Category: Campaign 2010

Friday night videos episode 48

It’s back again, with something new at the end.

We are coming to an election where the most important number is in doubt: is the unemployment rate really 9.6% as the government says or 10.1% as Gallup postulates? Americans for Limited Government thinks they have an answer.

But the group Bankrupting America says neither figure tells the story.

Maybe one solution would be to stop regulating us to death? Ben Lieberman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains on FOX News.

Yet our elected leadership simply doesn’t get it. They create straw men to pass blame to, for one.

Yes, that was recorded at Obama’s Bowie State appearance. Do you think the man has that feeling about someone like moveon.org?

I don’t think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gets it either. Ron Futrell of Liberty.org tells the story.

In the most recent Freedom Minute, Renee Giachino describes how liberals are running scared.The guy who should be running scared is Chris Coons; otherwise Delaware voters may be the ones frightened by their tax increases.

I’m still laughing about that one.

I think over the next two weeks I’m going to devote my FNV series to candidate videos – not necessarily the ones done by other media outlets who may or may not have their own agenda, but done by the candidates themselves. Here’s an example from County Executive hopeful Joe Ollinger.

Okay, time to shift gears. Last weekend I was at the Good Beer Festival and I brought my camera. This is an up-and-coming young local band called Naylor Mill. (With a name like that, they have to be local.)

The sound is just a touch overmodulated on the video (it sounded better on my computer before I uploaded it) but you get the idea. In a future FNV episode I’ll feature other stuff from the band.

But for the next couple weeks it’s going to be primarily candidates on themselves.

CAR/Chamber forum part 2 (District 38)

By far this was the more interesting of the debates; perhaps it’s because it covered my personal district. But just as a review from my other part:

The group asking was relatively diverse and included local businesswoman Dawn Tilghman, Terrence Lee of WMDT-TV, and Jennifer Cropper-Rines, president of the Coastal Association of Relators (CAR). Susan Parker of the Daily Times served as moderator. After an opening statement, candidates had to answer one question from each panel member and, with six to eight candidates on stage and two minutes allotted, there was really little need to get questions from the audience (hence my first post on the forum last night.)

Because of how the forum was set up, I’m going to evalute each question and answer in turn rather than summarize what each candidate said as a whole. I run the risk of writing this in a more dry fashion via this method but I think it would be more informative. This begins with the opening statements.

Opening statements:

Marty Pusey talked about limiting government and her respect for the other candidates in the race. “I believe strongly in protecting the public dollars,” she stated. Calling the election a “critical point for our country,” she further claimed “our state has an addiction, they raise taxes…we need to send our state to rehab.”

Michael James told the crowd “we need good representation now” and the “budget is in peril.” You raise revenue by creating jobs, and the worst thing the state did was raising taxes. We need a private sector person in office.

Recounting how as a child he built a paper route into a lucrative business, Norm Conway talked about his “work ethic” and how he set a goal to become a member of the House of Delegates.

Adding just a little humor to the proceedings, Mike McDermott talked about how he wasn’t cut out to be a chicken farmer. Instead, he went back into law enforcement and was happy there until he “saw a need” to get involved politically at the local level.

Since he served as Ocean City mayor, Jim Mathias claimed the “stable economic environment” he created helped the town grow. He would “strongly, proudly” represent the lower Shore in the Senate and “make one become 24”, referring to getting a majority in the Senate.

My faith “defines who I am,” said Mike McCready. He also spoke of his work ethic, his agricultural background and experience with MAFOs and CAFOs, and promised regular meetings with stakeholder groups like watermen and farmers.

Gee Williams stated the obvious: “We’re living in extraordinarily challenging times.” Recounting his business experience in the publishing industry and with nonprofits, he ticked off four bullet point items he’d like to accomplish: creating jobs, reducing fees, targeting tax cuts, and streamlining regulations. As a “principled, pragmatic” leader, he tried to paint himself as a centrist: “I reject extremism.”

Charles Otto went over his background and experience with the Maryland Farm Bureau and Farmers and Planters. In a nod to his predecessor, he praised the late Page Elmore by saying “he made a difference” for Somerset residents.

The first question, from Jennifer Cropper-Rines, asked about the possibility of alternate sources of funding for municipalities like a piggyback tax.

Mike McCready stated, “I wouldn’t be in favor of raising it any” and talked about the surplus they had in Somerset.

Similarly, Charles Otto was in favor of “limited” taxes, but the state does play a role.

Michael James would allow it if the voters wanted it, but personally would oppose this. Municipalities needed to watch their spending.

Norm Conway thought municipalities “should have options” through enabling legislation.

To Marty Pusey, “a tax is a tax is a tax.” She would try to have state funding restored first, in order to create as much of a positive business environment as possible and would vote against such measures.

Gee Williams wouldn’t support new revenue streams, since government should live within its means.

Jim Mathias wouldn’t initiate new tax mechanisms, but we needed to build a consensus on taxes with the business community. He also talked about the concept of “local courtesy” and how it would apply to this situation.

More bluntly, Mike McDermott said the power to tax was the power to destroy. Our legislature “understands destruction” but needed instead create a better environment for business.

Terrence Lee used an audience question asking about the education background each candidate had in economics.

In truth, only Marty Pusey and Charles Otto had taken college-level classes in economics, so most candidates cited their real-life experiences.

Mike McDermott talked about balancing his checkbook each month and how Maryland was living outside its means. We had gotten “off track.”

Jim Mathias told us “my degree in economics is the real world” and explained that he vetoed two Ocean City municipal budgets which included tax increases.

Again, Gee Williams spoke of his life experiences running 12 newspapers, working for the State Highway Administration, and various nonprofits. “Life is too complicated” right now and we should lower our expectations until we rebuild the economy.

Besides the college course, Marty Pusey cited her experience with creating budgets and working with the state’s accounting system for doing so.

Norm Conway said that as a youth, “my goal was to make money” – it was real-life economic training. He claimed the state had reduced spending $5.5 billion this term and that his goal was fiscal prudence with social responsibility.

“Maryland’s economics will not work long-term,” countered Michael James. We need to have business profits to create the revenue from businesses that the state needs.

Charles Otto put it simply and eloquently: “You learn to balance a budget when you get a 60 bushel crop and you expected 180.” His more formal economic training came from his agribusiness studies at Virginia Tech.

Mike McCready said that in his life, he set aside 10 percent as a tithe and 10 percent for a rainy day before he even considered which bills to pay. This is “not a time for a weak mind or inexperience” and referred again to lowering Somerset’s tax rate. He also claimed that, “we’re in better shape than the other Lower Shore counties, dollar for dollar” and how tax credits they could afford created or saved jobs at Rubberset and other companies.

Dawn Tilghman asked about the aggressive regulatory climate in the state.

Again talking about quarterly meetings with stakeholders, Mike McCready decried “one size fits all” solutions but supported a concept of the state picking up part of the salaries of people hired off the unemployment rolls. He would work across party lines to find solutions.

Charles Otto believed it was “time to restructure government” and these fines were “extortion.” It was a symptom of a “state government that knows best,” in the meantime “we have problems to solve.”

Michael James warned us we shouldn’t lose local control and needed to eliminate the perception that government is out to get businesses.

It was an “out of line, out of control” situation that needed to be modified, according to Norm Conway. He also blasted as “totally unreasonable” the University of Maryland law school for getting involved in the Hudson farm lawsuit on the environmentalists’ side.

We take away choices every time we pass regulations, said Marty Pusey. Environmental regulations should be “based on real science” and the assault on the poultry industry was “unacceptable.” But my favorite line of the night was when she said for every new law we create two old ones should be removed. That brought a “hell yeah” from me!

Gee Williams agreed with the tenor of the group, saying “they don’t give towns breaks.” While the goals of the Maryland Department of the Environment were noble, the application was unreasonable. “Litigating first and asking questions later is setting back our community,” concluded Williams.

A more educated regulator would help, argued Jim Mathias, yet we need to communicate our strengths and advocated for what we have. Agriculture was a “tremendous asset” to the state, and when we talk about it the governor and his staff listen.

Mike McDermott disagreed strongly, rebutting to Jim that the talk goes in one ear and out the other. Because of one-party rule in Maryland, “we are myopic.” He thought it was funny to hear liberals talk about conservative values. “Don’t tolerate that nonsense,” he said.

Closing statement:

Charles Otto believed part of our problem was the federal government – we are living in a “broke country…it’s time to change.” On the environmental front it was a question of compliance vs. stewardship, and he believed that some of the most recent and draconian regulations needed to be rolled back.

Gee Williams wanted our representative to “sit at the table and not at the back bench.” We needed to elect people who can make government work and disagree respectfully.

“Experience counts,” said Mike McCready, “and being County Commissioner counts for something.” He pointed out that his county was the only local county whose board of education didn’t request a maintenance of effort waiver from the state.

Jim Mathias rested on his “proven record” in securing capital projects and again promised to make one Senator into 24 by working with like-minded Senators.

“This is the election of our lifetime,” Mike McDermott said. “If we don’t see a change (we’ll get) bigger government and more taxes.” It’s not about edifices, but wholesale change from liberal values to conservative values.

Norm Conway “doesn’t consider himself a liberal or a conservative.” He was proud of the credibility he’d earned and believed in One Maryland.

Michael James accused the two incumbent Democrats of “reinventing their records” and asked where they were on sex offender laws before Sarah Foxwell. He promised to follow in the footsteps of outgoing Senator Lowell Stoltzfus.

Marty Pusey expounded on her “unique combination” of experiences and skills, though “we do need a change of culture in Annapolis. She pointed out the low marks business groups gave Conway based on his voting record, and promised to do right by the Maryland Constitution, which she waved a copy of during her close.

One item not used during the first session was the rebuttal. But both Mathias and Conway wanted to rebut Michael James’s assertion they’d voted for tax increases.

Mathias claimed that he’d voted for the House version of one package but it was changed in the Senate before the final vote, when he voted against it. (See below.) Norm Conway added that he voted for the one-cent increase of the sales tax, but half of that was supposed to go to the Transportation Trust Fund – without it, U.S. 113 would not have been dualized nor would future work on Maryland Route 589 (once Ocean Downs is renovated for slots) be on the radar.

Mike McDermott pithily rebutted Conway, noting that over the 40 years dualization of U.S. 113 was discussed they’d done one mile per year, it would already be done.

Michael James wanted to rebut Conway and Mathias, but moderator Susan Parker of the Daily Times denied his request, saying he’d made the original point. Fellow blogger G.A. Harrison commented from the crowd on the unfairness of that ruling but it stood. It ended a forum that became heated and contentious at the end.

My take:

First, as a service to readers, Mathias is correct that he voted against the tax bill (SB2) that became law in 2007. (The fiscal note explains the provisions which changed pretty well.) However, many of the same provisions were present in the House bill (HB2) that Mathias voted in favor of. (It also has a fiscal note.) Conway voted for both versions (along with the sales tax increase of HB5 that Mathias voted against), so his objection came from the substance of the legislative package as a whole.

It’s obvious that we may have a good cop-bad cop scenario here among the Republicans. McDermott and James are very forceful in painting their Democratic opponents as liberals, and here’s why – they are liberals! Just look at their voting records.

But Marty Pusey avoided being as confrontational and that may score her some points. In many respects she’s the most conservative of the bunch and her two-for-one line was my favorite.

Again, the Democrats who aren’t in office did their best to talk about crossing the aisle and bipartisanship, but I liked how Mike McDermott slapped that argument down. There are very few Democrats in Annapolis who give Republicans the time of day, and the limited number of instances where local Democrats are right is akin to a stopped clock being right twice a day – any other time it’s far from reliable and perhaps even detrimental.

There’s a reason that I get day after day of mailings from Jim Mathias explaining how, despite his Baltimore roots, he’s an Eastern Shore conservative at heart (today it’s being against “liberals” and for the death penalty.) Annapolis Democrats wouldn’t be backing him if he weren’t useful to them – they know the score and the fact they need Republicans to have fewer than 19 Senate seats to keep them meaningless. He will be no such thing as a loose cannon.

And Gee Williams will have to be happy with his back bench even if he wins – the real Democratic power in Annapolis represents the urban areas. We all know this.

Indeed, we can do better and last night’s forum showed why we need conservative leadership from the Eastern Shore.

CAR/Chamber forum part 1 (District 37)

Like the changing of leaves, it looks like forum season has arrived. One week after county candidates got into it at the FOP gathering, a more calm exchange was had last night at Wor-Wic Community College. Since there were fourteen hopefuls gathered last night, I’m going to split the posts and make one focused on District 37 candidates while the other covers District 38.

As with the FOP gathering, the sheer number of officeseekers included didn’t give a lot of opportunity for questions; however, the group asking was relatively diverse and included local businesswoman Dawn Tilghman, Terrence Lee of WMDT-TV, and Jennifer Cropper-Rines, president of the Coastal Association of Relators (CAR). Susan Parker of the Daily Times served as moderator. After an opening statement, candidates had to answer one question from each panel member and, with six to eight candidates on stage and two minutes allotted, there was really little need to get questions from the audience (hence my first post on the forum last night.)

Because of how the forum was set up, I’m going to evalute each question and answer in turn rather than summarize what each candidate said as a whole. I run the risk of writing this in a more dry fashion via this method but I think it would be more informative. This begins with the opening statements.

Opening Statements

Richard Colburn put it simply – “I am a Shore Senator.” Delving back in history to when each county had a Senator and the Eastern Shore was a more powerful political force, he hammered on the Montgomery County delegation as a whipping boy for enacting onerous agribusiness and critical areas restrictions which harm the Shore. Colburn also claimed he “brought the two-party system to the Shore” by running and winning as a Republican in the early 1980’s.

Addie Eckardt cited her experience in the health care field and looked at her Delegate job as one of “educating folks on how to work the process.” This also involved the concept of building bridges and listening to different viewpoints. But her main focus was economic, telling the audience “whatever I can do to build the tax base is really important.” As examples, she pointed out the usage of enterprise zones and targeted investments.

Her opponent, Patrice Stanley, believed the district was “fairly stagnant” so she jumped into the race. A former official in the Clinton Administration who now works for a public policy firm, she called for more accountability in education because local districts are “lagging”, a renewed emphasis on vocational training, and modifying the tax base.

Dustin Mills “chose to make this home” after a childhood spent in a number of different locales as the child of a military family. The Salisbury University graduate, though, feels the main issue plaguing the district and state is that of job creation. “The stimulus money is not going to get it done,” said Mills, who believes it’s time to reduce the tax burden on businesses and would bring a fresh perspective and attitude to Annapolis.

Chris Robinson recounted how he served as a legislative assistant and chief of staff to former Congressman Roy Dyson. Of course, he believed “we can do a lot better on the Shore” and criticized his opponent for failing to make the Shore attractive. He could help improve our quality of life, Robinson claimed.

Before he was elected, his race was a victim of taxation without representation, or so Rudy Cane claimed. Citing his Eastern Shore background as the “connection” which makes him dedicated to his district, he opined that our region was an “imtegral part” of Maryland.

Dawn Tilghman asked a question on onerous inspection practices affecting small businesses.

As a small businessman himself (law firm), Chris Robinson found the experiences he had with bureaucrats “troubling…I don’t think the law is intended to be a hammer.”

Rich Colburn thought the responsibility of the inspector was to assist small business, not to be punitive and fine them. Legislation may be necessary on how fines are administered.

“It begins and ends with attuitude,” said Dustin Mills, who pointed out that there’s more fines because the state needs the revenue.

Addie Eckardt was reminded by Mills’ remark about the spending affordability debate, and that legislative leaders seem to think the state’s economic solution lies in more government jobs – like inspectors. It leads to an “unbearable” punitive attitude.

Patrice Stanley agreed, and added that more aggressive regulations seem to begat less cooperative businesses.

This was a “prime example” of Maryland’s poor rank in business friendliness, said Rich Colburn, and what we need is “an even-handed, fair approach.” Small business can create the jobs if we allow them to.

On the same subject, Terrence Lee asked about how to help businesses grow.

We need to retain the jobs we have, said Rich Colburn, citing the implicit war against the poultry industry that Maryland is waging. Maryland farmers need to be kept competitive for this area to thrive.

Patrice Stanley agreed, and added we need to address state and county tax rates. She promised to work closely with the counties, and added that we should emphasize vocational training more.

Education and incentives along with a streamlined government were key ingredients, said Addie Eckardt, but she also stressed there are existing tax incentives in place and there are success stories out there, particularly in niche farming. It’s all in “how we put the package together,” she noted.

Rolling back the 2007 Special Session tax increases was a necessary part of helping business growth, argued Dustin Mills. Increases in the corporate tax and having a sales tax that puts us at a disadvantage to Delaware need to be addressed.

Rudy Cane pointed out the broadband system we enjoy could be used as an economic development tool.

A focus on education and safety while avoiding sprawl were items on the agenda of Chris Robinson.

With the increase in foreclosures, Jennifer Cropper-Rines wanted to know if lenders were intentionally avoiding transfer taxes by keeping homes in the original owner’s name, among other things.

When times were good, “Maryland was part of the problem,” said Rudy Cane. Thus, the state has to be part of the solution.

Home ownership is a proud milepost in the lives of young people, said Dustin Mills, but state hurdles like “smart growth” are “onerous and overbearing.” We need to promote home ownership by working with banks, developers, and homeowners.

Legislation hasn’t gone far enough in this area, said Addie Eckardt.

Patrice Stanley thought we should work with federal policy to help benefit the state. The modifications in place now were “too restrictive.”

A halt in foreclosures would “mess up the housing market,” said Rich Colburn, arguing that the market needs to find its balance point.

Chris Robinson actually answered the question directly to Cropper-Rines, arguing that saving a few hundred dollars in recordation tax was the least of lenders’ worries when they were staring at a market that features $300,000 houses going for half that price. This will be a “long lesson” for the parties involved as there is a wariness about buying right now.

Closing statements:

Rudy Cane told the crowd that he wasn’t in the General Assembly “just for a job” but because he had a love for the legislature.

There’s “so much anger…(it’s) so adversarial” in the public discourse right now, said Chris Robinson. We need to build bridges and work together to get things accomplished and that would be his attitude in Annapolis.

“I’m going up there to represent my people,” said Dustin Mills, who would mix criticism with solutions if elected.

Patrice Stanley cited her leadership and “forward thinking” as reasons she should be elected. Part of that was working with both parties in the best interests of the district.

Addie Eckardt countered that she’d been forward thinking for sixteen years and noted that at this “critical time…I have the relationships established” in the General Assembly. There’s no need to offer solutions where problems don’t exist.

Finally, Rich Colburn called the economy “the most important issue” and recalled his philosophy of fewer regulations and smaller government has earned him the endorsement of various business groups. He also cited his support of the numerous volunteer fire companies and municipalities in the district and called the 2007 sales tax increase “a severe blow” to the Eastern Shore.

My take:

Overall, this was the more tame of the two district forums. I know Cane and Mills have been more contentious on other occasions.

When you look at opening statements, they can be rather bland because most choose to spend time recounting their background. Generally, incumbents embellish what they’ve done and their opponents say the incumbents haven’t done enough. Overall, I liked the little history lesson Colburn gave and had to shake my head a bit at Cane’s “taxation without representation” statement. You have to wonder if he could win in any other district based simply on political philosophy.

Perhaps the thing which jumped out at me in answering the questions and in the closing arguments is that suddenly the Democrats want to work together with the Republicans and be more bipartisan. However, I think the attitude Rich Colburn condemned from the Montgomery County delegation is the one that the Democrats who come from the Shore would eventually adopt. They would sooner cross the street than talk to Republicans about solutions, simply because Democrats have unchecked power at the state level and have had it for much of the last 100 years. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it – Democrats talk conservative in the district but vote liberal in Annapolis.

As you’ll see in the District 38 debate, I have some who agree with me.

Questions I’d love to ask

Tonight Wor-Wic Community College played host to a District 37 and District 38 Candidate Forum sponsored by the Coastal Association of Realtors and Salisbury Chamber of Commerce. Tomorrow I’ll have more on what the participants said, but a major weakness in the format was soliciting audience questions but only using one (that I was aware of.) It’s too bad, because I had two I thought were good (although one was to be asked of a specific candidate.)

The first question I had was for Jim Mathias and relates to the post I did yesterday. Once again I’ll restate the quote he made in a full-color campaign mailing that arrived at my house:

In the State Senate, (Jim will) push to cut wasteful government spending and reinvest the proceeds in small business jobs and the Eastern Shore.

What I wanted to know from Jim (and certainly other candidates could have added their two cents as well) was what specific programs he considers to be “wasteful spending.” See, it’s one thing to talk in generalities but certainly another to actually propose things to be cut. For all the talk about how communities around the area have to live with less, we haven’t seen all that much effort to do so at the state level.

(Yes, I know some will beg to differ and claim state spending has gone down – but in real terms the budget’s gone up over the last four years, with the federal share increasing.)

The other question I wanted to ask came about as part of the discussion about lowering the state sales tax by a penny on each dollar. I took the figures from memory, but as a ballpark it should be close. Besides, the actual figures matter less than the principle.

The total annual revenue from our state’s sales tax runs about $3.7 billion, and the Eastern Shore is roughly 1/10 of the state’s population, so it stands to reason that 1/10 of the sales tax revenue comes out of here.

Let’s say we could finally place our Eastern Shore merchants on par with Delaware and eliminate the sales tax entirely in the nine counties of the Eastern Shore. I’m curious to see if these candidates would support that, based on the dynamic economic analysis that suggests the additional economic oportunities and jobs created by such a move would end up filling state coffers by more than the $370 million “lost.” Remember, Bob Ehrlich said that increased economic activity and slot revenues would make up the difference from rescinding the penny per dollar sales tax increase, so why not use the same theory here?

So for all of you would-be interviewers and forum hosts, here’s a couple of questions you can ask of the candidates. Tomorrow I’ll discuss this forum, which was way longer than promised but rather interesting.

Accountability – now available in .pdf

As part of my bid to inform voters, today I took my monoblogue Accountability Project page and converted it into a .pdf file suitable for download and printing.

While the 73-page document is a little rough visually (I scanned a printed version) it’s still legible. And the further advantage is that one can segregate voting by years and have the charts handy – they are behind the legislation descriptions. Now you can see the data I’m using to dissect the voting records of our Three Stooges Conway, Mathias, and Cane.

It can be easily accessed as well – look for the gray box in the upper right corner. I even did a marquee scroll to draw the eye to the spot. Just click on that and the .pdf file loads into a new window. (Changed the site – click here instead. It takes a few moments to load up, but consider the fact this runs 73 pages.)

So for those of you who want opposition research on the foes of conservatism, your wait is over. Tips would be nice, but not mandatory – think of it as a public service on my part and enjoy!

It’s time for (more) accountability

If you liked what I had to say before about the Eastern Shore’s version of the Three Stooges – Rudy Cane, Norm Conway, and Jim Mathias – then you should like this piece.

I was shocked to go to my mailbox today and not find a full-color 4-page mailing from Jim Mathias expounding his so-called independence and love of us peon taxpayers. But a phrase on the first mailing belies his true intentions:

In the State Senate, (Jim will) push to cut wasteful government spending and reinvest the proceeds in small business jobs and the Eastern Shore.

Certainly that sounds innocent enough when taken on the surface. But that doesn’t mean government spending will be any less. Instead, Jim seems to believe that the problem isn’t that government is Maryland isn’t too large or overbearing; the problem is that it just spends money in the “wrong” places.

That may be the reason why he and his cohorts have voted for every O’Malley budget. And when floor amendments are made to cut wasteful spending, these three regularly vote against them:

Even in the 2007 Special Session, where Jim Mathias stood against his party on tax increases, he still voted for the budgetary shell games (which included a prospective tax increase at the county level) and not to make more meaningful cuts. Meanwhile, Norm Conway voted to increase income and corporate tax rates in that session, and in 2008 all three voted in favor of the millionaire’s tax, which drove capital out of the state.

And as far as accounting for the stimulus dollars that Governor O’Malley has desperately needed over the last two years as a fix to his junkie-style spending habit, our merry trio voted against an attempt to put the funds under the normal budgetary process and have Governor O’Malley report where the money was spent.

So when Jim Mathias, Norm Conway, and Rudy Cane try to sell their fiscally conservative soap at your door, it’s easy to find the real truth if you know where to look. We can do much, much better.

By the way, I’m not done yet. More at a later time.

The Good Beer Festival in pictures and text

Maybe it wasn’t the pinnacle political event of the year, but there was a nice presence over the weekend at Pemberton Historical Park. There were a few elected officials about to kick it off, including County Executive Rick Pollitt and County Council members John Cannon and David MacLeod.

In the end, though, it was about the beer!

It was nice of 16 Mile Brewery to take the lead on that one, as one of our (more or less) local brewers. Impressively, only 5 of the 27 brewers represented came from the Delmarva area. Here is some of 16 Mile’s best work, I believe this is their Old Court Ale.

Who knows, it could be the Amber Sun too. I tried all of their stuff and liked it. So did a lot of other people, as the next three pictures show.

Respectively, the pictures were taken at 3 p.m. Saturday, 1:45 p.m. Sunday, and 4 p.m. Sunday. I was told there were 1800 tickets sold on Saturday so I’d estimate they got around 800 to 1000 Sunday. Not bad for an event where vendors were told to expect 2000 for the weekend.

One intriguing aspect of the event was a sports theme, sort of like an outdoor mancave. You had your tent with two large-screen televisions, a row for various games and contests, and this simulator.

Strangely enough, this car was absent Sunday, which left the field open for frisbee and football tossing. No big loss.

And yes, we did our political thing.

Business was pretty good on Saturday, perhaps a little slow on Sunday. Most of the interest was naturally in the Ehrlich-O’Malley race, but other politicians showed up to garner votes.

Among them was County Executive candidate Joe Ollinger, who came both days. Here he’s pictured with Greg Belcher, who was kind enough to help me staff the tent both days.

On Sunday, District 38B contender Marty Pusey stopped by with a friend.

In reality, she was only getting even for Norm Conway, who had wandered around the festival the day before. I had a picture of Seth Mitchell out garnering votes, but decided not to use it. (He looked a little angry, even though I don’t think he was completely distressed by the fact there was a Republican tent.)

There was even a political overtone to some of the vendors. Not only was the Parsonsburg Fire Department selling raffle tickets, but their members who were present were clear on where they stood.

Since the weekend was also filled with music, I have a lot more pictures for a future post. But that will come in time.

Beer!

(Updated 8:30 p.m. Saturday.)

Yep, that’s where I’ll be today…at the Good Beer Festival in Pemberton Park. I’m coordinating and helping to man the GOP tent so come out and visit. It’s a nice day and an event I’d like to see become a lot bigger and better next year.

Oh, and I might try a sample or two as well. And they have some seriously good tunes.

One prediction: hot and cold running politicians. But I’ll be there to set any wayward ones straight.

**********

As a report on Day 1, it wasn’t quite what I expected but it certainly was a fun event nonetheless.

The traffic at our GOP booth was slow but steady, and we gave out quite a bit of Ehrlich-related items. There was also a lot of interest in Matt Maciarello, although Seth Mitchell was there attempting to counter it.

Also out and about campaigning today were Delegate Norm Conway, District 4 Councilman David MacLeod (who participated in the ribbon cutting along with County Executive Rick Pollitt and outgoing County Councilman John Cannon), and County Executive candidate Joe Ollinger – he seemed to get a favorable reception.

We’ll see who shows up tomorrow.

Friday night videos episode 47

I’m going to warn you now – this may be controversial.

The first video I’m going to feature is in “honor” of the 10-10-10 celebration being promoted by the world’s greenies. It’s been called an “environmental snuff film” and I don’t disagree. But you need to know the mindset of these people.

“No pressure” indeed. These people are mentally ill to think this way. I know that 90% of environmentalists just want clean air and water, and so do I. But I want a balance between our economic interests and way of life too. These people just want their way and don’t care.

Speaking of economic interests – well, where are the jobs, Frank?

Certainly I make no assertion that Frank thinks like those people who did the first video, but he agreed with them when he voted for cap-and-trade. I’m sure he’s just in the 90 percent.

On the other hand, it’s sort of unfortunate that we don’t have our own version of a strong conservative woman in this race. But Frank McCaffrey of Americans for Limited Government takes a look at Maryland LG hopeful Mary Kane in this piece.

But some still don’t get it. I’m not a big fan of ‘gotcha’ journalism, but this guy parrots the line that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, when in fact they overpay.

And yes, as I’ve explained over the last week in the Daily Times, I support the Fair Tax.

Anyway, as I promised last week, I’m doing two music videos. This week has some heavy subject matter and I need a break, too.

The first one I’ve featured before but I was in the mood for Southern rock, and this is among my most-viewed music videos I’ve done.

The second one comes from the exact same venue (WinterPlace Park) but several months later. Not My Own won the Unicity Festival and hopefully it will take them to bigger and better things.

Usually I feature something heavier from the boys, but as I recall this is one of the first songs I heard out of them and it has a nice sound with the acoustic guitar.

Until next week, that’s a wrap on another edition of FNV. I’m hoping to have more music from this weekend’s Good Beer Festival and its solid lineup.

The passion of the PACE (FOP debate part 2)

As I explained in Part 1, it works out much better for writing this (and I would think for reading) to split the accounting into two parts. And while most would have believed the main event would be the County Executive race – particularly because one candidate believes strongly in a countywide police force to supplant the four separate law enforcement jurisdictions we have now – it only served as an undercard to a verbal bout between State’s Attorney candidates.

To once again set the stage, the event was moderated by PACE Director Dr. Adam Hoffman and where I use the terms ‘law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement officers’ they will be shortened to LE and LEOs, respectively.

Let’s begin with the County Executive race, giving first dibs to the challenger.

With decades of business experience to draw on, Joe Ollinger obviously looks at government from an “outside looking in” standpoint and eventually contrasted himself with his opponent, who to Joe has a different perspective in seeing things through the lense of years of being a bureaucrat.

Since this was a FOP function, Ollinger concentrated heavily on the first question and his proposal for a single, countywide police force. It would be “a lot more efficient,” argued Ollinger, who asked the crowd whether, if they were design things from scratch, they would have such a situation. It’s a situation which prevents communication and cooperation, added Joe. Later, in his closing statement, Ollinger observed that the only resistance to change seems to be coming from inside of government.

Ollinger also revealed that he was only interested in the office for a single, four-year term and believed that, “we shouldn’t have career politicians” doing the task. He also advocated a “pay-for-performance” plan and accountability for the 48% of our county budget devoted to the Board of Education.

Conversely, Rick Pollitt was “moved by President Kennedy’s call to citizenship” and had devoted his career to public service as a commitment to his community. Having said that, though, he pointed out that this was his first elected post.

Regarding the topic of crime, Pollitt was blunt: “I don’t have all the answers.” But he stressed that he’d worked for stronger partnerships and the best equipment and tools, including a push for the LEOPS pension. He also was firmly against combining the agencies because he believed the 30,000 Wicomico citizens who lived in the involved municipalities had no interest in doing so.

In contrast to Ollinger’s businesslike approach, Pollitt stated, “I understand providing services is not like running a business.” Rather than things always being about the bottom line, companies are attracted to the quality of life as the “greatest single economic development tool.” It was a theme he repeated in his closing statement, which occurred after his lone stumble – retreating briefly from the podium Pollitt and Hoffman collided, sending Rick to the floor.

As I noted in Part 1 there was the opportunity for the audience to ask questions, and one member asked Joe Ollinger how a new police agency would be paid for. Ollinger recalled that this subject has been around for at least 15 years, since he served on a countywide consolidated functions committee. The consolidation could have “funding as it is right now,” with the expected savings returned to the municipalities on a proportional basis to their original contributions.

This was the point where Rick Pollitt again responded that “no one wants to consolidate…it’s not gonna happen.” But he agreed there were other areas pointed out by the committee which still could be.

At last, we are left with the State’s Attorney race. This one I’m going to handle on more of a blow-by-blow basis because, of the five audience questions allowed, four were regarding issues in this race.

It didn’t take long for Matt Maciarello to start the verbal jousting – after going through his background and history of leadership, he then claimed, “I believe I’m the most qualified to be State’s Attorney.” Moving into crime-related specifics, he vowed to bring communication and collaboration to the office and to specifically target the criminals who affect us – he was “passionate” about keeping us safe.

This passion was a general theme of Matt’s, but he also took part of his opening remarks to accuse his opponent of being conflicted in the Thomas Leggs/Sarah Foxwell case.

Obviously, W. Seth Mitchell wasn’t going to let that stand too long. He briefly went over his “history of community service” and time in the State’s Attorney office before answering the question about why he should be elected over his opponent quite simply – “it’s called experience.” (He also pointed out the 17 year age difference between him and Maciarello.) To him, the best way to fight crime is through “thorough prosecution.”

So we had the battle lines drawn – Maciarello touting his passion and new ideas while Mitchell countered with the experience card.

After the other table had taken its turn speaking (as detailed in Part 1), wouldn’t you know the first question had to have come from a Mitchell supporter – “how many cases have you tried?”

Maciarello admitted he had tried but two jury trials and “several” bench trials, but countered that he knew his way around civil and crimimal litigation through his career and added that the State’s Attorney doesn’t try every single case himself. After bringing up the fact that longtime local attorney Arch McFadden had endorsed him, Matt countered the Mitchell contention by saying, “experience counts, but the right kind of experience counts too.” He again brought up his leadership roles and rapid career advancement. “If you want a leader, you’ll vote for me,” said Matt, but “if you want someone who’s stood in court” you could vote for Mitchell. Vowed Matt, “I’m the guy who’s going to reduce crime in Wicomico County.”

After Mitchell guessed his count of cases was in the thousands, he snidely remarked that, “Maybe I should vote for him…I guess Matt will do it all.” Seth continued, “if you want someone who’s tried cases, he concedes it’s me.” Mitchell also believe he was the one who the staff would look up to, and reiterated, “if you want experience in the courtroom, it is me.”

I then asked a question I’d raised before, regarding the fact that outgoing SA Davis Ruark also took over the job at a young age, his early 30’s.

Maciarello replied, “I’ve grown just as a candidate,” and that he was “taking the role and responsibility seriously.” He further believed, “a young mind is a flexible mind” and promised to embed prosecutors into LE and the community at large. Citing his energy and drive, he repeated that “I can do this job” and vowed again that, “I’m not going to sleep until crime is addressed.”

In reply, Mitchell said that “I think you can (grow in the office)” but stressed the relationships he’d built up and that “I will be a tough prosecutor.” He also said he’d learned a lot from Sam Vincent as his opponent over the years.

Mitchell also claimed that Davis Ruark had “4 to 6 years” of experience in the State Attorney’s office before he took over. While I can’t verify his claim, I can verify that Ruark passed the bar in 1981, about 6 years prior to his appointment as State’s Attorney. According to Matt’s website, he passed the bar in December 2003, so he’s working on seven years in the field.

Needless to say, someone asked how each would handle the Thomas Leggs/Sarah Foxwell case. This time Mitchell had the first shot.

And Mitchell made sure to say that, “I’ve made several calls to Davis Ruark” regarding the situation and, should he choose to keep Ruark on as an assistant in the case, “there’s nothing to stop me.” But Seth promised “I’ll take care of that case,” and stated the irony of one of Leggs’ defense attorneys (Arch McFadden) endorsing a man who would be in charge of putting his onetime client away.

Maciarello countered by calling this contrast a classic difference in leadership styles and said of Mitchell, “he does not understand attorney ethics.” It was “reckless” to put Mitchell on the Leggs case when he also defended the accused murderer in a case several years ago. Continuing his passionate appeal, Matt told the crowd, “I’m not letting my community go down the tubes.”

The final question addressed to the pair made reference to Davis Ruark’s support of 30 new police officers in Salisbury.

Maciarello expounded on his “proactivity” and wanted to look for grant money to help out. “I’m itching to get in there” and start solving problems like these.

Mitchell was more cautious in his approach. “We always need more police officers on the street,” he said, but getting to that point would require a “balancing act.” Playing off Matt’s analogy of being a football coach in his response, Mitchell chided him by saying you can’t be a football coach but you need to be one of the players.

As for the allegations leveled by Matt on attorney ethics, Seth was “very angry…he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In the courtroom, it often comes down to the final argument; the point where the cases are summarized.

Maciarello told the FOP, “I want to make you the most effective crime fighter you can be.” He pointed out that he’d ran a positive campaign, but when it came to the top 6 gang members in Salisbury he warned, “I’m coming for you.”

“I’m going to exceed your expectations,” he continued, and “communication will be the culture of my office.” Summing up, Maciarello opined, “a State’s Attorney is a leader…my opponent has a myopic vision” of the office.

Mitchell based his close on the question, “if you were a criminal, who would you most fear? You have to demand the skills to do this job.” Recounting the experience and resume gap, he said that “you don’t start at the top.”

“Don’t go with a novice,” he concluded, “go with a professional.”

On the whole, it was obvious that Matt was passionate – almost to a fault. Yet he also seemed to have a better vision of the administrative side of the job – where the office could go and how to be a leader in it. Moreover, you always wonder how someone who was a defense attorney would fare on the other side, and could he be effective putting away those he may have defended in the past (including, but not limited to, Thomas Leggs.)

In any case, this donnybrook for State’s Attorney may have become the most contentious race in the area, one which seems to be a small-scale model of larger races like the Ehrlich-O’Malley or Harris-Kratovil contests. Potted plants need not apply.

Debate at FOP/PACE forum part 1 – the ‘potted plants’

Perhaps County Council candidate Bob Caldwell said it best in his closing remarks. Pointing to the side of the room where the duo running for State’s Attorney were sitting, he quipped, “(Over there) we have passion, and (on this side) potted plants.”

Indeed, most of the interest in the event came out of a contentious exchange between State’s Attorney candidates Matt Maciarello and W. Seth Mitchell. But a total of ten candidates had something to say during the event, while three others submitted written answers to questions presumably posed by the moderator, PACE director Dr. Adam Hoffman.

Since it works out well for post length to discuss the six County Council candidates who showed (plus the three who submitted written statements) as one post and save the County Executive and State’s Attorney for a later post, I’m going to do it that way – otherwise I’m looking at a 3,000-plus word post. So you get a tease.

The format was a little bit different than most, with the candidates not only presenting their opening statements but also answers to two questions regarding ideas to deal with the surge in crime we’ve had locally and why voters should choose you over your opponent, all in one four-minute monologue. Once these questions were answered, the format allowed for a few questions supplied by the audience and closing remarks.

Instead of working in strict chronological order, I’m going to summarize what each candidate said in order of their contest. One weakness of the format was that opponents in some Council races did not necessarily speak consecutively; this summary will correct that. For the record, all but one County Council candidate was represented – Dave Goslee, Jr. in District 1 did not attend or submit the questionnaire, while both District 2 contenders Mike Calpino and Stevie Prettyman along with at-large hopeful Matt Holloway submitted written remarks read by Dr. Hoffman.

So I’ll begin with County Council at-large posts and run in alphabetical order through them and on to the contested district seats.

David Cowall began by noting the turnout, “reinforces my faith in democracy.” He went on to point out that, in reality, crime statewide and even in Wicomico County has declined, at least statistically. And while he was “impressed” with the cooperation between law enforcement officers (hereafter referred to as LEOs with the phrase ‘law enforcement’ similarly abbreviated), we should focus on repeat offenders. Yet “we need to emphasize the professionalism” of LEOs – “we don’t need Barney Fife as our deputy sheriff.”

He also promoted his background as a former Naval officer, cancer specialist, and director of Coastal Hospice, which he termed “an excellent model for government.” To him, it’s more important to educate than incarcerate.

In his closing statement, he added a touch of humor by saying, “I want to bring back beards for elected officials.” But he stressed the ideas of civility, integrity, and hard work and concluded, “I’m not a particularly partisan person.”

Bob Culver stressed his business experience numerous times during his presentations, making the argument that the county needs a businesslike approach to governance. (As you’ll read in the next installment, he and Joe Ollinger were on similar pages.) To him, the agriculture industry needs to stay as our number one job producer, along with an emphasis on tourism.

One interesting idea brought up by Culver was the thought of having part-time officers as Ocean City does during the peak season. They may not necessarily carry weapons or do the same functions as a regular LEO but could be useful in certain situations. But his “business voice” came out in comparing himself with his opponents on the revenue cap – we need to “do more with less” and “quit whining.”

Government should provide “more bang for our buck,” concluded Bob, and “we need to be able to stand up on our own” without needing as much help from the state and federal governments.

Matt Holloway was not present to give an opening statement, but stressed business growth and more certain punishment of offenders along with having the best equipped and trained LEOs as possible in his answer to the crime question.

He stressed that he was superior to his opponents because he was, “young, motivated, (and) can bring fresh ideas” to the table. Matt also asked us to consider his agricultural background and “business sense.”

Returning to the political fray after a four-year absence for “medical reasons,” Ed Taylor spoke about his efforts to reduce recidivism during the period as a consultant. Apparently his ideas worked, as Taylor claimed he helped lower the recidivism rate by 80% through helping to provide jobs and housing. Yet since he “wanted to be part of the solution” for a county which needs to “survive hard times,” he’s back for another try.

“We need to reestablish community substations,” said Ed, as he also stressed community involvement and stiffer penalties as ideas to combat crime. Describing his opponents as “good people…I don’t think I’m better than any of them,” he based his argument on election on his “fourth degree” (after a bachelor’s and two master’s) – a “PhD in politics.”

In closing, Taylor again spoke of his experience to help bring the nation, state, and community “out of the depression we’re currently experiencing.” He also claimed, “I will always be on the side of the FOP…they deserve LEOPS” (a pension plan for LEOs and the subject of a long-standing collective bargaining dispute.)

Turning to the district races, Sheree Sample-Hughes had a walkover in her District 1 race as the lone candidate to show up or respond. So she stressed her “passion to serve” and lengthy background in public service as a county and state employee before taking her elected position four years ago. Her job, as she saw it, was to “connect people to resources.”

As far as crime, Sheree saw substations as an “information source” but we also needed to stress code enforcement and juvenile services. Continual LEO training and dialogue would be beneficial as well. In a second term she wanted to build a stronger relationship with the judicial system while maintaining the dialogue she had with her district through regular community meetings.

And while she expressed the thought in closing that, “tough times are yet ahead,” thus far she’s “served with passion, vision, and energy” and pointed to graffiti legislation as one of her key achievements on the County Council.

Neither candidate for District 2 could attend the event, and while Mike Calpino wrote that while he couldn’t properly answer a request for specific proposals “on what I know little about,” he did take the time to outline an answer to the comparison to his opponent via a lengthy plan for county expenditures.

On the other hand, Stevie Prettyman begged forgiveness for not being able to attend and similarly punted on the initial question by saying, “I’m not an LE professional.” But she has supported their budget requests in the past and was an advocate of the former DRILL Academy – “I was disappointed that it failed.” And while it’s not an issue the county could directly address, she supports legislation allowing concealed carry.

In stating her case for re-election, Stevie wrote that she’s “not new to politics…I’m independent and do my homework.” With debate on the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning code looming, she believed her experience in dealing with these in the past would serve her district well – as an example she cited the Cove Road controversy.

While District 3’s Gail Bartkovich was present, she got a pass in the event because she’s unopposed. The last Council race in contention was the District 4 race. (I did not see District 5 Council member Joe Holloway present; he’s also unopposed.)

Bob Caldwell is no stranger to legislative politics, as he served a term on Salisbury’s City Council (and ran for mayor in 2009 as well.) It was part of his “history of public service.” Regarding crime, a subject that “all communities wrestle with,” he reminded us that “LE is reactive” and our court commissioners had a role to play in making sure the bad guys aren’t released on their own recognizance.

But Bob’s sense of humor served to lighten the event. Referring to opponent David MacLeod as a “friend of long standing,” he stressed their biggest difference was a difference in philosophy. But he couldn’t resist a zinger or two at his friend, joshing MacLeod about referring to “a checkered past (and) being one step ahead of the law” in his opening statement. (MacLeod was speaking about his time as an addictions counselor.)

He stated his case by returning to his root philosophy of “common sense and fundamental fairness” and asked the voters to consider who they trusted to deal with the unexpected which was sure to come.

David MacLeod worked in a similar vein, cautioning Bob that “I hope you don’t mind waiting another four years” for elected office. In addressing the crime issue, David opined that the “leading cause of all these problems is drugs” and as an addictions counselor, “I reduce demand, (LE) takes care of the supply.”

As for why he’s the better candidate, MacLeod put it simply that, “I sorta know what’s coming over the hill.” He warned us to be careful of preconceived ideas, because, as he later noted in his closing, “this is going to be a little bit bumpy.” His closing argument was that we should “go with experience,” both on the County Council and in writing grant applications.

MacLeod said in his presentation that things were, “interesting to say the least.” Certainly that applied to the other half of the forum where County Executive hopeful Joe Ollinger tangled with his incumbent counterpart Rick Pollitt while Matt Maciarello and W. Seth Mitchell sparred in the main event. That’s the subject of part two upcoming.

It’s time for accountability

You know, I didn’t begin the monoblogue Accountability Project for my health. When the cycle came back around to the point where our General Assembly came up for election I wanted the actual vote tallies to tell you what our legislators are REALLY voting to do. It’s especially apt when you get a full-color mailer telling you that “Jim Mathias is one of us.” (We’ve received two in the last week; the other said he was small business-friendly.)

Before I go on, allow me to say that Norm Conway and Jim Mathias are nice guys; I can talk to them and in most cases we agree to disagree. But there comes a time to be held in account for the votes they’ve taken and I’m not going to let them get away with talking conservative in the district but voting against its interests when they are in Annapolis.

For example, how many of you like the electric rates you pay? Well, the state mandates the utilities get a portion of their electricity from “renewable” sources or fines utilities who don’t comply. In the last four years both of these Delegates voted for legislation that would charge utilities up to 45 cents per kilowatt hour if they fell short of goals.

Speaking of goals, the pair also believed the hype about greenhouse gases and foolishly signed on to a job-killing measure to reduce greenhouse gases to 75% of 2006 levels by 2020. I’m sure they’ll say that there is an “out” within the law if the economic price is too high (which there is) but why would someone agree to this pig in a poke in the first place? By that same token, these two stuck it to utilities through mandates regarding energy conservation. (This is why companies like Delmarva Power have to push their programmable thermostats.)

And thanks to them our new cars now have to be compliant with the more expensive California emissions standards.

These two even played smoking Nazis when they both voted to ban indoor smoking. Mathias even voted for an amendment to ban tobacco statewide.

And is it small-business friendly to vote every chance you get to empower unions? Over the last four years this dynamic duo (along with Rudy Cane in many cases) have gifted Big Labor with fees from child care providers, gifts to the teachers union, a double dose of mandated breaks (each voted for one version of the bill), binding arbitration (regardless of the cost to local governments), and making those who wish to opt out of the union still pay union dues (as Delegate Conway did in committee.) If it were a vote to amend prevailing wage or beat back the repeal of ‘living wage’, Jim Mathias – yes, Mr. Business-Friendly himself – was there.

How about fans of paperwork? Anyone? Well, these esteemed Delegates put recordkeeping mandates on business, adopting federal mandates for an unemployment bailout after Rudy Cane and Norm Conway helped put the system in a bind by making part-time workers eligible. Even the half-hearted effort to help them this year comes with a number of strings and paperwork attached.

So when these Democrats try to pull the wool over your eyes and tell you they’re business-friendly, you may want to ask them why they voted for these measures. The next installment I’ll do over the next few days looks at just how fiscally responsible these local Democrats are (insert derisive snort here.)