On Sunday I happened to have a conversation with a man who took exception to the Question 6 sign we had in our Republican tent at the Good Beer Festival. He pleaded a case which was somewhat emotionally-based but also pointed out whether the government should be in the business of marriage and asked why we should care what two people do.
Now I normally fall on the libertarian side of things and I really don’t care who sleeps with who. But there’s just this gut instinct of mine that, once we cross that line, within a generation we will be having the same argument over plural marriage and perhaps even marrying children. This gentleman thought I was missing the point and argued that we felt the same way about interracial marriage and that turned out to not harm society. In that he is correct, but as usual gay-rights activists borrow from a struggle which was based on unfairness regarding something one cannot change (the amount of pigment they were given) into trying to reward a particular behavior some still find deviant (a sexual attraction to one of the same gender.)
I really wish I had known about this video before I talked to this man.
Of course “dislikes” are running 2 to 1 over “likes” but the gay lobby is a noisy and tenacious one – most people would get the hint after going 0-for-30 or so at the ballot box but they keep trying. This even extends to the YouTube video; unfortunately comments aren’t allowed there but maybe they think an overly high number of “dislikes” will get YouTube to pull it. I would bet dozens have complained to the Google subsidiary about the video, so far to no avail.
Unfortunately, it’s also my gut feeling that one of the four states considering gay marriage this fall will vote in its favor, sowing the whirlwind we’re sure to reap because of it. Given that a large portion of this young man’s generation has been taught moral relativity in schools where all cultures and cultural activities are considered valid, at some point enough of them will be fooled into believing the idea that gay marriage promotes equality when it will lead to a perverse sort of reverse discrimination against those who believe in a Judeo-Christian worldview.
And once that Pandora’s box is opened, we can never go back. I’d rather keep it locked.
I actually meant to do this post over the weekend, but real life intervened. I’m hoping the expanded version of items which are really too short to merit a full post but worth a couple paragraphs is more chock full of interesting because of it.
There is one item on my agenda that’s time-sensitive, so I’m going to fold it into an overall brief update on Dan Bongino’s U.S. Senate campaign.
Tomorrow (October 18) the Bongino campaign is doing a unique moneybomb event:
During our “Now or Never” event, you will be able to make donations designated specifically to get Dan’s campaign advertisements on radio, television and the Internet. These ads are a crucial part of our get-out-the-vote efforts and you will have the unique opportunity to choose the media outlet on which you wish to see the ads run. (Emphasis in original.)
So if you donate you get to choose. (I vote for advertising on this website. Is that an option?)
Unlike some others in the race, Dan’s campaign has been the closest to the grassroots and certainly has worn through the shoe leather. Regardless of the perception about where Dan stands in the polls, I think the voters’ brief flirtation with Rob Sobhani is coming to a close as they find out there’s not a lot of substance behind the sizzle.
I didn’t note this at the time, but since the Benghazi massacre is still in the news it’s noteworthy that Dan is among the chorus who thinks heads should roll:
I take no comfort in this, but Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice must resign in light of the Benghazi tragedy. It was a tragic failure in leadership.
He went on to decry the “current administration’s position that politics takes priority over security for our men and women in the foreign service.” Given the fact that Hillary Clinton now insists on taking full responsibility, it indeed behooves her to resign her post.
I’ve also found out that Dan will be in the area twice over the next couple weeks. On Thursday, October 25 he will be the beneficiary of a fundraiser here in Salisbury at the local GOP headquarters, tentatively scheduled from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m., and on Tuesday, October 30 the PACE group at Salisbury University is hosting a U.S. Senate debate in their Great Hall at 3 p.m. That’s sort of an unusual time to have an event such as that, but it is what it is.
And apparently Dan has had his fill of complaints from Sobhani about Rob’s debate exclusion. This comes from Dan’s Facebook page:
Regarding the debates schedule, there is no effort to keep the candidate out of the debates. His campaign is fabricating stories in an attempt to distract from his confusing platform… Any forum he was not included in was due to the fact that he was not invited by the host.
I’ve spoken to the campaign about this issue and any assertion that Dan doesn’t want Rob Sobhani in the debates is completely false.
Speaking of debates, this is one which just might be crazy enough to actually work.
Created by the TEA Party Express group, this is the debate where the moderators are conservative. Of course, none of the nominees or incumbents will actually participate – but in this era of YouTube and 24-hour media coverage, video is a wonderful thing. Honestly, it’s simply going to serve as a reminder of where candidates have said they stand on key issues ignored in the other debates.
But I don’t think these guys are going to play it as comedy, like taking single words and catchphrases carefully spliced together like a shock jock might. Given some of the names already announced as participating in the event, it may come down to being just as informative as the real thing – and in many cases, Barack Obama actually will get to have his teleprompter.
This event will occur next Tuesday night, October 23, at 9 p.m.
Following up on a post I did a few days ago on Protect Marriage Maryland endorsements, the group has added Fourth District Congressional candidate Faith Loudon to its preferred candidates. No real surprise there, and if it chips a few percentage points off an otherwise monolithic black vote for Donna Edwards, so much the better. Hopefully they’ll also vote against Question 6 as well.
Meanwhile, those who support Question 7 may have stepped into some hot water with this ad.
Now LaVar Arrington can do as he pleases, but FedEx is none too happy about their logo being prominently featured as part of the spot. Spokeswoman Maury Donahue said her company will review the ad, but they have no involvement in the issue.
But it appears the Washington Redskins do have a role, according to a Capital Gazette article questioning a $450,000 payment to the team just days before the ad was taped. It also gave Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot, a Democrat and Question 7 opponent, an opening to remark on the team’s involvement:
As a ‘Skins fan, the Comptroller respectfully encourages them to focus on the important tasks at hand, such as protecting RG III, shoring up their kicking game and making sorely-needed improvements to one of the league’s lowest-ranked defenses.
I’d be more interested in what the NFL has to say considering their stance on gambling, and that’s likely why they had to choose a player who’s no longer active. Much as Arrington hates losing, he may well end up on the short end of the score November 6.
Unlike Questions 4, 6, and 7, which have seen a healthy amount of media coverage, Question 5 on redistricting has been the red-headed stepchild of the quartet. But State Senator E. J. Pipkin is trying to change that a little bit:
It’s just a little bit longer than a 30-second ad, which makes me wonder how many will see this video. But this makes a lot of sense considering the Maryland Democrats who put this together definitely flunked the “compact and contiguous” requirement.
But let’s not flunk the idea of protecting the vote. Election Integrity Maryland is holding one final poll watcher training session:
Election Integrity Maryland is offering its last Poll Watcher Training session before the election, on Wednesday, October 24 – Thursday, October 25. This comprehensive, 1-1/2 hour course is taught via webinar from the comfort of your home computer from 7:30 – 8:15 each evening.
Registration is required. The cost is $15, which includes a spiral bound Training Guide mailed to each participant.
Signup is here. Now I prefer to work outside the polling place in an attempt to change hearts and minds, but you can provide a valuable service to your fellow citizens in this way as well.
We know that the other side is ready to go (h/t Don Stifler):
I’ll definitely occupy my vote this year, and you can bet your bottom dollar it won’t be for that failure named Barack Obama.
Finally, another requirement the Democrats in charge of Annapolis seem to be flunking is honesty in economic reporting. Instead of giving us the real news – which has been generally bad – they’re resorting to obfuscation. Jim Pettit at Change Maryland sent this along to me last week:
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley recently hosted an Annapolis summit for advocates of what is called a “Genuine Progress Indicator.” The national forum received scant media attention and the issue itself has largely been under the radar of most mainstream media outlets.
The impetus behind the Genuine Progress Indicator, or GPI movement, is to supplant traditional federal government statistics with new and arbitrary criteria that deducts what other government bureaucrats deem as environmental and social costs that accrue from prosperity.
(Read the rest here. They also have a helpful fact sheet.)
Maryland is one of two states which have enacted a form of this method of statistical legerdemain, as Vermont signed this into law earlier this year.
Obviously Larry Hogan and Change Maryland delight in being a thorn in Martin O’Malley’s side, but the real question is why this is even being considered in the first place. To me, it comes from the same line of thinking which believes rural development should be shelved in favor of promoting “greenways” and packing people into urban centers so they can “improve” our “quality of life.”
But regardless of every statistic which can be measured, there is no way government can insure happiness. To use a baseball analogy, even if a pitcher absolutely owns a hitter to the tune of the batter being 0-for-20 against him that’s no guarantee the next at-bat won’t produce a home run. The radical Left can disparage capitalism all they want, and I’ll admit it sometimes doesn’t work very well. But these mistakes can be easily rectified by the market, and there’s no need for government to intercede. GPI is just an excuse for a greater attempt to control outcomes, with the folly of believing in equality of outcome uppermost in their minds.
It all goes back to that old saw about lies, damned lies, and statistics. When it’s in someone’s vested interest to cook the books we all know what sort of trouble can ensue. But I don’t need numbers to see that people are hurting, and it’s not from capitalism but instead from the lack thereof.
Even though the advertisement doesn’t specifically mention Question 4, it’s obvious NumbersUSA has that sort of issue in mind when it created this spot targeted at the black community.
Undoubtedly NumbersUSA takes a very dim view of immigration, but the point is still a good one in light of the recent Obama decision to change the status of over a million illegal aliens between the ages of 16 and 30. That’s the group competing with the black population this spot is aimed at for common labor jobs, and as many in the field contend, driving down wages.
The same argument can also be made for in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Considering that a state-sponsored college education is a finite resource because the state can only afford a certain number of classrooms, instructors, and the like, a case can be made that every illegal alien given a spot under the Maryland DREAM Act denies another person a place in the school. Contrary to popular belief, a college education is not a right, and the difference being made is strictly a financial one. The Maryland DREAM Act simply rewards breaking the law and encourages more to try and game the system.
Yet if someone doesn’t have the benefit of legal citizenship or a paper saying they should be here, there’s nothing stopping them from going to college in Maryland – they just don’t qualify for in-state tuition based on existing state law. In essence, these students are glorified exchange students.
Since I’m discussing Question 4, it’s a good time to briefly speak to a so-called “study” claiming the state of Maryland would gain money from the “DREAMers” (as illegal alien apologist Kim Propeack calls them.) Unless something changes in federal law (read: amnesty) the presumed gains from illegal alien children taking well-paying jobs won’t materialize because they won’t legally be able to work in many high-paying occupations.
Brad Botwin of the advocacy group Help Save Maryland also pointed out an important fact about the UMBC study:
Who actually sponsored and paid for this weighty report and supplied those wonderful assumptions to our senior UMBC Professors? Casa of Maryland? The Service Employees International Union (SEIU)? the Maryland Democratic Party? (the big three of Educating Maryland Kids – the front group for illegal immigrants demanding in-state tuition).
What did our research uncover? An even better surprise! Governor O’Malley’s own Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation was the anonymous sponsor. Yes, our tax dollars hard at work again sanctioning another lawless activity to help attract more illegal immigrants to our state. The same Labor Department that was actively promoting the so-called Dream Act while it was being debated in Annapolis last year.
There’s nothing wrong with a governor or a state agency advocating for a law. But it’s interesting how little Martin O’Malley has been out front pushing voters to support these ballot issues. Perhaps he knows the end result and doesn’t want to damage his 2016 hopes?
Of course we all know that if any or all of these ill-conceived issues somehow pass, O’Malley will march to the front of the line for taking credit. I’d rather he eat a heaping helping of crow.
While I’ve heard conflicting tales about attendance – I had heard 2,900 people came on Saturday while this news report claimed 4,000 – somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 people attended last weekend’s Good Beer Festival at Pemberton Park.
You can judge attendance for yourself, as I took several crowd shots over the weekend. The first group are from Saturday and were taken at 1:30 and 2:30 on Saturday. (Bear in mind the festival opened at 12:30.)
But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself. I knew it would be a good day when I saw the lengthy line outside the ribbon cutting ceremony Saturday afternoon.
Allen Brown of Wicomico Parks and Recreation, the sponsor of the event, was holding the scissors. He was flanked by (left to right) Wicomico County Administrator Wayne Strasburg, State Senator Jim Mathias, and County Council members Stevie Prettyman, Sheree Sample-Hughes, Matt Holloway, Gail Bartkovich, and Bob Culver. Yet I noticed none of them stuck around very long, at least those I recognized.
Obviously the idea of the Good Beer Festival is to sample the brews of many different vendors, with my personal favorite being the 16 Mile brewery from Delaware.
Others, however, favored the hometown Evolution Brewery or national brands like Samuel Adams, Blue Moon, or Sierra Nevada. In all there were over 70 breweries represented.
But there was more to do than drink beer. There were games to play, like cornhole or the difficult contest shown below.
That’s my hand, by the way. Needless to say, I don’t have a knack for hooking that ring on the target.
On Sunday, the tent holding the big-screen TVs was crowded as the Ravens and Cowboys did battle.
You could even slow down and take a tour of the Pemberton house with guides in period costume like this woman.
Needless to say, there was also music – but I’m saving that for a future post.
There were also special one-day events. Saturday’s chili cookoff was a big draw, particularly considering the fall-like temperatures.
That same space was used on Sunday for a home brewer competition, which included this up-and-coming brewer from Delmar. That went better with the more summerlike weather featured on Sunday, with a high in the mid-70s.
I also ran across vendors which sold varied wares, mainly catering to a beer-drinking crowd like this apparel seller.
But this year there was a little something different. I spoke to the people working at this tent Sunday morning as I was getting reset and they said they were quite busy Saturday. No count on how many didn’t pass the test, though.
They probably didn’t have as much business Sunday, though. It was a far less crowded day, as the next series of photos taken at 2:00, 2:30, 3:30, 4:30, and 5:30 attest.
One benefit of the smaller Sunday crowd: a chance for some to bring out their furry friends like this little guy.
So why was I there the whole time? It’s because I coordinate the presence of the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee and help staff the tent. It looked a little spartan this year to begin with considering there are only three candidates running, and the absolute raid on our Romney items Saturday left me without much to give out Sunday (when I took the tent photo.)
I know my blogging friend Jackie Wellfonder also posted her thoughts on the event, but I wanted to add my two cents in as well.
We had a location which was sort of out of the way. The photo of the Pemberton house was taken from in front of my tent, so you can tell we were off to the side of the main traffic flow where I took my crowd pictures. Nevertheless, enough people found us over the weekend that we ran out of Romney signs and Romney/Harris signs. (Maybe Dan Bongino needs some Romney/Bongino signs since people were happy to have the Romney/Harris combos even if they wanted just Mitt.)
I spoke to people from Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and even Ohio while sitting in our little tent. While they assessed his chances of success differently, they all wanted to end this four-year national economic nightmare. Even shunted off to the side, we reached a lot of potential voters the Democrats may have missed because they weren’t there. Maybe they feel the wine (or is it whine?) crowd will be more to their liking because they will be present this coming weekend, as will we – I got my package in the mail today.
But as the sun set on Sunday – a pretty sunset at that – we found that the Good Beer Festival seems to have established itself as more or less equal to its older cousin, the Autumn Wine Festival; an event which will celebrate its tenth year at Pemberton this coming weekend. The GBF has grown quite a bit in the three years of its existence, and may soon have the pleasant problem of selecting from more local and national breweries than it has space to accommodate.
One conversation I struck up regarded the merits of the Good Beer Festival vs. Pork in the Park. While I still think Pork in the Park is the better festival overall, the GBF is closing in on a strong second place. And at a strategic time in the election calendar, it’s a resource candidates can use to establish themselves with a unique demographic. Shrewd Republicans who want to get a jump start on 2014 would be wise to make time next October and come see us. We’ll be there.
While I’m at the Autumn Wine Festival, you can review the bands which played this weekend as I’ll devote a new Weekend of Local Rock post to the twelve performers playing the GBF.
Last spring environmental advocates claimed a victory with the passage of SB236. While it was dubbed the “Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012,” the reality is that for most rural areas of Maryland it will do neither.
But radical environmentalists like the 1000 Friends of Maryland characterized SB236 and other measures in this manner:
The 2012 legislative session will be remembered as one that provided critical new tools to clean up our waters and slow rural development. (Emphasis mine.)
While a number of rural counties have debated the effects of the bill, they’ve come to the realization that the state holds the trump card. That wasn’t lost on Delegate Mike McDermott, who noted shortly after the bill’s passage last spring:
(The bill) is a far cry from preserving agriculture and farming in Maryland. This is the great land grab by Maryland – hurting farmers in the name of preserving them.
It is reasonable to draw conclusions from this bill that this spells the end of rural development in Maryland. It will devalue farmland and place farmers who must borrow against their land for the next planting season to have land that is not worth anywhere near what it is in today’s market. This destructive bill is the camel’s nose under the tent.
This view is shared by a growing number of those aware of the insidious effect of government, especially in Cecil County. Their Campaign for Liberty group echoed McDermott’s remarks:
Senate Bill 236 (Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012) requires all counties to adopt a “tier map” that will severely limit future development. It is part of Governor O’Malley’s “Plan Maryland” legislation and the U.N. ‘s Agenda 21 program. SB236 will infringe on private property rights, decrease property values, and cause property taxes to go up.
Yet the state is also planning another route of attack on rural development, as a recent meeting in Wicomico County suggests. The September 2012 Growth Offset Policy Meeting was attended by several in the local TEA Party along with area planners and environmental groups, which may have been the target audience because the meeting was held during the day when most private-sector people work. It outlined a plan by the state to reduce nitrogen loads in Chesapeake Bay via a state-imposed nutrient cap. Of course, that cap is always subject to change, and the costs will be borne by the private sector but collected by a government agency which will obviously take their cut.
But we don’t know what their cut will be, nor do they. One meeting attendee related the following:
When I asked them how many additional state employees they were going to need to administer this program, they had no answer. When I asked how they were going to regulate such an obvious moneymaking, ripe for fraud scheme, they acknowledged it was a problem, but they had no answer. When others asked how the farmers were going to be able to finance their operations due to reduced land value to borrow against, they had no answer. When the NGOs asked how they could make money off this by cleaning up a stream and claiming the credits, they weren’t sure, but the greed was evident in every NGO there. When I asked how a developer could be sure that his credits that he purchased would be good from year to year (what if the farmer didn’t do a good job and they took his credits away from him?)…would the new homeowner be responsible for getting new credits??? How long did you have to buy credits for? (they thought maybe 30 years for a house). Everything was said with the caveat that it might change….
The sentence about how the NGOs could make money off this was telling – no one’s paying a farmer to clean a stream, but these advocacy groups look to make a mint. And the state of Maryland will only be only too happy to hand it over to them by taking it from a farmer or job creator.
Worth noting as well is that the Growth Offset Policy Meeting was organized by the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology and given “generous support” by the notoriously radicalTown Creek Foundation, which is “dedicated to a sustainable environment.” “Sustainable” is a code word for controlled.
Yet the state of Maryland may not necessarily be the beneficiary. It may be but a serf to a United Nations master, according to this group which opposes the UN’s Agenda 21. They continue an evolution which has seen the doctrine of one’s home being their castle forfeited to county control through zoning, the subsequent loss of county power to the states, the states losing their grip on local issues to the federal government, and finally nations ceding sovereignty to a world government called the United Nations.
Step one of that evolution was pointed out in the Cecil County Campaign for Liberty’s critique of the bill. If rural land is devalued, it indeed reduces the landowner’s net worth at a greater rate than his property taxes went down – remember, in Maryland assessed land values are only set every three years so the farmer pays on a higher value at the higher property tax rate set when overall land valuation declines (as it will) but a county maintains constant yield. Of course, this is the secondary effect of the county doing the state’s bidding.
But rather than meekly submit to the request of Annapolis, some of Maryland’s rural counties are fighting the state. Late last year four counties formed the Maryland Rural Counties Coalition. What began in western Maryland has spread eastward, with Wicomico County tardily joining the fold a week ago and bringing the total membership to nine. Members are geographically spread across the state, with the original four in the west, Cecil County bridging the gap between shores, and four counties on the Eastern Shore (Caroline, Dorchester, Somerset, and Wicomico.)
Yet not all counties are taking their membership seriously. For example, Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt is quoted as wanting to “make it clear that the coalition doesn’t oppose Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley or any of the state initiatives.” Maybe he should, considering the state is trying to usurp local control which has served us well for decades. Pollitt will probably be the weakest link on a body which was spearheaded in part by Frederick County Commission head (and 2014 gubernatorial candidate) Blaine Young.
But the toothless Republicans on our County Council might just play along, warned my friend:
It seems that if each county would just designate the preserve land as Tier IV, that would be sufficient. All the law requires is that the county designate four tiers. Wicomico is looking at designating all agricultural land Tier IV. We need to dissuade them. Do the minimum and fight the state…but can we get our Republican councilmen (6 vs. 1 Dem) to do the right thing? Plus our county executive is a Democrat and a big spending liberal.
Personally, I’d put everything in the least restrictive tiers and dare the state to stop us. Someone needs to tell those Annapolis bullies to pound sand and we’re just the county to do it – if a few people get the stones to do so.
I think those of us who live in Wicomico County are bright enough to realize that there is land which can and should be preserved as agricultural area because it’s not suited for growth. But that decision should be made locally and in such a manner that when things change – as they always do – we have the flexibility to adapt rather than be tied down because someone in Annapolis (or Washington, or at the United Nations) thought we should place thousands of acres off-limits to development because they feel it would be nice to construct a wildlife corridor down the Eastern Shore.
If an area doesn’t grow, it shrivels and dies. I like to look at old maps and ponder what happened to villages such as those I grew up around in Ohio: towns like Ai (yes, that’s the name), Lytton, Whitesville, Seward, and many other specks on the map were once prosperous enough to be considered a town but somewhere along the line something changed. Perhaps the railroad chose a different route, or the major highway passed them by. In many cases, business and industry failed or departed for greener pastures.
Essentially, the glue which holds the bulk of the Eastern Shore together comes from the products of farmers and watermen. Yet those who run our state continue to make life more and more miserable for them with the only question being whether this effort is a subconscious one, or purely intentional with the aim to conform our little slice of the world with their dream of control over our lives.
Consider that much of the problem with Chesapeake Bay – aside from the fact we’re dealing with a group which will move the goalposts if we ever approach their idea of cleanliness in order to continue their reason for being – comes from those urban areas these environmentalist do-gooders want us to emulate, and it makes me wonder why they want the rest of us to live that way.
I leave the actual news reporting to other outlets, but once I heard about this Colorado incident it jogged my memory about a somewhat similar incident in Denver. The stakes are a little higher this time, though.
Back in 2009 there was another act of vandalism at the state’s Democratic headquarters, where nearly a dozen windows were shattered. Originally blamed on “the other side,” as the state Democratic chair at the time said, it turned out one of the key suspects was Maurice Schwenkler, a Democratic volunteer in the 2008 election. Is it below them to try a similar tactic this time around in a swing state?
Needless to say I don’t condone vandalism, whether it’s stealing or defacing yard signs, spraypainting a business because you disagree with their political stance, or firing weapons through windows. And I understand there can be heated rhetoric from both sides, such as the Frank Kratovil noose incidentI condemned in 2009.
But it seems to me the majority of these vandalism incidents come from the Left, with perhaps the most classic recent examples being the Occupy movement and the protests against Scott Walker in the spring of 2011. Compared to that, TEA Party protests are quite clean, a fact I can attest to. Generally there is one side which is more restrained while the other is boorish, rude, and impatiently interrupts like an 8-year-old when it can’t get a word in edgewise or hears something it doesn’t like.
Yet I don’t think an 8-year-old fired that shot into Obama headquarters, and after all Colorado has been through with crazed people wielding guns in so-called “gun-free zones” thank goodness no one was hit.
Update: Linked at The Tunnel Wall – thanks Bill! He adds more to the story as well.
One of the drawbacks of doing what I do is being on a lot of unsavory e-mail lists, including that of the Obama For Against America campaign. Today I got one from Deputy Campaign Manager Julianna Smoot which made me smile, though:
Michael —
According to our records associated with this email address — hopefully it’s yours if you’re reading this! — here’s your online giving history for this organization:
— Your supporter ID number is: (redacted)
— Your most recent online donation was: $0
— Total amount donated online in 2012: $0
It looks like you haven’t made an online donation to the campaign yet. If you were waiting for the last minute, you’re pretty much there.
It is and you are correct, I haven’t given you a dime. Nor do I plan to. Ever. There’s a better chance of seeing pigs making midair pirouettes.
Moreover, I feel slighted that it’s a DEPUTY campaign manager putting out this appeal. If I’m that important to solicit money from, I want it from the top and not some flunkie.
But something tells me that many thousands do drop in a few dollars, and given the President’s lax standards on who he accepts money from it’s no wonder he’s probably raised $1,000 from foreign countries in the time it took you to read this sentence. Honestly, do people really think they’re influencing an election with their $5 donation, particularly when it’s a steep 40 grand to attend a “grip and grin” with the man?
In the interest of disclosure, I have donated to political campaigns from time to time, but the public record should show that usually it’s in amounts less than $100. (My fee to attend our state convention has been treated as a political donation in the past, which explains several of my donations.) So I’m certainly not a high roller among SuperPACs; my giving pattern is probably replicated by millions across the country who feel they should help out a favored candidate from time to time.
Certainly I don’t favor onerous restrictions on political giving; in fact, it wouldn’t bother me to see artificial campaign finance limits repealed – with a key tradeoff. People could donate what they want when they wanted to, but the donations would have to be disclosed on as close to a real-time basis as possible. If Bill Maher decided to skip the SuperPAC and just drop his million into Obama’s campaign coffers, ideally we would know within hours. Same for the SEIU, Chamber of Commerce, NRA, and all the other advocacy groups.
But there has always been that chicken-and-egg question about politics: did the money come into play because of the power inherent in making law, or did the law make the money possible? You know where I stand regarding the role of government – if you don’t here’s ahandyresource that’s well worth the $5-8 in my humble opinion.
There’s also another point worth making. Obviously if the Obama campaign has my e-mail address they probably could find the IP address I most access the internet from. If that’s the case, one would think they could reject donations made from foreign IP addresses (each country has a particular set, which holds true in most instances. It’s not perfect, but pretty close.)
We have a very important election coming up, and hopefully the winner can begin to set things right in this country of ours. Next time around maybe he won’t have a flunkie remind me I haven’t sent anything in yet; since only one can stand for re-election you might be able to determine who I’m referring to.
You may recall that last week Melody Scalley of AFP Virginia was looking for people to do door-to-door campaigning in the Hampton Roads area. Well, the same rules apply for this weekend and the two locations I cited from last week are still in play.
But this weekend (and next) I’m looking for a few good men and women, too. If you are planning on going to the Good Beer Festival this weekend or Autumn Wine Festival next weekend, I’m looking for conservative volunteers to staff our presence there. Most of the time you just need to smile, be friendly, and engage those who come looking for campaign information by pointing them in the RIGHT direction. It’s really not hard.
My biggest need this weekend is for people later on Saturday afternoon (after 4 or so) and all day Sunday. The Good Beer Festival runs from 12:30 to 6 on both Saturday and Sunday, and we’ll have a tent, table, and a couple chairs. Being a week out, I haven’t seen my signup sheet at headquarters recently but at last check this trend seems to also hold true for the Autumn Wine Festival. (Don’t quote me on this, but I’ve heard a rumor that a certain statewide candidate popular with area conservatives will be at the Autumn Wine Festival to campaign.)
You can drop me an e-mail: ttownjotes (at) yahoo (dot) com if interested. Or if you wish to help Melody out, her number is (703) 258-4200.
This story has aroused a little bit of interest regionally. From the Washington Post:
The chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University has been placed on paid leave after she signed a petition to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.
Of course, the LGBT population at the school made an outsized furor compared to their size, as it was a Gallaudet faculty member who noticed Angela McCaskill’s name among the signees of the petition which put Question 6 on the ballot when published in the Washington Blade, a paper catering to the capital’s gay community.
So apparently the idea of free speech and diversity of thought only exists for politically correct causes; ironically diversity doesn’t extend to signing a petition to allow others to express their own set of opinions. Imagine the horror which would be exhibited if a sign supporting traditional marriage was in her yard.
But this is how that side plays their game, and that’s what I’ve been warning about. The revelation of the petition signers is the first step; needless to say once the financial reports are released those who donate to the side opposing Question 6 will likely be subjected to a campaign of shame perpetrated by the squeaky wheels of the LGBT crowd who equate their cause with the civil rights struggle of a half-century ago.
As for McCaskill, I’m sure the options will be presented to her: a public mea culpa or resignation, all for expressing the view (after a church service, no less) that perhaps voters should have their say on the issue. That’s worth repeating. And I don’t care what they claim the same-sex marriage law in Maryland says about protecting religion and so forth, anyone who follows their religious conviction and engages in what’s perceived as discrimination against a same-sex couple will be hounded by the press and forces of political correctness. Count on it.
It’s almost like Dan Bongino wanted to hit the reset button.
No, he hasn’t made any sort of campaign gaffe that I’m aware of (although Rob Sobhani alleges one of Dan’s campaign volunteers did) but the confident challenger to Ben Cardin of a month ago has had his horse shot out from under him via Sobhani’s insurgent, predominantly self-funded campaign. So Dan’s going back to what built his campaign in the first place: another key endorsement and the re-release of a 90-second campaign commercial I felt was one of the best presented in this campaign.
The endorsement comes from former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who also served as President Bush’s first Homeland Security Secretary. In a statement released by Bongino’s campaign, Ridge said:
Dan’s qualifications for a seat in the Senate reach beyond his experience in law enforcement and national security. His personal initiative, diverse education, and impressive achievements in community service as well as private enterprise, will well-serve the people of Maryland.
It would be interesting to see how much further assistance Ridge or any of those others who endorsed Dan will provide now that he’s being attacked from both the left and (mostly) from the left-center. Personal campaigning would be particularly helpful since Dan and Paula can’t be everywhere.
Through the grapevine I have heard a little bit of muted criticism of how Dan is running his campaign, basically from people who either a) are disgruntled because Dan is not addressing their pet issues or b) believed Richard Douglas would have been a better Republican nominee (even though he got into the race later and, like Sobhani, also had primarily self-funded his campaign.) Personally I don’t necessarily agree with every plank of Dan’s platform and I certainly would have been comfortable had Richard won the primary, as he actually did in my home county.
Yet in looking at Rob Sobhani’s key issues I’m left wanting – for example, why isn’t a 15% tax rate good enough for everyone? And level with us about where this $5 billion in “public-private partnership” money is coming from – are we going to socialize risk and privatize profit? We already have a Senator who’s great at spending money; something particularly irksome when his party can’t even be bothered to put together a budget.
Even some of Rob’s not-so-key issues bother me: on his petition, Rob’s nascent campaign expressed that Sobhani was “pro-choice and supports gay rights.” Granted, these aren’t as important as the economy but since I’m pro-life and read the latter as support of Question 6, I can’t support that when I have a much better conservative alternative who would support private investment targeted as those individuals wish because the government would take less of their sweat and toil, not at specific projects which may be helpful in limited instances but would more likely enrich Sobhani’s cronies.
So Dan is working back to square one, resuming the important endorsements which bolstered his campaign before Sobhani even considered getting into the race. He also has something just as important: plenty of grassroots support. Once the air war is joined, which is a given because of Bongino’s solid fundraising quarter, the early advantage Sobhani enjoyed by not having to survive a primary will dissipate.
This isn’t about “hitting the jackpot,” nor is it about putting someone back in office so he can make it a half-century on the public’s dime as an elected official. It’s about serving the people of Maryland.
It’s totally appropriate to point out that the general situate was approved in 2008 when Maryland voters originally approved slots. So Harrah’s has had almost four years to put something together in a time period where two other casino facilities were built and one renovated. So why did they wait? Was the deal not made sweet enough by the state; not enough of a cut?
Meanwhile, the governor who called the Special Session so we could spend our fall discussing how many millions would come out of state taxpayer pockets and whether they would come as a result of games of chance or future tax increases continues to “lead” a state which remains in the bottom 10 in terms of business climate. Guess who publicized this statistic? (Three guesses, first two don’t count.) Does the name Larry Hogan ring a bell?
The Change Maryland head noted:
Since 2007, in addition to losing 6,500 small businesses, Maryland has lost 31,000 residents of tax-paying households and 36,000 jobs. It’s no coincidence that our lopsided tax code is causing this weakness in economic performance.
More troubling is that our immediately neighboring states (Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia) rank anywhere from 14th to 27th. When compared to Maryland’s 41st ranking, these other states look like a business paradise. Virginia does it without the benefit of casinos, while the others already have the table games Maryland seeks because they showed more foresight in creating an attractive climate for gamblers. This seems to match their practice in trying to attract and retain private-sector employers.
Unfortunately, the Maryland Constitution doesn’t allow voters to have a say when it comes to fiscal issues because they’re not subject to the same referendum laws other bills passed into law are. Perhaps that’s a good thing since otherwise we may rival California with the number of ballot issues we would face. A further disadvantage, though, is the fact we have the same Democratic control of the state for another two years, without a chance for a mid-term correction like many other states have.
We’re stuck for another two years with a General Assembly similar to the one which shirked its duty back in 2007 by punting the gambling issue to voters yet is only too happy to tax citizens and punish businesses in order to redistribute wealth in both directions: from rich to poor through their fiscal schemes and back from poor to rich via gambling.
In order to get out of the bottom 10 for business climate and bring sanity to the gaming industry, change is truly necessary. The first step is rebuffing Martin O’Malley and slapping down his overly ambitious agenda by defeating Questions 4 through 7.
Fresh off the latest fundraising scalp claimed by Barack Obama, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute has publicized a report called “America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections? Among its key findings are a number of disturbing facts about the President’s online contribution reporting, including these which should give advocates of good government pause:
Obama.com Purchased By An Obama Bundler In Shanghai, China With Questionable Business Ties to State-Run Chinese Enterprises: In 2008, Obama.com was purchased by an Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose business is heavily dependent on relationships with Chinese state-run television and other state-owned entities.
68% Of Traffic To Anonymously Registered Obama.com Is Foreign: According to industry leading web analytics site Markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site (Obama.com) features 68 % foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official BarackObama.com campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled “who encouraged you to make this donation.” That tracking number is embedded in the source code for Obama.com and is associated with the Obama Victory Fund. In early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama Victory Fund donation page.
So as not to pick on Barack Obama, the group also found fault with Marco Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaign and also nearly half of the Congressional campaigns which accept credit card donations. Among Maryland’s nine members of Congress running this cycle, Dutch Ruppersberger (2nd District), Donna Edwards (4th District), Steny Hoyer (5th District), and Elijah Cummings (7th District) do not use this protection.
But another problem GAI noticed was the lack of accountability in federal campaigns, where amounts under $200 need not be reported unless a campaign was audited; moreover, amounts under $50 aren’t even recorded. (This is why fundraising appeals from both sides often use tiny amounts, like $3 or $5. If Barack Obama can get a million people to enter a celebrity contest, that’s $3-$5 million he collects but doesn’t have to account for. And if it’s not accounted for, the money could come from anywhere.)
It’s worth pondering that Barack Obama gets a much more significant portion of his funding from small donations than Mitt Romney does. Certainly the vast percentage of those contributions are on the up-and-up, but what if even 20% of the $600 million Obama has collected in small donations came from foreign or fraudulent sources? Erick Erickson of RedState did just that as a test, and the Obama campaign failed.
Obviously this group, led by Hoover Institution Research Fellow and author Peter Schweizer, would tend to skew toward a conservative, good-government point of view, but they bring up a lot of valid points. They dug up several examples of Obama donations being promoted and encouraged on foreign websites in their report, which runs over 100 pages.
This story is attracting notice in a lot of conservative corners (like this piece at Breitbart.com), which could provide another plate for the mainstream media ignorance court jesters to keep spinning.
