giving you this quick update at the end of a whirlwind day and week for me. I already have plenty to write about, including my Red Maryland Radio debut. (That’s called a tease.)
Back with more tomorrow…
An open letter to the Maryland GOP
Just in case the recipient doesn’t get their e-mail, I’m reprinting it here. Those interested should also make their local Central Committee members aware that you have a vested interest in the adoption of this proposal.
To my fellow Central Committee members:
On Saturday, you will be asked to consider a change to our bylaws. Obviously our last get-together was full of acrimony and angst over a proposed revamping of the document and voting system just a few years after we had done this exercise to modernize and streamline it. So you may have received this news and said, “oh no, not again.”
Well, this time it’s different. Rather than cosmetic changes or creating committees out of whole cloth, the proposal co-authored by Heather Olsen and I has two very simple purposes: one, to strengthen the neutrality section of the bylaws by placing it in its own article; and two, to prevent the Rule 11 fiasco of 2010 from being repeated.
It’s our belief that the party should not be putting its finger on the scale in a contested primary situation. The paragraph on neutrality (5.4) already in the bylaws didn’t seem very strong as it was buried among other items, so this proposal moves it to lead the new Article 7. That’s probably not very controversial.
The more contentious aspect of our proposal is where we require our representatives to the national Republican Party to get permission from the state’s Central Committee before asking for a waiver of Rule 11, as they asked the national party in 2010 for Bob Ehrlich and Andy Harris. Both were in contested primaries at the time. The timing of the deal is what rankled me and inspired the creation of this proposal, since there was ample opportunity to bring this piece of business before the 2010 Spring Convention in Ocean City; however, the Chair at that time chose not to. Doing business behind closed doors is what we associate with the other party!
We originally made this proposal before the Spring 2011 convention in Ocean City, but the unfortunate aspect of a strict time limit meant a lot of business – including this particular bylaw change and many others proposed – went unfinished. However, this is the only bylaw change I’m aware of going before this convention.
In the meantime, Heather and I discussed the proposal more based on feedback we both received. In addition to integrating the neutrality aspect in general, we also decided to lower the threshold for waiving this prohibition from a 3 / 4 to a 2 / 3 majority and added the option of having the counties vote on it separately when the situation dictates, at the discretion of the Chair.
There has been more recent feedback concerning the voting method in the proposal, which was written as a “one man, one vote” balloting. This was my idea, and the reason I decided to do it this way was to balance the two situations: if a vote is taken in a non-convention setting, I reckoned it would be tallied as one man, one vote so I thought the two scenarios should be equal. But I’m willing to allow a change to the standard weighted convention voting (if a vote is held there) if it helps to pass the measure through.
I believe the time has come to end the politics of the proverbial smoke-filled room and allow the candidates the most level playing field possible to get their message out to the voters. The Maryland Republican Party must have a extremely good reason to take a stance during the primary season, and perceived electability is not good enough.
It’s time to take a stand for good government, and not politics as usual.
Michael Swartz
Secretary
Wicomico County Republican Central Committee
Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
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:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
