November 2016 – Page 2

Closing the loop: a postmortem, part one

I’m sure that many millions of people like me who stayed up until almost 3 this morning (yet had to get up and go to work) were of several minds: anything from watching a slow-motion trainwreck to openly savoring the bitterness coming from the hearts of the so-called “experts” who predicted a massive blowout loss for Donald Trump. And until the last maybe week to 10 days I was among that group, but it seems there is a reservoir of support Trump could keep tapping into that other Republicans could not.

That subject is one I will get to in due course (that being part two) but for the moment I just want to work through my series of predictions and see if my crystal ball has been fixed. Just as I reeled them out from national to local, I will wind them backward to wrap them up.

And just as an aside, while early voting had historically high turnout, the reason will end up being that people just wanted to wash their hands of this election.

I think that panned out to a fair extent. Turnout is lining up to be right around or perhaps slightly below where it was in 2012, depending on how many absentees or provisional ballots there were. Including early voting, Maryland brought out a little over 2.5 million voters. Considering the state has about 300,000 more voters in this cycle, I think the turnout percentage will decrease or stay about where it was – the timing of votes was what shifted.

Across the border, I fear Delaware will vote for more of the same then wonder why their state isn’t getting better. Basically the state will have the same political composition with different names on the nameplates in Congress and state executive offices – not that Sussex County agreed with it, but they will be outvoted as usual by the New Castle Democrat machine.

In the state of Delaware, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by a 53%-42% margin, Democrat Congressional hopeful Lisa Blunt Rochester won 56%-41% over Republican Hans Reigle. and in all three state government races, the Democrats won by almost identical margins: 58%-39%, 59%-41%, and 59%-41%. Aside from an extra 10,000 or so votes cast in the governor’s race to accommodate the Green and Libertarian candidates, the Democrats’ totals were all within 2,000 votes and the GOP within 2,500.

But if you break it down by county and the city of Wilmington, you find that Hillary won 84.8% in Wilmington, 59.4% in the rest of New Castle County, 44.9% in Kent County, and 37.2% in Sussex County. The problem is New Castle County’s Hillary votes were more than the combined overall total of either Sussex or Kent County. Sussex only went 41% for Rochester, 45% for governor-elect John Carney, 47% for lieutenant governor-elect Bethany Hall-Long, and 40% for new insurance commissioner Trinidad Navarro. Going forward they need to keep statewide Democrats in the 20s in Sussex County, but that may be a tall task as those who retire there generally come from Democratic core states and apparently don’t change their voting patterns.

On the questions, I believe Question 1 will get in the neighborhood of 80% statewide but maybe 75% here. The biggest controversy will be that Question A’s Option 2 will win a plurality of the vote but not quite a majority – a spirited Democrat effort will pull Option 2 down to 48% but Option 1 will get just 32%, with 20% opting for the hybrid. Otherwise, all the charter amendments will pass by healthy margins of 65 to 80 percent in favor.

Question 1 got 73.6% here (so I was close) but I underestimated the statewide wisdom to some extent, as the partisan measure passed on a 72-28 margin overall (as opposed to 80%.) I was just 3 percentage points off on Question A but Option 2 managed a slight 51% majority rather than a plurality. The Democrats probably got a late start in backing Option 1 because it underperformed my estimate by 7 points while the hybrid Option 3 outperformed by 5 points. The other questions ranged from 63 to 77 percent in favor, so I was in the ballpark. Maybe my public opposition brought them down 2 to 3 percent each.

I was somewhat correct with Harris. He got 7% better than I predicted districtwide, but I was correct that he did decline slightly from 2014, when he was a shade over 70%. That extra came from Werner as he came up 7.9% short of what I thought he would and Matt Beers came in 1% better at 4.2%. Here in Wicomico, though, I was much closer: Harris underperformed my guess by 1.7% while Werner jumped 3.3%. The Libertarian Beers came in 1.5% less here. It’s worth noting, though, that the Libertarians’ share of the vote has increased slightly with each election they participate in – back in 2008 they had 2.5%, in 2010 3.8%, in 2012 3.8% (but Muir Boda came close to edging the write-in Democratic candidate here in Wicomico with 5.9% vs. 6%) and now 4.2%.

Looking at the U.S. Senate race, I think that Chris Van Hollen wins no more than eight counties but those will be enough to propel him to victory with 61.1% of the vote, compared to Kathy Szeliga’s 37.8%. Margaret Flowers will get 0.6% and various write-ins the rest. Wicomico will be one Szeliga wins, but not quite as strongly as Trump – she gets 59.3% of the vote while Van Hollen has 40.3% and Flowers 0.2%.

Van Hollen won just six counties, but unfortunately for Szeliga they included the four biggest so she was trounced. I gave Van Hollen about 1% more credit than he deserved, but Szeliga got no benefit as she was 1.4% short. All the underage went to Flowers, who grabbed over fivefold the share I predicted at 3.2%. Just as some on the right may give Libertarians the vote in a race they know is safe (I’ve done this several times in the past) I think those well out on the left figured it wouldn’t hurt to push the Flowers total up. But when Szeliga undercuts my modest expectations (to have a shot, she really had to be in the 75% range here and elsewhere on the Eastern Shore) by a full 5.7%, it’s a short wait for a concession speech. Van Hollen only lost our supposedly conservative county by 10.4 points (and beat my guess by about 3 points) but a shocker was that Flowers did about as well here as she did statewide. I thought she would be lucky to get 100 votes locally; she picked up 1,163.

I’m going to stop with that because I want to see the write-in votes for President before I comment on that race. But I will say that I am shocked at the number of write-in votes, as over 40,000 were cast statewide. I’m sure many of these won’t be counted, but it won’t be 85% of them like it was in 2012. I may have been overly pessimistic on Evan McMullin, Darrell Castle, Tom Hoefling, and so forth as they may split 15 to 20 thousand votes (although McMullin will get the lion’s share.) We won’t know for a few days, though, and when we do I will pick up with the second part regarding the Presidential race.

All over but the shouting

It’s the end of the “road to 2016” for me.

For me personally this has been a very strange election cycle, with the only one closely like it in the last 20 years being 2004. That was the year I moved to Maryland in October, too late to register here. So I voted absentee in Ohio and helped George W. Bush carry that state.

That was the one year I can think of (besides this year) where I didn’t work a poll for a state or national election. I thought my political career was winding down then but I was bitten by the bug soon enough. Less than a year later I was going to Republican Club meetings and by 2006 I was back in the mix as a member of Wicomico County’s Republican Central Committee.

But this time it was truly different. Once I left the Central Committee, disgusted and disheartened that my party could select such a poor nominee that belied so many of its small-government principles, I essentially shunned the political process entirely in the sense that I didn’t go to meetings, work at headquarters, or stand at a poll. Yes, I did express my support for particular candidates, but at that point in the process I was looking forward to a new and different chapter of involvement. Things look a lot different when you are 52 and married than 40 and single. I think I have done my part – now it’s time for all those voters Trump supposedly brought onboard the “Trump train” to help the Republican Party, or perhaps what’s left of it if we are saddled with a Hillary Clinton presidency.

I still have an agenda, though. Just because I’m not doing the political events doesn’t mean I won’t be interested in promoting the ideas of limited, Constitutional government in accordance with Biblical values. It’s a combination that truly made America great, and in order to make America great again what we really need is to change the paradigm. It’s a little bit like having the choice of Coke or Pepsi but longing for 7-up. This cycle has really brought the false duopoly from which we suffer home to me: too many people suffer from the delusion that not voting for one candidate is voting for the other. Imagine you support neither, read that sentence again and you will realize how little sense that “not voting for one is a vote for the other” theory makes.

Somewhere someone got the bright idea that Republicans needed to be more like Democrats to win, so they convinced Republicans to simply promise to make government work better rather than do the hard work of rightsizing it. Notice Donald Trump did not talk about promoting liberty, nor did he speak to Biblical values. (Perhaps “2 Corinthians” gave him away?) It reminded me of Larry Hogan’s 2014 campaign – and yes, it worked in Maryland but aside from some tinkering around the edges what limitations of government have been achieved?

The process of political education (or re-education) needs to begin once we know who wins tonight. That’s the one thing I hope to bring to the table going forward, leavened with the other stuff I like to write about because all politics and no play makes Michael a very dull boy.

But I am truly glad this saga is over. There was a time in my life where I treated Election Day like the Super Bowl, but I was almost always disappointed. Looking back, I’m not sure I made a difference being a field worker. Yet I have what people tell me is a God-given talent to write, and with that I hope to teach and learn a few things, too. I have a project in the works I’m hoping to have finished this time next year. Some of you may be aware of this, but I’m working on a book about the TEA Party. To me, it’s a fascinating political movement that deserves study for what it did right – and what it’s done wrong.

Since I slowed down my writing pace here over the summer, I enjoy sitting down and writing more. Has it cost me some readership? Perhaps, but that’s also something the remaining readers can work on by sharing and promoting my posts.

But I’m looking forward to the next cycle regardless of who wins, and it’s because it opens a chapter of life that I can’t wait to write. Someone was saying to me they saw a 100,000 word blog post coming on, but I think I’ll reserve a good chunk of the remaining 99,200 words, give or take, for my book and other future writing. As for tonight, I’ll just trust God is in control.

America needs to use more energy, not less

Commentary by Marita Noon

During the 2016 election, both candidates promised to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. Donald Trump made the recovery of jobs lost to China and Mexico a cornerstone of his campaign. Hillary Clinton’s website states: “While too many politicians and experts in Washington gave up on American manufacturing, Hillary never did.”

“The rhetoric,” reports US News, “has struck home with Americans across the country – particularly those currently or formerly employed in the embattled U.S. goods-producing and manufacturing sectors, who have repeatedly borne the brunt of corporate efforts to move work overseas.”

Because many of the lost jobs are due to automation and technological improvements – which have enabled more production from fewer workers – there is skepticism on both sides of the aisle as to whether these lost jobs can actually come back. However, I believe, most Americans don’t want to see more of our jobs disappear. Harry Moser, founder and president of the Reshoring Initiative, which aims to bring manufacturing back home, is optimistic. He told me that we are now losing about as many jobs to offshoring, as we are recovering: “We’ve gone from losing somewhere around 200,000 manufacturing jobs a year in 2000 to 2003 to net breaking even. Balancing the trade deficit will increase U.S. manufacturing by about four million jobs at current levels of productivity.”

According to MarketWatch.com, the percentage of people who work in manufacturing is at a record low of 8.5% – which compares to “20% in 1980, 30% in 1960 and a record 39% during World War Two.”

While there are many factors driving offshoring, lower wages give countries like China and Mexico a competitive advantage. Energy costs, however, give the U.S. an advantage as “manufacturers need a lot of energy to make their processes work,” stated Gary Marmo, director of sales for New Jersey’s Elizabethtown Gas. He says: “A typical office building will use 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 therms a year. A good sized manufacturing plant will probably use that same amount in just a couple of days.” Electricity frequently represents one of the top operating costs for energy intensive industries such as plastics, metals, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals – and, according to a recent study comparing costs in the U.S. and China, electricity is about 50 percent higher in China.

Because manufacturing is energy intensive, bringing industry back to the U.S. and/or attracting businesses to relocate here, will increase our energy consumption. As my column last week on the Clinton Foundation and Haiti makes clear, industry needs energy.

President Obama has derided U.S, energy use: “The U.S. uses far more electricity than its North American neighbors combined,” but the U.S. also does more with our energy. Comparing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and energy consumption numbers for the U.S. and Canada, for example, both use a similar volume of energy but the U.S. has substantially higher GDP. A study of global energy consumption versus GDP found: “energy is so intrinsically linked to GDP that energy policy more or less dictates how our economy performs.”

Mike Haseler, the study’s author, explains: “rising GDP is an indication of a prosperous economy” – which is why economic commentators cite GDP numbers when they say: “President Barack Obama may become the first president since Herbert Hoover not to serve during a year in which the growth in real GDP was at least 3 percent.” Yet, in the name of climate change, through government policy, many countries are trying to discourage energy use by forcing costs up. Haseler states: “They are cutting energy use as the economy of Europe collapses because European industry can no longer compete with countries where energy prices are not artificially raised by senseless ‘green’ policies.”

The energy advantage is not just an issue between countries, it is a factor in where companies locate within the U.S. “High electricity bills are a strong disincentive to create new jobs associated with a new or expanded product line,” writes Don Welch, president of New Hampshire based Globe Manufacturing Co, LLC. New Hampshire’s electric prices are 55.6 percent higher than the national average. Welch’s company is the leading producer of firefighting turnout gear. He explains: “higher electricity costs not only add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of making our products – firefighting suits and equipment – but it’s money we could otherwise re-invest in the business, including creating new jobs here in New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s high electricity prices are a drag on our economy. It puts New Hampshire companies like mine at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies in other parts of the country.” Because Globe also has plants in three different states, he clearly sees the difference energy costs make in doing business. Welch says: “I already know that the electric bill I am paying at my facility in Oklahoma is half of what I pay in New Hampshire.” If he is going to add a product line, energy costs are a big factor in deciding where to expand.

John F. Olson, president and CEO of Whelen Engineering Company, of Charlestown, NH, and Chester, CT agrees. In a letter to the editor, Olson wrote: “Manufacturers are in competition with other U.S. manufacturers, or even worse, offshore competition in China. New Hampshire manufacturers have the most expensive electricity in the country.”

If we can bring back manufacturing jobs – or at least stem the flow of them from our country – we need to be encouraging low-cost energy and making more of it available. Moser believes: “balancing the trade deficit should be the number 1 national priority.” He told me that would take a 25 percent increase in manufacturing – which would require about a 10 percent increase in energy usage. Yet, climate change policies demand that we take greater cuts than the developing countries like China and India. If our energy costs continue to go up, as they have in New Hampshire, we’ll lose the best competitive advantage we have.

Moser explains: “Manufacturing has the highest multiplier effect among the major sectors. Every job created in manufacturing creates additional jobs in other sectors that supply, support and service manufacturers.”

To bring manufacturing back to the U.S., or encourage expansion, we need energy that is abundant, available and affordable – and we’ll need to use more, not less. If we want to balance our trade deficit, boost GDP, and have a prosperous economy, energy is the key. As I am known for saying: “energy makes America great!”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

The wild guesses for 2016

In years past, our Central Committee used to make a gentlemen’s bet on the election results and I was often the one who prevailed. But I seem to recall I had a rough go of it the last couple times out and these days I have no idea if my crystal ball is broken or not. Undaunted, here are my slightly educated guesses on how this election will turn out locally, statewide, and nationally.

First of all, national turnout will be about 124 million votes, which will be down from 2012 but not as bad as I once predicted.

The important race: Hillary Clinton will pull out a fairly close popular vote race by 1 or 2 points nationwide, but fails to eclipse 50 percent just like her husband. However, there is a highly distinct possibility we may live the 2000 election all over again: the Electoral College very well could finish 279-259 Trump and the straw that breaks Hillary Clinton’s back will be losing Florida. Trump will win 30 states but Florida will be the dagger the GOP regains to defeat Hillary. Also from the 2012 map Trump will regain Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio for the GOP, plus one Electoral College vote in Maine. (That one vote in Maine could be key if Florida and Pennsylvania trade places, with the former going to Clinton and the latter Trump. If Trump takes one Congressional district in Maine he would prevail 270-268, but if that elector decides to go with the other three Maine electors it becomes a tie.)

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

The reasons neither candidate breaks 50 percent: about 4.5% for Gary Johnson, 1.5% for Jill Stein, and various write-in candidates will split roughly 2% of the vote. This means Hillary beats Trump by something like 46-45 or 47-45. But if Hillary wins in the Electoral College by keeping Florida (or another close state like North Carolina or Ohio), by dawn on Wednesday the caterwauling about #NeverTrump begins, conveniently forgetting that not only was Trump a weak candidate propped up by initial incessant and fawning media coverage that (as if by magic) turned more negative when he won the nomination, but Gary Johnson and Jill Stein took enough from Hillary to deny her a majority, too.

The suspense will be much less in Maryland, where Trump will lose but not as badly as polls once suggested. Out of 2.6 million votes cast (again, down slightly from 2012) Hillary will get 56.1% and Trump 38.7%. Among the rest, Gary Johnson will get 3.3%, Jill Stein will pick up 1.2%, and write-ins the rest. Evan McMullin will get the majority of counted write-in votes, eclipsing the 5,000 mark statewide. I think Darrell Castle comes in next with around 1,100, which almost triples the 2012 Constitution Party candidates Virgil Goode and James Clymer (both ran under that banner as the party had split factions.) This would be astounding when you consider there were over 10,000 write-in votes cast in 2012 but most of those weren’t counted. (The actual top vote-getter among write-ins back in 2012 was Santa Claus with 625 – Goode was second.) Thanks to McMullin, though, this year the stigma behind write-ins will be broken somewhat.

On the Wicomico County level, Donald Trump will carry the county with ease, with 63.7% of the vote compared to 32.8% for Hillary. Gary Johnson will hover around 2.3% here and Jill Stein at 0.4%; in fact, Evan McMullin will beat her by getting 0.6% of the vote. Of the other 100 or so votes, I figure Darrell Castle gets about 45.

Andy Harris will be returned to Congress, but not by as much as previous years. He will get 60.7% of the vote both overall and in Wicomico County, but Joe Werner’s 35.9% of the vote districtwide will shrink to 33.8% here. The Libertarian Matt Beers will have 3.2% districtwide but do somewhat better here, with 5.2% support in Wicomico County. Because of the nature of the First District, don’t be surprised if Harris runs slightly ahead of Trump (mainly across the Bay.) The Maryland Congressional delegation will remain 7-1 Democrat, with Amie Hoeber and Mark Plaster coming the closest to ousting the incumbents but losing by single-digits.

So that’s my take on how it will go – do readers have ideas of their own? And just as an aside, while early voting had historically high turnout, the reason will end up being that people just wanted to wash their hands of this election. Voting a week early enabled many to tune the election out – they did their civic duty and now could get on with life.

We will see on Wednesday how shocked and surprised I am. I was certainly shocked with the state-by-state figuring I did to predict a 2000 repeat.

A potential power grab?

In 2004, Wicomico County voters adopted a system of government that would be led by a county executive, scrapping the former system where County Council had both legislative and executive powers. One reaction from this: all four of the incumbent Democratic members of County Council opted not to run for re-election in 2006; however, the first County Executive elected was Democrat Rick Pollitt.

In 2014, we had the first transfer of power between parties as GOP standard-bearer Bob Culver ousted Pollitt, who was running for a third term. At the same time, County Council maintained the 6-1 GOP edge it had received in 2010 – that was an increase from the 4-3 control they won in 2006 with only two members from the previous Council surviving the election.

So you can perhaps chalk it up to management style, or maybe the turnover on County Council over the last eight years has placed a crop of people on there who long for the old system, but Wicomico County voters are facing a bewildering array of issues on their ballot. So let’s start with the no-brainers.

Question 1 is a statewide issue that compels the Governor to appoint a new Comptroller or Attorney General from the same party as the one most recently elected and provides for a special election in a Presidential year if the vacancy occurs soon enough.

You’ll notice that this was never a problem until a Republican was elected to the governor’s chair. In fact, the last time the state had a Republican AG was in the term of Republican Governor Theodore McKeldin (1951-1959), who appointed Edward Rollins to the post to finish out the term of Hall Hammond, a Democrat elected in 1950 and promoted to the state Court of Appeals. As for Comptroller, it has exclusively been a Democrat’s position for well over a century. But maybe we could use a Libertarian as Comptroller or a Constitution Party member as Attorney General – until either can break the two-party duopoly, though, we would likely be stuck with liberal Democrats.

So because of the cynicism in addressing a problem (that really wasn’t) for strictly partisan reasons, I urge a vote AGAINST Question 1.

Question A, for Wicomico County voters, addresses the composition of the Wicomico County Board of Education. For years I have advocated for an elected school board, and after eliminating the political obstacles in the 2014 election, the path was cleared for voters to address the issue in the first three-way referendum in recent memory. Option 1 is to maintain the current appointed system, Option 2 is for a fully elected board, one each representing the five County Council districts and two at-large elected by all county residents (the same makeup as our current County Council), and Option 3 is for a hybrid board of five elected (one from each Council district) and two appointed by a locally-created board with confirmation from County Council.

Once again the cynical local Democrats have cast their lot with the fully-appointed Option 1, which provides no shortage of irony considering it’s the least democratic process. It seemed more logical that they would be for Option 3, which was the fallback position many preferred in the hearings conducted in the summer of 2015, before the enabling legislation passed earlier this year. But to maximize accountability, the best choice by far is Option 2 – a Wicomico County Board of Education with five members elected by district and two members elected at-large.

Now it gets very confusing. There are nine county charter amendments on the ballot, and to me their net effect seems to be that of reducing the power of the county executive and shifting it to County Council. I wasn’t here for the 2004 vote, but it seems obvious to me that the county wanted a strong leader and a legislative County Council.

Let’s begin with Question B and its related cousin, Question D. Both would require a special election: Question B to fill a vacancy in the County Council, and Question D for the County Executive. However, either vacancy would only be filled in this manner if it occurred within the first year or so of the term, which seems to me a rather pointless change. Having gone through this process as a Central Committee member back in 2011 (to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Bob Caldwell) I can tell you that a special election would do no better and cost the taxpayers money to boot. Thus, the proper vote is AGAINST both Question B and Question D. (Editor’s note: Councilman Marc Kilmer clarifies the intent of these questions in comments below, but I still think the ballot language is misleading. Their idea of a “special election” coincides with the scheduled primary and general elections, which is not made completely clear in the ballot summary.)

Question C deals with vacancies as well, but it’s a common-sense measure to extend the time allotted for filling positions from 30 to 45 days and have them submitted at a legislative session. This extension makes sense as County Council only meets twice a month, and having gone through the Caldwell vacancy the extra time is good for getting things right. Vote FOR Question C.

Question E removes the authority of the County Executive to select a temporary successor and assigns the task automatically to the Director of Administration. While it’s likely he or she would do so anyway, the option should remain open for the head of our government to choose. We do not have a vice-executive here, so why create one? Vote AGAINST Question E.

Question F deals with the idea of “acting” appointments, and limits their term to 90 days unless Council chooses to re-appoint them. Since the idea of “acting” is that of being temporary, this proposal makes more sense than most of the others. Three months is generally suitable to find a permanent replacement, or determine that the “acting” head can handle the job, so go ahead and vote FOR Question F.

The final four questions seem to me very nit-picky, and obviously County Council’s reaction to not getting their way on various issues.

For example, Question G gives a specific definition to “reorganization” which is much more restrictive toward the County Executive. As I see it, this is a separation of powers issue and it’s strange that we went nearly ten years without ever having to deal with this problem. So I call on voters to say they are AGAINST Question G.

Questions H and I most likely are a reaction to the County Council’s desire to have its own lawyer. Currently the County Attorney represents both the County Council and County Executive, but Council wanted to change that. I see no reason to do so, nor do I see the logic behind forcing the County Executive to recognize a personnel system established by Council as authorized by this change. Thus, we should vote AGAINST Questions H and I. (Editor’s note: Again, see Kilmer’s comments below. By charter my assertion is correct in who the County Attorney represents; but in the county today there is an “acting” County Attorney while Council retains its own, which they are entitled to do. I see no reason to change the system if Question F is passed.)

Finally, we have Question J, and that’s the one I was most on the fence about. But what weighed my decision in the end was that the County Executive is responsible for the budget, so if County Council decides to cut something out it should be the County Executive’s call as to where the money goes rather than simply placed in a particular account. For that reason, a vote AGAINST Question J is the appropriate one.

So this is the monoblogue-approved ballot for Wicomico County voters. We all face the same questions and issues.

For President – write in Darrell Castle/Scott Bradley
For U.S. Senator – Kathy Szeliga
For Congress – I did not make a formal endorsement. If you like Andy Harris, vote for him; if not, vote for the Libertarian Matt Beers.
Judge – Based on the fact Dan Friedman was an O’Malley appointee, vote AGAINST his continuance in office.
Question 1 – AGAINST
Question A – Option 2, the fully elected school board
Question B – AGAINST
Question C – FOR
Question D – AGAINST
Question E – AGAINST
Question F – FOR
Question G – AGAINST
Question H – AGAINST
Question I – AGAINST
Question J – AGAINST

For those of you across the line in Delaware, I weighed in on your state races as well.

For President – write in Darrell L. Castle/Scott N. Bradley
For Congress – no formal endorsement; I would be comfortable with either Republican Hans Reigle or Libertarian Scott Gesty.
For Governor – Colin Bonini
For Lieutenant Governor – La Mar Gunn

Before I wrap up, I just ask that you all pray we make the best choices. We all have to live with what we decide, so choose wisely. After the election, it will be time to create the understanding many among us lack when it comes to making these selections because, in a lot of cases, we all have botched the process badly.

A nation divided against itself cannot stand.

Regarding Delaware statewide races

I have finally come around to the Delaware state races after speaking on Congressional races both in the First State and the First District of Maryland as well as the U.S. Senate race here in my adopted home state. Unlike Maryland, Delaware’s top two statewide offices are elected in separate ballots, meaning it’s theoretical that the governor represents a different party than his or her lieutenant governor.

I will begin with the race for governor, which features four on the ballot and one write-in hopeful. As I have done previously, we’ll go in alphabetical order on the ballot which means the GOP standardbearer leads off.

Colin Bonini (Republican Party)

Key facts: Bonini has held elective office as a State Senator since 1994, which is the vast majority of his adult life as he first won at the age of 24. He also previously ran for state Treasurer in 2010, losing narrowly, so this is his second run statewide. Colin also works in the financial industry for a bonding agency and owns a small venture capital firm. Bonini is 46 years of age. Of the four on-ballot candidates for governor Bonini was the only one with a primary challenger, and he defeated Sussex County businesswoman Lacey Lafferty by a nearly 70-30 margin.

Key issues: Education, Economic Development, Crime, State Budget, 2nd Amendment, Regulations, Personal Freedom and Liberty

Thoughts: In looking at Colin’s platform and some of what he is about, he strikes me as a relatively by-the-book conservative who wants to make government work better yet also has the potential of rightsizing government in a number of ways. Because of the nature of Delaware’s budget, Colin may have the better mindset for a potential pitfall to come based on a recent federal court decision regarding Delaware’s unclaimed property laws. Two definite items in his favor: an advocacy to make Delaware a right-to-work state and a pledge to pull Delaware out of the RGGI boondoggle – a step Larry Hogan should also be taking in Maryland to relieve pressure on state utilities.

John Carney (Democrat Party)

Key facts: Carney was supposed to be governor eight years ago (as the survivor of the Democrats’ primary is the odds-on favorite to win) but he was displaced in the primary by now-outgoing Governor Jack Markell. Carney was the favorite because he served eight years as the Lieutenant Governor under fellow Democrat Ruth Ann Minner, but voters rejected him in 2008. He’s also been the state Secretary of Finance and the deputy chief of staff for another former Democrat governor, Tom Carper. But when the Delaware Congressional seat opened up in 2010 because Mike Castle wanted to move up to the U.S. Senate, Carney was Johnny-on-the-spot and bucked the TEA Party trend sweeping the nation as one of just a handful of newly elected Democrats. Like many other Democrats running, Carney has spent practically his whole adult life in government, although he briefly served as the chief operating officer of a wind energy company during his downtime from being LG to winning the Congressional seat. Carney is 60 years old.

Key issues: John’s “Vision for Delaware” includes sections on The Economy, Education, State Budget, The Environment, Healthcare, Criminal Justice, and Agriculture.

Thoughts: Truth be told, his is not the worst, most liberal platform out there (although it definitely has its pitfalls.) But the overarching problem with state assistance in a number of areas is that it becomes state control rather quickly. Carney’s policies to me come off as Wilmington-centric, which addresses the population as currently comprised but fails to account for the growth area of the state, which would be Sussex County. (Kent County is also growing faster than the state average, which is held down by New Castle County and Wilmington.) It’s likely Carney would govern in the same manner that Jack Markell has done – business-friendly enough to please those interests, but liberal enough to keep the machine which has propped up his political career for most of the last 35 years backing him.

Sean Goward (Libertarian Party)

Key facts: Goward is an Air Force veteran who made a lengthy career of it before retiring two years ago. Now he works as a railroad signal technician. Goward is 37 years old and making his first run for political office.

Key issues: Education, Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice Reform, Fiscal Policy, Accountability

Thoughts: Goward has some interesting ideas about the state of the state, but they seem to be lost when he makes civil liberties and criminal justice reform priorities over the economic issues people truly care about. I know that Libertarians are for smaller government, but where Goward fails in making the sell is relating the benefits of limited government to the voters of the state. It’s one thing to promise to cut spending in half in four years, but the reality of the situation would dictate a much less rapid winding down as well as an education course on why this would be a good thing. Also, Goward hasn’t updated his site since April so why should I take him seriously?

Andrew Groff (Green Party)

Key facts: Like the other Delaware Greens, Groff doesn’t have a formal website. What I did find is that he is 58 years old, and while he’s not run for governor before he ran for the U.S. Senate seat in both 2014 and 2012 – the 2012 race was run with the additional blessing of the Delaware Libertarian Party.

Key issues: From the limited reading I have, Groff is well entrenched with the Green Party line which would entail a much larger government.

Thoughts: As a party, the Green Party barely made the 636 registered voter cutoff for ballot access this year. (As a comparison, Maryland has 8,614 registered Greens in a state about sevenfold Delaware’s population.) So it’s not like Groff will make a large dent, but the fact he’s not making it easy for people to learn about him makes things even more difficult.

There is also one write-in candidate for governor by the name of Benjamin Hollinger, Sr. but I found nothing on him. So I will turn to the two LG candidates.

La Mar Gunn (Republican Party)

Key facts: Perhaps he’s one of the few Republicans to be the head of a local NAACP chapter, as he leads the Dover chapter. Gunn ran for the Kent County Recorder of Deeds in 2014 and won the vote on election day by two votes, but four non-identical recounts later (two of which expanded Gunn’s lead and one that was a flat tie) it was deemed in court that the office was vacant, and Governor Jack Markell appointed his fellow Democrat. Gunn is a financial consultant by trade.

Key issues: Placed under two non-specific categories, “Jobenomics” and Fighting for Delaware.

Thoughts: Jobenomics is a carefully thought-out plan, but it’s way more complex than the average person wants to consider in a political context. If he could have boiled it down to a couple pages and related it to actual policy it may have been more helpful. As for the rest, it’s extremely skimpy. Granted, lieutenant governor may be a “bucket of warm spit” position (as evidenced by its vacancy over the last two years) but I think there needs to be more of an accessible platform for people to understand.

Bethany Hall-Long (Democrat Party)

Key facts: Hall-Long is one of the few Delaware candidates to be born in Sussex County, although she has spent the last 14 years in the state legislature representing portions of New Castle County. However, she spent several years outside the state, particularly in the Washington D.C. area (her husband was stationed in the Navy) and served as a Fellow in both the U.S. Senate and Department of Health and Human Services. She has a background in nursing, is 52 years old, and won a six-way primary for the LG nomination with just 29% of the vote.

Key issues: Jobs and growing the economy, Health, Education, Environment, Infrastructure

Thoughts: When I read the word “invest” four times in five paragraphs, I know I have to hold on to my wallet. Yet while Gunn is remarkably detailed in one area until one’s eyes glaze over, the platform of Hall-Long has the depth of a cookie sheet. And while I am not a grammar Nazi, I must say whoever wrote the copy for her website needs lessons in sentence structure. Again, there’s really not a great deal of function to the position but Hall-Long has some of the worst platitude speaking I’ve seen in this campaign. She may be a mom, a nurse, and a state senator but I have to wonder how much she knows about the role of government.

As far as those I would recommend to Delaware voters, there are really two clear-cut choices here. Since Colin Bonini knows John Carney fairly well, he can keep John around as an advisor on business issues. But the more aggressive job creation approach from Bonini is the one Delaware needs right now. And having a laserlike focus on job creation isn’t the worst thing in the world for a lieutenant governor to have, either. Remember, I’m looking at this not as a voter (because I live in Maryland) but as one who wants the First State to succeed because my employment depends a lot on it. The more people find Delaware attractive, the better chance my employer succeeds.

And I didn’t forget about Insurance Commissioner, but that balloting isn’t one that’s really important to me right now. So I have no opinion on it.

So if you are a Delaware voter, it’s in your best interest to vote for Colin Bonini and La Mar Gunn on Tuesday. They are clearly the better choices in their respective fields.

monoblogue music: “The Last Remaining Payphone in L.A.” by Logan Metz

In a perfect world, where I had more time and patience with artistic endeavors to do such things, I would take the album cover photo you see to your left and work on it a bit. It would be redone in such a way where the blue background has worn away in a circular pattern to reflect the record inside, something that you may see when you find the old records that belonged to your grandpa in his dusty attic because the covers have rubbed together for decades. It would do justice to this very recent release by Chicago-based singer and songwriter Logan Metz, who looks about 30 and sounds like he’s twice as old – to hear him sing, his voice reminded me a lot of Willie Nelson for some reason.

Yet while Logan occasionally works his way into very retro country territory, such as the honky tonk of the title track or the hopeless romance of Augustine, this album would have fit in perfectly with old standards of sixty years gone by. To be sure, this review should have been done on a throwback Thursday.

I’ll have to concede I don’t do tongue-in-cheek humor and irony nearly as well as Metz does, whether it’s on this track called Interesting People, the title song, or the ending Lullaby (For Everybody But My Baby (And Me)) – yes, we can all go to bed already. You just have to smile at the reference to dropping his last remaining quarter in the last remaining payphone in L.A. (indeed, that is how the lyric goes.) When I saw the song title I was wondering how Logan would get around to it and he didn’t disappoint me.

In the credits list for this eleven-track release I counted a dozen musicians, and Metz uses them to create a plethora of styles and moods, from the sultry Almost (All Mine) to the piano-based ballads I Got A Woman (one of the best songs of the collection) and Surrender, which gets the stringed instruments involved to good effect. Metz also gets bluesy (and boozy) with An Evening At The Cove, but redeems himself with the gospel overtones of I Must Be Found.

Yet because Metz takes a lot of musical chances with this collection – and be warned, those who are really into anything put out as popular music over the last decade are going to be completely lost with this record – they don’t always pay off. Perhaps I didn’t get the joke of The Rabbits, but I have to say Logan’s foray into Beatles territory called Jericho utterly missed the mark. But don’t let these missteps dissuade you from adding this to your collection if you like mature music that sounds so honest you’d swear this was recorded as analog all along. I’ve done my share of reviews of music that is technically dazzling because every note was perfectly placed by a computer program, so to have the backdrop I heard of a faint recording hiss is not a bad thing at all. (Or else I need new headphones. But I think it was Logan’s record.)

As a debut album, Metz sets the bar rather high and it leaves him with a lot of possible directions to proceed. And considering he financed the effort through Kickstarter (a little tidbit I learned from his social media) it looks like he has a bit of an audience already. I don’t know if this little corner of the world has a lot of fans of music your parents thought was retro, but if there are they should enjoy the listen.

The next in line

It’s definitely time for a fun, topical post, and since my tradition on Thursday nights during the season is something baseball-related I thought this would be a enjoyable thing to do.

Unless you were under a rock for the last six months, you know the Chicago Cubs had the best record in baseball this season and proved why by outlasting three solid teams (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Cleveland) to win their first National League pennant since 1945 and their first World Series in 108 years. Since none of the other major professional sports leagues existed in 1908, their stretch between championships is likely a record that won’t be broken.

But while the Cubs had generations of fans that lived and died without ever seeing their heroes hoist a World Series trophy, beating the Indians made sure Cleveland’s record of championship futility extended to 69 seasons – they have gone without a World Series title since 1948. Yet I have figured out they are not the most overdue baseball city. (Actually, as a city Chicago hadn’t gone all that long since the White Sox won it all in 2005.)

So I sat down at lunchtime and did some figuring – here are the cities that are most overdue, and the top city may surprise you.

Washington is actually the city which has gone longest without a World Series title, although perhaps they receive an asterisk because there was no team there for over three decades. The first version of the Senators won it all in 1924, lost the World Series in 1925 and 1933, then went decades in futility (Washington was “first in war, first in peace, last in the American League”) before the team moved to Minnesota after the 1960 season. The expansion team they received (also called the Senators) lasted from 1961 to 1971 before that franchise left for the greener pastures of Texas to become the modern-day Rangers. A 34-year hiatus ensued before the Nationals were moved from Montreal in 2005, but they haven’t won a pennant – let alone a World Series.

Cleveland has the next longest losing streak, going since 1948. Here is the list of the major league cities, from way overdue to the most recent.

Washington (1924 – Senators 1 until 1960, Senators 2 1961-71, and Nationals since 2005)
Cleveland (1948 – Indians)
Milwaukee (1957 – Braves until 1966, Brewers* since 1970)
Houston (1962 – Colt .45s/Astros*)
San Diego (1969 – Padres*)
Seattle (1969 – Pilots* for 1969 season, Mariners* since 1977)
Dallas (1972 – Texas Rangers*)
Pittsburgh (1979 – Pirates)
Baltimore (1983 – Orioles)
Detroit (1984 – Tigers)
Los Angeles (1988 – Dodgers)
Oakland (1989 – Athletics)
Cincinnati (1990 – Reds)
Minneapolis (1991 – Minnesota Twins)
Denver (1993 – Colorado Rockies*)
Toronto (1993 – Blue Jays)
Atlanta (1995 – Braves)
Tampa (1998 – Devil Rays/Rays*)
Phoenix (2001 – Arizona Damondbacks)
Anaheim (2002 – Angels)
Miami (2003 – Marlins)
Philadelphia (2008 – Phillies)
New York (2009 – Yankees – Mets since 1986)
St. Louis (2011 – Cardinals)
Boston (2013 – Red Sox)
San Francisco (2014 – Giants)
Kansas City (2015 – Royals)
Chicago (2016 – Cubs – White Sox since 2005)

Teams demoted with an asterisk (*) are still looking for their first World Series title.

There should be an honorable mention for Montreal (which would slot in with the Padres and Pilots from 1969) who did not win a title in their 1969-2004 Montreal run and for Brooklyn, which lost the Dodgers after the 1957 season but last won the World Series in 1955.

Of the most overdue teams, Washington has a legitimate shot at ending their streak next season as they were a playoff team this season. Obviously Cleveland looks like a contender as well. (Just as an aside, for all the talk about the AL East being a good division, the Central division has sent four of the last five AL champs to the World Series – Cleveland this year, Kansas City in 2014 and 2015, and Detroit in 2012.) Milwaukee has an up-and-coming young team that should contend with the Cubs in the next few seasons, while Houston has made some noise in the playoffs recently, too. Only San Diego in the top 5 seems to be stuck in mediocrity.

All right, you’ll get political stuff again tomorrow and Sunday, although I have a music review set for Saturday. I just had to have some fun expanding a Facebook post I did in the wake of Chicago’s victory last night.

Haiti needs electricity. Hillary gives them a sweatshop (and her foundation gets a new donor)

Commentary by Marita Noon

Until Hurricane Matthew hit Haiti nearly a month ago, on October 4, the impoverished island country was out of the headlines – pushed aside by election news. But new emails which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Republican National Committee and then shared with ABC News, made public on October 11, make Haiti part of the U.S. election news, as they highlight the cozy connections between the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton’s cronies. The corruption that has been brought to light is nothing short of scandalous – though, since it’s merely one more such story, few are probably following it.

I’m aware of this new information due to my multi-year collaboration with Christine Lakatos and her Green Corruption Files. She alerted me to the “bombshell new evidence” and she now has a full 26-page report available.

Hurricane Matthew made clear that the billions of dollars that poured into Haiti after the 2010 earthquake did little to help the 1.5 million people who were displaced when the 7.0 magnitude earthquake destroyed their homes in 2010. According to the New York Times, 55,000 people were still living in shelters when Matthew hit. However, earlier this year, HBO’s VICE newsmagazine series did a segment titled: The Haitian Moneypit. In it, Vikram Gandhi takes viewers through the deplorable conditions found in the refugee camps that have no electricity, fresh water, or functioning toilets. He claims: “hundreds of thousands of survivors are still displaced.”

Gandhi says that despite the $10 billion in relief that came into Haiti after the earthquake, “many parts of Port-au-Prince still look like the earthquake struck just yesterday.” He addresses the Zoranje model home project – described as a $2.4 million dollar showroom and the first approved reconstruction project headed by Bill Clinton and the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. However, Gandhi reports, the homes were unsuited to Haiti. Once the expo was over, zero homes were built for Haitians. Today the model homes are occupied by squatters who live in the makeshift village without plumbing or electricity.

Perhaps the homes were never built because the companies didn’t donate, or didn’t donate enough, to the Clinton Foundation. In his film Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer relays a story about a Florida firm with extensive disaster relief experience. The company spent $100 million getting equipment into Haiti, but only made a small contribution to the Clinton Foundation. The company didn’t get any relief contracts. Many contracts went to relief organizations that were also involved in the Clinton Foundation – which brags about its role in Haiti.

Lakatos explains: “In digging through over 1000 emails from Hillary’s State Department related to Haiti, I discovered additional damning proof that the Haiti ‘reconstruction plan’ was a huge pay-to-play scheme for filling the coffers of the Clintons and their cronies.” She continues: “We now have an ocean of evidence confirming that our former president Bill Clinton and his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, exploited the poor Haitian people in the wake of the 2010 earthquake.”

In 2015, in an article titled The King and Queen of Haiti, Politico summarizes: “The amounts of money over which the Clintons and their foundation had direct control paled beside the $16.3 billion that donors pledged in all.”

While Lakatos’ complete report provides details with links to the supporting documentation, due to space here I am jumping to what I believe is the most dramatic example: The Caracol Industrial Park (CIP) – a $300 million project that was planned before the 2010 earthquake and was built in a part of Haiti that was not impacted by the earthquake (therefore not helping the victims.) The CIP was originally lauded by Secretary Clinton as creating 100,000 new jobs in Haiti, but got revised down and down – with current jobs at a dim 8000-9000.

The comingling of players, companies and organizations is overwhelming – but one of Hillary Clinton’s closest confidants, Cheryl Mills, is at the center of it. Addressing the project and the Clintons’ “public-private web,” the New York Times (NYT) states: “Cheryl D. Mills worked ceaselessly to help a South Korean garment maker open a factory in Haiti, the centerpiece of United States government’s efforts to jump-start the island nation’s economy after the 2010 earthquake.”

In short, “Sea-A Trading secured millions of dollars in incentives to make its Haiti investment more attractive,” writes NYT. Sea-A Trading’s chairman Woong-ki Kim became a Clinton Foundation donor after his firm secured the lucrative contract in Haiti. NYT calls Kim: “the sort of enlightened global capitalist the Clintons favor.” Adding to the intrigue, when Mills left the state department, she started a company called BlackIvy Group – for which Kim is a financial backer. NYT describes the relationship this way: “The partnership with Mr. Kim sheds light on the business activities of Ms. Mills – a longtime Clinton loyalist who is likely to play a significant role in any future Clinton White House – as well as the interlocking public and private relationships that have long characterized the Clintons’ inner circle.”

The company makes clothes using Haiti’s cheap labor (roughly $6.85 a day – though reports claim the factory doesn’t pay that much and accuse the factory of sexual harassment, bullying and humiliation.) Workers complain that after they pay for lunch and transportation, they don’t have enough money left to feed their families. Many feel that they were better off farming the land they were thrown off of to make room for CIP.

The primarily female workforce makes clothes for large American retailers, including Walmart and Gap Inc., which get special tax breaks for importing the clothes made in Haiti. Both companies are Clinton Foundation donors: Walmart has given $1 million to $5 million and Gap has given between $250,000 and $500,000 to the foundation.

Part of the $124 million in “incentives” the U.S. government provided (an unwitting donation from taxpayers) for CIP was to build a power plant to run the factory. While I have been unable to ascertain what fuels the plant, video makes it clear it is not wind or solar that Clinton touts. My research revealed: “Haiti is highly dependent on imported fossil fuels for electric generation.” It is most likely oil-fueled.

The electricity provided by the Caracol Electrification Project also powers some of the surrounding communities. The USAID site features stories of people living with electricity for the first time and elaborates on the dramatic improvement in health and quality of life since the area has reliable power. Many other similar reports exist.

A few months ago, Lakatos and I wrote about Hillary’s clean cookstove initiative: The developing world wants natural gas and electricity, Hillary Clinton sends cookstoves. This story is similar. Haiti needs electricity and Hillary gives them a sweatshop.

Considering the conditions in the Sea-A Trading factory and the hundreds of thousands of people throughout Haiti living in plastic tents and without electricity and the benefits it provides – one must wonder if the hundreds of millions of dollars that went to enriching Clinton Foundation donors, like Kim, wouldn’t have been better spent providing reliable fossil-fuel power to the people of Haiti. Doing so would have boosted the economy and helped families improve their lives. But that’s not how the Clintons operate and their fingerprints are all over the Haiti recovery efforts. Obviously, they have hurt the Haitian people, while helping themselves and their friends.

On November 8, America will decide if this is the kind of leadership we want.