Michael

An assessment of the current situation

By Cathy Keim and Michael Swartz

Here is a question for our loyal readers: Now that it is mid-May, do you think that the GOP elites in Washington, D.C. have fulfilled their campaign pledges to stop President Obama’s fundamental change of our country?

Michael and I have voted no on that question and to make our point we have signed the Open Letter to Congress: Interim Assessment from the Citizens’ Mandate. (Our signatures are on page 5.)

I wrote about the original Citizens’ Mandate on monoblogue back in February. After working hard on the 2014 elections, many of us felt great relief when the GOP won by a landslide. That feeling was quickly replaced by a sense of betrayal with the passage of the CRomnibus budget and the retaining of John Boehner as Speaker of the House. The Citizens’ Mandate was a call to the GOP leadership to remember their campaign promises and to fulfill their obligations to their voters.

Instead, as the organizers of the mandate stated:

Contrary to the Republicans’ self-assessment of their first 100 days… more than 100 conservative leaders, in only 72 hours of signature collection, have given the Republican Congress a poor assessment on the members’ performance in their first 132 days in control of the legislative branch.

Among the actions by the GOP Cathy and I disagreed with, they:

Funded executive amnesty;
Continued Obamacare;
Jeopardized national security (by not addressing illegal immigration);
Ceded away treaty power on a nuke deal with Iran;
Continued excessive federal spending;
Undermined faith-based agenda;
Helped Obama (by confirming Loretta Lynch as Attorney General);
Continued federal education;
Punished conservative champions (through changing committee assignments), and;
Neglected congressional oversight.

While Congress is doing some things right, there’s a tremendous amount of untapped potential we are missing out on. It’s a reason that other vocal critics such as Richard and Susan Falknor of Blue Ridge Forum, Carroll County GOP Central Committee member Kathy Fuller, and former Delegate Michael Smigiel (who is running for Congress against the incumbent Andy Harris), and conservative commentator Dan Bongino have signed on. Bongino was quoted in the release, noting:

It’s way past time to reinvigorate our party and set forth a set of guiding principles. For too long we’ve been lost in partisan games while forgetting that, in the end, it’s the ideas that will take us to a better tomorrow.

Some may argue that Barack Obama received his electoral mandate in 2012, but it’s just as valid (if not moreso) to make the point that a course correction had become necessary and the results showed the message was sent emphatically in 2014.

Our call is for Congress to translate that message in legislation and oversight. Certainly there’s the prospect of veto after veto, but rather than get the reputation as a “do-nothing Congress” put the onus on the President to respond and – whatever you do – don’t cede any more power to the Executive Branch. We don’t want to have to sign an updated letter in the fall, so get busy.

More encouraging poll news

It goes without saying that Larry Hogan is excited about the most recent polling results and how they affect the perception of the race.

Everyone now knows this race is too close to call. This week, we told you about the Gonzales poll showing us within striking distance of Brown. Yesterday, the media validated these numbers. And today, the Cook Political Report has reclassified this race from “Solid Democrat” to “Leans Democrat”!

The Maryland governors race started as “Solid Democrat” and has moved TWO SPOTS to its current classification.

This varies from the Real Clear Politics version of the race, which hasn’t updated in the month since the YouGov poll that Hogan questioned. They still show the race as “Likely Dem” with a 15-point margin. So which is right?

In my opinion, the fact that Anthony Brown is trying to paint Larry as a TEA Party Republican by stressing the gun law and abortion rather than discussing the state’s moribund economy points to a tightening race. That seems to be the conventional wisdom of the Hogan camp and I’m inclined to agree.

Yet the tale will begin to be told with the debates that begin next week. One thing Marylanders really haven’t seen is how the two candidates perform on the stump to an audience which hasn’t been attuned to the race aside from thirty-second commercials. How will the two fare under the pressure of direct questioning and close media scrutiny? Elections aren’t won with debates, but they can be lost.

So what will be the strategies of the two participants? I would look for Brown to continue his recent line of attack on Hogan by stressing social issues and gun safety in an attempt to hold the female vote – you know, that whole thoroughly discredited War on Women meme. He’ll avoid direct questions on the lack of job creation by saying he has a plan to address it – which he does, all 17 pages of it – but not go into the specifics of how it may affect Maryland workers. For example, a “Blue Ribbon Commission on Tax Reform” just means at least two more years of the status quo and inaction, not addressing the issue.

On the other hand, Hogan will stress the “most incompetent man in Maryland” theme for Brown, while sticking with his bread and butter issues of jobs, the middle class, and restoring the state’s economy. It’s carried him this far, so why stop now?

That task will likely be made more difficult by the questioning, which will probably cater more to Brown’s strategy of marginalizing Hogan than tough questions on how the state of the economy got to where it is under the O’Malley/Brown team.

I’m hoping to see a couple polls come out after the debate to gauge the true state of the race. In truth, I think it’s probably closer to the margin of error than the 15-point RCP average. It doesn’t mean Hogan has it in the bag, but we could have a far closer race than 2010’s blowout.

A return

I wanted to remind people that I do take advertising, and last night I placed the return of District 38C candidate Mary Beth Carozza on site. It brings up the point that three candidates now believe advertising on monologue is an effective campaign tool, so hopefully after the election businesses will follow.

But since I have the floor I may as well bring up a few other upcoming events.

For example, a number of candidates – both Republican and Democrat – will be making their case to SU students (and whoever else wants to hear) at Red Square at Salisbury University tomorrow, October 2. I believe the hours are 10 to 2, although I’ve also seen 11 to 2. Eight years ago I covered a similar event there, but this time it will be during the week so participation should be better. We’ll find out.

Then this Saturday is Wicomico County’s Super Saturday, where an extra push will be made for our local Republican candidates. The culmination of that day will be a Fall Harvest Party for District 38B candidate Carl Anderton, with guest speaker Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio. That runs from 5-8 p.m.

A few days later, Republican County Executive candidate Bob Culver is having a aptly-named “Pull the Pork Party” at the Ward Museum on October 14 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Speaking of fundraisers, this site is a relatively informative one for upcoming political fundraisers around the state. The reason I bring them up is because Jim Mathias last night had a high-dollar fundraiser at Brew River which was assisted by our “incumbent protection” friends across the bridge at Rice Consulting. Earlier that morning, Norm Conway had a high-dollar fundraiser, also through Rice Consulting, in his real district with his true constituents – downtown Annapolis at the Calvert House. Next week he will be slumming with the rest of us in Willards (which is now also outside his district) but we know where his loyalties lie now, as the people of his own district must not be good enough for supporting Norm to the degree in which he’s accustomed. But somehow I think he’s getting the Willards Lions Club as an in-kind donation, although the rest of us are paying.

Now for something a little more non-political. I’m supposed to get a little more about this in coming days, but I was encouraged to mention that the Eastern Shore Pregnancy Center is hosting their Tenth Annual Labor of Love fundraising banquet on October 16 at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center the evening of October 16.

October will be a busy, busy month.

Small business survey shows mixed results

Back in May I cited a survey of over 6,000 small business owners done by the Kauffman Foundation and the business-to-business website Thumbtack.com, but they return to this page after completing a survey of over 6,000 of their members in conjunction with George Washington University. I frankly found the results of this recent poll somewhat surprising.

According to this survey, which was analyzed by GWU, more business owners have confidence in Barack Obama – he of “you didn’t build that” fame – than in Mitt Romney, who actually built a successful business from scratch. Overall, 39% of respondents believed Obama was more attuned to their interests while 32% selected Romney. The remaining 30% were unsure.

Yet on the signature issue Obama trumpets, a large plurality believed it were bad for business. Obamacare was roundly panned by business owners, with only 20% agreeing that it helps their business but 41% suggesting the opposite. Three out of 10 of those replying strongly disagreed that Obamacare was helping them. The partisan bent was strongest there, with 42% of Democrats believing Obamacare helps them but just 16% of independents and a measly 4% of Republicans.

In other issues, such as Obama’s so-called tax cuts and the Small Business Administration loan program, results were about even both ways – only Obamacare drew the ire of this group of small business professionals. It is worth mentioning, though, that the Obama tax cuts were found helpful by 56% of Democrats but just 9% of Republicans.

Because I was surprised by these seemingly conflicting results, I asked Thumbtack.com owner Sander Daniels about the partisan breakdown of those who answered, since it was one of two key elements missing from an otherwise fairly thorough breakdown. (I also don’t have the raw numbers from the 6,000-plus who returned surveys, but I suspect the number of those who replied was pretty slim in flyover country.) He informed me separately that the numbers were 32% Democrat, 28% Republican, and 40% who considered themselves independent politically.

Daniels also pointed out that a Gallup Poll taken earlier this year which showed 40% of Americans at large considered themselves independent. However, that contrasts with more recent data from Rasmussen which shows just 29% of Americans consider themselves independent. The Rasmussen data also gives the overall partisan breakdown as 38-33 in favor of Republicans, as opposed to Gallup’s data which showed a 31-27 Democratic edge. Gallup also pointed out that independents tended to lean more Republican than Democrat, which suggests to me this poll is slightly tilted toward the Democrats. Remember, the Thumbtack.com survey found 6,000 small business owners out of the nearly 6 million listed in recent Census data. The GWU anaylsis corrected somewhat for disproportionate representation by state, but I wouldn’t be awfully surprised if urban areas were over-sampled at the expense of rural states.

I also found it intriguing that Dr. David Rehr, who coordinated the study at GWU, assessed the survey results as showing, “Entrepreneurs are feeling squeezed by the tight lending environment and want their political leaders to curb the influence of money in politics.” The latter statement seems more projection on Rehr’s part, since the question he refers to deals with the broader area of ethics, honesty, and corruption in government. I could just as easily say those are caused by too much power and influence over people from government rather than the money required to be elected, and I think I would be closer to the intent of what these business owners answered.

Another omission by the GWU summary was the group’s approval ratings of both President Obama and Mitt Romney. The question is asked in the survey but not revealed in either summary.

While there is a blizzard of facts and figures from the survey, perhaps the most interesting contradiction is this. Out of twelve issues ranked in importance for choosing the President, taxes were second-to-last, topping only foreign policy. (That may change now after recent events.) Less than 3% considered that the most important issue, with even social/moral issues drawing about 6 percent. (No surprise: Economy/jobs topped the list with 40 percent.)

But when asked how important a laundry list of issues were to their business, the number one “very important” answer was “tax rates and tax-related regulations” with 52 percent; it even beat out health care at 50 percent. Something about that doesn’t jibe, particularly when Barack Obama, the king of crony capitalism – in charge of a government whose regulations cost upwards of $1.75 trillion to the economy – is still thought of as better for business by nearly 2 out of 5 business owners.

I’ll bet they’re the first to fail when he’s re-elected.

Harris withdraws from 1st CD debates

While Andy Harris was given the hugest of electoral breaks by the withdrawal of Democrat challenger Wendy Rosen – who, unless Maryland Democrats can pull a Robert Torricelli via the courts, will remain on the ballot despite dropping out – I believe he shouldn’t have pulled out of the various candidate debates.

My view is shared by Libertarian Muir Boda, who probably stood the most to gain by having yet another empty chair on the Democratic side. In a release, Boda noted:

After observing the withdrawal of Democrat Wendy Rosen from the race amid voter fraud allegations, I had not anticipated another action of disrespect to the voters in the 1st District. Congressman Harris’ actions are simply arrogant cowardice as he is obviously afraid to debate me.

Congressman Harris’ pulling out of all forums is a complete slap in the face to all the voters and the organizations that are taking their time to organize the forums by securing a place to have the forum, organizing resources to record the forums and to the those who desired to attend and to participate in the discussion of the future of country.

Congressman Harris has many questions to answer. For instance, we need an explanation on why, as a so called fiscal conservative he would support adding another $1 Trillion to our national debt. Or where does he really stand on the TSA, the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

I truly don’t think it’s fear of debating Muir on Andy’s part, but answering some of these questions Boda brings up would be helpful to me in understanding why Harris acted in a less conservative manner than normal – particularly on the continuing resolution vote.

Alan Girard of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which was a lead sponsor of the September 24 debate, had this to say as well:

We are disappointed voters won’t hear the views of candidates for Congress on “Farming and Protecting the Environment,” the topic of a scheduled debate we had planned with the Maryland Farm Bureau and the Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Salisbury University. Mr. Harris had agreed to participate in the Sept. 24 debate, but this week told us he is withdrawing from this and all other scheduled debates.

Without Mr. Harris’ participation, and uncertainty about other candidates’ participation, staging a debate seems unproductive, and we are announcing the cancellation of the debate which was to be held at Salisbury University. We apologize to voters who planned to attend.

We are pleased, however, that Mr. Harris has agreed to announce a schedule of public town meetings around the 1st District at which citizens can pose questions to the Congressman.

Let’s face it, though: I don’t think the CBF was going to do anything but sandbag Andy because they vehemently disagree with his balanced approach to environmental issues. If it were up to the most radical members of the CBF we’d all be forcably moved into tiny enclaves far away from the pristine waters at the mouth of the Susquehanna. Moreover, I couldn’t be there anyway to make sure people knew what really happened.

While I’m happy to see that Harris isn’t abandoning the public debate entirely, I believe he’s making a big mistake by canceling his participation in these debates and forums, unfriendly as the territory may be. Fairly or not, Andy has received a reputation of being callous and aloof (lifesaving traffic stops notwithstanding) and dropping out of these head-to-head contests only enhances the perception. Certainly Harris does his share of townhall-style events around the district during periods when Congress is out of session, but a compare-and-contrast was something he shouldn’t be afraid of in a district essentially drawn for him.

On the other hand, I learned via Duke Brooks that Delaware voters will be treated to not one, not two, but ten (!) debates between U.S. Senator Tom Carper and Republican challenger Kevin Wade. (Note to Ben Cardin: the ante has been upped.) Of course, the devil is in the details but Delaware voters will certainly have ample opportunity to get a picture of where the two hopefuls (and whatever minor party candidates are invited to participate) stand on issues near and dear to Delaware voters. It may not be Lincoln v. Douglas but they will be better served by the opportunity to attend in person.